Brandishing

Make that a "traffic" stop...slip of the autocorrect

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

rev.david said:

One last comment from me...the way I read this then, the swaggering LEO walking up to my car during a tragic stop with his hand on the butt of his weapon (NOT his other butt) is brandishing his weapon in a threatening manner...would that be a correct read?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

That would be correct. Good luck ever getting a judge to buy it.:lol:

TFred said:

<snip>

The point is, if you employ the fact that you possess or have easy access to a gun in an effort to alter someone's behavior, that's likely to cause the required components of the law to be reached, and I think you are likely to be brandishing, at least in Virginia.

TFred

Click to expand...

Sounds like the purpose of OC to me.

The brandishing statute and the ways in which the courts' interpretations have warped it are discussed in the petition for appeal I've filed in the Henrico Co. case - you can download a copy off of my website, scroll down to the set of links marked, "useful stuff" and it's the last in that set. It is, of course, highly technical legal stuff, and some of it is in Latin, but I reckon you can get the gist of it.

rev.david said:

One last comment from me...the way I read this then, the swaggering LEO walking up to my car during a tragic stop with his hand on the butt of his weapon (NOT his other butt) is brandishing his weapon in a threatening manner...would that be a correct read?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Think this way, if I where to do they same thing not being a Leo as I approached someone could be construed to have violated the law? If I'm wrong to do this then sous the LEO.

Originally Posted by rev.david

One last comment from me...the way I read this then, the swaggering LEO walking up to my car during a tragic stop with his hand on the butt of his weapon (NOT his other butt) is brandishing his weapon in a threatening manner...would that be a correct read?

Click to expand...

JoeSparky said:

Think this way, if I where to do they same thing not being a Leo as I approached someone could be construed to have violated the law? If I'm wrong to do this then sous the LEO.

Click to expand...

In the Leo's case, it's called a "ready" position. Professional courtesy don't you know.

Grapeshot said:

In the Leo's case, it's called a "ready" position. Professional courtesy don't you know.

Click to expand...

And what makes his safety or security any more important than mine?
Not challenging you just asking a question to the choir here.

Grapeshot said:

In the Leo's case, it's called a "ready" position. Professional curtesy don't you know.

Click to expand...

Its like the difference between an 'assault rifle' and a 'patrol rifle'.... it all depends on who owns it. :banghead:



(no.. I'm not headed towards 'long gun talk'... just presenting the analogy. )

This was very much the issue on appeal in the case of Daniel W. Harmon-Wright, the Culpeper PD officer charged with murder for having shot and killed a woman while he was on duty. In theory, cops have the benefit of a presumption that when they are on duty, in uniform, and displaying their "badge of authority" that they are agents of the Sovereign and are behaving lawfully. In Dan Wright's case, that presumption was not permitted by the court. If the Ct. Apps. and ultimately the Va. Supremes decide that the Culpeper Ct. was correct, then, yes, every time a cop walks up to someone's car with a hand on the gun, it's a criminal act of brandishing, as that statute is now interpreted. If, as the Culpeper Cir. Ct. asserted, the cop is behaving unlawfully when he does that because there is no presumption of lawful behavior, then it's ok to shoot the cop in self-defense. I don't recommend that, of course, I'm just pointing out the logical conclusion of the Court's reasoning. But I can well imagine someone charged with having killed a cop making the defense, "He had his hand on his gun in such manner that I felt fear, and I, being an innocent person with a reasonably held, good faith belief that this rogue cop (or person posing as a cop) intended to kill me, I protected myself against the threat he posed by shooting first."

user said:

This was very much the issue on appeal in the case of Daniel W. Harmon-Wright, the Culpeper PD officer charged with murder for having shot and killed a woman while he was on duty. In theory, cops have the benefit of a presumption that when they are on duty, in uniform, and displaying their "badge of authority" that they are agents of the Sovereign and are behaving lawfully. In Dan Wright's case, that presumption was not permitted by the court. If the Ct. Apps. and ultimately the Va. Supremes decide that the Culpeper Ct. was correct, then, yes, every time a cop walks up to someone's car with a hand on the gun, it's a criminal act of brandishing, as that statute is now interpreted. If, as the Culpeper Cir. Ct. asserted, the cop is behaving unlawfully when he does that because there is no presumption of lawful behavior, then it's ok to shoot the cop in self-defense. I don't recommend that, of course, I'm just pointing out the logical conclusion of the Court's reasoning. But I can well imagine someone charged with having killed a cop making the defense, "He had his hand on his gun in such manner that I felt fear, and I, being an innocent person with a reasonably held, good faith belief that this rogue cop (or person posing as a cop) intended to kill me, I protected myself against the threat he posed by shooting first."

