Still standing by and waiting for notice from the court.Any update yet
Never give up
My peers are some of the most immoral, uncouth, uneducated, ignorant, scumbags the world has ever known. This is the average American.
Waiting........patiently for the Court of Appeals.Everything that needed to be filed in the Ct. of Apps. is there as of March of this year. To my mind, the fact that it's taking a while is a good thing - it means they're taking it seriously and thinking about it. Since G. isn't in jail, waiting isn't as big a problem as it might be. That statute is a real problem, particularly as it's been interpreted - it no longer says what it appears to say, and the average person can't just read the statute and have any clue what it means, because of strained opinions in bad cases. I think the language needs to be cleaned up significantly. Actually, I think the whole statute could just go away, because it's the same level of penalty as assault and simple assault would do just as well for anyone actually threatened without good reason. Both "brandishing" and "assault" are "class-one misdemeanors". But I haven't been able to build a fire under my own legislators, and I can't get the VCDL interested. I think the real problem is the Commonwealth's Attorneys Association - it's become much easier to get convictions under the brandishing statute, which no longer requires actual brandishing, so there's a political backlash involved. We really need to build a groundswell of consensus and start inundating the legislators about this bizarre statute.
....That statute is a real problem, particularly as it's been interpreted - it no longer says what it appears to say, and the average person can't just read the statute and have any clue what it means, because of strained opinions in bad cases. I think the language needs to be cleaned up significantly. Actually, I think the whole statute could just go away, because it's the same level of penalty as assault and simple assault would do just as well for anyone actually threatened without good reason. Both "brandishing" and "assault" are "class-one misdemeanors". ....
Everything that needed to be filed in the Ct. of Apps. is there as of March of this year. To my mind, the fact that it's taking a while is a good thing - it means they're taking it seriously and thinking about it. Since G. isn't in jail, waiting isn't as big a problem as it might be. That statute is a real problem, particularly as it's been interpreted - it no longer says what it appears to say, and the average person can't just read the statute and have any clue what it means, because of strained opinions in bad cases. I think the language needs to be cleaned up significantly. Actually, I think the whole statute could just go away, because it's the same level of penalty as assault and simple assault would do just as well for anyone actually threatened without good reason. Both "brandishing" and "assault" are "class-one misdemeanors". But I haven't been able to build a fire under my own legislators, and I can't get the VCDL interested. I think the real problem is the Commonwealth's Attorneys Association - it's become much easier to get convictions under the brandishing statute, which no longer requires actual brandishing, so there's a political backlash involved. We really need to build a groundswell of consensus and start inundating the legislators about this bizarre statute.
I don't have time on my hands... can someone provide the cite to the section that user is referencing here? Thanks.
That be the lack of synchronization.I thought we were still waiting for Henrico to file some/certain/any response(s). Where did that notion come from?
stay safe.
Good sharp observation. It is never possible for three meshed gears to turn, any two reverse direction.