Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: vaskidmark on April 23, 2013, 09:28:31 PM
-
Thank goodness it's not me.
http://tinyurl.com/c2lghzp
Guy got busted because a school bus driver behind him in a left-turn lane supposedly saw him put his handgun into a secured container in his dashboard.
Even though he has a CHP it does not matter since Va law says concealed carry in a secured container in the car (glovebox, closed center console, etc.) is legal without a CHP.
Va law defines the crime of brandishing as
Virginia Code § 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.
B. Any police officer in the performance of his duty, in making an arrest under the provisions of this section, shall not be civilly liable in damages for injuries or death resulting to the person being arrested if he had reason to believe that the person being arrested was pointing, holding, or brandishing such firearm or air or gas operated weapon, or object that was similar in appearance, with intent to induce fear in the mind of another.
C. For purposes of this section, the word "firearm" means any weapon that will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel single or multiple projectiles by the action of an explosion of a combustible material. The word "ammunition," as used herein, shall mean a cartridge, pellet, ball, missile or projectile adapted for use in a firearm.
(Code 1950, § 18.1-69.2; 1968, c. 513; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1990, cc. 588, 599; 1992, c. 735; 2003, c. 976; 2005, c. 928.)
There's a lot more story to this than just some bus driver wetting his panties at the mere sight of the gun. Unfortunately the guy's attorney will not authorize release of all the details just yet.
If any of you remember my incident at the ferry landing a few years ago - this is turning out, just in the first week, to be an even bigger circus.
I'm not asking anybody to make a donation. I am asking that if you feel so inclined you post a note of support to the guy.
I hope you will check on the progress of this case every few weeks just to see how much chest-high BS must be waded through just to get to the point where his attorney can discuss how puting a handgun in a daskboard glovebox can "reasonably induce fear in the mind of another" or how doing so is the sdame as "hold[ing] a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured" - especially when the one who supposedly had fear induced into his mind was at all times behind the guy's vehicle and the gun never pointed rearwards.
I swear it's deja vu all over again.
stay safe.
-
as long as they don't consider him being within 1000 ft of school property because of the schoolbus.............
in cases like this it sometimes seems like the attorneys want it to go as far as it can just to make their hourly wage. in cases like this, how hard is it to read the law to the DA and everyone go home?
-
That is a terribly written statute. It would seem to allow prosecutions for people that do things like you describe in that case. They need to dump "point" and "hold". Point could be adequately covered by an assault statute and hold would seem to include a lot of lawful activities.
As bad as some of the laws in my state are, the vast majority of brandishing charges are for things that were obviously brandishing.
-
in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another
the key being the interpretation of the word "reasonably".
-
Is the inside of my privately owned vehicle a "public" space?
-
Is the inside of my privately owned vehicle a "public" space?
It is now, comrade.
You didn't buy that yourself.
-
According to A. in the law posted above, one could be charged with a misdemeanor for taking a bite out of a donut, thereby making it look like a gun and holding it in your hand so it could be seen. (..."or any object similar in appearance.") You get a felony if you were driving by a school with said gun looking donut if on a city street that comes closer to the school than 1000 feet.
-
According to A. in the law posted above, one could be charged with a misdemeanor for taking a bite out of a donut, thereby making it look like a gun and holding it in your hand so it could be seen. (..."or any object similar in appearance.") You get a felony if you were driving by a school with said gun looking donut if on a city street that comes closer to the school than 1000 feet.
That only works with Pop Tarts....... [popcorn] [tinfoil] [popcorn] [tinfoil] [popcorn]
-
That only works with Pop Tarts......
I thought it was — "That also works with Pop Tarts......" =D
-
According to A. in the law posted above, one could be charged with a misdemeanor for taking a bite out of a donut, thereby making it look like a gun and holding it in your hand so it could be seen. (..."or any object similar in appearance.") You get a felony if you were driving by a school with said gun looking donut if on a city street that comes closer to the school than 1000 feet.
And I suppose if you finish eating the donut before police arrive, you'll be charged with evidence tampering too . . .
-
Only cops are allowed to destroy doughnut-related evidence, Hank.
