marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Does it matter? :lol:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
The Tale of Henrico - Chapter 2 in a Ferry Tale - Arrested for following the law
- Thread starter Grapeshot
- Start date
Does it matter? :lol:
va_tazdad
Regular Member
But wait,
CA1: "It is NOT a bus!"
CA2: "This is a picture of the BUS"
The "12 INCH Gun"? The black "clip" with a "silver stripe down the middle"? That he could "see him glaring at me" (Thru Scouser's sunglasses)?
Which set of the Commonwealth's lies are we supposed to go by????
CA1: "It is NOT a bus!"
CA2: "This is a picture of the BUS"
The "12 INCH Gun"? The black "clip" with a "silver stripe down the middle"? That he could "see him glaring at me" (Thru Scouser's sunglasses)?
Which set of the Commonwealth's lies are we supposed to go by????
Last edited:
Aaaa - the last ones. The others were just tiny little technical issues AND Scouser was convicted by what was seen and felt.. Don't confuse us with FACTS.
Why does their testimony smell so funny?
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
The real question, and one that ought to scare the h#ll out of any of us is:"Why didn't the jury see the BS for what it was??"
A related question is:"Upon what basis would a higher court overturn the conviction?"
The answer to the first question is they didn't know they could decide to acquit even if he was technically guilty.
There is a very real basis...actually several of them, to grant an appeal but that's a topic better left alone for the time being.
Fixed it for you, then the answer becomes "yes", but the appeal will be based on procedural errors that allowed that to happen. These will not be discussed at this time.
Last edited:
Amazing. You see what I'm saying, right?
I can walk up to a cop and say "My neighbor threatened me yesterday." Guilty.
Precisely. That is part of the reason people are so upset. The public rape of Scouser is obviously the catalyst.
The Court of Appeals is the next step.
Repeater
Regular Member
See? See what happens when cretins enact penal statutes that lack specific intent.
Even worse, C.A.'s that complain that 'specific intent' provisions make their job 'too difficult' -- oh boo hoo. Retire, then.
Actually 'specific intent' provisions should make their job easier.
Would the CA prosecute someone as a rapist if the were see publicly urinating (brandishing private parts)? Having the equipment does not constitute intent.
Intentionally violate the 'specific intent' of the law and the CA gets an easy conviction. If they don't have solid proof/evidence of such 'specific intent' then do not prosecute. That is a win-win for situation.
Last edited:
Repeater
Regular Member
In theory.
USNA69
Regular Member
I have to wonder if "specific intent" provisions would trump judge and jury hoplophobia and anti-2A sentiments at the lower court levels.
I expect that it would make a reversal on appeal much easier, though.
I expect that it would make a reversal on appeal much easier, though.
Malum prohibitum ought to require mens rea. Look what the Va GA did to indecent exposure when it comes to taking a leak/dump on the side of the road. If they can do that, they can change the brandishing law.
However, I would prefer to see "brandishing" repealed and a decent "defensive display of firearm" law enacted. They can deal with what used to be "brandishing" with existing assault laws. Or they can make brandishing a firearm the same as brandishing a machete.
stay safe.
Mongoose72
Regular Member
What actually surprises me the most about this case is the fact that charges were filed solely based upon the word of a civilian. I thought that it was the conventional wisdom here that as brandishing is a misdemeanor that even if the police were called they couldn't arrest if they had not personally witnessed the "act". I do see that an officer became actively involved and took the witness statement to a magistrate. Do magistrates in VA simply rubberstamp each misdemeanor case brought to them by a LEO? Do they do the same for civilians?
2a4all
Regular Member
I know of at least 1 case where a magistrate didn't buy the arresting officer's complaint. (No, I wasn't the perp.) Cop was told he didn't have enough evidence (stuff he found during a search of the perp's car) to support the charge.
A police officer in Virginia may arrrest for a misdemeanor they have personally witnessed, or they may apply for a warrant based on the written statement of a complaining witness. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+19.2-72
Elsewise the only misdemeanors folks could get arrested for would be the ones LEOs personally saw - and we all know there are not enough of them to go around watching all of us all the time.
Your understanding of the conventional wisdom is quite unconventional, to say the least. Thanks for asking, so that we can help yu better understand how things really work.
stay safe.
ProShooter
Regular Member
I once arrested a guy for auto tampering (like vandalism) and DIP. I watched him walk up to his girlfriend's mom's car and physically rip the passenger mirror off the car in a fit of rage.
The magistrate refused to issue the warrant. He told me that "the police don't arrest people for damaging other people's property".
Whaaat? Where does he park his car?
ProShooter
Regular Member
Whaaat? Where does he park his car?
Not sure that he even had a car. He used to shut the magistrates office down for an hour each night to go for a walk.