Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 ... 26   Go Down

Author Topic: open carry protests  (Read 105889 times)

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #255 on: July 05, 2008, 08:49:18 am »

That's plainly incorrect. A judge will look at the purpose of the law to determine what the law is. Especially where a new or infrequently used law is in question.

Oh?  And what do they use to determine that?  Their spacio-temporal-mind-probe-o-matic, which lets them discover what the legislators were thinking when they actually voted, in a different location, in the past?

No problem. I do what I can. You did appear to need some guidance on the issue.

You should really un-tape that mirror from your monitor.

You said pedestrian. Pedestrians are usually in public. Unless you have secret, underground sidewalks, roads, etc. up there in New Hampshire. To now bring up that you didn't say that it's in "public" is to quibble over a useless and inapplicable distinction over what you actually said. Very politician-like.

Actually, no.  To claim that I said things which I never said is very politician-like.

I'm quite able to interpret a statute, and have great experience in doing it, as it is literally my day-job. Perhaps some of you NHer's can thank me for putting a log-jam in your Presidential Primary earlier this year. However, as I said, I am not licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. I cannot comment on the complete legal implications of my interpretation of the statute and no one should rely on what I've said to guide their actions.

I think you should get a new job.

Indeed, if you would insist on suggesting I should not comment on competence grounds, I would suggest that you should probably follow the same advice.

I don't comment on subjects I don't have competence in.  You won't find me giving cooking advice.  Or anything more than basic computer advice.  For a couple examples.  Like any mature individual, I don't pretend to have any high level of competence in fields which I do not.

I haven't asked for any of the information you seem to want to deny me.  I am aware of the specific instance you are speaking of.

Specific case?  There are more than one.

I've only asked a few yes-no questions. But you seem to completely miss the point in my previous post: whether the police use a law as a pretense to oppress someone does not mean the law actually applies. As we all know, police can break the law too. It may well be that someone has been arrested and charged for this. But that doesn't mean, as you've been saying, that this law applies in this situation.

Excepting, of course, that the plain text of the law says that it does apply.  And so does every competent legal professional who's read it.

Many states have a very similar wiretapping law. And I have not heard of a conviction applying to this situation. That doesn't mean it's not there. It means I haven't heard of it.

See commentary on competence, and not commenting on things which are beyond your knowledge level.

But--like usual--rather than address any of the actual issues or questions, you've only avoided answering or discussing anything further, and with the usual and generous helping of negativity and personal insults. I encourage you to rejoin the discussion at any time.

What questions or issues haven't I addressed?  Every time you've made that childish accusation, I've asked that same question, and you've never answered it.

Because, of course, it's just a pathetic attempt to attack my character to hide your own failings.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #256 on: July 05, 2008, 08:51:24 am »

;D...I like this guy

You like cops who attack innocent people for no reason, and think those cops shouldn't be punished.  I don't think you should insult B.D. Ross by saying that you like him, too.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #257 on: July 05, 2008, 09:58:26 am »

Who should punish them?
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #258 on: July 05, 2008, 10:07:26 am »

Who should punish them?

Well, kelteckiller claims that "the law is the law," and no one should ever break it under any circumstances, no matter how vile some law is (unless he, personally, feels like speeding).  Therefore, in order to avoid being a hypocrite, he needs to unconditionally state that cops who break the law should be arrested, tried, and convicted just like anyone else.

Of course, he can't bring himself to do that, because he is a hypocrite.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

Keyser Soce

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1256
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #259 on: July 05, 2008, 11:29:04 am »

Who should punish them?


Good question. What's your answer?
Logged
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." -- Mark Twain

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #260 on: July 05, 2008, 12:27:09 pm »

There is no answer...
The mere consensus of society works only when no one is above the whole.
Once a segment is oppressed or raised above... tyranny is the outcome.

And thus Joe becomes correct... we become hypocrites. But more importantly we become a flock with a higher fence around the thinning pasture, while dreaming of the lush green beyond.

Logged

kelteckiller

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #261 on: July 05, 2008, 12:57:15 pm »

Who should punish them?

Well, kelteckiller claims that "the law is the law," and no one should ever break it under any circumstances, no matter how vile some law is (unless he, personally, feels like speeding).  Therefore, in order to avoid being a hypocrite, he needs to unconditionally state that cops who break the law should be arrested, tried, and convicted just like anyone else.

Of course, he can't bring himself to do that, because he is a hypocrite.

Joe

Who isn't a hypocrite?  That is human nature
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #262 on: July 05, 2008, 01:13:34 pm »

i.e. why social order will never exist regardless of the effort.
Logged

kelteckiller

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #263 on: July 05, 2008, 03:44:50 pm »

i.e. why social order will never exist regardless of the effort.


