Local Norfolk Chatter....how do we keep the correct news on top?

imported post

I spoke to my uncle this afternoon and learned some slightly upsetting/disturbing information. He lives in Norfolk and told me that while at Bob's Guns on Saturday,he heard the "Real" story about Danbus's arrest after the city council meeting. I knew the way he put emphasis on the word "Real" that I was about to hear a doosie. Here he what he recounted (paraphrased):

According to several folks milling around and working inthe store and confirmed by an off-duty Norfolk officer, Danbus was arrested for verbal abuse of a police officer. After being stopped by the officer and told he couldn't open carry a weapon in Waterside, Danbus proceeded to unleash a tirade of curse words on the officer. These same folks indicated that he had done this before in Hampton when the police tried to arrest one of his neighborhood friends.The conversation then moved on to how Danbus wasn't doing anything to help Norfolk gun owners.

After taking a few seconds, I informed my uncle that the story he heard couldn't be further from the truth. I informed him that the only thing Danbus was cited for was Tresspassing and that he had never verbally assaulted any police officer in Norfolk or Hampton. For some reason, he puts a lot of stake into what the people at Bob's say and couldn't understand how I could have information contrary to what an "off-duty Norfolk officer" would have.

Now my question is, how do we (gunowners/VCDL/OCDO) keep local residents informed of the correct news? I think Mike/John/Phillip do an excellent job with press releases!! But, it sounds like either stores like Bob's don't receive them or choose to ignore them. Here's how I set my uncle straight...I just sent him step-by-step instructions for accessing the official Norfolk District Court information which clearly shows that Danbus was ONLY charged with Tresspassing. I told him to take that to Bob's with him this Saturday and start betting guns that Dan was NOT charged with Verbal Assault of a police officer. Are there other things we can do to prevent rumors like this from spreading or are rumors a natural result of situations like this?

imported post

Gun store? LOTS of cops hang out at gun stores, so where do you think they are getting that biased story from?

In reality, there isn't much you can do. The trial or lack of a trial will vet all stories and bring about the real truth.

imported post

Danbus will not be tried in the court of public opinion.

Rumors and disinformation are everywhere these days. Best way to stop your uncle from buying into the gossip mill might have been to bet him for a gun of your choice before showing him the facts.

Yata hey

imported post

HankT wrote:

snip.......
Unsafe to make any hard conclusions yet.

Click to expand...

And unnecessary to perpetually ask nocuous questions.

Leave it alone until after the case is settled, then you shall have all of the answers and you can Saturday morning quarterback those.

Yata hey

imported post

Wow, that IS one hell of a whopper they were telling.

Sounds like some of our Hampton Roads people need to do some stealth recordings. If you're part of the conversation (trust me, just join in), then you can record it.

If what Bayboy is saying is true, it looks like I might be right about the personal vendetta.

Might need to put the OC on hold for stealth recon.

imported post

HankT I think you should sit on it.

Yata hey

Edited to indicate "Ignore Button" activated.

imported post

Actually, Hank, I seem to recall Danbus stating he didn't want to put his hands in his pockets "because I didn't want to get shot", or something along those lines.

Since you have so much time to pester people, why don't you go find out for us?

imported post

Another question I have is why HankT, that highly esteemed State Researcher from New Jersey, is so interested in casting aspersions on our brother Virginian when he's abused by the Norfolk Police Department. Makes one wonder if racism exists in another location considerably north of Norfolk.

Of course, HankT's desire to speculate on the poor character of Virginia Open Carriers might not be racism. He might just be sticking his nose in where it's not wanted, and where it's not productive.

But I could be wrong.

~ Boyd

imported post

bayboy42 wrote:

According to several folks milling around and working inthe store and confirmed by an off-duty Norfolk officer, Danbus was arrested for verbal abuse of a police officer. After being stopped by the officer and told he couldn't open carry a weapon in Waterside, Danbus proceeded to unleash a tirade of curse words on the officer.

Click to expand...

So, after the officer unlawfully threatened to arest the cam corder holder, that's when Dan when nuts and began his verbal abuse and swearing."

And the police then forgot to charge Dan with "Profane swearing in public," see http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-388.

Yeah, makes sense. Glad we got that cleared up.

imported post

Mike wrote:

bayboy42 wrote:

According to several folks milling around and working inthe store and confirmed by an off-duty Norfolk officer, Danbus was arrested for verbal abuse of a police officer. After being stopped by the officer and told he couldn't open carry a weapon in Waterside, Danbus proceeded to unleash a tirade of curse words on the officer.

