Balisong Butterfly knife confiscated... Toilsome troubles w/ Seattle Police

[samuel.l.thompson]

Hello all,
During a traffic stop, Seattle Police confiscated my Benchmade 42 prototype Balisong/butterfly knife. (yay!) I was the backseat passenger with my two roommates and a car full of valentine's day essentials such as chocolate, roses, etc. I was unaware of the knife's whereabouts (pile of groceries in the car), until one of the officers saw it through the window and asked for me to retrieve it. The officer eventually had to grab it themselves because I could not reach it or see it in the clutter.

They took my info but wouldn't tell me what I was being charged with. For some reason they added a bogus seatbelt violation and left us stranded without our car keys.

I assumed I would be charged with: SMC 12A.14.080
UNLAWFUL USE OF WEAPONS
It is unlawful for a person knowingly to:
A. Sell, manufacture, purchase, possess or carry any blackjack,
sand-club, metal knuckles, switchblade knife, chako sticks, or
throwing stars;



Over a Month later, SPD finally decided to charge me with: SMC 12A.14.075
UNLAWFUL USE OF WEAPON TO INTIMIDATE ANOTHER.
A. A person is guilty of unlawful use of weapons to intimidate another
if he or she carries, exhibits, displays or draws a dangerous knife,
any knife with a blade that is open for use or a deadly weapon other
than a firearm in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and
place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another person or
warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.



I was able to preview a small bit of the police report, and well, it doesn't look good. The officers seem to have lied, er, I mean, been confused on a few points of the official report. The report also reeks of creativity.
=They claim that I was hiding the knife and that it was locked open.
=They also claim to have asked me why I lied to them and that I admitted: "I don't know".
[The actual question they'd asked at the traffic stop was "What was the Benchmade doing in the car?" to which I'd replied "I don't know; just lying around"- my roomate had been trimming roses and just tossed it in the car (valentine's Day).


WTF, right? SPD has been really passive/aggressive about this. The officers seemed somewhat polite at the traffic stop, aside from taking our keys. But now, I've got an insanely slanderous police report. You'd think this was a racial thing, but we were just 3 nerdy white kids in a grandma car.
The traffic stop was recorded on audio/video and should show exactly everything as I've stated.
I've been offered to bypass court with == 2 days community service + they keep Benchmade.


Buuuut, I can probably get this case dismissed, right?
I have the original receipt for this knife (6-14-01).
My court date is 3 weeks away and my request for the official report is still pending.
I feel like I need to stand up for myself and make sure they don't get away with this. However, I wanted to check in the Blade Forums to see who all thinks I'm idiotic and who can give me advice.

:barf:

 

[Jaxx]

The best advice that can be offered is this: You need a lawyer, and right quick. Seriously. This sounds complicated, and an attorney specializing in these types of matters (i.e. 'criminal law') is your best way through, even if he/she just says "take the offered deal". But let an expert tell you this before you take or leave it.

Sorry to hear of your troubles.

 

[brokenbrains]

Yeah, you need an attorney.

2 hours of community service isn't much at all, and is a good sign that the PA knows they don't really have much of a case against you.

You might be tempted to just take the 2 hours and be done with it, but having a weapons charge on your record might make for some complications in the future.

 

[tom19176]

It is two DAYS not hours, and yes a weapons arrest is something you want to fight for sure, It will stop you from getting many jobs in the future. Get a lawyer!

 

[AbnInfantry]

I was able to preview a small bit of the police report, and well, it doesn't look good. The officers seem to have lied

Gee, there's a surprise.

er, I mean, been confused on a few points of the official report. The report also reeks of creativity.
=They claim that I was hiding the knife and that it was locked open.
=They also claim to have asked me why I lied to them and that I admitted: "I don't know".
[The actual question they'd asked at the traffic stop was "What was the Benchmade doing in the car?" to which I'd replied "I don't know; just lying around"- my roomate had been trimming roses and just tossed it in the car (valentine's Day).

If the SPD officers are willing to lie on their report of the incident, what do you think the chances are they're also not willing to commit perjury during your trial? If you're allowed to have a jury trial (which is a very big "if" in many misdemeanor cases despite the clear language in the Sixth Amendment), who are typical jurors more likely to believe ... you and your two roommates or noble members of the SPD? Especially after the prosecutor used the voir dire process to eliminate any prospective juror with an IQ above room temperature, who might have a clue as to jurors' real duties and powers, admits to being a knife aficionado, had LP voter registration, etc. If you're forced to have a bench trial, who is the judge more likely to believe? SPD officers or the pesky owner of a "dangerous knife" (per the Seattle Muncipal Code) who decided to waste the court's time by pleading "not guilty"?

