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

[GBuck]

I am so impressed with the work Guy does for the community. I am glad to have members like that here.

 

[Pitmaster]

I saw a picture of one of the deputies at the scene of the crime. He's an experienced and good cop, who is 2A supportive, a veteran, and has laid his life on the line within the community during at least one shootout. While I don't like what has happened in this case and it shouldn't have happened I'm sure he was acting in good faith.

As far as this case goes, I don't think any criminal findings are going to result in charges, much less convictions. For one, the county prosecutor will decide there was no criminal intent and not file them. The civil side will result in a settlement with a non-disclosure agreement. I suspect that this agreement will require an educational component about Indiana gun laws regarding the LTCH for election officials and local law enforcement in addition to some financial compensation.

I appreciate and support the efforts of Clay and Guy in this case.

 

[Hotdoger]

I saw a picture of one of the deputies at the scene of the crime. He's an experienced and good cop, who is 2A supportive, a veteran, and has laid his life on the line within the community during at least one shootout. While I don't like what has happened in this case and it shouldn't have happened I'm sure he was acting in good faith.

As far as this case goes, I don't think any criminal findings are going to result in charges, much less convictions. For one, the county prosecutor will decide there was no criminal intent and not file them. The civil side will result in a settlement with a non-disclosure agreement. I suspect that this agreement will require an educational component about Indiana gun laws regarding the LTCH for election officials and local law enforcement in addition to some financial compensation.

I appreciate and support the efforts of Clay and Guy in this case.

How were the officers and poll workers '" acting in good faith" with " no criminal intent" ?

They were breaking the law .

"Criminal intent means the intent to do something wrong or forbidden by law."

 

[Stschil]

I saw a picture of one of the deputies at the scene of the crime. He's an experienced and good cop, who is 2A supportive, a veteran, and has laid his life on the line within the community during at least one shootout. While I don't like what has happened in this case and it shouldn't have happened I'm sure he was acting in good faith.

As far as this case goes, I don't think any criminal findings are going to result in charges, much less convictions. For one, the county prosecutor will decide there was no criminal intent and not file them. The civil side will result in a settlement with a non-disclosure agreement. I suspect that this agreement will require an educational component about Indiana gun laws regarding the LTCH for election officials and local law enforcement in addition to some financial compensation.

I appreciate and support the efforts of Clay and Guy in this case.

Those who responded to the first call and eventually found that there were no prohibitions and allowed Clay to leave without arrest were acting in good faith for the most part. However, having the information and KNOWING Clay was doing nothing illegal when he attempted to vote during the second incident and continuing to barr access required a conscious choice. That Sir, is criminal.

As far as the local prosecutor is concerned, I believe the Honorable Mr Relford has addressed that with the request for a special prosecutor, knowing that there is a chance the local one was complicit.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Pitmaster, if you think it is OK to deny a Marine his right to vote (a felony in this state) and let them walk then I have no use for you. Pathetic.

WARS have been fought, men have and do lay down their lives for rights such as these and you think they shouldn't get a little jail time and a fine???

 

[Hotdoger]

Those who responded to the first call and eventually found that there were no prohibitions and allowed Clay to leave without arrest were acting in good faith for the most part. However, having the information and KNOWING Clay was doing nothing illegal when he attempted to vote during the second incident and continuing to barr access required a conscious choice. That Sir, is criminal.

As far as the local prosecutor is concerned, I believe the Honorable Mr Relford has addressed that with the request for a special prosecutor, knowing that there is a chance the local one was complicit.

What is dumbfounding to me is the poll workers are not Poed they were given such crappy legal advice and now are subject to legal ramifications.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

What is dumbfounding to me is the poll workers are not Poed they were given such crappy legal advice and now are subject to legal ramifications.

If they weren't at the time, they may be now

 

[Kutnupe14]

Pitmaster, if you think it is OK to deny a PERSON his right to vote (a felony in this state) and let them walk then I have no use for you. Pathetic.

WARS have been fought, men have and do lay down their lives for rights such as these and you think they shouldn't get a little jail time and a fine???

