KABA Writer (David Codrea) Investigated for Questioning Civil Authority

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jimpeel

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
2,998
Location
Kimball, NE
Read the letter HERE

Discussion on the letter HERE

KeepAndBearArms.com Alert

February 19, 2004
Late evening breaking story...

KABA Writer Investigated for Questioning Civil Authority

Police say Investigation "Ongoing"

"Did you know that writing a rhetorical letter to the civil
authorities in California challenging their hypocrisy results
in a police investigation that includes not only calls from
detectives but two black and white police cruisers coming
to your home?"

"That's what happened to longtime gun rights activist and
professional writer David Codrea this week. What follows
is a link to the investigation-inspiring letter, a detailed
description of what transpired and a description of how
trying to get our own answers from the investigators
resulted in unwillingness to respond to our simple,
reasonable inquiry." ...

FULL STORY HERE:

http://KeepAndBearArms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3637


COMMENT ON THIS SITUATION

What do you think about having the First Amendment Police
knocking on your door for the high crime of asking questions
in defense of gun rights? We'd love to hear from as many
people as possible.

Therefore, this story is also the first item on the Newslinks
page listed below:

http://KeepAndBearArms.com/news/nl/disp.asp?d=2/20/2004

Click "Post Comments" and speak your mind. Feel free to do
so anonymously if you so choose.
 
Heh heh he...

This is really funny, in a scary and disturbing sorta way. Tyranny at it's finest...

The SF municipal leadership blantantly violates sate law in full view of the nation. Then they harass a man for performing the perfectly legal act of voicing his oppinion about it.

It's as if they're saying: "We are the rulers here, and we'll break the law whenever we want. You are a trifling peasant, and you're not even allowed to obey they law if we don't like you!"

So much for the rule of law...
 
Just shows what a crappy city SF really is.

The city violates the law and no one tries to stop them. You speak out against them and they send cops to your door.

It's a shame the 89 quake did not swallow SF into the earth.
 
It is interesting to see the authorities in CA begin to rise up and claim at least a modicum of despotic power.

They have really been getting their house in order the past decade or so and it seems the past year or two, they have been realizing that they are actually in charge - fully in charge and that they can do just about whatever they want without fear of repercussions - as long as they do it to the right people at least.
 
Navin Gruesome SF Mayor,SF Repub Choice!

The moron leftie Green Party tried to portray this friend of Billy. C & Al oGre
as a "right wing conservative" . The SF Repulican Party played along and endorsed this nazi wannabe thug! :barf:

I feel we would have been better off with an incompetent greenie then this well heeled nazi thug.

Stay tuned for no comment by the SF Republican Party and same from the media.:cuss:
 
Undoubtedly, the following passage is what got the SFPD on the case:

You have shown progressive thinking and tolerance for that which the majority condemns. So I was thinking of coming up to San Francisco and exercising my right to keep and bear arms, maybe showing up at City Hall with a state-banned AR-15 and a couple 30-round magazines, and also carrying several pistols concealed without a permit.
Click to expand...

Well intentioned or not, rhetorical or not, the emphasized passage all but declares its author to be in possession of a firearm "banned" by state law and openly ponders breaking another law on CCW without a permit whilst at SF City Hall.

Perhaps this was not the wisest choice of words to a governmental authority which has in the past experienced the assassination of its mayor and a city supervisor? I'm not surprised that Codrea got called on by the authorities, if for no other reason than to merely confirm his standing as a "peaceable citizen" and not being a whacko.
 
if for no other reason than to merely confirm his standing as a "peaceable citizen" and not being a whacko.
Click to expand...


ACHTUNG! ROUSE!

Ve haf information you might be a whacko. Ve are here to convirm your schtanding as und "peacable citizen". Papers, bitte!
 
Boats...

stated my concerns very well, probably more concisely than I could have.

Look, I agree with David on his major points. I am strongly against what SF is doing (we are facing our own problems here in the People's Commonwealth) and I support the right of every honest citizen to keep and bear arms.

But threatening, however mildly it is couched in nice, peaceable language, to show up with loaded firearms can be construed as a threat and was most likely designed to provoke such a response so that David and his supporters could then claim persecution when this was investigated.

Congratulations David and KABA. I think you provoked exactly the response you wanted. Now let's see how it's used against us.
 
ACHTUNG! ROUSE!
Ve haf information you might be a whacko. Ve are here to convirm your schtanding as und "peacable citizen". Papers, bitte!
Click to expand...

Nothing compares to having to endure a Sergeant Schultz impression before my second cup of coffee. Geek--been living in New Jersey too long now?

