Bumper sticker Fear the government that fears your gun-Fed court upholds cops taking legal gun

[RamboLiberal]

WILLIAM LAWLER is convinced that his civil rights were violated during a car stop in which police confiscated his legally owned gun and his permit to carry a concealed weapon.

On Friday, a federal jury was convinced otherwise.

It was a quick midday run to the post office in April 2008 that landed Lawler, an 11-year Army veteran and social-studies teacher, in the back of a police cruiser in handcuffs.

The traffic violation for which he was stopped in Northeast Philadelphia was later dismissed. But cops said that the politically charged bumper stickers on the back of his station wagon, including "Fear the government that fears your gun," led them to ask if he had a gun - which he did - and if he had a permit to carry it - which he did.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20111031_Jury__Cops_didn_t_jump_the_gun_in_car_search.html?cmpid=125219969

I agree with Lawler. Philly cops at it again.

[Ian David]

1. They kinda made his point for him. n/t

[oneshooter]

2. I would guess that Philly is about to give away a whole lot of money. again. n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

77. Gotta agree with you there

The simple fact that the cops admitted his stickers were the reason for the stop makes me wonder what the jury was on in this case.

Political speech is very obviously and clearly protected speech. It doesn't matter a bit if the local constabulary finds it offensive.

He'll win on appeal and the city will give him a lot more than 25K.

[Logical]

3. Cops get away with most crap like this. Very little punishment.

[Remmah2]

35. Including running illeagle firearms. nt

nt

[Skittles]

4. that guy is a fucking idiot

[oneshooter]

11. Why is that? Legal weapon, permit in order, what did he do that was idiotic? n/t

[DissedByBush]

26. He offended our overlords

Such action does not go unpunished.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

64. Even if he is, should he be arrested? The ACLU doesn't think so.nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

5. Philly cops are idiots. 11 year Army veteran and now a teacher??

I hope he sues the shit out of Philly.

[Hoyt]

14. He did just "sue the shit out of them" -- and lost.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

17. Lawler's attorney, James Lee, vowed to appeal the case.

Lawler's attorney, James Lee, vowed to appeal the case.

he should appeal.

[Hoyt]

20. Heck, I hope they shake him down too and get his gun.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

65. Love that authoritarianism, don't you?

[iverglas]

70. ah, is that better than "fascist"?

or the other one I had deleted, "bigot"?

Nah. It's just ignorant insult, devoid of content, of the sort a right-wing demagogue would spew.

[SteveM]

74. Since you brought it up, you tell me.

[Hoyt]

72. No, just concerned about followers of Timmy McVeigh toting guns.

[SteveM]

75. Just don't let your concerns (fears) take precedence over due process.

[oneshooter]

69. Hoyt, everybody is allowed to say something STUPID, just don't overuse the privilege.

[Tejas]

73. I've seen some militant statements by you before but

that one was awesome. Steal that from von Helldorf?

[benEzra]

78. I hope you don't own a DVD of _V for Vendetta_. (n/t)

[iverglas]

6. snork

Looks like the poor victim doesn't share your opinion of Philly cops.

He wanted to be one. Oh, hell, maybe he was just on an undercover mission for his local militia cell ...

Amanda Shoffel, assistant city solicitor, said the case was about how "with rights come responsibilities."

She told the jury that Lawler had a "distrust for authority" and that he'd been "kicked out" of the Police Academy in 2003. Lawler said he'd been dismissed from the academy "at the commissioner's discretion," but did not elaborate.

Too bad there's no video of this one ...

During closing arguments, Shoffel said that Lawler's "completely irresponsible" behavior during the stop had led to his detention.

"The plaintiff's best exhibit was his soapbox," Shoffel said in court. "He says, 'They were looking for a reason to take my gun.' They didn't have to look for a reason. The reason was him. It was the way he was acting."

Another of the fine poster children for the gun militant cause.

:rofl:

(Hey, what was wrong with that jury? Did they somehow manage to pick 12 loony gun prohibitionists to sit on it??)

[pipoman]

18. I'm curious why there isn't video of this too.

What police car, these days, doesn't have a camera or 5?

[YllwFvr]

88. none of my dept vehicles have them

Neither does any of the several departments my brother has worked for. It's costly, and I guess not important enough for most to go for around here.

[TPaine7]

24. Let's see...

Per the story:

1. The traffic violation was dismissed
   
2. Lawler was "never arrested" or charged with a crime
   
3. Lawler never threatened the police and followed all instructions
   
4. Lawler had politically charged bumper stickers on the back of his vehicle
   
5. Lawler said something to the police about his constitutional rights
   
6. The police commissioner admitted under oath that the police letter gave instructions for dealing with guns that "could be misinterpreted"--the instructions say that during a car stop, legal gun-holders "MUST" inform police "IMMEDIATELY"--a requirement that the police made up and has no basis in law
   
7. It took Lawler 689 days, $2,000 in lawyer's fees and a judge's order just to get his permit and his $800 gun back
   
8. The assistant city solicitor said the case was about how "with rights come responsibilities"
   
9. The city offered Lawler $25,000 to settle his claims that his First and Fourth Amendment rights had been violated
   
10. The assistant city solicitor accused Lawler of "distrust for authority", "completely irresponsible" behavior and being "kicked out" of the police academy "at the commissioner's discretion"
    

And all Your Sophistry can see to condemn in this story is the "gun militant cause."

Do you not see that no charges were filed, the traffic violation was dismissed, the weapon and license were ordered returned by a judge and the best the assistant solicitor could come up with was "distrust for authority" being kicked out of the academy and "completely irresponsible" behavior--behavior that apparently consisted of complying with all police instructions, not threatening them and saying something to them about his constitutional rights-- is not a situation that justifies the city's behavior?

The support for neo-fascism by anti-gun lunatics on this board is disgusting.

:puke:

This case is about "with rights come responsibility" is about as valid a legal argument--given these facts--as "motherhood and apple pie."

Did they somehow manage to pick 12 loony gun prohibitionists to sit on it??

That's probably almost as easy to do in Philly as it is in Canada or Europe. The answer is yes, the jury was comprised of loony gun prohibitionists or of people too stupid to understand or value their own First, Second and Fourth Amendment rights.

Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and all of the Founders had a healthy distrust for authority. It's easy to see why a fascist who despises the US and her legal traditions would be jubilant about a case like this, and it is somewhat understandable that a brainwashed, anti-gun Philly educated group of 12 could make this choice. What is hard to understand is Americans who rejoice at this because of their simple-minded, reflexive, unprincipled hatred of gun rights.

If only all anti-gun lunatics were as sophisticated as Alan Dershowitz. He hates the Second Amendment. He wants it repealed. But he, at least, understands that the tactics that fools cheer when they are used against the Second Amendment can easily be turned against the rest of the Bill of Rights.

This cannot stand. Does anyone know where people can contribute to Lawler's legal fund?

[iverglas]

48. it's Mr. Trickster and his word games, kiddies!

Per the story:

1.The traffic violation was dismissed
2. Lawler was "never arrested" or charged with a crime
3. Lawler never threatened the police and followed all instructions
4. Lawler had politically charged bumper stickers on the back of his vehicle
5. Lawler said something to the police about his constitutional rights
6. The police commissioner admitted under oath that the police letter gave instructions for dealing with guns that "could be misinterpreted"--the instructions say that during a car stop, legal gun-holders "MUST" inform police "IMMEDIATELY"--a requirement that the police made up and has no basis in law
7. It took Lawler 689 days, $2,000 in lawyer's fees and a judge's order just to get his permit and his $800 gun back
8. The assistant city solicitor said the case was about how "with rights come responsibilities"
9. The city offered Lawler $25,000 to settle his claims that his First and Fourth Amendment rights had been violated
10. The assistant city solicitor accused Lawler of "distrust for authority", "completely irresponsible" behavior and being "kicked out" of the police academy "at the commissioner's discretion"



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086831/quotes
(reproduced at a third party site, so fair use/dealing)

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there is lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do they respond to a challenge?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?
Bernard Woolley: Er, I might be.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes or no?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Of course, after all you've said you can't say no to that. On the other hand, the surveys can reach opposite conclusions.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think it's wrong to force people to take arms against their will?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Would you oppose the reintroduction of conscription?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: There you are, Bernard. The perfectly balanced sample.

