WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Yes you can always go to the last post. Even if you start on page one you can go to the last page.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
It's official, MKEGal charged with 941.23
- Thread starter paul@paul-fisher.com
- Start date
Yes you can always go to the last post. Even if you start on page one you can go to the last page.
True, however
It seems more useful to have the latest and greatest appear when you choose a thread. But if most people prefer newest last then who am I to complain?
It seems more useful to have the latest and greatest appear when you choose a thread. But if most people prefer newest last then who am I to complain?
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
I post on forums that do that~~either way works for me, you just have to adjust.
wrightme
Regular Member
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
Krysta had stated months ago that Walls would not be part of the jury instruction. In other words, Walls had zero influence on this case in spite of the prosecutor's desire for it to be. The jury was likely oblivious to it.
Last edited:
NoTolerance
Regular Member
MKEgal
Regular Member
The prosecutor tried as hard as he could to get around the judge telling him he's not allowed to use the language of Walls, at least in jury instructions.apjonas said:
But he actually argued (to the jury) that since the officer standing behind me & to my left, outside my car, couldn't see the pistol carried in front of my right hip it was "concealed to ordinary observation".
I think the jury understood that "ordinary observation" does not include X-ray vision, which would be required to see through a person, even without a car seat in the way too.
I understand that Rebecca will be sending the jury a thank-you letter, asking them to explain their reasoning, and that usually about 1/3 respond.
I think the argument being put forth is that the system starts with the cops following the law (which they swore an oath to uphold, right?) & respecting our rights, which didn't happen here. They should not be opinion enforcement officers, whether it's their own opinion or that of their boss.
(They parroted almost word for word Flynn's remarks. "If we see someone with a gun, we will take it away from them, then decide if they're allowed to have it". Only thing the officers left out was Flynn's "put them on the ground", between "will" and "take".)
The system is also supposed to include a DA who knows the law, understands that new law supercedes old law, & if a ruling is based in part or in whole on a particular law, & that law changes, then the ruling is (at least potentially) no longer valid, as in this case.
TaurusToter
Campaign Veteran
Congrats Krysta!!!!!!
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
MKEgal
Regular Member
Some people have asked about expenses.
Color me astonished.
I thought their argument was based on the claim that I "concealed something connected with a crime", which I've just been found not guilty of in criminal court, so how do they think they can prove it in civil court?
She says that if they do persue this, there will be more expense, but as for the main event apparently she's satisfied.
I'm very surprised. Pleased, but surprised.
Apparently they're not going to drop it.me said:
Color me astonished.
I thought their argument was based on the claim that I "concealed something connected with a crime", which I've just been found not guilty of in criminal court, so how do they think they can prove it in civil court?
She says that if they do persue this, there will be more expense, but as for the main event apparently she's satisfied.
I'm very surprised. Pleased, but surprised.
We-the-People
Regular Member
Loitering? REALLY LOITERING with permission of the business owner and after smacking them on the "concealed by her body" charge?
They're running scared of a civil suit I guess.
They're running scared of a civil suit I guess.
M
McX
Guest
what color is astonished? an off shade of green? someone once told me; you can be charged with anything, being convicted is another story. apparently they havent learned their lesson(s) yet. That's ok, that's what they make Judges for.
on a personal note we are in the process of spanking the left on a legal matter, even as we speak. they want to deal, and talk, we dont, that's why we hired a lawyer. they dont seem to understand that.
on a personal note we are in the process of spanking the left on a legal matter, even as we speak. they want to deal, and talk, we dont, that's why we hired a lawyer. they dont seem to understand that.
DocWalker
Regular Member
I didn't know you could loiter in your own car; is that what everyone is doing while stopped at red lights? They are loitering.
I wholly disagree. Can you support this?
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
This latest "joke" may well have just upped the ante rather than diminished any potential liability, particularly since the business owner is on record as testifying for MBKgal at the now completed trial.
Malicious prosecution?
