I Stood My Ground

[Werewolf]

Just goes to prove that they are watching.

They don't have to watch.

Plenty of hoplophobes, nanny types, anti-gunners and just plain mean people around that will rat you out given 1/2 a chance.

Didn't the obamanation run a "turn in your neighbor" type campaign once?

 

[Cinaet]

I wouldn't post pictures of any kids on the Internet, period. But I especially wouldn't post pictures of children on social sites like facebook.

 

[rebel-son]

There was a story on CBS in the Philadelphia area about this. I find it funny that they mention that Shawn Moore appeared Intoxicated and visibly upset ( or something like that that means drunk). It was late. The man was in his own home. They came un-invited to his house. Maybe he had a few beers. That is his right.

I think anyone would be ticked off about this and I think it is funny that the news station and police did not even mention that this was probably an overreaction on the part of the state and then CBS seems to decide that its important to mention if the guy had a couple beers.

And people do not think the media is biased.


Another small point that some people miss is that not all of us have the luck or finances for an attorney on speed dial. I am glad this person was able to. I hope people realize though never to waive rights as you have no idea where things can go. our founders have a good reason to put those amendments in there.

And I wish people would learn the definition of an "assault rifle"



http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/vi...oy-with-gun-on-facebook-triggers-controversy/

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/20...ey-overreacted-to-boys-gun-photo-on-facebook/

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/20...-overreacted-to-boys-gun-photo-on-facebook/2/

 

[tweetr]

POLITELY request names, credentials, and badge numbers and do not be confrontational when taking photos or making recordings i.e. do not stick a phone in someone's face. Being polite doesn't make you less of a man in the face of unwarranted intrusion, but the bottom line is you win in court, not on the front porch. Don't make things more difficult by being rude or confrontational while asserting your rights.

Hm. While I understand your direction here, I must object on one salient point of philosophy:

The burden of being polite, honest, lawful, and non-confrontational rests more heavily on (1) any public official going about his official business interacting with the public, and (2) anyone trying to enter someone else's home! With respect, the burden to know the law and and to be polite is absolute upon the state officials trying to enter the man's home, considerably more so than on the homeowner himself whose property, not to mention his wife and son, were being unlawfully intruded upon!

Look at it the other way. If the homeowner were to lie to the state officials trying to enter his home, even when not under oath, could he not be charged with lying to officials? How then can they with impunity stand on his own front porch and lie to him? (E.g. tell him he must permit them entry and search without a warrant; tell him his firearms must be registered when there is no legal requirement to register them.) Where is the balance there? And don't try to claim ignorance of the law as their excuse either, as it would not be a valid excuse for the homeowner. How much more then must state officials know the law they are putatively trying to enforce on the citizen? How about politeness? Anyone knocking on the door of a private citizen has a duty to be polite, or properly and understandably be refused entry. How much more then the state official? How about honesty and directness? I'll wager the state officials demanded the homeowner's identification. What on earth possessed the state official to refuse providing her own credentials? He should refuse her entry on that ground alone! How on earth does he know she is who she says he is? Just because she has four goons with guns behind her? See my point?

I would argue further that the man has the absolute right to film anything he pleases on his own property. Don't want to be filmed and recorded? Don't enter his private property. If you are a state official lawfully there on official business then you should have nothing to hide. Look fearlessly into the camera and state your name and your business for the record. Is that not the Orwellian philosophy we hear increasingly urged on the subject of ubiquitous police cameras? Does not the policeman have cameras recording the manner and demeanor of suspects every time he makes a mere traffic stop? How then can he object when the stop-ee makes a recording of his own? The state official's right certainly is no more absolute than that of the private citizen in his own home!

 

[Michael Brown]

Hm. While I understand your direction here, I must object on one salient point of philosophy:

The burden of being polite, honest, lawful, and non-confrontational rests more heavily on (1) any public official going about his official business interacting with the public, and (2) anyone trying to enter someone else's home! With respect, the burden to know the law and and to be polite is absolute upon the state officials trying to enter the man's home, considerably more so than on the homeowner himself whose property, not to mention his wife and son, were being unlawfully intruded upon!

Look at it the other way. If the homeowner were to lie to the state officials trying to enter his home, even when not under oath, could he not be charged with lying to officials? How then can they with impunity stand on his own front porch and lie to him? (E.g. tell him he must permit them entry and search without a warrant; tell him his firearms must be registered when there is no legal requirement to register them.) Where is the balance there? And don't try to claim ignorance of the law as their excuse either, as it would not be a valid excuse for the homeowner. How much more then must state officials know the law they are putatively trying to enforce on the citizen? How about politeness? Anyone knocking on the door of a private citizen has a duty to be polite, or properly and understandably be refused entry. How much more then the state official? How about honesty and directness? I'll wager the state officials demanded the homeowner's identification. What on earth possessed the state official to refuse providing her own credentials? He should refuse her entry on that ground alone! How on earth does he know she is who she says he is? Just because she has four goons with guns behind her? See my point?

I would argue further that the man has the absolute right to film anything he pleases on his own property. Don't want to be filmed and recorded? Don't enter his private property. If you are a state official lawfully there on official business then you should have nothing to hide. Look fearlessly into the camera and state your name and your business for the record. Is that not the Orwellian philosophy we hear increasingly urged on the subject of ubiquitous police cameras? Does not the policeman have cameras recording the manner and demeanor of suspects every time he makes a mere traffic stop? How then can he object when the stop-ee makes a recording of his own? The state official's right certainly is no more absolute than that of the private citizen in his own home!

