How is this not a violation of our 2nd Amendment Rights?

2»

Replies

  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,102 Senior Member
    JWC wrote: »
    Exactly.... When the private citizen is a retired GW who served in that county.... What do you think? Does it not concern you that just having a gun in an area known to have wildlife can get you charged with hunting and it would just depend on who the judge believes?

    It concerns me more that you've jumped to every conclusion except for the current path it's on. It's not possible WHATSOEVER that those boys shot that gun near to or from the car? :roll:

    And let me tell you something else. I work in the LE community and I will tell you that you wanting go let the diarrhea of your mouth run rampant on ACTUAL details of the case yet REFUSE to tell me the court case number (which IS public info) under the guise of being an "active case" is absolutely contradictory logic. Either keep your mouth shut or tell all.

    They've been arrested and it's in the court phases now, right? It's NOT an active investigation (case)! How can I even verify what their ACTUAL charges are?

    I know you're pissed about something, but we aren't getting all the facts.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,051 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    It concerns me more that you've jumped to every conclusion except for the current path it's on. It's not possible WHATSOEVER that those boys shot that gun near to or from the car? :roll:

    And let me tell you something else. I work in the LE community and I will tell you that you wanting go let the diarrhea of your mouth run rampant on ACTUAL details of the case yet REFUSE to tell me the court case number (which IS public info) under the guise of being an "active case" is absolutely contradictory logic. Either keep your mouth shut or tell all.

    They've been arrested and it's in the court phases now, right? It's NOT an active investigation (case)! How can I even verify what their ACTUAL charges are?

    I know you're pissed about something, but we aren't getting all the facts.
    Ever thought about becoming a public affairs officer? :tooth:
    Overkill is underrated.
  • JWCJWC New Member Posts: 17 New Member
    The boys were granted Youthful Offender Status! What I have said are the actual details- I never said it was an "Active Investigation"... It is an "Active Court Case" we have filed a Motion for a New Trial and are now waiting on the Judges ruling. I would like to know what part of any of my statements can be construed as " the diarrhea of your mouth" ?

    I have nothing but respect for Game Wardens, Law Enforcement Officers and the Legal System. But, much like any other profession, there are some that don't "represent" their profession well.....

    I am mad and unfortunately I am telling you the facts:
  • JWCJWC New Member Posts: 17 New Member
    JWC wrote: »
    The boys were granted Youthful Offender Status! What I have said are the actual details- I never said it was an "Active Investigation"... It is an "Active Court Case" we have filed a Motion for a New Trial and are now waiting on the Judges ruling. I would like to know what part of any of my statements can be construed as " the diarrhea of your mouth" ?

    I have nothing but respect for Game Wardens, Law Enforcement Officers and the Legal System. But, much like any other profession, there are some that don't "represent" their profession well.....

    I am mad and unfortunately I am telling you the facts:

    (Sorry I hit enter to fast)

    Fact 1: 3 boys of Legal Age were driving to the family camp as directed by one of their mothers carrying an AR 15 with the clip removed as according to Law
    Fact 2: A retired GW said he "heard" shots from a high powered rifle and testified in court that he did not see them shoot and when asked if he could see what they were allegedly shooting at testified that he could not see. He also
    testified that he could not see into the truck, could not tell you who was driving or who was sitting where.
    Fact 3: Retired GW testified in court that he went back to look for spent casing and found none.
    Fact 4: Retired GW testified that he identified himself as a Reserve Law Enforcement Officer and HE IS NOT
    Fact 5: Retired GW testified that the boys asked to leave and he told them they were not going anywhere until the deputies showed up. (Note there is only one way in and one way out - he had them blocked in and refused to let them leave)
    Fact 6: Both Deputies testified in court that they inspected the gun and could not tell if it had been recently shot- they testified that it smelled like some sort of solvent
    Fact 7: Both Deputies testified in court that they did not find any spent shell casings.
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,102 Senior Member
    Ever thought about becoming a public affairs officer? :tooth:

    Haha...I've actually been told I am forbidden from speaking to anyone with a camera. :tooth: Can't imagine why?
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • JWCJWC New Member Posts: 17 New Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    I'm a skeptic here.

    A deputy DID arrive on scene and determined no foul play was afoot. Yest the charges affirmed by the reserve deputy were filed? Where is the full time deputy that said everything was fine?

    What is your county clerk's website and the case number for this incident?

