PDA

View Full Version : SF Jury Acquits Honor Student/Veteran of Gun Charge


kf6tac
03-24-2010, 10:32 PM
http://sfpublicdefender.org/media/2010/03/jury-acquits-honor-student-gun-charge/

I had no idea this was even going on, but I'm glad the jury reached the right verdict. Sounds like the guy was legally UOCing in his car when pulled over for a traffic stop, then the DA tried to bust him on a concealed carry charge. Dumb dumb dumb.

An Army veteran and Dean’s List student who was prosecuted over a legally-registered, unloaded gun was found not guilty by a San Francisco jury Wednesday.

Jury members deliberated just 45 minutes before acquitting San Francisco resident Wayne Lee Banks Jr., 26, of carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle. The misdemeanor charge carries up to a year in jail.
Banks, who has no criminal convictions, was arrested Oct. 9, 2009 following a contested traffic stop at Kearny and Clay streets. Officers stated in the police report that they immediately saw a handgun in a belt holster propped up against the center console.

“Despite officers describing the gun as immediately visible to justify the detention, Mr. Banks was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. You can’t have it both ways. It’s not a magic gun,” said his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Maria Lopez.

Turo
03-24-2010, 10:40 PM
Good! Win for us gunners!

Liberty1
03-24-2010, 10:42 PM
:eek:

I don't know if anyone here new about this. I didn't. Glad to see him set free. The DA should never have brought charges. :mad: Now they'll bring school zone charges??

kf6tac
03-24-2010, 10:50 PM
:eek:

I don't know if anyone here new about this. I didn't. Glad to see him set free. The DA should never have brought charges. :mad: Now they'll bring school zone charges??

Shhh, don't give them any ideas!

Redlinegts
03-24-2010, 11:06 PM
Honors student? So that's how my good grades will help me in my future!

CitaDeL
03-24-2010, 11:11 PM
“Despite officers describing the gun as immediately visible to justify the detention, Mr. Banks was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. You can’t have it both ways. It’s not a magic gun,” said his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Maria Lopez.

San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi called the trial a waste of resources. “Considering all the cases involving illegal weapons and gun violence, it’s difficult to understand why time and money was spent prosecuting Mr. Banks.”

The fact that it took 45 minutes to aquit by a jury of San Franciscans is also very reassuring...

SJgunguy24
03-25-2010, 12:07 AM
This right here is the EXACT thing we are fighting. A 4.0 student and an Army veteran is following the to a "T". The cops detain and arrest him for not breaking the law. The DA charges him for a crime that the police admit never happend. They waste taxpayer money in a city/county that is half a billion in the red.
I wish there were more details about the traffic stop. This sounds like a perfect case for the ACLU.
Any wonder why people think the way they do about San Francisco?

San Francisco, CA – An Army veteran and Dean’s List student who was prosecuted over a legally-registered, unloaded gun was found not guilty by a San Francisco jury Wednesday.

Jury members deliberated just 45 minutes before acquitting San Francisco resident Wayne Lee Banks Jr., 26, of carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle. The misdemeanor charge carries up to a year in jail.

Banks, who has no criminal convictions, was arrested Oct. 9, 2009 following a contested traffic stop at Kearny and Clay streets. Officers stated in the police report that they immediately saw a handgun in a belt holster propped up against the center console.

“Despite officers describing the gun as immediately visible to justify the detention, Mr. Banks was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. You can’t have it both ways. It’s not a magic gun,” said his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Maria Lopez.

During the two day trial, Banks testified that he felt comfortable carrying a handgun for protection because of his Army training and understanding of gun laws. Even though firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not considered concealed according to California Penal Code, Banks testified that he took the already visible belt holster off his hip and placed it further up on the driver’s seat against the armrest to ensure his unloaded gun was completely visible as he drove.
A sergeant and two officers from the San Francisco Police Department testified at the trial. Police also submitted photographs of Banks’ gun partially wedged into the corner of his seat. During cross examination by Lopez, however, the sergeant admitted that the photographs were taken after he had handled the gun and placed it in that position.

