Skip to comments.WA:Veteran Arrested And Charged For Legally Open Carrying AR-15
Posted on 07/04/2013 7:13:13 AM PDT by marktwain
A decorated Air Force veteran pleaded not guilty this morning to a charge of trespassing with a weapon capable of producing bodily harm, after being arrested by police in Vancouver, Washington, for legally open carrying an AR-15 rifle.
Last Saturday, Mack Worley, eager to exercise his second amendment, open carried his rifle while grabbing a soda and viewing a fireworks stand before attempting to walk back to his car.
No one had said anything negative to me. A few people came up to me and asked a few questions about what I was doing and I just explained that I was asserting my second amendment right. I was explaining to people that its not against the law or a crime to open carry a firearm, said Worley.
While walking on a public sidewalk toward his vehicle, Worley noticed an officer waiting down the street in a police car. Worley, assuming the police wanted to speak with him, continued walking down the sidewalk.
As I started walking to them, I hear on a loudspeaker to my left a police officer telling me to put my hands up, said Worley.
Worley then noticed as many as seven police officers pointing their guns at him, demanding he remove his firearm. Police also ordered Worley to turn off his cell phone which was recording the incident which Worley refused.
Worley then asserted his fourth amendment right by informing the officers that he did not consent to any searches or seizures of his property.
As police moved in closer, Worley, now fearing for his safety, made the decision to remove his firearm despite the police having no legal justification to demand he do so.
I asked the officer if was being detained, he said no.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Sounds like police are in need of another educational legal beat down.
After that one gets inserted, we can move on to freedom of the press and religion and the right to keep and bear arms, etc. But government would be nicely kept in check if officials became fair game whenever they acted against the Supreme Law of the Land.
The more I read of things like this the less respect I have for LEO’s - I’d rather defend myself from crime than to call on these miscreants to protect me. When seconds count, LEO’s are minutes away.
Those are Israeli soldiers at a Tel Aviv beach...
Here is a link to the video of Mr. Worley telling his story. It sounds very credible.
Perp probably had a BIBLE on him, too.
A hanging offense, fer sure.
Hard to conceal a weapon in that outfit!
Hah! If she is not careful she will have ‘gun tan’. hehehe
There are many Mack Worley’s in this world, and I’ll always be grateful to them all for their selfless, courageous, actions in the face of tyranny.
They’re not worried , as long as we’re paying for it.
They were paying attention when life and history took them to school.
And here we are, writing in the text books, tearing out the pages, sleeping in class and about to get our knuckles rapped.
Kalifornia’s liberal insanity has metastasized up the left coast. The whole mess from San Diego to the Canadien/Canadian line is now threatening to move eastward.
This will bankrupt their department and many will be retired without benefit.
“Hah! If she is not careful she will have gun tan. hehehe”
That could be a major plus in her finding a real man.
How much you want bet that somehow something goes wrong with that phone and its recordings accidently get erased.
That, is an actual crime.
Too many Barney Fifes and not enough Andy Griffiths out there...
Spoliation of evidence
The spoliation of evidence is the intentional or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding. Spoliation has two possible consequences: in jurisdictions where the (intentional) act is criminal by statute, it may result in fines and incarceration for the parties who engaged in the spoliation; in jurisdictions where relevant case law precedent has been established, proceedings possibly altered by spoliation may be interpreted under a spoliation inference.
The spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party’s destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.
The theory of the spoliation inference is that when a party destroys evidence, it may be reasonable to infer that the party had “consciousness of guilt” or other motivation to avoid the evidence. Therefore, the factfinder may conclude that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the spoliator. Some jurisdictions have recognized a spoliation tort action, which allows the victim of destruction of evidence to file a separate tort action against a spoliator.
Spoliation is often an issue in the context where a person claims he has been injured by a defective product which he then discarded or lost. In that circumstance, the defendant manufacturer or distributor may move to dismiss the case on the basis of spoliation (instead of just having to rely on the plaintiff’s usual burden of proof, the argument being that any testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses would not overcome the spoliation inference born of the lost evidentiary value of the missing product itself).