-
as long as they don't consider him being within 1000 ft of school property because of the schoolbus.............
in cases like this it sometimes seems like the attorneys want it to go as far as it can just to make their hourly wage. in cases like this, how hard is it to read the law to the DA and everyone go home?
The same attorney who represented me is representing this guy. Fixed price for the duration. He does not run up costs even though he may file motion after motioon after motion to make the Commonwealth Attorney wish the charge had never been brought - all while being quite proper to have filed each one.
stay safe.
-
Tidbit I wanted to post separately -
So far the judge has denied a motion for discovery and the Commonwealth Attorney has stated in court, in response to a motion for one, that he will not ever-ever-ever file a Bill of Particulars.
I'll let the legal scholars explain what that means - I'm too torn up between cussing a blue streak and laughing my head off.
stay safe.
-
Now, I'm neither a legal scholar nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night....
But I'm guessing it means the case is bullscat, the Commonwealth Attorney knows it's full of bullscat, and he's reallyreallyreally wishing that the cops that arrested this guy had just decided to have one more donut instead....
-
No, the CA actually expected the guy's attorney to pull him aside just before the case was called, work out a plea agreement to some other less threatening-sounding misdemeanor, and suggest something like 10 days -to be served on weekends - and the max. fine. At this point "they" are going full bore.
!No parasan!
stay safe.
-
No, the CA actually expected the guy's attorney to pull him aside just before the case was called, work out a plea agreement to some other less threatening-sounding misdemeanor, and suggest something like 10 days -to be served on weekends - and the max. fine. At this point "they" are going full bore.
!No parasan!
stay safe.
You know, I was thinking about this after posting it earlier, and that's also what I came up with - We're not gonna tell you exactly what we've got (because we've got jack and squat) in the hopes that you'll just plead out to something lesser instead of actually fighting.
-
What's in it for police and prosecutors to start Barbara Streisand cases like this? ???
-
What's in it for police and prosecutors to start Barbara Streisand cases like this? ???
What good are laws if people don't break them.
-
What's in it for police and prosecutors to start Barbara Streisand cases like this? ???
I can't speak for them, but they may be doing it to harass people into stopping the behavior they were charged for. They may know they will lose, but they know that it isn't cheap for people to defend themselves in court. They may also take the chance that people will just plead to lesser charge. Either way, it will discourage "brandishing".
I am just guessing here. Most of the prosecutors I have known were decent people and were focused on getting criminals off the streets, rather than people that weren't hurting anyone. Most also don't like to lose and will avoid cases where there is a poor chance of winning.
-
they may be doing it to harass people into stopping the behavior they were charged for
You mean like not breaking the law ???
Well, it just might work ;) >:D
-
... they may be doing it to harass people into stopping the behavior they were charged for. ....
You mean like not breaking the law ???
Well, it just might work ;) >:D
Sure, that might fly as long as the behavior was already codified as being illegal.
But what about charging people for stuff that is not illegal? Or charging them when they did not do something that is codified as being illegal?
stay safe.
-
But what about charging people for stuff that is not illegal? Or charging them when they did not do something that is codified as being illegal?
Doesn't there have to be some kind of preliminary hearing before a judge? A lot of this foolishness would stop if the judge threw out the charges AND jailed the prosecutor for a week for "contempt" for wasting the court's time.
-
I got out my checkbook to chip in a little for the defense, and how cool is this? I was halfway through writing the check when I noticed it =D
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv426%2FStand_Watie%2F3749056617_photobucket_243191__zpse5129781.jpg&hash=d3ed10f388da5862c5405e4b31087733b4a7df19) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Stand_Watie/media/3749056617_photobucket_243191__zpse5129781.jpg.html)
-
Sure, that might fly as long as the behavior was already codified as being illegal.
But what about charging people for stuff that is not illegal? Or charging them when they did not do something that is codified as being illegal?
stay safe.
My point was that if they prosecute/persecute folks for not breaking the law, then folks just might not respect the law much anymore ;)
-
My point was that if they prosecute/persecute folks for not breaking the law, then folks just might not respect the law much anymore ;)
Nobody respects the law anymore.
