Followup to Chet Szymecki's arrest

[hapuna]

Wheeler

The law doesn't need to be common knowledge. The fact that the PD was alerted of the law and its potential implications puts the PD in the position of having to verify whether or not the law pertains. If they were alerted and chose to ignore the law then they are at fault.

The way this looks to me is that the officers were well aware of the fact that the law was illegal and that preemption applied. That is precisely why they called the City Attorney.... to cover their butts. The law they were enforcing was straightforward. I have never heard of a cop calling a city attorney in such a case.

 

[Novus Collectus]

VCDL news breaks do not constitute common knowledge

Yes, but it was in the Virginia media when the stronger preemption was passed and it was even in the Washington Post.
I don't even live in the Commonwealth of Virginia and I remember seeing it in the news and reading about it in the paper. The Hampton council, and at least the attorney should have known for years their law was preempted.

 

[Deanimator]

The cops are not at fault. They're not lawyers.

The cops ARE at fault. They committed acts which they knew or should have known were criminal and or tortious. Ignorance of the law is NOT a defense to prosecution.

Again, if the police, allegedly trained to a degree in the law, are NOT expected to know the law, why are all OTHER persons expected to know the law, and punished accordingly, whether they do or not?

 

[Well Regulated]

Listen to the Recording

If you listen to the recording of the Recent Norfolk Council meeting. you will hear person after person complain of the abuse and harrasment by the Norfolk Police Department. Kids riding bycycles are stopped harrassed and unlawfuly detained for riding bikes.

This tape is evidence of a continuing willful violations of the civil rights of all Norfolk Residents. They need to be taken to task. You can cite all the law you want on an individual case and whether the police should have known, but when evidence is presented to a Jury that this is a pattern and practice of the Norfolk Police department, the City or the officers are going to pay. The Jury isn't going to buy it was an oversight or isolated incident.

That's probably why the City of Norfolk Refused to air the citizen input section of the meeting on the local cable television station.

 

[Deanimator]

The fault also lies with the city attorney who should have advised them that their ordinance was illegal.

He most assuredly is on thin ice, over a volcano, but that doesn't mitigate the liability of the individual officers.

What he and that Norfolk police officer allegedly did is the equivalent of my calling my lawyer and asking him if filing the serial number off of a handgun and selling it to a known felon, across state lines is legal, and him saying "yes". I'm still responsible for committing those acts if I foolishly take his advice.

 

[SalTx]

If "cop bashing" is not "allowed" on this forum - to the point of "banning" a member, why are those who obviously view leo's as without flaw and willing to loudly defend those who are quite obviously in the wrong allowed to do so? I think an individual, much less an leo, who thinks being arrested, handcuffed, booked, under false pretenses, ignorance, is not abuse, is promoting hate and disdain for the common citizen and should be treated equally severe as the "cop basher", if not worse, as they are knowingly willing to violate our civil rights at the whim of their ignorance.

 

[Deanimator]

If "cop bashing" is not "allowed" on this forum - to the point of "banning" a member, why are those who obviously view leo's as without flaw and willing to loudly defend those who are quite obviously in the wrong allowed to do so? I think an individual, much less an leo, who thinks being arrested, handcuffed, booked, under false pretenses, ignorance, is not abuse, is promoting hate and disdain for the common citizen and should be treated equally severe as the "cop basher", if not worse, as they are knowingly willing to violate our civil rights at the whim of their ignorance.

While I agree with your desire to see equality under the law, please do everyone a favor and stick to the facts of this case and the law and constitution. Don't get into personality conflicts. Stick to the facts. The legal and constitutional issues in this case are far more important than petty disputes specific to participants here.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Joab:

No officer can possibly know all the laws.

Blackbeard:

The cops are not at fault. They're not lawyers.

I salute both of you on coming to the core of the issue. Cops are "not lawyers" and can't "possibly know all the laws." All we can expect of them is to enforce the laws whether or not they know them. It just doesn't matter whether law enforcement officers know the laws they enforce. Their function is to enforce the laws even if they don't know them.

Citizens, however, must comply with the laws even though most citizens are not lawyers either, or even cops or city officials. We all recognize that ignorance of the law is no excuse for a citizen who violates it. That is because citizens are not lawyers or cops or city officials. It also is not an excuse for a citizen who does not break the law but is arrested for breaking a non-existant law. He should know better, and I don't feel any sympathy for him.

