Stupid people of the week

De Tomaso Pantera
I think. Something keeps distracting me…

Florida felon nabbed with loaded stolen gun, meth pipe at courthouse: sheriff

A Daytona Beach, Florida, convicted felon has been arrested after allegedly trying to enter a Volusia County courthouse with a stolen gun and meth pipe for an appointment that did not exist, according to authorities.

The Volusia County Sheriff’s Office said 34-year-old Robert Suggs, who was out on bond for felony animal cruelty, now faces charges of possession of a firearm by a state felon, possession of drug paraphernalia, grand theft of a firearm and concealing a firearm after the event unfolded at the Volusia County Justice Center on Friday.

Suggs went through a security checkpoint when he was stopped after security officers noticed a handgun in his backpack.

The sheriff’s office said the gun was loaded with a round in the chamber and seven others in the magazine.

An affidavit obtained by FOX 35 in Orlando alleges when Suggs was detained, he “spontaneously” said the gun was not his and he planned to return the firearm to his “friend.” But the suspect was able to provide neither the real or full name of the “friend,” nor where they live, the affidavit alleges.

After being read his Miranda rights, the sheriff’s office said, Suggs told deputies his friend let him use his backpack, yet he forgot the gun was inside the backpack when he went to the courthouse.

Deputies learned during the investigation the Ruger .22 caliber handgun in Sugg’s possession was stolen.

Along with the gun, security found a small folding knife, razor knife, felt marker pens, blue Motorola cell phone, clothing and an HP laptop computer in the backpack, the affidavit alleges.

When officers patted Suggs down, they located a small glass pipe with burnt residue in his pocket, which tested presumptive positive for methamphetamine, the affidavit said.

Suggs told deputies he found the pipe about 200 yards from the courthouse and picked it up because “he believed there was methamphetamine” inside it.

A further investigation found that despite Suggs claiming he was at the courthouse to visit the public defender’s office, he did not have an appointment.

“Great job by our court security team,” a post from the sheriff’s office read on Facebook.

Source; Fox News

A woman brought her own snacks to Despicable Me 4. Then the police arrived

ook, there is a lot going on in the world at the moment and tensions are high, and the last thing I want to do is to fan the flames by bringing up a subject so divisive that it risks tearing apart the fabric of humanity any further.

And yet I must, because a cinema in New Zealand has just ejected two women for sneaking in their own snacks.

According to the New Zealand Herald, the two women took some children to see Despicable Me 4 at Cinema 3 in Pukekohe, North Island. The pair were said to have taken blankets and snack bags – containing popcorn, sweets, crisps and lollipops – into the screening without being stopped by any cinema employees. However, just as the movie started, an employee told them to put their snack bags away, the report said. They agreed but the employee apparently insisted on sitting next to them to monitor the snack situation.

A few minutes later, one of the children popped a Skittle he was already holding into his mouth, and quite frankly, all hell broke loose, the women said. The employee started shouting at them, and said that the police would be called unless they left. This is when the children started crying.

“My niece asked nicely: ‘If you’re calling the police, are they going to kill my mum?’” one of the women told the newspaper. “And he laughed at that stage. He looks directly in her face and he said: ‘Yeah, maybe we’ll find out.’”

The paper reports that the women agreed to leave the auditorium and continue the discussion in the foyer. Four police officers then entered the cinema lobby, which the woman described as “a bit dramatic”.

It is standard policy in New Zealand for cinemas to ban food brought in from outside and the Herald reported that Cinema 3 has five signs posted around the premises stating this.

“The exact wording is: ‘No outside food or drinks allowed’,” the cinema’s operations manager, Robert Greig, said, the paper reported.

Thus, once again, one of the oldest arguments in the world has been pushed back into the limelight: should you be allowed to take your own snacks into the cinema?

There are arguments for each side in the debate. Cinemas are struggling financially. Audience numbers are down, films guaranteed to have been popular five years ago are flopping and many venues are closing. In the face of such a decline, cinemas need all the help they can get. Most of the ticket price goes to the film studios, and often what can make or break a cinema is the snack stand. By buying a bag of Revels and a Tango Ice Blast, you are helping to preserve the entire cinema industry.

