The Tale of Henrico - Chapter 2 in a Ferry Tale - Arrested for following the law

sidestreet said:

so I'll give you mine. No, I don't like the situation, and no, I'm not happy with the law as it is. It seems once again you have grossly miscalculated, this time, the number of people that think that the law in question needs changing. I understand that many times the legislative process is slow and stubborn, witness the meaning in that part of my phrase "we must be relentless.", and never believed that changing the law would have ever affected any part of Scouser's trial.

...

Click to expand...

The problem is not necessarily how the statute is written, it's how the courts have "interpreted" the statute. If you read the statute, you'd get the idea that it's illegal to use a gun on someone "in such manner" as to make a reasonable person fear for his physical safety. But what Scouser was charged with and convicted on was mere possession of a firearm where a member of the public saw it and, reasonable or not, said "I felt fear". The plain text and meaning of the statute does not prohibit inadvertent display, but that's how it's being used, and how it was used in Scouser's case. It's not necessarily about getting the law changed, because as written, it's a bit redundant but not bad. That case was about inadvertent display, and the "road rage" comment was about the complaining witness, not Scouser (who was oblivious to the fact that the complainant was angry with him). I thought it was clear that this was a case of retaliation, and not any real concern about the firearm, and that point was made several times during each phase of the proceedings. But when the courts decide on the basis of mere possession and the presence of some bozo who'll testify, "I felt fear" at trial, and the appellate courts won't allow the case to be appealed, then we're all in danger. So my view is that if we can get the statute repealed entirely, that way there's nothing to "interpret".

Everybody's entitled to second-guess the legal strategy all they want. None of us likes the result. The evidence was squarely before the court at every level, and the courts decided on the basis of whether or not Henrico County likes people to openly carry guns. Arguing at this point that I could have "gotten Scouser off" by doing this or that is useless when the "interpretive process" used by the courts results in convictions that are contrary to the law and to the evidence. He was denied due process of law in my opinion, because that statute was "void for vagueness" as applied. The average person can't read that statute and have the faintest notion that what it's taken to mean is that if someone else sees that he has a gun and says, "I felt fear", that he's facing up to twelve months in jail and a $2500 fine. The Court of Appeals refused to hear it, and the Virginia Supreme Court refused to hear it. What it means is that if they can deny your rights under the Fourteenth Amendment then they can take away your rights under the Second.

Total abject frustration with Henrico and the court system.

I agree, that at this point, the best consideration is to abolish the brandishing law.

Scourser was penalized by "interpretation" not intended - IMHO tantamount to legislating from the bench.

Grapeshot said:

Total abject frustration with Henrico and the court system.

I agree, that at this point, the best consideration is to abolish the brandishing law.

Scourser was penalized by "interpretation" not intended - IMHO tantamount to legislating from the bench.

Click to expand...

Scouser didn't have enough money like Hitlery to buy his way to not being convicted. There is no JUSTICE since Obama corrupted the system starting with Holder and continuing the destruction with Lynch.

va_tazdad said:

Scouser didn't have enough money like Hitlery to buy his way to not being convicted. There is no JUSTICE since Obama corrupted the system starting with Holder and continuing the destruction with Lynch.

Click to expand...

While I agree, I'd like to say that the twisted pile of dung we see as our current "justice" system got that way through decades of perverted law, word-smithing/legalese and bench legislation. It will take decades if not longer to correct these wrongs. IMHO.

Imagine all the things Skid and I would say about this and the things we would like to do about it were we one-on-one and in a private area, that's what I would LOVE to shout from the roof tops... :banghead: :cuss:

I think our lobbying efforts need to be more concentrated. Going in with a list of a hundred bills we'd like to see passed waters down our ability to do anything at all. I think in this upcoming legislative session, we need to double-down on the legislators to simply repeal the brandishing statute.
1) It is unconstitutionally vague, because the appellate courts have "interpreted" the language to twist the meaning of the statute in such a way that no reasonable person of average intelligence could read the statute and understand what's required of him.
2) Common law assault is exactly the same severity of crime, a class-one misdemeanor, and covers all assaults, not just those committed by the use of weapons. So the brandishing statute is redundant and unnecessary.
3) When a statute can be violated and a person subjected to punishment because of what other people think or feel, as opposed to intentional acts which he commits himself, enforcement of that statute is tyrannical, arbitrary, unreasonable, and capricious. And the way the courts have "interpreted" this statute, if some person, perhaps someone with a grudge against you, such as happened in Scouser's case, sees that you are in possession of a firearm and says, "I felt fear.", then you're guilty of a crime.
4) The statute is not written in Sanskrit, such that "interpretation" is required - the illogical linguistic twists that have been applied to the statute by the courts represent gratuitous legislative acts designed to make the statute be what certain individual judges have decided on behalf of the People of this Commonwealth, to impose based on their own agenda. The language of the statute is neither vague nor ambiguous, as written (although the first paragraph and the second are redundant), and has been made so only by the torture applied to it by the courts.