Fixed, as there is no hierarchy of citizenship.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Those who responded to the first call and eventually found that there were no prohibitions and allowed Clay to leave without arrest were acting in good faith for the most part. However, having the information and KNOWING Clay was doing nothing illegal when he attempted to vote during the second incident and continuing to barr access required a conscious choice. That Sir, is criminal.

As far as the local prosecutor is concerned, I believe the Honorable Mr Relford has addressed that with the request for a special prosecutor, knowing that there is a chance the local one was complicit.

I don't like that I have to agree (with the sentiment, not the poster), but I agree 100%

 

[Stschil]

I don't like that I have to agree (with the sentiment, not the poster), but I agree 100%

Admit it, Kutnupe, you know ya love me


You and I have had some good discussions over the last year. Some have been a bit contentious, but always with respect on both our parts. You are a gentleman, Sir, Of the highest caliber.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I saw a picture of one of the deputies at the scene of the crime. He's an experienced and good cop, who is 2A supportive, a veteran, and has laid his life on the line within the community during at least one shootout. While I don't like what has happened in this case and it shouldn't have happened I'm sure he was acting in good faith.

As far as this case goes, I don't think any criminal findings are going to result in charges, much less convictions. For one, the county prosecutor will decide there was no criminal intent and not file them. The civil side will result in a settlement with a non-disclosure agreement. I suspect that this agreement will require an educational component about Indiana gun laws regarding the LTCH for election officials and local law enforcement in addition to some financial compensation.

I appreciate and support the efforts of Clay and Guy in this case.

I do not think the County Prosecutor will have anything to do with this. They have filed a petition for a special prosecutor.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

For one, the county prosecutor will decide there was no criminal intent and not file them.

This is not about someone being kicked out of the Dairy Queen. This is about a citizen being denied the right to vote.

The county prosecutor may not be a factor as a special prosecutor may be appointed for the alleged state law violations. As well, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana would be the person deciding whether this merits federal criminal and/or civil prosecution.

 

[hoosierdoc]

This is not about someone being kicked out of the Dairy Queen. This is about a citizen being denied the right to vote.

The county prosecutor may not be a factor as a special prosecutor may be appointed for the alleged state law violations. As well, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana would be the person deciding whether this merits federal criminal and/or civil prosecution.

I'm don't think anyone involved had a clue they were committing such serious crimes by the actions that day. Why didn't they let him do a provisional ballot and figure it out later?

I have stood my ground and been wrong before, just glad it wasn't a felony

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I'm don't think anyone involved had a clue they were committing such serious crimes by the actions that day. Why didn't they let him do a provisional ballot and figure it out later?

I have stood my ground and been wrong before, just glad it wasn't a felony

Exactly. They were wanting HIM to relent and put his gun in his car to vote, why couldn't THEY have relented a little and let him keep his gun to vote.


I think that is why they have a support network to keep things like this from happening. It failed. Miserably.

And to Kutnupe, I am aware there is no 'official' hierarchy but it just seems like an extra slap in the face that this man gave up years of his life in service to this country and was willing to lay down his life at the request of said country to protect the very Rights that were taken from him on that day. It really turns my stomach but I would be just as upset if he had never served too.

 

[Pitmaster]

How were the officers and poll workers '" acting in good faith" with " no criminal intent" ?

Do you know how many laws and regulations are broken daily because people don't know they are being broken. John Stossel has written a book and done few stories about situations where people did something and then found out they broke the law. I don't consider that criminal intent. Intent is knowing you are breaking the law and going ahead and doing it.

However, having the information and KNOWING Clay was doing nothing illegal when he attempted to vote during the second incident and continuing to barr access required a conscious choice. That Sir, is criminal.

I agree with this. We don't know who the 2nd police responders were. I suspect it was two different shifts/officers but I do not know. IMO, the Sheriff's Department broke the law vs. the individual officers.

Pitmaster, if you think it is OK to deny a Marine his right to vote (a felony in this state) and let them walk then I have no use for you. Pathetic.

WARS have been fought, men have and do lay down their lives for rights such as these and you think they shouldn't get a little jail time and a fine???

While not near as serious as the situation we are discussing. A few years ago I was driving in Chicago and got pulled over. I had no clue why. I learned that talking on a cell phone while driving was illegal. I'm from out-of-state, had no clue about the law, saw no signs anywhere and ended up with a ticket. I had to go back to Chicago a few weeks later for court. The charge was dismissed because the officer didn't show up in court. Was I guilty of the infraction yes, did I have "criminal intent" to break the law. No. Do I use my cell phone while driving in Chicago? No.

I'm don't think anyone involved had a clue they were committing such serious crimes by the actions that day. Why didn't they let him do a provisional ballot and figure it out later?

This is really my point. If I recall most of the poll workers are volunteers. Usually, people who are ignorant of the finer points of the law. Heck, there were even some questions in this thread about the legality of the situation. Many here are fairly knowledgeable about the 2nd Amendment and Indiana law. I wouldn't expect the 80 y/o lady who is volunteering at the poll to have full knowledge of the applicable statute.

I just hate to see some individuals who thought they were just doing their job lose a career because a couple of county party hacks tried to pull a power trip.

I lean towards a very radical view of the 2 Amendment. My personal position is that every gun law and restriction starting with the NFA of 1934 is unconstitutional. About the only restriction I even remotely favor is someone being 18 before purchasing a firearm. I don't believe permits, licenses, training requirements, background checks, etc. should be done. Guns need to become as normalized as a cell phone.

I regularly donate to gun organizations, write letters, and make phone calls regarding legislation at the Federal and State level. Including other states than Indiana.

 

[Expat]

Exactly. They were wanting HIM to relent and put his gun in his car to vote, why couldn't THEY have relented a little and let him keep his gun to vote.


I think that is why they have a support network to keep things like this from happening. It failed. Miserably.

And to Kutnupe, I am aware there is no 'official' hierarchy but it just seems like an extra slap in the face that this man gave up years of his life in service to this country and was willing to lay down his life at the request of said country to protect the very Rights that were taken from him on that day. It really turns my stomach but I would be just as upset if he had never served too.

There was a comment on one of the articles (not sure if WNDU or ABC57) from a poll worker that the "gun question" had been party of their poll worker training. He said he was carrying himself. That might be something Guy should check on. Is gun possession part of poll worker training in other counties? Part of St. Jos county? If not and others are training on it, why aren't they?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Intent is knowing you are breaking the law and going ahead and doing it.

No, incorrect. It is the intent to do the act. Your motive is immaterial.

It does not matter that St. Joseph law enforcement thought that this situation was akin to kicking someone out of a Dairy Queen.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, just ask the lapel grabbers. If I do not know that robbing a bank is illegal, that means there is no criminal intent?

"My client didn't know marijuana (cocaine, having old prescribed pills, having sex with animals, driving drunk, inter alia) was illegal."

Not going to get very far.

 

[KG1]

I saw a picture of one of the deputies at the scene of the crime. He's an experienced and good cop, who is 2A supportive, a veteran, and has laid his life on the line within the community during at least one shootout. While I don't like what has happened in this case and it shouldn't have happened I'm sure he was acting in good faith.

As far as this case goes, I don't think any criminal findings are going to result in charges, much less convictions. For one, the county prosecutor will decide there was no criminal intent and not file them. The civil side will result in a settlement with a non-disclosure agreement. I suspect that this agreement will require an educational component about Indiana gun laws regarding the LTCH for election officials and local law enforcement in addition to some financial compensation.

I appreciate and support the efforts of Clay and Guy in this case.

The parts I highlighted in red I do believe also apply to Mr. Edinger whose civil rights were allegedly violated and I am quite sure he was acting in good faith when he showed up to vote legally carrying a fiream at a polling place.

 

[KG1]

As far as this "acting in good faith" business.

I do believe that there have been plenty of times where people have been prosecuted when they were unaware they were breaking the law and were "acting in good faith"

 

[williamrights]

I'm don't think anyone involved had a clue they were committing such serious crimes by the actions that day. Why didn't they let him do a provisional ballot and figure it out later?

I have stood my ground and been wrong before, just glad it wasn't a felony

Ignorance is no excuse that is exactly what you and I would hear if we as the little people on the criminal side of this. Cops are paid to enforce the law therefore should know the law and should be held to a higher standard. My wife is an RN and is held to a higher standard and I am a licensed electrician and I am held to a higher standard.