Marine get turned away from voting because of OC'ing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Bunny

What it boils down to is a person(s) didn't like the fact that he wanted to vote with his firearm, so for 1 1/2 hours they did everything to prevent him from doing so. They basically put a condition on his ability to vote, which is illegal, period!

IC 3-14-3-21.5
Voter intimidation Sec. 21.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally intimidates, threatens, or coerces an individual for:
(3) exercising any power or duty under this title concerning registration or voting;
commits voter intimidation, a Class D felony.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigStick

I normally give LEO the benefit of the doubtm, and I don't like judging their actions because they are in a verry difficult position every day and have to make difficult decisions, but it is very clear to anyone looking objectively at this sittuation and the facts that have been presented that this officer was not being nice about anything, and was not doing any favors. He was threatening to do things he did not have the authority to do, and giving ultimatums dictating a citizens ability to vote.

When people start issuing threats to get their way instead of explaining the sittuation, they are usually stretching the bounds of what they are allowed/authorized/capable of doing.

---

When I read the above, attempting to be as dispassionate about it as I can as Hopyard suggested, it seems to me that the officer committed a class D felony under their laws. He used his authority to enforce not the law, but his will and this is why I feel no leniency towards him. Perhaps we will see what the judge says and perhaps this guy will get stripped of his title, badge, and retirement.

I will also say that if the presence of someone OC'ing, but otherwise not making aggressive action, or suggesting it with words, and so forth, were to cause him to feel the need to attempt to disarm and individual on the grounds of "safety" that he needs to go bury himself under a rock somewhere and stay there until the feeling passes.

noway2 has it nailed pretty well.

But let's look at the bigger picture.

If we pro-gunners have such trouble agreeing on this incident and how it should have gone, imagine how the general voting public sees it. You know, those who are largely represented by people who can't imagine needing to have a gun strapped on all day or even any day -- concealed or otherwise. Those are the people we have to convince if our side is to do well in the public arena. I am amazed at the progress we have made in getting nearly 40 states shall issue.

Here is the other problem. Western civilization is in decline (and if you don't think so I don't believe you have lived long enough to see it, or you are in denial). As this continues I am afraid we will see much more of incidents like this where people in any kind of position of power misuse that power to assert something is illegal (or "want" it to be illegal) without regard to what the law actually says (or doesn't say).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suntzu

You all think if he was right or not. My views have been clear:If it is not illegal...then it is LEGAL

---

I'm with ya, that's messed up. But different states are different. Like in my home state of MA, as you said if it's not ILLEGAL then it IS LEGAL. There is a word for that type of system which I don't remember. There is also the opposite where if it's not written that it IS legal, then it's ILLEGAL. I wish I paid more attention when learning that stuff. But Being from NH I'm sure your aware MA is an Open Carry State.....but go ahead and do it! I have, it's.....Interesting!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

If you read these dispassionately, the first code doesn't even come close to applying to the situation as described IMO.

The second, well the man was NOT arrested, so it is inapplicable.

We'll see what the judge says. Probably, get out of here.

---

IC 3-14-3-21.5
Voter intimidation
Sec. 21.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally intimidates, threatens, or coerces an individual for:
(1) voting or attempting to vote;


How does the highlighted part not even come close to applying? They attempted to stop him from voting while he was doing nothing illegal.

Have you by chance ever worked for the government in the past?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DontTreadOnI

IC 3-14-3-21.5
Voter intimidation
Sec. 21.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally intimidates, threatens, or coerces an individual for:
(1) voting or attempting to vote;


How does the highlighted part not even come close to applying? They attempted to stop him from voting while he was doing nothing illegal.

Have you by chance ever worked for the government in the past?

---

Glad you asked. The interaction was not about his attempting to vote. It was about an incidental issue, OC, not voting. The very same interaction could have happened anywhere following a MWG call.

As for trying to too tightly tie the wording to the facts, suppose the man
came in with a large package with wires hanging from it and a timer attached. An officer interacting with such a
person is not intimidating him not to vote; he is investigating a possible threat to public safety. If the box was
empty and not a hoax bomb actually *no law broken-* yet the way some folks are interpreting the quoted code the person holding said box could similarly scream that I wasn't breaking the law. He kept me from voting. NO.

The officer has a job which includes an obligation to interact with folks and make on the spot decisions for the peace. They do it all the time. (And too many participants here resent it and label it bullying.)

This started out to be an ordinary man with a gun call. That has nothing whatsoever to do with voting rights.

