Bring Your Sidearms To The Banks of the Potomac.

[StarmanSkye]

^^^
I have heard of Rainbow Gatherers getting pulled-over and hassled, leading to vehicle-searches and other citable offenses, on the claim by Forest Service or the special Incident Management Team cops brought in for the purpose that the party was driving 'left of center' ON A National Forest GRAVEL ROAD, full of frost-heaves and potholes. Talk about bogus -- Its intimidation and fine-trolling, nothing less.

Good tip on telling the District Judge in Traffic Court you plan on appealing. One way to do this with a little subtlety is to ask the Judge before trial starts to please have a written transcript made with a court stenographer in CASE you wish to appeal. Or else a stenographer won't be assigned -- at least that's how I remember the advice I've heard.

One way to play the never-consent-to-vehicle-search card w/o antagonizing a cop unnecessarily (avoiding the slippery-slope idiocy of 'If you have nothing to hide, then why should you mind?') is to simply say that your Polisci teacher in Constitutional Law class made the whole class vow to never forfeit our right to be secure in our person and property, and to stand on principle as a duty of our citizenship -- IOW, the class as one promised to NEVER give voluntary CONSENT TO a VEHICLE or Personal Search. 'Course, in the current climate of assumed guilty of suspician until proven innocent a cop will search your person without your permission on the slightest urge that he thinks he should and there's about dick-all you can legally do to prevent him (or her). Give him a little incentive and he WILL NOT hesitate to taze you (well, most probably, there are always a few exceptions). Or worse. Like hit you with his flashlight in the head a dozen times, drag you out the window of your car, THEN taze you.

BTW: I think 23 had it right all along.

[mentalgongfu2]

And so they ought. May I mention again that this is not 1776?



Quote:
Jim Morrison: "They got the guns but we got the numbers."


Sadly, Jim Morrison turned out to be wrong about that. Additionally, in his day, they had incalculably greater numbers than we have in the present, plus it was a boom economy. The mass-media environment was more favorable, too. Nevertheless, they that had got the guns didn't have to do much more than knock in some heads on television in Chicago in 1968 to send the number into a steady decline, then shoot four dead in Ohio in 1970 to make that decline precipitous.

Just for the record, that Morrison line can be taken another way:

Number = marijuana cigarette

http://parentingteens.about.com/cs/marijuana/l/bldicmarijuana.htm

[apologydue]

Sorry 23. You had it correct. I misread what you wrote.

[23]

None necessary.

English is my second language. And as many folks in my shoes will tell you, we have a habit of rereading something that we wrote to death. To check for proper grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc.

If you caught something that I didn't, it would only give me more reason to review it some more.

Something that I'm always game for.

Thanks.

[barracuda]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/19/ ... ent.rally/

Washington (CNN) -- They're angry at the government and are demonstrating in the Washington area against what they see as the trampling of the Constitution. Their specific fear: Americans' right to bear arms under the Second Amendment will be taken away.

"We're in a war. The other side knows they are at war, because they started it," said Larry Pratt, president of the Gun Owners of America. "They are coming for our freedom, for our money, for our kids, for our property. They are coming for everything because they are a bunch of socialists."

Pratt was one of the speakers at the Second Amendment March in Washington on Monday. The crowd -- made up almost entirely of men -- used language about war and fighting. But when pressed, they were quick to point out they don't mean actual armed violence.

"That's why we have some primaries this year, and we need to send them a message that we are coming for the Republican RINOS [Republicans In Name Only], not just the Democrats ... that's the second event in November," he said, referring to midterm elections.

Rep. Paul Broun, R-Georgia, said "we must declare war against oppression and against socialism, and you are the people to do that."

Cathy McNickle of Virginia said it was important to take time off of work to "listen to these people and support the cause."

For those rallying, it's not just fear of losing their Second Amendment rights, but also dissatisfaction with the political climate in Washington.

"I'm not real happy with the direction the government's going in right now, and I believe that our Second Amendment rights are in trouble, with the political atmosphere that's in Washington right now," said Alan Addington of North Carolina.