If Master Paine keeps practising, he'll be able to fool some of the people some of the time, I'm sure!


It's easy to see why a fascist who despises the US and her legal traditions would be jubilant about a case like this

Fortunately, since I don't give a crap about this case and have neither had nor expressed any emotional reaction to it, I know that this time you aren't breaking any rules by calling me a fascist. This time.


and it is somewhat understandable that a brainwashed, anti-gun Philly educated group of 12 could make this choice.

Gosh, what disrespect for the great common person we seem to be expressing. Tsk. H L Mencken would be proud!

What an odd statistical anomaly that jury must have been though, really. Or Philadelphia is just a real outlier, and must have really skewed that assault weaspons survey thingy, I guess.

[Remmah2]

36. The ACLU even agrees with him. nt

nt

[iverglas]

43. you can read, right?

Maybe you can copy and paste what the ACLU said that substantiates this claim of yours.

[Remmah2]

44. See second page of the article.

Is your attention span that long?

[iverglas]

50. I know exactly what it says

You appear not to, so let me help you.

Lawler's First Amendment claim arose from police officers' testimony that a routine car stop had become something more because of the views espoused on his bumper stickers.

Mary Catherine Roper, staff attorney with the Philadelphia chapter of the ACLU, said that's troubling.

"You don't want the police, under any circumstances, making decisions that someone is dangerous because of his beliefs," Roper told the Daily News.

"If the danger is that he has a strong interest in social and political issues, if that's a sign of danger, we're in a lot of trouble."

First, I'd want to know what the source of that first paragraph is. I'd want to know exactly what the testimony in question, and all of the testimony in question, was. I'm having a hard time believing that the officers' testimony is accurately summarized there.

If the ACLU lawyer wasn't that scrupulous, that's not my problem. If the "facts" on which she based her statements were false or incomplete, her conclusion from them is worthless.

The main problem that the second quotation attributed to her is just not quite an unequivocal statement of anything at all, is it? She needs to learn to say what she means and mean what she says, I think.

Her first statement is just dumb, besides. If someone's belief is that their neighbour is Satan and is trying to kidnap their children and take them to hell and must be stopped, you definitely do want police deciding that person is dangerous because of their beliefs. The mere fact that something is someone's "belief" doesn't mean that it is not an indication of dangerousness.

That may be unlikely in this case, but then I'm not actually quite willing yet to buy that the police officers' actions were prompted by bumper stickers.


typos fixed

[Remmah2]

52. Never call an ACLU lawyer "dumb". nt

nt

[iverglas]

54. never say in public that I did something I did not do

In the minds of honest people, you will be the loser when you do that.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[YllwFvr]

87. we had a fella get kicked out of our academy

For getting into an argument and throwing his wad of chew at the other guy. You can be tossed for all kinds of reasons.

[iverglas]

7. but what I really wanna know is ...

Where does this guy teach?

http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=990369

:rofl:

[Callisto32]

34. This has fuck-all to do with the issues.

Smokescreens and misdirection.


At least you avoided the temptation to aggrandize yourself in this one.


SSDD.

[iverglas]

49. yeah?

I have yet to see a description of what happened at the scene, and that's what I've been looking for.

Nobody else seems to care. Enough that he had a gun (and those bumper stickers?), to prove that he is a jolly good fellow and deserving of all the gods' blessings and no public opprobrium, or even of having his firearm taken at the scene.

Me, I'd like to know what happened. I'm just crazy that way.

All I can find is some indication that the individual in question is a loon. It doesn't help me much, but I thought maybe others might be interested in trying to find out some actual facts and my small contribution might help in some way ...

[SteveM]

67. You spend so much time destroying your civil rights credibility. nt

[iverglas]

71. "civil rights" are no particular concern of mine

No more are stupid comments from the cheap seats containing nothing but insult based on nothing.

My post was a statement that I don't make judgments based on nothing.

Damn, how non-credible does that make me when it comes to just anything at all ...

[SteveM]

76. Now you see.

[petronius]

8. I agree with the ACLU attorney:

Lawler's First Amendment claim arose from police officers' testimony that a routine car stop had become something more because of the views espoused on his bumper stickers.

Mary Catherine Roper, staff attorney with the Philadelphia chapter of the ACLU, said that's troubling.

"You don't want the police, under any circumstances, making decisions that someone is dangerous because of his beliefs," Roper told the Daily News.

"If the danger is that he has a strong interest in social and political issues, if that's a sign of danger, we're in a lot of trouble."

If that's all the officers were reacting to, then I'd say the police and the jury screwed up badly on this one...

[iverglas]

9. and yet apparently the jury heard evidence

that it was NOT all the police were reacting to ...

[petronius]

12. Hence my use of the word "if."

Speaking generally, I'd be very opposed to police giving a person 'special treatment' based on a bumper sticker or any other non-threatening political expression. I'd be just as opposed if police used an angry or agitated response to that treatment as the basis for an arrest, detention, or anything else. (Firearms-related or not, I can't really think of a bumper sticker I'd exclude from that.)

Apparently, in this specific case, the jury thought that neither of those circumstances applied (and if the person disagrees with that result, I hope he'll avail himself of the appeals process)...

[Remmah2]

39. Sounds like the police were victims of their own emotional immaturity.

It goes hand in hand with gunphobia. They have fear and the authority to act on it.

[iverglas]

51. do you have knowledge that I'm missing?

Please share, if so.

The jury decided the case based on the evidence it heard. I haven't seen anything to tell me what that evidence was yet.

You feel free to say what it "sounds like" to you when you have heard no sounds, though.

[Remmah2]

55. What does my statement have to do w/the jury?

My statement was about over zealous cops and their eternal power trips. Just ask the OWS victims.

[iverglas]

56. well, I just don't know, do I?

I mean, you replied to my post which was about the jury and what evidence it heard, and your statement related to the facts of the case that was before the jury ... who knows what went on in your own head though, eh?


My statement was about over zealous cops and their eternal power trips. Just ask the OWS victims.

Ah, so you were just pre-judging the case based on prejudice, and you don't know anything at all about the facts of the case. Okay.

[Remmah2]

58. Clearly you've judged the case based upon the non-facts as well.

On that we can agree.

[iverglas]

62. clearly you will say anything,

no matter how totally false, in your effort to ... well I don't know what, make yourself look like someone without a shred of respect for the truth?

[ileus]

10. At least he got his permit and firearm back...most important part.

He should have took their 25k offer of them being guilty instead of a patsy jury trial.

[Hoyt]

13. Guys and gunners like him would do better to stay home in their compound.

[Atypical Liberal]

15. I bet a lot of people say the same thing about me when I'm at Occupy protests. n/t

[Hoyt]

19. I wouldn't. I would wonder if you are toting and putting the Occupiers at risk in several ways?

I know some of the gunners here say they would not tote. Can't remember which -- but I respect that.

[Tejas]

29. TSA-style patdowns/scans for attendees would make you happy?

Your brown slip is showing.

[oneshooter]

32. I was in downtown Houston on business yesterday and brought some water to

the protesters. As is my want I carried my SIG 220 concealed. You have a problem with that?
Ask me if I really give a damn what you think.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoyt]

60. Actually I do and the Occupiers should as well. You jeopardized the movement by toting irrationally.

What exactly were you worried about in broad daylight?

[friendly_iconoclast]

79. How did he "jeopardize the movement", and what was irrational?

I suggest you remove your baseless slur.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

81. Mere ownership...

...is proof positive to some that you're too insane to be trusted with a firearm. Actually carrying one is absolute proof that you should be put down like a rabid animal.

[iverglas]

84. you really DO have a problem, don't you??

You don't seem to have a clue that discussions, including this one, are ABOUT something.