The officers seemed somewhat polite at the traffic stop, aside from taking our keys.

"somewhat polite"? Right. During your trial, they'll also be somewhat polite when they provide their carefully-rehearsed version of events to the court. What was their justification for taking the car keys? Were any of you intoxicated or under the influence of some "controlled substance"?

But now, I've got an insanely slanderous police report.

No, you have a "libelous" police report; not a "slanderous" one. Libel is written; slander is verbal. If you don't understand the difference between libel and slander, and were foolish enough to answer the cops' questions (other than to provide ID), then, as Jaxx said, "You need a lawyer." I recommend a competent one, truly interested in helping you; they're usually not easy to find or afford, however. If your case goes to trial, you may be entitled to a public defender. Contrary to what you see on TV, in many jurisdictions their services are not free. Public defenders are often assigned too many cases to provide adequate assistance and rarely finished in the top of their class at law school.

You'd think this was a racial thing, but we were just 3 nerdy white kids in a grandma car.

I wouldn't think that at all. There's no shortage of broad-minded LEOs willing to falsify reports and/or commit perjury against "nerdy white kids." The trick is convincing jurors of that (assuming you're allowed to have a jury trial), especially since they're already prejudiced against you for disrupting their lives and possessing a "dangerous knife."

The traffic stop was recorded on audio/video and should show exactly everything as I've stated.

Whose "audio/video"? Yours or the SPD's? If by "video" you mean a video camera mounted in a SPD vehicle parked behind the one you were in, how is that going to show exactly where the knife was found, whether the blade was open or closed, and other pertinent facts?

I've been offered to bypass court with == 2 days community service + they keep Benchmade.

"Offered" by who? The SPD or the prosecutor? If you accept this offer, will you still have a criminal conviction on your record? According to the Seattle Municipal Code, "A person convicted of unlawful use of weapons to intimidate another shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any, and the court shall send notice of the conviction to the Washington State Department of Licensing and the city, town or county which issued the license." While I'd die on a torture rack before applying for a CCW permit, many ethically-impaired folks are enamored with them. Is having government permission to exercise an unalienable individual liberty important to you? If so, a conviction on your charge will forfeit your CCW license privilege.

Buuuut, I can probably get this case dismissed, right?

Other than wishful thinking, what are you basing that on?

I have the original receipt for this knife (6-14-01).

Since you're not being charged with possession of stolen property, how is the original receipt for your knife relevant to your case?

My court date is 3 weeks away and my request for the official report is still pending.

By "court date" do you mean the day your case is scheduled for trial? A defense attorney would probably file a motion to postpone your trial until he or she had sufficient time to research everything, receive all appropriate discovery material, etc.

I feel like I need to stand up for myself and make sure they don't get away with this.

That's a commendable attitude. Are you prepared to incur the expense (which may be substantial whether you win or lose; for reasons I've never understood, a "not guilty" verdict doesn't mean the government reimburses you for your legal defense, even if it forced you into bankruptcy) and the consequences (a criminal conviction, fine, possible jail time) if you're found guilty? If LEOs are willing to perjure themselves in court (which is a routine occurrence for many of them), you effectively have to prove you're innocent and they're committing perjury. This can be an enormous obstacle. I've prevailed twice in such circumstances but I had the "burden of proof", which isn't how American jurisprudence is supposed to work. Even after proving to everyone in court that I was innocent and a police officer had perjured himself, the prosecutor still urged jurors to convict me ... not because I was guilty but solely on the grounds I might otherwise sue the county for prosecuting me.

However, I wanted to check in the Blade Forums to see who all thinks I'm idiotic and who can give me advice.

According to the Seattle Municipal Code, a "'Dangerous knife' means any fixed-blade knife and any other knife having a blade more than three and one-half inches (3 1/2") in length." [note to self: scratch Seattle from the family's vacation plans.] I believe your Benchmade model 42 has a 4-inch blade so, according to the charge against you, it's irrelevant whether your knife's blade was open or not. However, if the police swear the blade was open when you know it was closed then you should attempt to impeach their testimony. While it can be a chore convincing typical jurors that LEOs are lying under oath, once you succeed you have the reward of viewing how many different colors of the rainbow a prosecutor's face can change.

You're welcome to e-mail me for further advice if you desire.

 

[brokenbrains]

Oops. I'm used to seeing community service meted out in hours, not days.

