Sheriff who released gun-charge suspect from jail, found Not Guilty

[Little-Acorn]

An interesting case.

Some months ago, a guy was arrested by a sheriff's deputy in Florida for carrying a concealed gun without a permit. When the Sheriff found out, he went down to the jail and released the guy, saying that the 2nd amendment made it illegal to arrest anybody just for not having the right piece of paper.

The Sheriff maintained that simply owning and carrying a gun could not possibly be a crime, if you haven't actually done anything illegal with it. Basically the Sheriff nullified Florida's so-called gun-control laws, stating that they were superseded by the 2nd amendment.

That Sheriff was subsequently arrested for official misconduct, and for a more minor charge of destroying jail records.

His trial was this week, and a jury found him Not Guilty of all charges, almost immediately. The verdict came out today.

It's interesting because the jury decided the Sheriff was correct to nullify Florida's so-called "gun control" laws. They found that the 2nd amendment actually DID supersede state and county laws. They also found him Not Guilty of destroying jail records, a more minor charge.

This case has jurisdiction only in that immediate area, and will not affect the entire country. That could only happen if it is brought all the way up to the Supreme Court. Count on the gun-rights-haters to bury it as deeply as possible, and never let it see the light of day after today.

Can you imagine the impact if all Sheriffs (often the highest law-enforcement office in any state) decided that the 2nd amendment actually means what it says, and refused to enforce charges of "carrying without a proper permit" etc. Then the Feds would have to sue individual sheriffs for every case, and prove that local laws supersede Constitutional amendments!

----------------------------------------------------

http://www.wtxl.com/news/local/jury-finds-liberty-co-sheriff-nick-finch-not-guilty/article_26546cb2-4249-11e3-a874-0019bb30f31a.html

Liberty County Sheriff Nick Finch found not guilty; immediately reinstated into office

Posted: Thursday, October 31, 2013 12:26 pm | Updated: 3:46 pm, Thu Oct 31, 2013.

BRISTOL, Fla. (AP) — Former Liberty County Sheriff Nick Finch has been immediately reinstated into office by Governor Rick Scott.

The announcement was made Thursday afternoon, just hours after an eight-person found Finch not guilty of charges of official misconduct and falsifying public records.

The eight-person jury handed down the non guilty verdict shortly after noon on Thursday, October 31.

Finch was arrested in June of this year by agents with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and later suspended by Governor Rick Scott.

The charges filed against Finch stemmed from the arrest earlier in the year of Floyd Eugene Parrish. He was arrested by a deputy for carrying a concealed weapon. Finch reportedly released Parrish from jail. Prosecutors say they believe Finch then destroyed jail documents pertaining to Parrish's arrest.

Finch has all along maintained that he had done nothing wrong and releasing Parrish only in an act to protect a citizen's second amendment rights.

[revelarts]

Great News!

we talked about this when it happened
here (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?41241-FL-Sheriff-arrested-for-upholding-the-2nd)
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?41241-FL-Sheriff-arrested-for-upholding-the-2nd

Thank God for good Juries.

Sheriffs are the highest law enforcement officials but Juries are the Highest .. well Juries have a lot of power. more power than "DA LAW" and most judges.
that's some good news Acorn

[fj1200]

It's interesting because the jury decided the Sheriff was correct to nullify Florida's so-called "gun control" laws. They found that the 2nd amendment actually DID supersede state and county laws. They also found him Not Guilty of destroying jail records, a more minor charge.

Interesting. Did they find him not guilty based on the law or was it simply jury nullification?

[SassyLady]

Interesting. Did they find him not guilty based on the law or was it simply jury nullification?

Does it really matter? Some times doing the right thing is harder than doing things right.

[fj1200]

Does it really matter? Some times doing the right thing is harder than doing things right.

Yes it does matter. Did he truly break no law or did 8? jurors simply decide to ignore the evidence based on their opinion. I have no problem with either but how can the State of FL "fix" the problem if they don't know what's wrong with the law?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yes it does matter. Did he truly break no law or did 8? jurors simply decide to ignore the evidence based on their opinion. I have no problem with either but how can the State of FL "fix" the problem if they don't know what's wrong with the law? GASP! You mean a law is no automatically a perfect creation!! Quick send a memo to the blathering boy wonder and let him know. He claims his multi-thousand page healthcare monstrosity with its 37,000+ pages of regulations is perfect and its we who are defective and ff'ed up! :poke:-Tyr

[Gaffer]

Yes it does matter. Did he truly break no law or did 8? jurors simply decide to ignore the evidence based on their opinion. I have no problem with either but how can the State of FL "fix" the problem if they don't know what's wrong with the law?

