It has been proven time and again on here and most any other internet forum anything can be argued.
Indeed. Thats what lawyers are all about.
Its an ewasy argument to make depending on the plaintiff/victim. If a young woman is suddenly blocked in by some stalker I'm sure the local authorities will be able to come up with some commensurate charges.
I'll generally trying to limit exit from a store or other retail establishment will leave you open to liability. Not much difference here.
And its extremely dangerous. My wife has taught my kidsthat if someone tries to block them in, get out of the situation by any means necessary as it may be a kidnap situation. The lady in this instance was insanely stupid.
jmra wrote:
The woman committed a crime? I didn't realize you were the judge and jury in this case.
By her own admission she committed a crime. What a court would do is figure out exactly what crime it was and if she needed punishment but it is illegal to do what she did.
What crime did she commit? She didn't state she blocked them in, just parked behind them. The officer supposedly said she 'attempted' to block them'
They wanted to leave and she wouldn't allow them to do so because she wanted the cops to get there before allowing them to leave. What gives her the right to do so? Why is this even a question. You walk out a store and someone decides to "park"behind you to prevent you from leaving?
That's not her story. She stated she pulled in behind them. Third party, the paper said the officer stated she blocked them in. And, Unlawful Restraint does not constitute movement in a vehicle. It is against the individual person. If she didn't physically restrain them or hold them at gunpoint, then IMO no crime was committed. No matter, she had to have been arrested or he legally should have given her gun back. End of story.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member
Keith B wrote:
That's not her story. She stated she pulled in behind them. Third party, the paper said the officer stated she blocked them in. And, Unlawful Restraint does not constitute movement in a vehicle. It is against the individual person. If she didn't physically restrain them or hold them at gunpoint, then IMO no crime was committed. No matter, she had to have been arrested or he legally should have given her gun back. End of story.
So you don't think parking behind someone in such a way as to keep them from leaving is the equivalent to blocking them in? Or is it that you don't believe that is what she did? Sure I'm just going off a news story but I don't believe the people would of sat there and waited just because she asked. Reread the statute. "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person's liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by confining the person." Forcing someone to abandon their property to be able to have freedom of movement seems to fit in that definition. Mind you it would be severe overcharging in this case and I don't know that any court would convict but I see no reason it couldn't be charged. Mind you I don't know the case law but the definition seems more than close enough. There is also the fact that there are other charges that also could of been placed on her. Unlawful restraint was just one. Obstructing a highway or other passageway PC 42.03 would also fit and I have no doubt there are more. What allows her to seize and hold someone elses property? If you were walking out a store and the security purposely parked behind you to prevent you from leaving how would you be feeling? Because it's just your car so your free to go.
jmra wrote:if the person is rational we can have a discussion about the problem. If it is not quickly resolved, I'd call 911. If the car was mine and it had been recently painted I'd have the receipt in the car showing when it had been painted. The odds are the dates would prove to the lady that I was not who she was looking for.
Why would you call 911? you seem clear in the fact that you think the ladies actions are lawful so what are the cops going to do? Heck if her actions are lawful how can the cop even tell her to move? Wait you think that you should have to prove in a parking lot that you didn't do something to be allowed to leave in your car?
What bothers me the most about this story is the fact that we have not been presented with a shred of evidence that the woman did anything wrong. It is obvious that the officer did. If he felt that the woman's actions were sufficient to confiscate her weapon and she actually did what the officer claimed, he should have arrested her. Making accusations and confiscating legally owned firearms without filing charges is simply un-American.
I got to say that there is evidence that she committed an offence. That to me would be "wrong". You're right though the officer,by the law, should have arrested her. At that point he obviously could of seized the gun. How dare he not throw granny in jail. That's un american. Let's all commit to a "throw granny in jail" campaign to get the DA to file charges.
Point being while you are right he only should seize a gun if there is an arrest or it's evidence I have to think that the fact of the situation, that she could of legally been arrested, need to be acknowledged in the rhetoric.
I read all the posts and am amazed... There are hypotheticals and points that she broke the law and what not, I think in an effort to try and justify the outcome. I'm sure some of the positions are to play devils advocate or stir the pot. Some will argue just to try defend a group of people, even if in their heart of hearts, know are wrong or argue just to be argumentative. Heck, I've argued points I knew were wrong, just because I did not want to back off my point and I have a couple teenagers that argue just to argue!
She was NOT arrested and therefore should NOT have had anything illegally confiscated from her. I don't care if she called the police every name in the book, was disrespectful to everyone and sat on the BGs and really did restrain them or broke a million other laws. She was not arrested. Now, if laws were broken, go back and arrest her and then you confiscate her firearm, I'm okay with that.
I have yet to see a law that gives an officer the ability to take property away from it's owner when an arrest has not been made or a search warrant issued.
Maybe I am taking too simplistic of a view....
Brian
Final Shot offers Firearms / FFL Transfers / CHL Instruction. Please like our Facebook Page.
If guns kill people, do pens misspell words?
I like options: Sig Sauer | DPMS | Springfield Armory | Glock | Beretta
jmra wrote:if the person is rational we can have a discussion about the problem. If it is not quickly resolved, I'd call 911. If the car was mine and it had been recently painted I'd have the receipt in the car showing when it had been painted. The odds are the dates would prove to the lady that I was not who she was looking for.
Why would you call 911? you seem clear in the fact that you think the ladies actions are lawful so what are the cops going to do? Heck if her actions are lawful how can the cop even tell her to move? Wait you think that you should have to prove in a parking lot that you didn't do something to be allowed to leave in your car?
What bothers me the most about this story is the fact that we have not been presented with a shred of evidence that the woman did anything wrong. It is obvious that the officer did. If he felt that the woman's actions were sufficient to confiscate her weapon and she actually did what the officer claimed, he should have arrested her. Making accusations and confiscating legally owned firearms without filing charges is simply un-American.
I got to say that there is evidence that she committed an offence. That to me would be "wrong". You're right though the officer,by the law, should have arrested her. At that point he obviously could of seized the gun. How dare he not throw granny in jail. That's un american. Let's all commit to a "throw granny in jail" campaign to get the DA to file charges.
Point being while you are right he only should seize a gun if there is an arrest or it's evidence I have to think that the fact of the situation, that she could of legally been arrested, need to be acknowledged in the rhetoric.
As usual you have taken what I said out of context (I don't expect anything less). If you look at what I actually stated you will see that I believed the question did not at all fit the current case thus I was answering based on the "hypothetical" question asked. But you chose to ignore that because then you couldn't make the argument you wanted to make.
You can believe there is evidence of wrong doing, but the fact is none has been presented. If I suggested an officer had committed a crime based on the same information you have used to convict this woman you would have a coronary.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
RX8er wrote:I read all the posts and am amazed... There are hypotheticals and points that she broke the law and what not, I think in an effort to try and justify the outcome. I'm sure some of the positions are to play devils advocate or stir the pot. Some will argue just to try defend a group of people, even if in their heart of hearts, know are wrong or argue just to be argumentative. Heck, I've argued points I knew were wrong, just because I did not want to back off my point and I have a couple teenagers that argue just to argue!
She was NOT arrested and therefore should NOT have had anything illegally confiscated from her. I don't care if she called the police every name in the book, was disrespectful to everyone and sat on the BGs and really did restrain them or broke a million other laws. She was not arrested. Now, if laws were broken, go back and arrest her and then you confiscate her firearm, I'm okay with that.
I have yet to see a law that gives an officer the ability to take property away from it's owner when an arrest has not been made or a search warrant issued.
Maybe I am taking too simplistic of a view....
Brian
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
Keith B wrote:
That's not her story. She stated she pulled in behind them. Third party, the paper said the officer stated she blocked them in. And, Unlawful Restraint does not constitute movement in a vehicle. It is against the individual person. If she didn't physically restrain them or hold them at gunpoint, then IMO no crime was committed. No matter, she had to have been arrested or he legally should have given her gun back. End of story.