 

[samuel.l.thompson]

It turns out that the thing scheduled in 3 weeks is just the Pretrial Hearing. I have been set up with a Public Defender ("Public Pretender" as my friend says). However, my appointment with the public defender "Public Defender Association" is literally ONE day before the pretrial hearing. I talked w/ Shawver law firm today and am planning to at least set up a consultation. I don't know if I want to spend the $$$ for a full blown professional representation.

I'm not so sure if this will remain on my record if I decide to simply opt for the 2 days community service... and no, I don't have paperwork showing who exactly who's offer it is. I am a SSgt w/ the Air Force (Nat'l Guard) and also an employee of the state, so I could see this totally screwing up future security clearances.

As far as I understand the language of the Seattle Municipal Code, I was not carrying, exhibiting, displaying or drawing the "dangerous knife". Am I still guilty of "carrying a dangerous knife" if it is in a vehicle w/out my knowledge???

These are a couple points of the story that the officers chose to change... They said they found the knife OPEN... And that I was hiding it. The Audio/Video recording was with their DashCam. As far as my receipt for the knife, it's not relevant to this charge, but I figure it can maybe show that the knife was purchased/owned legally.


They had no reason for taking the car keys; I think it was a mistake. We'd told them how we had drank a couple beers with dinner, but they weren't even interested in testing sobriety. We had a couple bottles of liquor (newly purchased w/ groceries) that they temporarily set on the curb. Other than that, they didn't really express any interest in searching the car either. We were all legally sober.

I suppose the only reason I feel the case should be dismissed is because the police report contains strategic lies.
Merely proving that I had no intent and that the officers had no genuine/warranted alarm for their safety will only prove me "not guilty" right?? Case dismissal would be great because, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't go on my record.
SPD has had problems with accountability in the past years.

 

[Jaxx]

I'm guessing that the police did not care that you are a staff sergeant in the National Guard?

As for the charge, although I am not a lawyer. I'm guessing that they are claiming 'exhibiting' this "dangerous knife" under the statute you quoted since they saw it from where they were standing, or once they moved whatever they moved, and then saw it. Since the driver wasn't charged with this (unless you were driving), I'm guessing you admitted to ownership of the balisong on the scene? Never accept the deal until you know the particulars, i.e. will it be on your record, how will it count against you, what is the severity of the offense, etc. This is why you need the lawyer. The prosecuting attorney may not tell you the whole truth, and doesn't really have to, but your lawyer can look into it, and will inform you before you accept the deal if you ask him/her what you need to know.

Yes, there is the possibility that with this on your record, it might very well mess with future plans and even the possibility of being denied a security clearance down the road exists, which is why you should consider retaining competent counsel to represent you in this matter. In many states once you take the deal, you will be pleading guilty, and there will be no chance for appeal once the deal is accepted. Again, I can't offer legal advice since I am not an attorney in any state, but I can tell you that if I were in your shoes, I would get myself a good lawyer with some solid experience to represent me, and yes, unfortunately it will cost you some cabbage.

FYI... Be careful what information about this case you post here. Although there is a very slim chance that the prosecution will ever see this thread, the chance does exist as it IS a public forum, so anything you type here may be legally used against you in a court of law.

I wish you the best outcome, and I'm sorry for your troubles. Good luck to you.

 

[AbnInfantry]

It turns out that the thing scheduled in 3 weeks is just the Pretrial Hearing.

That's what I was hoping to hear. You're obviously not ready for trial.

I have been set up with a Public Defender ("Public Pretender" as my friend says). However, my appointment with the public defender "Public Defender Association" is literally ONE day before the pretrial hearing.

Unfortunately, there's nothing unusual about that. Most public defenders are forced to handle far too many cases to be able to accord their clients competent representation. The funding provided public defenders is a pittance compared to the resources governments devote to prosecuting folks. Don't be surprised if the public defender you initially meet with is a different person than the one who appears at your preliminary hearing; a third one might actually handle your trial. It's lamentable, but the reality in most instances is you're simply a case number to them. The person most motivated to help you is you.

I talked w/ Shawver law firm today and am planning to at least set up a consultation. I don't know if I want to spend the $$$ for a full blown professional representation.

Many private attorneys offer a free initial consultation. Only you can decide whether you're willing to pay to retain private counsel. As a general rule, you're better off with a private defense attorney but that assumes you hire a competent one determined to work hard for you. Just as you may only be a case number to many public defenders, to many private lawyers clients in your situation represent little more than some BMW payments.

I'm not so sure if this will remain on my record if I decide to simply opt for the 2 days community service... and no, I don't have paperwork showing who exactly who's offer it is.

Finding out that information should be high on your priority list. If you can avoid a criminal conviction and get off with two days' community service and the loss of a Benchmade, you should consider it a cheap "learning experience."