I'm not familiar with FL law, but it seem the second charge was based on the first charge, and since he was not guilty of the first charge, the second charge can't apply.

[fj1200]

I'm not familiar with FL law, but it seem the second charge was based on the first charge, and since he was not guilty of the first charge, the second charge can't apply.

Could be though the article said they were decided separately. :dunno: I'm more concerned about what powers that they may have inadvertently given to the local po-po to make field decisions. It's hard to get the whole story on stuff like this.


Prosecutors say suspended Liberty County Sheriff Nick Finch tried to orchestrate a cover-up in order to hide his decision to intervene in a gun case in this small rural county.But during opening statements on Tuesday an attorney for Finch said that the state had little proof that Finch destroyed or altered public records connected to the case.
Finch was first elected in November 2012 and is on trial for official misconduct and falsifying public records.
Finch has said he believes in 2nd Amendment gun rights and freed Floyd Eugene Parrish after one of his deputies arrested Parrish for carrying a gun without a concealed weapons permit.
On the witness stand today, Parrish said about Finch, "he basically let me know that I needed to get a permit if I was gonna carry the guns."
Parrish was also asked about the arrest, which happened after a traffic stop.
"I kept telling him I was no felon," said Parrish, "but he said yes I was a felon."
http://www.wtxl.com/news/local/trial-continues-for-suspended-liberty-county-sheriff/article_854a6a28-40e1-11e3-8e7e-0019bb30f31a.html

It's one thing for the State to have failed to make its case, that's why we have trials, but it's another if the jury just decided to nullify. :shrug:

[Little-Acorn]

Co I'm more concerned about what powers that they may have inadvertently given to the local po-po to make field decisions.

Oh, my God! You mean the police might have to decide that a state or local law that violates a Constitutional requirement, violates a Constitutional requirement???

What's the world coming to? :salute:

[fj1200]

Oh, my God! You mean the police might have to decide that a state or local law that violates a Constitutional requirement, violates a Constitutional requirement???

What's the world coming to? :salute:

That's not what I was referring to in that particular sentence but anyway... In which Constitutional clause, or even State law, is the local sheriff granted the authority to make decisions on Constitutional requirements?

[Little-Acorn]

That's not what I was referring to in that particular sentence but anyway... In which Constitutional clause, or even State law, is the local sheriff granted the authority to make decisions on Constitutional requirements?

Is this a new liberal law?

The Constitution must now call out every duty of every law enforcement official in the country, all the way down to state and local levels?

Or is it merely another example of a liberal shucking and jiving, trying to invent non-sequitors to divert attention from the fact that Florida's law violated the Constitution... and somebody caught them?

[fj1200]

Is this a new liberal law?

The Constitution must now call out every duty of every law enforcement official in the country, all the way down to state and local levels?

Or is it merely another example of a liberal shucking and jiving, trying to invent non-sequitors to divert attention from the fact that Florida's law violated the Constitution... and somebody caught them?

WTF are you talking about? Has the law been challenged and thrown out VIA SCOTUS? Do you disagree with the Sheriff having the responsibility of following FL law? Does the Sheriff just get to say, "boo," and declare what is and is not Constitutional?

[Gaffer]

I suspect the sheriff was protecting the individual here by keeping his arrest record clean. even though he was not prosecuted it would still be classified as an arrest and could affect employment or make him subject to Internet searches by background investigators or nosy neighbors.

I believe removing such records would be the sheriff's call as it's his dept and the officer works for him. Nothing criminal about that.

[aboutime]

I suspect the sheriff was protecting the individual here by keeping his arrest record clean. even though he was not prosecuted it would still be classified as an arrest and could affect employment or make him subject to Internet searches by background investigators or nosy neighbors.

I believe removing such records would be the sheriff's call as it's his dept and the officer works for him. Nothing criminal about that.