I am not trying to argue right and wrong; I know what those are.

You have missed the point that doing anything politely in such a situation makes you less likely to wind up having to defend yourself in court. Being polite doesn't compromise your rights at all if you have any semblance of control of yourself.

Avoiding a court battle, just like a fight, is almost always a better solution to problems. Sometimes we may have to do one or both but a battle avoided is generally a battle won.

YMMV.

Michael Brown

 

[BryanDP]

I have to be honest, if a bunch of police officers showed up at my house demanding to see my firearms I'm pretty sure the stress of the situation would cause me to not even remember my combination. Actually, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't even be able to figure out how to unlock the door on the house.

 

[tweetr]

You have missed the point that doing anything politely in such a situation makes you less likely to wind up having to defend yourself in court. Being polite doesn't compromise your rights at all if you have any semblance of control of yourself.

Oh, I got that, and I understand your point and the direction from which you approached the question. I wanted to address the same point from the other direction. I just find that state officials, particularly those of the Department of Human Services variety, are increasingly becoming rude and even out-and-out liars when approaching the public. I think that must stop. Public officials need to remember who works for whom and employ at the least basic human courtesy, let alone abide scrupulously by Constitutional restrictions. The burden to know the law unquestionably falls on them. We taxpayers should not put up with bullying behavior from our public officials. Throw the bums out!

 

[Sgt Dog]

Hm. While I understand your direction here, I must object on one salient point of philosophy:

The burden of being polite, honest, lawful, and non-confrontational rests more heavily on (1) any public official going about his official business interacting with the public, and (2) anyone trying to enter someone else's home! With respect, the burden to know the law and and to be polite is absolute upon the state officials trying to enter the man's home, considerably more so than on the homeowner himself whose property, not to mention his wife and son, were being unlawfully intruded upon!

Look at it the other way. If the homeowner were to lie to the state officials trying to enter his home, even when not under oath, could he not be charged with lying to officials? How then can they with impunity stand on his own front porch and lie to him? (E.g. tell him he must permit them entry and search without a warrant; tell him his firearms must be registered when there is no legal requirement to register them.) Where is the balance there? And don't try to claim ignorance of the law as their excuse either, as it would not be a valid excuse for the homeowner. How much more then must state officials know the law they are putatively trying to enforce on the citizen? How about politeness? Anyone knocking on the door of a private citizen has a duty to be polite, or properly and understandably be refused entry. How much more then the state official? How about honesty and directness? I'll wager the state officials demanded the homeowner's identification. What on earth possessed the state official to refuse providing her own credentials? He should refuse her entry on that ground alone! How on earth does he know she is who she says he is? Just because she has four goons with guns behind her? See my point?

I would argue further that the man has the absolute right to film anything he pleases on his own property. Don't want to be filmed and recorded? Don't enter his private property. If you are a state official lawfully there on official business then you should have nothing to hide. Look fearlessly into the camera and state your name and your business for the record. Is that not the Orwellian philosophy we hear increasingly urged on the subject of ubiquitous police cameras? Does not the policeman have cameras recording the manner and demeanor of suspects every time he makes a mere traffic stop? How then can he object when the stop-ee makes a recording of his own? The state official's right certainly is no more absolute than that of the private citizen in his own home!

I'm with tweetr on this. Protect and Serve... with emphasis on "serve" and unless you know for certain you are dealing with a cull then manners are manners. Even culls are best dealt with professionally!

 

[Billybob]

Oh, I got that, and I understand your point and the direction from which you approached the question. I wanted to address the same point from the other direction. I just find that state officials, particularly those of the Department of Human Services variety, are increasingly becoming rude and even out-and-out liars when approaching the public. I think that must stop. Public officials need to remember who works for whom and employ at the least basic human courtesy, let alone abide scrupulously by Constitutional restrictions. The burden to know the law unquestionably falls on them. We taxpayers should not put up with bullying behavior from our public officials. Throw the bums out!

Pretty minor stuff considering things like the DHS workers falsifying reports in the Taylor death case and the many other "problem" child death cases we've had which have cost us tens of millions in lawsuits while nobody was held accountable. Or things like convicted felons working in a state job from home while having another job, (Hull case). And then there's the "Ghost children" fraud that was revealed in the Oklahoma Commission for Children and youth.

 

[Michael Brown]

Oh, I got that, and I understand your point and the direction from which you approached the question. I wanted to address the same point from the other direction. I just find that state officials, particularly those of the Department of Human Services variety, are increasingly becoming rude and even out-and-out liars when approaching the public. I think that must stop. Public officials need to remember who works for whom and employ at the least basic human courtesy, let alone abide scrupulously by Constitutional restrictions. The burden to know the law unquestionably falls on them. We taxpayers should not put up with bullying behavior from our public officials. Throw the bums out!

No doubt.

Except we don't control what anybody else does; We control what WE do.

We can tell government officials they need to do this and they need to do that all we want; None of that will matter until you are in the confines of a courtroom.

If you want to do that, good on ya. I personally believe the disaster factor in court is too great to ever go there.

As I said before, you do not win on the front porch.

Michael Brown