“The testimony and photographs were not consistent with the initial police report and there was tampering with the evidence,” Lopez said. “The jury couldn’t understand why this went to trial. Either a gun is concealed or it is not, and this gun clearly was not.”

Banks, a 4.0 student and track team member at San Francisco City College, plans to transfer to Morehouse College and feared a conviction could ruin his chances for financial aid and scholarships, Lopez said.

San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi called the trial a waste of resources.

“Mr. Banks was extremely conscientious about following the laws surrounding gun ownership,” Adachi said. “Considering all the cases involving illegal weapons and gun violence, it’s difficult to understand why time and money was spent prosecuting Mr. Banks.”

CalNRA
03-25-2010, 2:38 AM
SFPD...SFPD...Was Iggy involved in this fiasco?

And any lawsuits in the works?

Walker
03-25-2010, 3:26 AM
What a waste of time and money.

You'd think with the money San Francisco has had to pay out due to firearm related law suits it would start to sink in by now.

BobB35
03-25-2010, 6:30 AM
Sounds to me like this honor roll student just got himself a free ride to the college of his choice thanks to the morons over at SFPD....at least 50K in pain and suffering...sure wish some of the right people would do some outreach here and help this young gentleman out with a false imprisonment lawsuit against the city of SF....sure would be great precedent to use across the state to help educate the upper tier in Law Enforcement.

BroncoBob
03-25-2010, 6:37 AM
SFPD at their finest.

rod
03-25-2010, 6:42 AM
If he took the gun off his belt and placed it on the console, wouldn't this now be considered transporting a handgun, and need to be in a locked container? Just wondering.

garandguy10
03-25-2010, 7:03 AM
He won the case in S.F. with a Public Defender??? The guy is a brave one.......

themethod
03-25-2010, 7:23 AM
As a San Francisco resident it's nice to hear an SF jury verdict that I can agree with.

NoahH
03-25-2010, 7:26 AM
"We noticed he had a firearm in plan view, so we arrested him for having a concealed firearm."



ummm.....what?

cdtx2001
03-25-2010, 7:43 AM
My faith has somewhat returned in the justice system.

oddball
03-25-2010, 7:44 AM
A model citizen and veteran who broke no laws, and it went all the way to a jury trial? :mad: .

I guess he did not fit the profile of a "valued citizen" in San Francisco.

The same city that ignored "quality of life" crimes and shielded illegal immigrant felons from the feds. This not only shows the ignorance of SFPD, but the outrageous agenda of Kamala Harris' office.

And she wants to run for CA attorney general...

EOD Guy
03-25-2010, 7:50 AM
If he took the gun off his belt and placed it on the console, wouldn't this now be considered transporting a handgun, and need to be in a locked container? Just wondering.

There is no requirement for the handgun to be in a locked container if it is not concealed. The locked container exempts you from the concealed carry laws. You can transport with the firearm visible, although it may not be advisable.

Traveling through a school zone is another matter covered by different laws.

vrand
03-25-2010, 7:56 AM
The fact that it took 45 minutes to aquit by a jury of San Franciscans is also very reassuring...

Miracles happen :thumbsup:

paul0660
03-25-2010, 8:00 AM
If he took the gun off his belt and placed it on the console, wouldn't this now be considered transporting a handgun, and need to be in a locked container? Just wondering.

Rod, I think you are right because the exception to 12025 reads

"(f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed
within the meaning of this section."


Doesn't say it has to be on the belt......and I don't see anything else pertinent.

Call_me_Tom
03-25-2010, 8:09 AM
Score one for the little guy!

rrr70
03-25-2010, 8:14 AM
The DA should never have brought charges. :mad: Now they'll bring school zone charges??