    I agree 100%... I am a skeptic too!
  • JWCJWC New Member Posts: 17 New Member
    Big Chief wrote: »
    Raw deal from the appearance of it. Keep us informed.

    Will do...

    Thanks
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,102 Senior Member
    JWC wrote: »
    (Sorry I hit enter to fast)

    Fact 1: 3 boys of Legal Age were driving to the family camp as directed by one of their mothers carrying an AR 15 with the clip removed as according to Law
    Fact 2: A retired GW said he "heard" shots from a high powered rifle and testified in court that he did not see them shoot and when asked if he could see what they were allegedly shooting at testified that he could not see. He also
    testified that he could not see into the truck, could not tell you who was driving or who was sitting where.
    Fact 3: Retired GW testified in court that he went back to look for spent casing and found none.
    Fact 4: Retired GW testified that he identified himself as a Reserve Law Enforcement Officer and HE IS NOT
    Fact 5: Retired GW testified that the boys asked to leave and he told them they were not going anywhere until the deputies showed up. (Note there is only one way in and one way out - he had them blocked in and refused to let them leave)
    Fact 6: Both Deputies testified in court that they inspected the gun and could not tell if it had been recently shot- they testified that it smelled like some sort of solvent
    Fact 7: Both Deputies testified in court that they did not find any spent shell casings.

    Then how the judge arrived at a conviction of any kind is beyond me.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • JWCJWC New Member Posts: 17 New Member
    Teach wrote: »
    There is no Brown Springs Rd./Hwy. 29 intersection- - - -maybe the kids got a few other facts wrong?
    :uhm:
    Jerry

    My error, I apologize... Brown Hill Rd, not Brown Springs Rd.... see link below:

    https://www.google.com/maps/@32.305777,-86.601406,3a,75y,290.41h,83.88t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sjNMYe4H-VOo-nlH_TpVrYQ!2e0
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 6,461 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Yep.

    Even IF the reserve deputy was just out to get these kids, the effect doesn't fit the cause...

    Follow me here...

    If "deputy dawg" wanted to jam these kids up on something, what got his attention first of all? "They're a car full of no good teens!" Ok, but woukd he just detain a car full of kids for just being a car full of kids on a country road? I doubt it HIGHLY even if he hates kids. He has better things to do with his night.

    What sounds more probable?

    1. He got pissed off at the kids for shooting at the sign with a rifle in the middle of the night and detained them until a full time deputy could arrive, take his statement, file charges and wait for a state attorney to decide.

    2. He detained them because he hates teens and made the whole thing up?

    Its been done before.

    There was a fish warden who thought he was gods gift to law enforcment where I grew up. He actually closed a gate on a kid riding a motorcycle putting him in the hospital. Was the kid trespassing? You bet, the LEO still slammed a gate on him (3 in pipe) while he was coming through. Not his first deal either and he kept working because he was a lying dirtbag. He would stop kids all of the time any time for any reason real or imagined.
    This retired guy sounds like he oozed off the same cow pie.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,102 Senior Member
    Its been done before.

    There was a fish warden who thought he was gods gift to law enforcment where I grew up. He actually closed a gate on a kid riding a motorcycle putting him in the hospital. Was the kid trespassing? You bet, the LEO still slammed a gate on him (3 in pipe) while he was coming through. Not his first deal either and he kept working because he was a lying dirtbag. He would stop kids all of the time any time for any reason real or imagined.
    This retired guy sounds like he oozed off the same cow pie.

    Oh, I know they exist but are exceedingly rare is all.

    The railroads down here have a legitimate sworn law enforcement roster to patrol the railroad properties and easements of their property and have full LEO powers on those places.

    As a young teen, I got a "trespassing" citation from one of these aholes. I was told I had crossed the tracks and lingered on them and he'd SEEN me do it through binoculars from a mile away. I told him he was full of bullpoop, I never crossed the tracks and had gotten to the east side of them FROM the east side; how could I have crossed? He told me to watch myself before I go to jail for trespassing. He was a prick and to this day I remember his name.

