imported post
Shotgun wrote:
I don't think it ought to have any practical effect on any of us. It won't change anything I do, I doubt it will change anything the police do either. If police feel somehow emboldened by this decision I doubt it will last long. It pretty much addressed the issue of what happened between the plaintiff and the defendants, it doesn't really impact anyone else, except emotionally.
This was a civil lawsuit, not an appeal of a criminal conviction.
I agree, the case is specific to the circumstances of what occurred in this case. There were some judgment errors in this case by the defendant i.e. arguing with employees, allowing the police to search the vehicle, not giving his name after being arrested (which is his right) all of which could lead to a DC charge. Know your rights and avoid arguing with employees and you should be fine.
What the case means in my opinion is that if you’re in a store and asked to leave, don’t argue, leave immediately. Arguing with an employee can get you a DC charge and or a charge for trespassing.
I won’t be changing anything I do; we have been carrying up until now in stores without any issues, and we should continue to do so. I will carry on, and in the stores I have already carried in.
Understand, that this decision is different then a decision from a criminal case for DC. I still don’t believe that a DA would prosecute a DC charge even after this decision, unless someone would provoke a DC charge by arguing with an employee thus causing a disturbance.
This case should be appealed, as the decision is contrary to our constitutional rights, and I don’t believe it will stand up to a higher court.
Don