Pelham Mass Chief: ‘Improperly stored arsenal’ described in trial

[Uzi2]

I stand corrected.
Still not part of the union, though.

Correct, but they have their own association which is basically the same thing, it just doesn't include rank and file officers.

 

[EJFudd]

I would assume the Glock handgun the warrant was for was located in an easy (non-attic) area of the house and probably discovered early in the search.

Question for the police and attorney types: When a search warrant is issued for a very specific item, and that item is found, does the authority for a continued search end or does the warrant allow the police to fish the entire pond even after their catch?

On the first point, remember that Fleury had his Glock carry piece with him when he was called down to the police station and then (surprise, surprise) was arrested. Chances are pretty good that the Glock he was carrying was, in fact, the Glock in question... although a second Glock pistol was found at Fleury's home, the latter one having a laser device attached (unlike the one confiscated at the police station).

On the second point, the search warrant was for the Glock and for any other evidence that might support the story told to police by Peter Teraspulsky regarding the alleged 2014 incident.

 

[EJFudd]

*******
If they convict him they're either stupid or total anti-gun moonbats.

Let's remember where this trial is taking place: Northampton, MA. 7 women and 5 men. Ugh.

Chances of a majority anti-2A jury makeup: 99.9%.

 

[amm5061]

Let's remember where this trial is taking place: Northampton, MA. 7 women and 5 men. Ugh.

Chances of a majority anti-2A jury makeup: 99.9%.

Hope his attorney at least weeded out the most violently hardcore moonbats during vetting.

 

[EJFudd]

Hope his attorney at least weeded out the most violently hardcore moonbats during vetting.

I think the only real hope is that the NoHo-ites on the jury are just as much anti-cop/anti-establishment as the are anti-gunowner.

The longer this deliberation goes on, the more I think there is going to be a split verdict... i.e., guilty on some of the 22 charges, not guilty on others. The balance really doesn't matter. All they need is one guilty verdict (of the 22) to put him in prison and take away his gun rights forever.

 

[Uzi2]

I think the only real hope is that the NoHo-ites on the jury are just as much anti-cop/anti-establishment as the are anti-gunowner.

The longer this deliberation goes on, the more I think there is going to be a split verdict... i.e., guilty on some of the 22 charges, not guilty on others. The balance really doesn't matter. All they need is one guilty verdict (of the 22) to put him in prison and take away his gun rights forever.

My gut tells me there is a Carl Drega brewing here.

 

[EJFudd]

Former Pelham Police Chief found guilty of 12 counts of improperly storing firearms

The verdict: Guilty times 12. Not good unless you hate this guy. Link

 

[Uzi2]

The verdict: Guilty times 12. Not good unless you hate this guy. Link

If they'll phuck a former police chief like that, just imagine what they'll do to the average knucklehead that they have it in for. So glad I'm out of that God forsaken police state.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I wonder if the three criteria mentioned in the article were created by the reporter or from the actual jury instructions. The "easy to break open" appears nowhere in the statute, and is ill-defined. Even some high quality lockboxes and trigger/cable locks are easily disabled by someone with minimum skill in in container breechment.

 

[Matt_SERE]

Third, a gun is also considered unsecured if it does not have an “engaged tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device” or if a locked container is easy to break open.

I would love to see the standard set forth for that. [sad2]

 

[EJFudd]

I wonder if the three criteria mentioned in the article were created by the reporter or from the actual jury instructions. The "easy to break open" appears nowhere in the statute, and is ill-defined. Even some high quality lockboxes and trigger/cable locks are easily disabled by someone with minimum skill in in container breechment.

Third, a gun is also considered unsecured if it does not have an “engaged tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device” or if a locked container is easy to break open.

I would love to see the standard set forth for that. [sad2]

Yeah, that kind of sticks out of the news article like a big sore thumb, doesn't it? Easy to break open by whom? A 10 year old kid or a 240 pound state cop on steroids with a crowbar?

This one sticks out for me too:

... or did not have it under their immediate control, which means a person was not “sufficiently near” the gun “to immediately prevent its unauthorized use.”

That is different than the wording of the law itself:

For purposes of this section, such weapon shall not be deemed stored or kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user.

The latter wording may have been further refined in case law to match the wording in the news article so it may be correct. The interesting thing is that the fully licensed wife, a lawfully authorized user if not owner of some, was alone in the house before the cops raided it... but that was apparently not enough to meet the requirement that she was under control of the guns.

It also begs the question: Why wasn't she charged with unsafe storage, alone or in addition to her husband?

 

[Len-2A Training]

If much of the info we read is true, he has very good grounds for an appeal and possible overturning the verdict.

 

[Uzi2]

Yeah, that kind of sticks out of the news article like a big sore thumb, doesn't it? Easy to break open by whom? A 10 year old kid or a 240 pound state cop on steroids with a crowbar?

This one sticks out for me too:

That is different than the wording of the law itself:

The latter wording may have been further refined in case law to match the wording in the news article so it may be correct. The interesting thing is that the fully licensed wife, a lawfully authorized user if not owner of some, was alone in the house before the cops raided it... but that was apparently not enough to meet the requirement that she was under control of the guns.

It also begs the question: Why wasn't she charged with unsafe storage, alone or in addition to her husband?

Because SHE wasn't who they wanted.....they wanted him.

 

[Lcstyle]

Govt police state criminal Gotcha games

 

[EJFudd]

Because SHE wasn't who they wanted.....they wanted him.

Bingo! We have a winner.

