Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Armchair Jedges ! The court is now in session - Whatcha think of this one?


http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/gun-a ... 00407.html

Holding my opinion 'til the rest of y'all rule...

Let's hope this happens.

Hawes said after court that the case should force changes in Virginia law dealing with brandishing a firearm. The law too easily allows someone unreasonably fearful over a weapon’s presence in public to argue that the weapon represents a threat, he said.

As for the guy loading a firearm at a stop light?

sounds to me like the coach over-reacted.....he stated that, "(Corry), glared at him through Corry’s side-view mirror and demonstrably held the weapon in sight, inserted the magazine and then pointed the weapon upward." .....so evidently the coach was watching Corry through the side-view mirror (why) and upwards is generally considered a safe direction, if Corry meant to be menacing he would have pointed it at the mirror, or the coach.

That coach needs to be smacked about the head repetitively and aggressively with a rusty sledgehammer hammer. Same goes for the judge and the prosecutor.

While I see no problem with loading your gun in the privacy of your own vehicle, I do have to wonder why it wasn't already loaded to begin with.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

First off, the weapon should have already been loaded.

Second, you don't fiddle with a firearm in a flow of traffic BECAUSE of idiots like the coach.

Third, The coach was a pansyazzed wus. Really? you FELT threatened? Did he say anything? Did he CHASE you? Did he point a gun at you DIRECTLY!?!

Fourth, It would be nice to have the brandishing laws reduced for these such matters.

The coach needs to ne bitch-slapped and put on Midol therapy.

The guy with the pistol is at least guilty of very poor judgment in gunhandling. Furthermore, I have to wonder, given his history and the improbability of the story, whether he did in fact try to intimidate the pansy-assed coach. Probably impossible to tell unless you were there and eyeballed the witnesses.

If I'd been the judge, I'd probably have administered a world-class azzchewing and then put him on notice that the next cross-eyed look he gave somebody while holding a gun would loose him his CHP AND land his azz in jail. But I wouldn't have busted the guy based upon the histrionics of the coach/wuss. In fact, I might have given the coach/wuss a stern lecture about abuse of process.

darn it. The mere presence of a weapon does not equal brandishing. Because someone feels afraid is not a reason to deprive a man of his constitutional rights.

The camera in his car shows he did not threaten ANYONE so how can he be accountable for another persons hysteria. How ridiculous is this! We need better laws to keep stupid stuff like this from happening. A person being scared does not mean a criminal action occurred.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

mamabearCali wrote:darn it. The mere presence of a weapon does not equal brandishing. Because someone feels afraid is not a reason to deprive a man of his constitutional rights.

The camera in his car shows he did not threaten ANYONE so how can he be accountable for another persons hysteria. How ridiculous is this! We need better laws to keep stupid stuff like this from happening. A person being scared does not mean a criminal action occurred.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Come to think of it, the article indicates the video from the camera was played for the court, so apparently it did nothing to mitigate this guy's conduct; so it seems likely that whatever he did was not clearly non-belligerent. Either that, or the judge was an absolute anti-gun putz. But that's why I said I wouldn't have convicted the guy; subjective fear and/or an ambivalent situation should not support a conviction - it must have been reasonable.

I would suppose that if that video was incriminating in any actual way, his attorney would have buried it, as opposed to presenting it as evidence to a court of law.

I'm going to go with "the judge was an absolute anti gun putz."

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Most people, including those who are on juries are just not that stupid, and can apply the law. Therefore, I have to believe one of three things happened:

1. He did appear to be menacing.

2. The jury was misinformed on the laws.

3. The jury was misinformed on the proper application of the laws.

#2 and #3 would be the lawyer's fault.

#1 means they did the right thing.