Everybody fears the law to some degree or another, except for congressmen because they've exempted themselves from most of it >:(
-
Doesn't there have to be some kind of preliminary hearing before a judge? A lot of this foolishness would stop if the judge threw out the charges AND jailed the prosecutor for a week for "contempt" for wasting the court's time.
Quite right. It was held - that's the one where the judge denied a motion for discovery and the Commomwealth Attorney refused to provide a Bill of Particulars. There is a lot more foolishness going on but I can't leak out details. Effectively the defense attorney was told he cannot have access to what the prosecution knows and will not be told specifically what his client is charged with that constituted breaking the law. Puts the defense in the middle of the bull ring with a blindfold and both arms tied behind the back against a raging bull with sharpened horns.
stay safe.
-
WTF?
How is that legal?
-
WTF?
How is that legal?
Because security !!!!!oneone
-
Every time i read about a new absurdity of the justice system I wonder how long our society is going to agree to be bound by it.
-
Heres one for you. Guy was facing middling charge. Stupid law. Was prepared for jury trial. Prosecution found out downgraded charge to avoid jury
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
-
Heres one for you. Guy was facing middling charge. Stupid law. Was prepared for jury trial. Prosecution found out downgraded charge to avoid jury
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
And he was convicted of (still stupid) lesser charge without jury trial?
-
Every time i read about a new absurdity of the justice system I wonder how long our society is going to agree to be bound by it.
Pitchforks! >:D
-
Heres one for you. Guy was facing middling charge. Stupid law. Was prepared for jury trial. Prosecution found out downgraded charge to avoid jury
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
Right to a trial by jury is still guaranteed by the 7th Amendment, unless a civil infraction has a fine of $20 or less.
-
How did the DA NOT get bitch-slapped into next week by the judge?
-
How did the DA NOT get bitch-slapped into next week by the judge?
They're probably golfing buddies.
-
Sounds like he needs to demand a jury trial. (To call the CA's bluff). ;)
-
They're probably golfing buddies.
reduced it to an infraction no jury
it was too long ago for me to remember exact charge
http://www.conflictatlaw.com/content/infraction-misdemeanor-or-felony
-
I'm gettin' a little tired of having to carry a law library around in my head just to go erranding and grocery shopping with a gun in my pocket.
-
I'm gettin' a little tired of having to carry a law library around in my head just to go erranding and grocery shopping with a gun in my pocket.
Even carrying a law school faculty around would not have helped. Some bus driver had a PSH moment when they saw, through the guy's back window, that he was shifting his gun from one location to another.
Now, we all might agree that administrative handling of handguns should be reduced to as infrequently as possible. We all also might agree that there ought to be laws, with penalties, for pointing a gun in a menacing fashion at someone so as to cause them to fear they will get shot. But most importantly of all, we all might agree that folks that have PSH moments at the mere sight of a gun should not go around making false accusations about the gun being pointed at them in a menacing fashion so as to cause them to fear they will get shot. (It's almost as bad as the rent-a-cop's statement in my trial about my pointing a finger at him: "I was never so afraid for my life. Not even when I was in Iraq.")
Knowing what the law is, and all the permutations that courts have said violate the law, will not help when the objective is to enhance a personal opinion that certain perfectly legal behaviors ought not to be allowed even if the courts say they are not illegal. On top that there is a truckload or three of other dirt that bears on the whys and wherefors of this guy being arrested. I'm not allowed to publically talk about that - yet.
stay safe.
-
Time to resurect this. Scouser's trial was scheduled for 9:30 this morning. What happened was not a trial per any of he definitions I know.
Short version - guilty, 12 months with 6 suspended for 3 years. Appeal noted and bonded out pending appeal.
Somewhat more detailed version starts at the bottom of page 14 at http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?113853-The-Tale-of-Henrico-Chapter-2-in-a-Ferry-Tale-Arrested-for-following-the-law&p=1953611#post1953611 .
stay safe.
-
Two questions:
1) Why wasn't this a jury trial?
2) How the hell does that judge stay on the bench? You'd think that he'd have drawn a judicial slapdown from someone higher up on the food chain by now, if that's how he normally handles cases before him. :facepalm:
-
Two questions:
1) Why wasn't this a jury trial?
