JerryM
Member
Is it legal to possess firearms at UF?
Jerry
Jerry
UF student arrested because someone got scared at the sight of a gun
- Thread starter Zen21Tao
- Start date
- Status
Zen21Tao
Member
No... UF is a "gun free" zone.
As for others comments about the state of FL and its LEOs turning liberal, the state itself is by far very conservative. However, UF is a bastion of liberals. In fact, Alachua county is referred to as the "little blue island in a sea of red." Again, this is due to the strong liberal presence at UF. many (if not most) of these liberal students and professors at UF are from other states and have never in their seen a real gun. There are also a great many liberal tree huggers here that would "exaggerate" their actual fear at seeing a gun just to express their views and to further the anti-gun agenda.
Also, keep in mind that the student was arrested by UF police not the local Gainesville police. With the exception of two egotistical ass-clowns too arrogant to be in the same room with, all the local officers I have encountered have been great. In fact, I worked closely with the president of the local Frat. Order of Police when he ran for county commissioner. I also worked on the campaigns of the former sheriff and the current local state attorney. The local police are far from the authoritative totalitarians you find in most liberal states.
With that said, I do believe that the UF police overreacted and that this case will be thrown out. I also believe the UF police should be sued over this to send a message that they are not free to throw around charges like this that they know won't stick.
** P.S. Congratulations CWhitt on your graduation. I just received my first Masters degree last Thursday.
Crunker1337
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,168
He OBVIOUSLY neither assaulted anyone nor had an intent to assault anyone. This is all due to paranoia from V Tech; notice that this student was Asian (I'm assuming he is since his last name is Young)
That's cute. So could I put a local cop under citizen's arrest for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without intent to kill for wielding a gun then? I'm coming home from the gym one night on the phone, walking down the alley to the door closest to my unit. Out of the construction site next door comes a gun, then an arm, then a beefy guy in a flannel. "Call you right back" and I hang up my phone, opting to hang onto the Sig in my bag instead. "Everything okay?" "Yeah, have you seen a guy x tall wearing y?" Turns out the guy was a plainclothes, but all I saw was a gun, no badge, and his radio was under the flannel. I almost offered to join the posse, but I wasn't sure how carry would be viewed so close to a campus. Not ten minutes later two other uniformed officers run by my window guns drawn. Still, if the presentation of anything looking like a weapon without positive identification as being "the man" constitutes a valid assault arrest now, why aren't these guys paying bills for my emotional damage? Not really - to risk sounding bravado, I wasn't even phased, I was actually pretty glad that my heartrate didn't hiccup when we had Officer Flannel leading gun first and pointing his Glock in my vicinity. Finger was off the trigger at least but muzzle discretion left something to be desired.
Trebor, the devil is in the details
"intentional, unlawful threat"
The location of the comma in that sentence structure makes unlawful a descriptor of the type of threat. A wide variety of words could be put in there, physical, verbal, realistic, whatever
Lets set the type of threat aside for a moment.
You then have the sentence reading "intentional threat"
Then it is clear that having a pelletgun in your pocket by itself is not enough to be an intentional threat, or at least that is what this reasonable juror would say.
"intentional, unlawful threat"
The location of the comma in that sentence structure makes unlawful a descriptor of the type of threat. A wide variety of words could be put in there, physical, verbal, realistic, whatever
Lets set the type of threat aside for a moment.
You then have the sentence reading "intentional threat"
Then it is clear that having a pelletgun in your pocket by itself is not enough to be an intentional threat, or at least that is what this reasonable juror would say.
That would be the A answer if this were a law school exam as well. The word "intentional" effectively means having the intent to perform that particular act and carrying through on said act. It isn't something one does negligently or inadvertently.
feedthehogs
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
Welcome to insane world of the law.
Where a campaign contribution to a Judge will buy you perverted justice and where anyone with no proof of anything can have someone charged and arrested.
I would much rather have the justice system of a third world country.
Where money will buy you any kind of justice you desire.
Where a campaign contribution to a Judge will buy you perverted justice and where anyone with no proof of anything can have someone charged and arrested.
I would much rather have the justice system of a third world country.
Where money will buy you any kind of justice you desire.
Outlaw Man
Member
This will set an alarming precident if it is upheld.
I hope the jury laughs the prosecution out of the courtroom.
I hope the jury laughs the prosecution out of the courtroom.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked