Man removed by PD for carrying at St. Joe County polls

[jedi]

Why just civil, J-?

 

[theweakerbrother]

That answers why civil but it doesn't answer why JUST civil. You could do both, could you not?

 

[jedi]

That answers why civil but it doesn't answer why JUST civil. You could do both, could you not?

Again see the picture. Not only is the reward of the civil $$$ but there is $$$$ involved in doing the other route both to the atty and client. It may not be worth it to either of them to go that route.

--update--
That is NOT a knock against ATTY GUY BTW. Just looking at the economics of it.

 

[actaeon277]

CathyInBlue, I'd rep ya, but my cell won't let me. Maybe if I can remember when I get home.
If this were certain people (associated with a "protected class"), the news would be all over it.
Some people are more equal than others.
I guess that's how you balance past inequities.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

TWB - keep in mind that the ball is just now getting rolling on this.

Get the opening acts out of the way first then bring out the main act.

As much as we all want instant gratification / justice...there's a process and a method. I trust that Guy knows what he's doing.

 

[KLB]

That answers why civil but it doesn't answer why JUST civil. You could do both, could you not?

I believe the .gov has to bring criminal charges.

Joe citizen can bring a civil case.

 

[jedi]

Klb if that is the case which me think is correct based on what i recall seeing in the news of other criminal cases then we will never see criminal chrages. Sigh

 

[Deadly Z Driver]

Man says he was barred from voting due to gun - 13 WTHR Indianapolis
Guys we need to get in here and get rid of these negative reps on these comments!!!

 

[actaeon277]

Wow.
Calls made to the election board.
Calls made to the police.
Witnesses.
And, the article says that he "claims" he was prevented?

 

[Hammerhead]

Wow.
Calls made to the election board.
Calls made to the police.
Witnesses.
And, the article says that he "claims" he was prevented?

And the nimrod who actually did the preventing going onto the local news and saying factually "I told him he couldn't because he can't."

 

[jedi]

And the nimrod who actually did the preventing going onto the local news and saying factually "I told him he couldn't because he can't."

Hey he **IS** the government and what he says go! I'm just so disappointed that the JBTs did not push the gunowner into the ground, kick him for good measure, arrest him and really show the gunowner who is in charge. Hum.. must of been an off day for the JBT.

 

[Ted]

.......They don't have to have had mens rea to break the law, they just have to have had mens rea to commit an act which turned out to be against the law. I think that has been amply demonstrated.

There are certainly degrees of culpability to this regard.....but if there is no intent....there is no crime.

What has been, in fact, amply demonstrated, is the profound ignorance of the law. Therefore, the intent would seem to be that of negligence.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

South Bend Tribune article for you.

Man who carries gun to polls sues - southbendtribune.com

 

[jedi]

South Bend Tribune article for you.

Man who carries gun to polls sues - southbendtribune.com

Got to love this quote in the article...
" Courthouses and buildings connected to courthouses, such as the County-City Building in South Bend, are excluded, as are some other buildings."

 

[Ted]

Got to love this quote in the article...
" Courthouses and buildings connected to courthouses, such as the County-City Building in South Bend, are excluded, as are some other buildings."

It may or may not be the case, dependent upon the presence of a magnetometer and LEO trained in the discipline, at all entrances.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Got to love this quote in the article...
" Courthouses and buildings connected to courthouses, such as the County-City Building in South Bend, are excluded, as are some other buildings."

Yea. That's one that they're trying to pull off here. The courthouse is across the street. It's connected by a tunnel. Under the street. Total BS.

 

[jedi]

Yea. That's one that they're trying to pull off here. The courthouse is across the street. It's connected by a tunnel. Under the street. Total BS.

Oh I know I'm well aware of the situtation that South Bend is trying to pull.

 

[Hammerhead]

It may or may not be the case, dependent upon the presence of a magnetometer and LEO trained in the discipline, at all entrances.

Problem is, 35-47-11.1-4-13 says that even if there are metal detectors and an officer trained to use it, and they check everything and everyone, they can't deny LTCH holders.

And I don't have any idea where they get the idea that a tunnel means that one building is a part of another.

 

[jedi]

Problem is, 35-47-11.1-4-13 says that even if there are metal detectors and an officer trained to use it, and they check everything and everyone, they can't deny LTCH holders.

And I don't have any idea where they get the idea that a tunnel means that one building is a part of another.

:offtopic:
We do have a thread on this very topic and all it's issues but it's not 35-47-11.1-4-13 it's the courthouse itself.

Weapons (IIRC) are still not allowed in court houses (per court order not indiana law). South Bend is saying that the bldg across the street connected via the tunnel is part of the court house even though it has 2 different addresses ,etc.. as such since they touch (via the tunnel) it's one big bldg which is one big court house.

South Bend is stretching the law as far as it can stretch and until Guy or another ATTY get around to slapping them silly they will get away with it.

Now can someone please post the thread where this has/is being talked about.

 

[Ted]

Problem is, 35-47-11.1-4-13 says that even if there are metal detectors and an officer trained to use it, and they check everything and everyone, they can't deny LTCH holders.

And I don't have any idea where they get the idea that a tunnel means that one building is a part of another.

I tend to think that the antis are just being arbitrary, but there might be a legitimate security issue with court access from the building across the street. This could come from LE, or perhaps even from the courts.

Even a conference room used regularly for court business, could conceivably be reason enough to classify the building as part of the courts.

As the IC already has outlined relief to such an issue, why not pursue it, if you believe it to be illegitimate?