2) How the hell does that judge stay on the bench? You'd think that he'd have drawn a judicial slapdown from someone higher up on the food chain by now, if that's how he normally handles cases before him. :facepalm:
1 - General District Court is not a court of record, and you only get a bench trial in front of a judge. In the Circuit Court appeal he can either have a bench trial in front of the judge or ask for a jury. He's asking for a jury.
2 - He's a substitute judge. Probably an ttorney in practice who gets asked to sit while one of the real judges is away (vacation, doctpr's appointment, doing their own jail time). He gets to stay there because the judicial complaint review process is so stacked against the complainant. Even if you could get a video camera in there and catch him diddling the witnesses the system would not sanction him unless he was showing favor by diddling one side's witnesses more than the other's.
Quite honestly, many General Disstrict Court judges look on their part of justice as merely some sort of gatekeeping - if the defendant is willing to plead guilty or no contest then slap a sentence and fine on them and get to the next case because the docket is overflowing. If the defendant wants to plead not guilty then either figure out in about 20 seconds that they really are not guilty or would be worth diddling if you found them not guilty. All others are going to appeal anyhow so let's just get this over with and move on to the next case - the judge/jury up in Circuit Court can take the time to actually listen, figure out what the law is, and then render a verdict.
stay safe.
-
The legal system is set up to process little people. If you are connected you get a chance. If you are really connected you never get charged, unless you have enemies who are also connected.
It is just a big machine set up to grind out a process, nevermind guilt or innocence or law, and too damn bad if you lose everything proving your innocence.
-
It is just a big machine set up to grind out a process, nevermind guilt or innocence or law, and too damn bad if you lose everything proving your innocence.
Take away everything a man has to live for and you create a very dangerous man.
-
. . . Effectively the defense attorney was told he cannot have access to what the prosecution knows and will not be told specifically what his client is charged with that constituted breaking the law . . .
This sounds like a kangaroo court - I always thought that in the USA 1) the prosecution was required to turn over all evidence, list of witnesses, etc. to the defense; 2) the charges have to be specific. I'm puzzled as to what kind of defense lawyer would let them get away with this.
A local judge here in Central TX is now facing trial for witholding evidence in a major case back when he was a prosecutor.
-
It's not a kangaroo court. Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court says a kangaroo court is " "a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted". It is essentially where the defendant has already been deemed guilty, and has little if any opportunities to object or defend himself."
This was a real court in a real courtroom in a real courthouse. [/sarcasm]
The attorney for the defense had plenty of opportunity to object. The prosecution didn't need any, as the judge announced when "that doesn't matter" even when there was not an objection by either side.
And quite seriouisly, the big problem was the judge did not want to be forced to take the necessary time to give the case a fair* hearing. His attitude was "if I find him guilty and he will not roll over and accept his punishment, the judges over in Circuit Court can have a do-over with a jury and everything. Their docket is not so full that I'm going to be here past 4 PM if everybody takes more than 10 minutes."
stay safe.
* - after yesterday's "trial" someone said that they guessed "fair" was where you went to ride the Ferris wheel and eat cotton candy, 'cause there was nothing that looked fair in the courtroom.
-
It's not a kangaroo court. Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court says a kangaroo court is " "a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted". It is essentially where the defendant has already been deemed guilty, and has little if any opportunities to object or defend himself."
This was a real court in a real courtroom in a real courthouse. [/sarcasm]
The attorney for the defense had plenty of opportunity to object. The prosecution didn't need any, as the judge announced when "that doesn't matter" even when there was not an objection by either side.
And quite seriouisly, the big problem was the judge did not want to be forced to take the necessary time to give the case a fair* hearing. His attitude was "if I find him guilty and he will not roll over and accept his punishment, the judges over in Circuit Court can have a do-over with a jury and everything. Their docket is not so full that I'm going to be here past 4 PM if everybody takes more than 10 minutes."
stay safe.
* - after yesterday's "trial" someone said that they guessed "fair" was where you went to ride the Ferris wheel and eat cotton candy, 'cause there was nothing that looked fair in the courtroom.
Tar & feathers are too good for such as this. An example needs to be made to encourage the others to mind their duty.