Post of the century!  Humans being human...

Go figure

RAD

GFY!
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #264 on: July 05, 2008, 04:20:17 pm »

Who isn't a hypocrite?  That is human nature

No, that's the nature of immature thugs with delusions of humanity.

No one with the least bit of maturity is hypocritical.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

jrod

  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 66
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #265 on: July 05, 2008, 04:47:04 pm »

You know, you should add in "maze of underground sidewalks" to the 101 reasons to move to New Hampshire list. It sounds awesome.
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #266 on: July 05, 2008, 11:50:59 pm »


Oh?  And what do they use to determine that?  Their spacio-temporal-mind-probe-o-matic, which lets them discover what the legislators were thinking when they actually voted, in a different location, in the past?


Books, usually. Written records. The standard fare we use when trying to determine what other people are thinking at "some other coordinates in the space-time continuum".

Really, it depends on what's put in front of the judge or how motivated the judge is to conduct her own search of the record. Or how good the judge's underlings (i.e. clerks) are in doing the same research (quality varies rather widely). As I'm sure you're aware, quite a record trail is created before and after a law is passed. Legislators frequently write down what they wanted the law to do. Usually, the legislators actually meet and discuss what the particular law is supposed to accomplish. Very often, the annotated version of the statutes will themselves contain citations to a statement of purpose or intent or a record of the statute's history. For example, in this case may note the original law was passed in 1969. Do you really think the legislators actually contemplated the pervasive use of video recorders to record police attacking innocent people? Probably not. As I said before, this appears to be a wire-tapping law that someone would now like to use in a more expansive capacity. The legislators probably did not intend for the law to be used in the way you're describing.

As far as mind-probing device, I'm not aware of any such device. Or why you'd even use it--since the information is usually written down. If your confusion is that legislators decide what the law is and judges have no function, perhaps you don't quite understand how powers are separated in our current system.

Quote
You said pedestrian. Pedestrians are usually in public. Unless you have secret, underground sidewalks, roads, etc. up there in New Hampshire. To now bring up that you didn't say that it's in "public" is to quibble over a useless and inapplicable distinction over what you actually said. Very politician-like.

Actually, no.  To claim that I said things which I never said is very politician-like.

Actually, yes. You did, in fact, say pedestrian. (Read it here). Personally, I can't say I've heard of someone walking in a private place being called a "pedestrian". But we could argue about who-said-whats or no-that's-not-what-I-meants all day.

Since you seem to think it's important to now point out that you left ambiguous whether the pedestrian was in public, let's just cut to the guts of this question: was your pedestrian in public or not? If I didn't interpret what you wrote correctly, what did you mean?

I don't comment on subjects I don't have competence in.  You won't find me giving cooking advice.  Or anything more than basic computer advice.  For a couple examples.  Like any mature individual, I don't pretend to have any high level of competence in fields which I do not.

I'm not sure of your purpose for randomly stating this. It's not really responsive to anything I've said. Perhaps you're suggesting that you're also not competent to speak in this area. I do recall you attempted to use the fact that I am not licensed in NH to suggest that I was not competent to interpret a statute. By implication, you would also not be competent to comment either. (Though, I completely disagree with that original premise.)

Earlier in this thread, you were making conclusions left-and-right about what's legal and illegal--incorrectly I might add--about body armor and videotaping police. And now you're telling us that "[you] don't comment on subjects [you] don't have competence in." But given your own reasoning that you would not be competent, I'm not sure why you're commenting in the first place--unless you wish to continue making more fallacious special pleadings.

Just to be clear, I am NOT saying you're not competent. Personally, I don't think attorneys are particularly special in their reading abilities. But by your own hand, you appear to be saying this is an area that you should not be commenting on. Still, you do seem to be representing that you've done the research in this area and you have the specific citations to controlling authority. And yet, you were quite eager--before anyone asked for it--to declare that you're unwilling to put any of your sources on this thread.

I think you should get a new job.

That's very kind of you to say so. As you previously shared, you don't comment on things in which you aren't competent in. Perhaps you shouldn't be commenting--at least without something more compelling to base your decision on than a few posts that criticize your own. If you truly wish to avoid addressing any actual criticisms of your posts by further personally attacking my ability to perform in my professional capacity, I would encourage you to review the Forum Posting Policies. Do be a civil, non-libelous poster :)

Excepting, of course, that the plain text of the law says that it does apply.  And so does every competent legal professional who's read it.

