Current events, goings-on in Delaware and anything else of interest here.
 #108026  by GatorDude
 
The question of what is "concealed" for purposes of carrying a firearm without a CCDW permit in violation of Delaware law is far from clear. It's quite murky and muddy actually.

I did want to share a case with you folks that I had read a while back that intrigued me greatly. While this case concerns a "dangerous instrument" (a knife or cutter), it would seemingly be applicable to "deadly weapon" as well Anyway, pay close attention to what the court says about the knife NOT being concealed and why. You will find this on pages 5-6. Feel free to read the entire case as well (quite interesting if you ask me).

Now, please, do not think that I am suggesting that every court will follow what this judge did in this case. Accordingly, do not think that I am telling you to partially conceal your firearm, etc. IAAL but I am not expressing any opinion, only putting this out there for thought and discussions.

http://law.justia.com/cases/delaware/co ... 11583.html
 #108027  by pick_six
 
many interesting things in that case. i am NOT a lawyer.

good for witnesses.

interesting use of authority by the police. in the face of witnesses, to still have an attempt to prosecute. "metzner grew annoyed... chest/badge in face of defendant". gotta be honest about what the officer was attempting to do. provoke? and if the defendant turned or didn't notice the officer advancing, there would probably have been an assault on an officer charge too.

if something is seen that a reasonable person could figure out something is weapon, then is it concealed? that is part of what i've heard before. reasonable person being able to see. maybe being that metzner was annoyed, he wasn't reasonable?

without a good lawyer and money to afford same, mr modica, what would have happened?

i don't know if the cpl in this case should be considered to have made a mistake? or as a bad cop? or if the defendant and friends organized testimony? and maybe the cpl was right?

for both sides, a bodycam would have been interesting. aside from the obvious, cost of operation, it makes me wonder why more places don't use then? several of the places that have studied them report that it reduces conflict, by both sides, when all parties know they are being recorded. had the officer been wearing one, it would have proved beyond a shadow, the facts of the case. one way or the other.

hypothetical, gun example: what if you go to some place, say ommenlanden. maybe you have a gym bag?Range bag? say basic black in color, no markings. inside the bag you have pistol(s) and ammo, and an officer sees you stick the pistols in the bag when leaving. are you busted? maybe not because at a range, maybe a bag being toted around, should be assumed to be carrying a gun. common sense maybe? what about when you get home, exit your vehicle and walk toward your house? maybe you ran the stop sign at the top of your neighborhood. but you got our, grabbed your bag, and started walking to your house as the officer pulled up.

as a side note, this video, from NJ is one of those that shows some benefits, and limitations of cameras. good that the 2nd rolled in because the first had a limited view, and allowed the skewing based on POV. The 2nd camera view is the interesting one. don't know if you've see this before. the videos, especially when the front view synchs with the rear view, and audio.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/p ... -1.1701763

yeah, more questions then answers...
 #108028  by GatorDude
 
I am of the opinion that the main driving force in this case was that the police officer was a complete jackass. And the judge knew it. Note that the judge used to be the head of the Dept of Corrections as well (so he's likely a pretty big fan of law enforcement).