I am a SSgt w/ the Air Force (Nat'l Guard) and also an employee of the state, so I could see this totally screwing up future security clearances.

The first person I provided legal aid to was a USAF SSgt who was arrested at Elmendorf AFB in 1988. I suppose it's understandable folks unable to meet the Army's rigid entrance standards have difficulty avoiding trouble with the law.

As far as I understand the language of the Seattle Municipal Code, I was not carrying, exhibiting, displaying or drawing the "dangerous knife". Am I still guilty of "carrying a dangerous knife" if it is in a vehicle w/out my knowledge???

You think the prosecutor has gone ahead with scheduling a preliminary hearing in a case where he doesn't think he can prove the necessary elements of the charge? You really believe that?

According to your original post, your Benchmade (which the prosecutor is sure to continually remind the court is a "dangerous knife") was in plain view of the police officers who stopped you. Plain view = "displaying." Among the mistakes you made that day was admitting the knife was yours. If the three of you had followed the Prime Directive in Dealing with LEOs — keep your mouth shut — who would they know to charge with the offense? Do you plan to testify, "Well, yes, that's my dangerous knife but I'm irresponsible so I don't maintain control over my dangerous knives and wasn't aware it was in plain view inside the vehicle I was in"?

These are a couple points of the story that the officers chose to change... They said they found the knife OPEN... And that I was hiding it.

You already convinced me the officers lied in their incident reports. If they lied in their reports it's a near certainty they're going to perjure themselves in court (and very likely get away with it). Even if they didn't anticipate you going to trial, they now essentially have to commit perjury in order to avoid testimony inconsistent with their written reports.

The Audio/Video recording was with their DashCam.

That's what I assumed. Unless you were riding in a fully transparent car, it's highly unlikely your Benchmade in its original position was visible to the camera. Police audio/video may be of great use to your attorney if he takes the time to carefully study it with you while comparing it with the written reports for inconsistencies.

As far as my receipt for the knife, it's not relevant to this charge, but I figure it can maybe show that the knife was purchased/owned legally.

The fact you legally purchased your "dangerous knife" can't possibly help you in this type of charge.

They had no reason for taking the car keys; I think it was a mistake.

I guarantee if this issue is raised at trial, the police officers will have a handy "reason" and it won't be favorable to you.

We'd told them how we had drank a couple beers with dinner, but they weren't even interested in testing sobriety. We had a couple bottles of liquor (newly purchased w/ groceries) that they temporarily set on the curb. Other than that, they didn't really express any interest in searching the car either. We were all legally sober.

Oh, for pity's sake. :barf: Did you also confess to JFK's assassination? I posted these links in another thread and, while it's too late to help in your case, I encourage you to view them for future reference.

Professor James Duane, Regent University School of Law:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865
Detective George Bruch, Virginia Beach PD:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912

The witnesses against you are police officers. That's strike one against you to most jurors. You're a young male charged with the criminal misuse of a "dangerous knife." There's strike two. To further buttress the government's case, you and your friends willingly told police you'd consumed alcohol before driving in a motor vehicle (and carried additional alcohol with you). You can rest assured the prosecutor will ensure none of the jurors (if you're allowed to have a jury trial) will have a history of DUI. The head of the Seattle chapter of MADD is perfectly acceptable, however. To many people, your decision to drink any quantity of alcohol before driving, and then to possess/display a "dangerous knife" while possibly under the influence of alcohol, is grounds to convict you of something whether you were "legally sober" or not.

I suppose the only reason I feel the case should be dismissed is because the police report contains strategic lies.

Be sure and make that argument to your prosecutor and let us know how it works for you. There's no shortage of Americans in prison whose police reports contained "strategic lies."

Merely proving that I had no intent and that the officers had no genuine/warranted alarm for their safety will only prove me "not guilty" right??

Let's see if I understand this correctly: Multiple police officers are going to testify under oath that during a traffic stop they observed your "dangerous knife" in plain view with an open, locked blade and that you were attempting to hide it. Each officer will swear he felt "alarm for his safety" (or words to that effect) at the sight of your "displayed" "dangerous knife." In case it escaped your attention, the prosecutor doesn't have to prove criminal "intent" on your part (per the applicable SMC section) if he establishes "alarm for the safety of other persons." To convict you, the police wouldn't even have to claim they felt personal alarm (although they probably will) but were concerned for the safety of passengers in your vehicle with an open-bladed "dangerous knife" exposed in plain view and not under any responsible person's control.