So you don't think parking behind someone in such a way as to keep them from leaving is the equivalent to blocking them in? Or is it that you don't believe that is what she did? Sure I'm just going off a news story but I don't believe the people would of sat there and waited just because she asked. Reread the statute. "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person's liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by confining the person." Forcing someone to abandon their property to be able to have freedom of movement seems to fit in that definition. Mind you it would be severe overcharging in this case and I don't know that any court would convict but I see no reason it couldn't be charged. Mind you I don't know the case law but the definition seems more than close enough. There is also the fact that there are other charges that also could of been placed on her. Unlawful restraint was just one. Obstructing a highway or other passageway PC 42.03 would also fit and I have no doubt there are more. What allows her to seize and hold someone elses property? If you were walking out a store and the security purposely parked behind you to prevent you from leaving how would you be feeling? Because it's just your car so your free to go.
I say there are three sides to this story; hers, the officer's and the truth. She says she didn't, he says she did, and somewhere in between is the truth. As already stated, if she violated a law, arrest her for the charge and take her gun, but the officer confiscated her gun and didn't charge her with anything, which is totally against the law.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member
Keith B wrote:
That's not her story. She stated she pulled in behind them. Third party, the paper said the officer stated she blocked them in. And, Unlawful Restraint does not constitute movement in a vehicle. It is against the individual person. If she didn't physically restrain them or hold them at gunpoint, then IMO no crime was committed. No matter, she had to have been arrested or he legally should have given her gun back. End of story.
So you don't think parking behind someone in such a way as to keep them from leaving is the equivalent to blocking them in? Or is it that you don't believe that is what she did? Sure I'm just going off a news story but I don't believe the people would of sat there and waited just because she asked. Reread the statute. "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person's liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by confining the person." Forcing someone to abandon their property to be able to have freedom of movement seems to fit in that definition. Mind you it would be severe overcharging in this case and I don't know that any court would convict but I see no reason it couldn't be charged. Mind you I don't know the case law but the definition seems more than close enough. There is also the fact that there are other charges that also could of been placed on her. Unlawful restraint was just one. Obstructing a highway or other passageway PC 42.03 would also fit and I have no doubt there are more. What allows her to seize and hold someone elses property? If you were walking out a store and the security purposely parked behind you to prevent you from leaving how would you be feeling? Because it's just your car so your free to go.
I say there are three sides to this story; hers, the officer's and the truth. She says she didn't, he says she did, and somewhere in between is the truth. As already stated, if she violated a law, arrest her for the charge and take her gun, but the officer confiscated her gun and didn't charge her with anything, which is totally against the law.
Keith,
Technically, he actually committed Aggravated Robbery, under Color of Authority. Nice little 1st degree felony there. Personally, I believe he should at least be charged with a Class A theft charge(assuming we have an accurate story here), but then I have a real problem with officers that overstep their bounds.
OCW
I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.
Don’t pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he’ll just kill you.
Keith B wrote:
That's not her story. She stated she pulled in behind them. Third party, the paper said the officer stated she blocked them in. And, Unlawful Restraint does not constitute movement in a vehicle. It is against the individual person. If she didn't physically restrain them or hold them at gunpoint, then IMO no crime was committed. No matter, she had to have been arrested or he legally should have given her gun back. End of story.
So you don't think parking behind someone in such a way as to keep them from leaving is the equivalent to blocking them in? Or is it that you don't believe that is what she did? Sure I'm just going off a news story but I don't believe the people would of sat there and waited just because she asked. Reread the statute. "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person's liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by confining the person." Forcing someone to abandon their property to be able to have freedom of movement seems to fit in that definition. Mind you it would be severe overcharging in this case and I don't know that any court would convict but I see no reason it couldn't be charged. Mind you I don't know the case law but the definition seems more than close enough. There is also the fact that there are other charges that also could of been placed on her. Unlawful restraint was just one. Obstructing a highway or other passageway PC 42.03 would also fit and I have no doubt there are more. What allows her to seize and hold someone elses property? If you were walking out a store and the security purposely parked behind you to prevent you from leaving how would you be feeling? Because it's just your car so your free to go.
I say there are three sides to this story; hers, the officer's and the truth. She says she didn't, he says she did, and somewhere in between is the truth. As already stated, if she violated a law, arrest her for the charge and take her gun, but the officer confiscated her gun and didn't charge her with anything, which is totally against the law.
