ABC Reporter arrested after having CCW onto school premise

[scout26]

Librarian,

Excellent summary, but you missed one other point.

No one else who was using the sidewalk was asked/ordered/"lawfully ordered" to move to the other side of the street. The officer could not articulate what offense/crime/municipal code the reporter was committing/violating, (probably because he wasn't in violation/committing a crime by being there.)

I see a big civil suit and settlement coming....

Since I'm not licenced to practice law in the state of FL, I won't comment on Florida law regarding school property, CCW laws, etc. Other then to note that the "Safe Schools Act" was declared unconsitituional by the USSC. However, a new law was passed that corrected those mistakes.

 

[shield20]

For those still interested...

If you read the trespass statute - it looks like it is up to the principal to "complain" about a person who is loitering/trespassing in a safe school zone - if he has reason to believe that person is going to commit a crime or harrass students. I severaly doubt the intent was to keep newsman off of public property.

(c) Any person who does not have legitimate business in the school safety zone or any other authorization, license, or invitation to enter or remain in the school safety zone who shall willfully fail to remove himself or herself from the school safety zone after the principal or designee, having a reasonable belief that he or she will commit a crime or is engaged in harassment or intimidation of students entering or leaving school property, requests him or her to leave the school safety zone commits a misdemeanor of the second degree

Of course this has nothing to do with a legally carried pistol vs "school facility" - that still goes back to what the sidewalk is - public property or school grounds.

 

[Car Knocker]

but CCW holders are exempt.

Only if the CCW application process includes a background check.

 

[canopy2k]

Saw a new video on another forum. http://mfile.akamai.com/12918/wmv/vod.ibsys.com/2007/1024/14417233.200k.asx

4 things stuck out to me.

1. Ed Torren (the PIO) is now saying it was illegal to be on the sidewalk. He was the guy that was called and told the news staff that it WAS legal.

2. The school board police are now accusing him of breaking another law. He did not have his weapon properly secured in a holster. He was using Thunderwear or Smart Carry (Im not sure which, they show a photo in the video). I guess they make up laws now, too. I've never heard of FL law requiring a specific holster, or any holster at all.

3. The videographer is pressing charges against the big officer for assault. You can see in the video several times where the officer hit/pushed the camera.

4. The news station is apparently considering firing Weinseir for carrying a gun.

c2k

 

[carebear]

c) Any person who does not have legitimate business in the school safety zone or any other authorization, license, or invitation to enter or remain in the school safety zone who shall willfully fail to remove himself or herself from the school safety zone after the principal or designee, having a reasonable belief that he or she will commit a crime or is engaged in harassment or intimidation of students entering or leaving school property, requests him or her to leave the school safety zone commits a misdemeanor of the second degree

Is the key part. The principal can go pound sand if it is in fact "legitimate business" to shoot a news story within the "school safety zone".

If filming a news story is "legitimate business", no trespassing charge based on the "School Safety Zone" can stick.

If he was legally entitled to be on the public sidewalk than the officer's orders to leave are also unlawful and thus the "resisting" and any other "trespassing" charge gets thrown out, in fact "unlawful arrest" comes into play.

If neither the trespassing nor the resisting are in fact legitimate charges than the search incident to arrest is an unlawful search, and should be dealt with punitively, not just with dsimissal of the evidence.

 

[scout26]

If you read the trespass statute - it looks like it is up to the principal to "complain" about a person who is loitering/trespassing in a safe school zone - if he has reason to believe that person is going to commit a crime or harrass students.

Last I checked the Constitution, reporting the news on public property (the sidewalk) is not a crime. The gun was "found" ex post facto of the arrest, and was not the cause.

I severaly doubt the intent was to keep newsman off of public property.

Then what was his intent ??? What "crime" did he think/believe that the reporter and his cameraman were about to commit ??? Once again the officer has to be able to articulate what crime/violation you have committed when he places you under arrest. and "Because I said so. or Don't like what you're doing." is not valid. Officers enforce the Law, they don't get to make it up as they go along. That's why they have radio's, computer in squad cars, etc. to check with Supervisor's, Desk Sergeants, etc. to get clarification/confirmation as to what's legal and what the law states.

FOIA requests for radio calls/computer messages etc. need to be filed to find you who said and approved what.

