Arrested in Courthouse

[TEX1N]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

A crime is a crime done by honest people making a mistake or a criminal will evil intent.

Please, what do you think is mens rea? A 'mistake' is not a crime. The difference between manslaughter and homicide is mens rea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

The mens rea is the Latin term for "guilty mind" used in the criminal law. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means that "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill, a state of mind called malice or malice aforethought, which may involve an unintentional killing but with a willful disregard for life.

IANAL and neither is a cop.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$

It makes no difference....

If you did it and did not know.... you still broke the law.

EVERYONE could simply say "I did not know" and get away with a crime.

Doug is not saying that ignorance is an excuses, he is saying that you must have criminal intent as proved by the Commonwealth. Meaning that the mens rea must fit the acts reus, or that the criminal intent must fit the criminal mind...as was the case in traditional English criminal law, which our system was based upon.

There are crimes that are defined as strict liability crimes, and are usual those such as traffic offenses or parking tickets, that don't require criminal intent to be proven. The main problem is that the strict liability crimes are slowly eroding away at our due process system; whereas now you can get a year for accidentally carrying a round into a courthouse, or 1+ years for accidentally wondering onto the corner of a school's property while, otherwise legally, armed. Both without any intention to do anything wrong.

This is the whole purpose of mens rea, and criminal culpability in general. So that real crimes (malum in se) are punishable by real time, and the rest of the prohibited actions (malum prohibitum) are punished by the appropriate fine or sanction. Which is not the case in some areas of our current criminal justice system, and it needs to be fixed.

 

[Virginiaplanter]

imported post

Your first step of appeal is to request a trial de novo, or a new trial. Basically you would do it over again in the General District Court. From there you could appeal to the VA Appellant Court.

Do you know the name of the case that the Judge referred to?

Actually the immediate appeal would be to the Circuit Court and you would have ten days to file notice of the appeal and pay the bond. § 16.1-132. Right of appeal. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+16.1-132

You can't appeal to the Court of Appeals until you have gone first to the Circuit Court. An appeal directly to the Court of Appeals after the Circuit court would require a petition as this was a criminal offense and not an appeal of right in that court.

§ 17.1-406 http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+17.1-406

 

[TEX1N]

imported post

Double post deleted...

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

TEX1N wrote:

thorsmitersaw wrote:

ah ok. I was totally clueless as to what suspended jail time is.


My lawyer is looking into if that is the case, that this cannot be extended as we had hoped, if it is then I will just deal with having a record the rest of my life in VA I guess, but if not then I will attempt to do the extending thing in appeals court in order to prevent having a record.

Your first step of appeal is to request a trial de novo, or a new trial. Basically you would do it over again in the General District Court. From there you could appeal to the VA Appellant Court.

Do you know the name of the case that the Judge referred to?

Actually... The appeal will be heard in Circuit Court. He had his day in the General District Court.

A loss will result in higher court fees than before and I believe you are required to pay the Criminal Court fees from the first go round too.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

TEX1N wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

A crime is a crime done by honest people making a mistake or a criminal will evil intent.

Please, what do you think is mens rea? A 'mistake' is not a crime. The difference between manslaughter and homicide is mens rea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

The mens rea is the Latin term for "guilty mind" used in the criminal law. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means that "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill, a state of mind called malice or malice aforethought, which may involve an unintentional killing but with a willful disregard for life.

IANAL and neither is a cop.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$

It makes no difference....

If you did it and did not know.... you still broke the law.

EVERYONE could simply say "I did not know" and get away with a crime.

Doug is not saying that ignorance is an excuses, he is saying that you must have criminal intent as proved by the Commonwealth. Meaning that the mens rea must fit the acts reus, or that the criminal intent must fit the criminal mind...as was the case in traditional English criminal law, which our system was based upon.

There are crimes that are defined as strict liability crimes, and are usual those such as traffic offenses or parking tickets, that don't require criminal intent to be proven. The main problem is that the strict liability crimes are slowly eroding away at our due process system; whereas now you can get a year for accidentally carrying a round into a courthouse, or 1+ years for accidentally wondering onto the corner of a school's property while, otherwise legally, armed. Both without any intention to do anything wrong.

This is the whole purpose of mens rea, and criminal culpability in general. So that real crimes (malum in se) are punishable by real time, and the rest of the prohibited actions (malum prohibitum) are punished by the appropriate fine or sanction. Which is not the case in some areas of our current criminal justice system, and it needs to be fixed.