Click to expand...

No disrespect to you User, but I fail to see any logic from the courts in 30+ years. What a normal or reasonable person would think, believe or understand rarely is what the courts say, yet they are supposed to be "knowledgeable".

I no longer have any faith in our "system of justice". It rarely meters out justice, especially for the victims.

va_tazdad said:

No disrespect to you User, but I fail to see any logic from the courts in 30+ years. What a normal or reasonable person would think, believe or understand rarely is what the courts say, yet they are supposed to be "knowledgeable".

I no longer have any faith in our "system of justice". It rarely meters out justice, especially for the victims.

Click to expand...

Oh I think that there is "logic from the courts" - we are just not always "knowledgeable" enough to understand it.

Legal logic can seem illogical, defy good sense on occasion - especially to those not properly graded. Not all robes are black.

You left off the caption:

Grapeshot said:

...

Click to expand...

Tremayne: "You will hang by the neck, Captain Kirk, until you are dead, dead, dead."

I was once in the General District Court doing traffic and misdemeanors, and there was a guy, pro-se, charged with reckless driving; he did a "guilty with an explanation" thing, the court accepted his plea and pronounced sentence: "Upon your plea of guilty I find you guilty and sentence you to be hanged by the neck until you are dead. Sentence to be executed at nine o'clock tomorrow morning; Bailiff, take the prisoner into custody." The guy fell up against the nearest wall and turned white as a sheet. The judge quickly said, "No, I was just kidding, I just always wanted to say that; your case is dismissed, you're free to go." That judge was not reappointed for some reason.

As to the logic and wisdom of our system of justice, I'd say the error is in the use of the word, "justice". I had a professor in law school who said the system that allows individuals to sue each other is designed to provide the illusion of justice so that people would stop going out behind the castle and hack each other to death with swords and in our modern age, the present purpose of the judicial system is to provide the illusion of access to justice, in order to prevent the populace from revolting every other day. If they understood the nature of The Beast, the Domination System, without the rose-colored glasses of what they wish were true about their government, well, another professor said, "Bulls**t is the lubricant that makes modern civilization work."

user said:

You left off the caption:
Tremayne: "You will hang by the neck, Captain Kirk, until you are dead, dead, dead."

I was once in the General District Court doing traffic and misdemeanors, and there was a guy, pro-se, charged with reckless driving; he did a "guilty with an explanation" thing, the court accepted his plea and pronounced sentence: "Upon your plea of guilty I find you guilty and sentence you to be hanged by the neck until you are dead. Sentence to be executed at nine o'clock tomorrow morning; Bailiff, take the prisoner into custody." The guy fell up against the nearest wall and turned white as a sheet. The judge quickly said, "No, I was just kidding, I just always wanted to say that; your case is dismissed, you're free to go." That judge was not reappointed for some reason.

Click to expand...

I had a judge rule on a case before me .... drag racing I think ... the kid had a tee shirt and on it was a pic of a dog. Judge said "I like dogs, not guilty" before anything else was said. (not kidding)

I, unfortunately, was wearing a cat tee shirt and was found guilty (kidding 'bout the cat) but talked to the chief judge and got a new trial and was found not guilty at that one. The chief judge said "say no more...here's your new trial date..take it or accept the judgment you got today".

