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

[DaveM55]

How many OC activists (and I say that with respect) have contacted MPOETC?

That is the organization responsible for certifying the training of municipal police officers throughout the commonwealth.

This avenue would be a lot less risky for all parties and a much more efficient and effective way of training police about OC.

http://www.mpoetc.state.pa.us/mpotrs/site/default.asp

[Carnes]

VDP

This is a very complicated thread. There are very many issues involved in this discussion.

There will be strong emotions, and hard feelings. The fact that we can rise above the 'foam' proves that at the heart of the matter, we are firearm-owners, and we stick together. We have our differences, but we still work together toward a common goal.

We have a good concept of what is "right," all of us... all members here! For all the sheeple in the world, this forum brings together a significant number of sheep-dogs, wolves and sheep that want to be more than what they are. And that is the best thing... Our greatest achievement, we help people who may have been beta-male/sheep become people that are better than what they were before they came to this forum.

And really, even better, I think we turn wolves into sheep-dogs from time to time.

[Carnes]

Oops, double post!

[Lysander]

Originally Posted by PeteG

Preposterous?

First, I do not consider it a good thing that one is FORCED to resort to litigation in order to redress violations of civil rights. I think it is an unfortunate (bad) thing, even though unavoidable. Ergo, a law suit is a bad thing to have.

Second, there are other means of redress. One example would be a sit-down with the local PD. Another example would be passive, non-violent resistence. Another example would be armed resistance. Another example would be to organize policitally and get the Borough counsel (who whoever runs the show out there) un-elected, and fire the Police. There are lots of examples. (I think litigation is a good choice in most cases. It is certainly not the only choice.)

Or, you could call people names like the rest of the kids.

Whoa!

Some of these things are not mutually exclusive - and some are much more preposterous than a law suit.

What makes you think that, before the filing of the suit, some type of "sit down" with the PD wasn't suggested - or, equally likely, thought to be a fruitless waste of time given what the PD (via the Chief) was publicly saying before the suit was filed.

Passive, non-violent resistance? In addition to the passive, non-violent resistance that was already done that night? Or do you mean additional actions, which may - again, given the public statements by the Chief - would most likely have resulted in the same outcome as that night? All that would happen, if that were the case, is more violations of civil rights would have occurred.

Organizing (politically) and "taking over" the Borough council (1) would be a very slow means to an end, though, not necessarily a bad one; (2) would not prevent additional violations of civil rights int he time between such action starting and when it could begin bearing fruits; and (3) could do very little, if anything, to actually redress the violations that had already occurred.

That leaves armed resistance (and in this case: ) versus a civil law suit. You say "I think litigation is a good choice in most cases," and I agree that there are some cases where it is counterproductive to sue (case in point: a civil suit over a loan of $100.00. I don't know about Pennsylvania, but around here simply filing (and having served) a suit in Small Claims court is going to eat upwards of 1/3 the amount sued for - and there's more to come in that situation.). Unless we step outside the framework that is in place, and given how things have transpired to the point that the suit was filed, I can't see a different means to getting some redress of the grievances in both a timely fashion and that creates a precedent to prevent the same from happening again (or, failing that, a precedent to making such redresses easier on later occurrences.)

For full disclosure- I am presently neither a member of the PA State Bar,
admitted in any Federal District Court in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
nor admitted in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  I have no professional
connection to any lawsuit discussed in this thread.

[headcase]

To Tony:

I read your reason for quoting me, I just want to try to make something clear, not necessarily to only you, but in general.

One of the points of open carry is to normalize a legal activity. This particular activity strikes a deep cord with some people, especially cops. Is there a risk of a cop losing their mind and overreacting to the point of rights violations? Indeed, as has been documented on multiple occasions. Should we expect such treatment? In a tactical sense, yes, if we are going to do it with the intent of educating a cop, then we should, by definition, expect the cop to be uninformed. But in the context of a family outing with a group of like minded families, no. In the context of going to your kids baseball game, no. Should we prepare for it? Well, yes. But it transcends the officers knowledge of the law and traverses his common decency, and fitness to deal with the public. No matter what an officers feelings are on a particular activity, any citizen, engaged in an activity that is not causing immediate harm, should be spoken to during the initial contact. If the officer feels what they are doing breaks the law, but the person is not causing an immediate problem such as causing a scene, fighting, and is calm and engaged in conversation, there is no cause to effect a forceful arrest in front of ones' family. It was a common courtesy granted since there were cops, to be able to go quietly and explain to your kids that you would be back after talking to the nice police officers.

