The final VOTE in Maplewood!

[xc9subcompact]

Yawn

 

[Festus_Hagen]

Yawn

You have a hard time understanding not everyone agrees with you. You don't agree with me, but I'm not going on rants telling you how wrong you are .:uhoh:

My stance is, this is something that needs to play out in a courtroom, not a chest-thumping gun forum where some people will never change their stance.

 

[cshoff]

Yes, they were condemning his actions. Not belittling, or laced with implications of wrongdoing. INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. My point is that he seeks support without basis for such, and so I see no reason to give it to him since he may have done something wrong. You do not maintain a neutral stance since you keep defending his actions. In fact, you maintain that I am a hypocrite for questioning his side of the story, simply because he is an OCer.

No, I maintain that you are acting like a hypocrite because you purport to advocate for individual rights and freedom (the entire premise behind OC), yet you are condemning lancers based on "evidence" that you acknowledge is inconclusive. You are presuming him guilty based on this inconclusive evidence without requiring anything further on the state's part. I'm just not sure how you can reconcile that viewpoint with a genuine advocacy for individual rights and freedoms since the two are clearly at odds with each other.

In addition, my stance has been consistently neutral. Do not mistake my criticism of your obvious bias as support for Brett's actions by default. I've never said I supported him, nor have I denounced his actions, throughout this entire ordeal. If Brett wants my support, he's going to have to wait until all of the facts are known and I have time to try to sort through them. In the meantime, I'm not going to arbitrarily treat him like a criminal either. Once the facts are known, I will be quite happy to provide an opinion based on those facts.

OC alone does not and honest person make. If we were to wait until proven guilty before any action is taken or opinion is presented, then we would have trials in court before detainment. Thats why we have statutes and more importantly CASE LAW describing allowable action to include detainment and retainment of weapons. I question both sides of the story, and since Lancer's is the only side you have, you only accept his side as truth. Thats dangerous and ignorant. It's unsettling (but not surprising) that you are so quick to abandon support of the government that you are trying to persuade.

Except you are forgetting that you were not present when the incident took place, so your rush to judgment is based entirely off of the inconclusive evidence you have been privy to. I don't know Brett. I have no way to make a valid assessment of his character and form a valid opinion as to whether or not he is telling the truth. I will only be able to do that once the facts are known. I am, however, plenty familiar with the likes of local politicians, local councils, local mayors, local law enforcement officials, and the operations of government in general. The facts support the notion that we should question their every move and treat their statements and actions with skepticism, especially as they apply to somebody who is known to have a turbid relationship with public officials and law enforcement agencies. Your seemingly blind faith in that government is, perhaps, more disturbing than your rush to use inconclusive evidence as a basis for your negative opinion of Brett.

 

[cshoff]

You have a hard time understanding not everyone agrees with you. You don't agree with me, but I'm not going on rants telling you how wrong you are .:uhoh:

My stance is, this is something that needs to play out in a courtroom, not a chest-thumping gun forum where some people will never change their stance.

I agree. That's what makes me wonder why some of these guys who say, "just let it play out on it's own", can't do so without adding in all of their criticisms.

 

[xc9subcompact]

You have a hard time understanding not everyone agrees with you. You don't agree with me, but I'm not going on rants telling you how wrong you are .:uhoh:

My stance is, this is something that needs to play out in a courtroom, not a chest-thumping gun forum where some people will never change their stance.

So sayeth you.

 

[LMTD]

1. I wish everyone would stop talking about it.
2. I wish lancers had stopped talking about it a long time ago, I feel the postings have harmed his position in court if he ever opts to take that direction.
3. There is no positive impact further internet lawyer debates to be had, the whole thing just continues to look kind of stupid.

None of it helps lancers, none of it helps OC, none of it helps individual rights.

Peace to all but I really feel it is time to let this one go 100%

 

[mspgunner]

1. I wish everyone would stop talking about it.
2. I wish lancers had stopped talking about it a long time ago, i feel the postings have harmed his position in court if he ever opts to take that direction.
3. There is no positive impact further internet lawyer debates to be had, the whole thing just continues to look kind of stupid.

None of it helps lancers, none of it helps oc, none of it helps individual rights.

Peace to all but i really feel it is time to let this one go 100%

ditto - done a while back!!!

