Posted on 05/04/2006 8:53:59 AM PDT by StevenB
Illegal Immigration Counter Protesters Detained
The topic of discussion on the Bryan Suits radio show on 570 KVI earlier this evening was a call by a Seattle area citizen, Eric, who called to say that while thousands of illegal immigrants marched a couple of feet away, 5 United States citizens, he being one of the 5, who should be covered by all of the constitutional amendments, including the 1st and 2nd, were detained by the Seattle Police Department for over 2 hours because... well hard to say really. The reason for Caller Eric's call into the show was, surprise, surprise, the medias total lack of coverage of what should be a fairly big story. U.S. Citizens constitutional rights infringed in order to protect illegal aliens non existent right to hold a protest march.
Now I am a regular listener of the Bryan Suits show, as you should be, especially if you, like me, are in the male 35-64 year old demographic, and as Bryan can testify, I am also a regular emailer, but did not catch every single minute of the show since the 5pm to 8pm time slot is right in that end of the work day - drive home - eat dinner time window so I may have missed out on some of the conversation but here is a recap as best as I can recall. Full disclosure on my part requires that I state my Father is a 25 year retired Seattle Police Officer and I may or may not own a gun, try breaking into my house and you may or may not get an answer right then and there.
It all started with a 911 call from someone the police say was not part of the march claiming that there was a group of people with signs opposed to the marchers who were armed. The caller said he saw a gun holster sticking out from a partly open jacket. The police responded to the call and found the counter protesters and asked if any of them had weapons and sure enough, 3 of the 5 had guns and one had a switchblade or some sort of knife. Caller Eric said he was the one counter protester that did not have a weapon. At that point they were cuffed and taken to the West precinct where they spent the next 2 plus hours being detained until the march was over. The problem is they had not violated the law as the 3 with guns had valid concealed carry permits and as best as I can tell while switchblades appear to be illegal, there was no mention of the person carrying the knife being arrested or charged with a crime.
A Seattle Police officer, who called himself Steve, called into the show to give his version of the events. While for the most part, the stories matched, Office Steve's main point was they felt they were doing the appropriate thing in order to potentially avoid a violent situation and needed to take the people to the station in order to do a proper investigation. As Bryan Suits said, it was kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for the police but he, along with myself, kept asking under what authority were these people detained and why did it take over 2 hours to finish the investigation and let them leave? Bryan's conclusion, as was mine was it seems fairly obvious that the message from the police hierarchy was to hold these people until the march was over. One thing that bothered me about the conversation with Officer Steve was how Suits had to explain to him it is legal to openly carry a firearm. In the State of Washington you must have a concealed carry permit to have a concealed weapon but not to openly carry. Officer Steve made a comment that implied he thought since the holster was partly visible, that was in some way a violation of the law since the weapon was no longer concealed, which is not the case.
Later a female caller gave Bryan a ring and said she was one of the counter protesters who was packing heat. The first question from Bryan was in effect, what were you thinking bringing a gun into a situation like that even though you are totally within your rights to do so? Her response was she always has her gun with her, expect in bars and other "gun free zones" or as I like to call them, "potential sitting duck shooting galleries". She mentioned that the gun was in her purse and they told the officers when they first asked about the weapons that they had valid permits for them. She said once at the station they were told they would be released once the march was over which contradicted what Office Steve said about it just taking that long to finish the investigation and there was no intent to simply hold them until the march was over.
Now last I checked, United States Citizens have a 1st amendment right to free speech and even in Seattle we have a 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms and it sure seems to me like those and potentially others were violated. I do know one thing, if I were one of the Seattle 5, I would "lawyer up" and have filed a lawsuit against the City yesterday, because as I emailed Bryan, until the city gets hit with a lawsuit and pays a big judgment, expect this kind of thing to keep on happening. My one question of any city official is when did POTENTIALLY preventing a violent situation supersede our constitutional rights?
Thursday on the Bryan Suits show, where you can listen to live over the internet by going here, the hope is someone from the City will be on to discuss this topic in further detail. Also, its Led Zeppelin Thursday, so get your request in early.
If anyone has any additional information, clarification or corrections, please post them in the comments and I will update accordingly.
I see you are back.
Have a nice respite?
No.
Does the United States have the right to secure the borders?
Yes.
Do you think anyone who wants to come into this country should be allowed to?
No.
Do you think we have the right to check people out before they come into this country?
Yes.
Do you think anyone who wants US Citizenship should be granted it without any requirements?
No.
Should anyone who wants to work here be allowed to, even if we have enough employees here already?
No (but we don't have enough employees here already - that's kinda the point).
Should citizens of this country have to compete with citizens of another country for jobs here?
Sure.
Is it all right with you if terrorists can just walk right into this country?
No - see answers to #1 - #5 above.
Should a citizen of another country be allowed to get free medical care at our facilities?
If citizens who are indigent are, then yes.
Do you believe the Southwest belongs to the United States or do you think it belongs to Mexico or La Raza or some other group?
The United States.
Do you believe in following the law, or only those you happen to agree with?
I believe in following the law, and I believe in following the process to change said law.
Of course - same goes as to all U.S. citizens.
I have read no where that the protesters were armed themselves.
No one here was brandishing anything. They also complied with police orders. It was taking them down to the station that was the first initiation of a violation of Rights. They were within the law, the law decided they needed to be removed from the scene anyway.
This system of government is also known as a POLICE State. Where cops give the orders and civvies had best hasten to obay as they have no Rights that cannot be readily infringed.
I'm not a lawyer, I am not qualified to give legal advice. To get legal advice, consult a lawyer.
in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.
Your argument is similar to the argument that people could be arrested and charged with disturbing the peace for carrying openly if it scares someone else. If I remember correctly there were a couple cases where people were detained here in Ohio after our Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting open carry (with some exceptions) was unconstitutional.
However, I don't believe anyone was ever even charged with disturbing the peace for doing so. A legal and constitutionally protected act in itself cannot be construed as a cause for alarm. They would have to do something that could be reasonably construe as threatening others, or doing something that negligently placed others at risk.
Washington State Constitution Article I, Section 24
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
Saying that merely possessing firearms for self defense while performing other legal and constitutionally protected acts is illegal would be blatantly unconstitutional based on their State constitution.
Legal possession of a firearm in a legal manner does not legally "warrant alarm".
I read this as to mean, if you are carrying in a community or location that it is not a surprise to see someone with a gun on their hip then you are fine. If you carry in an area that people don't normally see a person with a gun on their hip you are in deep doo doo.
Simple fear and misunderstanding of otherwise legal acts is not warranted or justified alarm.
Now, if someone had a gun in their waistband and it becomes exposed, then the officers have a right to do an investigation. It's hard to argue that, considering the circumstances, that a counter protester who "exhibited" a firearm like this.
Someone reported that one of these people had a firearm. I agree that it was reasonable for the Police to investigate the situation. However, since there appears to have been no evidence that the weapons were brandished or that any threats were made, the police had no authority to detain them.
Not on purpose, but in the totality of the circumstances, might end up in some disturbance and if he/she gets into it at a rally with thousands of persons walking the street, that they could end up using their firearm.
So you're saying that though their legal actions they might find themselves in a situation where they might need to defend themselves? Remember the beginning of Article 1 section 24, The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired.
Were they illegally detained? The rub is, was the time it took to conduct the investigation "reasonable."
There doesn't appear to have been any evidence that they had done anything illegal. It was reasonable to question them, but there was no legal justification for detaining them. The police removed them and prevented them from exercising their first amendment rights without evidence of breaking any laws. Their only justification for doing so was directly in conflict with their state constitution.
This situation isn't ambiguous.
Funny how selective your hero government can be. Arrest gun owners carrying legally while allowing border criminals to run free.
If someone feels "frightened" by the thought of a fellow citizen exercizing a Right? Maybe you are in the wrong damn country.
"I have read no where that the protesters were armed themselves."
Precisely. You're more than a bit credulous if you disbelieve that quite a few were, though.
Because even the 2nd Amendment has limits - you cannot bear tactical nuclear weapons as a "firearm" for instance.
Yes.
Yes - funny how my POLICE State so closely resembles Nazi Germany, for instance.
The only ones we KNOW who had firearms were the counter-protesters and the police.
The Weimar Republic didn't fall over night either.
"The only ones we KNOW who had firearms were the counter-protesters and the police."
You're being obtuse. We KNOW this due to selective enforcement and selective media outrage. It's foolish to think that the various radical groups, advocating separatist sentiments, went unarmed. Just admit it and move on.
I cannot admit to knowing something that I do not know.
Very true.
We don't need no vigilantes either.
"I cannot admit to knowing something that I do not know."
You can admit that it's foolish to believe that the Brown Berets of Aztlan were unarmed. Try it, it's liberating.
Another FREEPER was actually the one who came up with this, and I haven't been able to get a shot of just the Americo Currency. I will keep you posted.
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.