REPEAL THE BRANDISHING STATUTE!!!

user said:

I think our lobbying efforts need to be more concentrated. Going in with a list of a hundred bills we'd like to see passed waters down our ability to do anything at all. I think in this upcoming legislative session, we need to double-down on the legislators to simply repeal the brandishing statute.
1) It is unconstitutionally vague, because the appellate courts have "interpreted" the language to twist the meaning of the statute in such a way that no reasonable person of average intelligence could read the statute and understand what's required of him.
2) Common law assault is exactly the same severity of crime, a class-one misdemeanor, and covers all assaults, not just those committed by the use of weapons. So the brandishing statute is redundant and unnecessary.
3) When a statute can be violated and a person subjected to punishment because of what other people think or feel, as opposed to intentional acts which he commits himself, enforcement of that statute is tyrannical, arbitrary, unreasonable, and capricious. And the way the courts have "interpreted" this statute, if some person, perhaps someone with a grudge against you, such as happened in Scouser's case, sees that you are in possession of a firearm and says, "I felt fear.", then you're guilty of a crime.
4) The statute is not written in Sanskrit, such that "interpretation" is required - the illogical linguistic twists that have been applied to the statute by the courts represent gratuitous legislative acts designed to make the statute be what certain individual judges have decided on behalf of the People of this Commonwealth, to impose based on their own agenda. The language of the statute is neither vague nor ambiguous, as written (although the first paragraph and the second are redundant), and has been made so only by the torture applied to it by the courts.

REPEAL THE BRANDISHING STATUTE!!!

Click to expand...

Hear, hear! Hosanna!

Repeal

Why does it make me feel stupid for not being able to comprehend how repealing the brandishing law would have any effect on cases like this? It is after all a redundancy, that much has been mentioned.

However I do agree that we as a group in general would do better if we weren't flooding legislators with hundreds of bills. I don't understand that either. I guess the idea is to throw a fist full of poo at the wall and see how much of it sticks? It's that type of activism that has influenced me to forego renewing memberships. Eventually groups find themselves playing the same kind of politics within themselves that we abhor about the governing body.

I believe we need to fix ourselves before we can have an affect on the system. Too many people with too many opinions on how to get to the holy grail, and the solutions tend to be less about direction and more about appeasement. All that is left is an irrational approach, nothing is accomplished and all we do is point fingers and argue amongst ourselves.

So how do we move forward with the logical idea of focusing on a few important issues as opposed to throwing poo... I will support that anyway I can.

as I understand it...

It would be very difficult to interpret Scouser's action as an assault. The over broad interpretation of brandishing (simply because of the presence of a scary firearm) was easier to apply. Intent should mean almost everything in legal issues. Unfortunately, it often does not factor, thus justice is lost.

The Wolfhound said:

It would be very difficult to interpret Scouser's action as an assault. The over broad interpretation of brandishing (simply because of the presence of a scary firearm) was easier to apply. Intent should mean almost everything in legal issues. Unfortunately, it often does not factor, thus justice is lost.

Click to expand...

Therein rests the nitty gritty.

The Wolfhound said:

It would be very difficult to interpret Scouser's action as an assault. The over broad interpretation of brandishing (simply because of the presence of a scary firearm) was easier to apply. Intent should mean almost everything in legal issues. Unfortunately, it often does not factor, thus justice is lost.

Click to expand...

The problem is that the Va. appellate courts have introduced "interpretations" of the statute that completely warped the meaning. The "plain meaning" of the statute is clear - a person has to intentionally DO something with a gun that would reasonably cause a bystander to fear for his safety - but the courts have taken the intent and the action out of it and placed the entire crime in the eyes of the beholder. If you're in possession of something that could be taken to be a weapon, and someone sees it and says, "I felt fear", then you're guilty. That's what happened to Scouser, and why I've been arguing for years that the statute should simply be repealed. I haven't been able to get any support for that position either from the electorate or from "gun friendly" legislators. The prosecutor's ass'n. has too much political power, apparently. The VCDL hasn't done anything serious on "lobby day" and apparently has no plans to take any effective action. So apparently I'm the only person who's interested enough to make a real fuss about it. And I only control two votes (me and my wife), so I don't outweigh the prosecutors ( who like to be able to get convictions without any work).

user said:

The problem is that the Va. appellate courts have introduced "interpretations" of the statute that completely warped the meaning. The "plain meaning" of the statute is clear - a person has to intentionally DO something with a gun that would reasonably cause a bystander to fear for his safety - but the courts have taken the intent and the action out of it and placed the entire crime in the eyes of the beholder. If you're in possession of something that could be taken to be a weapon, and someone sees it and says, "I felt fear", then you're guilty. That's what happened to Scouser, and why I've been arguing for years that the statute should simply be repealed. I haven't been able to get any support for that position either from the electorate or from "gun friendly" legislators. The prosecutor's ass'n. has too much political power, apparently. The VCDL hasn't done anything serious on "lobby day" and apparently has no plans to take any effective action. So apparently I'm the only person who's interested enough to make a real fuss about it. And I only control two votes (me and my wife), so I don't outweigh the prosecutors ( who like to be able to get convictions without any work).

Click to expand...

We need to Trump them all!

it is time

Time to shop for a good legislator to champion our viewpoint, that is. Anybody got a good choice? Scouser, do you have a relationship with your Delegate or State Senator? When an aggrieved party petitions for redress to the government, our Founding Fathers relax in their graves for the system is being used as intended.

The Wolfhound said:

Time to shop for a good legislator to champion our viewpoint, that is. Anybody got a good choice? Scouser, do you have a relationship with your Delegate or State Senator? When an aggrieved party petitions for redress to the government, our Founding Fathers relax in their graves for the system is being used as intended.

Click to expand...

talk to me at Traks ....

Will do, sir

Will do. I look forward to seeing you again.

An instructive tale…,

teachable moment, many lessons to learn, be gleaned from this post, bumped for newcomer.

sidestreet

Jeremiah 29:11-13

Philippians 1:3

we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.