I love Utah politics

[Commando]

The officer consulted an on-call prosecutor in the Utah County Attorney's Office and determined no crime had occurred, writing in the report that "Robertson had been exercising his 2nd amendment rights, albeit a little recklessly."

So the second amendment gives the right to use guns recklessly?
. What. The. Hell.

lol and this is a person trained in the law? Is he committing a crime or not? That has nothing to do with the 'right to bear arms.' How about we don't leave it to cops to make Constitutional assessments on the job-- with or without access to an 'on-call prosecutor.'

[Bo Diddley]

Utah County Attorney's office has a really interesting interpretation of the brandishing statute. https://www.ksl.com/article/50711472...er-shot-by-fbi

Because it is a misdemeanor though, it would not have taken aways his guns except for the one he brandished at the time. Not saying that it would have prevented him being taken out by the FBI, but it seems to go back to the addage that we don't need new gun laws, just enforcement of current ones. The on call attorney should have had him hooked up to cool his heals even if they determined to decline charges later on.

76-10-506. Threatening with or using dangerous weapon in fight or quarrel.

(1)

As used in this section: (a) "Dangerous weapon" means an item that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. The following factors shall be used in determining whether an item, object, or thing is a dangerous weapon: (i) the character of the instrument, object, or thing; (ii) the character of the wound produced, if any; and (iii) the manner in which the instrument, object, or thing was exhibited or used. (b) "Threatening manner" does not include: (i) the possession of a dangerous weapon, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior which is threatening; or (ii) informing another of the actor's possession of a deadly weapon to prevent what the actor reasonably perceives as a possible use of unlawful force by the other and the actor is not engaged in any activity described in Subsection 76-2-402(3)(a).

I'm guessing the Utah County on-call Attorney must have been applying the bolded section to this situation. Or perhaps they felt that he was justified under the Defense of Habitation:

76-2-405. Force in defense of habitation.

(1)

A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his habitation; however, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if: (a) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence; or (b) he reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation and that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

(2)

The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony.

lol and this is a person trained in the law? Is he committing a crime or not? That has nothing to do with the 'right to bear arms.' How about we don't leave it to cops to make Constitutional assessments on the job-- with or without access to an 'on-call prosecutor.'

Cops have to make Constitutional assessments all the time in their job. I'm sure you don't want them to violate Constitutional rights. But they often lack the ability to write well, which is why you find his report awkwardly worded.

To the bolded part, it must have been a gray enough area that he felt the need to consult higher. It's routine to consult with your chain of command when you run into something you're not sure about. But this is the first time I've heard of an on-call attorney weighing in.

[Commando]

I'm guessing the Utah County on-call Attorney must have been applying the bolded section to this situation. Or perhaps they felt that he was justified under the Defense of Habitation:





Cops have to make Constitutional assessments all the time in their job. I'm sure you don't want them to violate Constitutional rights. But they often lack the ability to write well, which is why you find his report awkwardly worded.

To the bolded part, it must have been a gray enough area that he felt the need to consult higher. It's routine to consult with your chain of command when you run into something you're not sure about. But this is the first time I've heard of an on-call attorney weighing in.

I'm not sure cops do make constitutional assessments. Not effectively, anyway-- they violate the Constitution nonstop when they deviate even a little from their standard procedure-- that's why a lot of cops dislike lawyers and complain about their suspects 'getting off on technicalities.' Technicalities' usually means Constitutional rights. I think that ought to be the focus of their law enforcement-- to enforce laws according to their training-- even if they don't understand the purpose of it. I do like that they had an attorney on the red phone to give them a quick assessment. Law enforcement could use more of that imo. I would feel safer as a citizen if I knew police were careful and measured like this as they performed their important duties.

Now this case? Brandishing a weapon is definitely a crime, even though a person has the right to own a gun. So to me, the expression 'reckless exercise of the 2nd Amendment' is nonsense. He was reckless with his right to bear arms? Oh you mean he committed a gun crime?? I think he is just giving the guy a pass out of sympathy or something. Sure prosecutorial discretion is a thing, and I would accept that as the reason there was no arrest made. Pretending there was no crime committed is silly.

[Bo Diddley]

I'm not sure cops do make constitutional assessments. Not effectively, anyway-- they violate the Constitution nonstop when they deviate even a little from their standard procedure-- that's why a lot of cops dislike lawyers and complain about their suspects 'getting off on technicalities.' Technicalities' usually means Constitutional rights. I think that ought to be the focus of their law enforcement-- to enforce laws according to their training-- even if they don't understand the purpose of it. I do like that they had an attorney on the red phone to give them a quick assessment. Law enforcement could use more of that imo. I would feel safer as a citizen if I knew police were careful and measured like this as they performed their important duties.