On the other: have you seen how much these places charge? As soon as I’m done writing this, I’m going to take my kids to see Harold and the Purple Crayon, and the thought of doubling the ticket price by buying sweets and drinks – items that would be half the price at the supermarket – is already bringing me out in a cold sweat. By charging so much for snacks, it could be argued that cinemas are hastening their own demise. In a cost-of-living crisis, they are pushing themselves beyond the means of many people.

Luckily, we have already had this argument in the UK, and the message is clear. Most UK cinemas are perfectly happy when audiences bring in their own snacks. Two years ago, Cineworld, Odeon and Vue all underlined this after someone tweeted them all at once. Of the chains, only Everyman is explicit about banning BYO snacks, with a line on its FAQ page reading: “Please note that only food and drink bought within the cinema is allowed to be taken into the screen.”

In the US, Regal and AMC cinemas both warn against bringing outside food to a screening. South Korean cinemas sometimes provide a list of what is and is not permissible to bring with you (biscuits and ice-cream yes, pizza and blood sausage, no.

In France, eating or drinking during a film is traditionally frowned on, so it isn’t a problem. And in New Zealand, apparently they will call the police and tell your kids that you might be murdered in a state-sanctioned assassination if one of you eats a Skittle. So, you know, it’s probably a good idea to check first.

We’ll be seeing Harold and the Purple Crayon at a Cineworld. The only things I’m planning to sneak in are sleeping tablets.

Source; The Guardian

Police chief arrested while off-duty at Champaign County Fair

An area police chief was arrested at the Champaign County Fair Sunday.

On Sunday at around 6 p.m., deputies working at the Champaign County Fairgrounds were advised that Eric Smith, the St. Paris Police Chief, was open carrying a firearm with his police badge while off-duty, according to a spokesperson for the Champaign County Sheriff’s Office.

As reported on News Center 7 at 6, deputies located Smith and told him to return his firearm to his vehicle or to leave the fair, the spokesperson said.

At approximately 6:18 p.m., deputies located Smith in the area of the rides/midway of the fairgrounds. His firearm and St. Paris police badge were clearly visible, the spokesperson said.

The spokesperson noted that Smith was not working nor did he have any jurisdiction at the Champaign County Fair.

Smith was told to return his firearm to his vehicle and to leave the fair.

Smith reportedly refused and said that he was not going to return his firearm to his vehicle and was going to continue carrying while at the fair. He was then advised that it was a direct order from Champaign County Sheriff Matthew Melvin that if Smith was not working as a law enforcement officer at the fair then his firearm needed to be returned to his vehicle. He refused again, the spokesperson said.

Shortly after, Smith was spotted by other deputies and was still openly carrying his firearm and his badge.

Smith was then arrested and trespassed for the remainder of the fair, the spokesperson said.

He was transported to Tri-County Regional Jail and charged with obstructing official business and criminal trespass.

The arrest has people in the community talking.

“I just was shocked that it was a police officer,” said Melinda Price, owner of Old School Concessions.

Another vendor saw what happened and stated that she needs to hear both sides of the story.

“He seems like pretty good guy. So I can’t pass judgment on him without knowing the full story,” said Danielle Haro with La Granja Mexican Food Truck.

Haro lives in St. Paris, claiming to have seen Smith in her community often. She is still confused why the situation escalated to this.

“If his reply was belligerent, if his reply was non-negotiating, if his reply, you know, if it was aggressive, then yes, that’s concerning,” Haro said.

News Center 7 reached out to the Champaign County Sheriff’s Office and was told they will not speak at this time.

We will continue providing updates as we learn more.

Source; WHIO

WA motorcyclist accused of going 141 mph arrested after stopping for gas

Washington State Patrol (WSP) troopers arrested a motorcyclist that stopped for gas after allegedly fleeing from a traffic stop at 141 mph on Friday.

According to WSP, a trooper originally tried pulling over the motorcyclist on State Route 167 near 15th St. SW in Auburn, but the driver fled.

As troopers began the pursuit, a WSP aircraft followed the motorcyclist from above. At one point, troopers say the motorcycle reached a speed of 141 mph.