These complainants if they are successful will do drastic harm to law enforcement and to society's ability to conduct
elections by having ordinary people donate their time and effort for civic good.

So goodbye to the first part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

As for trying to too tightly tie the wording to the facts, suppose the man
came in with a large package with wires hanging from it and a timer attached.

---

But he didn't....

But let's go along with this ridiculous analogy. The officer checks the box, and sees that it's empty, or full of paper or packing peanuts, and that the timer is attached to nothing. All is safe. Same as affirming the OCer had a permit, was not acting abnormally, the handgun was holstered securely, etc. Then suppose the officer, after checking the package, refused to let the package carrier vote as long as he had the package, even though the officer wasted well over an hour trying to find a law preventing the package carrier from voting, and couldn't. Still a felony on the part of the officer.

If this is not about voting, then why was the OCer prevented from doing so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

This started out to be an ordinary man with a gun call. That has nothing whatsoever to do with voting rights.

These complainants if they are successful will do drastic harm to law enforcement and to society's ability to conduct
elections by having ordinary people donate their time and effort for civic good.

So goodbye to the first part.

---

Don't know about you or what technically is a MWAG call. But I consider it when a civilian is concerned and calls the police. Not when a police officer (the one at the polls) calls other police officers about a man with a gun. Don't try to tell me he was off duty and made the call as a concerned citizen. Furthermore, he did not make the call becasue he was concerned about safety. He either did not know the law or did not want him voting with a gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smellslikeMI

i imagine if hopyard were, there would still be a lot of people sitting at the back of the bus

---

I consider that a baseless statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by highvoltage

I consider that a baseless statement.

---

I agree. I made a statement and figured Hop would take it as a bit of sarcasm and schoolboy humor. I would never make a serious statement accusing him of not caring for the welfare of others. Whether I agree with him or not he is a stand up guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suntzu

I agree. I made a statement and figured Hop would take it as a bit of sarcasm and schoolboy humor. I would never make a serious statement accusing him of not caring for the welfare of others. Whether I agree with him or not he is a stand up guy.

---

I stand by my statement. applying the same logic Hop uses, Rosa Parks should have sat in the back, quietly, and then gone to complain about it later to someone who cared. that wouldn't have been good enough, i'm sure there were a lot of people complaining already. it took an act of resistance, not passive, but active resistance. that's what's needed sometimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suntzu
You all think if he was right or not. My views have been clear:If it is not illegal...then it is LEGAL

---

This is what I do not understand about discussions such as this one. When it comes to the government telling people what they cannot do, nothing but the Law should be taken into consideration. Sure some things we do are stupid or even dangerous to ourselves and others but, unless there is a clear law that allows the government to step in it is not within their legal powers to interfere.
If there is no law allowing the Government to prevent someone from openingly carrying a weapon then they have no legal power to prevent it. Some like to forget what suntzu has posted. That citizens do not need a Law to say that they are free to do something. On the other hand the Government does need a Law to legally prevent a citizen from doing something.

Michael

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smellslikeMI

I stand by my statement. applying the same logic Hop uses, Rosa Parks should have sat in the back, quietly, and then gone to complain about it later to someone who cared. that wouldn't have been good enough, i'm sure there were a lot of people complaining already. it took an act of resistance, not passive, but active resistance. that's what's needed sometimes.

---

Get off it. Rosa Parks didn't try to set someone up for a felony charge to make her point. She set herself up for arrest.
Big moral difference.

Some of you have no clue that the end doesn't always justify the means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Get off it. Rosa Parks didn't try to set someone up for a felony charge to make her point. She set herself up for arrest.
Big moral difference.

Some of you have no clue that the end doesn't always justify the means.

---

I agree that the analogy is flawed. Seating in the bus isn't mention in the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Get off it. Rosa Parks didn't try to set someone up for a felony charge to make her point. She set herself up for arrest.
Big moral difference.

Some of you have no clue that the end doesn't always justify the means.

---

Hopyard, assuming that just going away or complying are not valid options and that a response is warranted, what type of response would you condone?

Do you really believe that this cop should have been allowed to disarm the guy?

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Hop, you keep saying this guy set up folks for a felony charge. First, where is your proof? That he had a lawyer? I have a lawyer in my contacts in case I need him for something. A matter of fact, we advise people to have a lawyer's contacts with them.

If he wa heck bent on 'setting' them up he gave them ample time to research the law. Not only at the local level but higher. He left the area and came back and was still denied after being courteous and patient with the 'system' which BTW was wrong to begin with.

No LEO felt the need to stop him or disarm him for their safety or the publics. In fact, that issue was never brought up.