User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 3:35:44 PM EDT
[#1]
Clown world is kind of fun once you fully embrace it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 3:36:36 PM EDT
[#2]
That is not my holster.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 3:41:10 PM EDT
[#3]
So I’m a lawyer now in Washington state, according to the dissent.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 3:49:01 PM EDT
[#4]
Far be it from me to defend anything that WA State does, but strict liability for felony-level crimes (or IMHO anything above low-level traffic stuff) is kind of screwed up. The whole idea of strict liability is that someone can make at least an effort to follow the law and still catch a felony and be a guest of substandard government housing for a while.
This ruling doesn't bother me much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 3:52:14 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Far be it from me to defend anything that WA State does, but strict liability for felony-level crimes (or IMHO anything above low-level traffic stuff) is kind of screwed up. The whole idea of strict liability is that someone can make at least an effort to follow the law and still catch a felony and be a guest of substandard government housing for a while. This ruling doesn't bother me much. It should. It will affect MUCH more than simple drug offenses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 3:53:40 PM EDT
[#6]
...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 3:56:28 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It should. It will affect MUCH more than simple drug offenses. You're legalizing criminality, and criminalizing law enforcement/ self defense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 3:57:37 PM EDT
[#8]
So what's the non-[legalese] circle jerk version of what happened and the court's opinion?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 3:58:16 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is not my holster. Exactly the fallout from this. CCWs should no longer be required because prove I knew I had a gun on me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 3:59:14 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Clown world is kind of fun once you fully embrace it. There comes a point where all you can do is laugh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 3:59:36 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is not my holster. Idk officer, that’s not my coat hanger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:00:39 PM EDT
[#12]
You'd have to operate the other person's brain to figure out what they "knew" or "didn't know".
Meanwhile in Oregon most street drugs are legal. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:01:12 PM EDT
[#13]
That's not my bump stock?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:01:51 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is not my holster. That is not my drop in auto sear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:02:46 PM EDT
[#15]
Why is this a big deal? King County basically defacto decriminalized all drugs years ago.
OR has just decriminalized all drugs officially. The big deal here is that someone in WA state is still attempting to arrest narcotics users/dealers. Although I applaud their effort ( as i despise junkies) we all know the direction this is heading |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:03:07 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is not my holster. That is not my suppressed beltfed machine gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:03:15 PM EDT
[#17]
Cool. My non lawyer understanding is that it is a drug "loophole"? I'm good with this for those to choose to use drugs. Not my business as to why they have it, but no matter the reason... Mere person of a drug should not be an issue.
And much more importantly, looking forward to this applying to things that are actually rights. Such as the second amendment. It'll cover that too. Right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:05:20 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Idk officer, that’s not my coat hanger. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That is not my holster. Idk officer, that’s not my coat hanger. I don't know who put that in this AR15 that also doesn't belong to me?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:05:49 PM EDT
[#19]
 Failed To Load Title |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:06:56 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is not my suppressed beltfed machine gun. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That is not my holster. That is not my suppressed beltfed machine gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:06:59 PM EDT
[#21]