Across the Potomac River, in Virginia, another group of protesters are defending the Second Amendment with a show of arms -- holding an "Open Carry Rally." Signs in the crowd pointed to the role of government, with one reading, "My rights come from God, not from the government." Protesters had large rifles and other weapons strapped to their bodies.

Restore the Constitution Rally event organizers said they chose certain areas in Virginia -- like Gravelly Point Park and Fort Hunt Park -- because they are "firearms carry-legal [locations] as close to D.C. as possible."

In Virginia, it is legal to openly carry certain weapons. But it is illegal to openly carry a weapon in the District of Columbia.

Opponents say that gun rights advocates' worries are unfounded; that there are no proposals coming from the White House or Democratic leaders in Congress for new major gun control laws.

Monday's events come on the anniversary of the battles at Lexington and Concord in the Revolutionary War, when the British moved to seize colonists' supplies. It's a point protesters say is the impetus for their call to action.

"This was one of the first displays of American spirit as the colonists united to defend their way of life," according to the Second Amendment March Web site.

April 19 also is the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. It's a connection one speaker was adamant to get away from.

"They want to make this about [convicted Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh, which really pissed me off," radio personality Erich "Mancow" Muller said at the Washington rally. "How about mentioning that this is patriot's day?"

The anger at the government -- and specifically the Obama administration -- has been rising over the past year, and has been visible in the rise of the Tea Party movement, at health care reform rallies and with other protesters.

One group, Oath Keepers, said its allegiance is to the Constitution and not the president.

The group's founder, Stewart Rhodes, a former Army paratrooper and staffer for GOP Rep. Ron Paul, said his members recite a revised version of the oath that's used for enlistment in the armed services. However, they exclude the phrase, "I will obey the orders of the president of the United States."

"Our role is not to be obedient to who happens to be the leader," he said. "Our role is to defend the Constitution and the republic."

The Oath Keepers call on members to disobey any orders, as they put it, "to disarm the American people" or "to force citizens into detention camps." It's a pledge Rhodes recites in an anti-Obama DVD called "Fall of the Republic."

Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center said the Oath Keepers are exploiting false rumors found on fringe Web sites.

"Many of the Oath Keepers are people who believe that martial law is about to be imposed at any moment. It is right around the corner," he said.

But Rhodes said his group is not anti-government and not anti-Obama. So, who's talking about taking guns away?

"So, we have to wait until someone talks about it before we can say we won't do it?" he said.

[apologydue]

MSNBC has a McVeigh documentary on tonight. Cross brushing. There is a segment on the evening news about it now. McVeigh = people unhappy with gov. = terrorist. This is the take home message I just got from the segment.



I don't advocate violence against the gov., and i'm not sure these sorts of displays are helpful and productive but...

"They are coming for our freedom, for our money, for our kids, for our property. They are coming for everything because they are a bunch of socialists."

freedom- the war on drugs, take the wrong medicine for what ails you and you're done...check

money- the bailout...check

our kids- parents harassed for refusing public education and certain medical procedures or vaccinations...check

our property- the mortage scam...check

"I'm not real happy with the direction the government's going in right now, and I believe that our Second Amendment rights are in trouble, with the political atmosphere that's in Washington right now," said Alan Addington of North Carolina.

Seems to be a popular notion.

"My rights come from God, not from the government."

I'm not sure who his God is. My God isn't an angry old man in the sky getting ready to zap me at any moment, but it also isn't other men with a ton of cash. (unless they send their angels to my house and demand that they are my Gods, then I guess they are right?)

In Virginia, it is legal to openly carry certain weapons. But it is illegal to openly carry a weapon in the District of Columbia.

The benevolent Gods are worried that the children of God don't like God's crumbs.

Opponents say that gun rights advocates' worries are unfounded; that there are no proposals coming from the White House or Democratic leaders in Congress for new major gun control laws.

I should probably read that in a mirror and see if it says the same thing.

April 19 also is the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. It's a connection one speaker was adamant to get away from.

"They want to make this about [convicted Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh, which really pissed me off," radio personality Erich "Mancow" Muller said at the Washington rally. "How about mentioning that this is patriot's day?"

