• 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.

Fredericksburg man convicted of brandishing

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Virginia’s laws on brandishing may well be unconstitutional. That is not the sole issue in the case at hand.

If someone is screaming foul language at me and is intoxicated, while holding a firearm in his hand, that would reasonably alarm me, and should be a crime, defined in the law, in a constitutional manner.

No one has yet explained the behavior that resulted in the accusations of swearing and public intoxication. Without such context, I am not motivated to help the man in this case.

I have provided monetary help in previous cases. I would again—were I convinced that this man only faces the predicament he does because of an unconstitutional definition. There are other attendant behaviors alleged. I cannot evaluate a proper reaction while those behaviors remain unexplained.

At them moment, I am back to meh.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,712
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
No one has yet explained the behavior that resulted in the accusations of swearing and public intoxication. Without such context, I am not motivated to help the man in this case.
Your statement is simply untrue. User explained it in his post last Friday. Do what you want, but don't misstate your reasons for it.

TFred
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,530
Location
here nc
meh. moved on. don’t care.
Virginia’s laws on brandishing may well be unconstitutional. That is not the sole issue in the case at hand.

If someone is screaming foul language at me and is intoxicated, while holding a firearm in his hand, that would reasonably alarm me, and should be a crime, defined in the law, in a constitutional manner.

No one has yet explained the behavior that resulted in the accusations of swearing and public intoxication. Without such context, I am not motivated to help the man in this case.

I have provided monetary help in previous cases. I would again—were I convinced that this man only faces the predicament he does because of an unconstitutional definition. There are other attendant behaviors alleged. I cannot evaluate a proper reaction while those behaviors remain unexplained.

At them moment, I am back to meh.
No please eye95 move to your previously expressed position...
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Your statement is simply untrue. User explained it in his post last Friday. Do what you want, but don't misstate your reasons for it.

TFred
No. He did not. He may have opined on the state of the law in regards to perceptions of behaviors, but did not address the behavior that prompted the allegations of swearing and public intoxication in this case.

Again, unless I feel that I fully understand the context of this case, I cannot support any legal efforts in relation to it. I could well support another case to strike down the brandishing law. I could even support this case—if I am sufficiently convinced that the accused did not go into a profanity-laced, drunken tirade with a firearm in his hand.

I am asking for the provable facts in the case, not a legal argument.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,530
Location
here nc
No. He did not. He may have opined on the state of the law in regards to perceptions of behaviors, but did not address the behavior that prompted the allegations of swearing and public intoxication in this case.

Again, unless I feel that I fully understand the context of this case, I cannot support any legal efforts in relation to it. I could well support another case to strike down the brandishing law. I could even support this case—if I am sufficiently convinced that the accused did not go into a profanity-laced, drunken tirade with a firearm in his hand.

I am asking for the provable facts in the case, not a legal argument.
sorry eye95 you indicated in numerous previous posting on this tread YOU are not interested in anything regarding this case!

follow your own advice...MOVE ON!
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,503
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Your statement is simply untrue. User explained it in his post last Friday. Do what you want, but don't misstate your reasons for it.

TFred
It appears that eye95 believes that "user" does not know what he is talking about, even though "user" is a retired attorney. You must understand that eye95 believes his opinion to be superior to all others.
 

FreedomVA

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
366
Location
FreedomVA
No. He did not. He may have opined on the state of the law in regards to perceptions of behaviors, but did not address the behavior that prompted the allegations of swearing and public intoxication in this case.

Again, unless I feel that I fully understand the context of this case, I cannot support any legal efforts in relation to it. I could well support another case to strike down the brandishing law. I could even support this case—if I am sufficiently convinced that the accused did not go into a profanity-laced, drunken tirade with a firearm in his hand.

I am asking for the provable facts in the case, not a legal argument.
starting to sound like a Dildocrats, Eye95
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It appears that eye95 believes that "user" does not know what he is talking about, even though "user" is a retired attorney. You must understand that eye95 believes his opinion to be superior to all others.
You, again, misrepresent what I wrote. I am sure that user is quite capable of making the legal argument. I am asking for the facts of the case before I will decide whether or not to help monetarily (specifically the facts relating to the allegation that the accused was swearing and drunk).

But, hey, you do you. Are you an attorney? IIRC, you are not. I am not.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,712
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
No. He did not. He may have opined on the state of the law in regards to perceptions of behaviors, but did not address the behavior that prompted the allegations of swearing and public intoxication in this case.
But he did. I guess I need to quote it for you:

They pile on the charges like that as an act of extortion: they do that to try to force the defendant to accept a plea bargain by intimidation and threats of unjustified punishment. They also increase the cost of litigation because the defendant's attorney has to work on all the charges, even if they're bogus.
THAT is EXACTLY "the behavior that prompted the allegations of swearing and public intoxication in this case!" Your problem is that you are seeking unconfirmed behavior on the part of the defendant, while the confirmed bad behavior is actually with the prosecution.

TFred
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
But he did. I guess I need to quote it for you:



THAT is EXACTLY "the behavior that prompted the allegations of swearing and public intoxication in this case!" Your problem is that you are seeking unconfirmed behavior on the part of the defendant, while the confirmed bad behavior is actually with the prosecution.

TFred
That is NOT addressing the facts. That is opining on the reasoning behind the charges.

This case, absent facts is not a hill I will bother dying on. meh.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,712
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
That is NOT addressing the facts. That is opining on the reasoning behind the charges.

This case, absent facts is not a hill I will bother dying on. meh.
You don't get facts until the trial. That is the purpose of a trial - to determine the facts. How can you ever support someone prior to the trial?

You've talked yourself into a corner.

TFred
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,530
Location
here nc
That is NOT addressing the facts. That is opining on the reasoning behind the charges.

This case, absent facts is not a hill I will bother dying on. meh.
those facts are the reality of judicial activities...

sorry, should have moved on long ago as you once again come across as foolish by the rant's folk are not responding...you got your negative attention ~ again...

nothing here to see here folks move along...
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
728
Location
MO, USA
Ridiculous that a BB gun could be interpreted as brandishing. Unfortunately the VA law wording is wide open and could be exploited by Antis in infinite ways.

"any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another"


There is the word "reasonably" - it's not totally reliable given that few people are reasonable anymore, but it may help.

At dusk someone (stupid) might reasonably imagine for a moment that a marshmallow on a stick is a firearm, but it would not be reasonable to charge someone with brandishing on the basis of wild imagination - same with the old BB gun, but have fun convincing an Anti court of it. :cautious:
 
Top