Next, the “two beers” defense.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:07:06 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is not my holster. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:07:25 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're legalizing criminality, and criminalizing law enforcement/ self defense. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It should. It will affect MUCH more than simple drug offenses. You're legalizing criminality, and criminalizing law enforcement/ self defense. Watch the documentary "Seattle is Dieing" all sorts of crime has been defacto legalized here for the better part of a decade now. They even interview guys that laugh about how they "beat the system" |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:08:14 PM EDT
[#24]
This isn't even my car, so I know nothing of the dead body in the trunk sir...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:08:59 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cool. My non lawyer understanding is that it is a drug "loophole"? I'm good with this for those to choose to use drugs. Not my business as to why they have it, but no matter the reason... Mere person of a drug should not be an issue. And much more importantly, looking forward to this applying to things that are actually rights. Such as the second amendment. It'll cover that too. Right? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:09:45 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is not my suppressed beltfed machine gun. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That is not my holster. That is not my suppressed beltfed machine gun. If you are white and charged with a gun crime, this defense isn't going to fly for you. Keep dreaming. We are living in a post "rule of law" society |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:10:28 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So what's the non-[legalese] circle jerk version of what happened and the court's opinion? Person is arrested during execution of warrant at residence and taken to jail. At the jail, cops find meth in her coin pocket. She tells cops her friend gave her the pants a few days before and she doesn’t do meth. Boyfriend says she isn’t a methhead. Court says she may not have known meth was in her pants. “In 2016, police executed a search warrant in Spokane, Washington, seeking evidence of stolen vehicles. Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) at 19. They arrested three people on the property, including Shannon Blake. Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 13; VRP at 40. At the jail, a corrections officer discovered a small baggy containing methamphetamine in the coin pocket of Blake’s jeans. VRP at 47-48. The State charged Blake with possession of a controlled substance in violation of RCW 69.50.4013. CP at 18. At trial, Blake relied on the judicially created affirmative defense of “unwitting possession.” She testified that a friend had bought the jeans 3 State v. Blake (Shannon B.), No. 96873-0 secondhand and given them to Blake two days before Blake’s arrest. VRP at 76. Blake said she had never used methamphetamine and did not know the jeans had drugs in the pocket. Id. She acknowledged that the drugs had been “on [her]” on the day of her arrest. Id. at 83. Blake’s boyfriend also testified that Blake did not use drugs and that she had received the jeans from a friend. Id. at 89-90. The trial court served as trier of fact. CP at 20. It found that Blake had “possess[ed]” methamphetamine on the day in question. CP at 26. Consistent with the law as interpreted in Cleppe and Bradshaw, it did not make any findings as to whether the State had proved that Blake’s possession was intentional or knowing. It did conclude, however, that Blake had not met her burden to prove that her possession was unwitting. VRP at 108; CP at 26. Accordingly, the trial court found Blake guilty. On appeal, Blake argued that “requiring her to prove unwitting possession to [sic] the charged offense violates due process.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:11:19 PM EDT
[#28]
Conduct vs passive non-conduct. Sounds like a legal jerk off.
 At least they did address the statutory rape concerns (Page 29)This will require more in-depth reading and possible research. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:12:08 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So what's the non-[legalese] circle jerk version of what happened and the court's opinion? Mental state is a pretty big deal in American criminal law. If you knew you wanted to kill someone and you do it; it’s first degree murder and you’re going to get like life in prison or death penalty for it. If you didn’t mean to kill anyone and it was an accident, it’s probably negligent manslaughter and you might not even go to jail at all (even though the person is still just as dead). Because drugs are usually just powders or pills, it’s very hard for the prosecutor to PROVE that someone absolutely KNEW that the drugs were actually cocaine or illegal pills (and not powdered sugar or vitamins). In fact, the cops usually don’t know either; that’s why they have to do chemical or reactive testing or send the mystery substance to a lab. And, drugs are small and can be hidden in cars, bags, pants, etc. So the legislature made the drug law “strict liability”. I.e. - if you got drugs on you, too bad. Go directly to felony. The prosecution doesn’t have to prove you knew they were on you, and doesn’t have to prove that you knew they were drugs or not. Even if you got