The motorcyclist eventually stopped at a gas station, and the aircraft relayed the suspect’s location to troopers on the ground.

WSP arrested the driver for felony eluding as their motorcycle was parked at a pump.

“Can’t outrun the plane!” added WSP Trooper Rick Johnson in a social media post.

Source;  Fox 13 Seattle

How a TikTok video got one military officer court-martialed

In retrospect, Navy Lt. Cmdr. James Dickerson admits he shouldn’t have posted the TikTok video of him in uniform, lip-synching a profanity-laced parody of Frozen’s “Let it Go” and giving middle fingers to the camera, his blouse’s gold oak leaf rank insignia square in the frame with a caption that read, “Working the day before leave be like.”

The 54-year-old prior-enlisted supply officer would later say he only expected family and friends to see the joke video he made on July 14, 2023.

He likely never intended for his command, the Navy Expeditionary Warfighting Development Center, to catch wind of it.

But they did, and in June, Dickerson was court-martialed for the video, charged with a violation of Article 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.

Dickerson’s charge sheet alleged that he “wrongfully and dishonorably” posted the video “showing himself acting in a contemptuous manner towards the Navy while in uniform.”

And while Dickerson was found not guilty at a judge-alone trial on June 13, the saga of the officer and his TikTok content has outside attorneys wondering why he was ever charged in the first place for such an infraction.

The case also offers a glimpse into the murky legality involved in court-martialing service members for social media posts, and how no single charge in the UCMJ governs such infractions, leaving commanders across the services to apply the law as they and their legal staffs see fit.

Questions also remain about command decisions before the trial began.

For reasons the Navy has not explained, the unit’s commander, Capt. Charles Eckhart, withdrew the charge in late 2023 and then re-referred it the same day, stripping Dickerson of his right to choose a trial by jury in the process.

Charging Dickerson for the video was “a misuse and abuse of criminal justice,” according to Rachel VanLandingham, a retired Air Force attorney, law professor and National Institute of Military Justice president.

“This is nothing that warrants a federal criminal conviction,” she told Navy Times after reviewing the case.

While Dickerson filming the video in his officer’s uniform was “stupid,” he could have been administratively disciplined or read the riot act by his command instead, VanLandingham said.

“I found it flabbergasting,” she said. “Shame on the lawyers that advised the commander to bring this charge.”

An argument could be made that the video constituted conduct unbecoming an officer, but such conduct doesn’t warrant a court-martial, according to Brian Ferguson, a civilian defense attorney who has represented service members in social media-related proceedings.

“Was that a good decision for him to do that? Probably not,” said Marshall Griffin, a retired Coast Guard attorney now in private practice. “Could it have been addressed with a counseling and telling him to take it down? Yes.”

“I think it’s heavy-handed, for sure,” he added.

Social media posts have landed troops in hot water in recent years, or brought attention to issues that service members felt were not being addressed by their commands.

But Patrick McLain, a retired Marine Corps judge now in private practice, said he had not seen a social media-related case focused “on the foolishness or vulgarity of the content of the social media” before.

Instead, such cases have generally focused on posts that contained racist, extremist or violent content, he said.

Dickerson’s case raises questions about the First Amendment rights of expression for service members as well.

It remains unclear how many troops have been taken to trial over social media posts in recent years.

The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps all said the services do not track social media-related courts-martial, and outside legal experts note that such crimes can be charged under a variety of UCMJ articles.

Given the general lack of public transparency in the military justice system, such cases become even harder to track from the outside, VanLandingham said.

The Navy declined to comment on Dickerson’s case.

Dickerson declined comment for this report.

His civilian defense attorney, Rob Canoy, said in a statement that “the right decision was ultimately reached in court on the merits.”

“Despite the Navy’s criminal prosecution for this conduct, we do not hold any ill will towards the command or the Navy for doing what they thought they needed to do to maintain good order and discipline,” he said.

The case offers another example of how troops need to think about what they put online, Ferguson said.

“Posting on social media in uniform is like drinking heavily at the unit Christmas party,” he said. “It’s not going to end well.”

More at the source, including a copy of the video; Navy Times

Category: Crime, Stupid Criminals