Bantam chef held on gun charges while picking mushrooms

[CO Liberal]

Bantam chef held on gun charges while picking mushrooms

LITCHFIELD, Conn. -- All he was doing was picking mushrooms. But police are trying to figure out why George Skrehota needed a gun.

Skrehota, chef and owner of The Bantam Inn Restaurant, was gathering wild mushrooms near a school Monday. He said he's done it for years.

Teachers reported a suspicious man walking around school grounds. Police questioned and searched Skrehota and found a loaded .22 derringer in his pocket.

"They asked me what I was doing, I told them picking mushrooms," Skrehota said. "They could see I was picking mushrooms. I have a state permit for my gun and it's just a little .22 thing. It has five tiny little bullets."

<more>

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/state/hc-23092942.apds.m0647.bc-ct--chefsep23,0,7634275.story?coll=hc-headlines-local-wire

[MrBenchley]

1. Those wild mushrooms...

A crafty hunter must protect himself....

[zekeson]

2. Stoopid

I am no fan of concealed carry laws, but if he has a state permit and he broke no other laws then this is just Ashcroftian bullshit and misplaced response to all the fear mongering perpetuated by Bush*

[MrBenchley]

3. Yeah, who could possibly see anything to worry about

in an armed stranger lurking around a schoolyard....

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CO Liberal]

7. From the Referenced Article

State law forbids firearms or other deadly weapons on school grounds.

Skrehota said he will fight the charges and promised to continue picking mushrooms on school property.

"It's public property, and I pay $8,000 a year in taxes, so I'm going to pick mushrooms there again, you better believe it," he said. "Where's freedom in this country when I can be arrested for picking mushrooms?"

Would you care to tell me AGAIN why we don't need to worry about the "law-abiding" gun owners???????

[Superfly]

8. So, the real issue here is

that he was "poaching" mushrooms. Jeez, I hope I never look at you cross, you might throw the book at me.

[CO Liberal]

10. No......

He was carrying a gun on school property. Definitely a no-no......

[Superfly]

12. Oh, yeah....the evil gun!!!!

Will somebody pleeeeeeeeze think of the children?!?

[CO Liberal]

13. Laws Are Laws

None of us are allowed to pick and choose the laws we want to obey.

Unless we're Republicans........

[Man_in_the_Moon]

19. Laws are Laws...

Hmm, I suppose Rosa Parks shouldve just moved to the back of the bus then...

[Pert_UK]

20. HOLY SHIT!

So let me get this straight........

Not being allowed to carry a gun in the grounds of a school is similarly repressive to institutionalised racism.

OK.

Got that.

And you might like to re-think the whole "law-abiding gun owner" line if what you actually mean is "there should be no laws governing where guns can be carried".

[MrBenchley]

24. What an offensive post!

You ought to be ashamed of yourself posting that nonsense.

[Spoonman]

51. The anti-gun lunatics

do think about the children, every time they revel in the posting of an article in which a child is shot.

[MrBenchley]

54. Gee, spoon, the only reveling is from the RKBA crowd

as you well know...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=10507#10679

"slackmaster (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-18-03 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
9. He tried to shoot himself and missed?
Poor kid can't get anything right."

[MrBenchley]

14. Yeah, but that's just a LAW

Don't you realize he was carrying a sacred fetish?

Why would anyone be worried about an armed stranger wandering around outside a schoolyard?

[Pert_UK]

18. No, the issue is that he was carrying a gun illegally......

Unbelievable.

Man has license for gun. Man takes gun to place where all guns are illegal, even with a license. Man is arrested.

And somehow this is an infringement of his rights?

He can carry a gun wherever the hell he is legally allowed to carry a gun, but guess what? He's not allowed to carry one on school property.

He's a self-righteous, law-ignoring asshole in my opinion. If you're going to carry, carry in accordance with the law or get arrested and your "rights" taken away. Nobody is trying to stop him picking mushrooms on public property and I couldn't give a toss about that, but if he chooses to pick mushrooms next to a school then he needs to leave his weapon elsewhere to comply with the law. And ignorance of the law is no defense either....

Why do you have a problem with that?

[CO Liberal]

16. "It has five tiny little bullets."

That can put five tiny little holes in anything or anybody he points it at.......

[MrBenchley]

17. Well of course....

A .357 would blow away the entire mushroom.....

After all, it's just an armed stranger lurking around a schoolyard for what seems like a pretty good reason, in a pig's eye.....