up on the stand and said “I had no idea that was in my car, someone tricked me, and anyway sincerely thought I was buying a bag of oregano and one of flour from this guy on the street”, too bad you’re guilty if they were actually drugs. Now the prosecution will have to prove that you knew you were breaking the law. Absent a text message or phone call or conversation with an undercover cop trying to buy or sell drugs while actually saying their real name, this will be hard to prove. And drugs found incidental to a stop and frisk or search will be hard to prove because the person can just plead ignorance, say it was someone else’s handbag, say some dude borrowed their car to run an errand and left it in there, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:12:26 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Washington’s strict liability drug possession statute, RCW 69.50.4013, makes possession of a controlled substance a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, plus a hefty fine; leads to deprivation of numerous other rights and opportunities; and does all this without proof that the defendant even knew they possessed the substance. This case presents an issue of first impression for this court: Does this strict liability drug possession statute with these substantial penalties for such innocent, passive conduct exceed the legislature’s police power? The due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions, along with controlling decisions of this court and the United States Supreme Court, compel us to conclude that the answer is yes—this exceeds the State’s police power. February 25, 2021 FILE IN CLERK’S OFFICE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON FEBRUARY 25, 2021THIS OPINION WAS FILED FOR RECORD AT 8 A.M. ON FEBRUARY 25, 2021 SUSAN L. CARLSON SUPREME COURT CLERK State v. Blake (Shannon B.), No. 96873-0 2 https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/968730.pdf This is a BIG DEAL and prosecutors are shitting themselves. The legislature would have to add language to the controlled substance statute to fix this. But, there were already bills on the floor to decriminalize drugs and now none of the reps have to take heat for "Making them drugs legal." It is going to be a shitshow Starting from the premise that I believe most things that are laws shouldn't be laws to begin with, I'm willing to be cautiously optimistic and believe this is addition by subtraction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:14:06 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It should. It will affect MUCH more than simple drug offenses. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Far be it from me to defend anything that WA State does, but strict liability for felony-level crimes (or IMHO anything above low-level traffic stuff) is kind of screwed up. The whole idea of strict liability is that someone can make at least an effort to follow the law and still catch a felony and be a guest of substandard government housing for a while. This ruling doesn't bother me much. It should. It will affect MUCH more than simple drug offenses. Machine guns, you mean? And tax fraud? "Oh, no...Anyway--" |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:15:35 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's not my bump stock? Thought I was entitled to 25 deductions? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:16:03 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mental state is a pretty big deal in American criminal law. If you knew you wanted to kill someone and you do it; it's first degree murder and you're going to get like life in prison or death penalty for it. If you didn't mean to kill anyone and it was an accident, it's probably negligent manslaughter and you might not even go to jail at all (even though the person is still just as dead). Because drugs are usually just powders or pills, it's very hard for the prosecutor to PROVE that someone absolutely KNEW that the drugs were actually cocaine or illegal pills (and not powdered sugar or vitamins). In fact, the cops usually don't know either; that's why they have to do chemical or reactive testing or send the mystery substance to a lab. And, drugs are small and can be hidden in cars, bags, pants, etc. So the legislature made the drug law "strict liability". I.e. - if you got drugs on you, too bad. Go directly to felony. The prosecution doesn't have to prove you knew they were on you, and doesn't have to prove that you knew they were drugs or not. Even if you got up on the stand and said "I had no idea that was in my car, someone tricked me, and anyway sincerely thought I was buying a bag of oregano and one of flour from this guy on the street", too bad you're guilty if they were actually drugs. Now the prosecution will have to prove that you knew you were breaking the law. Absent a text message or phone call or conversation with an undercover cop trying to buy or sell drugs while actually saying their real name, this will be hard to prove. And drugs found incidental to a stop and frisk or search will be hard to prove because the person can just plead ignorance, say it was someone else's handbag, say some dude borrowed their car to run an errand and left it in there, etc. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So what's the non-[legalese] circle jerk version of what happened and the court's opinion? Mental state is a pretty big deal in American criminal law. If you knew you wanted to kill someone and you do it; it's first degree murder and you're going to get like life in prison or death penalty for it. If you didn't mean to kill anyone and it was an accident, it's probably negligent manslaughter and you might not even go to jail at all (even though the person is still just as dead). Because drugs are usually just powders or pills, it's very hard for the prosecutor to PROVE that someone absolutely KNEW that the drugs were actually cocaine or illegal pills (and not powdered sugar or vitamins). In fact, the cops usually don't know either; that's why they have to do chemical or reactive testing or send the mystery substance to a lab. And, drugs are small and can be hidden in cars, bags, pants, etc. So the legislature made the drug law "strict liability". I.e. - if you got drugs on you, too bad. Go directly to felony. The prosecution doesn't have to prove you knew they were on you, and doesn't have to prove that you knew they were drugs or not. Even if you got up on the stand and said "I had no idea that was in my car, someone tricked me, and anyway sincerely thought I was buying a bag of oregano and one of flour from this guy on the street", too bad you're guilty if they were actually drugs. Now the prosecution will have to prove that you knew you were breaking the law. Absent a text message or phone call or conversation with an undercover cop trying to buy or sell drugs while actually saying their real name, this will be hard to prove. And drugs found incidental to a stop and frisk or search will be hard to prove because the person can just plead ignorance, say it was someone else's handbag, say some dude borrowed their car to run an errand and left it in there, etc.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:16:47 PM EDT
[#34]
So if the stolen gun is in a pants pocket you're good?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:17:43 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This isn't even my car, so I know nothing of the dead body in the trunk sir... "I didn't know the gun was loaded" |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:17:47 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thought I was entitled to 25 deductions? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That's not my bump stock? Thought I was entitled to 25 deductions? Taking 25 deductions is conduct. Doesn't matter if you knew it was legal or not. The state only needs to prove you took the deductions. It's in the court ruling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:20:00 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is not my holster. It cant be yours if its not registered to you. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:22:35 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is not my suppressed beltfed machine gun. Sir, it's in the middle of your living room... Oh, is that what that thing is? A machine gun? I had no idea |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:22:40 PM EDT
[#39]
AKA the Greg Brady Defense
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:22:40 PM EDT
[#40]
Man, we missed winning the war on drugs by this much 🤌
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:23:08 PM EDT
[#41]
How will they get those damn dirty dopers now? They can't possibly follow standards that exist in 49 other states.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:23:19 PM EDT
[#42]
This really isn't a big deal. Strict liability is legitimately an uncommon component of criminal law (just about the only place where it is somewhat commonly found is in dealing with statutory rape for underage victims). In most states, drug possession charges require the prosecution to prove that the subject "knowingly, intentionally, unlawfully and feloniously did possess a controlled substance" (this is the exact language contained in upwards of 100 Possession of Controlled Substance indictments I've prepared here in Virginia). Every single felony I've ever indicted includes the elements "knowingly, intentionally, unlawfully and feloniously did..."
I have lost cases based upon the intent or knowledge element not being proven beyond a reasonable doubt, though I will say that the "these aren't my pants" defense has never worked in my experience. The fact that a criminal defendant claims that they didn't know about the presence of the controlled substance doesn't mean that the knowledge or intent cannot be proven by circumstantial or direct evidence - which is why the "these aren't my pants" defense almost never works. We should be very concerned about criminal laws that create strict liability with absolutely no requirement that the prosecution prove mens rea or knowledge. I'm really not understanding why so many folks are getting wrapped around the axle on this one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:23:52 PM EDT
[#43]
Drug possession should be a mens rea offense.
