Arrested in Courthouse

[LEO 229]

imported post

nickerj1 wrote:

You do a quick analysis of the effect of the crime being commited on the present populace in A) the immediate location, B) the nearby local surroundings, and C) the entire nation.

If the effect of the crime being committed has no negative bearing the lives of anyone in A, B, or C, you let it slide.

Example 1: Someone is speeding 85 in a 65 at 3am on I-495 with no one else on the road. His crime definitely isn't going to have negative bearing for sections B and C. You then look at the effect of the crime for the location immediately near the suspected criminal. It could result in a wreck if there were lots of cars on the road. But there aren't. The faster the person is going the more likely you as an officer will deem he falls into section A.

Now apply the OP's situation and you'll see that he could potentially fall in section A, if he was acted suspicious. But he wasn't and his presence was legitimate.

Agreed. He was not "caught" with it. It put it out for all to see. No intent to sneak it past. I say give him a pass... and the Judge probably will.

But even a speeder all alone needs to be protected. If an animal runs out into his path or a stalled vehicle with a dead battery is in the middle of the road... Both can cause disaster at high speeds.

 

[longwatch]

imported post

Well I think all most of us want is one set of rules for everyone. While I think the courthouse ban is stupid the law is the law and the OP broke it.

 

[nickerj1]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

nickerj1 wrote:

You do a quick analysis of the effect of the crime being commited on the present populace in A) the immediate location, B) the nearby local surroundings, and C) the entire nation.

If the effect of the crime being committed has no negative bearing the lives of anyone in A, B, or C, you let it slide.

Example 1: Someone is speeding 85 in a 65 at 3am on I-495 with no one else on the road. His crime definitely isn't going to have negative bearing for sections B and C. You then look at the effect of the crime for the location immediately near the suspected criminal. It could result in a wreck if there were lots of cars on the road. But there aren't. The faster the person is going the more likely you as an officer will deem he falls into section A.

Now apply the OP's situation and you'll see that he could potentially fall in section A, if he was acted suspicious. But he wasn't and his presence was legitimate.

Agreed.  He was not "caught" with it. It put it out for all to see. No intent to sneak it past. I say give him a pass... and the Judge probably will.

But even a speeder all alone needs to be protected. If an animal runs out into his path or a stalled vehicle with a dead battery is in the middle of the road...  Both can cause disaster at high speeds.

True. And that's why the faster the speeder is going the more likely he is to fall in section A, by having a negative effect on himself.

But it sounds like you think officer's should be by-the-book and let the Judges make this assessment, rather than an officer making the assessment and deciding a course of action.

 

[UTOC-45-44]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

peter nap wrote:

OK....I get to swap sides again. For those that say the officer should have cut him some slack and sent him back to the car (and I happen to agree).... then I have to ask you WHY you feel the officer should ignore a standing zero tolerance policy for the same people that stand on the letter of the law and REFUSE to show ID.

Cooperation works both ways.

The cop is legally right in arresting someone who mistakenly takes a little ammo in the courthouse.

Citizen is legally right in refusing to show ID.

A little middle ground on both sides would make a lot easier world to live in.:banghead:

It comes down to this....

The people want to have their cake and eat it too.

We have rules that we must follow.

If a cop mistakenly breaks a rule (Did not know OC was allowed)... FIRE him!! If a citizen breaks a rule (Ammo inthe court house).. let him go since it was an honest mistake.

YES. FIRE 'EM ALL:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate(Just kiddin').

However, I do feel that an Officer should NOT be just "padded" on the shoulder and kinda saying "Everyone makes mistakes". They need to have assignments to study the "violation" that's in question and have a brief test at the end. All this while on unpaid leave, cuz that would motivate them to study better and get back to paid duties faster. (Hit them where it Hurts...$$$. And ALL of a SUDDEN they "get it")

What do I know ??? I'm just a nobody

Just my .44

 

[xd.40]

imported post

Just wondering - would you support the same for the OP'er? Might not be a bad thing. Study the rules on the courthouse doors and take a test? Or is this wishful thinking?

 

[UTOC-45-44]

imported post

xd.40 wrote:

Just wondering - would you support the same for the OP'er? Might not be a bad thing. Study the rules on the courthouse doors and take a test? Or is this wishful thinking?

Well. I would agre that he was not "technically" in the Courthouse so he could just as well turned back. I personally do not rely on LEO's to be very "understanding".

He was fine til he emptied his pockets. At THAT very moments he "willingly" "eed himself to the Sharks". He knew what was coming and took a Chance.

I know that when I go intoa Court House I WILL be walking thru a Detector + possibly be waded. I even leave my car keys in the car + coins, etc.I "search" myself BEFORE I EVEN ENTER the doors. I hold everything in my hands.

But I just learned by not wnating to stand there FOREVER and empty this and empty that.

It took him the 1st and last time to learn:?.

