The Tale of Henrico - Chapter 2 in a Ferry Tale - Arrested for following the law

[Grapeshot]

Does the Va statute on brandishing specify a firearm or a deadly weapon? I'm asking cuz I am thinking about going somewhere with it.

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-282

 

[Grapeshot]

Thx to the three wise men for the update.

As for the sidearm I got one that can go on loan until Graham gets back up to speed, nothing fancy (just a gen3 G21 w/ holster).

Will pass that kind offer on, Marco.

 

[jegoodin]

Will pass that kind offer on, Marco.

What kind of gun was it that he had confiscated?

 

[Grapeshot]

What kind of gun was it that he had confiscated?

Believe it was a .45 caliber Springfield (compact?) Don't know which model exactly.

 

[jegoodin]

Believe it was a .45 caliber Springfield (compact?) Don't know which model exactly.

Hmmm, I don't have one of those, but i have a G26 (9mm) or a Walther P99 .40S&W that I'd loan to him.
Both compact frames. The only "extra" .45ACP I have is a Ruger P89, which is fairly large. He is welcome to borrow that as well.

(Modest donation to appeal/fine fund sent.)

 

[Grapeshot]

Appreciate those generous offers. At this time though I do not know if the temporary restriction on his carrying has been cleared or not.

Will have to run this and a number of other things by Dan so that we don't step on any punji sticks.

 

[The Wolfhound]

Where is justice?

I charge justice as being AWOL. Graham, let me know if there is anything I can do. I do see that, though bad, it could have been worse and now worse is off the table. Let's hit the range now that that is not a prohibited activity. VCDL your members are calling, I hope you are listening. Central committee, can I call out the Media hounds yet?

 

[Grapeshot]

I charge justice as being AWOL. Graham, let me know if there is anything I can do. I do see that, though bad, it could have been worse and now worse is off the table. Let's hit the range now that that is not a prohibited activity. VCDL your members are calling, I hope you are listening. Central committee, can I call out the Media hounds yet?

VCDL has a board meeting scheduled for Saturday. The subject will likely come up.

 

[Grapeshot]

Believe it was a .45 caliber Springfield (compact?) Don't know which model exactly.

I've just been corrected by a knowledgeable source.

Scouser's pistol was a full size springfield XDM 4.5 inch barrel .45 caliber (13 + 1)

 

[FBrinson]

I've just been corrected by a knowledgeable source.

Scouser's pistol was a full size springfield XDM 4.5 inch barrel .45 caliber (13 + 1)

I have a Beretta M9 that can be loaned out if nothing else works out. While I will soon also have an XD-45, it is not currently available for loan at this time (this may change soon though as I am expecting to receive my father's guns from his estate in the near future).

 

[skidmark]

I've just been corrected by a knowledgeable source.

Scouser's pistol was a full size springfield XDM 4.5 inch barrel .45 caliber (13 + 1)

Yeah! The one that's "12 inches long". (You had to be there to appreciate that.)

Sorry, I'm trying to find anything to balance out the feelings I have about this. And about a law that describes the act it prohibits by the act it prohibits. .:cuss::banghead::cuss: " "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it ...." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it )

stay safe.

 

[Grapeshot]

Skid is a deep source of intellectual thinking and infinite facts to extreme detail. Sometimes you get more than you think you requested - then the light bulb turns on :idea: and you get the picture.

That for now he is holding in his (dare I say it?) his diatribe just exemplifies our total shock and amazement at the outcome of this sadly real farce. We are picking our words carefully lest the apples be strewn too far from the cart.

I have plucked from his comments a gem of some magnitude = "I'll know it when I see it."

What we have seen is an injustice of epic proportions. The system not only failed to exonerate an innocent man, but it also pillered and crucified him.

So we meet, some today, others over the week-end to regroup and brain storm the next steps in this continuing saga - stand by.

 

[frank4570]

This sounds like one of those cases where the jurors were instructed to find a verdict in accordance with a particular wording of a particular law, not do something that makes sense.

Does the accused have a lawyer who doesn't care about the 2nd amendment, but just likes to win through whatever legal means available? A shyster usually operates better in our "justice" system, rather than somebody who cares about right and wrong. I know, I've lost in court. Silly me, I thought it was supposed to make sense. I know better now. Money is the best tool for influencing the outcome of a trial.

 

[peter nap]

Skid is a deep source of intellectual thinking and infinite facts to extreme detail. Sometimes you get more than you think you requested - then the light bulb turns on :idea: and you get the picture.

That for now he is holding in his (dare I say it?) his diatribe just exemplifies our total shock and amazement at the outcome of this sadly real farce. We are picking our words carefully lest the apples be strewn too far from the cart.

I have plucked from his comments a gem of some magnitude = "I'll know it when I see it."

What we have seen is an injustice of epic proportions. The system not only failed to exonerate an innocent man, but it also pillered and crucified him.

So we meet, some today, others over the week-end to regroup and brain storm the next steps in this continuing saga - stand by.

Yep....
We have time at least.

Get some rest Grape. You have important battles to oversee tomorrow.
Same for you Skid!

I have 50 couple pages of notes to look over plus the one's my wife took, then another kind of battle with the Feds tomorrow in Yorktown.

Graham....rest easy today. You're a free man despite the hard work Henrico has put in to make you otherwise and unlike them, you have friends!