I have had my own encounters with police. Three times my son was present. In one, even though one officer was extremely aggressive, he never crossed the physical line, and sensing it was headed that way, his partner spoke with him, off to the side, and our contact ended. I was able to get an officer, on another occasion, to reinforce my assertion to my son, that daddy was doing nothing wrong and was not going to be arrested. I have had to have the talk with him, about police not being your friend. That they are doing a job, and that if you need help, they will probably help you, but that if there is ever a circumstance where there is trouble, they will not be looking to help him, but to charge someone. It is a jaded view, but an important one to instill, IMO, after them being force fed the lie that police are there to protect and serve. He now knows that if police ever stop him, he is to do nothing outside what is demanded of him, and he is to explain nothing until they contact me. He now knows to be careful around police or any other authority figure, and while they are not all bad by any means, he knows not to blindly trust them.

We are not only within our rights to be outraged at these illegal police actions, we have a duty to be. Do these incidents happen? Of course. Should they? No, and we should not be expected to expect them to.

I have one true soft spot, defenseless, impressionable kids.

In relation to my speaking about OCB,

I was not there. I never claimed to be there. I was, literally, in the car ready to go, and was looking forward to meeting a few people again, and a few for the first time. I am fairly sure that there is no doubt that I would have been against the wall in the rain, in the minds of those who were there. I was, fortunately, and unfortunately, not able to go at the last minute. But I am very aware of what took place that night. I would not presume to discuss what I have no knowledge of. And I defend those who were there, vigorously, because, for the most part, they are not able to engage their detractors, as they might like. I have no such restriction. Especially when they are disparaged by sniper fire from someone mixing innocuous remarks with heavily baited ones, then claiming they did no such thing and are being unfairly accused of such. I speak my mind. I speak the truth as I see it. And I will accept what ever consequences doing so entails.

[ThomasJ]

Originally Posted by TonyF

Preposterous?

First, I do not consider it a good thing that one is FORCED to resort to litigation in order to redress violations of civil rights. I think it is an unfortunate (bad) thing, even though unavoidable. Ergo, a law suit is a bad thing to have.

Yes, preposterous. The statement was built on an unprovable, fallacious premise. And no one is forced to resort to litigation; it's a choice. Therefore, yes, it is even avoidable. You display equally poor logic as the other guy, part of it being circular reasoning: I think litigation is bad; therefore, a law suit is bad.

Or, you could call people names like the rest of the kids.

Where did I call anyone a name and what did I call them? Any other distortions and misrepresentations you'd like to throw out there?

[ThomasJ]

Originally Posted by DaveM55

Bolded the section I'm responding to. I never said the plaintiffs were not damaged; don't put words in my mouth thank you.

My post #2087 was a response to the actual words printed in post #2086. I was responding to what he wrote. So looking at the color of my post, I deny the false accusation of marginalizing your damages. If it appears to anyone that I did, I apologize for my insensitivity, it was not intentional or malicious.

People are still missing my point though of the bad press this mob mentality brings.

Oh, please. This is one of the worst cases of backpedaling I've ever seen. Don't try to pawn this off as a singular response to normanvin (i hope i got the name right). Just a post or two later you said to normanvin: "Sorry normanvin I wasn't trying to single you out".

You missed a couple bites of food and you want to ruin the lives and careers of someone else? Sounds a little JBTish to me. Do you think destroying these peoples lives will be a positive thing?

You are full of it. Now go ahead and put me on your ignore list.

[TonyF]

Originally Posted by ThomasJ

Yes, preposterous. The statement was built on an unprovable, fallacious premise. And no one is forced to resort to litigation; it's a choice. Therefore, yes, it is even avoidable. You display equally poor logic as the other guy, part of it being circular reasoning: "I think litigation is bad; therefore, a law suit is bad."

Where did I call anyone a name and what did I call them? Any other distortions and misrepresentations you'd like to throw out there?

Yea, those aren't my quotes.

[ThomasJ]

Originally Posted by TonyF

Yea, those aren't my quotes.

I never said they were.

[TonyF]

Originally Posted by ThomasJ

I never said they were.

Then why is my name associated with them?