I don't think you have any clue what LEOs can get away with by merely claiming they were "afraid for their safety," even when no reasonable grounds existed. Here's one example I could cite from hundreds:

On 6 November 2006, Derek J. Hale traveled from his home in Manassas, VA to attend a Toys for Tots event in Wilmington, DE. The former Marine sergeant and decorated combat veteran had been medically discharged from the USMC in January 2006 due to wounds he’d suffered in Iraq. Hale was sitting on the front steps of a friend’s house when three unmarked vehicles pulled up and disgorged eight to twelve heavily-armed, plainclothes police officers. Despite being passive, unarmed, and having committed no crime, Hale was immediately Tasered three times by Wilmington cops for “refusing to comply” with their demand he “put up his hands”; an act he was physically unable to perform due to the fact he was being subjected to tens of thousands of volts of electricity. This event occurred in the presence of a mother and her two terrified children. An outraged neighbor protested what was being done to Hale and was threatened by police.

Despite being close enough to easily handcuff his helpless, unarmed victim, Wilmington police lieutenant William Brown deliberately shot Hale in the chest at point blank range three times with his pistol. The legal term for Brown’s act is premeditated murder yet neither he or any other LEO was charged with any offense. All Brown had to do was claim he "feared for his life" ... 8-12 police afraid of one unarmed, unresisting man not charged with any crime who was repeatedly being Tasered ... and no charges were filed against him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032702486_pf.html

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061115/NEWS/103220008

If a squad of police can get away with killing an unarmed man being electro-shocked who hadn't even been accused of any crime, how difficult do you think it will be for prosecutors to convince typical jurors that SPD officers had cause be be "alarmed" at the sight of your "dangerous knife"?

SPD has had problems with accountability in the past years.

I'm aware of that. Good luck trying to get such information admitted as evidence in your trial.

 

[Sep]

Is there any way you can find out about the detail of the deal without hiring a lawyer first? While some deals require you to plead guilty (and get the conviction entered into the record), others are set to give you a dismissal (no conviction) when you satisfy the terms.

If they want you to plead guilty, get a lawyer and fight it tooth and nails. Conviction involving any kind of weapon can really mess up your future in more ways than one. In some states it would even bar you from getting a concealed carry license. If they offer a dismissal, then go ahead and take it. Consider it an expensive lesson.

 

[TOM1960]

Hello all,
During a traffic stop, Seattle Police confiscated my Benchmade 42 prototype Balisong/butterfly knife. (yay!) I was the backseat passenger with my two roommates and a car full of valentine's day essentials such as chocolate, roses, etc. I was unaware of the knife's whereabouts (pile of groceries in the car), until one of the officers saw it through the window and asked for me to retrieve it. The officer eventually had to grab it themselves because I could not reach it or see it in the clutter.

They took my info but wouldn't tell me what I was being charged with. For some reason they added a bogus seatbelt violation and left us stranded without our car keys.

I assumed I would be charged with: SMC 12A.14.080
UNLAWFUL USE OF WEAPONS
It is unlawful for a person knowingly to:
A. Sell, manufacture, purchase, possess or carry any blackjack,
sand-club, metal knuckles, switchblade knife, chako sticks, or
throwing stars;



Over a Month later, SPD finally decided to charge me with: SMC 12A.14.075
UNLAWFUL USE OF WEAPON TO INTIMIDATE ANOTHER.
A. A person is guilty of unlawful use of weapons to intimidate another
if he or she carries, exhibits, displays or draws a dangerous knife,
any knife with a blade that is open for use or a deadly weapon other
than a firearm in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and
place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another person or
warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.



I was able to preview a small bit of the police report, and well, it doesn't look good. The officers seem to have lied, er, I mean, been confused on a few points of the official report. The report also reeks of creativity.
=They claim that I was hiding the knife and that it was locked open.
=They also claim to have asked me why I lied to them and that I admitted: "I don't know".
[The actual question they'd asked at the traffic stop was "What was the Benchmade doing in the car?" to which I'd replied "I don't know; just lying around"- my roomate had been trimming roses and just tossed it in the car (valentine's Day).


WTF, right? SPD has been really passive/aggressive about this. The officers seemed somewhat polite at the traffic stop, aside from taking our keys. But now, I've got an insanely slanderous police report. You'd think this was a racial thing, but we were just 3 nerdy white kids in a grandma car.
The traffic stop was recorded on audio/video and should show exactly everything as I've stated.
I've been offered to bypass court with == 2 days community service + they keep Benchmade.


Buuuut, I can probably get this case dismissed, right?
I have the original receipt for this knife (6-14-01).
My court date is 3 weeks away and my request for the official report is still pending.
I feel like I need to stand up for myself and make sure they don't get away with this. However, I wanted to check in the Blade Forums to see who all thinks I'm idiotic and who can give me advice.

