• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Florida Sheriff Acquitted

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
During the trial, the sheriff testified that he released Floyd Eugene Parrish, who was arrested for unlawfully carrying a firearm, because he believed the Second Amendment trumped all state gun laws. from link


This guy is a terrorist ! According to the FBI's characteristics that ID terrorists.

Seems like a good American to me !
 
Last edited:

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
During the trial, the sheriff testified that he released Floyd Eugene Parrish, who was arrested for unlawfully carrying a firearm, because he believed the Second Amendment trumped all state gun laws. from link


This guy is a terrorist ! According to the FBI's characteristics that ID terrorists.

Seems like a good American to me !

OK that was funny. Chalk one up for David.
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
http://www.infowars.com/sheriff-arrested-charged-after-defending-second-amendment-found-not-guilty/

This is the guy who believes our natural, civil, and constitutional right to bear arms trumps the whims of the legislature and our kourt system. A good apple in a barrel of fetid rot.

Perhaps he'll be a little more circumspect in his actions now. Like just telling his deputies not to make the arrests in the first place. That would be a much smarter approach.

I predict he'll be in the news again shortly for some other brouhaha.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
http://www.infowars.com/sheriff-arrested-charged-after-defending-second-amendment-found-not-guilty/

This is the guy who believes our natural, civil, and constitutional right to bear arms trumps the whims of the legislature and our kourt system. A good apple in a barrel of fetid rot.

I have no problem with the ordering a release, the destruction of records bothers me. destroying public records is not "honoring your oath" if for somereason a lawsuit was filed against the sheriffs department alleging patterns of bad arrests, would those types of records be useful?

releasing man because he believes no crime is committed=GREAT

destroying records without authority.....= NOT GREAT
 

Brent Hartman

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
62
Location
Gallatin, Missouri, United States
He was not charged with defending the 2nd amendment, he was charged with destroying public records and official misconduct.


He will be in the news again shortly, I predict.

He was ACQUITTED of destroying public records and official misconduct. He defended the 2nd Amendment by nullifying an arrest made by one of his deputies, which he correctly deemed to be in violation of the Constitution he swore to uphold. If only all sheriffs were so honorable.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I'm quite confident that the good sheriff's views on the 2A are not unknown to his subordinates, in other words, his views were not a secret and just came to light as of the arrest of Mr. Parrish. It is interesting that his subordinates blindly follow unconstitutional laws in every situation regardless of the facts of that situation. If I were the good sheriff I would be scouting for some new employees who were better able to remember the oath that they all voluntarily took.
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
I'm quite confident that the good sheriff's views on the 2A are not unknown to his subordinates, in other words, his views were not a secret and just came to light as of the arrest of Mr. Parrish. It is interesting that his subordinates blindly follow unconstitutional laws in every situation regardless of the facts of that situation. If I were the good sheriff I would be scouting for some new employees who were better able to remember the oath that they all voluntarily took.

It would have been much smarter (legal) to just inform his deputies not to make any firearms arrests in the first place. So I'm just as confident that this was a friend of a friend situation.


If I were the good sheriff I would be scouting for some new employees who were better able to remember the oath that they all voluntarily took
Like replacing all the folks that answered truthfully during the investigation? I expect that to happen as well. That is why I think he'll be in the news again, soon. He appears to act based on emotion rather than logic.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
It would have been much smarter (legal) to just inform his deputies not to make any firearms arrests in the first place. So I'm just as confident that this was a friend of a friend situation.

Like replacing all the folks that answered truthfully during the investigation? I expect that to happen as well. That is why I think he'll be in the news again, soon. He appears to act based on emotion rather than logic.
Agreed on both counts. What I don't know is whether or not the good sheriff did not in fact enact such a policy, verbally obviously, and one deputy did not follow his verbal policy.

Does this case boil down to a employment issue, or is it really nothing more than a basic legal issue, beyond the specific charges and subsequent acquittal.
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
Agreed on both counts. What I don't know is whether or not the good sheriff did not in fact enact such a policy, verbally obviously, and one deputy did not follow his verbal policy.

Does this case boil down to a employment issue, or is it really nothing more than a basic legal issue, beyond the specific charges and subsequent acquittal.

Does the underlying reason really matter?

Personally I prefer my Sheriff's not to violate laws A & B because of his personal feeling on law C.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
It is ironic that when a official record is ordered to be "expunged" (destroyed?) they are found to be extremely difficult to destroy. When a cop just tosses one into a circular file on his own all hell breaks loose.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
I have no problem with the ordering a release, the destruction of records bothers me. destroying public records is not "honoring your oath" if for somereason a lawsuit was filed against the sheriffs department alleging patterns of bad arrests, would those types of records be useful?

releasing man because he believes no crime is committed=GREAT

destroying records without authority.....= NOT GREAT

Guess it depends on how FL laws require the creation and storage of records. If the Sheriff felt that the arrest was wrong or illegal, then the paperwork accompanying it would also be invalid, true?
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Guess it depends on how FL laws require the creation and storage of records. If the Sheriff felt that the arrest was wrong or illegal, then the paperwork accompanying it would also be invalid, true?

no, it would be evidence of a bad arrest or evidence of the deputy violating a department directive not to make arrests for CCW.

what if the deputy who arrested the man Finch released lied on his report or violated the mans rights? well there's no longer any paper evidence of perjury even if someone later comes forward and says he witnessed something contradicting the deputies story.... that's a good example of how paper work of a bad arrest is still important for the public eye...

lets use a hypothetical example

say the CCWer arrested told the deputy "I do not consent to searching my jacket"

the officer searches anyway finds the guns, arrests and then puts on his report "suspect gave me consent to search jacket". that would be perjury, no prosecutor wants that officer's testimony anymore.

sheriff destroys the reports and records.

later someone who videotaped the encounter comes forward with the tape, the tape shows the man refusing consent. that deputy can be fired so no one likes a known liar. but now he can say "no he did refuse consent but I had PC/officer safety exemption/ yada yada yada" and there's no paper evidence.

I'm not saying this is what happened, or that anything remotely like this happened, this is just why I think paperwork needs to be kept and not destroyed without proper authority.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Do I think destruction of records should be policy, or should be condoned? No.

However, I suspect that was happened here was something along the lines of, "You know I don't want us to be making these arrests, and yet you did it anyway. You know where this is going? That's right…" (dumps it in the trash)

In this case, I have little issue with an acquittal.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
no, it would be evidence of a bad arrest or evidence of the deputy violating a department directive not to make arrests for CCW.

what if the deputy who arrested the man Finch released lied on his report or violated the mans rights? well there's no longer any paper evidence of perjury even if someone later comes forward and says he witnessed something contradicting the deputies story.... that's a good example of how paper work of a bad arrest is still important for the public eye...

lets use a hypothetical example

say the CCWer arrested told the deputy "I do not consent to searching my jacket"

the officer searches anyway finds the guns, arrests and then puts on his report "suspect gave me consent to search jacket". that would be perjury, no prosecutor wants that officer's testimony anymore.

sheriff destroys the reports and records.

later someone who videotaped the encounter comes forward with the tape, the tape shows the man refusing consent. that deputy can be fired so no one likes a known liar. but now he can say "no he did refuse consent but I had PC/officer safety exemption/ yada yada yada" and there's no paper evidence.

I'm not saying this is what happened, or that anything remotely like this happened, this is just why I think paperwork needs to be kept and not destroyed without proper authority.

What we do not know is what the stated (and trained) policy was/is for this department. It is entirely possible that the policy is changing and the person arrested would have had little recourse otherwise.

Hard to tell without more information...
 
Top