Judge: Norfolk gun law OK, but not request for private info

No, I would be happy if the LEO's (and the former ones) would get off of their holier than thou high horse and be police officers and obey the law that is written like everyone else, rather than be some hotshot with an ego the size of The Grand Canyon. I have lost respect for law enforcement because of attitudes like yours. You LEO's (and former LEO's) think the rest of society can't think for themselves or should have the right to protect themselves. I have no beef with the National Guard. At least not yet. Those officers of the NPD and The Sheriff's department in the Szymecki case have proven themselves unfit to serve in law enforcement and should be fired immediately. You know I'm right and you can't make a case that I am wrong.

if there were no police, city state or federal & no military or national guard. Just let Joe Schmoes carry any type of guns he wishes. Let a bunch of them protect the nation, & leave all responsibility for public safety in their hands. Let them be the paramedics & firemen & women. The constitution doesn't mention them. So, you shouldn't want or need their help either. Your world, if you could ever have it, would scare a reasonable person.

OK twomiler2, so what IF Colorado HAD laws as to the enforcement of restraining orders? Then what? Her kids are still dead. What would have the difference been if it had been an intruder? It wouldn't matter anyway. No LEO or city would be held liable there or anywhere else. A restraining order isn't worth the paper it's written on whether city, state, or federal. Contrary to your formerly LEO belief, if a person wants to kill you, it makes no difference to them what SCOTUS or any court has said. Tell ya what. If civilians can't carry guns, then neither can LEO's, former LEO's, judges, prosecutors, or the feds. That way, no one will have them and everybody will be safe. And I will sell you the HRBT for one dollar.

only in Colorado. That's the only place to which that ruling applied. Period. You can't dance around that fact. Martial arts are used for self-defence. Guns are used to kill.

Twomiler.. the point is that SCOTUS has in all reality said that police do not have the responsiblilty or are held liable to any person to protect them from criminals, preditors, or the like. Yet Police will arrest and charge an individual if he/she has to use deadly to defend his/herself, their families, or their property. Unless of course you are a LEO. In those circumstanses you would be released on your own recognizance while a civilian would be locked up. It isn't right. That's my argument.
Gertz, the agenda from what I can see is that she wanted evidence that her husband was being arrested for NOT breaking the law. It would appear that if one is innocent (these days) one has to prove it. Read her complaint. He was perfectly within his his rights that day and did nothing to violate the law. He just violated the ego of a few LEO's and was made a poster boy for it. That is my humble opinion.

you left out, in your info on the Gonzales case, that Colorado, at that time, didn't have state laws as to enforcement of restraining orders. As you are aware, city, county & state police are separate entities. If that situation occurred in a state with laws as to enforcement of restraining orders, the judgement of the court wouldn't have been the same. If the restraining order had been issued by a federal court, there wouldn't be any questions as to enforcement. Sometimes, events occur that makes local & state officials reexamine their policies on varying subjects. You're the 1 who wrote to me that it was irrelevant to use policies other states in these posts. I guess it not so for you.

I swore I would not get back into this debate, but what was the agenda of the Ms's filming the arrst of her husband?

Google Szymecki v. City of Norfolk & Szymecki v. Houch. Read the complaints. Mrs. Szymecki sued Sherriff's Deputy Ashley Houch for threatening her with jail if she filmed her husbands arrest with her cell phone. I would call that harrassment. Would she have arrested a news reporter?

U. S. Supreme Court No. 04-278
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection even in the presence of a restraining order.
By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband.

In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

Proof enough?

don't know where some get the inane idea that police officers, who are by definition public servants, have no responsibility to protect that public. Wacko ideas such as these reinforce the reality of the unfitness of the holder.

I'm not going to get back into this debate, but I'd like to know how that man and his wife were harrassed by the police. Details please!

