S.W.A.T. stalks protesters outside Capitol

[peter nap]

In all the pictures, and in all the videos, I do not see even one LEO with a Summons book.

It's as though no one in law enforcement was prepared to arrest, and then issue an Official Virginia Uniform Summons as Code Section 19.2-74 mandates.

Were Custodial Arrests planned from the start? I have to wonder about that.

That's normal for protest arrests. Load em on the bus and get em out of there.

 

[Citizen]

In all the pictures, and in all the videos, I do not see even one LEO with a Summons book.

It's as though no one in law enforcement was prepared to arrest, and then issue an Official Virginia Uniform Summons as Code Section 19.2-74 mandates.

Were Custodial Arrests planned from the start? I have to wonder about that.

19.2-74 gives the officer the authority to arrest under certain expressed circumstances. For example, if the officer has reason to believe the offender will disregard the summons and not show up for court.

One of the exceptions is if the offender does not cease the offense. For example, a drunk driver can't drive home after the traffic stop without again committing the offense. Nor, can a streaker caught 4 blocks from his clothes return to his clothes without continuing the offense.

So, since protesters are given warning and refuse to leave or move, I'm betting the police make the arrest on the rationale that the protesters will not cease the offense even if given a summons.

You know how cops twist things. Remember MouthCop229's commentary that a refusal to show an ID document when being cited is treated by police as an evasion in order to avoid showing up in court. He said that cops would arrest on a Class 1 and Class 2 misdemeanor if an identity document was refused.

That's just my guessing as to why the protesters were arrested, steered into this channel of thinking by the way the question is framed. For all I know there could be another arrestable offense, like failure to heed officer's instructions. Or, "trespassing against the sovereign" (I made that up), or something that is not protest-specific.

 

[ManInBlack]

One of the exceptions is if the offender does not cease the offense. For example, a drunk driver can't drive home after the traffic stop without again committing the offense.

I'm not sure that applies to that specific example.

The drunk driver could simply walk home without continuing the offense. 99 times out of 100 (with the 100th being a fellow cop or a politician), the offender will not be allowed that option and will be taken to jail without passing "GO."

 

[Repeater]

19.2-74 gives the officer the authority to arrest under certain expressed circumstances. For example, if the officer has reason to believe the offender will disregard the summons and not show up for court.

One of the exceptions is if the offender does not cease the offense. For example, a drunk driver can't drive home after the traffic stop without again committing the offense. Nor, can a streaker caught 4 blocks from his clothes return to his clothes without continuing the offense.

So, since protesters are given warning and refuse to leave or move, I'm betting the police make the arrest on the rationale that the protesters will not cease the offense even if given a summons.

You know how cops twist things. Remember MouthCop229's commentary that a refusal to show an ID document when being cited is treated by police as an evasion in order to avoid showing up in court. He said that cops would arrest on a Class 1 and Class 2 misdemeanor if an identity document was refused.

That's just my guessing as to why the protesters were arrested, steered into this channel of thinking by the way the question is framed. For all I know there could be another arrestable offense, like failure to heed officer's instructions. Or, "trespassing against the sovereign" (I made that up), or something that is not protest-specific.

I know about that exception, and if challenged, it's likely the police will cite that exception to justify the mass custodial arrests. Still, they didn't seem prepared to offer anyone a Summons. That concerns me.

 

[TFred]

I'm not sure that applies to that specific example.

The drunk driver could simply walk home without continuing the offense. 99 times out of 100 (with the 100th being a fellow cop or a politician), the offender will not be allowed that option and will be taken to jail without passing "GO."

Even if not driving, would the offender not then be guilty of "Drunk In PubliCK?"

TFred

 

[wylde007]

I got drunk in a bar. They THA-REW ME into publiCK!

And what's the charge for getting throw out of a moving car? Jaywalking?

 

[TFred]

I got drunk in a bar. They THA-REW ME into publiCK!

You have confirmed, some things are just woven into the thread of our culture!

TFred

 

[peter nap]

There are very few people that think the "in your face" action by the police is acceptable, but now that I know some of what was in a few of the emails, one in particular, I can understand why members of the GA were upset.

Why would activists send emails not fit for publication that were on the verge of lunacy?

It would be like VCDL members sending emails threatening to shoot legislators and their families if they voted a certain way.

As far as the pro life/pro abortion lobby goes, it's like POGO said:
"I have seen the enemy and it is us".

They need to hand out muzzles before a protest.

 

[wylde007]

They need to hand out muzzles before a protest.

And flash suppressors.

Wait, what?

Emails implying or expressing the intent to do harm as a consequence for electoral behaviour is what is known as a THREAT and it is taken very seriously. They think we're crazy, but I don't think any one of us has ever threatened to blow up a restaurant who refused us service...

 

[stargateranch]

Was thinking the same thing. A gas mask could be PPE but just wearing a mask to hide you identity is a crime.

Would like to see cite where masks are prohibited by law.

 

[wylde007]

It was covered in the fourth full response to the thread.

Maybe you could start at the beginning and try to catch up.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...side-Capitol&p=1711994&viewfull=1#post1711994

 

[Doogie]

Wylde...you beat to it.

§ 18.2-422. Prohibition of wearing of masks in certain places; exceptions.
It shall be unlawful for any person over sixteen years of age while wearing any mask, hood or other device whereby a substantial portion of the face is hidden or covered so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to be or appear in any public place, or upon any private property in this Commonwealth without first having obtained from the owner or tenant thereof consent to do so in writing. However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to persons (i) wearing traditional holiday costumes; (ii) engaged in professions, trades, employment or other activities and wearing protective masks which are deemed necessary for the physical safety of the wearer or other persons; (iii) engaged in any bona fide theatrical production or masquerade ball; or (iv) wearing a mask, hood or other device for bona fide medical reasons upon (a) the advice of a licensed physician or osteopath and carrying on his person an affidavit from the physician or osteopath specifying the medical necessity for wearing the device and the date on which the wearing of the device will no longer be necessary and providing a brief description of the device, or (b) the declaration of a disaster or state of emergency by the Governor in response to a public health emergency where the emergency declaration expressly waives this section, defines the mask appropriate for the emergency, and provides for the duration of the waiver. The violation of any provisions of this section shall constitute a Class 6 felony.
(Code 1950, §§ 18.1-364, 18.1-367; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1986, c. 19; 2010, cc. 262, 420.)

 

[stargateranch]

Maybe you could start at the beginning and try to catch up.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...side-Capitol&p=1711994&viewfull=1#post1711994

Thanks, I screwed up there. Missed that.

 

[peter nap]

Thanks, I screwed up there. Missed that.

One of my pet peeves. I commit a felony every time I wear a dust mask during pollen season and every time I go bowhunting.

 

[Repeater]

Tommy Norment is upset

And flash suppressors.

Wait, what?

Emails implying or expressing the intent to do harm as a consequence for electoral behaviour is what is known as a THREAT and it is taken very seriously. They think we're crazy, but I don't think any one of us has ever threatened to blow up a restaurant who refused us service...

Well, see what Norment said:

McDonnell signs disputed abortion ultrasound bill

Senate Majority Leader Thomas K. Norment Jr., R-James City, said the law enforcement presence, which included police in riot gear, was justified. Norment noted that several of the participants were members of the Occupy Richmond movement and The Wingnut, a local anarchist collective.

"That is what raised the level of concern," Norment said, calling The Wingnut "an identified anarchist, armed terrorist group."

Reached Wednesday, Wingnut member Mo Karn responded, "Really? Indentified by whom?" when asked about being labeled a terrorist group.

Karn, who said the group is an anarchist collective with members who legally possess guns, said no members — of whom there are currently three — participated in the protest Saturday.

"I was at work, and I think the other people were like doing their homework and stuff," she said.

Norment also read from an email sent to Byron calling her "a disgusting, disgraceful and vile pig."

"Don't forget that we all get ugly emails," countered Sen. A. Donald McEachin, D-Henrico, recalling the messages he received years ago when, as a delegate, he sponsored a state-issued apology for slavery.

"You talk about ugly emails — those were some ugly emails," he said.

On Wednesday afternoon, Senate Democrats blasted McDonnell for signing the bill.

"This is only the second time in history Virginia has mandated a medical procedure," said Sen. Richard L. Saslaw, D-Fairfax. "This law will now stand beside legislation that was passed to forcibly sterilize the severely mentally disabled."

Incidentally, ultrasound is a diagnostic procedure, not a medical procedure. As for imposing mandates of physicians, I wonder what Saslaw would say about this old law:

§ 54.1-2967. Physicians and others rendering medical aid to report certain wounds.

 

[marshaul]

lol@ The Wingnut being a terrorist group.

Pretty much any time armed citizens proactively engage in activities over which the government claims or pretends to have a monopoly, they become "terrorists".

Well, you know what?

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

To you, too.

 

[mk4]

Well, you know what?

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

To you, too.

lololol, marshaul! ever seen this one?

 

[stickslinger]

One of my pet peeves. I commit a felony every time I wear a dust mask during pollen season and every time I go bowhunting.

Those are good points. My son has to wear a mask if the pollen count gets high enough to warrant it as he is allergic. I bow hunt as well and by virtue you have permission to wear it perhaps under the following; a) it is hunting season, b) your in the woods (hopefully) and not in general public view, c) a turkey can spot you a mile away without it, for deer, it is less so.

I'm sure I missed some reasons to mask up besides what's already been noted.

P.S. Wait, I take statement (b) back:

http://www.freep.com/article/201203...-woman?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|FRONTPAGE

 

[peter nap]

Those are good points. My son has to wear a mask if the pollen count gets high enough to warrant it as he is allergic. I bow hunt as well and by virtue you have permission to wear it perhaps under the following; a) it is hunting season, b) your in the woods (hopefully) and not in general public view, c) a turkey can spot you a mile away without it, for deer, it is less so.

I'm sure I missed some reasons to mask up besides what's already been noted.

After fighting this statute for years....the bigest reason is I just don't give a******anymore. (I know Ed, just add it to my list of not wearing a seatbelt and throwing cigarette butts in the city)

When Bolling was a Senator I hammered him about it and his answer was always the same "Law Enforcement will use good judgement" Duh Bill, this ain't a parking ticket.

Fortunately there is some case law that says wearing the mask has to be with the intent to deceive, but people still get arrested and have to fight it.