I have to agree with the OP on this one. Despite the best efforts of law enforcement and attorneys hoping to find a statute to the contrary, the subject of the story was doing nothing illegal and was prevented from exercising the most basic of all civil rights in this country, the right of a law-abiding citizen of legal age to vote. In Ohio, a state in which signage has the weight of law, the mere posting of the premises would have precluded his right to legally carry, openly or concealed, but Indiana has no such statute. Similarly, he would have not been legal in a state which prohibits weapons in or near polling places. In Indiana, however, he broke no law and was wrongfully prevented from voting. I hope he pursues it and prevails.
I suffer from the curse of common sense, which does not always follow the letter of the law (it cuts both ways). No argument from me, but I still think he's a tool.
The cops could have just escorted him in, waited for him to vote and walked him out. Seems to me that would have been the most efficient use of time. They could have done this before or after the hour and a half.
I do not understand this. The man broke no laws. The authorities were the one that were out of line and some still want to blame the victim? Do you not see the danger in allowing the government to make up laws as they go when it suits them?
Who is more dangerous? A man who is breaking no laws or a government that is above the law?
Its not that simple Mike. I would put that in the disturbing the peace category and interference with a polling place.
He had to know he was going to cause a fuss.
Geez people, everyone knows you OC billy clubs to polling places if you don't want any problems with the authorities. :rolleyes:
If it is legal for him to be there, it is legal for him to be there. He was not wasting people's time, if anything they were wasting his time. Although I would venture to say that educating the police on the laws is a very good use of time. If anyone needs to know what the law says, it's them, and clearly they didn't.
How is it a "stunt" , a "remarkable feat performed chiefly to attract attention"? And how is it that people can get behind the prohibition of the exercise of rights when it involves interaction with government? Government is the reason we need to have the rights codified into law. Joe Schmoe walking down the street isn't going to kidnap you and throw you in a cage for doing something that doesn't sit right with the Schmoe Family. But the legal fiction we call the government, you know, the people who REALLY have all the guns, and claim the exclusive right of use of all weapons to their own discretion, would be more than happy to oblige. What happened here is that laws WERE broken. By the people we designate to uphold them. How is that a functioning system?