Actually he said that he wasn't.merciful wrote:Fortunately for the OP, he was indeed carrying his knife home from work, where he uses it.
-Not taking a side, just trying to keep the facts straight in this very winding thread.GarageBoy wrote:"...I say, it's a tool, I work at the Army Navy store (which I do, but I didn't go today) ...
Might have been a good thing to say at the time (possibly). However, I'm sure the cop wrote down all the details related to the event. Walking into court months after the fact and saying, "I was on my way home from a picnic" might get him into bigger trouble... Depending on the report the cop wrote.merciful wrote:Good thing he was on his way home from his picnic lunch, though.
flyguy wrote:Might have been a good thing to say at the time (possibly). However, I'm sure the cop wrote down all the details related to the event. Walking into court months after the fact and saying, "I was on my way home from a picnic" might get him into bigger trouble... Depending on the report the cop wrote.
Outside of either contacting the DA's office prior to the date and/or contacting a lawyer, I think the original poster is best to take the honesty approach.
Actually, I do have an idea what the officers 'felt.' Let me choose a bigger word. The officers 'determined' that there was a violation. I can back this up: The officers seized the knife and issued a summons. Police action is not always popular. I, and most of my colleagues understand this. If I 'feel' that there is probable cause to believe that a violation has been committed, then I have enforcement options within the limits of the law. Believe it or not, police are reflective of the community they serve. As do we all, some officers have strong feelings about certain violations- Just as you or I may have strong feelings about say... Broccoli.Xplo wrote:No, we have no idea what the officers felt. We only know what the OP said they did.
The law is actually quite specific. Notwithstanding that, people on this very forum disagree on what constitutes a gravity knife. My conclusion after reading the relevant NYC code is that it need not be a gravity knife in order to be a violation. YMMV. If the speed limit sign says "35 mph" and the car's speed is 60 mph, 'there's your violation.' It's a go/no-go situation.Xplo wrote:Knowing this, you should be more careful about throwing around phrases like "there's your violation". If the law is not clear, then one can not be said to clearly break it.
I guess I'm a little simple minded. You skipped over the whole middle part where after leaving his house, and before returning to it, there was an encounter with police]Most people here consider it wrong to be deprived of their possessions by threat of force, yes.[/QUOTE]Xplo wrote:The OP left his house with it and came back without it. What part do you need explained?
This post contains so much erroneous information that I don't even know where to start.guntotin_fool wrote:Fozzy, your state has LAWS against the Constitution of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and you work to enforce those laws.
I was born in Massachusetts. I used to own property on the Cape and in the berkshires, I sold it all, WHY? because as a land owner and tax payer I was DENIED my Civil Rights by the State.
I can not travel conveniently in the State because I am forced to give up my arms, even though I have never committed a crime and never been arrested. I used to drive from my current home to visit cousins in Massachusetts and then drive up to Maine to go hunting. To do so now, I risk a 5 year automatic jail term for carrying my guns.
Your State routinely violates Article IV, section 1 of the US Constitution. Which states "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect there of."
In other words, MY state grants me the right to drive a car, exercise my marital rights and the RIGHT to carry a firearm. All legal and Constitutional, your state Denies me that right.
I have dealt with NYC and will never go there again, MY professional Association voted last year to stay away from NY and Mass and a few others as they have decided they are above the Constitution of the United States of America.
I do not post on here a lot, but when I read stuff defending police state activities, unreasonable searches, and seizures of property without compensation or cause, I get really annoyed at the pontificating that goes on to justify it.
Your state was started on the basis of freedom from an unreasonable Government. You have far surpassed the levels that led to the first Revolution.
How convenient for you. Having a government mandate to commit crimes must make it easy to sleep at night. It's almost like you're a good guy!Fozzy wrote:You describe a robbery. I see it as a person being deprived of alleged contraband by the executive branch of the government based upon an allegation of a crime.
It's not irrelevant at all. The only reason a lot of people don't tell you guys to go **** yourselves boils down to threat of force. If a guy with half a dozen weapons and a hundred similarly-armed friends decided to stop you on the street, harass you, search you, handcuff you, rob you, etc, maybe you'd understand WHY the public doesn't always appreciate you.If by "...threat of force." you are refering to the threat of an in-custody arrest, that's really irrelevant.
More like, if you're in NYC, get the **** out, and pray you don't get stopped by some sanctimonious thug on the way.If you're in NYC, keep your knife out of sight!
You're on the right path, Garage. In my experience, speaking to an attorney helps you relax and refocus, because (1) you know you've done your "due diligence" to help yourself, and (2) you now have someone who's on your side--if you're lucky, like I've been, someone smart and tenacious. People who have never been in a scrape probably don't understand this. Sorry to say, I do. No, I don't want to talk about it, but that's why I keep checking in with ya, urging you to contact an attorney. You'll be OK, Garage. Just get it past you. You'd be amazed how many of us have had to "lawyer up" at some point in our lives. It'll be a small, small thing in your rear view mirror soon enough.GarageBoy wrote:Okay guys, I think this has strayed a bit far from the original problem at hand. Imma contact a lawyer or something and try to settle myself anxiety wise
You're right, This has little to do with your original problem.GarageBoy wrote:Okay guys, I think this has strayed a bit far from the original problem at hand. Imma contact a lawyer or something and try to settle myself anxiety wise
Exactly: he did nothing that is morally wrong. Walking around with a knife in one's pocket isn't harmful to anyone's person or property. But now we're getting into issues of malum prohibitum v. malum in se (picked those up from my man G. Gordon Liddy when I lived in VA in the 90s]Will[/I] from here). Laws aren't based purely on what's morally wrong, unfortunately, and the police don't choose to enforce only the laws that fit their morality. Maybe most NYC cops think it's OK to have a knife, but are under pressure to bust those who have them, based on some ridiculous directive from on-high.Xplo wrote:
The OP did nothing wrong. I'm not going to argue that with you, because it's a fact.
True enough.. but I don't believe that acting under orders necessarily absolves someone of their responsibility to make moral choices.merciful wrote:Laws aren't based purely on what's morally wrong, unfortunately, and the police don't choose to enforce only the laws that fit their morality. Maybe most NYC cops think it's OK to have a knife, but are under pressure to bust those who have them, based on some ridiculous directive from on-high.
Absolutely. Otherwise, we end up with an "ordnungen sind ordnungen" situation, and we all know how that turns out.Xplo wrote:True enough.. but I don't believe that acting under orders necessarily absolves someone of their responsibility to make moral choices.
LMfreakin'AO!!!!!Xplo wrote:How convenient for you. Having a government mandate to commit crimes must make it easy to sleep at night. It's almost like you're a good guy!
