Interesting OC case ... acquitted

hotrod said:

Nope, not trespassing. You cannot give an illegal order (and that is what it was) and then charge a citizen with a crime. This took place on public property, not private, therefore trespassing is not the same. Trespassing on public property must include a crime, which is what they thought they had. The gentleman carrying the pitchfork was committing no crime, but law enforcement thought he was (ie. carrying a pitchfork). The judge ruled correctly, because he broke no law, he cannot be removed from public property.

Click to expand...

You see, the way I'm reading the article is that the worker had EVERY right to tell the person to leave (making it trespassing) but the judge found him not guilty based on the presedence already set with the handguns entering the place...so he was not applying their policy fairly across the board. Seems to me like the judge used this case to remind of them of that. lines like

"In his ruling, Julien found that Walker DID HAVE the authority to restrict access to the building. However, Walker's "decision to allow members of the public with holstered handguns access to the building but deny access to the defendant because he had a 'holstered' pitchfork was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable," Julien wrote."

Just smacks of the court using this as an example case. Now, that being said, I still believe that since "Walker did have the authority to restrict access to the building" and we cannot know the specifics about what guidelines he falls under since almost EVERY federal/state building seems to have their own small variations on it...at the time, he was tresspassing.

This is kinda like when a cop tells you that to get on the ground for no apparent reason. Sure you can be stubborn and say you didn't commit any crime and they have no reason to put you on the deck..but now you are failing to comply right there on the spot, and that is an actual crime. Ask that gentleman in Philly. Legal to carry yet didn't comply with the police when they stopped him and now he can't seem to find a lawyer to touch the case.

A lot of federal and state employees have on the spot decision making powers that may lead the to make the wrong decisions. However, if you question them RIGHT THEN that can lead to actual violations. This guy, IN MY OPINION, was just lucky that the judge saw that the initial decision was bad and didn't follow through on charging him with the violation that we all know she could have.

Fallschirmjäger said:

You can say it, but it doesn't necessarily make it true.
Y'know ..... IF he was trespassing and it's so obvious, I kinda wonder why he was acquitted. And can you trespass on Public Property if you as a member of the Public have a reason to be there?

Click to expand...

See above for why I think he was aquitted.

Custom Volusia said:

This is kinda like when a cop tells you that to get on the ground for no apparent reason. Sure you can be stubborn and say you didn't commit any crime and they have no reason to put you on the deck..but now you are failing to comply right there on the spot, and that is an actual crime.

Click to expand...

You are under no legal obligation to obey/follow an illegal order.

Just be very sure that you are right and proceed with your best response in a time and place of your own choosing. Preferably later and not on the street.

Grapeshot said:

You are under no legal obligation to obey/follow an illegal order.

Just be very sure that you are right and proceed with your best response in a time and place of your own choosing. Preferably later and not on the street.

Click to expand...

Not like anyone should have to back up what they say with ....ya'know citations to any laws or anything.

Fallschirmjäger said:

Not like anyone should have to back up what they say with ....ya'know citations to any laws or anything.

Click to expand...

You are right, there generally is not such a requirement imposed on those things that are normally accepted as common knowledge. An unlawful order may be simplified as one "not lawful." Neither are to my knowledge codified. The requirement being that "lawful orders' must be obeyed. Unlawful orders do NOT fit that parameter.

However, to your implied question there are on the books literally hundreds (maybe thousands) of cites referring to "lawful order" in the Code of Virgina. I am sure that is the case in most (all?) states. One such example appears following:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+coh+65.2-104+502232

Then there is the UCMJ standard:
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
http://able2know.org/topic/113935-1

Then there was the Nuremberg trial excuse: " I was following orders" - was not accepted as the orders were not lawful.

Do you really need more?

MKEgal said:

What an utter idiot!!!
Here's a citizen requiring a public official to explain himself, and the public official takes a simple question as a threat.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The "I didn't know what he might do" excuse applies to everyone, as we never know what anyone will actually do, until after they've done it.

No, he was NOT trespassing, and please quit wrongfully claiming he was, Custom. He had a right to be in the building. The precedent had been set with respect to allowing armed citizens into the building. He was armed, commensurate with the precedent that had been established. The judge found that allowing one type of armament while denying another, and a less dangerous one at that, was "arbitrary and capricious."

I'm surprised he didn't show up with a pitchfork again the day after the ruling. He had every right to do so, and a won court case to back him up.

Grapeshot said:

You are right, there generally is not such a requirement imposed... (snipped for brevity)

Click to expand...

My apologies, Grapeshot, that was actually meant to quote the poster above you along with your reply to him. Unfortunately due to the vagaries of the internet and the fact that I posted and then immediately clicked away, I failed to check that it posted correctly.

Volusia said:

This is kinda like when a cop tells you that to get on the ground for no apparent reason. Sure you can be stubborn and say you didn't commit any crime and they have no reason to put you on the deck..but now you are failing to comply right there on the spot, and that is an actual crime.

Click to expand...

I was actually supporting your position and apologize that the way it read on the screen made it seem otherwise.

Fallschirmjäger said:

My apologies, Grapeshot, that was actually meant to quote the poster above you along with your reply to him. Unfortunately due to the vagaries of the internet and the fact that I posted and then immediately clicked away, I failed to check that it posted correctly.
.

Click to expand...

No harm, no foul.

I did load it on a bit heavy too didn't I?