:barf:

If what you are telling us is entirely true, it seems that the district attorney's office might have a problem prosecuting you successfully. That is why you were offered a deal for 2 days of CS. Think about this: if the cops were really "in fear for their lives" because of your pocketknife, you would have been kissing the asphalt at gunpoint and been cuffed, stuffed, transported, booked (the whole package, with fingerprints and photographs), then locked in a holding cell, getting ready for your arraignment in court the next day.
Instead, you appear to have been summonsed to court instead (and a whole month later at that). I had a similar case happen to me when my ex decided to accuse me of domestic A&B when I was not even home. Sure, the police responsed, found no evidence and applied for a summons from district court, which was mailed to me. I showed up, she didn't, and the judge dismissed the case immediately, calling it fraudulant right from the get-go.
I would call their bluff and opt for a jury trial. Be sure that your lawyer tells the jury that if you were such a dangerous person and an immediate threat to society, why weren't you taken into custody immediately? Perhaps the police officer just wanted to confiscate your expensive knife for his/her own use. Just make damn sure that you attend all required court appearances.

 

[tom19176]

Abninfantry, stop you hatred of law enforcement. You CLAIMED to be federal officer of some sort and former Army member. Do you enjoy the pension check that you get from that horrible government ? You carried on in another post in a similar manner. You have a great arm chair view of law enforcement, and hatred of those who put their lives on the line so persons like yourself can air their views freely. There are bad officers, and good officers who made a bad decision. That happens in the real world. Do you think the man you wrote about was a great guy when he was a Pagan gang member?
The op here asked for our thoughts and we have given them to him and suggested he seek real legal help. Your statements are in no way providing useful information, or a clear path of guidance. You stated your were arrested a few times, and I am sure this has greatly influenced your feelings towards police, but try hard to remain a bit less hateful as it can only shorten the enjoyment you have earned in your retirement from serving the government you now hate so much....

 

[AbnInfantry]

Abninfantry, stop you hatred of law enforcement.

Expecting LEOs to adhere to their sworn oaths, not to falsify police reports, commit perjury and other misdeeds constitutes "hatred of law enforcement"? Not to a rational, morally conscious human being. The day I stop "hating" reprobates who betray their oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, arrest/imprison people for peaceably exercising unalienable individual rights, or passively condone misdeeds perpetrated under the color of authority is the day I'm unfit to live.

You CLAIMED to be federal officer of some sort and former Army member.

Would you care to place your money where your mouth is? I'll extend the same offer to you I did to one of your amoral counterparts a few years ago on another forum. We each place $10,000 in an escrow account with an independent law firm. I'll provide the partners of that firm with the original copies of my DD Form 214s, written documentation attesting to my former employment as a FBI Special Agent, and the names/addresses of various federal officials to contact to further verify my background. If the partners aren't satisfied with my "claim", you get the $20,000; if they're convinced of my "claim," I get the $20,000. What do you say, Tom? After the decline in the stock market the past year and my wife contracting ovarian cancer, we could really use another $10,000 right now.

Do you enjoy the pension check that you get from that horrible government ?

What "pension check"? I never said I was "retired" from any government position. I served seven years on active duty in the Regular Army (including a tour in Vietnam), two years in the CA ARNG and eleven years in the IRR. No "pension check," sorry. I do have an intense, recurring, burning pain in my left leg from a bad PLF (excuse me, Tom, PLF = Parachute Landing Fall) at Fort Richardson, AK in July 1979, but that doesn't put any money in my pocket. It doesn't bother you to concoct lies about me, does it? :grumpy:

You have a great arm chair view of law enforcement, and hatred of those who put their lives on the line so persons like yourself can air their views freely.

Many of my "great arm chair views of law enforcement" were formed after direct personal observation of LEOs bragging about breaking laws (DUI, traffic violations, falsifying reports, committing perjury, etc.) or actually perpetrating such acts. I'm pretty sure the SFPD officer who committed perjury against me in court in 1993 (the opinion of twelve independent jurors who acquitted me); the five TN LEOs who viciously tortured a handcuffed prisoner for two hours in an attempt to coerce him into signing a "consent to search" form and the 300 LEOs who urged a judge to give them little or no incarceration for their heinous acts; and thousands of other examples I could cite are not "putting their lives on the line so persons like me can air their views freely." That's absurd. I've been harassed, even threatened with death, by your noble LEOs for over a decade for peacefully exercising my individual rights (which they swore to protect), including being castigated by two police officers in 1994 for having a Libertarian Party bumper sticker on my truck.

