Posted on 07/04/2013 7:13:13 AM PDT by marktwain
A decorated Air Force veteran pleaded not guilty this morning to a charge of “trespassing with a weapon capable of producing bodily harm,” after being arrested by police in Vancouver, Washington, for legally open carrying an AR-15 rifle.
Last Saturday, Mack Worley, eager to exercise his second amendment, open carried his rifle while grabbing a soda and viewing a fireworks stand before attempting to walk back to his car.
“No one had said anything negative to me. A few people came up to me and asked a few questions about what I was doing and I just explained that I was asserting my second amendment right. I was explaining to people that it’s not against the law or a crime to open carry a firearm,” said Worley.
While walking on a public sidewalk toward his vehicle, Worley noticed an officer waiting down the street in a police car. Worley, assuming the police wanted to speak with him, continued walking down the sidewalk.
“As I started walking to them, I hear on a loudspeaker to my left a police officer telling me to put my hands up,” said Worley.
Worley then noticed as many as seven police officers pointing their guns at him, demanding he remove his firearm. Police also ordered Worley to turn off his cell phone which was recording the incident which Worley refused.
Worley then asserted his fourth amendment right by informing the officers that he did not consent to any searches or seizures of his property.
As police moved in closer, Worley, now fearing for his safety, made the decision to remove his firearm despite the police having no legal justification to demand he do so.
“I asked the officer if was being detained, he said no.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Sounds like police are in need of another educational legal beat down.
After that one gets inserted, we can move on to freedom of the press and religion and the right to keep and bear arms, etc. But government would be nicely kept in check if officials became fair game whenever they acted against the Supreme Law of the Land.
The more I read of things like this the less respect I have for LEO’s - I’d rather defend myself from crime than to call on these miscreants to protect me. When seconds count, LEO’s are minutes away.
Those are Israeli soldiers at a Tel Aviv beach...
Here is a link to the video of Mr. Worley telling his story. It sounds very credible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN3ehYJ3NMA
Perp probably had a BIBLE on him, too.
A hanging offense, fer sure.
Hard to conceal a weapon in that outfit!
Hah! If she is not careful she will have ‘gun tan’. hehehe
There are many Mack Worley’s in this world, and I’ll always be grateful to them all for their selfless, courageous, actions in the face of tyranny.
They’re not worried , as long as we’re paying for it.
They were paying attention when life and history took them to school.
And here we are, writing in the text books, tearing out the pages, sleeping in class and about to get our knuckles rapped.
Kalifornia’s liberal insanity has metastasized up the left coast. The whole mess from San Diego to the Canadien/Canadian line is now threatening to move eastward.
This will bankrupt their department and many will be retired without benefit.
“Hah! If she is not careful she will have ‘gun tan’. hehehe”
That could be a major plus in her finding a real man.
How much you want bet that somehow something goes wrong with that phone and its recordings accidently get erased.
That, is an actual crime.
Too many Barney Fifes and not enough Andy Griffiths out there...
Spoliation of evidence
From Wikipedia,
The spoliation of evidence is the intentional or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding. Spoliation has two possible consequences: in jurisdictions where the (intentional) act is criminal by statute, it may result in fines and incarceration for the parties who engaged in the spoliation; in jurisdictions where relevant case law precedent has been established, proceedings possibly altered by spoliation may be interpreted under a spoliation inference.
The spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party’s destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.
The theory of the spoliation inference is that when a party destroys evidence, it may be reasonable to infer that the party had “consciousness of guilt” or other motivation to avoid the evidence. Therefore, the factfinder may conclude that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the spoliator. Some jurisdictions have recognized a spoliation tort action, which allows the victim of destruction of evidence to file a separate tort action against a spoliator.
Spoliation is often an issue in the context where a person claims he has been injured by a defective product which he then discarded or lost. In that circumstance, the defendant manufacturer or distributor may move to dismiss the case on the basis of spoliation (instead of just having to rely on the plaintiff’s usual burden of proof, the argument being that any testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses would not overcome the spoliation inference born of the lost evidentiary value of the missing product itself).
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.
