Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Reporter arrested on school grounds, concealed weapon found

  1. #1
    Regular Member reefteach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPPAwo3_7d0



    So, lots of questions.

    Was he in violation of "safe school"zone crap

    was he tresspasing

    was he refusing a "lawful order"

    was the search legal

    etc....

  2. #2
    Regular Member Smurfologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    Now, I am not a legal expert, but, from the looks of it, the reporter (technically) was not on school grounds if he was on a public sidewalk (or, was it?) However, the question I would have is was he in a designated "school zone" in which case, there may be an issue of carrying a concealed weapon in a designated school zone (I am definitely not familiar with all of Florida's gun laws and laws in general)?

    The reason I am asking is because I am not sure about VA's laws when it comes to designated school zones, if they even have any (for instance, if you are walking by a school, and, youare CCing vs. driving by a school in a vehicle while CCingor OCing). There are some things thatI do know, but, I am sure there is plenty that I don't know (for instance, I know about the CC on school property in a vehicle where you have to stay in the vehicle, and, not exit the vehicle, leavingthe weapon in it - some kind of felony, I believe). Can anyone out there help me understand all of this?!?

    2nd Amendment.......Use it........Or, lose it!!:X
    The 2nd Amendment... brought to you by Beretta and the number 1791!!

  3. #3
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    Duplicate thread; I beat you to this one

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/5552.html

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    32

    Post imported post

    the reporter was given many opportunities to avoid arrest, he should have obey a lawful order and taken it up with his stations lawyers later. Why turn it into a conflict when he didn't have too? Just wondering.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    84

    Post imported post

    endtimer08 wrote:
    the reporter was given many opportunities to avoid arrest, he should have obey a lawful order and taken it up with his stations lawyers later.* Why turn it into a conflict when he didn't have too? Just wondering.
    I'm not a lawyer...I don't even play one on T.V. but I don't think it was a lawful order. The reporter was not breaking any laws and the cop did not ask anyone else to go across the street. Besides the cop didn't give an order, he was ASKING nicely.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    From what I just seen on youtube the reporter did nothing wrong he was standing on a public side walk. Just because a LEO asked you to leave you don't have to if your doing nothing wrong. Their trying to get him on a bunch of different charges too.

  7. #7
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241

    Post imported post

    Looked like an LEO who’s out of touch with the laws didn’t like being challenged by someone who knew the law. The LEO CLEARLY forced his own law on the reporter. I Hope the station stands behind him and wins big for all armed citizens.


    Im proudly straight. I'm free to not support Legalization, GLBT, Illegal Aliens, or the Islamization of America.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southwest, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    291

    Post imported post

    Found this update:

    http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/ripti...cleared_on.php


    Interesting note:

    'As to the Resisting an Officer without Violence and/or, Failing to Obey a lawful command charge, the arrest may have been lawful had there been a lawful command. However, the command does not appear to be lawful in this case...'

    What happens to the officer now? Giving an illegal command 'under the color of law' would appear to leave him open to disciplinary action or civil accountability.

    I'm seeing a newly appearing thread across a number of blog and sites.When LEO's act illegally under the color of law the general consensus from their superiors is 'oops', our officers can't be expected to know every law and may need more training, when a citizen makes the same claim (gee, I didn't know the law) they're told that ignorance is no defense, go get a lawyer, spend time and money to defend yourself. This is driving a lot of anti-LEO sentiment and is polarizing citizen/LEO interactions, IMHO.

    And now this...

    http://www.local10.com/news/15014659...a&psp=news


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Miami, Florida, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    Sheet, I hate reporters as much as I hate lawyers, but when is it correct for an LEO to tell you you can't be on a sidewalk if your not doing anything illegal?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Florida, USA
    Posts
    38

    Post imported post

    I seen the video and the officer was in the right!He has a duty to protect and to serve.In this case he was ptotecting the kids (minors keep in mind) from unwarrented video taping.Got to have that parental consent to video tape minors!That always brings us back to the stupid lawyers slapping LEOs in the face for doing their job.The reporter looked like he was on school grounds to me, sidewalk or not.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
    Posts
    412

    Post imported post

    bluelinewalker2 wrote:
    I seen the video and the officer was in the right!He has a duty to protect and to serve.In this case he was ptotecting the kids (minors keep in mind) from unwarrented video taping.Got to have that parental consent to video tape minors!That always brings us back to the stupid lawyers slapping LEOs in the face for doing their job.The reporter looked like he was on school grounds to me, sidewalk or not.
    You can video tape anyone on Public property at any time, minors included.

    The reporter was on the sidewalk, not school grounds. In any case the LEO was acting under the authority of the school principal where they have this special 'School Safety Zone' see Florida Statute 810.0975 (which I feel is unconstitutional, but don't know if it's been challenged or not)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Yorktown, VA, ,
    Posts
    270

    Post imported post

    bluelinewalker2 wrote:
    He has a duty to protect and to serve.In this case he was ptotecting the kids (minors keep in mind) from unwarrented video taping.Got to have that parental consent to video tape minors!That always brings us back to the stupid lawyers slapping LEOs in the face for doing their job.The reporter looked like he was on school grounds to me, sidewalk or not.
    Blue - stop believing the lies the government schools brainwashed you with - police have no duty to protect and/or serve. http://www2.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html

    Regarding parental consent to video tape minors - please cite your source.

