• 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.

Reporter arrested on school grounds, concealed weapon found

Smurfologist

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
536
Location
Springfield by way of Chicago, Virginia, USA
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
 

endtimer08

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
32
Location
, ,
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.
 

rds801

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
84
Location
, Oregon, USA
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.:lol:
 

adam40cal

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
146
Location
Saginaw, Michigan, USA
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.
 

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
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.

 

jmlefler

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
287
Location
Southwest, Michigan, USA
imported post

Found this update:

http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2007/11/guntoting_reporter_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/detail.html?rss=mia&psp=news
 

gzelmiami

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
23
Location
Miami, Florida, USA
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?
 

bluelinewalker2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
38
Location
, Florida, USA
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.:cuss:
 

brboyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
412
Location
Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
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.:cuss:

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)
 

Renegade

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
270
Location
Yorktown, VA, ,
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.

250107swat.jpg
 

marrandy

Newbie
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
54
Location
, Florida, USA
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.
 

brboyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
412
Location
Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
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!
 

Hotshot718

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
51
Location
Tampa, Florida, USA
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
 

brboyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
412
Location
Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
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.
 

theodoxa

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
11
Location
, ,
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/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&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.
 

brboyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
412
Location
Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
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/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&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?
 
Top