Who amongst us cannot feel sympathy for those unfortunate police officers who abused the man who was not breaking any law. It is clearly all his fault and he should be penalized to the full extent of the laws that he did not break. He needs to learn his lessons about the pain involved in not breaking the law so he never again does such a thing. Society can not long tolerate people who do not violate the law. There is good reason to hunt down and arrest every single one of them.

 

[Well Regulated]

The Norfolk Police Department's Actions on a day to day basis is undefensable and anybody who does is a friend of tryanny. That's not police bashing, it's the truth.

 

[Deanimator]

The Norfolk Police Department's Actions on a day to day basis is undefensable and anybody who does is a friend of tryanny. That's not police bashing, it's the truth.

Specifics would be helpful to this case in particular in that they would both demonstrate (or refute) a state of mind and a pattern of behavior. Facts and legal reasoning aren't "bashing". They're just facts and reason.

 

[HonorsDaddy]

Joab....

The victim supposedly is trying to send a message,
Shouldn't that message be sent to the ones that actually make the policies

Explain for me, exactly, how a lawsuit against a city, which is funded by taxes (you know, money that YOU make which the government takes to fund itself?), is going to "send a message".

Ridiculous comparison
Burglars know that what they are doing is illegal and no laws have been passed by their employers to make them think otherwise

It is hardly a ridiculous comparison. These officers KNEW what they were doing was illegal. They were advised at the time by Mr. Szymecki, they were made aware of the law in question, and quite frankly considering the reaction when the city first ordered the restriction on its subjects, er, i mean, put the legislation in place, the officers had no excuse for NOT knowing.

Regardless, ignorance of the law is no excuse - at least not for me. Why should it be for the officers? We already know that the Nuremberg Defense doesn't fly.

It is universally known that laws aimed at oppressing blacks has been shown to be unconstitutional and no city would even attempt to pass one giving an officer the reasonable impression that it was a legitimate law

It should be universally known to law enforcement in the Commonwealth that certain freedoms and rights cannot be preempted by local statute. This isn't exactly a new condition for Norfolk either. The city has passed and tried to enforce laws forbidding any public use of profanity as well as curfews and a host of other restrictions on the legal actions of the law abiding.

As previously noted, ignorance STILL is not a defense.

Cruxifying the officer does send a message to all other officers, one that may have unintended consequences

Really? Good luck with that one - i see any consequences which arise from it to be quite intentional.

Do we really want officers that are too meek to perform their legitimate duties as well as the ones that we find offensive

Yes. I do want them to think twice before they consider enforcing questionable laws. I really don't see a problem with that. What's the worst that could happen? Their job is not to prevent crime, but to arrest those who commit it. If our police forces are full of people who want the power which comes from knowing they can do nothing under color of law for which the city will not take the heat, then we get situations such as this.

They should be scared spitless about enforcing ANY law which is questionable in its scope.

Retraining may just produce a more knowledgeable officer that will pass that knowledge on to others

And ignore the violation of a citizen's rights, and spend more tax dollars, and send the message that its OK to do whatever you want - the city will just "retrain" you.

Your way would force good officers to rethink their line of employment

No it wouldn't. It would force BAD officers to rethink their line of employment. The good ones wouldn't be affected.

No officer can possibly know all the laws.

Neither can any citizen, and yet we are supposed to know and follow all of them, lest we run afoul of whatever the local constabulary decides to enforce that week.

We have confirmed die hard gun advocates here that don't even know the very basic laws of buying and owning a gun and that is basically the only laws they have to be concerned with here

Yes but the difference is, when WE break them, we get the full weight of the state on our heads. When the police break them, they get retrained. Yeah - thats fair.

The department and the city are to blame for the law and instructions to enforce that law, the officers are only guilty of trusting the superiors that they are supposed to trust for information and education

See my absurd example. If the officer's superiors told him to kill any black he saw on the street at night, would you so cavalierly dismiss their actions? Of course not - but since it wasn't that much of an inconvenience to Mr. Symecki, and its not like he's in jail, i guess it is OK to just pretend it didnt happen, right?

 

[joab]

Explain for me, exactly, how a lawsuit against a city, which is funded by taxes (you know, money that YOU make which the government takes to fund itself?), is going to "send a message".

First explain to me where I said that it was a good way to send a message
I only theorized on what I supposed the reason for the lawsuit would be

They were advised at the time by Mr. Szymecki, they were made aware of the law in question

OK for a second lets pretend that you don't hate cops
Who should an arresting officer listen to with regard to the law
The guy he is arresting or the attorney for the city for which he works?

Regardless, ignorance of the law is no excuse - at least not for me. Why should it be for the officers? We already know that the Nuremberg Defense doesn't fly.

I was waiting for the obligatory Nazis reference
But what you are saying is that you agree with the laws you agree with
If you expect the cops to obey all laws shouldn't you expect all laws to pertain to them, especially the ones that specifically pertain to them
Qualified immunity, you can look it up

The city has passed and tried to enforce laws forbidding any public use of profanity as well as curfews and a host of other restrictions on the legal actions of the law abiding.

The ordinance in question has nothing to do with profanity, it was about guns, says so in the first post

Really? Good luck with that one - i see any consequences which arise from it to be quite intentional.

I pretty much outlined what some of those unintended consequences were, you can look that up also.
Unless of course your aim actually is to run off goos officers and castrate the remaining force

Yes. I do want them to think twice before they consider enforcing questionable laws. I really don't see a problem with that. What's the worst that could happen?

They could think twice, call the city attorney for verification and then still have people like you calling for their heads

And ignore the violation of a citizen's rights, and spend more tax dollars, and send the message that its OK to do whatever you want - the city will just "retrain" you.

Maybe you could go back and reread the comment and then show me where I said to ignore the violation

Yes but the difference is, when WE break them, we get the full weight of the state on our heads. When the police break them, they get retrained. Yeah - thats fair.

But you at least admit that even with the very narrow scope of the laws that we concern ourselves with here and the fact that those laws are an important part of our daily lives many here still can't get even the simplest ones straight.

If the officer's superiors told him to kill any black he saw on the street at night, would you so cavalierly dismiss their actions?

NO, but I will cavalierly dismiss your absurd example

 

[joab]

To those that say the officer knew the law was illegal, please show any at all evidence or supported supposition of that

To those that claim that they should have known
Same thing, just because you knew and all of your friends knew does not mean that all cops know
Here the kicker
The law does not require them to know, it requires them to act in good faith
Kinda sucks when the very crux of your argument, that cops should follow the law, woks against you huh?
If you are going to base your argument on an anti ignorance of the law platform then shouldn't you be aware of the law that protect officers from good faith mistakes?

 

[joab]

All right everyone, let's take a step back. The cops are not at fault. They're not lawyers. The fault lies with the city council for passing an illegal ordinance and directing the police to enforce it. The fault also lies with the city attorney who should have advised them that their ordinance was illegal.

That's all I'm saying

why are those who obviously view leo's as without flaw and willing to loudly defend those who are quite obviously in the wrong allowed to do so?

Maybe if you could show us who has said that LEOs are without flaw and show some compelling evidence that these are officers are obviously in the wrong, in any other context than just your opinion?

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Not Lawyers

The cops are not at fault. They're not lawyers.

Interesting.

It is incumbent on anyone to whom a CCW permit is issued that they shall be familiar with the relevant laws where they live.

This is almost axiomatic. It is a continuing refrain here on THR. Someone says, "I'm getting my permit," and the response is invariably, "make sure you know the laws and rules of engagement where you live, 'cuz they won't cut you any slack for ignorance."

On the other hand, though, "the police can't be expected to know all the laws."

If there were any single body of laws that one ought to expect the police to know well, given the unrelenting political address of the issue, it's guns, gun carrying, gun handling, and rules of engagement.

You would expect them to have that parked right behind their "rules for issuing speeding tickets" and their "how to read Miranda."

How is it that anyone in law enforcement can advance an argument that anyone on the force "doesn't know the gun rules" for their area and state?

I can well believe that they might be fuzzy on the laws regarding animal control or whether it's legal to brew beer in your basement.

But, guns?

One of the risks they presumably run on a daily basis is the "armed offender" and it would seem quite in order for them to be well acquainted with both the "armed" and the "offender" part of that expression.

The "we didn't know" defense simply doesn't hold water.

 

[joab]

One of the risks they presumably run on a daily basis is the "armed offender" and it would seem quite in order for them to be well acquainted with both the "armed" and the "offender" part of that expression.

