• 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.

2 steps forward.....one step back

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
How is this a 'step back'?

The stupid actions of one person do not make the rights of everyone else any less valid.

That is besides mentioning that while this was dumb, careless, criminal and irresponsible, there was no victim to this crime.
 

datank55

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
22
Location
Manchester, Connecticut, USA
Certainly a brain fart moment. But I have to wonder, when police officers forget their weapons somewhere (I believe I have read about this happening) are they arrested for it?
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
Certainly a brain fart moment. But I have to wonder, when police officers forget their weapons somewhere (I believe I have read about this happening) are they arrested for it?

The charges I am seeing used against him are Reckless Endangerment and Unsafe Storage.

If this is the case, certainly a LEO in the same circumstance should be charged with the same.
 

JohnnyO

New member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
79
Location
, ,
The charges I am seeing used against him are Reckless Endangerment and Unsafe Storage.

While not 'charges' the TV news tonight reported that his weapon was seized and his permit revoked. No big surprise there. This guy is going to have one tough road to hoe if he ever tries to get his permit back.
 

brk913

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
370
Location
Plainville, CT
The charges I am seeing used against him are Reckless Endangerment and Unsafe Storage.

If this is the case, certainly a LEO in the same circumstance should be charged with the same.

I am wondering where the charge of Possession of a firearm on school grounds went? Is it because he was not actually caught carrying it? Seems to me that it did not magically appear there and they should be able to prove he was the one who carried it in and he should be charged under the correct statute.
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
I am wondering where the charge of Possession of a firearm on school grounds went? Is it because he was not actually caught carrying it? Seems to me that it did not magically appear there and they should be able to prove he was the one who carried it in and he should be charged under the correct statute.

That is what I am guessing, but I am not going to complain if he makes it out of this without a felony.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
I am wondering where the charge of Possession of a firearm on school grounds went? Is it because he was not actually caught carrying it? Seems to me that it did not magically appear there and they should be able to prove he was the one who carried it in and he should be charged under the correct statute.

The "school" restriction is for k-12...this was a "pre-school" (basically day care).

If I was on the jury I would not vote guilty for reckless endangerment...no-one was in danger. What the hej, it was properly stored in a holster too.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
The "school" restriction is for k-12...this was a "pre-school" (basically day care).

If I was on the jury I would not vote guilty for reckless endangerment...no-one was in danger. What the hej, it was properly stored in a holster too.

Sorry, but that is a fail. The incident happened in a pre-school classroom in Bucks Hill Elementary School.

If you want to learn something that may well benefit you down the road, study up on Jury Nullification:
http://www.letsgetfreethebook.com/jurorsforjustice/powertothepeople-whatisjurynullification.html
 

JeepinMaxx

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
21
Location
Columbia, CT
I am wondering where the charge of Possession of a firearm on school grounds went? Is it because he was not actually caught carrying it? Seems to me that it did not magically appear there and they should be able to prove he was the one who carried it in and he should be charged under the correct statute.



Does the possession of a firearm at schools apply when they are off hours and no kids are there?
 

dcmdon

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
469
Location
Old Saybrook, CT
I just posted this:


I am a "gun nut" and I think they should throw the book at this guy. With the right to carry a gun comes the responsibility to maintain control over it. I find it interesting that they did not charge him with carrying a gun in a school, a felony. Its a stupid law that does nothing but by definition disarm law abiding citizens.

I think the charges of reckless endangerment and failing to properly store a firearm are entirely appropriate. He should lose his pistol permit and be required to do a bunch of community service. Then his charges should be nolle'd since there wasn't any malice involved. But he needs to know that what he did was INCREDIBLY stupid. Guns in schools aren't dangerous. But for gods sake, an unholstered unattended gun in a school is a catastrophe waiting to happen.
 

brk913

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
370
Location
Plainville, CT
Sorry, but that is a fail. The incident happened in a pre-school classroom in Bucks Hill Elementary School.

If you want to learn something that may well benefit you down the road, study up on Jury Nullification:
http://www.letsgetfreethebook.com/jurorsforjustice/powertothepeople-whatisjurynullification.html

The statute makes no distinction about what a classroom is used for. If the classroom is in an elementary school or for that matter even occupies another building on the school property it is off limits per state statute. I just read the jury instructions given for violation of this statute and I am guessing they decided to not charge him because they did not catch him in possession and the evidence would not have been enough to find him guilty of 53a-217b.
 
Top