 

[Warren]

I just e-mailed the general manager demanding they not fire the reporter and instead discard the "no guns" rule.

I'll post any response I get.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Last I checked the Constitution, reporting the news on public property (the sidewalk) is not a crime. The gun was "found" ex post facto of the arrest, and was not the cause.

Last I checked the Constitution, it stipulated no specific behaviors as crimes, although it did identify treason, bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors by these four names. So by similar logic, last time I checked the Constitution, wire fraud, domestic abuse, prostitution, and auto theft were not crimes.

The point here is that citing the Constitution for what is or is not a crime is not exactly the proper source document for the task.

 

[Regolith]

The point here is that citing the Constitution for what is or is not a crime is not exactly the proper source document for the task.

True, but the statute that allows the principal and the police to remove someone from the area starts with "Any person who does not have legitimate business..."

Somehow, I doubt that reporting a news story isn't covered under "legitimate business."

 

[bogie]

Actually, this is something that a few THOUSAND folks need to hit...

Has anyone worked a comprehensive e-mail/phone list?

Guys, we've got a LOT of folks here... If we branch out to TFL, arfcom, glocktalk and a few others, we can do darn near a million...

Time for a concerted e-mail campaign.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

True, but the statute that allows the principal and the police to remove someone from the area starts with "Any person who does not have legitimate business..."

Somehow, I doubt that reporting a news story isn't covered under "legitimate business."

I never said differently.

I just e-mailed the general manager demanding they not fire the reporter and instead discard the "no guns" rule.

I'll post any response I get.

Just curious Warren, what justification did you use for not firing an employee who broke the rules? What leverage do you have as a non-viewer located some 3000 miles away such that they would take your demands seriously?

 

[Warren]

Just curious Warren, what justification did you use for not firing an employee who broke the rules? What leverage do you have as a non-viewer located some 3000 miles away such that they would take your demands seriously?

I pointed out the rule was wrong-headed and that they should change it. I'm aware *I* have no leverage, I'm hoping to be just one drop in a flood of protests they get that will get them to reconsider.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Okay, why is the rule "wrong-headed"? I agree with you, but simply want to know what sort of argument you are using with a company that obviously isn't pro-gun, at least not in relation to its employees. This is a huge sticking point when it comes to trying to convince a person or group of an opposing view that their view isn't appropriate. They aren't going to flinch just because you say it is wrong. They think it is right.

Maybe if I stated it this way and we reversed the roles...If you were a manager and anti-gunners wrote you about how wrong your allowing guns at work policy was, what would it take to be convinced that the policy was bad?

Obviously, you would think the people writing to you are idiots who have no business interfering with how you conduct your business. So I am curious as to how you justified the rule was wrong.

 

[Warren]

I did not write them a thesis on gun rights, I pointed out that their policy is likely due to liability concerns.

If they allow guns and there is an incident they could be out a lot of money, whereas if they don't allow guns and someone who otherwise would be armed and could defend themselves is hurt or killed on the job that is not going to cost the company much, if anything.

So I pointed out that the odds of a CCW/lawful gun owner causing an incident is much to low to for there to be a no gun policy, and for the safety of their employees they should change it.

Maybe not the most convincing argument, sure but again I'm hoping not to be the only one. I'm hoping for a deluge of comments. Anticipating this I kept mine short and punchy and just scolding enough to get airse out of them and maybe get them to think about their policy.

----

If I had a company that allowed firearms in the workplace, there is no argument at all that an anti could use to change my mind. I've heard what they have to say and reject it all as utter garbage.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

In many (read: most) parts of the country your warranty deed will establish a right-of-way or easement for public use (i.e. the sidewalk and alley). You own it, but the city mandates that the public have access to it, having ordinances or municipal regulations to that effect.

Mr. Johnson, you may be correct about Lubbock, TX, and what you write may even be correct for most or even all of Texas. However, I do not think you are actually licensed in all 50 states nor knowledgeable enough about the laws in the other 49 states to make the statement that "in most parts of the country" the sidewalk is a public right-of-way across private property. I believe you are extrapolating, and as has been pointed out, it doesn't matter if what you write is correct for 100% of Texas, or even for 100% of 49 states. It matters only whether the sidewalk in front of this particular school is school property, or public property.