I had a judge tell me that a guy I arrested was not guilty for carrying a concealed gun w/o a permit, because the guy admitted that he was carrying a concealed gun w/o a permit when I encountered him. Apparently, foxhole honesty negates your criminal activity.

user said:

This was very much the issue on appeal in the case of Daniel W. Harmon-Wright, the Culpeper PD officer charged with murder for having shot and killed a woman while he was on duty. In theory, cops have the benefit of a presumption that when they are on duty, in uniform, and displaying their "badge of authority" that they are agents of the Sovereign and are behaving lawfully. In Dan Wright's case, that presumption was not permitted by the court. If the Ct. Apps. and ultimately the Va. Supremes decide that the Culpeper Ct. was correct, then, yes, every time a cop walks up to someone's car with a hand on the gun, it's a criminal act of brandishing, as that statute is now interpreted. If, as the Culpeper Cir. Ct. asserted, the cop is behaving unlawfully when he does that because there is no presumption of lawful behavior, then it's ok to shoot the cop in self-defense. I don't recommend that, of course, I'm just pointing out the logical conclusion of the Court's reasoning. But I can well imagine someone charged with having killed a cop making the defense, "He had his hand on his gun in such manner that I felt fear, and I, being an innocent person with a reasonably held, good faith belief that this rogue cop (or person posing as a cop) intended to kill me, I protected myself against the threat he posed by shooting first."

Click to expand...

I am not arguing that the act of placing ones hand on the butt of a holstered firearm is or is not "brandishing" or "assault" but that it is patently unfair to determine AUTOMATICALLY that one is justified or allowed such behavior and another NOT simply based upon the fact that one is employed by the "HOLY STATE" and another is not.

user said:

The brandishing statute and the ways in which the courts' interpretations have warped it are discussed in the petition for appeal I've filed in the Henrico Co. case - you can download a copy off of my website, scroll down to the set of links marked, "useful stuff" and it's the last in that set. It is, of course, highly technical legal stuff, and some of it is in Latin, but I reckon you can get the gist of it.

Click to expand...

Mornin' neighbor.

Thanks for posting this and offering your link to the text of the appeal. I just read it and it is the first time I have had the opportunity to see what actually happened in this case. I was most interested in hearing about the details because there are times when I remove my gun and times when I re-holster it when out in public; not many but on occasion. In particular, at my local neighborhood post office.

This post office shares a common parking lot and sidewalk with a couple of other businesses so it is legal for me to enter that parking lot armed. But if I go into the post office, I must disarm. What I generally do is have my holstered sidearm in the vehicle and when returning to that vehicle, I slip the holster onto my belt while standing outside and behind the door of my vehicle. I suppose I could be seen by someone but I never gave it too much thought since my intent was not to induce fear in anyone.

This case changed that to some degree. I used to just take the gun out of the glovebox and insert it into my holster while standing outside of the car/truck. Now I leave it in the holster and just slip the holster gun on my belt. Not as obvious to others what I am doing when doing it this way.

Will you post the outcome of your appeal when it is all over?

SouthernBoy said:

--snipped--
Will you post the outcome of your appeal when it is all over?

Click to expand...

Does the sun rise in the east?

You can be sure that the result(s) of this phase will be made known here.

Expect that Scouser will prevail in all regards and that the VICTORY screams will be heard all the way to your front door.

This case will be pivotal for better things to come

user said:

<snip> I had a professor in law school who said the system that allows individuals to sue each other is designed to provide the illusion of justice so that people would stop going out behind the castle and hack each other to death with swords and in our modern age, the present purpose of the judicial system is to provide the illusion of access to justice, in order to prevent the populace from revolting every other day. <snip>

Click to expand...

Euro centric, no 2A if swords are being used. In Americuh, we use pistols, at 10 paces.....it's a 2A thing.

Grapeshot said:

Does the sun rise in the east?

You can be sure that the result(s) of this phase will be made known here.

Expect that Scouser will prevail in all regards and that the VICTORY screams will be heard all the way to your front door.

This case will be pivotal for better things to come

Click to expand...

We can certainly hope. It was a travesty and its outcome could be quite significant.

OC for ME said:

Euro centric, no 2A if swords are being used. In Americuh, we use pistols, at 10 paces.....it's a 2A thing.

Click to expand...

Nay, nay. The 2A includes such instruments.



IMHO - dueling was never a 2A thing. Dueling is not about the right to "keep and bear Arms." Dueling is about using those Arms in a manner not intended - to settle an argument. That is precisely of what some anti's try to hang about our necks.

Dueling is an aggressive act, not a defensive one. It is not "necessary to the security of a free State...."