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.
You're moving the goalpost. We're not talking about nukes at the demonstration, and getting into an argument about the original intended meaning of the word "arms" is a different subject altogether not really related to this thread.
That was just one "for instance" - neither the First nor the Second Amendments permit someone to incite a riot - brandishing a weapon like these idiots did could have led to a riot.
No training. But it has been consistent though. I knew the law before and won a bet once on this topic.
I do not know whether a) there were Brown Berets of Aztlan at this particular protest, or b) whether they would be armed if there were. Next question?
I told people the other day on a thread about the protest of illegals outside of Bush's ranch in Texas that citizens protesting would be harassed and maybe arrested.
I was mocked and laughed at. I was told "What country are you from? That doesn't happen here in the U.S".
Guess what?
Thank you for answering my questions.
I strongly disagree with you that citizens of another country should be allowed to compete with legal citizens for jobs. I think any workers brought in from other countries should only be allowed to work at jobs that there are not enough Americans to fill.
I also strongly disagree that citizens of another country should be allowed access to health care, I do not buy the argument that if they are indigent they should. I think illegals should only receive care if it is a real emergency, and as soon as their condition is stable they should be transferred to a hospital in their own country. I would not deny care to someone that had a real emergency in any circumstance, but many illegals go to the emergency room for minor issues. This is one of the reasons our health care costs are out of sight in this country.
I beg to differ. The legal authority for a detention is Terry v Ohio and states that an officer only have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is about to be, or is being committed.
That threshold is easily met.
My pointing out the law was so people would realize the vagueness of this law. It also leaves wiggle room for an officer to do an investigation.
Most importantly, outside of this case, is that an overzealous prosecutor, with a political or ideological motive, could use this vagueness in the law to prosecute someone for headlines.
In a situation like the mass pro illegals march, simply counter-protesting could have incited a riot. Cartoons of Mohammed have incited riots. Should we throw the cartoonists in jail? To be consistent, you would have to say yes.
It's not that they cannot comprehend the Constitution, it's that they don't care. The first priority of the cops was to avoid any conflict, and the method that gets them into the least trouble is to cart away the white guys
Even if it is later found that their rights were violated, it's too late, the demonstration is over, and none of the cops will be personally affected
I recall a guy at St Joes who had a 44 strapped to his hip while I was there with a DUI blood draw. After a few ladies screamed at me to do something I still got a complaint for asking him nicely to please pull his shirt over it or I'd never get out of here. Always thinking about myself.
When you've got that many people, you don't need to be armed. You can just stomp victims to death.
But the 2nd Amendment, as of the time it was ratified, did in fact cover cannons. A cannon loaded with grapeshot will do more damage than a full-auto AK-47 with a 30-round mag.
In fact, per congress's power to "grant letters of marque and reprisal" (authorizing privately-owned warships to capture and confiscate the ships of unfriendly nations), the Constitution explicitly contemplates that privately-owned warships are covered.
And I'll tell you, even a Revolutionary-war-era warship, loaded up with cannonballs and grapeshot, will do a considerable amount of damage to anything in range
If there is nothing to tell them where it came from, there's no way they can get to you to test your fingerprints against any found on the envelope. ;o)
You do not have to actually walk up to a police officer and say "I'm carrying a gun" you are just required to have your valid permit on your person and produce it when asked.
Here is the complete text pertaining to the section you referenced:
(1)(b): Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so.
In other words: you don't have to volunteer it, but you must have it on your person when carrying, and must produce it when asked for it.
And there is no indication whatever that there was any "brandishing of weapons".
One hour until the Bryan Suits show on 570 KVI, http://www.570kvi.com/
Could be an interesting show.
This is the first time I've heard of this nonsense... I'd be hiring me some top shelf lawyers if this had happenned to me...
Bryan Suits show on 570 KVI, http://www.570kvi.com/ right now.
Ping for live show right now!!!!!
Ping
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.