E4 No More

Ya'll probably miss anyways!

I meant the last statement to be ironic. I thought it was funny.

What? A car club forum can't have gun nuts on it too? There are, in fact, several gun nuts on there. Some of them have collections that everyone on here would envy. One of them has a gun room bigger than my living room, and it's loaded with everything you could think on in modern weapons. It makes me weep from envy!

They results were great for a national poll. I didn't even see the date in the link, because the car club didn't show it. Oh, well...shoot me for not being perfect.

Didn't see that. It was posted in my car forum.

USATODAY.com - Quick Question You can vote as many times as you like if you close the link and go back in after each vote.

I'm just saying.

Yeah, don't that suck? It was one of the things that weirded me out when I moved down here. The other one was to be able to get a civil judgement and garnishment against someone without their being given a summons into court to be able to defend against the action.

You too, brother.

Having also been in the Marine Corps I know they have ways to punish people without making it official, and there is absolutely no hearing or trial in the process, but it can definitely ruin a career. They don't care what the truth is; they only care about their appearances.

Admittedly, I'm a little sensitive to these matters. I had a lieutenant who, (long story short version), while on-duty and in uniform pulled a guy out of his car, slapped him around, stuck his gun in the guy's face, and then threatened to kill him, and all of this was without any crime being committed by the victim - it was personal. Can you say major violations of state and federal laws? The Chief of Police refused to cooperate with the victim when he tried to report it because he was a friend of the lieutenant for 25 years. It was the straw that broke this camel's back when I reported it to the city council and they did nothing about it. I quit after that.

Well, I don't know specifically about North Carolina, but in Missouri when they revised the Common Law to State Statutes it negated the Common Laws.

Apparently, you missed my big "If" in my earlier post. I too said IF the story was relayed 100% accurately.

Ya'll might be interested in this: http://www.grnc.org/images/wa_2007NCFirearmsLawsPub.pdf 6. Going Armed To The Terror Of The People By common law in North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to arm himself/herself with any unusual and dangerous weapon, for the purpose of terrifying others, and go about on public highways in a manner to cause terror to others. The N.C. Supreme Court states that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Therefore, persons are cautioned as to the areas they frequent with firearms.

North Carolina General Statutes: § 14‑159.13. Second degree trespass. (a) Offense. – A person commits the offense of second degree trespass if, without authorization, he enters or remains on premises of another: (1) After he has been notified not to enter or remain there by the owner, by a person in charge of the premises, by a lawful occupant, or by another authorized person; or (2) That are posted, in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, with notice not to enter the premises. ( Classification. – Second degree trespass is a Class 3 misdemeanor. (1987, c. 700, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 102; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14©.)

I heard it 3-4 years ago.

Wrong! There was no complaint or expressed willingness from the manager that the person was asked to leave a business OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

Had the deputies simply apologized to the lad when the magistrate informed them I would agree with you: however, the fact that they made the choice to charge him illegally is malicious. They should be fired for that. And the military will believe what they want, and they will side with the LEOs darned near every time. And don't think the military's actions, (although non-judicial), won't follow that young man for as long as he's in the Army.

And I'd guarantee them a lawsuit. You cannot require someone to identify themselves without reasonable suspicion of committing a crime, period. We don't live in a police state, and I don't think anyone here want to live in one. And the Supreme Court decided long ago that contempt of cop is not illegal. I'm not saying that I wouldn't have shown them my ID: however, I am saying that the lad was within his rights, and the magistrate knew it. What the deputies should have done , (and keep in mind that where I'm from deputies do nothing but warrant service and prisoner transport), is asked the manager if he wanted the lad to leave, and if the manager answered in the affirmative then they could make sure that the lad did so immediately. If he didn't leave immediately then they could have arrested him.

Can't help but wonder what would have happened if the deputies knew the law. Oh, wait! Nothing.

As a former policeman, this is one of the more idiotic statements I read on this forum. If this story has been relayed with complete accuracy and in full, the deputies were out of line in more ways than one. The law doesn't allow you to make-up charges because they wanted to teach the young'n a lesson for questioning them. It is not the soldier's fault that they didn't know what they were doing. As far as there being nothing he can do from another state, that's BS. Arresting someone without probable cause is a violation of his rights, and he should file a complaint with the FBI to investigate. The deputies will not cooperate with the FBI, but the manager will, and he'll tell the FBI that he never signed a complaint for trespass against the soldier. No complaint for trespass = false arrest.

Thanks for this, but two things come to mind: First was his talking about liability for law enforcement. Back in the day, (1993 for me - I don't know if it's the same today), the average police department qualified twice a year at best, and the average police officer didn't spend a whole lot of time at the range in between qualifications. In other words, lack of training and practice didn't allow them to become proficient: therefore, they should be taught to only use their sights, but you can bet that under stress they didn't: hence, the misses at just 3 feet. The old standard that you'll react as you were trained comes to mind, and if your training lacks at both you'll suck at both. Second is that he stated that you should use your sights whenever the situation, "...allows us to get up on the target...." "Allows" is the operative word there. If there are innocents in close proximity or behind you can bet I'll use my sights. If the range is too far I'll use my sights. But if he's closing I'm not going to waste the precious time trying to obtain a proper sight picture and alignment. Corrected for spelling

It's as clear as an albino gorilla!

I recognized her name and her story about how the guy came back around and killed her mother - casually - while she cradled her dead husband, so I can't say for a fact that they said Luby's. The Liberal on Facebook who was spouting off about how people just need to be more aware of their surroundings, (as reported in another thread), just keeps popping up in my head. I mean...how tarded can someone be?

Yes, she talks about it in the 3rd video.