 

[user]

This sounds like one of those cases where the jurors were instructed to find a verdict in accordance with a particular wording of a particular law, not do something that makes sense.

Does the accused have a lawyer who doesn't care about the 2nd amendment, but just likes to win through whatever legal means available? A shyster usually operates better in our "justice" system, rather than somebody who cares about right and wrong. I know, I've lost in court. Silly me, I thought it was supposed to make sense. I know better now. Money is the best tool for influencing the outcome of a trial.

One of my pet peeves is the "model jury instructions", which, to my mind, are designed to confuse juries, not educate them. They don't explain what the law is, they just lay a bunch of legal jargon on the jury with technical words (the trick about "legalese" is that it looks just like English, but the words mean something other than what you'd think). I offered one instruction, which was refused because it's not a "model" instruction, saying that a person has a right to be armed and that the jury cannot infer from the mere fact that he had a gun that he is guilty of the crime or of any of its elements. I think that, in this case, had that instruction been given, the outcome might have been different.

I like to think that I am not in the category of lawyers the second paragraph castigates.

There are a number of problems with the brandishing statute, but the two biggest have been created by appellate court decisions. First, the term, "brandish", has been defined by a dictionary definition rather than by an existing canon of judicial construction which says that a list of descriptive words has to be taken as meaning about the same thing, so that each of the terms in the phrase, "point, hold, or brandish", have to be taken as pretty much synonymous. So, as I read the language of the statute, those terms all means something like, "to aim", or "to allow the muzzle to go a certain way"; "hold", thus, does not mean merely to have the gun in one's hand, and "brandish" does not mean "to display in a shameful or ostentatious manner". Which leads me to my second issue: the crux of the violation is the phrase, "in such manner". The defendant has to have held, pointed, or brandished a firearm in a certain way, such that a reasonable person would have been placed in fear of his life. I read that to say that the defendant has to have done a specific act "in such manner", regardless of whether a witness actually had fear or apprehension. This tracks the judicial history of the parallel crime of assault. If a reasonable person standing in the shoes of that witness would have believed that he was about to be shot, then there's a violation.

In this case, the Commonwealth's evidence was that the Defendant seated in the driver's side of his car held the handgun pointed in a safe direction (up) for about three seconds as he inserted a magazine, and the driver of the vehicle behind him at a stop light saw that happen and "did not know what he might do next." That driver said that he "felt" the Defendant "glare at him" via the rearview mirror, although the Defendant was wearing sunglasses. He said that the Defendant "mouthed the word, 'okay." And, of course, he "felt fear". In other words, the driver thought that the Defendant, who was in possession of a firearm, might have subsequently have pointed, held, or brandished the firearm in such manner as to put him in fear of bodily injury, but that never actually happened. The Defendant, having held the gun up, holstered the gun in a compartment in the dash. So the Defendant in this case has been convicted for what the driver thought might have happened subsequently, but which never did, in fact, happen.

 

[Sir Diealotz]

What a crock of ****! Good luck with the appeals guys/gals.

 

[peter nap]

To Add to what User posted and what I said earlier about the definition of Brandish....

User, who for the record presented a tremendously good case and I'll also say is the single most Concerned about not only the 2A but every part of our rights lawyer, I've had the privilege to know..........

And the Commonwealth had a lot of problems coming up with a definition of Brandish for the Jury Selection.

User finally came up with one that seemed to be the best available and he Commonwealth didn't object. Still, it was vague and it's because the damn law is vague, like loitering or vagrancy, it's the perfect statute to abuse.

The case was won IMO. The Judge who was a tad snippy, softened considerably after Dan presented the evidence, especially the video. The Jury was glued on it.

The Commonwealth presented a floundering almost hysterical case.

In the end though, the Jury was given a law that said that if you hold a gun and someone is frightened.....you're guilty.

 

[HeroHog]

Too bad the "victim" totally failed to pass the "a REASONABLE person" part of this and is a d@&%#d liar to boot! :banghead::cuss:

 

[peter nap]

Too bad the "victim" totally failed to pass the "a REASONABLE person" part of this and is a d@&%#d liar to boot! :banghead::cuss:

User did address it during his presentation, in fact he was very pointed in explaining that Goodwin was upset about his team losing the game, that he had no idea of the rules of the road and was directing his road rage toward Scouser because of it.

I deliberately sat beside and behind him, watching him closely, during most of the trial. He has some emotional control issues.
His legs shook nearly all the time....sorta doing the sit down pee pee dance, he developed a facial twitch which reminded me of a 1920's movie gangster and he chewed on his knuckles non stop.

 

[va_tazdad]

Graham is made of "the right stuff"!

Just proves these laws only affect LACs trying to stay WITHIN the law. Let them rest on their laurels... for now.
How is he holding up? And his family? I realize anyone would feel down, but please remind them they have our support, even if we've never met face-to-face.
Also, tell the Central Comittee the same, and to let us know when to start sending in our Founding Fathers (and Ben, for those that are acquainted with him).

It's times like these I wonder why the legal system has the audacity to call itself a "justice" system, and why certain judges, LEAs, and LEOs still profess to bide by their Oath to the People and the Constitution.

Needless to say, he was upset. After watching the trial and hearing the verdict, I couldn't believe he was found guilty.

I reminded him and his wife that he was going home last night and no jail time. They had friends there to support them and THAT will continue.

The fight is not over, but I will not comment any further except to repeat my disbelief.