Now this case? Brandishing a weapon is definitely a crime, even though a person has the right to own a gun. So to me, the expression 'reckless exercise of the 2nd Amendment' is nonsense. He was reckless with his right to bear arms? Oh you mean he committed a gun crime?? I think he is just giving the guy a pass out of sympathy or something. Sure prosecutorial discretion is a thing, and I would accept that as the reason there was no arrest made. Pretending there was no crime committed is silly.

It's been decades since I went through the Academy, but we spent a lot of time talking about the Constitution--mainly on the Amendments--and case law. So much time on case law and what it means. It was some of the most interesting part of the training to me. It stands as the basis for policing. I know there are plenty of bad apples that color outside the lines, but most do the right thing.

Of course the expression 'reckless exercise...' is nonsense. But I'm sure he didn't intend to use the word reckless in the legal sense. In fact, where the opinion of the attorney guided any charges, opining any further was just dumb. But I'm sure he didn't understand how dumb it was when he wrote it.

[Copelius]

It's been decades since I went through the Academy, but we spent a lot of time talking about the Constitution--mainly on the Amendments--and case law. So much time on case law and what it means. It was some of the most interesting part of the training to me. It stands as the basis for policing. I know there are plenty of bad apples that color outside the lines, but most do the right thing.

Of course the expression 'reckless exercise...' is nonsense. But I'm sure he didn't intend to use the word reckless in the legal sense. In fact, where the opinion of the attorney guided any charges, opining any further was just dumb. But I'm sure he didn't understand how dumb it was when he wrote it.

This miss was definitely not on the police officer, but the on call county attorney. It is laughable how different this is from the SLC Police approach to brandishing. I defended a case in which a guy was charged for just having his jacket slip open when he was arguing with his neighbor (he had a conceal permit). I finally talked some sense into the prosecutor but he seemed almost beholden to the judgment of the citing officer.

[Bo Diddley]

This miss was definitely not on the police officer, but the on call county attorney. It is laughable how different this is from the SLC Police approach to brandishing. I defended a case in which a guy was charged for just having his jacket slip open when he was arguing with his neighbor (he had a conceal permit). I finally talked some sense into the prosecutor but he seemed almost beholden to the judgment of the citing officer.

Well that's just nuts.

[smokymountainrain]

This miss was definitely not on the police officer, but the on call county attorney. It is laughable how different this is from the SLC Police approach to brandishing. I defended a case in which a guy was charged for just having his jacket slip open when he was arguing with his neighbor (he had a conceal permit). I finally talked some sense into the prosecutor but he seemed almost beholden to the judgment of the citing officer.

i'll be honest, i sorta side with the prosecution on this one. if you are carrying and you start get into even the slightest heated argument - tell your neighbor you will be back in a minute, go put your gun in your gun safe, come back and finish the argument. i'm only partly kidding - for two reasons: 1) did his jacket really just "slip open" or was it one of those "accidentally on purpose" sort of things? and 2) what if the argument escalates and turns physical? if that happens there is a good chance somebody dies.

bottom line, i think back to zimmerman and martin. if you have a gun on your person, if at all possible, you avoid every confrontation, big or little at all costs.

[Bo Diddley]

i'll be honest, i sorta side with the prosecution on this one. if you are carrying and you start get into even the slightest heated argument - tell your neighbor you will be back in a minute, go put your gun in your gun safe, come back and finish the argument. i'm only partly kidding - for two reasons: 1) did his jacket really just "slip open" or was it one of those "accidentally on purpose" sort of things? and 2) what if the argument escalates and turns physical? if that happens there is a good chance somebody dies.

bottom line, i think back to zimmerman and martin. if you have a gun on your person, if at all possible, you avoid every confrontation, big or little at all costs.

This.

[USUC]

This is a bit surprising.

Embedded Tweet

[falafel]

This is a bit surprising.

Embedded Tweet

That IS surprising. I'm betting its because Agent Orange isn't in office anymore and so they can't be upset about Romney disagreeing with him over petty things like the Constitution.

[USUC]

Welp. Is there a quality candidate available for 2024?

Embedded Tweet

[falafel]

Ouch. Sucks for Utah, and for the Republican party, and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! DON'T DO IT MITT!!

[Northwestcoug]

Whoa is he going to slide into a 2024 presidential run? I know he said he's going to be a senator until 2025, but hey, he wouldn't be the first senator/governor to bolt for a higher office.

[USUC]

Whoa is he going to slide into a 2024 presidential run? I know he said he's going to be a senator until 2025, but hey, he wouldn't be the first senator/governor to bolt for a higher office.

His speech specifically mentioned it's time for younger politicians to take the place of Trump and Biden. He won't run for the presidency. Does Gov Cox have any interest in the vacancy?

[MartyFunkhouser]

Welp. Is there a quality candidate available for 2024?

Embedded Tweet

I fear we end up with Sean Reyes or Trent Staggs.