Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

CowboyT wrote:

Tweaker wrote:It has just come to light that the .gov retahds have claimed that Skidmark made racist comments and that all parties involved, save Skidmark are negroes.

As usual - THAT'S WAISSIS!

If that's all you got, that's what you bring.

Umm...where in any of the articles about this does it say that?

+1 Source?

Scroll down into the comments, specifically on posted by "grape" - probably aka 'grapeshot' on OCDO...


http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-n ... his-finger


Mr. Poindexter said that he considered the offer to settle the civil claim as threatening (much as the contractor's supervisor considered Henick's finger "threatening"); Poindexter accused Henick of having made racial remarks to the contractor's supervisor. (Prior to that time, no one other than Henick knew that the security contractors on the pier, the sheriff and his deputies were black , as is the Commonwealth's Attorney. Henick hadn't thought it significant to mention it to anyone, and subsequently denies having said anything to anyone that could be construed as racially motivated.) We see the Commonwealth Attorney's injection of racial prejudice into this case as an unfortunate and inappropriate tactic.

Sounds more to me that they know their case is weak and are looking to beef it up using the ever popular Al Sharpton method of " always offended" race card to garner some sympathy in the public arena,,,, makes for a distraction from the fact they have made a mistake.... I doubt they expected the level of support that Henick has received are attempting to use some Damage Control with a very old used up stand by,,,"The white Guy called me names",,,WAAAAHHH!!!

Pweecisewee!

This tactic is as transparent as when liberals reflexively use it when they find themselves at a deficit of facts, logic or supporting evidence. I am so pleased that the technique has found itself wanting in my lifetime!

Consent is only required "to board the ferry."

PayPal Confirmation number: 57WTF856WTF115WTF

Palladin wrote:Scroll down into the comments, specifically on posted by "grape" - probably aka 'grapeshot' on OCDO...


http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-n ... his-finger


Mr. Poindexter said that he considered the offer to settle the civil claim as threatening (much as the contractor's supervisor considered Henick's finger "threatening"); Poindexter accused Henick of having made racial remarks to the contractor's supervisor. (Prior to that time, no one other than Henick knew that the security contractors on the pier, the sheriff and his deputies were black , as is the Commonwealth's Attorney. Henick hadn't thought it significant to mention it to anyone, and subsequently denies having said anything to anyone that could be construed as racially motivated.) We see the Commonwealth Attorney's injection of racial prejudice into this case as an unfortunate and inappropriate tactic.

If they are offering that deal it is because their case is very weak. In the old common law days they use to throw out trials where a plaintiff accepted a plea bargain. The idea was that an innocent man had nothing to fear from the law and would accept a plea bargain only under threat and the state isn't suppose to be threatening its citizens. It as viewed was equally offensive for a guilty man to receive less than the law prescribed. All around, plea bargains were considered perversions of justice.

gunderwood wrote: If they are offering that deal it is because their case is very weak.

Who is the they in your above?

Chasbo00 wrote:

gunderwood wrote: If they are offering that deal it is because their case is very weak.

Who is the they in your above?

It was originally reported that Poindexter made the offer, thus his team would be they. However, it has been corrected to say that the defendant made the offer. I haven't had time to track this closely, so I missed that correction.

However, the general point still stands, it just isn't applicable to this specific case. If the prosecutor offers to drop the charges in exchange for civil immunity, their case is weak.

gunderwood wrote:

Chasbo00 wrote:

gunderwood wrote: If they are offering that deal it is because their case is very weak.

Who is the they in your above?

It was originally reported that Poindexter made the offer, thus his team would be they. However, it has been corrected to say that the defendant made the offer. I haven't had time to track this closely, so I missed that correction.

However, the general point still stands, it just isn't applicable to this specific case. If the prosecutor offers to drop the charges in exchange for civil immunity, their case is weak.

I agree so long as the they is meant to be the prosecutor. That's why I asked. I'm following this incident pretty closely and was aware that a blogger incorrectly wrote that the prosecutor rather than the defendant made the offer. The offer by the defendant was prudent and I think the prosecutor will regret not accepting it. Also, it was not a plea bargain as the defendant maintains that he is not guilty. The offer was made, I think, to give the prosecutor the opportunity to drop a bad case without risking subsequent related civil litigation placing the county at risk. It would have also saved the defendant a lot of money in legal expenses.

Peter Nap posted a video:

Skidmark speaksout Exclusive interview...

(That is Pro-Shooter sitting there also.)

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... interview.

I've made my contribution and hope it goes well for him, as it would
be a victory not only for him, but every one of us.

Just curious, but would anyone in this Forum done things differently than Skidmark did in this situation. Skidmark had a right to question the "command" to get out of the car and he did just that! Skidmark also had the right to question the VDOT workers authority to his supervisor but according to the posts and video, this went wrong very quickly and escalated from a "question of a lawful or unlawful order" to an "open carry" problem quickly! When the supervisor immediately covered for his subordinate without even being there, thats where the red flag should have gone up in my opinion. Clearly skidmark was in a losing debate at this point!
As a result, they, (VDOT and the Deputies) overwhelmingly ganged up on skidmark and brought the gun into play. Hopefully skidmark will be exonerated and perhaps rewarded for this encounter. Remember, most in authority don't like to be questioned whether they are right or wrong. I'm sure the rent a cop vdot mentality was threatened when they saw him carrying, which in turn led to the fabricated story by the accusers. I wish skidmark the best and hope the truth comes out in court. Pick and carefully choose your battles especially when open carrying.

I can't bring myself to second guess what he did. Now, as far as open carry goes, that's a different story. Or maybe a second thread.

Battles are usually not choosable and all of them need to be fought irregardless of the acts that started them,

VBshooter wrote:Battles are usually not choosable and all of them need to be fought irregardless of the acts that started them,

Technically it is the "authority" whom decides to choose that battle.

A citizen going about their life and exercising their rights is not picking a fight, that is suppose to be the nominal case.

Exactly

VBshooter wrote:Battles are usually not choosable and all of them need to be fought irregardless of the acts that started them,

I agree, when in a combat situation battles are not choosable. Perhaps "confrontation" would have been a better word for this scenerio.

OakRidgeStars wrote:I can't bring myself to second guess what he did. Now, as far as open carry goes, that's a different story. Or maybe a second thread.

I agree ORS, second guessing is not a good practice. A second thread is another good suggestion to discuss situations like this. Even better would be a bunch of enthusiasts like ourselves meeting someplace for to chat guns and discuss different scenerio situations like this and our rights pertaining to our priveleges, etc. Too bad we're spread all over the place in VA.

I see no reason to answer the door in the future when John Q. Law is knocking. You got a warrant, then I guess I'll be setting another place for tea. You don't, pound sand!

My audio recorder has been a hell of a cheap may to cover my ass. GET ONE!

That's funny...I had no idea from reading the article that there were any "race" issues at all. If this Poindexter individual really is crying waissism, then it sounds to me like he needs to be fired as a Commonwealth Attorney. Now, just why is this person qualified to carry concealed and get drunk, when I'm not deemed qualified to drink a single glass of wine if I were to carry?