 

[silo]

My apologies if this has been discussed already, but according to the ordinance it seems you can't shoot at a shooting range in Maplewood (if there are any) unless it's during a shooting match. Oddly, though, you can discharge a gun if it's our of patriotism? I don't get it. If I go outside and shoot up in the air because I love America, that's OK?

Or am I reading it wrong?

 

[Jim40Cal]

People have been killed right here in Kansas City,Mo from shooting up in the air. What goes up must come down....

 

[afcarry]

Peace to all but I really feel it is time to let this one go 100%

Agreed, I'm done here. Sick of this.

People have been killed right here in Kansas City,Mo from shooting up in the air. What goes up must come down....

True. Very true. Physics is something few people have mastered and nobody has completely overcome.

 

[xc9subcompact]

2. I wish lancers had stopped talking about it a long time ago, I feel the postings have harmed his position in court if he ever opts to take that direction.
3. There is no positive impact further internet lawyer debates to be had, the whole thing just continues to look kind of stupid.

None of it helps lancers, none of it helps OC, none of it helps individual rights.

Peace to all but I really feel it is time to let this one go 100%

1. Do you really think, even for one second, that anything here, other than what he may have personally posted, would be admissible evidence in a court of law? In order to admit ANYTHING said here, there would be discovery of WHO we are, and then a summons for our depositions. Anything and everyhting WE have posted is an opinion. We are all entitled. In spite of what you or others may wish.
While Brett isn't going to deny anything he has posted here, Sunlight is a powerful disinfectant.

2. If he had "stopped talking" a long time ago, we would have one version of the story - the smear job from the TV.
If he had "stopped talking" a long time ago, I guess we would still have those doubters continuing to say he had a legit warrant.

Of course, when I say this, I realize that there are some here who still refuse to come to grips with this fact. Instead, they just say that they haven't "seen" the judges order, instead they just ask for a link to it as if they don't know how to change pages in a message thread. It was a photograph. How do you miss that. The man comes onto a forum where OPEN CARRY is discussed and debated. You tell him to shut up? Because it really happened to him?

It is a forum. Perhaps you would like this forum to have the same amount of activity as another similar forum where they cut off debate to the point that it now only gets a few posts a day, usually on silly stuff that amounts to a link to some story they saw on some website.

 

[LMTD]

You tell him to shut up? Because it really happened to him?

Yes, and yes.

And so would any lawyer that might represent him, it is a key portion of the game that most folks call justice.

You sir, on the other hand seem to want to argue without purpose and without regard for anything beyond some self serving ego stroke.

I have done nothing but try and help lancers and the OC community throughout the entire ordeal, if you for some odd reason believe you playing internet lawyer is going to help him or move OC forward as a good representation of how change shall come about, I invite you to continue to stroke yourself as I am not going to help you do so.

 

[cshoff]

<snip>......Peace to all but I really feel it is time to let this one go 100%

That should have been done two days after the incident happened. If he wants it, Brett will get his day in court. The opinions expressed here, whether in support or in admonishment, are really irrelevant in the overall scheme of things.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

So sayeth you.

Yes. I do.

 

[peterarthur]

1. Do you really think, even for one second, that anything here, other than what he may have personally posted, would be admissible evidence in a court of law? In order to admit ANYTHING said here, there would be discovery of WHO we are, and then a summons for our depositions. Anything and everyhting WE have posted is an opinion. We are all entitled. In spite of what you or others may wish.
While Brett isn't going to deny anything he has posted here, Sunlight is a powerful disinfectant.

2. If he had "stopped talking" a long time ago, we would have one version of the story - the smear job from the TV.
If he had "stopped talking" a long time ago, I guess we would still have those doubters continuing to say he had a legit warrant.

Of course, when I say this, I realize that there are some here who still refuse to come to grips with this fact. Instead, they just say that they haven't "seen" the judges order, instead they just ask for a link to it as if they don't know how to change pages in a message thread. It was a photograph. How do you miss that. The man comes onto a forum where OPEN CARRY is discussed and debated. You tell him to shut up? Because it really happened to him?

It is a forum. Perhaps you would like this forum to have the same amount of activity as another similar forum where they cut off debate to the point that it now only gets a few posts a day, usually on silly stuff that amounts to a link to some story they saw on some website.

And now he has posted audio from the dispatcher http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSV69CAy6Bw describing "previous offenses for assault" (at 4:20) among other things. If he really does have a record for assault, why did he post that youtube video??? I know I do not know the whole story behind the assault, but the police might not know either, making their actions justified if he ID'd himself. NEVER ID yourself until you are already arrested for a crime. The 5th Amendment is NO LESS IMPORTANT than the 2nd. If you want justice, exercise ALL of your rights.

How can we have sympathy in light of that information? If he has NOT been convicted, he should mention that when he posts those videos or links.... If he cannot keep quiet, he should try to explain such things, not leave them like low hanging fruit for the naysayers. I am still reserving judgement but it seems like he is not thinking about the information he is sharing, it continues to work against him.

 

[xc9subcompact]

Perhaps you are not fully informed here.

1. He did not volunteer his name. That is your advice, yes? They Id'd him after they handcuffed him.

2. The irony of the arrest history included on the 911 call is that even after he exhonerated himself in front of a Grand Jury and they returned a "No true bill", which means they believed Brett, not the police, this is used against him. As I recall, there was a civil damages settlement in that case favorable to Brett. So is it fair that he should not be able to OC because of an arrest record that the police won't erase, even where a charge was found to be baseless?

3. You say "If you want justice, exercise ALL of your rights". Does that include the 2nd amendment rights? And his 4th amendment rights? His 5th amendment rights? How about the right to remain silent? That pissed off the police. They took his gun and have not returned it. No charges have been filed.

4. He has stated repeatedly here that the only thing he has ever been convicted of is the speeding ticket. If he didn't have all of that video and audio, I bet his conviction record would be different. Do you agree?

 

[xc9subcompact]

Yes, and yes.

And so would any lawyer that might represent him, it is a key portion of the game that most folks call justice.

You sir, on the other hand seem to want to argue without purpose and without regard for anything beyond some self serving ego stroke.

I have done nothing but try and help lancers and the OC community throughout the entire ordeal, if you for some odd reason believe you playing internet lawyer is going to help him or move OC forward as a good representation of how change shall come about, I invite you to continue to stroke yourself as I am not going to help you do so.

Then I guess we won't hear any more from you on the subject!

 

[Festus_Hagen]

You sir, on the other hand seem to want to argue without purpose and without regard for anything beyond some self serving ego stroke.

You said it like I couldn't . Thanks .

 

[peterarthur]

Perhaps you are not fully informed here.

1. He did not volunteer his name. That is your advice, yes? They Id'd him after they handcuffed him.

2. The irony of the arrest history included on the 911 call is that even after he exhonerated himself in front of a Grand Jury and they returned a "No true bill", which means they believed Brett, not the police, this is used against him. As I recall, there was a civil damages settlement in that case favorable to Brett. So is it fair that he should not be able to OC because of an arrest record that the police won't erase, even where a charge was found to be baseless?

3. You say "If you want justice, exercise ALL of your rights". Does that include the 2nd amendment rights? And his 4th amendment rights? His 5th amendment rights? How about the right to remain silent? That pissed off the police. They took his gun and have not returned it. No charges have been filed.

4. He has stated repeatedly here that the only thing he has ever been convicted of is the speeding ticket. If he didn't have all of that video and audio, I bet his conviction record would be different. Do you agree?

"Perhaps you are not fully informed here." Yes, I believe that's what I have already said many times. None of us is "fully informed". Were you there when it all went down? No? Then you are not fully informed either. Only Brett is "fully informed" so please stop acting like you know what happened. I also read the whole thread and I take Brett's statements with a grain of salt, as one party (and our only witness) to the events in question.

1. Somehow I got the impression from the discussion over the next several pages that he DID ID himself, contrary to his first statement that he was disarmed, cuffed and had his wallet taken. This enforces the concept that carrying ID while walking allows this to happen. Leave it in the car when possible, if you are ok with carrying cash (hey, you're armed).

2. Did the dispatcher cite an "arrest" record or a "conviction" record?

3. Correct. Exercise them all, ESPECIALLY the fifth. I don't give a **** if I piss them off. Do you disagree with my statement? If they actually violated his rights he has a case. But I have not seen enough evidence either way. We have only his statements and every video I have seen makes me wonder about his character...

4. Who knows but this video that he made private so we cannot properly discuss it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWfDZacVYW8
shows him acting like an idiot after trying to get his gun back, running off and laughing like a 10 year old as he bolts out the door. Made a VERY bad impression on me concerning his character. If you have not seen it, it is even worse than his jailhouse comments as far as maturity goes. I should have captured it.

