Assisted openers a felony in Connecticut!

tom19176 said:
When someone calls a guy "my buddy" twice, I can only assume you include me. Your qoute:

"That's just great. Your buddy took someone's knife away because he has his own interpretation of the law. The guy who owned it probably paid good money for it and now where is it? Your buddy's pocket?"

I consider that an attack on the guy writing. You did not say "an officer" you made it his "buddy" , and Chris clearly stated he differed from that officer's view. My guess is that perhaps as a supervisor, Chris may have become aware of the knife while signing off on a properly filled out property voucher for the knife, and not while seeing the nice new knife in his "buddy's" pocket....
Click to expand...

Buddy, shmuddy.. it was just a "legal" shakedown.
 
hey there now. if a peace officer takes one of my blades and does not document it . thats a good thing. he could have been a hump and locked up the guy before he could see a magistrate. now he not only lost his knife now hes got a record....i tend to carry cheaper knives for this reasoning..the good ones stay home..........personally speaking the cop did him a huge favor..or he really could have been a big ball breaker..imho

fried
 
Last edited:
friedporkchop said:
hey there now. if a peace officer takes one of my blades and does not document it . thats a good thing. he could have been a hump and locked up the guy before he could see a magistrate. now he not only lost his knife now hes got a record....i tend to carry cheaper knives for this reasoning..the good ones stay home..........personally speaking the cop did him a huge favor..or he really could have been a big ball breaker..imho

fried
Click to expand...

That's like thanking someone that beat you up for no reason for not raping you as well.

The knife was legal and these things shouldn't be left up to one officer's interpretation of the law.

He probably didn't arrest the guy cause he knew that his new found trophy was legal to begin with.
 
friedporkchop said:
hey there now. if a peace officer takes one of my blades and does not document it . thats a good thing. he could have been a hump and locked up the guy before he could see a magistrate. now he not only lost his knife now hes got a record....i tend to carry cheaper knives for this reasoning..the good ones stay home..........personally speaking the cop did him a huge favor..or he really could have been a big ball breaker..imho

fried
Click to expand...

Yea.. I dont agree with this at all. Why are you willing to compromise on your legal rights?
 
because its true..make a decision. lose the knife ..or .. bond out of jail a go through 16 months of hell, true i see where you guys are coming from but thats the way it was ,has,and allways will be. some leo,s are cool other are not so cool...example. it was 1979 i was riding down in florida, i had a joint in my mouth , a bottle of jack daniels and three half naked chicks in the car. i almost crapped my pants when that state trooper pulled me over.
question. thats not pot i see is it?
answer. no sir
question. i know i dont see no wiskey bottle half drank up?
answer. no sir
question. and i know you havent been messing around lost lake today ?
answer no sir.
statement. now heres what i want you to do ,get the f home and dont let me see you for the rest of the day or tonight drag racing down krome avenue.

yes sir

that was a cool police. i dont think today would have worked out that way. they all aint bad....some are douches but some are very cool.
 
It is well thought out educated responses like this that make me think twice about sharing information on this site:

"Buddy, shmuddy.. it was just a "legal" shakedown. "

The officer decides to not arrest someone giving them a life long record, but does his sworn duty by removing what he believes to be an illegal weapon, and legally vouches it as such, but that is not the correct thing to do? If you can't restraint yourself to having an intelligent conversation about what the law is and how it is applied, then please keep your comments in the whine and cheese section, so the rest of us can try to better understand the legal issues of our hobby in this section.
 
tom19176 said:
It is well thought out educated responses like this that make me think twice about sharing information on this site:

"Buddy, shmuddy.. it was just a "legal" shakedown. "

The officer decides to not arrest someone giving them a life long record, but does his sworn duty by removing what he believes to be an illegal weapon, and legally vouches it as such, but that is not the correct thing to do? If you can't restraint yourself to having an intelligent conversation about what the law is and how it is applied, then please keep your comments in the whine and cheese section, so the rest of us can try to better understand the legal issues of our hobby in this section.
Click to expand...

thats what i was trying to interject but it didnt work out the way i thought it would.i agree with^^^tom:thumbup:
 
Last edited:
Brennanscott said:
That's just great. Your buddy took someone's knife away because he has his own interpretation of the law. The guy who owned it probably paid good money for it and now where is it? Your buddy's pocket?
Click to expand...