Intentional foul. 11 yard penalty. Intentional cross contamination, a constant problem.

The anger at the government -- and specifically the Obama administration -- has been rising over the past year, and has been visible in the rise of the Tea Party movement, at health care reform rallies and with other protesters.

I can't imagine why. This administration has been as good or better to the population as all the previous administrations. They bailed out the financial sector and saved it for us. They took possession of the banking and auto industries so that we don't have to worry about profiting from them anymore. They gave us pig/chicken germ vaccines cultivated in eggs, because cultivation in the guts of monkeys from Africa is more expensive for them and cruel to the monkeys. They plan to fine the wicked poor people that cannot afford health care insurance. Federal funding tied to local education has allowed them to start firing teachers for following federal education guidelines which resulted in test scores hitting rock bottom. They are investigating themselves for financial fraud, even though there is none, or very little, say the findings. Tons of brown and Moozlum people are being eradicated on a daily basis. They determined that all these wicked elderly people should no longer take up so much space in the health system and don't deserve certain procedures to keep them comfortable in old age. Thank the Gods they found a way to increase Wall St. bonuses by exponential factors. Evil people that over payed taxes and want their refund now get what they deserve and will have to wait for months for a refund in some states. Many states cannot fund education and other services evil poor people need. They finally see the wisdom of a new Federal Tax. Their pollution, if responsible for climate change or not, is slated to reap hundreds of billions and future trillions in profit for...yep them. Citizens do not have to worry themselves with electing political leaders because voting machines have assumed the responsibility for the outcome of elections. Nations with valuable resources will not have to shoulder the burden of using those resources for their own benefit because resources have been identified as terrorist intent. Our DNA in goats milk vaccine is next. What else do commoners really need to be happy? I mean really...let us be reasonable.

"Our role is not to be obedient to who happens to be the leader," he said. "Our role is to defend the Constitution and the republic."

Unreasonable?

The Oath Keepers call on members to disobey any orders, as they put it, "to disarm the American people" or "to force citizens into detention camps."

Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center said the Oath Keepers are exploiting false rumors found on fringe Web sites.

"Many of the Oath Keepers are people who believe that martial law is about to be imposed at any moment. It is right around the corner," he said.

Well both of these groups missed the dime. Too late. Wackenhut is busy busy. Walk into the woods and pick the wrong wild wood weed for your ills and you'll get martialed somewhere. Detention centers and prisons are the same thing right?

[barracuda]

MSNBC has a McVeigh documentary on tonight. Cross brushing. There is a segment on the evening news about it now. McVeigh = people unhappy with gov. = terrorist. This is the take home message I just got from the segment.

It may be, though, interesting to compare and contrast the politics of McVeigh with the stance of the Oathkeepers/Three Percenters.

"They are coming for our freedom, for our money, for our kids, for our property. They are coming for everything because they are a bunch of socialists."

freedom- the war on drugs, take the wrong medicine for what ails you and you're done...check

money- the bailout...check

our kids- parents harassed for refusing public education and certain medical procedures or vaccinations...check

our property- the mortage scam...check

You forgot one, the last one: They are coming for everything because they are a bunch of socialists.

People have every right to be dissatisfied with thier government, but the reasons for their dissatisfaction, where they draw their anger from, makes a vital difference in terms of what results they would like to see come of that anger.

I believe we are slowly turning into a socialist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control. - Timothy McVeigh

"I'm not real happy with the direction the government's going in right now, and I believe that our Second Amendment rights are in trouble, with the political atmosphere that's in Washington right now," said Alan Addington of North Carolina.

Seems to be a popular notion.

Yes, popular with the Oathkeepers, but why? Is there any sign on the horizon that the Second Amendment is in any jeopardy? At all?

The government is afraid of the guns people have because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away the guns, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. - Timothy McVeigh

"My rights come from God, not from the government."

I'm not sure who his God is. My God isn't an angry old man in the sky getting ready to zap me at any moment, but it also isn't other men with a ton of cash. (unless they send their angels to my house and demand that they are my Gods, then I guess they are right?)

Where, then, do you feel your rights come from?

I know in my heart that I am right in my struggle, Steve. I have come to peace with myself, my God and my cause. Blood will flow in the streets. Good vs. Evil. Free Men vs. Socialist Wannabe Slaves. Pray it is not your blood, my friend.

In Virginia, it is legal to openly carry certain weapons. But it is illegal to openly carry a weapon in the District of Columbia.

The benevolent Gods are worried that the children of God don't like God's crumbs.

Do you honestly believe that the laws against open carry in DC have anything to do with your government's fear of an armed citizenry?

"Our role is not to be obedient to who happens to be the leader," he said. "Our role is to defend the Constitution and the republic."

Unreasonable?

Not unless you feel there is an even higher duty.

Those who betray or subvert the Constitution are guilty of sedition and/or treason, are domestic enemies and should and will be punished accordingly.

It also stands to reason that anyone who sympathizes with the enemy or gives aid or comfort to said enemy is likewise guilty. I have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and I will. And I will because not only did I swear to, but I believe in what it stands for in every bit of my heart, soul and being.

To these people in Oklahoma who have lost a loved one, I'm sorry but it happens every day. - Timothy McVeigh

[apologydue]

Every now and then one flies out of the Cuckoo's nest and does something stupid. If McVeigh acted alone then he did something stupid. If it was part of some false flag then it was stupid on a much larger level. I don't know who all the people are that deserve the stupid badge for that sunt. I don't approve of it and would never promote it.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

No. To most of us who live in modern society, which for 90 percent of people in the US does not mean in the Grizzly Adams shack....

I find your dismissal of Grizzly Adams offensive. I hope you know that my mum wrote a letter to Thom Pace, the composer and singer of the theme tune to Grizzly Adams, and that he wrote back saying hello. If you didn't know that, shame on you.

This song sums up the entirety of ALL libertarian AND anarcho-primitivist thought, and don't let Thereau tell you no different:



.

[Iamwhomiam]

Fear & Firearms...

...are a deadly combination.

To own a gun for protection is an accident waiting to happen. Owning a weapon could also be an excuse to kill; to exert mastery of life or death over another, especially when one is fearful, but clearly is presented by no real danger.

Any well trained shooter will advise never to aim a loaded weapon at another person unless you are prepared to fire it in an effort to kill them. They will always instruct you to be sure you know your target; to be able to ascertain whether it is exactly what you think it is before firing.

I live in a rural area and gunshots are so common that they rarely are a distraction, save the occasional .50 cal report. Many of my neighbors feel the death penalty takes to long to execute and feel the justice system is a waste of money especially when a bullet is so much cheaper.

I can't tell you in how very many conversations comes up the intruder scenario, always including the advice to make sure the intruder's body is facing and lying inward before the cops come - no matter where they were shot, but especially if they were shot while they were trying to get away.

I have no fear of guns or gunman, nor do I fear my own death. I would indeed try to preserve my life, but never at the expense of taking another's. At close range I am skilled enough to disarm someone with a weapon threatening me.

Here's a case, a tragic case really, of a fine young man killed by someone who was simply afraid and unsure of his target. The only 'threat' this shooter experienced was that created by his fear, a perceived threat where none actually existed.

A gun in your hands does nothing to reduce fear, though some seem to believe it would. That gun in your hands just upped the odds that someone will die from your fear.

As this story demonstrates, fear can turn a man into a killer and forever change their life, to say nothing of the impact his action has upon their innocent victim's family.

Thank you all for your kind words regarding my earlier posting. More here on that.

http://www.timesunion.com/ASPStories/Story.asp?StoryID=917514

Teacher's path to death via an unlocked door

By SCOTT WALDMAN, Staff writer and DAN HERBECK, Buffalo News
First published: Thursday, April 1, 2010

Albany teacher David Park walked through an unlocked door when he entered a suburban Buffalo home and was shot to death by the homeowner, an attorney in the case said Wednesday.