This particular one is about the wisdom and morality of carrying a firearm to an Occupy event.

What your post is about, christ only knows. Other than being one more example of badmouthing someone based on nothing but your own obvious ugly animus.

[oneshooter]

82. F-I, I don't mind, I just consider the source and ignore it.

HOYT, when are YOU destroy YOUR firearms. Or are you just a bitter old "man" whose hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

80. I take it you've never actually been to Houston?

Its a large city Hoyt. Shit happens. Besides, I wouldn't leave a gun in the car with that kind of crap going on.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. Where they stockpile military rifles, of course. Gotta wonder about those types...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x474450#475112

[rl6214]

25. What's a gunner?

[Euromutt]

27. It's how you address an artilleryman with the rank of private

At least in the British army. There are equivalents in other armies; in the Dutch army, artillery private are addressed as Kanonnier (cannoneer), apart from the Horse Artillery, who are addressed as rijder (rider). Similarly, both German and Polish artillerymen are addressed as Kanonier, and in Russian, канонир.

[rl6214]

28. That's what I thought but

I keep seeing "gunner" and "toter" and "gun militant" thrown around on this forum and was just wondering about the intent/stupidity of all of it.

[oneshooter]

31. All are the anti's form of insult that they can use without being kicked.

[rl6214]

47. Exactly...

Just wanted to see if anyone would own up to it.

[SteveM]

68. ...but in hopes of making the forum "extreme" and ripe for "moving."

[oneshooter]

30. Which differs from"Gunny" which is a shortened form of Gunnery Sergent in the USMC. n/t

[Remmah2]

40. "Gunner" vs "Gunnery Seargent" (aka "Gunnie") TRIVIA

A former Marine set me straight on this years ago. "Gunners" are very rare in the Marines right now.

"Chief Warrant Officer, CWO2–CWO5, serving in the MOS 0306 "Infantry Weapons Officer" carries a special title, "Marine Gunner", which does not replace his rank. A Marine Gunner replaces the Chief Warrant Officer insignia on the left collar with a bursting bomb insignia. Other warrant officers are sometimes informally also referred to as "Gunner".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps_rank_insignia

[oneshooter]

33. So you would not run in fear "screaming and pissing your pants like a little girl"?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

16. self delete

wrong place

[Remmah2]

37. The city admitted wrong doing by offering $25,000.

Hope he wins the bonus round when it goes to the supreme court. He'll have ACLU and NRA lawyers shoulder to shoulder with him.

[iverglas]

42. why would you make that false statement?

An offer to settle a civil suit is not an admission of wrongdoing.

I'm afraid I find it completely impossible to believe that you do not know this.

[Remmah2]

45. Did the city offer $25,000 because they were right?

Do you lack intuition and logic? Or do you just enjoy pissing on people when you're offensive and wrong?

[iverglas]

53. if you don't know that an offer to settle a civil suit

is not an admission of liability, let alone of "wrongdoing", then you need to inform yourself, and it isn't my job to do that job for you.

What you're not entitled to do is make false statements, even if innocently, and the statement that an offer to settle a civil suit is an admission of wrongdoing is a false one.

What I can't believe is that you don't know that parties to civil actions offer to settle every day simply to make a case go away and spare themselves the expense of defending it in court and, given the vagaries of the judicial process, the possibility of losing even where they were in no way liable.

[Remmah2]

57. It's a legalized bribe, how's that?

A crap sandwich is still a crap sandwich no matter what bread you use or how much ketchup you put on it.



Was the guy arrested in Philadelphia or Oz?

[iverglas]

63. it's stupid and false, how's that?

[ileus]

46. Like I said he should have taken their 25k with a smile.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

59. yes, the more I think about it, the more I agree with this. n/t

[ileus]

61. They say "our bad" he goes home with 25k, his permit and sidearm.

[iverglas]

86. I'm sure this isn't true ...

but it's pretty funny:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20111031_Man_with_rifle_barricaded_in_Kensington.html

-- see last reader comment. ;)

I wonder whether the local public knows something we don't.