We're talking about Kamala's gang here.

Ron-Solo
03-25-2010, 9:07 AM
As a 32 year veteran of law enforcement, this case embarrasses me based on what is posted here. Based on this, he should have never been arrested, let alone prosecuted. I blame the sergeant involved. He/she should have never let this happen. A supervisor is supposed to know better.

rod
03-25-2010, 9:10 AM
Ok, I read through 12026.2, 12020, and a few other PCs and am a little confused. 12026.2 states that a firearm has to be in a locked container (unloaded) when transporting. It goes on to say that PC applies when transporting a found gun to a LE agency, to/from a range, gun show, and so on. Where I get confused is what and where does it address transporting a handgun just for the sake of transporting a handgun. If someone wants to UOC while driving, and discovers that while seated in a car seat, his handgun becomes concealed, the person removes his unloaded firearm and places it on the dash or console, what is the status of that firearm? Is it still UOC or is it just being transported while on a Sunday drive and not exempt from 12026.2?

Decoligny
03-25-2010, 9:16 AM
Rod, I think you are right because the exception to 12025 reads

"(f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed
within the meaning of this section."


Doesn't say it has to be on the belt......and I don't see anything else pertinent.

12025 deals with CONCEALED firearms. Since this firearm was NOT CONCEALED, 12025 does not apply, and thus there is no requirement to lock the firearm up.

Decoligny
03-25-2010, 9:19 AM
Ok, I read through 12026.2, 12020, and a few other PCs and am a little confused. 12026.2 states that a firearm has to be in a locked container (unloaded) when transporting. It goes on to say that PC applies when transporting a found gun to a LE agency, to/from a range, gun show, and so on. Where I get confused is what and where does it address transporting a handgun just for the sake of transporting a handgun. If someone wants to UOC while driving, and discovers that while seated in a car seat, his handgun becomes concealed, the person removes his unloaded firearm and places it on the dash or console, what is the status of that firearm? Is it still UOC or is it just being transported while on a Sunday drive and not exempt from 12026.2?

12026.1 and 12026.2 are EXEMPTION statutes.
They pertain specifically to instances where you are exempt from PC 12025.

PC 12025 only applies when the firearm is CONCEALED.

This firearm was NOT concealed.

PC 12025 is not applicable.
PC 12026.1 is not applicable.
PC 12026.2 in not applicable.

choprzrul
03-25-2010, 9:21 AM
12025 deals with CONCEALED firearms. Since this firearm was NOT CONCEALED, 12025 does not apply, and thus there is no requirement to lock the firearm up.

Wrapping my mind around this one, I too thought that ANY transport of a handgun in a vehicle mandated it be in a locked container. What I am reading here is that an unloaded handgun in a holster in a vehicle is just fine? Is this the case? This is an amazing revelation to me. Inquiring minds need to know.

paul0660
03-25-2010, 9:22 AM
Rod, 12026.1 says citizens can drive around willy nilly with properly stored guns. If the gun is NOT in plain view (and in a holster I guess) it has to be in a locked case. 12026.2 is for everyone, not just citizens.

Decoligny, you said what I said.


This is an amazing revelation to me.


It's true.........but school zones mess up the deal, the gun has to be locked up while transiting them.

Ysoserious
03-25-2010, 9:27 AM
This would still be inadvisable in most situations though, wouldn't it? Because if you happened to pass through an exclusion zone (school, federal building?) while UOC in the vehicle, you run the risk of a felony charge?

rod
03-25-2010, 9:33 AM
Thanks for making me smarter Paul0660 and Decoligny. I always thought handguns were to be locked up, including outside school zones. Learn something new every day.

CEDaytonaRydr
03-25-2010, 9:34 AM
“Despite officers describing the gun as immediately visible to justify the detention, Mr. Banks was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. You can’t have it both ways. It’s not a magic gun,” said his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Maria Lopez.

I'm impressed!