Near the end of our New Agent training, we were given a questionnaire and asked to select from a list of reasons why we joined the FBI. One answer, to my astonishment, was "to have power and control over other people." The instructor later asked which of us had picked that reason; many hands went up. "How many of you are attorneys?" he asked; several hands remained up. "It's always the attorneys who pick that one," he chuckled. What I noticed and he failed to was that the other hands which had gone up were those of the ex-cops in the class. "To have power and control over other people," Tom, not so fellow Americans "can air their views freely."

There are bad officers, and good officers who made a bad decision. That happens in the real world.

Yet when I cite specific examples of such "bad officers" you condemn me for a "hatred of law enforcement." Is there something stopping you from citing a single instance where LEOs, any LEOs, refused to enforce an overtly unconstitutional anti-gun/knife statute? When I was taught at the FBI Academy (NAC 83-14) that Americans had no RKBA, just a mere privilege which could be restricted or revoked at any time by the government, I spoke out in defense of the Second Amendment. There's probably some connection between that and why I'm not receiving the nice pension you falsely accused me of getting.

Do you think the man you wrote about was a great guy when he was a Pagan gang member?

I have no idea whether the late Derek J. Hale was a "great guy" or not. He was murdered by a police officer before I had the opportunity to meet him. You conveniently, predictably, neglected to mention certain facts: (1) It's not a crime to belong to the Pagan MC; (2) No LEO has offered any evidence Hale committed any offense; (3) What possible legitimate justification did a LEO (out of 8-12 present) have in killing a passive, unarmed, physically disabled man who was repeatedly being Tasered; and (4) While you may think otherwise, I believe even non-"great guys" shouldn't be murdered and their executioners allowed to go free simply because they have a badge. In your opinion, did Hale suddenly go from a "great guy" (a wounded, decorated USMC combat veteran) to a despicable person deserving death by a police execution squad merely by joining an organization you disapprove of?

If 8-12 armed private citizens walk up to an unarmed LEO who belongs to a "motorcycle gang" (as some do), shoot him repeatedly with Tasers then put three bullets into his chest killing him, I'm pretty sure they'll be spending the rest of their lives in prison (assuming they live long enough to get to a prison). It won't matter one whit whether the LEO was a "great guy" or a "bad officer."

Speaking of motorcycle gang members, one such individual who'd been drinking booze shot and killed an unarmed man in a bar fight last year in Sturgis, SD. He was indicted by a SD grand jury for multiple charges including perjury and violating a SD weapons statute by illegally possessing a concealed handgun inside a bar. The county prosecutor refused to take the case to trial. The motorcycle gang member (a member of the Iron Pigs) was a vacationing Seattle PD officer (with a documented history of lying in his official police reports; not that this prevented him from being a senior official in the SPD union).

The op here asked for our thoughts and we have given them to him and suggested he seek real legal help. Your statements are in no way providing useful information, or a clear path of guidance.

Your personal animosity towards me is evidently interfering with your vision and/or reading comprehension. I gave the op numerous specific recommendations and other information, particularly encouraging him to seek representation by a competent defense counsel.

You stated your were arrested a few times, and I am sure this has greatly influenced your feelings towards police, but try hard to remain a bit less hateful as it can only shorten the enjoyment you have earned in your retirement from serving the government you now hate so much....

My opinion LEOs (and legislators, judges and all other government employees) should strictly adhere to the U.S. Constitution and not abuse their positions, abrogate the rights of other people or commit criminal offenses was formed when I was still in elementary school. Once again, I'm not in "retirement" from government service and I'd appreciate you not attributing remarks to me which I never made or other falsehoods about me. Were you so keen to make false accusations when you were a LEO?

I'm convinced Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, George Mason, James Madison, et al. wouldn't be any happier to see how far along the road to a police state the USA has traveled the past century than I am. But then I'm confident you wouldn't like them any more than you do me. All it takes to be labeled "anti-government" by people with your authoritarian mindset is to hold the views on individual liberties and carefully-limited government shared by the majority of our Founding Fathers.

 

[glistam]

Don't be such a downer. We can argue crap like this forever, but it's not going to help our bud who started this thread.

Now on a more optimistic note, your mention of Derek Hale sparked my interest. Awful, awful case, I agree. Guess what? I just got off the phone with Clerk at the US District Court of Delaware. They're taking those guys to trial. Right now they're in the closing phases of discovery. Clerk said the trial date hasn't been scheduled yet, but she predicts it will be in the next few months based on her information.