    Police are there for one reason and one reason - to collect your hard earned money at the point of a gun when necessary.



  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Florida, USA
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    Has it gone to trial yet ?

    Result ?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
    Posts
    412

    Post imported post

    marrandy wrote:
    Has it gone to trial yet ?

    Result ?
    Charges we dropped a day or two after the incident.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Florida, USA
    Posts
    54

    Post imported post

    "Charges we dropped a day or two after the incident."


    Yes, I know, but I wasn't talking about that.

    I was asking if HIS lawsuit against the Police and city had happened yet.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
    Posts
    412

    Post imported post

    marrandy wrote:
    "Charges we dropped a day or two after the incident."


    Yes, I know, but I wasn't talking about that.

    I was asking if HIS lawsuit against the Police and city had happened yet.
    Not going to happen. He was in voilation of the school zone law. It was just the carrying on school property that caused the issue. He was not on schools grounds so that charge was bogus as was the resisting arrest.



    We need to repeal that stupid school zone law!

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Tampa, Florida, USA
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    Not that I agree with the School Zone law, but he wasn't in violation of it because he had a permit. US Code 18 Part I Ch 44 SS 922 (q) (2) (B) (ii) and Florida law doesn't say anything about a 1000 ft rule: FL 790.06 (12). Even then, violations under this section by a ccw holder only constitute a misdemeanor 2

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
    Posts
    412

    Post imported post

    Hotshot718 wrote:
    Not that I agree with the School Zone law, but he wasn't in violation of it because he had a permit. US Code 18 Part I Ch 44 SS 922 (q) (2) (B) (ii) and Florida law doesn't say anything about a 1000 ft rule: FL 790.06 (12). Even then, violations under this section by a ccw holder only constitute a misdemeanor 2
    Actually he was charged under Florida's School Safety Zone trespass Law, and it really has nothing to do withthe firearm...it's the fact that he refused to leave an area within 500 feet of school property when "lawfully" ordered to do so.

    I would argue that he had a 'legitimate business purpose" and in doing his job, the police did not havea 'reasonable belief that he or she will commit a crime or was (is) engaged in harassment or intimidation of students' so this charge was as bogus as the others....

    Another prime example of "you can beat the wrap, but not the ride"
    810.0975 School safety zones; definition; trespass prohibited; penalty.--
    (1)For the purposes of this section, the term "school safety zone" means in, on, or within 500 feet of any real property owned by or leased to any public or private elementary, middle, or high school or school board and used for elementary, middle, or high school education.
    (2)(a)Each principal or designee of each public or private school in this state shall notify the appropriate law enforcement agency to prohibit any person from loitering in the school safety zone who does not have legitimate business in the school safety zone or any other authorization, or license to enter or remain in the school safety zone or does not otherwise have invitee status in the designated safety zone.
    (b)During the period from 1 hour prior to the start of a school session until 1 hour after the conclusion of a school session, it is unlawful for any person to enter the premises or trespass within a school safety zone or to remain on such premises or within such school safety zone when that person does not have legitimate business in the school safety zone or any other authorization, license, or invitation to enter or remain in the school safety zone. Any person who violates this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
    (c)Any person who does not have legitimate business in the school safety zone or any other authorization, license, or invitation to enter or remain in the school safety zone who shall willfully fail to remove himself or herself from the school safety zone after the principal or designee, having a reasonable belief that he or she will commit a crime or is engaged in harassment or intimidation of students entering or leaving school property, requests him or her to leave the school safety zone commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Nothing in this section shall be construed to abridge or infringe upon the right of any person to peaceably assemble and protest.
    (3)This section does not apply to residents or persons engaged in the operation of a licensed commercial business within the school safety zone.


  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was struck down by SCOTUS in 1995 (U.S. vs. Lopez)

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...p;invol=U10287
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

    Shortly thereafter, Congress "amended" the law to add after "gun" the words " that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce". Since the government couldn't show in 1995 how a gangbanger carrying a .38 at school affected interstate commerce, I fail to see how they could make a case that a law-abiding citizen carrying a gun on a public sidewalk affects interstate commerce [short of changing the political balance of SCOTUS itself]. The problem cited by SCOTUS wasn't that the gun hadn't moved in IC, but that the act of simply carrying a gun does not sufficently affect IC. The GFSZA of 1995 is no more constitutional than the GFSZA of 1990 which SCOTUS struck down.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
    Posts
    412

    Post imported post

    theodoxa wrote:
    The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was struck down by SCOTUS in 1995 (U.S. vs. Lopez)

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...p;invol=U10287
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

    Shortly thereafter, Congress "amended" the law to add after "gun" the words " that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce". Since the government couldn't show in 1995 how a gangbanger carrying a .38 at school affected interstate commerce, I fail to see how they could make a case that a law-abiding citizen carrying a gun on a public sidewalk affects interstate commerce [short of changing the political balance of SCOTUS itself]. The problem cited by SCOTUS wasn't that the gun hadn't moved in IC, but that the act of simply carrying a gun does not sufficently affect IC. The GFSZA of 1995 is no more constitutional than the GFSZA of 1990 which SCOTUS struck down.
    While I agree with you conclusion, you do understand that this thread is well over a year old?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •