See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Pepper spray possession lands man in jail on felony
Source:
WFAA
URL Source: http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/Poss ... n-jail-on-felony-70591582.html
Published: Nov 20, 2009
Author: Jason Whitely
Post Date: 2009-11-20 13:44:28 by X-15
Keywords: None
Views: 191
Comments: 11
WYLIE - A canister of pepper spray is now at the center of a Wylie dispute after a North Texas man found out what most people don't know, anyone who carries it can face a felony. Jason Simpkins admitted he looked suspicious when a Wylie officer stopped him while he was driving his truck with a jet ski inside his lawn mowing trailer. It happened early on the morning of August 22. "I didn't have a problem with it at first," Simpkins said. "I gave him my drivers license. I thought, 'Okay, you know, it does look suspicious.'" Police were curious if it was stolen, but Simpkins provided proof he owned the jet ski. The officer then noted that Simpkins' speaker for his truck alarm positioned in his grill looked similar to a siren, though the officer never tested it to see what sound it emitted. News 8 did and heard a loud screeching sound, but no type of emergency tone. Simpkins had what police thought were red lights in his grill, as well. But, again, no officer activated them. The "lights" don't illuminate, but are rather part of a laser detection system. Officers also saw a police scanner and a law enforcement type light switch often used to activate emergency strobes. The scanner isn't illegal to have and no one tried switching on the lights, which would have illuminated nothing more than fog lights. After an extensive check, police discovered Simpkins had no criminal warrants and no prior record. But, 40 minutes and four officers later, questions continued. "They said, 'Do you have any weapons.?'" he said. "I think out of respect for officers, if an officer says, 'Hey, do you have any weapons in your truck or your vehicle?' you should tell them. It's an officer safety thing." Jason volunteered information that he had a four-ounce can of pepper spray he purchased legally inside his satchel in the cab of his truck. The spray is sold to the public, but marketed as law-enforcement strength. The investigating officer, a young man named Officer Silas Hughes, said it was illegal to possess. That was something that even surprised his sergeant. "Is that a prohibited weapon?" the sergeant asked Hughes according to a recording of the dash cam video. "Yeah, you're not supposed to have it," Hughes said. "Really?" the sergeant pressed. "[You] can't have police-strength pepper spray," he said. "I can look it up in the penal code real quick. I can't remember exactly where it's at, but I know it's in there." But, there is no such wording in the Texas Penal Code. Simpkins, who the dash cam video showed was cooperative, said he couldn't believe what happened next, which was all captured on the dash cam video. HUGHES: "You can carry stuff like Mace, things like that, like the little stuff you buy on TV, that kind of deal. This is a no-no. You can't do this." SIMPKINS: "Really?" HUGHES: "That being said, you want to turn around and put your hands behind your back?" SIMPKINS: "Wait, wait." HUGHES: "Put your hands behind your back." SIMPKINS: "I'm under arrest for..." HUGHES: "I've asked you twice. Number three time, turn around and put your hands behind your back." Simpkins complied. He was arrested and charged with a third-degree felony. Pepper spray, Wylie police alleged that night, is a prohibited weapon. A Collin County Grand Jury agreed to prosecute the case, but refused to indict. John Duscio, Wylie's police chief, said the system worked. "They didn't say the officer did anything wrong," Duscio said. "They just felt there wasn't enough to continue on because there is a lot of variance, a lot of gray in that law." The chief admitted he has never heard of another case similar to it. But, he adamantly supported his officers as they considered the totality of the circumstances. The exception in the law is vague, stating pepper spray is illegal to possess in anything "other than a small chemical dispenser sold commercially for personal protection." "Is this one small?" Chief Duscio asked holding up a two ounce canister of pepper spray. "Is this one small?" he asked holding up Simpkins' much taller four ounce black canister. "You might say it's small. I might say it's not. The law doesn't clearly state what small is or what a chemical dispensing device really is." Wylie police tested the flaw in the law and lost. Simpkins said he is just upset it happened at his expense. He lost $6,200 in expenses related to the arrest and hiring an attorney, he said. Since the grand jury refused to indict, essentially dropping the charge, Simpkins wants a refund and his record expunged. Duscio said he met with Simpkins but would not divulge what was discussed or what might happen. A call to the Wylie city manager, Mindy Manson, was not returned as of 10 p.m. Thursday.
Poster Comment: The Wylie police chief John Duscio is clearly a douchebag for backing his punk officer Silas Hughes. Cabela's sells a 13.4 oz bottle of bear pepper spray, the cops would have shot him for possessing this I guess: 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
#3. To: X-15 (#0)
40 minutes and four officers later... ?????? What the fuck.?? This reads like some kind of personal vendetta by the cops.
No. Israel has sent teams to the U.S. to instruct the cops about terrorists,and the cops are happily and eagerly doing as instructed; they'd do the same to your mother or to Shirley Temple or to the Archbishop. Remember: these are not 1940's style cops, and FBI,and whatever..........these are the New Centurions and they view Americans with the same suspicion and distaste as they view North Koreans, or Martians.... You're better off staying indoors most of the time, and the Centurions wish you'd stay indoors all the time.
Unlike at the federal level, the citizens of this community have the ability to put a stop to shit like this. If they choose not to then they deserve whatever abuse government enforcers dish out to them.
That's a bit too collectivist a statement for my tastes. If 51% vote these senior level asshats in, the other 49% don't deserve to be treated like this.
It does not take 51% of the people to start a recall action against those elected officials who excuse and back this type of behavior against its citizenry. Even if the recall action failed it is my belief that it would force them to crack down on this type of behavior for their own political good. What's for certain is that as long as the American people allow this type of behavior to continue not only will it continue, it will get worse. As for being a collectivist statement, you need to brush up on your definitions. Collectivism is a political and economic theory that advocates the collective control over production and distribution by "the people" via the government. Voting at the local level is not collectivism it is direct democracy, and while I do not believe that direct democracy is either effective or wise at the state and federal level, I do believe that there is room for it at the local level. There has to be a way to recall those who would abuse their powers or allow others to abuse theirs.
Which is a collective political action. Collectivism is also a philosophical concept, btw. In any event I hold to my position, if a certain percentage don't manage to remove/stop government abuse, it doesn't mean that this percentage now "deserve" to be mistreated because others do want government abuse. If I vote for neither Obama nor McCain, and I actively work against their election but to no avail, it doesn't not mean I deserve the hell that I receive when Obama is elected. By the same token, if a woman actively fights the man trying to rape her, really fights him, but he overpowers her and does his thing, that does not mean that because she couldn't defeat him that she deserved to be raped. It just doesn't wash. Those who advocate government abuse deserve what they get. Those who do not, do not.
Which is a collective political action. Maybe if you are an anarchist I guess. I've read almost all of Hayek's works, as well as a good bit of Mises, Rothbard and others, and I can honestly say that I've never read anyone try to equate direct democracy to collectivism. But I am far from being an expert on the matter. Although direct democracy voting can and usually does eventually lead to some sort of collectivism, I disagree that the two are synonymous with each other. We'll have to agree to disagree. By the same token, if a woman actively fights the man trying to rape her, really fights him, but he overpowers her and does his thing, that does not mean that because she couldn't defeat him that she deserved to be raped. The American people are not, have not and likely will not ever fight their government as passionately as a woman trying to beat off a rapist. I believe that the Black Book of Communism demonstrates that quite well. As a people, 21st century man will take whatever abuse the government dishes out.
There are no replies to Comment # 10. End Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestno criminal warrants and no prior record.
#4. To: sizzlerguy (#3)
(Edited)
This reads like some kind of personal vendetta by the cops.
#5. To: Bub (#4)
No. Israel has sent teams to the U.S. to instruct the cops about terrorists,and the cops are happily and eagerly doing as instructed; they'd do the same to your mother or to Shirley Temple or to the Archbishop. Remember: these are not 1940's style cops, and FBI,and whatever..........these are the New Centurions and they view Americans with the same suspicion and distrust as they view North Koreans, or Martians.... You're better off staying indoors most of the time, and the Centurions wish you'd stay indoors all the time.
#7. To: Hayek Fan (#5)
#8. To: SonOfLiberty (#7)
That's a bit too collectivist a statement for my tastes. If 51% vote these senior level asshats in, the other 49% don't deserve to be treated like this.
#9. To: Hayek Fan (#8)
Voting at the local level is not collectivism it is direct democracy,
#10. To: SonOfLiberty (#9)
Voting at the local level is not collectivism it is direct democracy,
Replies to Comment # 10.