> Those are Israeli soldiers at a Tel Aviv beach...
I would say the Muslim Brotherhood’s chances of raping them would be 0 %...lol
Here is a local news article that gives a completely different spin.
However, if you read carefully, no panic happened until the police showed up.
They Founding Fathers wrote The Constitution from real experience dealing with tyrranny over about a 600 year time period. They knew exactly how important what they doing was.
Spoliation of electronically stored data can have stiff fines and criminal penalties even when it is done accidentally.
Having been involved in court cases where this was an issue and also being a forensic accountant and CPA, I can say that very few lawyers, judiciary and law enforcement officials are aware of spoliation laws.
Or as LEO’s are taught in the academy “fruit of the poisoned tree” doctrine...
I was wondering if there is an app that would immediately load video/photos into the cloud or another alternative sources for safe keeping.
From the news article referenced: Vancouver police spokeswoman Kim Kapp said a security guard told Worley to leave and called police when he didnt.
By the time police arrived, Kapp said Worley had walked to a fireworks stand in the Big Als parking lot. Employees closed the stand because they were worried about what Worley was up to. An employee at Big Als called 911 while the business went into lockdown.
Coffee barista Dominick Harris watched as panicked parents grabbed their children and ran into the restaurant while police officers swarmed around Worley.
I saw this guy underneath this tree over there with hands up, Harris said.
Officers took Worley’s rifle but returned it after they determined it was not stolen. Police said Worley was on private property, and when they stopped him they told him Big Als has a no-weapons policy unless the gun owner has a concealed weapons permit.
Worley refused to leave, according to police.
If the public is afraid, thats not my fault. I dont control their point of view, Worley said. In fact, I welcome it. I welcome and encourage a debate on the subject. I am not responsible for their fear.
“as panicked parents grabbed their children and ran into the restaurant while police officers swarmed around Worley.”
I would be scared too if that many police officers pulled their weapons.
An education worth the cost. The incidents of harassment have gotten fewer and fewer in Michigan till today when nobody but democrats bat an eye at the sight of an armed citizen in the state capitol building.
Here is an absolutely fabulous article about eyewitness testimony. This is an area where I do considerable research. I’ve been lecturing on false memory and how it is created for many years. (I have not like Loftus as a person ever since she was the expert for OJ Simpson in the jury selection process for his murder trial, but her work is real good)
From Lab to Court: Memory and the Law
The New Jersey Supreme Court this week released radical new rules on the use and misuse of eyewitness testimony. The ruling has profound legal implications, essentially challenging the 34-year-old U.S. Supreme Court standard for the reliability of eyewitness memories of crimes, making it much easier for defendants to dispute eyewitness evidence in court. The New Jersey Court is considered a trailblazer in criminal law, and the ruling could well end up re-shaping the law of the land.
The ruling also reflects decades of scientific research on human memory, and its failings. Although this work has been done by scores of scientists in as many labs, the core ideathat human memory is untrustworthycan can be traced back to Elizabeth Loftus, now at the University of California at Irvine. There are only a handful of psychological scientists whose work has so profoundly altered their fieldand the public understanding of that fieldthat its difficult to imagine the world as it was before. Loftus is one of these, and this most recent ruling will broaden her influence on public policy and law.
To fully appreciate Loftuss impact, simply recall that memory was once thought of as a filing cabinet, a more-or-less organized storage place for learning and experience, all the details of which were intact and accessible, waiting to be beckoned and retrieved. We now know how inadequate that metaphor is. Memory is not a filing cabinet, nor is it a videotape. Human memory is in fact fragmentary, malleable, and untrustworthy. But this new view was a long time emerging, and has been met with harsh criticism and stubborn resistance along the way, both in labs and courtrooms.
ALL labor and school quotas, set-asides, and AA are unconstitutional.
Where does the unconstitutionality it end? ( I mean beyond this already soft tyranny?)
I was explaining to people that its not against the law or a crime to open carry a firearm, said Worley.
In Washington State it may be.
