Pa. Patriot ARRESTED at the OC dinner @ The Old Country Buffet in Dickson City 5/9

[God's Country]

Once again late to the party.

My apologies to the PAFOA community for not being able to catch this sooner.

Rich pm sent!

[Damage control]

Originally Posted by SigForLife

I highly disagree that they will settle, unless the settlement amount is low, even if they lose all their motions. There is enough here to get almost any jury pool to come back with a defense verdict. Is that the right verdict? Absolutely not. But that is the justice system we have. One must always remember just who the jurors will be/are.

I do not agree there are strict guidelines in federal court. The Judge will direct the jury before deliberation this is what must be decided on was they’re 1A 4A 5A 14A rights violated? It does not matter what happened before hand it only matters how the police handled the situation. Were these men breaking any laws? No. Were these men planning on breaking any laws? No. What these men did was plan on having a dinner with likeminded people legally carrying firearms. You are trying to establish a premeditated motive that only works in a case where a law was broken, and is not the case here.

DC

[Jailkeeper]

Originally Posted by Damage control

[/color][/size]

I do not agree there are strict guidelines in federal court. The Judge will direct the jury before deliberation this is what must be decided on was they’re 1A 4A 5A 14A rights violated? It does not matter what happened before hand it only matters how the police handled the situation. Were these men breaking any laws? No. Were these men planning on breaking any laws? No. What these men did was plan on having a dinner with likeminded people legally carrying firearms. You are trying to establish a premeditated motive that only works in a case where a law was broken, and is not the case here.

DC

+1 DC. The ONLY issue to be decided upon is whether these people's rights were violated. Does not seem like a tough decision.

I suspect DC will settle, lose their insurance altogether & a few council members may get an education on their way of life and their recognition of people's rights. Or lack thereof.

[Statkowski]

The first shoe dropping was the 1983 action filed in federal court. Will there be a second shoe dropping, such as private criminal complaints against the two police officers for abuse of office?

We'll just have to wait and see. Of course, we'll also have to wonder if the Lackawanna County District Attorney would actually sign off on such a complaint (required before it can go to a magistrate).

[JoeWilliams]

Originally Posted by SigForLife

Listen, I am on your side and the only reason for my post was the legitimate concern of the affect of such comments. *I* and others on this forum understand the purpose of the comment, but will the jurors? The defense will also hammer the fact that your now stated explanation of that comment is very convenient, given the circumstances.

Given how many of those announcements are on this forum, how many OC dinners and get togethers there are, with absolutely ZERO instances of rabble rousing, a good attorney will not only be able to refute that argument, but make the attorney making it look like a liar to the jury.

[JoeWilliams]

Originally Posted by SigForLife

Everyone seems to be ignoring the "qualified immunity" issue. There isn't a single case in PA that says an officer in the line of duty is no longer protected by qualified immunity if he/she is ignorant of the law. It all comes down to what a reasonable officer in that officer's position would have done. This is far from a slam dunk case.

But, the officers themselves stated that they knew the law. They cannot claim ignorance.

If, by chance, the officers are somehow able to show that they are unaware of the rights contained in the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the limits on Terry stops, as well as multiple articles of PA law and the PA Constitution, they will have simply helped make the case against the Chief of Police and the City for having failed to properly train them. These are basic, VERY basic, items of law enforcement knowledge. With the exception of the PA specific items (since I didn't enforce the law here), I knew them all well before being allowed on patrol.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by SigForLife

I highly disagree that they will settle, unless the settlement amount is low, even if they lose all their motions. There is enough here to get almost any jury pool to come back with a defense verdict. Is that the right verdict? Absolutely not. But that is the justice system we have. One must always remember just who the jurors will be/are.

That's why if their is a jury, the Plaintiffs get to strike jurors who appear opposed to them.

[SigForLife]

Originally Posted by Mike

That's why if their is a jury, the Plaintiffs get to strike jurors who appear opposed to them.

You don't have indefinite strikes...If that were the case, no one would ever go to trial because both sides could never agree on a jury.

[ThomasJ]

Originally Posted by SigForLife

You don't have indefinite strikes...If that were the case, no one would ever go to trial because both sides could never agree on a jury.

Just what exactly is your goal here? It seems to be more than just having a differing point of view and interest in a discussion. Are you acting out of deep concern and worry or is it something else?

[SigForLife]

It is several fold. Most importantly, like it or not, the result of this will affect all of us. God forbid the result is anything other than positive, we will all lose. Thus, we all have to be cognizant of the comments made and how they might affect a juries determination. Secondly, I was merely trying to correct misinterpretation and beliefs that people have. Lastly, our judicial system is, to some degree, broken. What is just and right, no longer is often the result. Things that are in NO way part of the case end up being the determining factor in the case. Until someone goes through a jury trial, one really can't comprehend all the concerns, stress, and problems that can arise. To all those advocating tort reform, I say make them go through one trial...after that, no rational person will want to be involved in a second...