PDA

View Full Version : A Bold Idea


GuyW
03-28-2009, 9:42 PM
...that many won't accept...

This was brought on by the discussions here about the Oakland police murders, and various spinoff discussions about crime witnesses who have no "legal" means of protection in CA against criminal retaliation for testimony...

...its a scorched earth policy for sure, but I'm sick to death of jawboning politicians in CA to recognize my God-given right to self defense...with a gun...

To wit:

Every crime witness who doesn't have a CCW (and can't get one) needs to tell the cops and prosecutors to "go to hell, I won't testify".

Tell the judges you won't testify and tell them why.

They have no duty to protect you, and even if they try...the effort will taper off pretty quickly...leaving you to 911...

If enough people did this, the system *might* take notice and rethink its unConstitutional, un-American victim disarmament policies."

Sign me,

-sick of victimhood via government fiat-

N6ATF
03-28-2009, 10:15 PM
Witness maybe, victim, it's too close to seeming like you retract your entire story about being a victim in the first place. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to toss the case and negate your needing to testify and being under threat.

For witness, the major problem is it seems contrary to call in the crime and then later refuse to testify if they won't reconsider their criminal safety policy.

If you get picked up in a canvas, that's another thing.

yellowfin
03-28-2009, 10:16 PM
I like it. It shouldn't have to take doing that, but they just don't respond to anything less. I'm not sure how best to go about it, but it should be done.

I had a similar idea to get campus CCW by all alumni refusing to donate money to universities unless they adopt a pro campus carry policy.

GuyW
03-28-2009, 10:39 PM
...victim, it's too close to seeming like you retract your entire story about being a victim in the first place. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to toss the case and negate your needing to testify and being under threat.


So, you're a victim once when you had no CCW, and your motivation to be a victim a second time without a CCW is what, exactly?

I'm sure they'd be more than happy to toss the case and negate your needing to testify and being under threat.


Yeah - maybe it wouldn't bother them to drop a case because they don't actually give a rats patoot about getting dirtbags off the street. Hopefully said dirtbag won't visit their mother, wife, or sisters...

For witness, the major problem is it seems contrary to call in the crime and then later refuse to testify if they won't reconsider their criminal safety policy.


Its good citizenship to call in a crime. Under the current regime, I can't say that its good citizenship to put yourself and family at risk...
.

Philthy
03-28-2009, 10:44 PM
How is this different than "Stop Snitching?" I like the idea, but won't this make things worse? The whole reason that OPD even found Mixon was because some woman decided to risk "snitching" and report the pos.

Subpoenas aside, if your loved one was murdered and the only witness refused to testify based upon his/her politics, how would you feel? No matter what their agenda, I'd do everything in my power to oppose their movement. I feel the same way when some ftard protesters cause a traffic jam that I get stuck in.

GuyW
03-28-2009, 10:56 PM
How is this different than "Stop Snitching?" I like the idea, but won't this make things worse?


I'm not familiar with "stop snitching".

Will this make things worse?

That depend somewhat on your point of view - maybe yes, maybe no.

Might some dirtbags go unprosecuted? yes....so how stubborn is the system? How many dirtbags go free before it issues CCWs??

On the otherhand, if you're the witness - is getting killed for testifying worth it? Is your house being burned down worth it? Is your kids being attacked worth it?

Subpoenas aside...

Supoenas are not aside - some corrupt judges will find people in contempt of Court and jail them (who wouldn't be contemptuous of that sort of order?)

...deep irony there, huh?

if your loved one was murdered and the only witness refused to testify based upon his/her politics, how would you feel?

It's not based on politics - its based on lack of protection.

The dirtbag committed the crime, not the witness.

Will you feel justified that justice has been done when the witness is dead or their family is harmed?

That position is pure emotionalism...

[The "political" part is convincing individual witnesses that their safety is important and that they have to realize, that the ONLY people that are deeply concerned about them and their family's safety, is themselves]

N6ATF
03-28-2009, 10:56 PM
Yeah - maybe it wouldn't bother them to drop a case because they don't actually give a rats patoot about getting dirtbags off the street. Hopefully said dirtbag won't visit their mother, wife, or sisters...

If they did, they wouldn't side with criminals by restricting CCW (effective self-defense which also reduces crime) to figures approaching or landing on nil. If you practice this tactic on the worst of the worst, they could accuse you of extortion and drop you like a ton of bricks. IMAO, dirtbags going free and lack of CCW issuance go hand-in-hand; they would rather people taking responsibility for their own protection be prosecuted than embrace the same people and allow them to help reduce crime.

If you practice it on pro-CCW agencies, you may have better success, but better to use an extremely soft sell (feigning ignorance) along the lines of "I'm afraid my family and I are in danger if I testify. What can be done to ensure we are protected without needing witsec or 24-7 taxpayer-funded bodyguards?" A hard sell would make them wonder "why is this guy insistent on trading testimony for a CCW NOW? He could have just applied for one long before the crime and we would have granted it."

Its good citizenship to call in a crime. Under the current regime, I can't say that its good citizenship to put yourself and family at risk...
.

Mostly playing devil's advocate here.

Philthy
03-29-2009, 12:10 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Snitchin%27

Stop Snitchin' refers to a controversial campaign derived from an older commonly used slang expression of the same name and meaning. The campaign was launched in Baltimore, USA to convince criminal informants to stop "snitching," or informing, to law enforcement. Some public officials and others say that it is a campaign used by criminals to frighten people with information from reporting their activities to the police.

It became mainstream in the hip hop community as many rappers express support for this method. It specifically refers to a Baltimore-based home-made DVD that threatened violence against would-be informants.

Like I said, it's a novel idea. I like it, BUT...

Does going to jail for contempt of court bar you from getting a CCW in the future? Does it show up when you get pulled over by LEO? Do you have to put it on your job applications in the future? Is all that worth it?

Corrupt judges...I'm sure they exist, but if you get subpoenaed, you can be jailed. By corrupt and honest judges alike. Was the judge who jailed Greg Anderson (Barry Bonds' trainer) corrupt because he jailed Anderson? I'd guess no. To suggest so might be libelous.

Corruption does happen, but I don't think it's as common as Boss Tweed. Besides, what does corruption have to do with your refusal to testify? Is the judge "corrupt" because he doesn't think gaining CCW is a worthy cause (which is completely unrelated to the case being tried in front of him)? If I sat on the bench and some guy came in refusing to testify in a capital murder case, I'd certainly hold him in contempt, especially when he explained the reason - a policy that a criminal trial judge has no power to change. By joining forces with the hip hop "stop snitching" crowd, I don't think law enforcement would back your play either. Refusing to testify for things such as this would just gum up the criminal justice system even worse than it already is.

All of the judges I have personally met, all the way from Ninth Circuit to the WCAB to even traffic court, have spent years (even decades) of hard work to get where they are. I don't think they'd risk everything for "corruption." 99.99% (I'd even say 100%) of the attorneys I have met and worked with/for are the same way. There's a class called Professional Responsibility that everyone has to take before even sitting for the bar. It's real difficult to be admitted to the bar, but a lot easier to be disbarred. Sure, corruption happens. It happens in every sector of society, but it's not commonplace.

Would it make things worse? Considering how many crimes go unsolved, I'd say yes. But if you've got the balls to go before a judge, with the possibility of jail at stake, and say that to his/her face - more power to you.



Don't get me wrong, I'm all for CCW, but all I'm saying is I don't know if that is the proper arena to fight the battle. It may actually hinder the cause. The way to change the policy is through your chief of police, not by obstructing justice. Withhold votes or campaign contributions, not testimony. I will cite Orange County as an example. Everyone could refuse to testify, and the only way to change the policy would be to vote the sheriff out of office. Meanwhile, crime goes unpunished when all that was needed was an election or pressure on the Board.

nicki
03-29-2009, 1:42 AM
In many high crime areas people won't come forward, especially with gang involvement because they know the police won't protect them.

In many areas of the state, "gun control" has not reduced crime, it has crated a situation of "disarmed victims", the government policy of promoting VD(Victim disarmanent) as social policy is having expected results.

