leadslinger972
*Banned*
I'm fairly certain impersonating law enforcement is a bannable offense.
I still don't understand why people are arrested for having a gun in their vehicle on school grounds. IF that's the only charge. The ones I've seen are for RS 14:95.2 and no other charge. What is taught in the academy about that?
Ok,then why do 10 different leo have 10 different assumptions or advisement of the laws?
And I mean any laws ,period.
Are each leo remembering the laws or interpreting them by what they think.
I am just confused how each one can say something different to each law,if this so called traning was effective?
I'm fairly certain impersonating law enforcement is a bannable offense.
I'm not sure if this is an academy issue. The DA's Office was consulted. From the article:
"Sheriff’s deputies consulted with District attorney, Michael Cassidy and determined the student had violated the statute for carrying a firearm in a gun free zone."
17 year olds cannot legally buy shotguns but they can, ordinarily, legally possess them. If he were legally allowed to possess a shotgun, it appears the shotgun would be covered in the exceptions to the law. What if it was determined he was not allowed to legally possess a shotgun? In that case, would the shotgun contained entirely within his vehicle still be a constitutionally protected activity? Or would that exemption no longer apply?
Thanks for your reply. I can't find anything in 14:95.2 that says anything about age and would like to know how the DA came up with if all he had on him was that he had a shotgun in the vehicle violated 14:95.2
What if that's not all the DA had to go on? The law lists as an exception to the law "any constitutionally protected activity which cannot be regulated by the state, such as a firearm contained entirely within a motor vehicle." If someone, regardless of age, were legally not allowed to possess a firearm, would that exception still apply?
I would love to hear what the DA is going on. They only thing I can find about age is you have to be 17 for a handgun 14:95.8. I read somewhere that his daddy said the boy was using the shotgun the day before and forgot it was in the vehicle. If he's guilty of something to me it's not the one he was arrested for. With the limited info I can't see where he was breaking any La law.
Im a cop,so now what.Im big,im bad,,...
See my son ,which is 9 just did that for you.
SO now we see who is the closed minded ones ere.
As far as motor51,if your really in that state of mind as an officer and a human.I feel for you and you may not should be anything close to an officer.This is the problem we have with the issue. You make the good leo look bad and cause many other issues that are not warranted in any way
You, or your son, changed what he typed. Leadslinger,QUOTE]
That was the whole point ,,omg ,seriously?
Leadslinger changed my post.That is why I let my son change his.To show anyone could do that lol
Go back and read every post I posted perez..You will not see anyyyyy post that I said I was leo
or otherwise...
Leadslinger changed it to look like I did.If you are ban hungry ,ban him for that. lolol..
That was the whole point ,,omg ,seriously?
Leadslinger changed my post.That is why I let my son change his.To show anyone could do that lol
Go back and read every post I posted perez..You will not see anyyyyy post that I said I was leo
or otherwise...
Leadslinger changed it to look like I did.If you are ban hungry ,ban him for that. lolol..
I think I may have confused things by mentioning his age. Let me try to explain it another way.
He was arrested for 95.2. That arrest was either valid or invalid. An exception to the law that should apply in this case is "any constitutionally protected activity which cannot be regulated by the state, such as a firearm contained entirely within a motor vehicle." So on the surface, the arrest appears to be invalid. If that's the case, the discussion is over. So for the sake of discussion, let's say the DA and the deputy decided it was a valid arrest. That would mean the exception would not apply. We know the weapon was contained entirely within a motor vehicle. That would suggest his having a weapon in the vehicle was not a constitutionally protected activity. Is it possible for someone to be in constructive possession of a firearm without that possession being protected by the constitution?
That was the whole point ,,omg ,seriously?
Leadslinger changed my post.That is why I let my son change his.To show anyone could do that lol
Go back and read every post I posted perez..You will not see anyyyyy post that I said I was leo
or otherwise...
Leadslinger changed it to look like I did.If you are ban hungry ,ban him for that. lolol..
Exactly.What does determine as justified,per say ,in your mind?
As an officer.I know what the law says.But that doesnt mean hill
of beans when it comes to an officer at your home deciding on the
spot.
Should a decision or is a decision made then or if it is not clear,arrest
everyone,let the judge decide.Im confused in the mind set of leo on
scene.Each one seems to have their own thoughts.
In my theory,it is apparent that no decision be made esepcially
considering 15 different endings.
It seems as though ,the officers are not well versed enough in law
to be making any decisions effecting peoples lives in my eyes.
Train officers in law? Short term training,perhaps.25 leo should not
have 25 different ideas of the law.AGree?
I would like as many leo answer as possible.What their train of
thought is when encountering a situation such as that.
Those are my thoughts and many others as well.Like I stated before,no one is asking leo to be attorneys,just better versed in the laws they are carrying out.
I own and have owned many very well established biz's.If I thought training and learning more about things was a bad thing,I would not be where I am today.I am glad I am open minded to the needs o9f others.
I think leo get caught up in peeps bashing of them and do not stop to think,we are still a democratic society and appreciate being treated as such.
Ok thank for your input but it makes no sense to me. The gun was legal the boy was legal and it was contained entirely in the vehicle. Thanks again.
See my son ,which is 9 just did that for you.
SO now we see who is the closed minded ones ere.
As far as motor51,if your really in that state of mind as an officer and a human.I feel for you and you may not should be anything close to an officer.This is the problem we have with the issue. You make the good leo look bad and cause many other issues that are not warranted in any way
He didn't change your post. See below:
OK calm down people..Nothing to get stirred up over here..
Apparently his reading skills are a little retained ,lets say.
I said "Exactly.What does determine as justified,per say ,in your mind?
As an officer.I know what the law says
Sorry ,,it should have been state dbetter on my part maybe as well..
It should have read.....Exactly.What does determine as justified,per say ,in your mind,
As an officer?.I know what the law says
I should have put a comma after mind and a question mark instead of a period after officer.
No ones perfect,but he only took a part of what I said,,so that is changing it ,per say..
You know I said earlier,,,I respected leo and was thankful for their service..
But it seems everyone is more concerned about bashing me ,instead of staying on topic and having good input to pass to others.
Ohh well..I wont post anymore,,god forbid someone learning something new.....
He changed nothing. He quoted exactly what you posted in the exact order you posted in post #13.
He didn't change your post. See below:
OK calm down people..Nothing to get stirred up over here..
Apparently his reading skills are a little retained ,lets say.
I said "Exactly.What does determine as justified,per say ,in your mind?
As an officer.I know what the law says
Sorry ,,it should have been state dbetter on my part maybe as well..
It should have read.....Exactly.What does determine as justified,per say ,in your mind,
As an officer?.I know what the law says
I should have put a comma after mind and a question mark instead of a period after officer.
No ones perfect,but he only took a part of what I said,,so that is changing it ,per say..
You know I said earlier,,,I respected leo and was thankful for their service..
But it seems everyone is more concerned about bashing me ,instead of staying on topic and having good input to pass to others.
Ohh well..I wont post anymore,,god forbid someone learning something new.....
I would wager that my reading skills are on par with most scholarly folks. However, your reading skills are lacking.
I've taken the time to try and decipher your gibberish.
It should have read, "What does determine as justified, per se, in your mind as an officer? I know what the law says.
No one is perfect, but he only took part of what I said, so that is changing it. (Your excessive use of per se is out of context and it's spelled se not say)
You know what I said earlier. I was respectful towards law enforcement and thankful for their service.
Oh well, I will not post anymore. God forbid someone learns something new.