I try not to and don't often 'quote' a bunch of conversation - but this is such a fine paraphrase of the argument! Thank you! I pray LEO666 will not be allowed to repeat his dis-information (absent knowlege) unchallenged!

I ANAL and neither is a cop!

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

thorsmitersaw wrote:

xd.40 wrote:

I think it's time to have that law changed. That seems ridiculous to be charged with possession of a weapon when all you had was a component of one. Maybe a separate code section that would cover ammo and parts, but would be a lesser charge - possibly a class 4 misdemeanor (if not an infraction)?

I would even settle for intent being added to the law.

+1

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

A crime is a crime done by honest people making a mistake or a criminal will evil intent.

Please, what do you think is mens rea? A 'mistake' is not a crime. The difference between manslaughter and homicide is mens rea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

The mens rea is the Latin term for "guilty mind" used in the criminal law. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means that "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill, a state of mind called malice or malice aforethought, which may involve an unintentional killing but with a willful disregard for life.

IANAL and neither is a cop.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$

It makes no difference....

If you did it and did not know.... you still broke the law.

EVERYONE could simply say "I did not know" and get away with a crime.

This kind of GROSS IGNORANCE of what the law is and how the law works is one of the reasons we have problems with the police. The fact the there are still a couple bumpkins who say, "I'm not sure what the law is, I'll ask a cop" is laughable.

Almost all crimes are more than just an ACT (actus reus). The other component of 99% of crimes is a MENTAL STATE (mens rea).

That mental state may be negligence or recklessness (in other words, it was an accident, but you still could've prevented it by being as careful as the circumstance required).

OR...the mental state may be purposefullness (you wanted it to happen) or knowing (you didn't specifically intend it to happen, but you knew it would). A good way to differentiate between purposeful and knowing is this example: You want to kill you wife. She is on a plane to visit her mother. You blow up the plane with 5 people on it. All 5 die. The Mens Rea (mental state) for the killing of your wife is Purposeful. The mens rea (mental state) of killing the other four people is knowing (you didn't really mean to but you knew it would happen).

CLEO 229 (who's apparently not even from Jamaica...and her accent is fake) ignorantly claims that "accidentally" doing something is the same as doing it on purpose. That is not true (and this situation shows precisely how UNJUST a system of law like that would be).

LEO 229's statement indicates that a mechanic who accidentally forgets to put in a screw when repairing the airplane and leads to the crashing of the same airplane as the one in my example above would be just as guilty as the angry husband. That's nonsense (and common sense will tell you that). His mental state is negligence (and therefore, he's guilty of manslaughter, not murder).

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

This kind of GROSS IGNORANCE of what the law is and how the law works is one of the reasons we have problems with the police. The fact the there are still a couple bumpkins who say, "I'm not sure what the law is, I'll ask a cop" is laughable.

Almost all crimes are more than just an ACT (actus reus). The other component of 99% of crimes is a MENTAL STATE (mens rea).

That mental state may be negligence or recklessness (in other words, it was an accident, but you still could've prevented it by being as careful as the circumstance required).

OR...the mental state may be purposefullness (you wanted it to happen) or knowing (you didn't specifically intend it to happen, but you knew it would). A good way to differentiate between purposeful and knowing is this example: You want to kill you wife. She is on a plane to visit her mother. You blow up the plane with 5 people on it. All 5 die. The Mens Rea (mental state) for the killing of your wife is Purposeful. The mens rea (mental state) of killing the other four people is knowing (you didn't really mean to but you knew it would happen).

CLEO 229 (who's apparently not even from Jamaica...and her accent is fake) ignorantly claims that "accidentally" doing something is the same as doing it on purpose. That is not true (and this situation shows precisely how UNJUST a system of law like that would be).

LEO 229's statement indicates that a mechanic who accidentally forgets to put in a screw when repairing the airplane and leads to the crashing of the same airplane as the one in my example above would be just as guilty as the angry husband. That's nonsense (and common sense will tell you that). His mental state is negligence (and therefore, he's guilty of manslaughter, not murder).

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury... I am not going to post fancy words to make myself sound intelligent and make it look like I know what I am talking about. Words like "actus reus" or even "mens rea" because it is not necessary.

I am going to present to you the words of the defense attorney's closing argument....

" His mental state is negligence (and therefore, he's guilty of manslaughter, not murder)."

Ladies and Gentlemen... even the defendant's attorney is admitting that his client is GUILTY for his unintentional act or a "mistake."