Should he be Tested as well? I believe so. Kinda like if you get into an accident and can go thru a "traffic class" the same thing could happen and he would just get a "verbal" warning the 1st time or it would not even count.



Just my .44

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

nickerj1 wrote:

....

But it sounds like you think officer's should be by-the-book and let the Judges make this assessment, rather than an officer making the assessment and deciding a course of action.

Not exactly... Just pointing out that the people have an item in place that will ultimately decide it the spirit of the law was broken.

Not all officers want or choose to go with the spirit. They are strictly "By The Book." You cannot fault them for following the letter of thelaw. This keeps things consistent.

The people are not going to like it but.... the law as written is.. the law.

 

[UTOC-45-44]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

nickerj1 wrote:

....

But it sounds like you think officer's should be by-the-book and let the Judges make this assessment, rather than an officer making the assessment and deciding a course of action.

Not exactly... Just pointing out that the people have an item in place that will ultimately decide it the spirit of the law was broken.

Not all officers want or choose to go with the spirit. They are strictly "By The Book." You cannot fault them for following the letter of thelaw. This keeps things consistent.

The people are not going to like it but.... the law as written is.. the law.

LEO229...You are Right. We just "hope" that a LEO will be "nice" to us and "let us of the hook" by "the spirit of law" and NOT follow "the letter of the law"

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

UTOC-45-44 wrote:

YES. FIRE 'EM ALL(Just kiddin').

However, I do feel that an Officer should NOT be just "padded" on the shoulder and kinda saying "Everyone makes mistakes". They need to have assignments to study the "violation" that's in question and have a brief test at the end. All this while on unpaid leave, cuz that would motivate them to study better and get back to paid duties faster. (Hit them where it Hurts...$$$. And ALL of a SUDDEN they "get it")

What do I know ??? I'm just a nobody

Just my .44

Oh No... you do not get rewarded for making a mistake. At least.. I have never seen this.

You get written up and told to never make that mistake again. Do it again and you can get days off, a demotion, or fired.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

UTOC-45-44 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

nickerj1 wrote:

....

But it sounds like you think officer's should be by-the-book and let the Judges make this assessment, rather than an officer making the assessment and deciding a course of action.

Not exactly... Just pointing out that the people have an item in place that will ultimately decide it the spirit of the law was broken.

Not all officers want or choose to go with the spirit. They are strictly "By The Book." You cannot fault them for following the letter of thelaw. This keeps things consistent.

The people are not going to like it but.... the law as written is.. the law.

LEO229...You are Right. We just "hope" that a LEO will be "nice" to us and "let us of the hook" by "the spirit of law" and NOT follow "the letter of the law"

You do not have to kiss butt.... but kindness and cooperation goes a long way.

But on this board... that is shunned!!

 

[UTOC-45-44]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

UTOC-45-44 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

nickerj1 wrote:

....

But it sounds like you think officer's should be by-the-book and let the Judges make this assessment, rather than an officer making the assessment and deciding a course of action.

Not exactly... Just pointing out that the people have an item in place that will ultimately decide it the spirit of the law was broken.

Not all officers want or choose to go with the spirit. They are strictly "By The Book." You cannot fault them for following the letter of thelaw. This keeps things consistent.

The people are not going to like it but.... the law as written is.. the law.

LEO229...You are Right. We just "hope" that a LEO will be "nice" to us and "let us of the hook" by "the spirit of law" and NOT follow "the letter of the law"

You do not have to kiss butt.... but kindness and cooperation goes a long way.

But on this board... that is shunned!!

Well LEO. You ARE right. A LEO is thereto ENFORCE the letter of LAW and not to enforce the "spirit of the Law" ( unless at the Bar:lol

It's up to the LEO, what they "feel" it they wanna do.

 

[rlh2005]

imported post

unrequited wrote:

Agent19 wrote:

I did almost the same thing @ the Loudon County courthouse (parking ticket)except I had a 5" blade knife and a Surefire E2D, both prohibited according to the sign@ the entrance.

WHAT? I understand the knife, but a flashlight's prohibited?

The "crenellated Strike Bezel™" of the Surefire E2D would fall under "any other dangerous weapon" in clause (iii) of § 18.2-283.1.

 

[savery]

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

savery wrote:

Wow, what a load of bullshit.

You'd have been better off geting caught with a bag of pot!

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-250.1

Both acts are equally harmless and both should carry the same penalty: NOTHING

+1 Right there.

The cold, hard truth is that pretty much every mala prohibita crime is a bunch of bullshit.

"But he broke a law!!!"
"Where do we draw the line?"

Who gives a shit. The poor guy forgot and left a damn round in his pocket. It was a mistake but my thing is that it shouldn't be an issue in the first place. Why, because the legislature said so? If the legislature said that you had to throw your damn kids off a cliff would they be right then?

If they said that you had to turn your guns in, would they be right?
I hope that one made a few of you squirm.

The bottom line is that if it doesn't hurt someone, it shouldn't be a crime. (and i'm not talking about this betterment of society horse shit, if that was the case the damn socialsts and liberals are all guilty in my opinion)

"Well it is a crime, and he broke the law. He must face the consequences."
Puh leeze. See children example from above.

 

[savery]

imported post

rlh2005 wrote:

unrequited wrote:

Agent19 wrote:

I did almost the same thing @ the Loudon County courthouse (parking ticket)except I had a 5" blade knife and a Surefire E2D, both prohibited according to the sign@ the entrance.

WHAT? I understand the knife, but a flashlight's prohibited?

The "crenellated Strike Bezel™" of the Surefire E2D would fall under "any other dangerous weapon" in clause (iii) of § 18.2-283.1.

That's for breaking windows of vehicles in case of a crash. That would be my story.

 

[Marco]

imported post

knife and a Surefire E2D, both prohibited according to the sign

flashlight's prohibited?

"crenellated Strike Bezel™" of the Surefire E2D would fall under "any other dangerous weapon" in clause (iii) of § 18.2-283.1.

That's for breaking windows of vehicles in case of a crash.

this is true but the sign states FLASHLIGHTS
isn't that what it is for

 

[Marco]

imported post

always ASSUME no "quarter" will be given.
however, if it is extended except it humbly and be gracious

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

savery wrote:

+1 Right there.

The cold, hard truth is that pretty much every mala prohibita crime is a bunch of bullshit.

"But he broke a law!!!"
"Where do we draw the line?"

Who gives a shit. The poor guy forgot and left a damn round in his pocket. It was a mistake but my thing is that it shouldn't be an issue in the first place. Why, because the legislature said so? If the legislature said that you had to throw your damn kids off a cliff would they be right then?

If they said that you had to turn your guns in, would they be right?
I hope that one made a few of you squirm.

The bottom line is that if it doesn't hurt someone, it shouldn't be a crime. (and i'm not talking about this betterment of society horse shit, if that was the case the damn socialsts and liberals are all guilty in my opinion)

"Well it is a crime, and he broke the law. He must face the consequences."
Puh leeze. See children example from above.

The LEO is the low level slave in the system. He or she does what is required of the job and others above him in the system shall decide the outcome.

For all practical purposes... the LEO should not decide letter vs spirit. Nor should he decide it is "OK if it is a victimless crime."

I can easily justify not charging someone but does it mean that "I am right?" Thesafest way out is to follow the code book to the letter. Then you make no mistakes in the performance of your duty. You do not let the bad guy go based on your own personal decision.


Think of this...John Doeonly needs to get the fully loaded mag past security and give it to someone else who was able to get the other gun parts past security.... John Doe seems innocent enough and turned away. The plan is foiled but there was intent to commit a crime. You will never know.... (Not saying this was the case here)


The Victimless crime.... a "crime on the books" that does not hurt any other person. Nice idea.....

Not paying taxes can be one of them. The people of the state are not hurt. You just get to cheat the system. Same for stealing money from a corporation. In both.. there is no person who is a victim.

Yet.. we have codes that prohibit this butI guess you do not fully understand the spirit of victimless crime laws. Go figure...

If you do not like victimless criminal codes... go bitch to Richmond!! Till then.. the police can and will enforce all the laws that have been written. :lol:

 

[doctork]

imported post

Well I have been watching for some time but I must say there is a double standard when it comes to citizens and LEO's. It has been stated that LEO's have to answer for their incorrect actions just like a common citizen has to answer. That isn't totally correct. In many cases the LEO will be investigated in house and maybe get a slap on the wrist and a piece of paper in this file. The citizen has to put up with being put in a jail cell, fingerprinted etc. Then he has to hire a Lawyer because he has to go before a Judge.

When an LEO states he will make up something so he can arrest you that is criminal. This has been documented in another thread. Why is it handled in house? But an honest citizen makes an honest mistake and brings it to the attention of the security guard/LEO and he ends up in jail and then court. It should have ended right there. The security guard should have said that I see that you realized that you had brought something into the building that wasn't allowed. You will need to take this item out to your car before re-entering. If he truly tried to get the bullets past the guard then maybe something stronger should have been done. Maybe the LEO should take his information, give him a good educational talk and if there is no reason to think he was truly trying to get something illegal into the building then he should be asked to secure the item before coming back in. If you are going by the letter of the law then the LEO's should have to face the judge for their misconduct.

LEO's get very upset if they feel that someone is lying to them. But they can lie to us and we are supposed to smile. Double standard. It is a way of life with many LEO's. Power is how they see their job. They can treat people with little or no respect but they demand respect from the little people.

This sounds very neg. and I'm sorry. But the stress and frustration that we deal with during an un-warranted stop is very demeaning.

Please understand that I am in no way attacking anyone on this board. Just stating the frustration that we all live with every day.

 

[longwatch]

imported post

Lets not go round and round with the LEO citizen doublestandard please.

 

[doctork]

imported post

This is the first message I have posted on this site. I don't understand your message about going around and around.