Why? All they have to do is detain the subject and call the city attorney to make sure they aren't mistaken, oops

Just because we are keenly aware of any and all gun related news does not mean that it is a prominent subject across the nation, or even in our own back yards
And just because the VCDL has our undivided attention across the nation does not mean that they are an overwhelming political force in even in their own backyard

 

[Novus Collectus]

To those that say the officer knew the law was illegal, please show any at all evidence or supported supposition of that

To those that claim that they should have known
Same thing, just because you knew and all of your friends knew does not mean that all cops know
Here the kicker
The law does not require them to know, it requires them to act in good faith
Kinda sucks when the very crux of your argument, that cops should follow the law, woks against you huh?
If you are going to base your argument on an anti ignorance of the law platform then shouldn't you be aware of the law that protect officers from good faith mistakes?

Joab, this is from the article in the local paper I read three years ago:

They fought to overturn a decades-old ban on guns in state parks. Then
they went after gun prohibitions in city parks. Some cities, such as
Radford, acquiesced within days, quickly painting over "No Firearms"
signs. Others, including Norfolk, put up a fight before giving in.
They've taken on libraries and Lowe's hardware stores so that gun owners
can carry inside. They've boycotted shopping malls that bar guns, and
they've published "gun unfriendly business" lists.

They sued Fairfax County and "won big time," Van Cleave said gleefully,
to prevent officials from banning guns at recreation centers and county
buildings. Thanks, in part, to the league, gun owners will soon be able
to carry their weapons all the way to the terminal doors at Reagan
National and Dulles International airports. And the group won't stop
fighting until gun owners can bring their guns inside, right up to the
metal detectors....


...In two separate and largely unnoticed actions in recent years, lawmakers
in Richmond overturned the right of cities and counties to make their
own gun control ordinances. In 1987, lawmakers prohibited localities
from making any new gun control laws. This year, they wiped out any gun
regulations that existed prior to 1987. Gone was Alexandria's handgun
ban. Gone was the 60-year-old Fairfax County law requiring a three-day
waiting period for gun purchases.

On July 1, the latest "state preemption" law went into effect. Now, guns
may be carried anywhere but in courthouses, schools, churches during
services or on clearly posted private property. Concealed guns are
banned in bars.

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/homestead/2004-November/002401.html
It was on the local tv news too....in Maryland even!

 

[joab]

Joab, this is from the article in the local paper I read three years ago:

Your point?

What you show here would make it general knowledge but in no way proves it to be common knowledge
And this little tidbit kinda goes against you

In two separate and largely unnoticed actions in recent years

There is nothing in that article that says the officer knowingly violated the state law, there is nothing in this conversation that even points to facts that they did anything but act in good faith to the point of calling on the highest authorities to get confirmation that they were in the right
Show me something that proves the allegations that these officer knowingly and intentionally under cover of authority (or whatever the term is) violated this mans rights, That is what is being alledged here

I have no problem with condeming the city itslef or the PD or even the City attorney
My only point is that crucifying the officers as has been called for here is out of line and does not represent any kind of justice or viable answer to the problem

I don't care half a damn that the money from a lawsuit comes from taxpayers, they are the ones that put these people in office
If they don't like getting sued maybe they will fire the ones actually responsible for the wrong instead of kneejerking to the most visible target

Now if you have a disagreement with that stand feel free to address that stand
I don't care what you can show to prove that the city knew better, that has already been established

 

[gunsmith]

don't be a lazy linker!

Important stories deserve link and story!
LIKE THIS!
This is how you do it! (links disappear after time it is important to document the story as well)

http://media.hamptonroads.com/media/content/pilotonline/2007/08/gunmeeting.html


Gun-rights advocates stage protest at Norfolk council meeting
By HARRY MINIUM, The Virginian-Pilot
© August 29, 2007

NORFOLK

More than 100 gun-rights advocates, most carrying handguns on their hips and wearing buttons saying "Guns Save Lives," came to the City Council on Tuesday night to protest what they called harassment of law-abiding gun owners by city officials.

The protest was called by the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights group, after Chet Szymecki of Yorktown was arrested in June at Harborfest for carrying a gun.

Szymecki was arrested for violating a city ordinance banning guns at Harborfest - an ordinance that officials now acknowledge violates state law. City Attorney Bernard A. Pishko said city officials were unaware of a state law prohibiting localities from banning guns.

Carrying a weapon openly is legal in Virginia, even at a large gathering such as Harborfest. Once city officials realized their error, the charges against Szymecki were dropped.

"We made a mistake," Councilman Barclay C. Winn said. "It was unintentional."

Most who came to protest didn't appear to believe it was an innocent mistake.

"You know it was illegal," said Dave Vann, who drove from Falls Church to speak. "You arrested someone, and now it's going to cost you dearly."