Good work, for a public defender...

“Mr. Banks was extremely conscientious about following the laws surrounding gun ownership,” Adachi said. “Considering all the cases involving illegal weapons and gun violence, it’s difficult to understand why time and money was spent prosecuting Mr. Banks.”

So, who wants to be the first to file a "Fraud, waste and abuse" claim against the S.F.P.D.? :)

paul0660
03-25-2010, 9:36 AM
This would still be inadvisable in most situations though, wouldn't it? Because if you happened to pass through an exclusion zone (school, federal building?) while UOC in the vehicle, you run the risk of a felony charge?


Yes. Looking at this map, which isn't complete, the guy at trial was a block away from the nearest zone.....but one wonders how he got there.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=156779

but out in the boonies...........why not?

krazykracker
03-25-2010, 9:37 AM
should have never made it to court

iRIGHTi
03-25-2010, 9:52 AM
this is thought provoking to say the least.
blackhawk serpa w/ unloaded glock 21 fully visable on the passenger seat. 2 loaded glock21 mags in mag holder on waist. driving in CA and not in a restricted UOC area. legal?

bomb_on_bus
03-25-2010, 10:04 AM
Glad to see that he was aquitted for something he shouldnt have been arrested for in the first place.

how did it get passed the higher ups that a person was being detained and charged with transporting a concealed firearm when both of the officers said it was in plain sight.

should have been handled the right way from the get go instead of it going this far. at least there is some justice left in the law.

Ca Patriot
03-25-2010, 10:25 AM
Okay, I know maybe I shouldnt say this, but wasnt he in violation of the "school zone law" ??

rp55
03-25-2010, 11:19 AM
This is a great illustration of why I never try to get out of jury duty. I always show up and hope for something like this. I say nothing and act disinterested. Alas, so far I have never been chosen for anything.

k1dude
03-25-2010, 11:33 AM
The problem is he now has an arrest on his record.

Liberty1
03-25-2010, 11:44 AM
Okay, I know maybe I shouldnt say this, but wasnt he in violation of the "school zone law" ??

Only if he knew or reasonably should have known of the school.

magsnubs
03-25-2010, 11:55 AM
This guy went through a wringer here. He stood trial, presumably paid bail, paid for a lawyer, and now has a record of arrest, FOREVER. There is no justice here. How vindicated would you feel? This is an example of LE run riot. It scares me, because a cop could claim that a tee shirt was thrown over it, and you'd be convicted. I have seen cops lie about me to my face, and it really scares me.

command_liner
03-25-2010, 12:01 PM
WAAAY back in 1994 or so I proposed making a holster that was able
to hold a pistol and a magazine. The holster was specifically designed
to be "compliant" in that the mag and the pistol were not together. It
was also designed so that it was possible to withdraw a loaded gun from
the holster. While in the holster the gun was compliant. When out, it
was not. (Just a problem of mechanics. Not a hard one.)

Now add a locking mechanism for school zones, and you have a
CA-compliant device which is useful.

Ca Patriot
03-25-2010, 12:03 PM
This guy went through a wringer here. He stood trial, presumably paid bail, paid for a lawyer, and now has a record of arrest, FOREVER. There is no justice here. How vindicated would you feel? This is an example of LE run riot. It scares me, because a cop could claim that a tee shirt was thrown over it, and you'd be convicted. I have seen cops lie about me to my face, and it really scares me.

Very true. Although I think the article said he was represented by a public defender.
Personally, I run the video on my IPhone anytime I think I might be vulnerable to misrepresentations of truth.
Anytime I go shooting or am with a firearm in anyway I run my video recorder.

N6ATF
03-25-2010, 12:56 PM
Subscribed in hope of seeing a 1983 action against these perjuring traitors.

