[Chadd1014]

Originally Posted by Hopes

That's insane. I would have caused the biggest fuss ever. If you think your police are corrupt, call the state police. I hope to Hell your state police aren't corrupt. Newspapers and television stations are good tools for fighting corruption too.


What?!?!!? Doesn't Vermont have Castle laws? Pennsylvania's is pretty sweet. We not only have the Castle Doctrine but we also have the Stand Your Ground Law, which means we have a right to defend ourselves when we're not home too. I'm disappointed that Vermont has such weak gun laws!

That sentence alone tells me all I need to know about your knowledge of guns or gun laws.

I'm done here, I'm quite sure you have no weapon or permit to carry one as required where you reside.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by Chadd1014

What's a shame is the lengths you'll go to to try and defend a position you've taken knowing full well it's the wrong position. I can see you sitting in your electric golf cart with your gun in your purse just gunning down some redneck drug addict wanting your watch. No problem It's in the Pennsylvania Constitution.
The drug addict's relatives will be living in your house when you get out of jail. Good luck with that.

I'm merely explaining the new Stand Your Ground law in Pennsylvania.

Read the law. It specifically states that people can't be sued if they use lethal force under the parameters of the new law.

And we already have a court case upholding the new law in the context we're discussing.

A recently decided case in Fayette County Court regarding what was termed by both the prosecution and defense as a “road rage” incident may be the first in Pennsylvania to use “stand your ground” legislation to successfully argue self-defense.

“We’re not aware of any cases like ours in Pennsylvania,” said Jack Purcell, one of the attorneys who defended Ralph Ore Fisher, 23, of Uniontown. Ore was acquitted of attempted homicide, aggravated assault and related charges during the August criminal court term.

Fisher was charged after an incident on May 15, 2012, in which he shot at another driver who rear-ended his vehicle, striking the other driver in the hand with one of the seven shots fired. At trial, Fisher testified he was afraid for his life because when he got out of his vehicle, the other driver “revved his engine and came directly at” him.

Recent case blazes trail for 'stand your ground' in Pa. - heraldstandard.com: New Today

There are also many other cases that never went to trial because the DAs determined that they could not prosecute under the new law.

Regardless, you questioned if Pennsylvania had a castle doctrine. I've proven that the three sites you checked aren't providing accurate information. The reason I brought it up is because I was disappointed to read the post that a Vermont DA would prosecute a Vermonter for defending themselves. That's just downright wrong.

[vter]

Please keep this on topic - about a police officer charged with DUI...NOT gun laws. Otherwise it'll get the 'ol lock.

[Hopes]

I'm sorry. I didn't see anything about DUI in the OP.

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

Am I in the minority thinking that the stop was an illegal stop? Not only does the dashcam video show a driver in full control and driving normally, but news now is that the troopers were supposed to pull over two cars per hour. Is unreasonable search and seizure now legal in the state? A National Guardsman handcuffed and tossed in the back of a cruiser for having the temerity to do a legal open carry in Rutland, then be subject to an ad homonym attack by WCAX, and now this?

The subsequent comments about being tossed into the cruiser for a legal open and carry inspired my shock and desire to share relevant PA laws for educational purposes. Upon reflection, it seems the topic is actually about illegal stop and search. The OP seems to be claiming that he was arrested for carrying a gun. Perhaps the OP will clarify.

[harry chickpea]

Higbee was stopped without cause and subjected to what amounts to an illegal search. I was somewhat surprised that he tried to chat his way out of any further intrusion instead of asking if he was being detained or arrested and then stating that since he wasnt under arrest that he was going to leave. However, that doesn't change the basic fact that there was no real reason to pull him over.

The second part of my post was in relation to a separate incident where a National Guard member was walking in Rutland in broad daylight with an open carry (legal in Vermont) and was handcuffed and tossed into the back of a police cruiser, I guess because a newbie cop was scared.

The reason I linked the two is that this Vermont is entirely different than the one I grew up in, where the goal of police was to protect and serve, not to intimidate and break laws.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

The reason I linked the two is that this Vermont is entirely different than the one I grew up in, where the goal of police was to protect and serve, not to intimidate and break laws.

Arctichomesteader's posts indicated that the court system is perpetuating the problem. I can understand how that can happen in lower level courts where the prosecutors and judges can be part of the local good-old-boy network, but what about Vermont's Supreme court? Is it upholding the law when these cases are appealed? Are citizens suing the police departments when their rights are violated? There needs to be consequences to reign them back into enforcing the law instead of their egos.

[harry chickpea]

Consequences only sometimes come from within a system. Systems are designed to be self-perpetuating and self-protective until stressed out of such behavior. There are ample examples.

[vter]

My bad. Missed the part about the guy in Rutland. Still...lets keep this on topic and not bicker. Thx.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

Consequences only sometimes come from within a system. Systems are designed to be self-perpetuating and self-protective until stressed out of such behavior. There are ample examples.

Isn't the media passionate about exposing all incidents as they occur? Or are they afraid of repercussions like thunderkat?

[harry chickpea]

No, the media is NOT passionate about exposing all incidents. Media tends to be highly selective in what gets space and what doesn't, generally based upon two factors - will advertisers or those in power be negatively affected, and reader interest. There were many times when I was growing up that the Burlington Free Press would not carry a story and the Times-Argus would. Even controversial comic strips were kept out of the Birmingham News and other conservative papers around the country.

The stop that was made would have never gathered any media attention if it did not involve one public entity (a cop) fighting another public entity (state police) . That made it a "safe" story for media. Add in that the atty. for the cop was seeking to bring it to public attention and it was a no brainer.