Keith,
Technically, he actually committed Aggravated Robbery, under Color of Authority. Nice little 1st degree felony there. Personally, I believe he should at least be charged with a Class A theft charge(assuming we have an accurate story here), but then I have a real problem with officers that overstep their bounds.
OCW
I predict he won't be charged with anything and she won't get her gun back any time soon.
Keith B wrote:
That's not her story. She stated she pulled in behind them. Third party, the paper said the officer stated she blocked them in. And, Unlawful Restraint does not constitute movement in a vehicle. It is against the individual person. If she didn't physically restrain them or hold them at gunpoint, then IMO no crime was committed. No matter, she had to have been arrested or he legally should have given her gun back. End of story.
So you don't think parking behind someone in such a way as to keep them from leaving is the equivalent to blocking them in? Or is it that you don't believe that is what she did? Sure I'm just going off a news story but I don't believe the people would of sat there and waited just because she asked. Reread the statute. "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person's liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by confining the person." Forcing someone to abandon their property to be able to have freedom of movement seems to fit in that definition. Mind you it would be severe overcharging in this case and I don't know that any court would convict but I see no reason it couldn't be charged. Mind you I don't know the case law but the definition seems more than close enough. There is also the fact that there are other charges that also could of been placed on her. Unlawful restraint was just one. Obstructing a highway or other passageway PC 42.03 would also fit and I have no doubt there are more. What allows her to seize and hold someone elses property? If you were walking out a store and the security purposely parked behind you to prevent you from leaving how would you be feeling? Because it's just your car so your free to go.
I say there are three sides to this story; hers, the officer's and the truth. She says she didn't, he says she did, and somewhere in between is the truth. As already stated, if she violated a law, arrest her for the charge and take her gun, but the officer confiscated her gun and didn't charge her with anything, which is totally against the law.
Keith,
Technically, he actually committed Aggravated Robbery, under Color of Authority. Nice little 1st degree felony there. Personally, I believe he should at least be charged with a Class A theft charge(assuming we have an accurate story here), but then I have a real problem with officers that overstep their bounds.
OCW
I predict he won't be charged with anything and she won't get her gun back any time soon.
I thought she got the gun back but not the ammo.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
Keith B wrote:
That's not her story. She stated she pulled in behind them. Third party, the paper said the officer stated she blocked them in. And, Unlawful Restraint does not constitute movement in a vehicle. It is against the individual person. If she didn't physically restrain them or hold them at gunpoint, then IMO no crime was committed. No matter, she had to have been arrested or he legally should have given her gun back. End of story.
So you don't think parking behind someone in such a way as to keep them from leaving is the equivalent to blocking them in? Or is it that you don't believe that is what she did? Sure I'm just going off a news story but I don't believe the people would of sat there and waited just because she asked. Reread the statute. "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person's liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by confining the person." Forcing someone to abandon their property to be able to have freedom of movement seems to fit in that definition. Mind you it would be severe overcharging in this case and I don't know that any court would convict but I see no reason it couldn't be charged. Mind you I don't know the case law but the definition seems more than close enough. There is also the fact that there are other charges that also could of been placed on her. Unlawful restraint was just one. Obstructing a highway or other passageway PC 42.03 would also fit and I have no doubt there are more. What allows her to seize and hold someone elses property? If you were walking out a store and the security purposely parked behind you to prevent you from leaving how would you be feeling? Because it's just your car so your free to go.
I say there are three sides to this story; hers, the officer's and the truth. She says she didn't, he says she did, and somewhere in between is the truth. As already stated, if she violated a law, arrest her for the charge and take her gun, but the officer confiscated her gun and didn't charge her with anything, which is totally against the law.
Keith,
Technically, he actually committed Aggravated Robbery, under Color of Authority. Nice little 1st degree felony there. Personally, I believe he should at least be charged with a Class A theft charge(assuming we have an accurate story here), but then I have a real problem with officers that overstep their bounds.
OCW
I predict he won't be charged with anything and she won't get her gun back any time soon.
I thought she got the gun back but not the ammo.
She did, on Monday.
Final Shot offers Firearms / FFL Transfers / CHL Instruction. Please like our Facebook Page.
If guns kill people, do pens misspell words?
I like options: Sig Sauer | DPMS | Springfield Armory | Glock | Beretta