Breathless hyperbole aside, until we hear from Codrea that he was rousted in the middle of the night, ordered to don his patched clothes symbolizing him as one of those persecuted gunowners, stuffed into a boxcar and transported to a camp in the Bay area, can we lay off the Nazi references? The comparison is silly.
 
Breathless hyperbole aside, until we hear from Codrea that he was rousted in the middle of the night, ordered to don his patched clothes symbolizing him as one of those persecuted gunowners, stuffed into a boxcar and transported to a camp in the Bay area, can we lay off the Nazi references? The comparison is silly.
Click to expand...

Come to think of it, haven't there been a few gun owners arrested in the middle of the night in the PRK and PRNJ a few years ago? Recentlee in the PRK, police were search houses of people that brought legal M96 rifles from a gun shop but that they thought were ilegal.

So no the comparison isn't silly.

Bill Meadows
 
Yes, the comparison is silly. Invoking the Nazis is a losing strategy in an internet argument, and an even bigger loser in the real world.
 
Invoking the Nazis is a losing strategy in an internet argument, and an even bigger loser in the real world.
Click to expand...
I have to agree. It pleases only those who already agree with you. It causes those on the fence or who disagree with you to dismiss you immediately no matter how valid and logical the rest of your argument.

This happens even if the Nazi comparison is valid -- it doesn't matter if you are correct; you nonetheless render yourself ineffective.

FWIW: I agree that there is nothing shocking that Codrea's statement was construed as a potential threat meriting investigation. He should have taken care to phrase it in a manner that absolutely could not be construed that way. He should have written something like, "While I am not actually intending to do this, what if I were to...."
 
Congratulations David and KABA. I think you provoked exactly the response you wanted. Now let's see how it's used against us.
Click to expand...
And that my friends is exactly the attitude that will eventually result in the gun grabbers getting their way and US losing our right to keep and bear arms.

A principled and standup for what's right man makes a political statement - an aggressive political statement well within his 1st amendment and natural right to do so and what does the pro-gun community worry about? How will it be used against us.

PEOPLE! NO MATTER WHAT WE DO SOMEONE WILL TURN IT AGAINST US!

We are pro-gun for pity's sake. Sheep don't like guns - period. Sheep don't like anything that can turn them into food! Deal with it! If we are to retain our right to be armed then we must be aggressive in both word and deed. We must write, we must march but for some reason that just doesn't happen very often.

Neither the peace protestors, the legalize drug crowd, the pro/anti abortion folks nor the anti-gunners have a problem with being vocal and visual - why do we? [sigh...] WHY DO WE?
 
Neither the peace protestors, the legalize drug crowd, the pro/anti abortion folks nor the anti-gunners have a problem with being vocal and visual - why do we? [sigh...] WHY DO WE?
Click to expand...
Well, in this case, they did not make statements about maybe showing up at city hall with guns.

No matter how well intentioned Codrea's statement, he screwed up.

If he had said he might show up at city hall with a knife, the authorities would not be knee-jerk anti-knife if they checked him out.
PEOPLE! NO MATTER WHAT WE DO SOMEONE WILL TURN IT AGAINST US!
Click to expand...
True, but that doesn't excuse Codrea's statement and it certainly doesn't mean the police were unjustified in checking out a guy who said he might bring guns to city hall.
 
I'd feel a lot more comfortable writing such a letter from an Alaska address than Redondo Beach. It's not a free state, hasn't been for many decades.
 
Some of you folks are unbelievable!

Codrea never, ever took any action that could be considered illegal. He wrote a letter! He compaired violating the state marriage laws to violating the state gun laws. The former is happening wantonlyon the steps of city hall. Codrea speculates about the latter. The authorities therefore ignore the lawbreakers and investigate the man who is fully complying with the law.:scrutiny:

The worst the authorites can claim is that this man was thinking about showing up at city hall with a rifle or a pistol. It's clear from his letter that he never intends to act on this thought; the statements were obviously hypothetical and rhetorical in nature.

Since when has idle thought been a crime??? Comparisons of naziism may be out of line, but Orwellian comparisons certainly are not.

Until you can explain to me how justice is being served here, quit blaming Codrea! He doesn't deserve this attention from the police, and he certainly doesn't deserve your criticisms.
 
Eugene Volokh has an interesting commentary on the case.

Well, saying that it's a rhetorical letter is assuming the conclusion. The police might strongly suspect that the letter is rhetorical, but it's hard to tell that for sure. And if it isn't rhetorical -- if the writer does want to show up with those guns -- and the writer also wants to do something with those guns when he shows up, then we could have a bad scene.

