Posted on 08/28/2010 5:41:46 AM PDT by marktwain
Yes, she was convicted by a corrupt judge for doing nothing wrong. Laws can be enacted for any purpose. Many laws have been passed for evil purposes. Do you support such laws? That one may have a useful intent. If so, it was stretched way out of shape by the local government. That officer abused his authority. He was backed up by the vile prosecutor and a judge who really should be himself remanded to a rock hockey club. Following the law when the law is wrong is as bad as just following orders and should be as little of an excuse.
“Sounds to me like she was hoping to film some “police brutality”. She had no other reason to film the incident, and in so doing, she was harassing the police officer.”
And if there was no police brutality, the cops had nothing to fear from this old woman. Small wonder they were afraid to let a jury try this case.
It was made pursuant to law. The matter was tried in court. She was convicted.
Or are you asking why we should have laws?
Police have no expectation of “privacy” while operating in public. To claim otherwise is to descend into a Putin like police state.
Amen. If there are going to be cameras everywhere, having some in the hands of the People is quite proper and necessary especially given the scope of powers claimed by the state these days.
A "fact" not in evidence.
Many laws have been passed for evil purposes.
Not this one.
One more time ...
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
The police neglected to use their x-ray vision and crystal balls to determine that.
Convicted of that specific illegal act.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
The two events were not unrelated. Her conviction was in consequence of her illegal act. Post hoc ergo propter hoc refers to a coincidental correlation. This was causal.
Just because you can copy and paste a Latin term doesn't mean you comprehend its meaning.
Your supporting the arrest and conviction of this poor woman for doing no harm to anyone other than disrespecting the authority of one jump booted thug makes you one scary dude!
It wouldn't withstand Constitutional scrutiny. Obstruction laws have.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Ok then, smart-arse; try this legal conundrum on for size:
| New Mexico State Constitution Article II, Sec 6 |
Nem Mexico State Statute 30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty. |
|---|---|
| [Right to bear arms.] No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.) |
A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by: (1) a peace officer; (2) university security personnel; (3) a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program; (4) a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or (5) a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person's or another's person or property. B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises. C. As used in this section: D. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor. |
| *US CODE, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 241 Conspiracy against rights |
|---|
| If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured— They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. |
I await your answers.
What legal conundrum is that?
(BTW, you’re in the wrong state.)
She was convicted of obstruction.
What is unclear is (not described by the news, court or you) the details of how was this lady obstructing the officer.
The FACT is that she was far enough away from the scene that the officer had to use a megaphone to order her inside her house, so that precludes physical obstruction.
So, I ask you, since you are defending this conviction, what are the details of her obstruction.
>What legal conundrum is that?
My State Constitution forbids laws which abridge the right of the citizen “to keep and bear arms for security and defense,” yet there is a state statute that forbids firearms on university campuses; see my previous post for the exact wordings. — How can that be legal?
There is also the one where the counties & municipalities are forbidden from “regulat[ing], in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms;” yet City & County Courthouses both have posted “No Weapons” — How can that be legal?
Anyway, I would like to hear your answers to the questions presented in Post #111; they’re between the texts for the state constitution/statute and the USC 241.
Right. She obstructed the officer's attempt to clear and secure area by refusing multiple requests to withdraw.
The state constitution says for "lawful purposes." Unlawful possession on university premises is prohibited, with the several recognized lawful purpose exceptions explicitly spelled out.
So where's this "conundrum"?
It says “AND OTHER lawful purposes.” The “and” is obviously the English-language list/last-item connector.
The VERY FIRST item on that list is that of “security and defense.”
The statute obviously infringes on the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for defense; or can you guarantee that no citizen will be housed on campus grounds?
The statute obviously abridges the right of the citizen to hunt on university grounds, as well as recreational shooting.
If you take the “other lawful purposes” as a catch-all qualifier then you could ban guns altogether — regardless of the citizen’s right to security and defense — because the ban would make the usage and/or ownership of those arms illegal... and therefore not protected by the Constitution’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms section.
"Wants what he wants when he wants it -- and thinks that constitutes a natural law." --Robert Heinlein
>Unlawful possession on university premises is prohibited, with the several recognized lawful purpose exceptions explicitly spelled out.
PS — If you want to get into the minutia of the details, one of the exceptions in that law is firearms in a “private conveyance;”
Ditionary.com defines conveyance as:
1. — the act of conveying; transmission; communication.
2. — a means of transporting, esp. a vehicle, as a bus, airplane, or automobile.
3. — Law.
a. - the transfer of property from one person to another.
b. - the instrument or document by which this is effected.
It is obvious by usage that Definition #2 is what meant in the statute; it i the only reading that makes sense.
Dictionary.com defines holster as:
1. — a sheath-like carrying case for a firearm, attached to a belt, shoulder sling, or saddle.
Now, it is obvious that a carrying case is a conveyance.
So I should, therefore, be able to open carry on campus, no?
Alright, how about the [city/county] courts barring weapons?
The state Constitution says: “No county or municipality shall regulate, IN ANY WAY, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.”
How then can the city & county courts legally bar weapons?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.