Fredericksburg ManArrested for Pointing Finger at Cops

Post by **OakRidgeStars** » Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:54:00

It's deja vu, all over again

http://vagunforum.net/general-discussio ... t6967.html

Reverenddel · Post by **Reverenddel** » Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:26:22

I gotta finger for these bullies with badges... and a shark in a nice suit of a lawyer as well.

TacticalTedcom · Post by **TacticalTedcom** » Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:34:53

If the police are intemidated by a finger, they need to get a different job!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Post by **OakRidgeStars** » Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:38:06

Maybe the cops see it as a gateway gesture. Today a finger, tomorrow two fingers?.

grumpyMSG · Post by **grumpyMSG** » Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:55:12

Even the Canadians are doing it:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/153728664700 ... p=obinsite

meak99 · Post by **meak99** » Fri, 30 Mar 2012 20:40:58

http://blogs.fredericksburg.com/newsdes ... -with-son/

If he simply pointed his finger like nomal people point, no problem, shouldn't have been arrested. But, if he really held it up representing the act of shooting a gun, I would find that to be threatening, especially since he reportedly was angered with the cops since his son has been in some trouble with the law as well.

Not sure what bearing the last statement in the blog has. If my child was on trial for something I didn't agree with or didn't think they did, I would be mouthing silently and shaking my head as well.

Newgunguy · Post by **Newgunguy** » Sat, 31 Mar 2012 00:02:05

Damn!! I thought the NAZI's were bad here in mass. Just think about how many videos are on youtube of people video taping pigs and you see them point at the person to tell them to stop. Well luckily you guys are able to get NFA items there, might be time to use them soon.

scott9050 · Post by **scott9050** » Mon, 02 Apr 2012 08:00:27

Next they will be arresting Proctologists.

Kreutz · Post by **Kreutz** » Mon, 02 Apr 2012 10:15:11

marked8 wrote:Next they will be arresting Proctologists.

Pure win.

dorminWS · Post by **dorminWS** » Mon, 02 Apr 2012 10:55:51

Does sound kinda chicken%#!@, doesn’t it?.

But think about it this way: What was the content of the non-verbal communication constituted by the gesture? If it had been the middle finger, the content would have been reasonably interpreted to be "F^&X YOU!". That, while offensive, is probably protected speech under most circumstances. But what if the gesture used was intended and could reasonably be interpreted as “I’m going to shoot you”? Pretty clearly, that sentiment, expressed verbally to a LEO while engaged in the performance of his duty does constitute assault. And if you are tempted to say that if the LEO was intimidated by a mere gesture he should get another job, think for just a minute about whether it is ever prudent these days for a LEO to disregard a VERBAL statement of the sentiment “I’m going to kill you”.

The problem is, what if the guy intended to express “you ought to be shot” (a mere opinion, you might argue), or “straighten your @ss out - you’re being a bad boy” (I’ve pointed many times in exactly that manner to express exactly that notion to children and grandchildren myself) or just “aaah shoot!” (a harmless exclamation of frustration)? Nonverbal communication is always subjective and context-dependent, and frequently capable of being vague and subject to misinterpretation. When you use it, you open yourself up to being misunderstood. You also lay yourself open to having someone maliciously assign an unintended meaning to said nonverbal communication in order to justify arresting you or just to discredit you.

So here you have (I guess) a LEO’s subjective interpretation of nonverbal communication vs. the communicator’s professed intent. To what extent or whether either or both of them are being honest about it is anybody’s guess. I don’t know what rules and standards apply to this situation (or care enough to find out), but if it’s what a “reasonable man” would think, that appeals to my sense of irony because it occurs to me that it could well be that neither the officer nor the offender was being or intended to be reasonable at the time. This kinda crap is what happens when both sides push things too far. Just goes to show one more time that when you interact with a policeman in the performance of his duties, it never pays to engage in gratuitous communication.

Reverenddel · Post by **Reverenddel** » Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:19:24

You know what? Freedom of Speech until intent becomes clear.

Simple enough. Until there is reasonable actions to warrant a "dangerous" finger? Be the bigger man, and just walk away.

jim100 · Post by **jim100** » Mon, 02 Apr 2012 16:39:37

@Dormin

I don't think that the guy should have pointed the finger at the cop thats just stupid(if he really did). However if he really was going to shoot the cop then he would have just done it, no pointing, no chitchat, just BANG.