Only criminals and cops are armed and the peasants are caught in the crossfire.

My answer to a Judge would be the following: Our sheriff and chief of police can't be held liable for failure to protect me, yet you want me to testify and endanger myself and my family to help the government.

I will be more than happy to testify after my CCW application has been fairly reviewed and if my good cause is equal or better than those whom the sheriff has issued permits to, I'll testify. The CCW records are public record, I am sure the sheriff will be more than happy to comply.

If I was in a no issue county like San Fran, the comment then would be it is obvious the sheriff is non compliant with Salute vs Pitchess and that until he adopts a fair issuing system, my memory just isn't that good.

Nicki

cousinkix1953
03-29-2009, 4:39 AM
In many high crime areas people won't come forward, especially with gang involvement because they know the police won't protect them.

In many areas of the state, "gun control" has not reduced crime, it has crated a situation of "disarmed victims", the government policy of promoting VD(Victim disarmanent) as social policy is having expected results.

Only criminals and cops are armed and the peasants are caught in the crossfire.

My answer to a Judge would be the following: Our sheriff and chief of police can't be held liable for failure to protect me, yet you want me to testify and endanger myself and my family to help the government.

I will be more than happy to testify after my CCW application has been fairly reviewed and if my good cause is equal or better than those whom the sheriff has issued permits to, I'll testify. The CCW records are public record, I am sure the sheriff will be more than happy to comply.

If I was in a no issue county like San Fran, the comment then would be it is obvious the sheriff is non compliant with Salute vs Pitchess and that until he adopts a fair issuing system, my memory just isn't that good.
Nicki

That's how they exposed Dianne Frankenstein an several other pistol packing anti-gun hypocrites. Somebody filed a lawsuit and the Rose Bird Supreme Court blew the lid off the secrecy in 1986 on their way out of there. Most of the local radio and TV news crews converged on police chiefs and sheriffs offices a got their lists. They were looking for the names of celebrities, politicians and big shots who had a CCW permit...

M. D. Van Norman
03-29-2009, 9:09 AM
Maybe one or two out of a hundred will think about carrying a gun after witnessing (or even being the victim of) a violent crime. Their refusal to testify would be lost in the noise from all the others who already refuse to testify against the gangs that terrorize their neighborhoods.

It will be interesting to see how one of my own family members responds when and if the would-be gangsters who robbed him and his girlfriend come up for trial.

Anyway, if you want to see scorched earth, watch what happens if any meaningful gun-control restrictions are passed within the next eight to 10 years.

berto
03-29-2009, 10:44 AM
Suspects Go Free Because Gun Owners Won't Testify
-X number of suspects remain on street
-Gun owners demand CCW.
-LEO bossman says CCW unnecessary, let him do his job.

Who do you think gets painted as obstructionist bad guy under that headline? Who is Jane Soccer-mom mad at?

GuyW
03-29-2009, 10:58 AM
[B]Who do you think gets painted as obstructionist bad guy under that headline? Who is Jane Soccer-mom mad at?

Point the criminals toward Jane Soccer-mom's house and see if her tune changes.

You guys are focusing solely on the CCW permit aspect - the fundamental issue is an individual exercising as much control over their safety as the government currently allows.

Where does it say that your family has to accept increased and non-insignificant risk? This is the old battle about how much burden an individual has to accept for society's (presumed) good (property takings, etc).

.

berto
03-29-2009, 11:25 AM
Point the criminals toward Jane Soccer-mom's house and see if her tune changes.

You guys are focusing solely on the CCW permit aspect - the fundamental issue is an individual exercising as much control over their safety as the government currently allows.

Where does it say that your family has to accept increased and non-insignificant risk? This is the old battle about how much burden an individual has to accept for society's (presumed) good (property takings, etc).

.

Testifying or not is a personal decision based on individual circumstance. A movement to refuse unless granted CCW is likely to do more harm than good with the media and general populace and does little to actually reform the CCW process as the non-witness majority remains SOL in urban centers.

It may be a great plan on an individual basis and is something I would consider but scorched earth ain't gonna win us any friends and is likely to get some serious blowback.