    I lost a lot of respect for cops for a long time because a wannabe cop with a badge acted a fool. Now look at me. :tooth:
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • bobbyrlf3bobbyrlf3 Senior Member Posts: 2,465 Senior Member
    I don't believe much of the OP. If the case is still active, then it's a matter of public record, right? Unless I'm wrong about that, why would giving out the case number, file number, or whatever, compromise the case? I'd like to read the court documents, if they are available.
    Knowledge is essential to living freely and fully; understanding gives knowledge purpose and strength; wisdom is combining the two and applying them appropriately in words and actions.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,263 Senior Member
    The local possum cop who patrolled our area did a good job for a lot of years, but near the end of his tenure things started to go sour. After a few incidents where he threatened people with his sidearm in an inappropriate manner, rumor has it he was encouraged to "retire" rather than be fired. It's possible the guy in question here had gotten a little long in the tooth and got put out to pasture.
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • rberglofrberglof Senior Member Posts: 2,368 Senior Member
    Interesting area. Did anyone check to see if the shot might have come from one of the properties close to the intersection?
  • JWCJWC New Member Posts: 17 New Member
    bobbyrlf3 wrote: »
    I don't believe much of the OP. If the case is still active, then it's a matter of public record, right? Unless I'm wrong about that, why would giving out the case number, file number, or whatever, compromise the case? I'd like to read the court documents, if they are available.

    I can understand why you don't believe much of what I have posted - I find it hard to believe myself and honestly, if I was on the outside looking in I would think the same thing. All I can do is tell you again, that what I have stated here is the truth.

    The boys were granted Youthful Offender Status so their file is sealed a case number wouldn't do you any good. We have filed for a motion for a new trial and are awaiting the judges ruling. While I do have copies of the transcript from the Circuit Court Bench Trial, I do not feel comfortable releasing them at this time as the case is still active in the courts and there were 3 boys involved and I don't have permission from all of them to release their information.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,263 Senior Member
    My brother is a very experienced criminal defense attorney in Nashville Tennessee, with an impressive number of cases in the "win" category. Even the IRS has a habit of dismissing cases when he shows up as the attorney of record. If your legal beagle is doing his job, he's probably done an extensive amount of investigation into your retired cop's arrest record. I'm going to guess this isn't his first rodeo, and any lawyer worth his retainer should be looking into the possibility he's pulled this kind of stunt before, probably pretty often.
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • bobbyrlf3bobbyrlf3 Senior Member Posts: 2,465 Senior Member
    JWC wrote: »
    I can understand why you don't believe much of what I have posted - I find it hard to believe myself and honestly, if I was on the outside looking in I would think the same thing. All I can do is tell you again, that what I have stated here is the truth.

    The boys were granted Youthful Offender Status so their file is sealed a case number wouldn't do you any good. We have filed for a motion for a new trial and are awaiting the judges ruling. While I do have copies of the transcript from the Circuit Court Bench Trial, I do not feel comfortable releasing them at this time as the case is still active in the courts and there were 3 boys involved and I don't have permission from all of them to release their information.

    I hope it all works out. Never give up.
    Knowledge is essential to living freely and fully; understanding gives knowledge purpose and strength; wisdom is combining the two and applying them appropriately in words and actions.
  • JWCJWC New Member Posts: 17 New Member
    For those who requested to read the transcipts.. please see the link below.... the boys names have been removed and changed to Defendant 1, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7iCqFkhOccMcmJBRDhvOVpvUWM/edit?usp=sharing
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,102 Senior Member
    JWC wrote: »
    For those who requested to read the transcipts.. please see the link below.... the boys names have been removed and changed to Defendant 1, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7iCqFkhOccMcmJBRDhvOVpvUWM/edit?usp=sharing

    Thank you for posting this.

    I read 80% of it...court minutes are some dry reading...

    I'm not sure how they reached a decision of guilt (requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt). I see plenty of reasonable doubt.

    I respect the lower courts, but I think more prudence is needed for any case...even seemingly "trivial" misdemeanors.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • bobbyrlf3bobbyrlf3 Senior Member Posts: 2,465 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    Thank you for posting this.

    I read 80% of it...court minutes are some dry reading...

    I'm not sure how they reached a decision of guilt (requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt). I see plenty of reasonable doubt.

    I respect the lower courts, but I think more prudence is needed for any case...even seemingly "trivial" misdemeanors.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

    I read all of it, and I came to the same conclusion; there was reasonable doubt all over the place in that testimony. I don't doubt that the retired officer heard shots, but it wasn't sufficiently proven that any of the boys fired them.
    Knowledge is essential to living freely and fully; understanding gives knowledge purpose and strength; wisdom is combining the two and applying them appropriately in words and actions.
2»
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.