Gaffer. There is only ONE positive way, or method to handle this. Whenever anyone makes such claims about someone they dislike, disagree with, or decide NOT to obey if they represent any branch of law enforcement.
And that method is...LIBERALLY Speaking, of course. Is to ask them to Point to the sentence, paragraph, or amendment that states anything about POLITICAL CORRECTNESS in the constitution.

If they cannot find such a mention of PC. It has to be a Liberal, Democrat tactic they have been instructed to always use...instead of alluding to HONESTY.

[revelarts]

That's not what I was referring to in that particular sentence but anyway... In which Constitutional clause, or even State law, is the local sheriff granted the authority to make decisions on Constitutional requirements?
WTF are you talking about? Has the law been challenged and thrown out VIA SCOTUS? Do you disagree with the Sheriff having the responsibility of following FL law? Does the Sheriff just get to say, "boo," and declare what is and is not Constitutional?FJ you probably didn't mean it the way i'm taking it, but i'm going to run with this answer....

There's nothing in the Constitution about paperwork or keeping records on criminals period.
that's 1

2. YES OF COURSE the sheriff ....and the mayor and the state congressmen and the airmen, soldier, sailor & marine. ALL have an individual responsibility to apply the constitution to the best of their understanding in the course of their duties and work within it's limited authority.
Every time a cop makes a stop he should have determined that he's acting constitutionally.

If ,as in this case, they are called on an action, they have to go to court and deal with the conclusions , RIGHT or WRONG.
the SCOTUS has reversed itself on several occasions on various issues. so were it might come down on some issues is up in the air.
but the 2nd amendment ... so far... is still understood federally to mean people have the right to bear arms.
so YES "the local sheriff's granted the authority to make decisions on Constitutional requirements"

PLUS the Constitution restricts what the gov't does. If the gov't representative releases a person, the constitution has nothing to say on that issue. Theres nothing about HAVING too throw the book at someone or having to follow the full letter of the law.
there's no ANTI-MERCY clause. Many Presidents and congressmen should have gone to jail but it's not UNconstitutional NOT to impeach or NOT to bring charges or to pardon.
as frustrating as it may be at times.

But i hope every sheriff and cop applies the constitution with a their honest judgment.

Sheriff Taylor making decisions on Constitutional requirements

<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/3I8HJPFCkew?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

[fj1200]

FJ you probably didn't mean it the way i'm taking it, but i'm going to run with this answer....

There's nothing in the Constitution about paperwork or keeping records on criminals period.
that's 1

2. YES OF COURSE the sheriff ....and the mayor and the state congressmen and the airmen, soldier, sailor & marine. ALL have an individual responsibility to apply the constitution to the best of their understanding it in the course of their duties and work within it limited authority.
Every time a cop makes a stop he should have determined that he's acting constitutionally.

If ,as in this case, they are called on an action, they have to go to court and deal with the conclusions , RIGHT or WRONG.
the SCOTUS has reversed itself on several occasions on various issues. so were it might come down on some issues is up in the air.
but the 2nd amendment ... so far... is still understood federally to mean people have the right to bear arms.
so YES "the local sheriff's granted the authority to make decisions on Constitutional requirements"

PLUS the Constitution restrist what the gov't does. If the gov't representative releases a person, the constitution has nothing to say on that issue. Theres nothing about HAVING too throw the book at someone or having to follow the full letter of the law.
there's no ANTI-MERCY clause. Many Presidents and congressmen should have gone to jail but it's not UNconstitutional NOT to impeach or NOT to bring charges or to pardon.
as frustrating as it may be at times.

But i hope every sheriff and cop applies the constitution with a their honest judgment.

So would it be your contention that the only Constitutional method of recordkeeping would be on... papyrus? done with ink and blotter? Whatever they had in the 18th century? Come on Rev.

I can't believe that you are willing to give carte blanche authority to any governmental line worker to decide Constitutionality. Hey, we all like it when 2A is given some backing but at some point their responsibility is to the laws of their state. If it's been decided that the guy needs a CCW if he's going to carry then why can the Sheriff countermand that? Besides, my main point is that if you're willing to grant this guy the ability to decide Constitutionality then you're signing away any indignation when someone else decides Constitutionality opposite to your preference. And in this case the LEO was interpreting his role in one manner and the Sheriff was interpreting it in another.