Yah, that’s it, stick your finger into the beast’s eye, spread consternation and dismay among the untutored multitudes, brandish that gun out there like the wild west. I mean for the love of murk, here we are fighting for our lives on this gun control scam, wondering when the next school or movie massacre will put the final nail in the coffin they are making for the 2nd Ammendment, and we have hard heads trying to push the issue over the top with the “open carry” provocation.
What, the fact that Homeland Security, the IRS and any other institution taken over by leftist cadres is trying to tar the Tea Party movement as a dangerous terrorist outfit preparatory to a hoped for eventual round up into FEMA “Summer camps”, isn’t enough to counsel a bit of circumspection. You open carry hard heads sure you aren’t doing the Marxist in Chief’s social control dirty work for him?
The ONLY reason for open carry is to deliver a message. But the only message that’s going to propel yer average shopping mall pilgrim is to make a 911 call to report a man with a gun. Hey, how about some real fun and do the “open carry” thing in a bank or jewelry store. The risk of unpredictable reactions from everyone including people with a concealed carry license, and an absolute freaking ton of BAD PUBLICITY is very huge. The observational deficit that allows the open carry fanatics to think that their strategy is good for protection of the 2nd Amendment borders on being defined as developmentally challenged, and that’s me being polite. Let’s see if we can get our collective I.Q. back into the triple digit range.
Washington is an Open Carry state. In this one respect it is superior to Texas.
Thanks, I read the article and it does give a bit of a different take. We need to see what happens in court. That of course depends on whether the court that hears this has a truthful and duty bound justice.
Rifles slung across the back are not “brandished”, save in those states where the Law is an Ass.
Rights not used are lost.
A major purpose of open carry is to make it commonplace. A good goal is to make future generations wonder why an individual is NOT carrying.
Wow! That is amazing!!!!! Good to hear.
“Too many Barney Fifes and not enough Andy Griffiths out there...”
Andy is “selling” Obamacare on TV. He’s a big-time Marxist.
In these states, open carry of a handgun is generally lawful, but the state may lack preemption or there may be other significant restrictions. The limitations and/or lack of pre-emption may mean that certain areas of these states are, in their judicial system and law enforcement societies, not very friendly towards the practice, although this is not true in all of these states.
The part about "not friendly" sounds about right. I personally have never seen a civilian open carry here in an urban area.
They’re gorgeous, they’re tough...
We went to Jerusalem in May 2010. On Sunday the streets and busses and tour sites were full of Israeli soldiers in full uniform with weapons. They seemed to be on a day leave.
Never felt so safe.
“we have hard heads trying to push the issue over the top with the open carry provocation.”
Remember when gays were spreading AIDS everywhere and millions of people were being killed by their perversion? They didnt apologize, act contrite and stay silent. They went on the offensive DEMANDING MORE RIGHTS and SPECIAL PRIVILEGES. They broke into churches during mass and disrupted events held by their opposition. They were/are obnoxious but it was very effective. Now we have gay marriage which was unthinkable even a few years ago. What can we learn from this? If you think you are right, go on the offensive, be obnoxious, make DEMANDS for more rights, dont be happy that only some of your rights are being lost. Be an ACTIVIST, MAKE TROUBLE.
>>Rifles slung across the back are not brandished, save in those states where the Law is an Ass.
Your subjective observations do not fit the objective world. 90% of the population who will witness this useless theater of the absurd will feel fear and dial 911 if you try this anywhere other than Bubba’s Crab Shack in Outback, Mississippi.
>>Rights not used are lost.
Falls trippingly off the tongue but is, in fact, a two bit sound bite meant to justify a provocative show of force in an extremely precarious battle that may determine whether or not we become governed by a dictatorship.
>>A major purpose of open carry is to make it commonplace.
Like you see in any banana republic airport or street corner? Nice. You get misread by a concealed carry bearer, a firefight ensues, that’s going to play real pretty on the 6:00 news. Try that in the ghetto. Get some freaking media savvy.
>>A good goal is to make future generations wonder why an individual is NOT carrying.
Concealed carry is good, no question. The perp not knowing where and when he’ll run into an armed citizen is good. But open carry is an invitation to disaster and illustrates why we are struggling for our lives against near liberal hegemony in all social institutions, we simply don’t know how to play the media game. And, make no mistake, media game it is. Did I mention the part about it being a media game?
