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.
The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
alas phoneguy & FI, et al., that the Capt of the Sheriff's Office AKA appointed police chief publicly stated it in the newspeek paper shows an intent to violate citizens firearm rights and there seems to be a small inequity issue...
a. whom does the 'appointed police chief' work for & report to, the elected county sheriff who employs the appointed individual or the elected officials of the community whom the elected sheriff doesn't work for?
a1. if the 'appointed police chief' works & reports to the sheriff, then a complaint through the newspeek/social media & written communique regarding the stated blatant lack of following the constitution should be made directly to that elected official.
a2. if the 'appointed police chief' works & reports to the city's elected officials, e.g., mayor, city's council/commissioners then a complaint through the newspeek/social media & written communique regarding the blatant lack of following the constitution should be directed to those august individuals.
2. the established concept within Snohomish County that the elected sheriff would abrogate their centuries olde responsibilities as well as by RCW 36.28.010 which states: "The sheriff is the chief executive officer and conservator of the peace of the county" and 'appoint' a subordinate deputy to play as city police chief is ludicrous at best and horrifying at worst as the concept completely violates WA RCW 36.28 & especially 36.28.020 which specifically bestows the powers of the sheriff upon their deputies!
While the ignorant chief is possibly referencing the unpublished state v Casad decision (time, place, manner = 'unlawful') and implying that even though it isn't precedent a court could go that way again), the chief is definitely wrong about his statements on WA law and citizens stopping felonies being committed against them.
Homicide—By other person—When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.
unfortunately in the majority of the citizen's self defence actions, the justified burden of proof is on the citizen to substantiate their actions to protect their life and that of their loved ones was 'reasonable'!
citizen justified substantiation equates to $$$$$ spent on legal fees
"Are we seriously considering violence on the night of the election?" Councilman Steve Dana asked.
...hmm...reading the above, one could read that as the local government is considering 'using' violence on election night...against lawfully armed citizens comporting themselves with in the confines of the law...though, not a peep from the Chief about the past eight months, past years?...of violence that he has not done one darned thing to prevent...follow the money...