Seems to me the situation you described--quite clearly--falls outside the plain language of the statute.
In the situation you've described, there is no utterance that would qualify as a "telecommunication" or an "oral communication" under the statute.
There's really no way around that. The statute's language simply doesn't support a criminal act in your situation.
And if you disagree, please contribute by telling us why--upon what reasoning--you disagree.

I'd be quite surprised for a "legal professional" to interpret it much differently, as that would probably qualify as professional malpractice. Especially for a criminal defense attorney. The plain language of the law is not really in debate. And I mean that literally--you have not put forth any analysis or authority to support your position that videotaping a cop beating a random pedestrian is either wiretapping or eavedropping. But regardless of what the law clearly and obviously states, the question I have been asking is whether there is any case law interpreting the statute where the case resulted in a conviction (and in a situation similar to the one you've presented).

"Every competent legal professional who's read it?" Really? You do mean attorneys, right? You didn't actually say "attorneys" or "lawyers". I wouldn't want you to now later claim, "Oh, I meant paralegals."

If you did mean attorneys, perhaps you can provide me with the names of one or two of the competent "legal professionals" who've read it and think the statute applies to the situation you've described for us? Unless there's contrary, guiding case law, they would be clearly incorrect. And I would be more than happy to call them up for a quick chat over their interpretation. It's an important issue after all. You can post the names of the attorneys here, send me a private message, or an email. Whatever you're comfortable with.

What questions or issues haven't I addressed?  Every time you've made that childish accusation, I've asked that same question, and you've never answered it.

It's hardly an accusation. It's an accurate description of the discussion transpiring in this thread. In your previous post, you explicitly quoted the questions I asked. If you refer to your response, you essentially refused to answer the questions. So I assume you were, in fact, aware of the questions you now claim to be ignorant of. But for clarity's sake:

But has anyone actually been convicted under this statute?
In a situation similar to the one we've been discussing?
Is there a case on it?

To summarize this into a single question: Is there a case in New Hampshire where a person has been convicted of wiretapping/eavesdropping for using a video camera to record the police beating up a pedestrian? And now, in addition, what's the case? And if you cannot answer this question, it really is okay to say, "I don't know."

I could really care less about more negative, chatty commentary. I'm interested to know what's out there. And if you have ulterior motives for withholding information from the thread, that's quite alright. By being here, I suppose I just assumed you're trying to help the cause of freedom, rather than hinder it.

Because, of course, it's just a pathetic attempt to attack my character to hide your own failings.

Joe

Joe, I have no need or desire to attack your character.
Your own demeanor speaks volumes more about that than I could ever say.
Despite how you seem to approach the boards here, the whole world is not against you.
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #267 on: July 06, 2008, 12:08:48 am »

;D...I like this guy

You like cops who attack innocent people for no reason, and think those cops shouldn't be punished.  I don't think you should insult B.D. Ross by saying that you like him, too.

Joe

Eh, it's not really an insult.

And we might be able to change his opinion around. Show him the light. He is actually here after all. Bothered to sign up. Perhaps he really does have some sliver of interest and he's not just trying to make trouble. I don't agree with everything he's said. But combatively arguing with him and exaggerating what he's said isn't going to turn him around.

Keltec, what were you originally try to tell us again?
Logged

kelteckiller

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #268 on: July 06, 2008, 04:41:34 am »

[

Actually, yes. You did, in fact, say pedestrian. (Read it here). Personally, I can't say I've heard of someone walking in a private place being called a "pedestrian". But we could argue about who-said-whats or no-that's-not-what-I-meants all day.

Since you seem to think it's important to now point out that you left ambiguous whether the pedestrian was in public, let's just cut to the guts of this question: was your pedestrian in public or not? If I didn't interpret what you wrote correctly, what did you mean?

I don't comment on subjects I don't have competence in.  You won't find me giving cooking advice.  Or anything more than basic computer advice.  For a couple examples.  Like any mature individual, I don't pretend to have any high level of competence in fields which I do not.

I'm not sure of your purpose for randomly stating this. It's not really responsive to anything I've said. Perhaps you're suggesting that you're also not competent to speak in this area. I do recall you attempted to use the fact that I am not licensed in NH to suggest that I was not competent to interpret a statute. By implication, you would also not be competent to comment either. (Though, I completely disagree with that original premise.)

Earlier in this thread, you were making conclusions left-and-right about what's legal and illegal--incorrectly I might add--about body armor and videotaping police. And now you're telling us that "[you] don't comment on subjects [you] don't have competence in." But given your own reasoning that you would not be competent, I'm not sure why you're commenting in the first place--unless you wish to continue making more fallacious special pleadings.