I no longer live in Texas and I don't make any claims to know the real estate laws in Texas. I live in another state and I DO know how the laws work here, and I say again that your concept of how it works is not the case for at least 95 percent of this state.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally Posted by Brad Johnson
In many (read: most) parts of the country your warranty deed will establish a right-of-way or easement for public use (i.e. the sidewalk and alley). You own it, but the city mandates that the public have access to it, having ordinances or municipal regulations to that effect.

Mr. Johnson, you may be correct about Lubbock, TX, and what you write may even be correct for most or even all of Texas. However, I do not think you are actually licensed in all 50 states nor knowledgeable enough about the laws in the other 49 states to make the statement that "in most parts of the country" the sidewalk is a public right-of-way across private property. I believe you are extrapolating, and as has been pointed out, it doesn't matter if what you write is correct for 100% of Texas, or even for 100% of 49 states. It matters only whether the sidewalk in front of this particular school is school property, or public property.

I no longer live in Texas and I don't make any claims to know the real estate laws in Texas. I live in another state and I DO know how the laws work here, and I say again that your concept of how it works is not the case for at least 95 percent of this state.

I never claimed to know all the laws. All I said was that in much of the country right-of-way for sidewalks and alleys is established by an easment in the Deed of Trust. So they don't work that way in your state or city. Okay. Getting all worked up over it is a waste of your time.

I no longer live in Texas and I don't make any claims to know the real estate laws in Texas. I live in another state and I DO know how the laws work here, and I say again that your concept of how it works is not the case for at least 95 percent of this state.

Okay, and..? Again, never said to know exactly how it works in your case, just that right-of-way and easement issues tend have a general trend.

It might interest you to know that real estate laws tend to be relatively uniform across states. Are they exactly the same? No. There will always be differences here and there, but the gross concept is usually the same.

Brad

 

[jon_in_wv]

I would say he has a STRONG argument the the sidewalk was public property and not school property BUT if it was legally school property he is probably screwed. Is it just me or does that place look like a prison? It really looks to me like they just didn't want the school used as a backdrop for negative press so they tried to kick him out of an area they might not have had the right to. I hope he has a good lawyer.

 

[lanternlad1]

Next time he should film from across the street.

 

[zxcvbob]

LL1, Do you see the incongruity between your last post and your .sig line?

Best regards,
Bob

--
"Oh, the ironing"

 

[Henry Bowman]

3. The videographer is pressing charges against the big officer for assault. You can see in the video several times where the officer hit/pushed the camera.

Good! Glad to hear it.

4. The news station is apparently considering firing Weinseir for carrying a gun.

Bad. The station maganger might feel differently if it was he who got death threats and had to work out in the open all over the city.

 

[collector14]

incongruity - the quality of disagreeing; being unsuitable and inappropriate

 

[sig228]

Back on Topic



According to Sunday's (anti gun) Miami Herald reporter took a 2 week suspension and "apologized" for breaking company rules.
No word yet on whether the UN-warranted charges will be dropped.

 

[zxcvbob]

incongruity - the quality of disagreeing; being unsuitable and inappropriate

Would "inconsistency" have been a better choice?

Bob

 

[atk]

"incongruity" is just fine.

From dictionary.com:

dictionary.com, Based on Random House Unabridged dictionary
in·con·gru·i·ty /ˌɪnkənˈgruɪti, -kəŋ-/
1. the quality or condition of being incongruous.
2. something incongruous.


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
in·con·gru·i·ty (ĭn'kŏn-grōō'ĭ-tē)
1. Lack of congruence.
2. The state or quality of being incongruous.
3. Something incongruous.

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University
incongruity
noun
the quality of disagreeing; being unsuitable and inappropriate [ant: congruence]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc.
con·gru·ence
1. the quality or state of agreeing or corresponding.
2. Mathematics. a relation between two numbers indicating that the numbers give the same remainder when divided by some given number. Compare residue (def. 4b).


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
con·gru·ence
1.
1. Agreement, harmony, conformity, or correspondence.
2. An instance of this: "What an extraordinary congruence of genius and era" (Rita Rack).
3. The state of being congruent.
4. A statement that two quantities are congruent.
2. Mathematics
1. The state of being congruent.
2. A statement that two quantities are congruent.



WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
congruence

noun
the quality of agreeing; being suitable and appropriate [syn: congruity] [ant: incongruity]