I am a firm believer that justice can be reached by those who seek it with all their being. THAT is how to you keep LEOs honest. I myself am a resident of Maryland, where the famous Sorrell v. McGuigan case happened. This was a cop who arrested a guy for a 3" folder in blatant disregard for MD law. Not only did they throw the case out, but the guy sued the cop and won. Twice.

 

[AbnInfantry]

Don't be such a downer.

Sorry. People who commit murder and get away with it solely because they have a badge annoy me. I'm funny like that.

it's not going to help our bud who started this thread.

I've done everything I can to "help our bud" short of moving to Seattle and giving him personal instruction in American jurisprudence.

Now on a more optimistic note, your mention of Derek Hale sparked my interest. Awful, awful case, I agree. Guess what? I just got off the phone with Clerk at the US District Court of Delaware. They're taking those guys to trial. Right now they're in the closing phases of discovery. Clerk said the trial date hasn't been scheduled yet, but she predicts it will be in the next few months based on her information.

Why would I have to "guess what"? The fact Hale's widow and parents filed a Federal wrongful death civil action against the responsible police was clearly mentioned in the Washington Post link I provided. Assuming they prevail in court, who do you think will be punished? Hint: the taxpayers of Delaware who will have to pay any damages awarded, not the individual officers. If Hale's executioner wasn't a LEO, he would have been criminally prosecuted for murder as well as liable for civil damages (and innocent taxpayers wouldn't be responsible for paying the civil judgment).

THAT is how to you keep LEOs honest.

I submit the most effective means to “keep LEOs honest” (besides not hiring unprincipled people) is serious criminal prosecutions in cases of murder, manslaughter, assault, perjury, planting false evidence, torture, etc., not civil actions filed by the next-of-kin; especially since it’s almost always taxpayers, not the guilty LEOs, who wind up paying the civil judgments.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

AbnInfantry, enough is enough. We have no problem here with thread drift. But what you are doing is thread hijacking.

What you are also doing is sneering at other members for disagreeing with you and insulting people not here to respond to your allegations. There will never be a resolution to that kind of discussion.

When you find yourself that far off-topic, put a cork in it. Go tilt at someone else's windmills. And stop insulting the people you address here.

 

[samuel.l.thompson]

Does anyone here think I can expect to ever get the knife back?
Or is that super ridiculous. Switchblades are illegal to knowingly possess, but does that mean they illegal to own? What about if they are a "collectors item"?

A person used to be able to buy butterfly knives in Washington mall cutlery stores! I'm pretty sure that is how this prototype was up for sale (2001).

 

[MORIMOTOM]

Does anyone here think I can expect to ever get the knife back?
Or is that super ridiculous. Switchblades are illegal to knowingly possess, but does that mean they illegal to own? What about if they are a "collectors item"?

A person used to be able to buy butterfly knives in Washington mall cutlery stores! I'm pretty sure that is how this prototype was up for sale (2001).

i am basing the following on the portion of the section you posted.

the word "knowingly" is fairly meaningless. people don't often possess things without knowing they are doing so. even if it were true, it would be pretty difficult to prove unless someone else was willing to accept ownership.

in this case, possess and own are synonomous. some states allow for possession of otherwise illegal items if they are considered a "curio".

since the bali is illegal in and of itself, i don't expect you will be getting it back. from an evidenciary perspective, it is no different than confiscated narcotics, which also are not returned.

in ca, for example, balis/autos are illegal to carry (if over 2"), but not illegal to possess. so someone who collects them and keeps them in their home is not in violation of the section.

 

[glistam]

Does anyone here think I can expect to ever get the knife back?
Or is that super ridiculous. Switchblades are illegal to knowingly possess, but does that mean they illegal to own? What about if they are a "collectors item"?

A person used to be able to buy butterfly knives in Washington mall cutlery stores! I'm pretty sure that is how this prototype was up for sale (2001).

I'm an optimist, so I say their is a chance if it was properly cataloged as evidence and the charges are dismissed. Yeah, there's a chance it could disappear forever too. In that Sorrell V. McGuigan case I mentioned, even though it wasn't even remotely illegal, the mundane 3" folder still "got lost." But in others, it has been returned.

There can be a positive note on that: If they "lose" the evidence, that'll make it that much harder to convict you.

 

[samuel.l.thompson]

If I had genuinely caused the officers to fear for their safety, they should have acted like it. They didn't ever actually search the car; we were told to keep our hands visible (which we did), but we were never even asked to get out.

The officers didn't even search me!

AbnInfantry: I realize that drinking beer with dinner and transporting liquor is frowned upon, but the officers didn't seem to care. There was nothing illegal about it.