Washington State. Another place where I won't be visiting or spending any money.
I feel the same way and that sucks because I've got a new grandson and namesake in Seattle I haven't met yet.
Washington State. Another place where I won't be visiting or spending any money.
No insurance, no legal representation on the taxpayers' dime.
One law for everybody.
I'm strictly on my own, regardless and the proponents of this legislation don't even want me to have insurance against such circumstances.Perhaps you misunderstood me. A peace officer doesn't have automatic representation on the taxpayers dime, any more so than everyone being entitled to a public defender in criminal court. An officer will receive representation from the city or agency so long as it bolsters the cities or agencies case. As soon as counsel decides that they are better off without the officer, they are cut loose. Often times the first action an agency will take is to separate from the officer, thus putting the entire burden of defending against a civil suite on the officer. This is no different than a major corporation being sued, there is nothing unusual here.
Now if you want to argue the merits of having some sort of federal or state immunity from civil suite for action taken during the course of one's duties as a peace officer, you'll need to take that up with the SCOTUS.
Bob Ferguson?"Pleased to meet you! Won't you guess my name?"
Great ... now that song is stuck in my head.
Washington State. Another place where I won't be visiting or spending any money.
I feel the same way and that sucks because I've got a new grandson and namesake in Seattle I haven't met yet.
Well, that's a shame that folks feel that way because of the recent spate of stupid initiatives that became law and the fact that Seattle has become loonier than Berkeley. This state has probably more natural beauty with its ocean shoreline, two mountain ranges, rain forests, rivers, Puget Sound and even its deserts than is contained in any single other one state.Washington State. Another place where I won't be visiting or spending any money.
Don't hold the line. Roll it back.Don't judge us based solely on King County and a couple recently passed bad laws. The gun culture up here is still alive and kicking, and we're gonna do a better job holding the line in the future.
Well, that's a shame that folks feel that way because of the recent spate of stupid initiatives that became law and the fact that Seattle has become loonier than Berkeley. This state has probably more natural beauty with its ocean shoreline, two mountain ranges, rain forests, rivers, Puget Sound and even its deserts than is contained in any single other one state.
For years we had far better gun laws than states such as Texas. Open carry is actually pretty common throughout the state, suppressors are legal, CPLs are shall-issue, inexpensive and there's no training requirement. Ranges and gun clubs are plentiful, as well as gun shops and public land where shooting is legal. We still have state preemption law on the books, the state constitution has stronger wording than the 2nd Amendment with regard to RKBA and it'll take a lot to change all this.
Don't judge us based solely on King County and a couple recently passed bad laws. The gun culture up here is still alive and kicking, and we're gonna do a better job holding the line in the future.
No insurance, no legal representation on the taxpayers' dime.
One law for everybody.
the insurance policies are illegal because "they insure unlawful activity."
Well, most do, to some extent. The various State Insurance Boards have all sorts of standards about what policies are permitted, what amounts--minimum and maximum--are required, and so on.If the state can ban this insurance why can it not ban other insurance? Homeowners insurance? Health insurance?
It's an attempt to keep people disarmed, passive and at the mercy of violent criminals who are the REAL constituency of the proponents.The claim that self defense "insurance" is insurance for deliberate criminal acts is garbage. None of them do that. All they promise to do is pay for a lawyer to defend you in court and that's only if they believe your actions were legal. If convicted, they won't keep you out of prison.
The purpose for banning such policies is to deprive poor people of adequate legal representation and to bankrupt middle class people. (I guess they have no problem with it if you're a millionaire.)
I think it's more a matter of keeping people passive and at the mercy of prosecutors who believe the law is whatever they think it should be independent of the legislature and courts. If a person does something of which they disapprove, no matter how legal, they want to convict him or her without the effort of a trial or the risk of being thwarted. Take the plea bargain for a reduced charge or they will go for the maximum and ruin you financially even if you are acquitted. I'm sure it was a rude shock to the prosecution when Mark O'Mara and Don West stepped up to defend George Zimmerman. All of a sudden, he was no longer a pushover.It's an attempt to keep people disarmed, passive and at the mercy of violent criminals who are the REAL constituency of the proponents.
I think it goes deeper than that. I see a profound hatred and contempt for "normals". As with the case of Kate Steinle, your sympathies are supposed to lie with the animal who murdered her. Any threat to HIS wellbeing is an abomination.I think it's more a matter of keeping people passive and at the mercy of prosecutors who believe the law is whatever they think it should be independent of the legislature and courts. If a person does something of which they disapprove, no matter how legal, they want to convict him or her without the effort of a trial or the risk of being thwarted. Take the plea bargain for a reduced charge or they will go for the maximum and ruin you financially even if you are acquitted. I'm sure it was a rude shock to the prosecution when Mark O'Mara and Don West stepped up to defend George Zimmerman. All of a sudden, he was no longer a pushover.
With any insurance, you are dependent on the integrity of the insurer to pay legitimate claims. When it came time to buy health insurance to supplement Medicare, I went with a company recommended by someone whose judgement I trust. They pay my bills rather than look for excuses to weasel out of them. Two examples of the latter:This is the reason why I haven't signed on to having "carry insurance". Absent outrageous acts, how do "they" determine if you were a a lawbreaker to decide if you can use the insurance that you paid for? Isn't that the purpose of the trial? Before the trial goes down, 'they" have already decided your guilt or innocence. Sounds like a convenient way to weasel out of the costs of paying for your defense. Am I wrong about this?