This nation has been sensitized on the image of the “assault rifle”. The media circus has nearly successfully turned it into an icon for random death domestically, yet an instrument of liberation internationally. That’s the left’s blatant schizophrenia for you.
Regardless, 90% of your public is going to crap their pants when they see a non-uniformed civilian in a civilian setting (mall, cafe, supermarket, Summer street fair, etc.) with an icon of death they’ve seen a thousand times on the news in the hands of the Taliban, the Mexican mafia, the Moslem Brotherhood, the Syrian “freedom fighters”. This is such a no brainer.
You guys have your hearts in the right place, but you need to put in some thinking time on this one and put yourself in the shoes of your local (liberal) TV station’s News Editor. An incident over open carry is his propaganda wet dream.
Again, it’s a media war, a propaganda war, a war for the hearts and minds of John Q. Public, a public that has been jacked around for two generations by the Marxist Frankfort School/Gramsci intelligentsia. Feel free to Google those references.
Too vague. See "People" can't violate the First amendment. Only the Government can. So you need it reworded so it pertains to Government employees.
Didn’t want my post to be pulled. I figured the intent would be clear ;)
>we have hard heads trying to push the issue over the top with the open carry provocation.
>>Remember when gays were spreading AIDS everywhere and millions of people were being killed by their perversion? They didnt apologize, act contrite and stay silent. They went on the offensive DEMANDING MORE RIGHTS and SPECIAL PRIVILEGES. They broke into churches during mass and disrupted events held by their opposition. They were/are obnoxious but it was very effective. Now we have gay marriage which was unthinkable even a few years ago.
Yep, good, but there is a crucial flaw in your logic. The gays were perceived as victims, bravely fighting off the ravages of disease. Their game board ALLOWED this strategy to work. They played the empath card and it worked because most human beings with an ounce of compassion will wish that other humans don’t suffer. Basically the gays could do no wrong and the few “direct action” events, such as throwing contaminated blood on politicians, were seen as justifiable. This is where their media analysts kicked our media analysts (frankly, a non-existant if marginal entity in my opinion) into the next county.
>>What can we learn from this? If you think you are right, go on the offensive, be obnoxious, make DEMANDS for more rights, dont be happy that only some of your rights are being lost. Be an ACTIVIST, MAKE TROUBLE.
You have no idea how strongly I agree with you here. You’ll see that if you track my FR posts. But there are tactics and there is suicide. Two different animals in any rational human’s playbook. We need to get savvy on where the public’s mind is on this issue. The open carry strategy is being conducted with absolutely ZERO data collection on actual public response. The cognitive background residing withing the mind of the general public is being fatally estimated with the same hopefulness that we despise in leftist agenda making.
We really need to think this one through. The game is for all the marbles at this juncture in history. An error here could sink us. It won’t take much to justify a thousand Ruby Ridge or Waco raids, detention camps, martial law, etc. The only place I’d approve of open carry would be outside the Bilderberg or Club of Rome meeting. We either get smarter or we die.
Agreed. Let's win.
You don't do that by abandoning the battlefield.
>Again, its a media war, a propaganda war, a war for the hearts and minds of John Q. Public, a public that has been jacked around for two generations by the Marxist Frankfort School/Gramsci intelligentsia. Feel free to Google those references.
>>Agreed. Let’s win.
>>You don’t do that by abandoning the battlefield.
You don’t do that by misunderstanding the terrain maps, the G-2, the adversary’s strengths, and your own rationality for adopting a tactic that goes beyond crap shoot into the realm of self-extinction. This battlefield is the battlefield of perception.
Again, the battlefield is in the media, a battlefield we are not very good on judging by our loss of control of over 80% of it. Audacity has its place, Patton was brilliant, but a PR nightmare. This is not the way to win the public to our side. Get me drunk enough and I’ll call open carry out and out sabotage and send ferrets to find its true source.
If you must beg of your masters the permission to carry a weapon, are you not already governed by a dictatorship?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.