SJgunguy24
03-25-2010, 2:22 PM
As a 32 year veteran of law enforcement, this case embarrasses me based on what is posted here. Based on this, he should have never been arrested, let alone prosecuted. I blame the sergeant involved. He/she should have never let this happen. A supervisor is supposed to know better.

Thanks Ron, coming from a CGN LEO whom I respect this is good to hear. I'm just sorry that so many try their hardest to embarrass their profession and when knowing that no crime has been committed still follow through like one has been committed.
I hope to hell he runs the city through the ringer and never has to work again. Reminds me of when some bum put hands on my girl and I reacted and they wanted to throw me in jail.

yelohamr
03-25-2010, 2:34 PM
Okay, I know maybe I shouldnt say this, but wasnt he in violation of the "school zone law" ??

Not necessarily. I UOC everyday, but when there is a school zone in the route I'm taking, the gun is locked up in a gun safe, on my lap. After clearing the 1000' GFSZ, I re-holster. The GFSZ doesn't bother me, I can drive and re-holster at the same time.

Mikeb
03-25-2010, 2:53 PM
If school zones are such sensitive areas why isn't the 1000' boundary marked? Signs are put up to advise drivers that they must reduce their speed for school zones. It seems reasonable that signs should be put up to indicate the "gun free zone".
just a thought
Mike

SteveH
03-25-2010, 3:16 PM
Incompetant cops.

They arrested him for a baseless 12025 charge when they probably had a slam dunk 626.9 felony but were too stupid to know it.

IGOTDIRT4U
03-25-2010, 3:17 PM
If school zones are such sensitive areas why isn't the 1000' boundary marked? Signs are put up to advise drivers that they must reduce their speed for school zones. It seems reasonable that signs should be put up to indicate the "gun free zone".
just a thought
Mike

Around my area they are marked, with big yellow signs.

kf6tac
03-25-2010, 3:20 PM
Around my area they are marked, with big yellow signs.

Are the signs actually along the 1000' boundary? My recollection is that they're generally just there for traffic purposes and may be closer to the school than 1000', so people carrying guns can't rely on them as a demarcation of where the Gun Free School Zone begins and ends.

SteveH
03-25-2010, 3:21 PM
Elementary school on trenton street. Not the only K-12 school in that area.

dfletcher
03-25-2010, 3:29 PM
A model citizen and veteran who broke no laws, and it went all the way to a jury trial? :mad: .

I guess he did not fit the profile of a "valued citizen" in San Francisco.

The same city that ignored "quality of life" crimes and shielded illegal immigrant felons from the feds. This not only shows the ignorance of SFPD, but the outrageous agenda of Kamala Harris' office.

And she wants to run for CA attorney general...

Shielded is past tense - "shields" would be more appropriate.

I presume Ms Harris, who is running for state AG and is vehemently anti-gun, signed off on this one. This fellow would make a great commercial to be run up & down the state during the campaign. Will play pretty well with all the folks who live about 50 miles inland and the whole state from Sacramento to Ukiah.

yelohamr
03-25-2010, 5:10 PM
If you Google this, Jury Acquits Honor Student Of Gun Charge.
How many media outlets reported the story?

NONE.
Just the SF Public Defender's Office, OCDO and CalGuns.

Another gun forum had it too.

When it's good news for us, don't expect the liberal media to pick up on it.

Ca Patriot
03-25-2010, 6:15 PM
When the female professor shot up her school it was all over the news. Then the media found out she was a rabbid Obama supporter and the story went away.

Ding126
03-25-2010, 7:06 PM
Signs should be posted " entering school zone " I think this might be a good test of why the school zone violates our rights by creating a trap. If you are not familiar with the area how is one to know a school is around the corner or a block away? The law need to be changed to " No firearms on school property " Then we all know you can't have a firearm on school property , rather than trying to guess if your 1000 or 1500 feet away.... I have no idea on what a 1000 feet is

CalNRA
03-26-2010, 12:40 AM
Signs should be posted " entering school zone " I think this might be a good test of why the school zone violates our rights by creating a trap. If you are not familiar with the area how is one to know a school is around the corner or a block away? The law need to be changed to " No firearms on school property " Then we all know you can't have a firearm on school property , rather than trying to guess if your 1000 or 1500 feet away.... I have no idea on what a 1000 feet is


yep.

