This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
“possession of a weapon”?
Just take it as read that, in whatever state this is taking place, that kid’s sword is something you could potentially get arrested for. “Potentially” being the operative word.
You should really skim your own state’s penal law some time, and see what idiotic things you could get arrested merely for possessing. In New York, for example, the nunchucks kids mess with in their martial arts classes are just as illegal as a handgun. So are slingshots. People go to jail for assault with a deadly weapon for kicking someone while wearing sneakers.
I would imagine that this kid’s sword, like nunchuks and slingshots, was one of those things that police in his state ordinarily use some discretion about. But the detective was so pissed off that discretion went out the window.
…y’know, someday I want to see someone claim a claymore falls under the Second Amendment.
When NC passed its CCW law, I actually knew people who were bent out of shape because it didn’t cover swords…
The second amendment refers to the right to bear “arms,” not guns.
Claymores, claymore mines, tanks, helicopter gunships, F-18’s, and nuclear weapons are arms.
Luckily most judges are not willing to follow the literal meaning of the constitution.
kinda wish they would. also, it isn’t the f-18 or helicopter that is a weapon, it’s the bombs, missiles and main gun that are. that said, I want one!!
The literal meaning is that you have the right to bear weapons. That doesn’t necessarily mean *any* weapon you might be able to get a hold of is fair game.
I could imagine being arrested for possessing a sword.
But it seems pretty implausible that someone would be waving a real sword around while playing a tabletop game. It’s far more likely to be a toy or prop, no more likely to impale you than that wizard’s magic wand is to shoot a fireball.
I’m guessing that this particular part is going to lead up to what happens when the police, whether accidentally or on purpose, go to the wrong house on a warrant…
I would expect that would depend on whether the officers are in the wrong place, or the wrong place was listed on the warrant. In the former case, the evidence should all be inadmissible since they didn’t have a warrant for this house. In the latter case I guess the poor buggers are screwed, unless a warrant with typos is invalid.
And the next day, the newspapers will discuss about the MAJOR DRUG BUST IN SUBURBIA with four teenagers with DEADLY WEAPONS and SATANIC OCCULTIST PARAPHERNALIA.
Granted, I think that’s just my general cynicism of the media cultivated from being a Journalism major.
Gotta say, lighting up during a raid is gutsy…
Two things: I’ve really enjoyed this series and I appreciate the Monty Python reference
But it’s just a shield…..
I just noticed, is the swordsman wearing a JTHM t-shirt?
An excellent sartorial choice, I must say. Though the DM’s Assassin’s… uh, Office Supplies? …hoodie isn’t so bad, either.
Once again, thanks to the brave efforts of our boys in blue, society is safe. Through quick, unthinking action they shut down a deadly, drug-fueled game of D&D.
I would hardly consider panel 1 to be an appropriate level of force when lives aren’t at stake.
In the U.S., it is routine for even administrative warrants these days to be executed by a full SWAT team, with overwhelming force, combat gear, and military weapons. It’s absurd, but that’s how it is.
The level of force used here was relatively minor, compared to that.