MKEgal
Regular Member
See Milwaukee ordinance 106.31-1, starting on pg. 12 here:
http://cctv25.milwaukee.gov/netit-co...h106/CH106.pdf
I think they're pinning their hopes on 2 things:
"refuses to identify himself or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object"
OTOH, I look to the end of that paragraph:
"No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if ... it appears at trial that the explanation given by the actor was true and, if believed by the peace officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm"
Now IANAL, but it seems pretty clear that my giving an explanation which was true is a defense against being convicted for any offense under 106.31-1, including not initially giving my name.
(I did eventually tell them where to find my DL, which confirmed my identity to them.)
Seeing as how there's sworn testimony from the coffee shop owner saying that what I said was true, I don't see why they're not dropping the charge.
Stop wasting money & time on something they won't win.
BTW, John says it's BS and asks if they want to be sued again.
http://cctv25.milwaukee.gov/netit-co...h106/CH106.pdf
I think they're pinning their hopes on 2 things:
"refuses to identify himself or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object"
OTOH, I look to the end of that paragraph:
"No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if ... it appears at trial that the explanation given by the actor was true and, if believed by the peace officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm"
Now IANAL, but it seems pretty clear that my giving an explanation which was true is a defense against being convicted for any offense under 106.31-1, including not initially giving my name.
(I did eventually tell them where to find my DL, which confirmed my identity to them.)
Seeing as how there's sworn testimony from the coffee shop owner saying that what I said was true, I don't see why they're not dropping the charge.
Stop wasting money & time on something they won't win.
BTW, John says it's BS and asks if they want to be sued again.
DocWalker
Regular Member
See Milwaukee ordinance 106.31-1, starting on pg. 12 here:
http://cctv25.milwaukee.gov/netit-co...h106/CH106.pdf
I think they're pinning their hopes on 2 things:
"refuses to identify himself or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object"
OTOH, I look to the end of that paragraph:
"No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if ... it appears at trial that the explanation given by the actor was true and, if believed by the peace officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm"
Now IANAL, but it seems pretty clear that my giving an explanation which was true is a defense against being convicted for any offense under 106.31-1, including not initially giving my name.
(I did eventually tell them where to find my DL, which confirmed my identity to them.)
Seeing as how there's sworn testimony from the coffee shop owner saying that what I said was true, I don't see why they're not dropping the charge.
Stop wasting money & time on something they won't win.
BTW, John says it's BS and asks if they want to be sued again.
I wish you could sue them for all court and lawyer fee's, maditory training (from you), a public appology from the officers involved (on the local news), and enough for a new toy to use at the range.
M
McX
Guest
BTW, John says it's BS and asks if they want to be sued again.
that's a big 10-4 there good buddy.
that's a big 10-4 there good buddy.
pfries
Regular Member
Krista,
If you need more in your legal fund to ride this to the end let me know, I will set some aside each pay day, your plight is not over until you beat all the charges and show that the harassment needs to stop. I find it utterly contemptible that they would continue on and pursue this avenue of attack.
If you need more in your legal fund to ride this to the end let me know, I will set some aside each pay day, your plight is not over until you beat all the charges and show that the harassment needs to stop. I find it utterly contemptible that they would continue on and pursue this avenue of attack.
Last edited:
Law abider
Regular Member
YESSSSSS!!!! I know one thing that the leos and their dept may harden their hearts like Pharaoh of Egypt when Moses and Arron asked him to let the people go. I hope not MKE but your case and your determination to follow the constitution may get them more inflamed. Maybe more lawsuits will follow. Maybe they will try their dirty tricks again. You and now many there have a target on their backs. Here in my mom's town of Prescott where my leo friend lives, he told me that the chief does not believe in the second amendment. My leo friend had to straighten him out.
On another note the FFL holder who owns our local hardware store when I told him about my gun being sent to his store, totally changed his demeanor. What do you make of that? May be I am too full of conspiracy theories thinking he will do all he can not to let me have my gun, bec it it a large revolver etc...
MKE you have put yourself in the leadership position regarding OC etc...