[RoeBear]

21. Alternate Headline: "NO CRIME COMMITTED WITH GUN!"

Did the chef really frighten you? And before you say 'but he broke the law and should be punished', it's a stupid law to even think about enforcing in this situation. For example there was a law in place that said it was illegal to have a gun within 500 feet of a school (maybe it was a thousand feet). That meant anyone living within that distance was breaking the law if they kept a gun there. In fact it would have been illegal to even drive past a school with a gun in your car. Some laws are just dumb.

[CO Liberal]

22. But There WAS a Crime Committed With The Gun

He had it on school grounds, which is a violation of Connecticut state law.

[MrBenchley]

23. Appalling, isn't it?

The RKBA crowd actually refuses to accept reality....

[RoeBear]

25. It's an artificial crime...

...not unlike enforcing the lowered speed limit in a construction zone when no one is working. Yeah, it's 'offically' a crime but what is the harm? When that 500 foot law was in effect would you have set up roadblocks to try and catch people? Or better yet search peoples houses in the zone?

[CO Liberal]

26. It's Still a Crime

And if you do the crime, you do the time.

[Superfly]

27. So...you're telling me

that you always drive 55mph (or less) in a 55mph zone?

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

[CO Liberal]

30. Yes, I Do

I have a clean driving record, and want to keep it that way to keep my insurance premiums down.

[Superfly]

33. Wow, you must help old ladies

across the street, too. You Boy Scout! :evilgrin:

Like speeding and jaywalking, the crime this person committed should not be considered felonious.

[CO Liberal]

34. I'm Not Familiar With The Specific Law

But if it's classified as a felony, then he should be charged with a felony - right??

[Superfly]

35. Yes, he should

but the law is stupid and should be changed, if that's the case.

[iverglas]

36. and if you didn't

... drive at or under the speed limit, I mean ... I betcha you'd pay the ticket you got when you got caught breaking the law, and shut up about it.

Of course, I suppose there would be some who would jump up and carry on about how the speed limit in a school zone didn't apply to *them*, because they are supersafe drivers and they have a driver's licence and so they can do anything they bloody well want with their car wherever they like and nobody's gonna call *them* non-law-abiding car drivers ...

.

[RoeBear]

39. Do you drive 55 in a 55 zone even...

...when traffic is going 70?

[RoeBear]

42. Don't bother replying...

...just a dumb tangent that isn't worth pursuing.

[CO Liberal]

43. I'll Respond Anyway

Yes. If it's posted 55, I drive 55. And if I'm passed by people going 70, I dial *277, which connects my cell phone to the Colorado State Patrol.

[RoeBear]

28. Not if you judge intent...

...much like this story:http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2003/09/19-screener-gun.htm

"She will not be charged with a crime."

Do you want the chef charged with a felony so that he won't be able to vote or own a gun.

[CO Liberal]

31. If He's a "Responsible" Gun Owner.......

...then he should know the rules that go with his carry permit. And if he violates those rules, he should be punished in accordance with the law.

The pro-gunners always say that we need to enforce the laws that are already on the books. This should be no exception. And if he's charged with a felony, convicted, and loses his gun and voting rights, so be it.

[MrBenchley]

32. He is a "responsible gun owner"

the way the RKBA crowd means it....which is to say that his gun fetish is more important than public safety, laws, or sanity.

[iverglas]

37. ya left out a wee bit

From that link:

Nance is an on-call clerical secretary in
DIA's human resources department. She
told investigators she put the gun, which
she carries in her car for protection, in her
purse Monday when the car was in the shop
and forgot to remove it when she went to
work Tuesday.

She will not be charged with a crime.

Lamar Sims, Denver chief deputy district
attorney, said prosecutors could not prove
that Nance meant to bring the gun through
the security checkpoint.


I don't hear her saying "I have a permit to carry this gun and so I can and will carry it wherever and whenever I bloody well want and the hell with your laws".

And I don't think I heard your mushroom-picking hero saying that he forgot that he had the gun in his pocket and really didn't mean to carry it into an area where firearms are prohibited.

Circumstances do alter cases, don't they? And representing two dissimilar things as being alike might just cause the nose on a face to grow.

.

[RoeBear]

38. I didn't leave out a damn thing...

...I put the link in so anyone who wanted to could read it.

[iverglas]

40. you falsely asserted an equivalence

Here is what you said:

Not if you judge intent
...much like this
story:http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2003/09/19-screener-gun.htm
"She will not be charged with a crime."

The armed mushroom-hunter story is, in fact, NOTHING like that story, let alone "much" like it.

You referred to the intent involved.

CO Liberal said:

"It's still a crime"

You said:

"Not if you judge intent"

Very true, eh?

But you said "much like this". And you quoted: "She will not be charged with a crime".

You did NOT quote the portion of the story that made it very plain that the person who was not being charged with a crime HAD NOT INTENDED to break the law, because she forgot that she had her firearm in a purse. Her claim is in fact somewhat credible; what kind of moron would actually try to take a handgun on board a plane in her purse?

Why would you have even suggested that a situation in which someone accidentally broke a law was "like", let alone "much like", a situation in which someone intentionally broke a law?

Keep in mind that the intent that is relevant is not the intent "to break the law", it is the intent to do the thing that is illegal. The airport woman did not intend to do the thing that was illegal (attempt to take a firearm on a plane). The mushroom picker DID intend to do the thing that was illegal (carry a firearm in a zone where firearms are prohibited).

If you had included the information from which the intent of the airport woman had been determined, there is simply no way that you could have then said that it's not a crime if you judge intent, "much like" the case you cited.

I mean, you could have ... you could say that the moon is made of cheese, if you like ... Free Speech Über Alles ...

.

[RoeBear]

41. Bullshit...

...bullshit, bullshit.

The 'intent' I'm referring to is the intent to commit a crime, a real crime, one were there are victims. Not just being in the wrong place with a piece of metal.

[CO Liberal]

44. It's Still a Crime, RoeBear

And the mushroom picker committed it. And if convicted, he should be punished in accordance with that law.

[DoNotRefill]

46. Wouldn't it depend on the law?

IIRC, the Federal "Gun-Free School Zone Act" was found to be unconstitutional back in the early 1990s (Lopez). Congress went ahead and passed the same law again with the same constitutional problems in it, but it hasn't worked it's way through the court system. If that's the law he's accused of violating, he stands an excellent chance of getting the law overturned.

If that's the law he was charged with breaking, then NO, he didn't break the law, it's still unconstitutional, and an unconstitutional law is no law at all.

[RoeBear]

48. Fuck him then...

... take away his business, put all his employees in the unemployment line, send his ass to jail, let him brood and be bitter while he rots in jail, permanently take away his right to vote and own guns. He was probably just a republican anyways. Who cares what his intent was. Fuck him.


Now let's make speeding a felony too. Then we can take even more peoples rights away. Isn't this fun?!

[CO Liberal]

50. If You Don't Like a Law, Work to Change It

But you can't just ignore it.

[RoeBear]

52. I am serious...

...fuck him, throw the book at him. I changed my mind. I don't care if all he was doing was picking mushrooms. Fuck him.

[iverglas]

45. you can refer to whatever intent you like

Free speech, free speech, free speech ...

But the intent YOU are referring to has nothing to do with anything that is in issue in this discussion.

No court in the world could care less whether you have the "intent to commit a crime". The intent in question -- the mens rea, y'know -- is the intent to commit the act that happens to be defined as a crime.

If the law says that "being in the wrong place with a piece of metal" is a crime, and someone was in the wrong place with a piece of metal, and intended to be in that place and intended to have the piece of metal, s/he has committed a crime.

Don't they teach you people *anything* on TV?

The airport woman did NOT intend to do that. The mushroom picker DID intend to do that. "Like"ness: none of any relevance. They were both in a place with a piece of metal they shouldn't have had there, yes indeedy. They may both have been blond and blue-eyed, but that wouldn't be relevant either.

They had DIFFERENT INTENTS. Which you can basically like or lump. Makes no nevermind to me.

.

[RoeBear]

49. See my post #48

Fuck him.

[MrBenchley]

29. Who are you trying to kid?

"Yeah, it's 'offically' a crime but what is the harm?"
You mean, what is the harm in letting armed loonies lurk on schoolyards?

[slackmaster]

47. I just had one of those "D'Oh!" moments

The first three times I read this I thought the word "Bantam" was a reference to the chef's height. I pictured a dwarf with a chef's hat crawling around looking for mushrooms.

[iverglas]

53. ditto

And I still think that every time I see the thread in the main list.

Only I pictured him doing it in red satin boxing shorts.