• 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.

James City County officer tells me open carry age is 21

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Something wrong with that?

Just hoping for something about a state or federal constitution, innocent until proven guilty, or due process would be hoped for! FTR, I have no problem with officers going home safe and sound at the end of their shifts, just would like SOME acknowledgement that this ISN'T the only goal.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Insure v. ensure v. assure - read 'em and weap.

Assure means "to promise" or "to state with confidence": "I assure you that we will be on time." "I can assure you that nobody in this class will fail."

Ensure and insure are used interchangeably to mean "to make certain." However, some authorities (including this writer) insist upon using only ensure in this sense, restricting insure to matters of legal and financial protection (i.e., to protect against loss). Thus, these authorities would prefer ensure in: "A good outline will help to ensure that an essay is well organized" and "We take every step to ensure that products are of the highest quality." Most references state, however, that either insure or ensure could be used in these sentences.

Insure is always used when matters of legal and financial protection (i.e., insurance) are involved: "In New Jersey, it is expensive to insure a car." "The young model wanted to insure her elderly husband's life for one million dollars."
http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/992333/8556.htm
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
so, I was correct.

((((FYI, my not so secret mission was to come to this country and stop the bastardization of the English language, my success rate determines whether or not Liz will allow me to ever go back to visit my family))))

oh please mate, i can assure you were only partially correct!! :uhoh:

ipse
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
so, I was correct.

((((FYI, my not so secret mission was to come to this country and stop the bastardization of the English language, my success rate determines whether or not Liz will allow me to ever go back to visit my family))))

oh please mate, i can assure you were only partially correct!! :uhoh:

ipse
He may be right. Thought he was wrong once, but he was mistaken.........or was that Skid? :p
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
The principal does since it is based on Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530, 540 (2014) a USSC decision that does apply to your state.

The phrase, "reasonable suspicion" hinges on what the word, "reasonable" means. In legal discourse, it has always meant "having a reason". It has never meant, "having a good and valid reason", just "having a reason". It does have to be a reason held in good faith, and there's an "objective test" for that. It can't be the result of fantasy, hallucinations, or messages from Elvis from beyond the grave. It's the same word as is used in describing the mental state of a person involved in a defensive shooting, and means the same thing: "If you have a good faith, reasonably held belief, based on objective fact..."; for example, an off-duty cop shot an unarmed homeless guy this morning in Linthicum, Md. (good thing Md. gun control didn't apply to the cop). Turns out the homeless guy came up to the cop brandishing a toy gun in the darkness, and demanded that the cop turn over his wallet. The cop had a reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact that the guy was a robber having the present means and willingness to kill. He had no idea the guy was actually unarmed. He had a reason. It was factually wrong, but so what?

In this present case, I'd argue that the cop was guilty of a crime, but not because his legal advice was wrong, but that he's giving out legal advice without being licensed to do so.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
There is a very obvious problem with this line of thought. An acquittal on these grounds basically tells cops that they can ignore the rules, so long as everyone else is ignoring them. There’s a reason why vice cops — and drug cops in particular — are especially prone to corruption: They’re permitted to violate the very laws they’re paid to enforce. It isn’t difficult to see how that can foster an attitude that laws and rules are negligible. Imagine now if the courts moved to a position where all rules are negligible, including those that govern the use of force.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._first_freddie_gray_trial_act_reasonably.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lice-officer-standard-isnt-reasonable-at-all/

H/T John Wesley Hall, Esq. FourthAmentment.com

I think the the courts have already gone sour Nightmare. We should not look to government officials to give us relief regarding government misconduct.

One does not go to the head wolf and ask him to stop his wolves from killing your sheep.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,939
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I think the the courts have already gone sour Nightmare. We should not look to government officials to give us relief regarding government misconduct.

One does not go to the head wolf and ask him to stop his wolves from killing your sheep.
As I said on another thread - "the check and balances of the three branches of gov. are long gone. In rare occasions it works in your favor."

The three branches of gov. knows that if they work together the fourth branch, the people, is screwed. It's that simple....
 
Top