For example I have been to abortion clinics to protest the murder going on there and believe me when I say that people will say all types of nasty and evil things against you. From giving you the bird to saying "I'll break your neck little man" to " I hope you daughter gets raped and preagnant" we even had one woman pull out a real gun yes thats right a real gun, unloaded thankfully, point it at one of our elderly church members and go "bang bang bang". Now what do you think happened when we called in that woman? I'll tell you what happened, nothing, she was told not to do it again and that was the end of it. So, in light of that what do you think the police would have done if we had called in those people who said those other things? So, despite all the verbal abuse and threatening gestures and even a real gun we were never physically harmed.

So even if this guy really did point his finger in a threatening manner they should have just left this guy to stew in his own juice. Because the vast majority of people are just talking through their ass.

EDIT. After looking over the video again it seems like the detectives may have been a bit chapped at him for saying "thats a lie" in the courtroom

dorminWS · Post by **dorminWS** » Mon, 02 Apr 2012 17:09:05

@Jim100:

As I said, I think both the cops and the accused got out of line. I was just pointing out that in my opinion, a policeman has every right to take any possible threat seriously at least so far as precautions go. After all, you only get one chance to ignore a threat to your life that turns out to be real. And I was discussing the interpretation of the content of the nonverbal expression hypothetically (and a little bit tongue-in-cheek) and as just one of the elements of the offense. I didn't say that, but I should have.

But don't forget that the crime "assault" is to cause someone to fear for their personal safety. It doesn't require a touching. If there is an unauthorized touching, then the offense of "battery" has been committed.

But I don't think the officers have a very good case against this guy. First, (as best I remember) the officers must establish they reasonably feared imminent harm or offensive touching. That might not pass the red-face test. Then, it must be established that the defendant INTENDED to assault them; because if I'm not mistaken, assault requires intent (or maybe reckless behavior would do it - I can't remember). And finally, it probably must be established that the defendant engaged in some conduct that was or was reasonably perceived as in furtherance of acting on the threat. Not sure about Virginia, but in many jurisdictions, mere language is not enough. I don't know if there's any Virginia precedent on this, but I have my doubts that a mere gesture with no words is enough. But then there is the ordeal that poor guy went through for pointing his finger out in Surry County; but I don't know the facts on that. I seems to remember that was a "swearing match" with the film evidence destroyed by the Commonweatlth's security contractor. So as I said before, it all boils down to what both the officer and the arrestee were really thinking at the time and whether they can convince a judge they ain't lying about it.

As ReverendDel said, it never should have happened. I think they were both stupid, and both the cop and the defendant deserve a good butt-kickin.

And, by the way, if some old gal pointed a real gun. even an unloaded one, at you and said she might just shoot you (or whatever), I think they should have throwed her @ss in the calaboose.

Reverenddel · Post by **Reverenddel** » Mon, 02 Apr 2012 17:26:19

"Then, it must be established that the defendant INTENDED to assault them; because if I'm not mistaken, assault requires intent "

BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER! I can say all day long "If ya' don't stop throwin' that ball against the house, I'm gonna kill ya'." but if there is not INTENT? There is no ASSAULT! Sure some jackwagon of a C/A could press, but again...

What was the intent? Be the bigger man, just walk away. I've dealt with bullies all my life, from all walks of life, and none of them impress me.

SHMIV · Post by **SHMIV** » Mon, 02 Apr 2012 19:06:33

Reverenddel wrote:
You know what? Freedom of Speech until intent becomes clear.

Yep.

Tweaker · Post by **Tweaker** » Fri, 06 Apr 2012 00:54:54

No update here?

Twice being coincidence. Or is it happenstance? Either way, this is BS!

Post by **allingeneral** » Fri, 06 Apr 2012 08:31:08

I guess this is the latest:

All charges below are against David Thomas Loveless and a hearing is scheduled for all charges on 05/08/2012 at 10:30AM in Fredericksburg General District Court.

Case #		Charge		
GC12002487-00 	FEL ASAULT PO C REYES (18.2-57)
GC12002489-00 	FEL ASAULT PO HUNNICUTT (18.2-57)
GC12002490-00 	OBSTRUCT JUSTICE THREAT/FORCE (18.2-460)
GC12002491-00 	OBSTRUCT JUSTICE THREAT/FORCE (18.2-460)

MNMGoneShooting · Post by **MNMGoneShooting** » Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:12:21

Funny, I know officer Hunnicut...

scrubber3 · Post by **scrubber3** » Fri, 06 Apr 2012 18:33:13

I am sure charges will be dropped, as any worthwhile lawyer will see to that. Only the arrest will still will go on his record and can be seen anytime a background check is done on him. Shame on him if he did it, but at the same time, you'd think the police would have better things to do...

Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF