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

[DaveM55]

Originally Posted by ThomasJ

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 are full of it. No go ahead and put me on your ignore list.

To clarify my posts, I was not singling him out for what I said in post#2085.

In other words I wasn't singling him out for the gloating.

Hope that clears things up for you.

Originally Posted by DaveM55

Sounds more like they are working within the system to prepare thier case...remember innocent until proven guilty?

What's with all the gloating over this?

Too many posts here that seem to enjoy this. This situation is not good for either party and I have empathy for ALL involved.

[ThomasJ]

Originally Posted by TonyF

Then why is my name associated with them?

It isn't. I said the poster's logic was equally as poor as yours. I then encapsulated the essence of that poster's "logic" in the quotes. Capiche?

[PeteG]

Originally Posted by 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

Now THERE is a good idea! A well written letter from a citizen's group, seeking to avoid unnecessary friction and litigation between police and the citizenry, might be pretty well received. Indeed, we might also ask them you THEY prefer the matter be handled when a citizen is to be questioned by police.

Of course, police and police departments are not homogeneous. What the State Police want another department will not. But the SP set the training standards, so that is an excellent idea.

[ThomasJ]

Originally Posted by DaveM55

To clarify my posts, I was not singling him out for what I said in post#2085.

In other words I wasn't singling him out for the gloating.

Nice try, but it still doesn't fly. In order:

#2087: 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?

Yes it's your right to proceed with the case, but in my opinion you're no better than the cops who mistreated you.

#2090: Sorry normanvin I wasn't trying to single you out, please accept my apology.

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

[TonyF]

Originally Posted by ThomasJ

It isn't. I said the poster's logic was equally as poor as yours.

Then you did an extremely poor job of it because I never posted anything close to what you actually quoted.

At the very least it's bad "netiquette" and in extremely poor taste.

[ThomasJ]

Originally Posted by TonyF

Then you did an extremely poor job of it because I never posted anything close to what you actually quoted.

At the very least it's bad "netiquette" and in extremely poor taste.

Again, I never said you did. I said that he is exhibiting poor logic just as you are. Your reading comprehension is giving your logic a run for its money.

[TonyF]

Originally Posted by ThomasJ

Again, I never said you did. I said that he is exhibiting poor logic just as you are. Your reading comprehension is giving your logic a run for its money.

And you're making a fool of yourself before the members of this board with that ridiculous, incoherent rendition of "multi-quoting".

This thread sucks. And the CC / OC forum has degenerated into a wasteland.

I'm done.

[ThomasJ]

My apologies, Tony. I was confusing you for PeteG. I can't keep you guys apart.

because I never posted anything close to what you actually quoted.

yes, that is pretty much the essence of your argument.

You said:

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.

As I said, I reduced it down to its essence in order to point out the fallacy: "Litigation is a bad thing. Therefore a law suit is a bad thing to have."

Now...I'm still waiting for you to show me where I had previously called anyone a name as you alleged.

[PeteG]

Originally Posted by Lysander

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.

What are you going on about?

I did not say (infer, suggest or otherwise imply) that a law suit was not warranted in this case, or that it was wrong or a bad idea. I expressly said just the opposite, in plain English prose.

Nor did I offer any of the examples of alterantive avenues to redress violations of civil rights as practical alternatives I thing could have or should have been tried in this case. If I give another 12 examples of alternatives to litigation, will you burn band with pointlessly negating the value of each of them in this case? It might be fun, but it misses the point.

I was responding to the manifestly uninformed, and rude, individual who called me "preposterous" because I point out that "even a good law suit is a bad thing to have."

For those of you who are a little slow, let me try and illustrate: a good antivenom is a bad thing to have because one only uses it after being bitten by a snake; a good oncologist is a bad thing to have because one only uses an oncologist when they have cancer.

See?

The original point - and the only point - was that litigation is serious, expensive and can and does have adverse consequences for everyone involved. Conversly, it is not like a football game, where macho remonstrations by the cronically uninvolved more appropriately find harmless expression. The various war cries promising death, destruction and terrible retribution from over behind the bushes (1) are obnoxious, (2) detract from the dignity of what the plaintiffs are trying to accomplish, and (3) are in any case unhelpful.

[Statkowski]

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

I did, on Friday, July 4, 2008. Here's my letter:

Friday, July 4, 2008

Colonel Jeffrey B. Miller, Commissioner
PennsylvaniaState Police
1800 Elmerton AvenueHarrisburg, PA17110


Dear Colonel Miller:


Today, on the anniversary of our Declaration of Independence from an oppressive regime, a Pennsylvanian was once again hassled by local police due to a lack of training and knowledge, this time in RobinsonTownship (AlleghenyCounty).

The individual concerned was lawfully openly carrying a firearm, as was his right, and, according to the report, a RobinsonTownship police officer said, “This isn’t the Wild West, you can’t just carry it openly like that”

The Borough of Dickson City (LackawannaCounty) presently has two federal civil rights lawsuits filed against it because its officers either were not properly trained, or chose to ignore that training.

The City of Wilkes-Barre (Luzerne County), due to the actions of some police officers, will have firearms owners descend on its next City Council meeting (July 10th) to ask that they get the word out to their officers – the open carry of firearms in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is not prohibited by law, and has two Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions to back that up.

As more people become educated, there has been an increase in the Commonwealth of citizens exercising their right to carry a firearm openly (within the confines of the controlling statutes, of course). I have discussed the topic with local people as well as people residing in other parts of the Commonwealth, including several law enforcement officers. I was disappointed to find that a number of the officers engaged by myself and others had incorrect knowledge of Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act and its resultant legality of and restrictions to “open carry”. Apparently the subject is not mentioned at all in the annual MPOETC training curriculum. How can law enforcement officers enforce the law if they don’t know the law? Pennsylvanians do not want opinion enforcement officers, they want law enforcement officers.

Enclosed please find a copy of a training bulletin entitled “Open Carry of a Firearm in Pennsylvania”. The document was created by “Pa. Patriot,” a member of the Pennsylvania Firearms Owner’s Association.

I submit the enclosed document in hopes that it might be useful, if, as, and where appropriate as a basis for any training memos or sessions in the event you deem them necessary for your department’s officers, and police officers statewide.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if any other information is needed or if I can be of any other assistance in this matter.

Respectfully,


Henry J. Statkowski
MSgt, US Army (Ret.)

And there was just another incident in Catasqua, Pa. just the other day!

Write those letters! I'd offer to send you a postage stamp if you really need one, but it'd cost me a postage stamp just to send you a postage stamp.