Groundskeeper, part 2:Assault weapons, grenades and 50000 rounds

  • Thread starter Thread starter DC
  • Start date Start date
Is there anything that we can do to help this guy?

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!

www.quixtar.com
referal #2005932
 
We could try to contact his lawyer, a Mr. Gary Pohlson and ask him how we could help.

A diabolical thought: some motivated person could call the Laguna PD and anonymously state that they saw child porn on the school superintendant's workplace computer.
 
Hmmm, I wonder if by using "push" technology, we might even be able to "push" some [editied] maybe some of the more knowledgable here would know? It'd only have to sit in his cache...

That'd be interesting...

But I wonder how many of these "illegal" firearms, really are?

Edited because to allow the reader to fill in thier own "contraband" item

[This message has been edited by TR (edited October 06, 1999).]
 
"Deputy District Attorney Larry Yellin said none of the 80 assault-type weapons seized from Peacock's San Clemente home Wednesday was registered to him."

This part really bothers me!
I realize that Cali is a crazy place, and they do require SOME guns to be registered :(, but this statement seems to imply that ALL guns are SUPPOSED to be registered. You and I know different, but this seems a blatant attempt to mislead the sheeple into thinking gun registration is OK, or worse, already a part of everyday life in America. I'll skip the reason why it's not OK (Ya'll bein' the Chior & all).

Is there Justice in California?
Mr Peacock, I hope so.
 
Also note the term assault-type weapons.

Cali legislators and LE honchos have been using that term alot recently...ya know what that refers to? Semi-autos, any semi-auto.

Looks like they are setting us up for SB23+---the Sequel.


Off thread topic...turns out last week a guy turned in 2 SKS in Santa Barbara....the news is making a big deal out of it, ran the story for 3 days...turns out he was the only one to turn them in so far(in SB) hehehehe

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
TR, I've never studied the dark side of computing, but the answer is: you betcha! Someone skilled in the art could put just about anything just about anywhere. Of course, the old tried and true methods can be updated; once you've confiscated someone's computer, you can certainly plant evidence.
 
TR..

Yep easy as pie. Once I have your puter I can add anything I want and I can change the file dates to make it look like the added stuff was there all along. In less than 5 min

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Greetings,

A few posts above this one, a fellow asked that if police find items not specifically mentioned/itemized on a search warrant could they confiscate it and charge a person for any illegality on it.

They answer is "YES".

The Supreme Court said so, I believe, just 2 years back, or was it 4? I am sorry I do not know for sure, nor do I have the reference...there are only so many 'specifics' I can keep in mind, and I'd rather know what the proper air pressure in my tires is, which check goes where, anniversary dates, etc., than specific legal case numbers.

The cause for this has sprung directly from drug enforcement and the "war against drugs". All too often, a search warrant would be issued to search a residence for drugs, and they would find no drugs but things like cash, guns, "too many computers" and expensive cars. Or a car would be stopped for speeding, the LEO would then notice the smell of pot, have reasonable cause, and search the vehicle, find no pot (let us say the people tossed it out the window), and find a bag of coke.

Now, does the LEO have the right to arrest the driver for possession/intent to distribute/etc. since he was originally pulled over for speeding? Some fellow said "NO, you can't do that." The case went up the ladder of justice, and it was ruled that if during the execution of a search warrant something else (illegal) is found, that then can become the point on which the person is charged/arrested.

Before someone gets on my back about guns not equaling drugs, let me say I agree to that point.

It is interesting to see how this fear of drugs and crooks and "evil" has lead to where we are now.

Duncan



[This message has been edited by Duncan (edited October 08, 1999).]
 
Does it seem likely that this man broke some gun laws? It says he had 8 machine guns, and some sawed-off weapons, all of which require special permission from the government to own. Or were these "demiliterized" or semi-auto versions? Of course, I don't like these laws much, but the refrain of most gun advocates is "Enforce the laws we have." If he really did knowingly violate the machine-gun and sawed-off laws, should he be prosecuted? If the laws aren't going to be overturned, there seems to be no alternative. Of course, a potential multiple-year prison term is ludicrious, because he seems harmless.

Notice no mention of grenades- anyone want to bet they were smoke grenades, or dummies?

[This message has been edited by BTR (edited October 08, 1999).]
 
Be happy if you live outside kali, im stuck in here behind ememy lines, and they are planning on moving the front east, stop them if you can. I also work for the welfare/school system and people borrow equipment all the time. Maybe I'll be next?
This year the old assualt weapons laws will be void after davis signed the new law, but the courts will not declare the old law unconstitutional until the new law takes effect, would'nt want any of those evil black guns entering our state before the new law is enacted would we? It's bad out here because all the good guys are trying to move out, can you blame them. Theres something magical about living in Kalifornia, your safe seems to have more room in it every year.

Oppressed in The Peoples Republic of Kalifornia.

------------------
The beauty of the second Amendment is that it is not needed until they try to take it. T JEFFERSON
 
Duncan,

The Plain View Doctrine, has been around a lot longer than that.

Basicly it states that what a LEO sees from where he is allowed to be or where he is allowed to Search As in a Warrant, is fair game to be Seized "if it is in violation of the law.

The question is where could the smallest artical on the Warrant have been hidden? Even if every artical seized was Plan View, How does Ammunition become seizable, is ammo outlawed in Kaliforia? How about pump shotguns? And to state that they had to seize the weapons to see if they were full auto is a lie and a sham. I and many other LEO's could have checked the weapons onsight.A simple Manual of Arms, function check, is all that is needed.

This Warrant was not to find "Stolen" School property. It was to get back at a man that sued the School and won. A fishing expidition to see if they could hang him on a weapons charge. And to harass him for the School Dist.

Those LEOs involved in that search should resign, as the warrant was a pretext and I bet they knew it, and were acomplices in the act. Good faith is worthless if you know the idea was to get the guns in the first place.

If this can be shown then the warrant is invalid, and any unlawful weapon becomes Fruit of the Poision Tree.
 
Raymond, The "where could the smallest item mentioned in the warrent be stored" question lead me to ask my question, why were they looking in cookie jars? You don't put boots, shovels or ladders in cookie jars. Since when are reading type magazines illegal? (as long as we are not talking about kiddie porn that is).

The poor guy sued, won and is the subject of massive "Let's &*#@ him over" by the school and the city.

As I said before, there have to be a bunch of lawyers that have been drooling all over their ties, just thinking about this case when it goes to civil court.

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
 
Has there been any up date on this case? Or is one that the media has decided to forget now that the poor guy has been demonized and made to look worse than a child molester?

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
 
Lemme see if I got this right:
--------------------------------------------
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
--------------------------------------------

Probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation. Is an "anonymous tipster"
Oath or affirmation which can be cross examined in court? Not bloody likely.

I understand that there are circumstances
were probable cause doesn't mean crap. Like
one can anonymously call up Child Protective Services and say whatever you feel like and the cops will come, they don't need a warrent. But this was a simple case of suspected theft, I would have thought that
the constitution had some bearing here.
 
dog3:

In the CPS circumstance you describe, I believe they would need a warrant. Sure, they can drop by for a visit, but if they don't have a search warrant, and they don't have any cause to believe a crime is being or is about to be committed (and they'd need something more than an annonymous tip to satisfy this requirement), they can't come in unless you invite them.

------------------
“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals. ... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” -Alexander Addison, 1789
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top