 

[browncoat]

The hell does easy to break into mean? More case law that sinks even below the actual law


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rob Boudrie]

There is some guidance as to what "secure storage" is in Commonwealth v. Reyes, however, that SJC decision does more to leave the matter undefined than it does to clear things up.

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/464/464mass245.html

 

[boilermaker]

If much of the info we read is true, he has very good grounds for an appeal and possible overturning the verdict.

Assuming he has any money left. His legal bills through all this must have drained most of his available funds.

 

[Reptile]

Assuming he has any money left. His legal bills through all this must have drained most of his available funds.

I wonder where all those guns are?

Can he sell them to fund his legal bills?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The multiple charges are a classic case of stacking the deck. The prosecution can either pile on numerous charges, or charge more severely in the case where an action may be charged at several different level (murder vs. manslaughter vs. criminal negligence). Doing so is a setup for a jury that is not unanimously certain of guilt to issue a "compromise verdict" - either convicting on only some of the charges, or on a less than maximum charge. Remember, it's an adversarial system and the state is out to win - not mete our justice.

 

[Uzi2]

The multiple charges are a classic case of stacking the deck. The prosecution can either pile on numerous charges, or charge more severely in the case where an action may be charged at several different level (murder vs. manslaughter vs. criminal negligence). Doing so is a setup for a jury that is not unanimously certain of guilt to issue a "compromise verdict" - either convicting on only some of the charges, or on a less than maximum charge. Remember, it's an adversarial system and the state is out to win - not mete our justice.

And that on its face is Corruption with a capital C.

 

[namedpipes]

Had they charged him with one count and lost they'd simply charge him for a different "violation". One of the others. And so on, dragging it or for decades. Technically a different crime.

 

[HARRYM]

The multiple charges are a classic case of stacking the deck. The prosecution can either pile on numerous charges, or charge more severely in the case where an action may be charged at several different level (murder vs. manslaughter vs. criminal negligence). Doing so is a setup for a jury that is not unanimously certain of guilt to issue a "compromise verdict" - either convicting on only some of the charges, or on a less than maximum charge. Remember, it's an adversarial system and the state is out to win - not mete our justice.

Look, this case was not about "Law" but about payback. I'll let you all debate whether or not it was about how he handled his business dealing or if its related to the 8 yr olds shooting death or even if this is a just way of using the courts to settle a score.

But be certain of one thing, this case had NOTHING to do with improper firearm storage.

 

[EJFudd]

The hell does easy to break into mean? More case law that sinks even below the actual law.

There is some guidance as to what "secure storage" is in Commonwealth v. Reyes, however, that SJC decision does more to leave the matter undefined than it does to clear things up.

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/464/464mass245.html

I think that after this dubious case, anyone relying on a "container" (including locked rooms, closets or attics) instead of a trigger lock on each and every gun they own had better think very carefully about the implications of the words: "or if a locked container is easy to break open."

 

[EJFudd]

The multiple charges are a classic case of stacking the deck. The prosecution can either pile on numerous charges, or charge more severely in the case where an action may be charged at several different level (murder vs. manslaughter vs. criminal negligence). Doing so is a setup for a jury that is not unanimously certain of guilt to issue a "compromise verdict" - either convicting on only some of the charges, or on a less than maximum charge. Remember, it's an adversarial system and the state is out to win - not mete our justice.

Exactly right. I knew he was screwed when it took over 20 minutes for the jury to decide his guilt or innocence. That meant they had pushed aside the "licensed wife was in house" defense and the "entrapment/dirty dealing/cop-created crime" defense and the "good faith effort at compliance" defense... and were going through each of the 22 guns one-by-one in order to come up with a "compromise" verdict. That one was okay... but this one here was not okay.

Let that be a lesson to us all, especially collectors. Even 99% compliance doesn't get you anything with laws like this. It's 100.00% perfect by-the-book compliance or you are in violation with some pretty onerous consequences. And start buying trigger locks unless you are 100.00% confident that your "containers" cannot be forced open by a 10 to 20 Massachusetts state cops.

 

[amm5061]

Exactly right. I knew he was screwed when it took over 20 minutes for the jury to decide his guilt or innocence. That meant they had pushed aside the "licensed wife was in house" defense and the "entrapment/dirty dealing/cop-created crime" defense and the "good faith effort at compliance" defense... and were going through each of the 22 guns one-by-one in order to come up with a "compromise" verdict. That one was okay... but this one here was not okay.

Let that be a lesson to us all, especially collectors. Even 99% compliance doesn't get you anything with laws like this. It's 100.00% perfect by-the-book compliance or you are in violation with some pretty onerous consequences. And start buying trigger locks unless you are 100.00% confident that your "containers" cannot be forced open by a 10 to 20 Massachusetts state cops.

Except the ****ing book doesn't tell you what 100% compliance is! Short of sticking your guns in a safe and then burying it under a couple tons of concrete, what the **** is considered secure? Good god I hope he can appeal this.

 

[browncoat]

Except the ****ing book doesn't tell you what 100% compliance is! Short of sticking your guns in a safe and then burying it under a couple tons of concrete, what the **** is considered secure? Good god I hope he can appeal this.

Yeah. This is an uncomfortable limbo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TomMontana]

Wow. The last 10 years must've been real tough on him. The kid accidentally killing himself with the uzi and all the lawsuits afterwards. Then this stuff. Awful all around.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

And that on its face is Corruption with a capital C.

And then some..

 

[Chevy 2 65]

What a circus ! Next we all need to lock up are car keys, lock up knives, bats, hammers, screwdrivers, etc...

cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.