Park, 31, said nothing as he walked through the downstairs of the home at 1 a.m., said Thomas H. Burton, attorney for homeowner David D'Amico, who shot Park. D'Amico was sound asleep in bed with his wife when he heard Park walking around downstairs, he said. It was dark in the house.

He stood upstairs and repeatedly yelled to Park that he had a gun and that Park should leave immediately. His attorney said Park crossed the first floor diagonally, and approached the short staircase where D'Amico was standing.

That is where D'Amico shot him with a shotgun, Burton said. Park, a fifth-grade teacher at Arbor Hill Elementary School, died of his injuries.

He was in Amherst with his wife, Deanna, for a baby shower.

Burton said the unlocked doors does not change D'Amico's right to protect his home against what he believed was a burglar "one iota." He described D'Amico and his wife as a "hard-working and religious couple" who are devastated by the tragedy.

"It has been a shocking and sad event to my client and his wife," Burton said. "The only thing they did is go to bed at 10 o'clock and wake up at 1 a.m."

No charges are expected, though the case could be before a grand jury, said Amherst police Capt. Enzio Villalta. Police believe Park entered the D'Amicos' rear yard by opening a gate, which he then closed behind him, sources told the Buffalo News. He then went up onto the deck and stepped inside the home.

The question of whether the door was locked had been a tightly guarded secret until Wednesday, when three sources familiar with the case confirmed for The News that it had been left unlocked.

D'Amico routinely locked all of his doors at night and he has told Amherst Police that he was unaware that his rear door had been left unlocked that night, the sources said. The rear door led from a raised deck into the home on Millbrook Court.

Assistant Police Chief Timothy M. Green, spokesman for the Amherst Police, called the shooting a tragedy.

"I don't know why (Park) was in that house, but he should not have been," he told the News. "We haven't found any evidence indicating that he was legally in the house."

Park is believed to have gone into D'Amico's house by mistake after leaving a party at the house next door.

"The reason why he went into (D'Amico's) house is a mystery we may never know the answer to," Green told the News.

The Erie County Medical Examiner's office is doing toxicology tests to see if Park was intoxicated.

"There are winners and losers in life," Green said. "But any way you look at this case, the outcome is bad for everyone involved."

A memorial service for Park will be held today in his hometown of Old Forge. A second memorial service will be held on Monday in Albany, where Park's basketball team has been playing games in his honor. A dozen grief counselors have been at the school to help students and staff deal with Park's death.
-------
Yes. He was drunk. and lost. and lost his life. Why?

"Burton said his client was extremely frightened by the time Park appeared at the bottom of the stairwell.

"He's standing behind a partially closed bedroom door, terrorized, while his wife calls the cops," Burton said."

Not terrorized, but certainly terrified.

http://www.timesunion.com/ASPStories/Story.asp?StoryID=927821

[23]

Me thinks you may be oversimplifying the equation. The equation is not always a firearm plus fear. It can also be a firearm plus a strong sense of personal responsibility to protect the wellbeing of your family.

Home invasions are common is my home town. And occasionally a home invader is shot and/or killed by someone who was protecting his family.

He didn't acquire a firearm, and often commensurate training, because he was fearful. He did so because he felt responsible for the protection of his family.

Bully for all such protectors of families. And may their numbers increase too.

[Iamwhomiam]

23 wrote:

"Me thinks you may be oversimplifying the equation. The equation is not always a firearm plus fear. It can also be a firearm plus a strong sense of personal responsibility to protect the wellbeing of your family."

Not at all am I oversimplifying the equation. On the contrary, I believe you are.

Even those policemen with the best tactical skills training who encounter, confront and engage criminals with guns experience fear. A homeowner with no such training or experience is scared beyond belief in such a confrontation, as the article I posted demonstrates perfectly. Perhaps you also feel soldiers experience no fear in battle?

I would also suggest that there would not be a need to shoot an intruder to death, but merely to subdue them with the threat of deadly force (of your choice) until the authorities arrived, but I see you're one who would rather shoot first and ask questions later. But then, that would tend to lead to a rather one-sided conversation, wouldn't it?

I pray you never stumble home drunk and walk in one of your so-prepared neighbor's homes by mistake, or similarly, they into yours.