I hope things work out correctly for him and that he has learned the appropriate lessons in these events and can use those to further the cause of 2A and his own liberty. And I hope he learns when not to speak. How many times has that topic come up on these forums. Keep quiet, especially in jail.

 

[xc9subcompact]

1. Somehow I got the impression from the discussion over the next several pages that he DID ID himself, contrary to his first statement that he was disarmed, cuffed and had his wallet taken. This enforces the concept that carrying ID while walking allows this to happen. Leave it in the car when possible, if you are ok with carrying cash (hey, you're armed).

The whole issue surrounds the fact that they didn't have a RAS to ask for his name since he wasn't doing anything wrong. He did not ID himself until they forced him to.
You are advising not to carry ID? How do you drive to Walmart with no DL on you? No wallet while in the store?

2. Did the dispatcher cite an "arrest" record or a "conviction" record?

Since they were talking about assault, weapons, disturbance, that was his arrest record. Stemming from the incident where he was attacked by a drunk off duty cop, where the grand jury returned "no true bill". Brett later entered into a civil settlement with the City of STL over that incident. Using the bogus arrest history against him! Real nice. He has one conviction on his record. The speeding ticket that lead to the bogus warrant.

3. Correct. Exercise them all, ESPECIALLY the fifth. I don't give a **** if I piss them off. Do you disagree with my statement? If they actually violated his rights he has a case. But I have not seen enough evidence either way. We have only his statements and every video I have seen makes me wonder about his character...

Did the video of him getting his rights violated at the DUI checkpoint where he was asked where he was going, and he answered that he would prefer not to discuss it with the police officer, and the officer immediately escalate make you wonder about his character? Every video out there supports his claims. He says in the jail video that most cops are criminals. I can understand how he might begin to feel that way based on his personal experiences.

4. Who knows but this video that he made private so we cannot properly discuss it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWfDZacVYW8
shows him acting like an idiot after trying to get his gun back, running off and laughing like a 10 year old as he bolts out the door. Made a VERY bad impression on me concerning his character. If you have not seen it, it is even worse than his jailhouse comments as far as maturity goes. I should have captured it.

I have seen it. It actually shows me someone who isn't a sheeple like the average joe would be in that situation. Thye arrested him on a false OC charge. They realized that was bogus. They found the warrant. They put him in jail on that warrant. He had to post bail on that warrant. From his perspective, the whole incident was bogus. To put the icing on the cake, they took his gun, his CCW permit and his DL. They wouldn't give him back his DL????? If you could maintain perfect composure, my congratulations to you.

I hope things work out correctly for him and that he has learned the appropriate lessons in these events and can use those to further the cause of 2A and his own liberty. And I hope he learns when not to speak. How many times has that topic come up on these forums. Keep quiet, especially in jail.

Do you feel as if you have seen the full account of what was said in the jail? I see you are willing to withhold judgement in respect of the police version of events. Why can't you do the same for him? Have you ever been in jail for anything where you are being locked up on a bogus charge? One that you actually took steps to ensure wouldn't happen, yet they lock you up anyway? I bet you'd be really pissed. You might even forget where you are and say things that might look bad later, especially if taken out of context in an edited video. People here doubted his story that the warrant was bogus. So he posts the video of the court administrator saying it was a mistake. He posted the photograph of the judges order that his bail be returned to him. Yet people continue to doubt. The FOX2 video points out the fact that he maintains video surveillance of the outside of his home. As if there is some nefarious reason to do that. Did you see the video of the police staking out his home? I'd start videoing everything too. Yet another example of how he is painted guilty when he is a in fact a product of his environment.
As you look back through the history of his encounters, he is always courteous and they police give him a hard time since he isn't answering the questions the way they expect. Then as he ends up in an actual jail cell, then denied his property, to include his DL, he starts looking like he might be getting tired of it. You gotta admit, if he didn't have all of this video, audio, no one would believe anything he has claimed.

Googleing "Brett Darrow" results in some interesting stories.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1988.asp

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Arti...ouri-cops-cant-get-enough-of-brett-darrow.htm

When I said perhaps you aren't fully informed, I did not mean to insult you. I apologize for that with no caveats.