• 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.
  • 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.

The curious, and the mindless

Levi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
188
Location
Tacoma
Oh, on the 'I'm here for the protection of the innocent' - well meaning but, no, you're not. That's the job of the LEO. You are licensed/armed/OC-ing for the protection of yourself in the gravest extreme or your loved ones' self-defense if they are in a life threatening encounter with an armed perp. Do not feel the need to hap-hazardly step in and protect someone whom you don't know, who could be an undercover LEO's target, who could be in a DV situation. You'll get charged, or worse, shot

Really? I'm not an innocent? As far as I know I haven't broken any laws. The line is a veiled reference that as a law abiding citizen I have the right to be safe by making BGs unsafe. Sometimes a broad and vague answer to some idiot's question is the right step.

I'm smart enough to know that if I draw my firearm I stand a good chance of having to explain it to a judge and jury. Any emergency I step into I need to be fully aware of all the facts before I get involved; be it fire, medical, or violence. I am not a wannabe action star. I'm just another Jack on the street trying to get by with minimal problems.

All that being said, if I encounter an event where the line is clear I will do the best I can to render aid.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,552
Location
SW Idaho
"You have a permit for that??" Don't need a permit to open carry in WA, perfectly legal. "Well we'll have to change that!" Storms off again.

Yep, a confirmed case of "there oughta be a law" syndrome. Most commonly found in soft-headed liberals, it also disturbingly rears it ugly head among some "conservatives" when they observe behavior they dislike, but that causes no harm to their lives, liberty, or property.

I have even seen some simple fools on this forum argue that any police encounter in which the OC'er is let go, no matter how unjustified the stop, is a positive thing because it educates the sheeple. Unfortunately, as seen above, there is just as high a likelihood of the butthurt, offended citizen writing a letter to his state representatives, advocating for a law against OC.

ADMINISTRATOR'S NOTE: This feud with Beretta92FSLady will end NOW! I have also edited your sig to remove your attack against her there. Move on. Dispute the issues not each other!
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Anyone have a link to the case that set the "no expectation of privacy in public", I looked around for it earlier today, but came up empty.

Katz vs US has the privacy test. It is in the concurring opinion by Harlan.

Obviously, anything in public is likely to not have much of an expectation of privacy, but that is not an ironclad rule. Katz involved making a call from a public phone booth--the kind with a closeable door. And, such a conversation was held to be private. Even though it was in public. Closing the door was cited as an example of a reasonable expectation of privacy. Thus, not everything done in public has no expectation of privacy.

...For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. (internal cites omitted by Citizen) But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected....

Katz: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=2,4&case=9210492700696416594&scilh=0

Helpful research hint: When it comes to court cases, and legal terminology, I find that wikipedia is real helpful because it very often cites the cases amidst the articles' text. Now, let me be clear here. Wiki articles are not the authority; it is just a fast way to find the cites.

Helpful research hint: There is a blog which has tons and tons of 4th Amendment case law stuff. Plus, daily case summaries by the criminal attorney who maintains the blog. Great site! www.fourthamendment.com


Personal observation: I'm guessing that despite outcome of the case, Katz was probably guilty of felineous conduct. :)
 
Last edited:

tombrewster421

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
1,327
Location
Roy, WA
Yep, a confirmed case of "there oughta be a law" syndrome. Most commonly found in soft-headed liberals like Beretta92fslady, it also disturbingly rears it ugly head among some "conservatives" when they observe behavior they dislike, but that causes no harm to their lives, liberty, or property.

I have even seen some simple fools on this forum argue that any police encounter in which the OC'er is let go, no matter how unjustified the stop, is a positive thing because it educates the sheeple. Unfortunately, as seen above, there is just as high a likelihood of the butthurt, offended citizen writing a letter to his state representatives, advocating for a law against OC.

Seriously? Enough of the personal attacks on Beretta. Do you like having your posts deleted? Grow up.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,552
Location
SW Idaho
Seriously? Enough of the personal attacks on Beretta. Do you like having your posts deleted? Grow up.

I was merely using her as an illustration, as she has set herself up as the forum liberal. However, I will edit my post so you won't have to be offended by something you read on the internet. :rolleyes:

Most of us grew a thick skin when we grew up...

P.S.: I can't remember the last time one of my posts has been deleted. :D

tumblr_m171zawhpR1r3jsrko1_400.jpg
 
Last edited:

decklin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
758
Location
Pacific, WA
Tom is correct. You seem to bring up the grudge between you and Beretta whenever you see an opportunity to make a hurtful reference. This is nonsense and needs to stop. The comments you make do not need to be public. Keep them to yourself.
 

F350

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
942
Location
The High Plains of Wyoming
It's the punch line to a joke; but I have used it once...and it stopped the fool in his tracks....

Fool} "You must think it's dangerous in here to be carrying that pistol".

Me} "No sir...If I thought it was dangerous in here I'd be carrying my rifle".
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,463
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Anyone have a link to the case that set the "no expectation of privacy in public", I looked around for it earlier today, but came up empty.

That's the job of the LEO is not supported by http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13096571268307866226&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

http://www.copwatch.org/statevflora.htm

It was State V Flora


Then from a pro citizen site
Whether a communication is considered “private” under the statute depends on the factual circumstances. Washington v. Townsend, 57 P.2d 255 (Wash. 2002). The state Supreme Court has identified three factors bearing on the reasonable expectations and intent of the parties: (1) duration and subject matter of the conversation, (2) location of conversation and presence or potential presence of a third party, and (3) role of the non-consenting party and his or her relationship to the consenting party. Lewis v. State Dept. of Licensing, 139 P.3d 1078 (Wash. 2006).
 

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,812
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
It's the punch line to a joke; but I have used it once...and it stopped the fool in his tracks....

Fool} "You must think it's dangerous in here to be carrying that pistol".

Me} "No sir...If I thought it was dangerous in here I'd be carrying my rifle".


LOL I'll have to remember that one! Wonder what the look on his face would have been then
asset.php
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,688
Location
Whatcom County
thank you that was the case I was looking for specific to WA state privacy law

Don't forget Johnson vs. Sequim there are a few others too Clark vs. Seattle and a couple more dealing with DUI's where the defendant tried to say the cop couldn't record them but the courts ruled against that, no expectation of privacy.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,463
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Don't forget Johnson vs. Sequim there are a few others too Clark vs. Seattle and a couple more dealing with DUI's where the defendant tried to say the cop couldn't record them but the courts ruled against that, no expectation of privacy.

I did see those but, cops are often given 'extra lee way' while us citizens are held to a higher standard.

So I was looking for the Flora case. That is one I had to show to a lawyer who claimed that I cannot record cops without permission. I should have fired him in my case but I had desperate need of a lawyer at that time.

(off topic)Speaking of... I have not heard back from the lawyer I met with about my OC case. Oh well has not returned my call to say yes or no to taking the case.(/off topic)

Lawyers don't know all the laws either.

Like most people don't realize that under Washington State law, IRS agents are often guilty of committing felonies (so are the deputies that assist them) that a citizen can use force to prevent. I study federal tax law. I can give more info but never legal advice in PMs/emails.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,688
Location
Whatcom County
I did see those but, cops are often given 'extra lee way' while us citizens are held to a higher standard.

So I was looking for the Flora case. That is one I had to show to a lawyer who claimed that I cannot record cops without permission. I should have fired him in my case but I had desperate need of a lawyer at that time.

(off topic)Speaking of... I have not heard back from the lawyer I met with about my OC case. Oh well has not returned my call to say yes or no to taking the case.(/off topic)

Lawyers don't know all the laws either.

Like most people don't realize that under Washington State law, IRS agents are often guilty of committing felonies (so are the deputies that assist them) that a citizen can use force to prevent. I study federal tax law. I can give more info but never legal advice in PMs/emails.

No they are not given extra leeway they are giving less. Read Flora very carefully. The privacy law was not meant as a double edged sword (meaning it cuts both ways) to protect law enforcement but to protect us from cops......(paraphrasing).

Cops are also constitutionally restricted both on a federal and state level. Our constitutions came into existence to protect us from government intrusion, cops are government.

Of course you are right on the reality of the situation that cops are given more leeway by the same system that is supposed to protect us from them.
 
Last edited:

marinepilot81

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
108
Location
Florida Panhandle
People behave this way because they know you have better manners. I've had people "accost" me and make a scene, but they do so knowing I'll be polite and respectful back. No man approaches another and behaves that way if he senses a threat. Nor does any lamb casually stroll up to a lion and fart in its face.

They use the opportunity to feign horror and indulge their self-righteous nature.

And, yes, Obama sucks.
 

xxx.jakk.xxx

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
504
Location
Port Orchard, Washington, United States
People behave this way because they know you have better manners. I've had people "accost" me and make a scene, but they do so knowing I'll be polite and respectful back. No man approaches another and behaves that way if he senses a threat. Nor does any lamb casually stroll up to a lion and fart in its face.

They use the opportunity to feign horror and indulge their self-righteous nature.

And, yes, Obama sucks.


I've also had people come up to me very angrily and confront me for carrying. I don't think they even believe their crap since, if you did truly believe it, you'd avoid being the biggest, loudest target for the "crazy person with a big scary gun". They're just wanting to make a scene to try to scare people into doing what they want.
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
990
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
I see stupid people, they're everywhere and they don't even know they are stupid.

I read an article a few years back, about a psychology study that found that the trait we know as competence is actually about two dozen discrete traits, and you must have all of them to actually be competent. Among them is the ability to judge your own competence/skill/intelligence level accurately. Another is the ability to judge those in others.

So yeah, incompetent people really DON'T know.
 
Last edited:
Top