I'm sure your wife and kids would call you an asshole for being so stupid and getting yourself killed and would get along just fine without you, almost like you never really existed. Maybe she'd even shack up with the brave soul who blew your stupid ass away, so enamored with his bravery she'd be.

[23]

23 wrote:

"Me thinks you may be oversimplifying the equation. The equation is not always a firearm plus fear. It can also be a firearm plus a strong sense of personal responsibility to protect the wellbeing of your family."

Not at all am I oversimplifying the equation. On the contrary, I believe you are.

Even those policemen with the best tactical skills training who encounter, confront and engage criminals with guns experience fear. A homeowner with no such training or experience is scared beyond belief in such a confrontation, as the article I posted demonstrates perfectly. Perhaps you also feel soldiers experience no fear in battle?

I would also suggest that there would not be a need to shoot an intruder to death, but merely to subdue them with the threat of deadly force (of your choice) until the authorities arrived, but I see you're one who would rather shoot first and ask questions later. But then, that would tend to lead to a rather one-sided conversation, wouldn't it?

I pray you never stumble home drunk and walk in one of your so-prepared neighbor's homes by mistake, or similarly, they into yours.

I'm sure your wife and kids would call you an asshole for being so stupid and getting yourself killed and would get along just fine without you, almost like you never really existed. Maybe she'd even shack up with the brave soul who blew your stupid ass away, so enamored with his bravery she'd be.

a) I don't drink or use drugs under any circumstance. I've been sober for years. Probably longer than the age of many posters here.

b) I own a gun and am very competent in its use, since I've taken training and practice.

c) My daughter is very grateful that her father is competent with the weapon that he has at home, should he ever have to use it to prolong her life.

d) I am a strong advocate of responsible gun ownership for self-protection purposes, to include the proviso of mandatory training and practice.

P.S. Do you have a family that you are responsible for protecting at home?

[Iamwhomiam]

So, have you ever been suddenly confronted by an individual pointing a firearm at you or needed to defend yourself while under fire?

If you haven't, don't count on your firearm safety training or target practice shooting abilities to keep your panties clean when and if you do.

Wielding a weapon and confronting an armed intruder certainly raises the ante that you will be shot by someone who meant you no physical harm, but only wanted your stuff. Losing your stuff is way better than losing your life. Especially with this new invention called insurance. You should look into that. Very comforting stuff.

Ask your little girl which she would rather lose, her new tv or her dad.

An armed intruder, perhaps a kid who's reasoning abilities you know are screwed up - after all, he's broken into your home - and seeing you armed also puts fear into them and may unnecessarily force a violent exchange in which you may be shot dead or horribly maimed, right in front of your horrified wife and kid, who could now identify him, furthering the risk to them, whom your actions were meant to protect. Why take those odds when you could handle the situation differently?

Imagine the aftermath. Imagine your kid coping with that horror, a fatality, yours or theirs, the gunshots, the blood. That spot they will have to walk past everyday until doing so becomes so unbearable they'll need to move away.

You know, what you're willing to die for, defending your turf just so he can't get yer stuff, is pretty odd reasoning. Most criminals breaking into someone's home intends to do no personal harm, but is doing so because they feel they can somehow profit from it, perhaps by fencing your goods to get money to support their drug addiction or whatever. You want to kill them for that, well, that's your prerogative. You will make a forgettable experience unforgettable.

It is rare that an individual, a criminal, a burglar, kills a stranger while unprovoked.
It does happen on most rare occasions.

To answer your question, been there, done that. In a high crime area. And yes, I've had a gun stuck in my face and have been threatened with knives and clubs. All events ended without anyone being hurt or wounded. It's all in the approach.

You seem determined to miss the point of my post. Fear inserts unpredictability into any situation. You seem to think you are immune to fear, and that's sad and dangerous not only to yourself, but to the family you are so intent on protecting from some future imagined potential intruder.

I believe it's your right to own a firearm. I don't need one. I'm capable of defending myself from an armed individual without the use of a deadly weapon. I'm not at war with anyone, nor would I ever be.