I ask you to find him as such and sentence him accordingly. :uhoh:

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

ama-gi wrote:

This kind of GROSS IGNORANCE of what the law is and how the law works is one of the reasons we have problems with the police. The fact the there are still a couple bumpkins who say, "I'm not sure what the law is, I'll ask a cop" is laughable.

Almost all crimes are more than just an ACT (actus reus). The other component of 99% of crimes is a MENTAL STATE (mens rea).

That mental state may be negligence or recklessness (in other words, it was an accident, but you still could've prevented it by being as careful as the circumstance required).

OR...the mental state may be purposefullness (you wanted it to happen) or knowing (you didn't specifically intend it to happen, but you knew it would). A good way to differentiate between purposeful and knowing is this example: You want to kill you wife. She is on a plane to visit her mother. You blow up the plane with 5 people on it. All 5 die. The Mens Rea (mental state) for the killing of your wife is Purposeful. The mens rea (mental state) of killing the other four people is knowing (you didn't really mean to but you knew it would happen).

CLEO 229 (who's apparently not even from Jamaica...and her accent is fake) ignorantly claims that "accidentally" doing something is the same as doing it on purpose. That is not true (and this situation shows precisely how UNJUST a system of law like that would be).

LEO 229's statement indicates that a mechanic who accidentally forgets to put in a screw when repairing the airplane and leads to the crashing of the same airplane as the one in my example above would be just as guilty as the angry husband. That's nonsense (and common sense will tell you that). His mental state is negligence (and therefore, he's guilty of manslaughter, not murder).

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury... I am not going to post fancy words to make myself sound intelligent and make it look like I know what I am talking about. Words like "actus reus" or even "mens rea" because it is not necessary.

I am going to present to you the words of the defense attorney's closing argument....

" His mental state is negligence (and therefore, he's guilty of manslaughter, not murder)."

Ladies and Gentlemen... even the defendant's attorney is admitting that his client is GUILTY for his unintentional act or a "mistake."

I ask you to find him as such and sentence him accordingly. :uhoh:

Yep, jurors are commonly given the choicebetween convicting someone of manslaughter or murder, based on what they find was his mental state. The judge will instruct the jury: "If you find that the defendant had this mental state, convict accordingly. If you find that he had that mental state convict accordingly."

 

[TEX1N]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

TEX1N wrote:

thorsmitersaw wrote:

ah ok. I was totally clueless as to what suspended jail time is.

My lawyer is looking into if that is the case, that this cannot be extended as we had hoped, if it is then I will just deal with having a record the rest of my life in VA I guess, but if not then I will attempt to do the extending thing in appeals court in order to prevent having a record.

Your first step of appeal is to request a trial de novo, or a new trial. Basically you would do it over again in the General District Court. From there you could appeal to the VA Appellant Court.

Actually... The appeal will be heard in Circuit Court. He had his day in the General District Court.

A loss will result in higher court fees than before and I believe you are required to pay the Criminal Court fees from the first go round too.

Correct, I guess I didn't pay enough attention to my post...

 

[peter nap]

imported post

Your right about Horan and it's not just Fairfax. He was the special prosecutor in Hanover where the Deputy shot an unarmed DUI while he was on the ground. He refused to send it to the Grand Jury and in fact has never followed through on an officer involved shooting that I know of.

The world would be better off if he had died at birth and I'm sure there;s a reserved table in hell with his name on it..........BUT

That's a subject for another thread. It's way OT here.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

just a guy, with a Glock wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

ama-gi wrote:

This kind of GROSS IGNORANCE of what the law is and how the law works is one of the reasons we have problems with the police. The fact the there are still a couple bumpkins who say, "I'm not sure what the law is, I'll ask a cop" is laughable.

Almost all crimes are more than just an ACT (actus reus). The other component of 99% of crimes is a MENTAL STATE (mens rea).

That mental state may be negligence or recklessness (in other words, it was an accident, but you still could've prevented it by being as careful as the circumstance required).

OR...the mental state may be purposefullness (you wanted it to happen) or knowing (you didn't specifically intend it to happen, but you knew it would). A good way to differentiate between purposeful and knowing is this example: You want to kill you wife. She is on a plane to visit her mother. You blow up the plane with 5 people on it. All 5 die. The Mens Rea (mental state) for the killing of your wife is Purposeful. The mens rea (mental state) of killing the other four people is knowing (you didn't really mean to but you knew it would happen).

CLEO 229 (who's apparently not even from Jamaica...and her accent is fake) ignorantly claims that "accidentally" doing something is the same as doing it on purpose. That is not true (and this situation shows precisely how UNJUST a system of law like that would be).

LEO 229's statement indicates that a mechanic who accidentally forgets to put in a screw when repairing the airplane and leads to the crashing of the same airplane as the one in my example above would be just as guilty as the angry husband. That's nonsense (and common sense will tell you that). His mental state is negligence (and therefore, he's guilty of manslaughter, not murder).

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury... I am not going to post fancy words to make myself sound intelligent and make it look like I know what I am talking about. Words like "actus reus" or even "mens rea" because it is not necessary.

I am going to present to you the words of the defense attorney's closing argument....

" His mental state is negligence (and therefore, he's guilty of manslaughter, not murder)."

Ladies and Gentlemen... even the defendant's attorney is admitting that his client is GUILTY for his unintentional act or a "mistake."

I ask you to find him as such and sentence him accordingly. :uhoh:

That would have made a great closing argument in the prosecution of Fairfax County Police officer Deval Bullock, a 17 year veteran of the tactical team in the unintentional homicide of Unarmed DR. of optometry Salvatore Culosi Jr. Those words will never be heard in a Fairfax County court room as chief Prosecutor (atthe time) Robert Horan Jr. said " IF there is not intent, there is no crime". Amazing the double standard we have in Fairfax County. I'm glad Horan is leaving. His 40 year legacy will not be his fine work, but rather his cover up of the homicide of Dr. Culosi.

I will not argue about that... It was a tragicaccident and nothing happened to the officer. I am sure the family will sue the county and win big. They are set for life.

However... We cannot punish the officer or his department for the actions of one prosecutor. The decision NOT to go forward with any charges was made by one man.

Is there a double standard??? I guess so. We have a cop doping his best to help the community and risking his life every day. Then you have a citizen who is participating in criminalactivity. If I have to weigh who is worth more.. I am not going to go with the criminal.

This would have NEVER happened had the criminal not willingly broke the law for months. When you play with fire.... eventually you can get burned.

But we are headed off topic now.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

The shooting did not happen in the court house.

Maybe this should be discussed in another thread..... This is going off topic.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

We are in fact going off topic....

You are just looking for a platform to protest the shooting at length.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

I have had years of training

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

just a guy, with a Glock wrote:

Not off topic at all, remember it all started with INTENT TO COMMIT A CRIME.

Bingo! I think the point has been made and anyone with an IQ about 60 understands it.

 

[DeadCenter]

imported post

thorsmitersaw wrote:

bayboy42 wrote:

longwatch wrote:

Thanks for the update, a modest fine and suspended jail time, could be worse.

Read it again ....is that what he received?:question:

yes. a 250 dollar fine and the class 1 on my record. However, in an attempt to get no fine and more importantly no misdemeanors on my record (so as to keep it clean and not jeopordize future employment) I MAY be taking it to the appeals court to request again that the charges be extended for a years probation.

Sorry to hear the outcome. However, it could have been worse.

Just recently my wife reached in her coat pocket and with a puzzled look on her face pulled out a round. So, it can happen.

In certain states misdemeanors (not domestic violence)can be removed at your request from your record after so many years from the date of conviction (governed by state law).If all else fails you can revisit it later in life.

I assume that even with the charge you still have your CHP. And your right to purchase / carry has not been forfeited?



DC

Spelling correction

 

[Thors_Mitersaw]

imported post

DeadCenter wrote:

thorsmitersaw wrote:

bayboy42 wrote:

longwatch wrote:

Thanks for the update, a modest fine and suspended jail time, could be worse.

Read it again ....is that what he received?:question:

yes. a 250 dollar fine and the class 1 on my record. However, in an attempt to get no fine and more importantly no misdemeanors on my record (so as to keep it clean and not jeopordize future employment) I MAY be taking it to the appeals court to request again that the charges be extended for a years probation.

Sorry to hear the outcome. However, it could have been worse.

Just recently my wife reached in her coat pocket and with a puzzled look on her face pulled out a round. So, it can happen.

In certain states misdemeanors (not domestic violence)can be removed at your request from your record after so many years from the date of conviction (governed by state law).If all else fails you can revisit it later in life.

I assume that even with the charge you still have your CHP. And your right to purchase / carry has not been forfeited?



DC

Spelling correction

I still need to apply. I will probebly be doing so next week. Guess I will check my damn pockets this time. :?

 

[peter nap]

imported post

Bingo! I think the point has been made and anyone with an IQ about 60 understands it.

edited for whatever reason

 

[hsmith]

imported post

a question that popped into my mind:

would those emptied bullets that people put on key chains be considered "ammunition" under this statute? Not that I have one, but an interesting quandry.