And some of you former LEO's think that you are holier than thou and that only you have should have the right to use force to defend yourself whereas the rest of us might have a nice funeral, but thank goodness we didn't accidently shoot a plain clothes officer. Then he shouldn't be in plain clothes. LEO's can't be everywhere, have no responsibility to protect the public, and suffer no consequences for failing to do so. The Supreme Court said so. What happens when you leave the friendly family event at Harborfest with your wife and kids and they are assulted, maimed, or killed in the parking garage? Should the CA charge you with child abuse and spousal abuse? Spare me this rubbish sir. The life of a LEO, judge, or prosecutor is worth no more or no less than John Q. Public on the street. You sit in judgement of me or Mr. Szmecki just because we are civilians and you don't have the slightest idea about what training or qualifications we have had. Forget praying for me sir. Pray for yourself.

of you feel police officers doing their job is harassment. Too bad. I'm finished with this. If 1 of you so insistent upon your right to carry at family events is unfortunate enough to unknowingly shoot a plainclothes officer, while thinking you're "helping out"; I will pray for you. Your attitudes illustrate your unfitness to carry a weapon, period.

Fair enough.

It is senseless to continue this discussion, and I assure you I am totally aware of my feelings. As I've said before, you are not going to change my mind and I am not going to change yours. Any additional comments will be to yourself, not me.

Well twomiler, again you are giving the impression that because you were a LEO that you were only one allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself while it could be "tough cheese" for everyone else. Gee sir, going to a McDonalds or a shopping mall with your family is usually a safe place. The fact is that sir this is life and his reasons are worth no more or no less than the life of a LEO. Your remark about child abuse is absurd sir and we don't live in "other states" so that is irrelevant.
Gertz, this man WAS harrassed and so was his wife. I stand by my previous comments and that NPD over reacted and those officers should have been FIRED. You need to get in touch with your feelings. You need not have no fear of me. The ones you should fear are the ones you don't know who are packing and are out to do you and your kids harm. It appears to me that you are the insecure one who can't admit to your children about the rights of free citizens to protect themselves. I remember now that you are a democrat, so you need govenment to do everything for you.

I grew up in Yorktown and most of my family is still there, and that man would have never pulled such a stunt like that there. The police did not harrass him, not being certain, he was arrestecd, and then released. The next City Council meeting over 100 people showed up carrying guns. The meeting was delay while police were called in. It was all a stunt and that's what this guy wanted to bring attention to open carry gun laws. Open carried guns are no longer allowed at City Hall where the meeting was. To put it bluntly, so many people have been offended by this man because of his actions, you WILL see laws governing when and where you can carry change. I'm also retired, and a woman I am not so afraid to go out in public I need to carry a gun. You sir, and others like you, I will continue to say are deeply insecure. I can't imagine what harrassment you kids must get when other kids see their father looking like a mob member. Stay away from me and my family! You SCARE me!

for your concern Keith. It does matter that the gentleman came from Yorktown to a family event in Norfolk, carrying a weapon. If he has such fear,to feel the need to wear a weapon, to any family event, he should probably stay at home. The only reason I carried, while "off-duty", is the fact we were never actually off duty. That's why I also carried my shield & ID, at all times. I, personally, would never have taken my family to an event, I felt so dangerous that I needed to carry, for their safety. To me, that would be child abuse. Part of police work is to ensure safety of all attending public events. This guy would have been stopped in many states for his actions, & arrested.

First, I have no reason to go to Yorktown for anything. Second, what difference does it make whether or not he meant to prove a point? How do you "know" if he went there to prove a point? Regardless of why he did it, he was legally right to do it. The Norfolk Police were harassing him because they don't like it that he has that right to open carry. They feel that they are the only ones with integrity and reason. As for being insecure, you "assume" that anyone who carries openly (or probably concealed for that matter) is looking for a fight. It is not true. Criminals don't care about gun laws if they are going to commit a crime. Just the same, I am not planning to end up like the delivery driver with the chinese food. If I am going to die, it will be fighting back rather than blatant execution. Twomiler2, you are perfectly within your rights to carry or not to carry, fear not no one, and be retired at the same time. I hope nothing happens to the "shell of your being" sir.

watching you walk around with an open carry gun. NOT!