[elfismiles]

I've never been confronted face to face by someone wielding a loaded firearm.

However, I was shot at (along with everybody else in attendance) by Ira Attebury, a PCP addicted war veteran who wanted to commit suicide-by-cop and killed several people, including people who had been sitting where my mother, cousin and I had been sitting before my mother decided we'd get sun-burned there.

I know someone whose father was killed in his home by a random / stray bullet fired from a gun during a drive-by.

I have a black friend here in Austin who was held at gunpoint by a white Katrina survivor who had thought my friend was stealing from his truck.

I know several men and women locally who have conceal-carry licenses.

And this just happened nearby...

Cops: Lawyer shoots at Census worker
9th time Barnes booked into Williamson County jail
Updated: Wednesday, 12 May 2010, 11:48 PM CDT


Carolyn Barnes

Erin Cargile
Sigfrid Rydquist

LEANDER (KXAN) - A Leander attorney faces charges after police say she fired a weapon at a Census worker who was stopping by her house over the weekend.

Carolyn Barnes, 53, is charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Travis County has filed a motion to revoke her $50,000 bond due to a previous assault on a public servant charge from January.

Police say on May 8, Kathleen Gittel, an employee of the U.S. Census Bureau, stopped by Barnes' Leander home to "make contact with the resident," presumably as part of the bureau's effort to complete a Census count with residents who had not turned in their forms .

Barnes reportedly pointed her gun at Gittel, and then fired the weapon five times as Gittel tried to run. Williamson County Sheriff's Office spokesperson John Foster said none of the bullets hit the census worker.

Gittel positively identified Barnes in a photo lineup as the person who fired the weapon. Barnes is a medical mapractice attorney who has been practicing in Texas more than 25 years.

According to Williamson County jail records, Barnes has been booked into the WIlliamson County jail eight times before for charges ranging from contempt of court to making a terroristic threat. In 2002, a Williamson County jury found Barnes guilty of interfering with a routine traffic stop.

"She kept digging under her seat which the officer asked her not to do. She kept inching her truck forward which the officer asked her not to do," said Dee Hobbs, Williamson County Attorney's Criminal Division Chief. "They had to spike her tires, and eventually they had break the window and remove her from the vehicle."

Hobbs said Barnes had to be forcibly removed from her car in 1997 as well during a routine traffic stop in Williamson County.

More recent problems have also been mounting while she has been representing clients.

"She is becoming more and more aggressive in the courtroom, ignoring orders of visiting judges to sit down to let them finish talking, she becomes physically aggressive in her postures," said Hobbs.

Barnes typed up a document a friend, Michael Kearns, emailed to KXAN Tuesday titled "Probable Cause Affidavit for Warrant of Arrest and Detention." The four page statement calls for the arrest of Williamson County prosecutors, Williamson County Sheriff’s deputies and Round Rock police officers. Barnes dubs the group a “criminal street gang” who has "retaliated" against her.

"We learned a long time ago this is not humorous, this is not funny, this is a disturbed individual that has for some reason found it in her mind to see us as the enemy," said Hobbs.

In the document, Barnes zeroed in on a visit Williamson County Attorney Dale Rye made to her home May 3. Hobbs said a visiting judge issued a court order for Rye to go by her house to drop off evidence for a case, after Barnes refused to pick it up from the courthouse.

Kearns said he emailed Barnes "arrest warrant" to the Texas Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Marshals.

Barnes arrest history does not stop in Williamson County. In January Barnes was arrested at the Travis County Courthouse after allegedly hit a Travis County deputy at the security checkpoint after he found a knife in her possession and asked her to leave it in her car.

Violence against Census workers is nothing new.

In March, a man in Idaho shot at a worker who was trying to deliver a census form, police said. Richard L. Powell, 54, of St. Maries faces up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine on charges of exhibiting a deadly weapon. Authorities said Powell told the worker to get off his property and then fired a shotgun into the air.

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/crime/cops ... sus-worker

Which of course reminds me of this terrible story...

US Census worker found hung, 'fed' scrawled on body
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=25247