Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
I keep asking myself why would he leave his car if he had been trespassed from the property. If you are trespassed take your stuff and leave simple as that.
I keep asking myself why would he leave his car if he had been trespassed from the property. If you are trespassed take your stuff and leave simple as that.
I keep asking myself why would he leave his car if he had been trespassed from the property. If you are trespassed take your stuff and leave simple as that.
My understanding from watching his interview was that there was no threat of a trespass until the police showed up, took his gun, frisked him, ran his gun, and told him he could go. At which point he was already separated from his vehicle. He was trying to return to his car and they threatened to trespass him if he continued moving in that direction, so he changed direction (90 degrees) and they made the same threat, so he did a 180 and got arrested.
it seem one of the issue are he tried to get back to his car, on property that had ran him off. wonder why he didn't mention that in his video. maybe it didn't happen.
i would like to see follow up to this
Hard to believe that he would lie about something that he recorded. He makes numerous statements about illegal police activity. He says they asked him to stop recording and he refused. When they arrested him, he says the female officer took his phone and was manipulating it.
His story sounds credible to me. I hope that they contact witnesses to back up what they saw the police do. Maybe there is more video out there.
The seventh Circuit has upheld that recording police in the performance of their public duties is a First Amendment Right.
http://www.videomaker.com/videonews...endment-rights-new-ruling-on-recording-police
In Sharp v. Baltimore, the U.S. Dept. of Justice weighed in on the question stating that, in the government's opinion, video recording LEOs in the performance of their duties is a First Amendment right.
Here in Washington, in State v. Flora, Div. I of the state Court of Appeals ruled similarly.
Sounds like this whole thing maybe hinges on him re-entering property he was ejected from, just to get his car which was parked on said property. I'm not aware of any "I just need to get my car" exemptions to our state's trespass laws.
My heart is with this guy, but I think we need to keep all possibilities in mind here . . .
I think this is the the part that may be getting overlooked. I watched both videos, and it sounds to me that he was stopped, searched, trespassed, and released but then after trying two different approaches to return to his car (and either reentering or showing the intent to reenter the property he was trespassed from) was stopped again and arrested for the trespass.
If that is the case, he may have a hard time defending it. After you show up the cops and they grudgingly let you go, don't expect them to exercise much compassion or latitude for a technical violation. As Dean says, there is no "I need to get my stuff" exception. If given the opportunity to walk away, walk away and have someone come and get your car later.
I would not have even drawn attention to my car as once trespassed, if it is left on the property one might expect the prerty owner to then have it privately impounded as an unauthorized veh on private property.
So I checked with the lady and every person is assumed to know what the law is.
Therefor I would say a reasonable person knowing the law would not be alarmed to see someone doing something that is not illegal.
Correct.
Well, this is strange. I mean I am GLAD that this is the standard, but it seems to me that NO reasonable citizen could be alarmed by an open carry in the State of Washington.
And yet not only are uninformed citizens alarmed, LE are also.
How then can these cases be prosecuted?
I know that Mack Worley has great counsel.