Click to expand...

So, after the officer unlawfully threatened to arest the cam corder holder, that's when Dan when nuts and began his verbal abuse and swearing."

And the police then forgot to charge Dan with "Profane swearing in public," see http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-388.

Yeah, makes sense. Glad we got that cleared up.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it made any sense.....only passing on the "word around the campfire".

imported post

To help keep the record straight, here's Dan's Court filing and the relevant State/City code


Case Number: GC08016678-00 File Date: 10/15/2008

Complainant: REED T C Locality:NORFOLK
Defendant: MOORE, DANLADI H; 6

Defendant Status: Released On Summons

Defense Attorney: Address: NORFOLK VA 23664
Sex: Male Race: Black(Non-Hispanic)

DOB:10/16/****
AKA1:

AKA2:
Charge: TRESSPASSING Code Section: 29-48 Case Type: Misdemeanor

Class:Amended Charge:Amended Code:Amended Case Type:

Offense Date: 10/07/2008 Arrest Date: 10/07/2008

Code of VA § 15.2-1717.1. Designation of police to enforce trespass violations.

Any locality may by ordinance establish a procedure whereby the owner, lessee, custodian, or person lawfully in charge as those terms are used in § 18.2-119, of real property may designate the local law-enforcement agency as a "person lawfully in charge of the property" for the purpose of forbidding another to go or remain upon the lands, buildings or premises as specified in the designation. The ordinance shall require that any such designation be in writing and on file with the local law-enforcement agency. (1999, c. 275; 2002, c. 328.)

Code of VA § 18.2-119. Trespass after having been forbidden to do so; penalties.

If any person without authority of law goes upon or remains upon the lands, buildings or premises of another, or any portion or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign
or signs posted by such persons or by the holder of any easement or other right-of-way authorized by the instrument creating such interest to post such signs on such lands, structures, premises or portion or area thereof at a place or places where it or they may be reasonably seen, or if any person, whether he is the owner,
tenant or otherwise entitled to the use of such land, building or premises, goes upon, or remains upon such land, building or premises after having been prohibited from doing so by a court of competent jurisdiction by an order issued pursuant to §§ 16.1-253, 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1-278.2 through 16.1-278.6, 16.1-278.8,
16.1-278.14, 16.1-278.15, 16.1-279.1, 19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9 or § 19.2-152.10 or an ex parte order issued pursuant to § 20-103, and after having been served with such order, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. This section shall not be construed to affect in any way the provisions of §§ 18.2-132 through 18.2-136.
(Code 1950, § 18.1-173; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1982, c. 169; 1987, cc. 625, 705; 1991, c. 534; 1998, cc. 569, 684.)

Code of City of Norfolk (What Dan is charged under)
Sec. 29-48. Entering or remaining on property of another after having been forbidden to do so. If any person shall, without authority of law, go upon or remains upon the lands, buildings, structures or premises of another, or any part, portion or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by such persons or by the holder of any easement or other right-of-way authorized by the instrument creating such interest to post such signs on such lands, buildings, structures, premises or part, portion or area thereof, at a place or places where it or they may be reasonably seen, or if any person, whether he is the owner, tenant or otherwise entitled to the use of such land, building or premises, goes upon, or remains upon such land, building or premises after having been prohibited from doing so by a court of competent jurisdiction by an order issued pursuant to sections 16.1-253, 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1-278.2 through 16.1-278.6, 16.1-278.8, 16.1-278.14, 16.1-278.15, 16.1-279.1, 19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9 or section 19.2-152.10[, Code of Virginia,] or an ex parte order issued pursuant to section 20-103, and after having been served with such order, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. This section shall not be construed to affect section 29-51 of this chapter. For purposes of this section, "person lawfully in charge" shall include members of the Norfolk Police Department when the owner, agent or manager of the property so authorizes in writing, according to procedures set out by the chief of police. Such authorization shall be kept on file with the chief of police.
(Code 1958, § 31-78; Ord. No. 39,657, § 1, 6-22-99; Ord. No. 40,455, § 1, 8-28-01)
State law references: Similar provisions, Code of Virginia, § 18.2-119.

imported post

HankT wrote:

When all else fails....RACE :uhoh:

Click to expand...

I said I could be wrong, Hank.