Szymecki, a Navy veteran, said he was manhandled and hurt and that his wife, Deborah, his three children and two other children who accompanied them were traumatized. He said he has hired Norfolk attorney Stephen Merrill.

An emotional Deborah Szymecki told the council that after several police officers were done handcuffing her husband, she was left without money or the keys to the family car.

Others rose to describe incidents in which they said they were questioned and often handcuffed by police for simply carrying a firearm openly.

"Apparently you have some officers who don't understand the law," said the president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Philip Van Cleave of Midlothian.

The meeting drew more rowdy as it continued, with speakers receiving thunderous applause and some expressing disgust for the council. Some used unsavory terms to describe the police.

Councilman Paul R. Riddick left the meeting as gun-rights advocates began speaking, he said, in protest of their protest.

Kim Barton, who would not say where she lives, tried to speak but was told by Mayor Paul Fraim that she couldn't because she had not signed up to speak.

"I want to hear what she has to say," Vann said.

Fraim replied, "I'm running this meeting " and informed Vann his time to speak had expired.

Harry Minium, (757) 446-2371, [email protected]

 

[joab]

"Apparently you have some officers who don't understand the law," said the president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Philip Van Cleave of Midlothian.

Apparently the VCDL itself believes that the officers simply do not understand the law
Thanks gunsmith, I would never have reread that without you

 

[gunsmith]

Robert, you are a genius!

Who amongst us cannot feel sympathy for those unfortunate police officers who abused the man who was not breaking any law. It is clearly all his fault and he should be penalized to the full extent of the laws that he did not break. He needs to learn his lessons about the pain involved in not breaking the law so he never again does such a thing. Society can not long tolerate people who do not violate the law. There is good reason to hunt down and arrest every single one of them.

RH! How do you do it? Are you related to Catch 22 author J Heller?

 

[Novus Collectus]

Joab, this is from the article in the local paper I read three years ago:

Your point?

My point is that it is incredibly difficult to claim that not only is it not public knowledge, but that police officers who should know the law were not aware in a district which was inherently involved with the issue numerous years ago.
Now it can be argued that a rooky or two may not have known about the state preeemption allowing open carry in city parks, but let's keep this in perspective, there were numerous officers there and at least some of them should have been aware of commonly known and reported law about open carry.
There is a point where proof is not needed because the situation becomes absurdly obvious.

What you show here would make it general knowledge but in no way proves it to be common knowledge
And this little tidbit kinda goes against you

Quote:

In two separate and largely unnoticed actions in recent years

Quite the oppoisite really because the article I cited is three years old meaning this is an old issue and many items in it have become even more established as common knowledge. The VCDL repeatedly makes the local news and they are not just known to the gun rights crowd in the area. The repeatedly show up at public buildings in groups wearing guns openly and just about every time it makes the TV news. It has gotten to the point where their doing so is just mentioned in passing, but that goes even further towards expressing just how common knowledge the open carry preemption law has become.

There is nothing in that article that says the officer knowingly violated the state law, there is nothing in this conversation that even points to facts that they did anything but act in good faith to the point of calling on the highest authorities to get confirmation that they were in the right
Show me something that proves the allegations that these officer knowingly and intentionally under cover of authority (or whatever the term is) violated this mans rights, That is what is being alledged here

No, I am with you that they were probably acting in good faith for the most part, but that does not excuse them from violating this man's civil rights regardless.
Should they be charged for doing what they thought was their jobs? No, but they sure as hell can be sued for being responsible for knowing better and not. Violating someone's civil rights is pretty much universal as being illegal and just like a soldier not having to follow an illegal order, the officers are also not excused from taking an action they committed that was illegal. Like I said, they should not be charged, just sued and their department should pay because the department is the party ultimately responsible and liable.

I have no problem with condeming the city itslef or the PD or even the City attorney
My only point is that crucifying the officers as has been called for here is out of line and does not represent any kind of justice or viable answer to the problem

I mostly agree, but I hate to say it, the officers were willing participants and deserve to be named in the lawsuit. They simply should have known better and if they did not want to enforce an illigitimate law so as not to be sued, then they didn't have to. If they were afraid of being fired for not doing what they were told...that is still no excuse because they don't have to work for that department and they would have some civil recourse anyway if improperly terminated.

I don't care half a damn that the money from a lawsuit comes from taxpayers, they are the ones that put these people in office
If they don't like getting sued maybe they will fire the ones actually responsible for the wrong instead of kneejerking to the most visible target

Now if you have a disagreement with that stand feel free to address that stand
I don't care what you can show to prove that the city knew better, that has already been established

I agree, the city should be sued, the department sued, the county should be sued, but like I said, the officers are far from innocent when it comes to the lawsuit and they were complicit.
Maybe if some officers are laid off because the city has no money to pay them because of the lawsuit, then maybe more officers will understand the law better or simply refuse to enforce an illigitimate law next time.

Let's face it, there would be no harrasment from the city and their illigitimate law if there were no minions to carry it out. Wearing a uniform "just following orders" (sorry for the Nazi reference) is no excuse from liability for one's actions. They do not deserve an all encompassing pass on this one just because they "appeared" to be following good faith.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Councilman Paul R. Riddick left the meeting as gun-rights advocates began speaking, he said, in protest of their protest.

There's the real hero of that meeting. Councilman Paul R. Riddick, who represents the Fourth Ward, is a mortician and the owner/operator of Riddick Funeral Services. His clients never protest. Citizens who want to protest their city administration's behavior or the conduct of its police can learn much from them.

Norfolk must be a fun place. Do its police cars have the usual "To Protect and to Serve" on them? If so perhaps it would not be amiss to suggest that the decal be amended to add something like "Don't Expect Us to Know the Laws We Enforce."

As for the substantive issue of whether the Norfolk police knew or should have known the law, my heart goes out to them. If they know not the gun laws they arrested someone for violating, there is no telling what else these poorly trained, poorly administered, and poorly educated people might not know. I urge Van Cleave and the VCDL to show some concern for their well being. For heavens' sake, petition the city's administration to at least have the tools carried by the police properly labeled so they don't hurt themselves. The cost of a label saying something like "Point this end away from you" can't be substantial and could save lives when applied to each officer's duty firearm. (Are these police armed, by the way? Should they be allowed to carry the means of ending peoples' lives when they aren't expected to know the laws they are charged with enforcing?) Shoes labeled "Left" and "Other Left" would do much to preserve the Norfolk police's feet. Badges and name tags should have the sharp pointy things removed so as to prevent them from doing themselves a mischief.

Simple precautions like these can brighten the daily lives of people so simpleminded that they aspire to a profession in which they affect many lives but don't have enough smarts to know that decisions to arrest citizens are at least as important as deciding between jelly doughnuts and chocolate covered sinkers.

 

[joab]

You obviously believe that the officers should have known, but to my mind there has been nothing compelling to show this

It is not uncommon at all for a news story to be more prevalent in other communities than they are in our own

During the LA riot period I had to be called from another state to be told that there was small rioting in the area that I worked in
You would think that that would have been front page here

Old stopries have a way of being distorted mire than confirmed

Concealed carry laws have been on the books here for many many years but a quick survey of the officers in three different jurisdictions here a year after we decriminalized switchblades showed that they were not aware of this
Most of the people I know do not know that they are now legal and that happened six years ago
The only people I do know of that are aware are knife collectors and friends of collectors
Not only were the officers not aware that those knives were legal many thought that our permit was for handguns only

The misleading question I asked was "is it legal to carry a switchblade if you have a CCW permit?

My own BIL thought that it is not legal to carry in a WalMart and claimed to be able to show me the law, and he's pro gun.
All because they had to remove a man for carrying concealed in a department store
The part he didn't understand is that the man refused to leave when asked to thinking that he had the right to carry in the store because he had a permit

He was a permit holder that should be aware of the law because he was told when he applied that he had to be,
Should he have been arrested for armed trespass for this simple stupid mistake, that he will never make again?

 

[Novus Collectus]

Joab, I agree that there are many laws that are not well understood by police officers and even here in MD where there is no knife size restiction and some officers will arrest people for having one over three inches in lenght, but that does not excuse them and their department for employing them from liability for unlawful arrest though.
I can also understand some confusion in VA, but come on now!! That is why the preeemption law was passed in the first place to remove any confusion or conflicts. Like I said before, not only is it an established law, not only has the VCDL repeatedly made the news about this very law for years, but to top it all off the very jurisditcion was aware of the preemption law because years ago they acquiesed removing no carry signs on their city parks! From the top down the ignorance excuse sounds incredibly weak and almost ridiculous.
If the cops and the attorney did not know the state law, then let them be sued for THAT malpractice at the very least.