When the cops who work the area don't even know the school zones, how do they expect us to know?

corrupt
03-26-2010, 12:46 AM
Wow. What a ****ty DA. That sounds like a pure case of the police and the DA trying to bully someone. They had no case at all, why waste a bunch of time and money (and getting those jurors, etc) to even go to court? Stupid stuff like this pisses me off.

SJgunguy24
03-26-2010, 12:58 AM
Wow. What a ****ty DA. That sounds like a pure case of the police and the DA trying to bully someone. They had no case at all, why waste a bunch of time and money (and getting those jurors, etc) to even go to court? Stupid stuff like this pisses me off.

You obviously don't know Harris' track record. She routinely lets illegal aliens who are arrested on felony crimes out of jail. The city board of sups came up with that outragous policy and she backs them up. One of those illegal felons they let out gunned down a father and 2 of his boys.

A police officer is murderd on duty, shot in the back by a known drug dealer and gang member. She refuses to try for the death penalty, even when the Police Union begs her to.

This is the same lady who tried to send this soldier and honor student to jail for breaking no laws.

corrupt
03-26-2010, 1:12 AM
Yes I am familiar with that policy and that murder. I just moved from there. I thought something was going to be done about it. I guess not.

oaklander
03-26-2010, 1:14 AM
San Francisco actually has a very good Public Defender's Office. Keep watching the 2A Forum for some upcoming news in relation to a similar case in which both CGF and the SF Public Defender's Office were involved. That's all I can say now. . .

:43:

Theseus
03-26-2010, 1:24 AM
From my understanding a case like this, being a misdemeanor, could very easily be kept under the radar unless someone is willing to speak up and get some attention from higher ups.

Good for this guy. Could have easily gone the other way.

JDay
03-26-2010, 3:19 AM
If he took the gun off his belt and placed it on the console, wouldn't this now be considered transporting a handgun, and need to be in a locked container? Just wondering.

He could have had it on the passengers seat, without a holster, and it would still be legal. Only needs to be in a locked container if its concealed or you're in a school zone. Long guns do not need to be locked up in any case (unless in a school zone) since the law states that they are not concealable.

rod
03-26-2010, 5:20 AM
He could have had it on the passengers seat, without a holster, and it would still be legal. Only needs to be in a locked container if its concealed or you're in a school zone. Long guns do not need to be locked up in any case (unless in a school zone) since the law states that they are not concealable.

Thanks JDay. I did some more reading and understand the laws concerning transportation of a handgun better now.

groats
03-26-2010, 9:32 AM
A model citizen and veteran who broke no laws, and it went all the way to a jury trial? :mad: .

I guess he did not fit the profile of a "valued citizen" in San Francisco.



Considering that the gentleman in question is planning to go to Morehouse (historically a black school) one might logically assume that he is black.

Which may explain something about the way he was (mis) treated.

67Yankee
03-26-2010, 9:50 AM
I.... do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
We(veterans)have made such commitment to protect and preserve our constitution and country with our lives. Returning home only to be disrespected by those who take for granted the sacrifices made for the way of life enjoyed by all. This soldier was trained and trusted by our country to use mechanical killing devices to ensure our freedom. This man's oath of enlistment did not terminate on his return from duty. He will always be the watch dog looking over the "flock of sheep", he is necessary for the safety of the majority of you so vulnerable by the "wolfs" stalking your comfortable cozy little world. Except him and praise him/her ....Thank a teacher for learning to speak, thank a vet for being able to speak it in English.


"Freedom has a Flavor the sheltered will never know"

paul0660
03-26-2010, 9:50 AM
Good eye, groats.