Just to be clear, I am NOT saying you're not competent. Personally, I don't think attorneys are particularly special in their reading abilities. But by your own hand, you appear to be saying this is an area that you should not be commenting on. Still, you do seem to be representing that you've done the research in this area and you have the specific citations to controlling authority. And yet, you were quite eager--before anyone asked for it--to declare that you're unwilling to put any of your sources on this thread.

I think you should get a new job.

That's very kind of you to say so. As you previously shared, you don't comment on things in which you aren't competent in. Perhaps you shouldn't be commenting--at least without something more compelling to base your decision on than a few posts that criticize your own. If you truly wish to avoid addressing any actual criticisms of your posts by further personally attacking my ability to perform in my professional capacity, I would encourage you to review the Forum Posting Policies. Do be a civil, non-libelous poster :)

Excepting, of course, that the plain text of the law says that it does apply.  And so does every competent legal professional who's read it.

Seems to me the situation you described--quite clearly--falls outside the plain language of the statute.
In the situation you've described, there is no utterance that would qualify as a "telecommunication" or an "oral communication" under the statute.
There's really no way around that. The statute's language simply doesn't support a criminal act in your situation.
And if you disagree, please contribute by telling us why--upon what reasoning--you disagree.

I'd be quite surprised for a "legal professional" to interpret it much differently, as that would probably qualify as professional malpractice. Especially for a criminal defense attorney. The plain language of the law is not really in debate. And I mean that literally--you have not put forth any analysis or authority to support your position that videotaping a cop beating a random pedestrian is either wiretapping or eavedropping. But regardless of what the law clearly and obviously states, the question I have been asking is whether there is any case law interpreting the statute where the case resulted in a conviction (and in a situation similar to the one you've presented).

"Every competent legal professional who's read it?" Really? You do mean attorneys, right? You didn't actually say "attorneys" or "lawyers". I wouldn't want you to now later claim, "Oh, I meant paralegals."

If you did mean attorneys, perhaps you can provide me with the names of one or two of the competent "legal professionals" who've read it and think the statute applies to the situation you've described for us? Unless there's contrary, guiding case law, they would be clearly incorrect. And I would be more than happy to call them up for a quick chat over their interpretation. It's an important issue after all. You can post the names of the attorneys here, send me a private message, or an email. Whatever you're comfortable with.

What questions or issues haven't I addressed?  Every time you've made that childish accusation, I've asked that same question, and you've never answered it.

It's hardly an accusation. It's an accurate description of the discussion transpiring in this thread. In your previous post, you explicitly quoted the questions I asked. If you refer to your response, you essentially refused to answer the questions. So I assume you were, in fact, aware of the questions you now claim to be ignorant of. But for clarity's sake:

But has anyone actually been convicted under this statute?
In a situation similar to the one we've been discussing?
Is there a case on it?

To summarize this into a single question: Is there a case in New Hampshire where a person has been convicted of wiretapping/eavesdropping for using a video camera to record the police beating up a pedestrian? And now, in addition, what's the case? And if you cannot answer this question, it really is okay to say, "I don't know."

I could really care less about more negative, chatty commentary. I'm interested to know what's out there. And if you have ulterior motives for withholding information from the thread, that's quite alright. By being here, I suppose I just assumed you're trying to help the cause of freedom, rather than hinder it.

Because, of course, it's just a pathetic attempt to attack my character to hide your own failings.

Joe

Joe, I have no need or desire to attack your character.
Your own demeanor speaks volumes more about that than I could ever say.
Despite how you seem to approach the boards here, the whole world is not against you.
[/quote]

Incompetently speaking about things and saying you shouldn't do so???  Sure sounds HYPOCRITICAL!...Like I said...EVERYONE (including myself) is hypocritical. some more than others....it's human nature
Logged

kelteckiller

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #269 on: July 06, 2008, 04:43:47 am »

;D...I like this guy

You like cops who attack innocent people for no reason, and think those cops shouldn't be punished.  I don't think you should insult B.D. Ross by saying that you like him, too.

Joe

Eh, it's not really an insult.

And we might be able to change his opinion around. Show him the light. He is actually here after all. Bothered to sign up. Perhaps he really does have some sliver of interest and he's not just trying to make trouble. I don't agree with everything he's said. But combatively arguing with him and exaggerating what he's said isn't going to turn him around.

Keltec, what were you originally try to tell us again?

My original "complaint" is that I don't, foundationally, agree with the way the group gets their message out.  I think that there are better ways to "fight the system".  I really appreciate your comment, because I do agree with this group in a LOT of things...just not the way the message is delivered that's all    ;D
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 ... 26   Go Up