But I still have to wonder why you're on Danladi's case all the time. You seem to automatically assume he's in the wrong whenever the Norfolk PD violates his civil rights, and I can't quite figure out why.

imported post

The reason they call the know it alls hanging out in gunshops,"gunshop commandos" is cause they know everything but don't know jack $%@&.

imported post

All those people in the gun shop who would take the side of the cop against Danbus despite the overwhelming evidence...I think I have an idea of the 'perceptions' that may be behind that.

These people are going to taste the bitter fruit of their labors when, one day, the police abuse they protect and advocate is turned against them and their children.

imported post

HankT wrote:

Yeah, he said that, of course. But put on your thinking cap, AbNo....why wasn't Danbus ready to switch the recorder on when he saw the cop approaching?

Click to expand...

Mmm, I'd guess because he came up from behind them, or he was expecting his friend to not turn on the camera.

HankT wrote:

It is not consistent with a person who has had multiple LEO encounters, including some where he recorded the whole event. Take the Hampton encounter, for example. Dan recorded that one and I'm sure he didn't want to get shot then either.

Click to expand...

Actually, I guess you are right. I mean, after all, if Dan was able to record EVERY encounter, then you wouldn't have said "some where he recorded the whole event". In fact, I'm sure you were talking about Dan's unofficial camera man at the scene when you mentioned how he didn't record it.

In fact, I think I see where you are going with this, Hank. It makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE for a man that, as you put it, "has had multiple LEO encounters" to suddenly decide to resort to, as Mike put it "Profane swearing in public".

I mean, the Norfolk PD must be getting wise to his repeated attempts at sitting out unlawful detainment and taking them to court later, only to prove them completely wrong, and in one case so far, get a decent amount of financial compensation for it.

In fact, the poor arresting officer must have been so rattled by that verbal assault that he forgot to charge Dan with an 18.2-388 violation:exclaim:

Hank, your idea makes EVEN MORE SENSE when you consider that Dan selected profanity as premeditated course of action, as opposed to being caught off guard, or expecting his friend with the video camera to not turn it off when said friend was being given an illegal order (threat) from the Norfolk police to turn off his camera.
It all makes sense now, Hank. Thank you, brother. :celebrate

imported post

A lot of the people that work at Bob's Gun Shop do not have favorable views on Open Carry. I don't fret over their ignorance.

I believe that Open Carry is the purest form of the 2nd Amendment.

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

And unnecessary to perpetually ask nocuous questions.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the good use of a good word!

imported post

Bubba Ron wrote:

A lot of the people that work at Bob's Gun Shop do not have favorable views on Open Carry. I don't fret over their ignorance.

Click to expand...

That is correct. I was given a tirade by one guy (description: about 5'7", balding, always wears a baseball cap, thin mustache, looks slightly hunched) about open carry and that I'd be associated with the rest of the low life scum who can't conceal carry.

Then he passed me off to Scotty (who is a nice guy) and he went off politely about open carry being a bad idea. He also indicated to me that he'd rather conceal carry in violation of the law than open carry because of the hassle involved.

The first guy kept badgering me about what I would do if someone starts berating me about open carrying. The funny thing is... he never realized I was doing just that. Letting the guy who was hysterical about open carry speak all he wanted. He wasn't getting under my skin. I sure as hell was NOT going to draw on him (no imminent threat).

Ultimately, we purchased our holsters (Blackhawk) and left.

So far, my worst open carry experience has been AT A GUN STORE.:cuss::banghead:

imported post

Bubba Ron wrote:

I believe that Open Carry is the purest form of the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

+1

imported post

Bubba Ron wrote:

A lot of the people that work at Bob's Gun Shop do not have favorable views on Open Carry. I don't fret over their ignorance.

Click to expand...

That's an understatement. On the day of the first Norfolk Gun Show in years, I was in there in the morning killing time while my ex-wife (not ex at the time obviously) was getting her hair cut. I was carrying concealed, because one of the stylists at the place gets uncomfortable when he sees guns, because they remind him of when he was held up once (i.e. not afraid of mine, just takes him back to a situation that scared him).

As I was in Bob's, a customer was asking Bob some questions about concealed carry permits. He was concerned that the permit only covered him if the gun was physically on him, but not in the glove compartment (sounds like his CHP class at Bob's was of the same quality as the one I took there years ago). I stepped in to help explain things to him, and then commented that the easy solution is to just keep the gun in the open if he wants to avoid breaking the law. Bob's response to that?

"They need to outlaw that open carry crap"

Not "I think it's stupid to open carry", or "tactically, I don't think that's a good idea". He thinks it should actually be against the law to open carry. I've never set foot in that place since. There are plenty of gun stores around that DON'T want to take away my rights.