Example 1. You have a roommate and he keeps cocaine in his room. You do not know that he has coke in his room and you should not be prosecuted simply because there's coke in your house. Example 2 Your buddy gives you a ride to Edmonton. Unknown to you he has a bunch of crack in the trunk of his car. You should not be prosecuted when you did not intentionally do anything wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:25:16 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is not my suppressed beltfed machine gun.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:25:30 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You'd have to operate the other person's brain to figure out what they "knew" or "didn't know". Meanwhile in Oregon most street drugs are legal. Nearly every criminal offense requires the jury/jurist to decide what the defendant's state of mind is. Our law, for the most part, requires that the defendant have a criminal intent; Whether general, like negligence or recklessness, or specific, like knowingly or purposefully. This is neither difficult nor troubling. Strict liability for possession offenses is a stupid fucking idea anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:30:13 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mental state is a pretty big deal in American criminal law. If you knew you wanted to kill someone and you do it; it’s first degree murder and you’re going to get like life in prison or death penalty for it. If you didn’t mean to kill anyone and it was an accident, it’s probably negligent manslaughter and you might not even go to jail at all (even though the person is still just as dead). Because drugs are usually just powders or pills, it’s very hard for the prosecutor to PROVE that someone absolutely KNEW that the drugs were actually cocaine or illegal pills (and not powdered sugar or vitamins). In fact, the cops usually don’t know either; that’s why they have to do chemical or reactive testing or send the mystery substance to a lab. And, drugs are small and can be hidden in cars, bags, pants, etc. So the legislature made the drug law “strict liability”. I.e. - if you got drugs on you, too bad. Go directly to felony. The prosecution doesn’t have to prove you knew they were on you, and doesn’t have to prove that you knew they were drugs or not. Even if you got up on the stand and said “I had no idea that was in my car, someone tricked me, and anyway sincerely thought I was buying a bag of oregano and one of flour from this guy on the street”, too bad you’re guilty if they were actually drugs. Now the prosecution will have to prove that you knew you were breaking the law. Absent a text message or phone call or conversation with an undercover cop trying to buy or sell drugs while actually saying their real name, this will be hard to prove. And drugs found incidental to a stop and frisk or search will be hard to prove because the person can just plead ignorance, say it was someone else’s handbag, say some dude borrowed their car to run an errand and left it in there, etc. No, it really won't be hard to prove at all. In fact, in 49 other states, intent needs to be proven to obtain a conviction. I need to prove knowledge and intent to obtain a conviction here in Virginia. I can count on one hand the number of times I've lost a case due to not being able to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt, and those cases were exceptionally circumstantial constructive possession cases. The defendant frequently makes a "these aren't my pants" defense, and it almost never works (and never has in any case I've prosecuted). The simple fact that the defendant claims it doesn't mean that the trial court or the jury is required to believe it. Credibility remains an issue. Now, in the case decided in Washington, there's a chance that the defense witnesses may have been credible and therefore intent couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (though likely not, because the trial court didn't believe that the defendant had proven the affirmative defense of accidental possession despite having heard from multiple defense witnesses). The sky isn't falling because now Washington prosecutors have to prove knowledge and intent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:30:44 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nearly every criminal offense requires the jury/jurist to decide what the defendant's state of mind is. Our law, for the most part, requires that the defendant have a criminal intent; Whether general, like negligence or recklessness, or specific, like knowingly or purposefully. This is neither difficult nor troubling. Strict liability for possession offenses is a stupid fucking idea anyway. Kind of like when Hillary didn't intend to break the law with her server. The same law that sent several service members to federal prison for far less. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:34:35 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you are white and charged with a gun crime, this defense isn't going to fly for you. Keep dreaming. We are living in a post "rule of law" society That is not my white skin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:35:24 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We should be very concerned about criminal laws that create strict liability with absolutely no requirement that the prosecution prove mens rea or knowledge. I'm really not understanding why so many folks are getting wrapped around the axle on this one. I agree that there is a problem with strict liability crimes, especially felonies. Under the strict liability drug statute, if you were on the subway next to a drug dealer with an identical backpack as yours expect his had drugs and on the way off the train, you accidentally picked up his then got busted, you are now guilty as no knowledge or intent needs to be shown. Personally, I'd think it would be fairly easy to prove knowledge in most cases (fingerprints on the drugs, drugs in system, on the way to a drug deal) so the state needing to show intent or knowledge is not a problem for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:38:21 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's not my grenade launcher. How did that get there? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: That is not my holster. That is not my suppressed beltfed machine gun. No.. Just no. That is NOT my belt fed suppressed grenade launcher with HE grenades... |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