HokeySon
03-26-2010, 9:55 AM
San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi called the trial a waste of resources.

“Mr. Banks was extremely conscientious about following the laws surrounding gun ownership,” Adachi said. “Considering all the cases involving illegal weapons and gun violence, it’s difficult to understand why time and money was spent prosecuting Mr. Banks.”


Off topic: But just wanted to say Jeff Adachi is a bad *** lawyer. He is really, really good. SF is lucky to have him continue in this job, when he could step out and make a whole lot more as a private lawyer.

anhero
03-26-2010, 10:27 AM
Police also submitted photographs of Banks’ gun partially wedged into the corner of his seat. During cross examination by Lopez, however, the sergeant admitted that the photographs were taken after he had handled the gun and placed it in that position.

This worries me more than anything else. This cop could have lied about tampering with evidence, especially in light of what happened in Palo Alto. It's your word against theirs and without having a witness or a video camera, it's all hear say on your part.

The devil is in the detail.

jdberger
03-26-2010, 10:40 AM
Just curious, but what is a "contested traffic stop"?

kf6tac
03-26-2010, 10:56 AM
Just curious, but what is a "contested traffic stop"?

It probably just means he was contesting whatever supposed traffic violation they stopped him for.

mquejr
03-26-2010, 11:03 AM
+1 million i just don't get it :mad:

As a 32 year veteran of law enforcement, this case embarrasses me based on what is posted here. Based on this, he should have never been arrested, let alone prosecuted. I blame the sergeant involved. He/she should have never let this happen. A supervisor is supposed to know better.

Dovii4ever
03-26-2010, 12:14 PM
"During cross examination by Lopez, however, the sergeant admitted that the photographs were taken after he had handled the gun and placed it in that position."

WOW The cop openly admitted to tampering with evidence, That should send a message to all open carriers, BEWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also wonder if this can be taken to internal affairs?

BobB35
03-26-2010, 1:06 PM
I.... do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
We(veterans)have made such commitment to protect and preserve our constitution and country with our lives. Returning home only to be disrespected by those who take for granted the sacrifices made for the way of life enjoyed by all. This soldier was trained and trusted by our country to use mechanical killing devices to ensure our freedom. This man's oath of enlistment did not terminate on his return from duty. He will always be the watch dog looking over the "flock of sheep", he is necessary for the safety of the majority of you so vulnerable by the "wolfs" stalking your comfortable cozy little world. Except him and praise him/her ....Thank a teacher for learning to speak, thank a vet for being able to speak it in English.


"Freedom has a Flavor the sheltered will never know"



Come on now...don't be quoting oaths....you can just ask all the LEOs they swears oaths to uphold the constitution also. Doesn't really mean a lot in the end and people are starting to figure that out. It comes down to individuals...if you are in a foxhole are you loyal to your oath or the guy sitting next to you....same with the cruiser...are you loyal to the oath or the guy at the other end of the radio....Look at what the CHP did in New Orleans after katrina or any of the other of thousand of violations of the constitution performed by LEOs and the government every years. This stuff will go on until the people get sick of it and stop it.... Go read the Declaration of independence and Amendment 3 to the constitution. Ever wonder why it is number 3? Don't look to the government to solve these problems, other than a few righteous souls (who tend to post on site like this) most of the people in government will follow orders just like was proven by Milgram.

dfletcher
03-26-2010, 3:01 PM
Off topic: But just wanted to say Jeff Adachi is a bad *** lawyer. He is really, really good. SF is lucky to have him continue in this job, when he could step out and make a whole lot more as a private lawyer.

That's what I hear. I do take his position on this case to be his office doing their job as opposed to him being a supporter of the 2nd. I'd be happy to be wrong, would be nice to know that someone in a position of public responsibility in SF has an ear for these issues, not just performing their duty. Hell, I'd even vote for the guy next time around.