If you were a responsible, freedom-loving police officer, would you just say "Nah, sounds like nothing to me"? Or might you think it's worth some more investigation? The letter-writer writes, as a follow-up, "I do find it bizarre that civil authority is so fearful of an armed citizenry that if they feel there is any chance of it happening, their response is to send armed men." Why is it so bizarre? Armed citizens have at times done quite a bit of damage, including to a past Mayor of San Francisco. That's not reason to disarm them or throw them in jail for writing letters -- but it is reason to look closely at people who say they want to carry an arsenal to city hall.

Of course, people can point out that even investigation -- in this case, a phone call from the San Francisco police, and two police cars sent to the person's home, which left after they confirmed that the S.F. police had talked to him -- can be disquieting to the target. Some people might decide not to write letters like that (letters which I think should be and are fully constitutionally protected against suppression) for fear of drawing the police department's attention. No doubt about that.

But freedom of speech can't mean freedom from even disquieting investigations based on your speech. You can't be convicted for that letter; you can't be fined for it; but the police are entitled to talk to you to see whether you seem like an upstanding citizen (which by all accounts the author is) or someone who seems like a John Hinckley, and who therefore bears closer watching. Extremist groups are entitled to express their views; but I certainly hope that the police are investigating them more closely to see whether there might be extremist action, and not just extremist speech, in the offing. Likewise even for perfectly reasonable people who make statements that are also of the sort sometimes made by unreasonable people. It's part of the police department's job to investigate a bit more closely to see whether the speaker seems reasonable or unreasonable.

This having been said, I stress again that Codrea is entitled to write his letter, and not get actually legally punished for it. If there's any attempted punishment (and I know that there have been some incidents where speakers have been punished based on alleged threats that probably didn't merit punishment), I'll gladly speak up in his defense. Likewise, he's certainly entitled to publicize the police department's actions; it's probably good that he's doing so.

I just won't feel too bothered by what the police did, at least based on the account that the site provides.
Click to expand...

Food for thought.
 
Codrea never, ever took any action that could be considered illegal. He wrote a letter!
Click to expand...
No, he did nothing illegal. Yes, he simply wrote a letter. Nonetheless, he should have known that when you write that you might show up at a government office with a gun, you will get checked out.

Such reaction is nothing new. Such reaction has nothing to do with the RKBA. If he had said something similar 30 years ago and had said “knife†instead of “gun,†the reaction would have been the same.

To be shocked at the police reaction takes breathtaking naivety or willful ignorance.
 
Since when has idle thought been a crime???
Click to expand...
Since we made thinking a crime; or have you forgotten "hate crimes" legislation? How about "conspiracy" like Jose Padilla; where the government has yet to show that he had any co-conspirators, held any materials to commit the crime, attempted to glean any of those materials, or did anything other than think about making and detonating a "dirty bomb?

Prognosticating, clairvoyant prosecutors regularly prosecute people for their thoughts, now.
 
Since we made thinking a crime; or have yopu forgotten "hate crimes" legislation? How about "conspiracy" like Jose Padilla where the government has yet to show that he had any co-conspirators, held any materials to commit the crime, attempted to glean any of those materials, or did anything other than think about making and detonating a "dirty bomb?
Click to expand...
Codrea has been charged with no crime. He simply was checked out and apparently cleared. To compare what happened to him with instances where people were criminally charged is not valid.
 
Let's clear this up a little here. I think no one should be surprised that Codrea got checked out; the letter is very forward. But,

Does anyone think that it was right for him to be checked out?
 
Does anyone remember the Black Panthers?

Yes, I know Mr. Horowitz has exposed the murderousness (and murders) of some of their senior founding members.

How... Ever...

They did have a point, at least according to the statements they made to the public, which were something like (IIRC) "Policemen would be more polite, circumspect, and honest, if every police car were followed at all times by a car full of private, solid citizens with shotguns." Well, they WEREN'T solid citizens, but that doesn't kill their argument.

I think there was a movie made about the BPs which showed Scary Urban Negroes asserting their right under Federal and California's laws openly to carry their weapons anywhere, yea even into the State Capitol when the Legislature was in session. Did that actually happen?

I believe some of the laws were changed right shortly afterwards.
 
Does anyone think that it was right for him to be checked out?
Click to expand...
Simply checked out? Sure, why not? Geeze-o-peeze, I'm a libertarian, but I can't find anything wrong with this. He wasn't checked out because of his dissenting views; he was checked out because he made statements -- no matter how hypothetical -- about taking a gun to a government office at the same time he made statements critical of the government officials working in that building.

What would you do if some stranger roundly criticized you and then said he might come march around your workplace with a gun?

The idea of supposed intimidation of free speech by the cops seems misplaced, even in my libertarian opinion.

Cripes, I can't believe I'm actually defending the actions of SF nanny-staters. :barf:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top