Don't make a fool of yourself! The knife is currently in an Evidence Locker. Obviously, it would be a larceny if the Officer kept the knife for himself. He would get arrested for the offense. Knowing that, it would be insane for him to risk his career and jail for a lousy pocket knife with a broken tip. The Officer did not and would not steal anything. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you kept your ignorant libel to yourself.

I found out about the knife when I saw the Officer entering it into evidence.

As for whether or not it was proper to seize the knife, as I indicated in my previous post, the state law is not clear either way. I could order the Officer to return the knife, but his interpretation of the law could just as well be the correct one. That's why I'm trying to get an opinion from the State's Attorney. However, no matter what his opinion is, it would only apply to the towns in our Judicial Area (there are apparently twenty GAs, even though they are numbered up to 23).

By the way, the only reason this guy got stopped in the first place was that he met up with a local drug dealer we were watching. Presumably he was intending to make a buy. The dealer got arrested for possession before the guy with the knife was able to complete his transaction. We could not prove the knife guy was tryng to buy drugs (although he met up with the dealer, whom he claimed not to know, in the middle of the night, etc.), so he was eventually sent on his way.

----------------------

PS: I started answering the jack@$$' first post without reading through the rest. If I had, I wouldn't have even bothered trying to answer him. He is obviously has a chip on his shoulder and is ignorant by choice, so no logic is going to reach him. Therefore, I shall not respond to any of his other posts.

Tom, thanks for covering my back. :thumbup:
 
Last edited:
love4steel said:
so many of our laws are grey and confusing..
we had a guy here in connecticut recently get arrested because his t shirt was not covering his firearm and a woman called it in.. he was arrested for breach of peace even tho he had a license to carry:confused: He ended up going to court and suing the town and police force who took his firearm and won the case! the court had to admit that nowhere in the laws for the state of CT does it say your weapon must be concealed. however, if i were to not conceal and walk down the street i would have trouble by the police because they are not properly informed of the laws!
Click to expand...

There were at least two cases, one in Glastonbury and one in Wallingford. In the Glastonbury case, I am under the impression that the court declined to prosecute. As for the civil suit, the Officers were granted summary judgment, which essentially means the court decided that the plaintiff had no case against them. I believe the Wallingford case is still pending.

The problem is that State law allows concealed carry with a permit. However, it is silent on whether people can carry openly with a permit. To try to force a court decision, the people involved are intentionally getting themselves arrested. They are going into public places with their guns visible or obvious, knowing that sheeple will panic and call the Police. If they get arrested, it's for Breach of Peace or Disorderly Conduct, which they they then contest and sue over.

I believe that the people are correct in their assertion that the law allows them to openly carry. My Department has been told not to arrest them, unless they do something to deliberately provoke a panic (like waiving the gun around). Ultimately, the legislature will probably have to make a decision and clarify the law.
 
some times they just aint no cotton picking sense to answer a question with intellegence..............because we got a hundred gallon, of sweet red wine, made from the sweetest watermelon on the vine!......help yourself to some..........but....obey the law

"ifn you drink dont drive do the watermelon crawl............
joey
 
Chris Meyer said:
There were at least two cases, one in Glastonbury and one in Wallingford. In the Glastonbury case, I am under the impression that the court declined to prosecute. As for the civil suit, the Officers were granted summary judgment, which essentially means the court decided that the plaintiff had no case against them. I believe the Wallingford case is still pending.

The problem is that State law allows concealed carry with a permit. However, it is silent on whether people can carry openly with a permit. To try to force a court decision, the people involved are intentionally getting themselves arrested. They are going into public places with their guns visible or obvious, knowing that sheeple will panic and call the Police. If they get arrested, it's for Breach of Peace or Disorderly Conduct, which they they then contest and sue over.

I believe that the people are correct in their assertion that the law allows them to openly carry. My Department has been told not to arrest them, unless they do something to deliberately provoke a panic (like waiving the gun around). Ultimately, the legislature will probably have to make a decision and clarify the law.
Click to expand...

Chris-
I was referring to the Wallingford case. And I would never walk around carrying openly myself because its looking for trouble .. I was just using it as an example of certain laws being grey to both the officers and civilians. Thanks for chiming in. :thumbup:
 
Well, I just started carrying a $500+ knife. Not an AO but there is this question about how long the blade is depending on where you measure it from so I guess I'll be lucky if some cop judges it to be illegal, takes it away but doesn't arrest me.

Guess that's how we gotta roll in our free country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top