Fri Jul 27, 2012, 04:39 PM

No charges filed on this "joker" yet. Should his guns be returned?

He was exercising his Constitutional Rights (1A) with his T Shirt which reads
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, I DO"

Authorities have taken a man into custody who referred to himself as “a joker” and threatened to shoot people at his former workplace in Prince George’s County, investigators said Friday.

The investigators said that the man, identified in a warrant as Neil E. Prescott of Crofton, called Pitney Bowes this week and threatened to carry out a shooting there.

“I am a joker. I’m going to load my guns and blow everybody up,” the man said over the phone to a man at Pitney Bowes, according to a warrant. He later called back and acknowledged that it was not smart to be making such threats over the phone, investigators said.

?uuid=MELSBtgSEeGR4e7WQ29tEw

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/maryland-police-may-have-thwarted-shooting/2012/07/27/gJQAC6AuDX_blog.html

54 replies, 3121 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

54 replies	Author	Time	Post
No charges filed on this "joker" yet. Should his guns be returned? (Original post)	Starboard Tack	Jul 2012	OP
No, that would be illegal. He's under indictment for a felony.	slackmaster	Jul 2012	#1
Right out of the gate, you gun types spoil all the fun.	TPaine7	Jul 2012	#2
Now why do you say this is an anti-gun thread?	Starboard Tack	Jul 2012	#22
the answer is	gejohnston	Jul 2012	#23
So, if he is deemed to be sane	Starboard Tack	Jul 2012	#25
I remember a debate between Jerry Falwell and Larry Flint	gejohnston	Jul 2012	#34
True, but I wouldn't have a problem living next door to either one.	Starboard Tack	Jul 2012	#36
You must have missed this part.	Starboard Tack	Jul 2012	#9
I don't think they allow people who are being kept in jail to have firearms	slackmaster	Jul 2012	#17
Guns will be returned. Charged with a misdemeanor for misuse of a phone.	Starboard Tack	Aug 2012	#45
"in a warrant" .. duh	X_Digger	Jul 2012	#3
Sorry, but search warrant is not a charge.	Starboard Tack	Jul 2012	#10
It's in your title.. "taken a man into custody"	X_Digger	Jul 2012	#12
You can be arrested without being charged.	Starboard Tack	Jul 2012	#13
It's called swearing out a warrant for arrest.	X_Digger	Jul 2012	#15
If it were an arrest warrant, you would be correct.	Starboard Tack	Jul 2012	#16
they are being held as evidence	gejohnston	Jul 2012	#19
What, you think you can be arrested without a warrant?!?	X_Digger	Jul 2012	#21
What do you think now?	Starboard Tack	Aug 2012	#46
The warrant refers to	Jenoch	Aug 2012	#54
Well, that went over well, didn't it?	AtheistCrusader	Jul 2012	#4
Glad you find such things humorous.	Starboard Tack	Jul 2012	#14
It's your fault I'm trying to picture them giving his guns back to him IN HIS CELL.	AtheistCrusader	Jul 2012	#20
If you read the article you would see that he has not been charged	Starboard Tack	Jul 2012	#26
Of course.	AtheistCrusader	Jul 2012	#31
"Highly unlikely", based on what?	Starboard Tack	Jul 2012	#33
The alleged phone call.	AtheistCrusader	Jul 2012	#44
Picture this	Starboard Tack	Aug 2012	#47
Yeah, no shit.	AtheistCrusader	Aug 2012	#50
He looks pretty funny	krispos42	Jul 2012	#5
I met Richard Kiel at a car show. He autographed a photo of his James Bond "Jaws" character...	slackmaster	Jul 2012	#6
Nice....	krispos42	Jul 2012	#7
If I ever get a chance to meet him again, I'll mock up a copy of "To Serve Man"	slackmaster	Jul 2012	#8
He was huge...	Missycim	Jul 2012	#27
Wikipedia shows him as born in 1939 but no death date.	slackmaster	Jul 2012	#35
I could be mistaken but I thought i heard he had passed	Missycim	Jul 2012	#41
Nice to see our host keeping things on track.	Starboard Tack	Jul 2012	#11
It's not an OP.	krispos42	Jul 2012	#18
Have some cheese.	Clames	Jul 2012	#30
My local jail has a silly tradition of not allowing people held in custody have guns.	Kaleva	Jul 2012	#24
In custody for a psych eval.. Not charged. May well be released without charges.	Starboard Tack	Jul 2012	#28
I'll refer then to your question in the OP.	Kaleva	Jul 2012	#32
I don't think a misdemeanor qualifies	Starboard Tack	Aug 2012	#48
How can you POSSIBLY still not understand how this works?	AtheistCrusader	Aug 2012	#51
OK, let's see how it washes out.	Starboard Tack	Aug 2012	#52
If he wants them back, he'll have to petition a court and a judge will have to restore the right	AtheistCrusader	Aug 2012	#53
At the conclusion of the proceedings, if he has not become a prohibited person,	petronius	Jul 2012	#29
Correct.	Starboard Tack	Jul 2012	#37
No, absent additional info, it wouldn't affect my homebuying decision	petronius	Jul 2012	#38
Hmm! Interesting. I find it hard to relate to living in such an environment.	Starboard Tack	Jul 2012	#39
I don't think there's any "environment" involved, but for my part I can't relate	petronius	Jul 2012	#40
What hypothetical?	Starboard Tack	Jul 2012	#42
"Assuming that is what happens" = 'hypothetical,' as does your imagined motivation for	petronius	Jul 2012	#43
I wonder if the DA would move in next door to this freak	Starboard Tack	Aug 2012	#49

Response to Starboard Tack (Original post)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 04:41 PM

slackmaster (60,567 posts)

1. No, that would be illegal. He's under indictment for a felony.

Federal law; Gun Control Act of 1968.

Reply to this post

Response to slackmaster (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 04:46 PM

TPaine7 (4,286 posts)

2. Right out of the gate, you gun types spoil all the fun.

Shame on you, spoiling things like that. Introducing facts and reality to an anti-gun thread just spoils things.

Reply to this post

Response to TPaine7 (Reply #2)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 09:44 PM

Starboard Tack (8,014 posts)

22. Now why do you say this is an anti-gun thread?

I posted a legitimate question. I am not anti-gun and you know that. My only objection is to carrying guns in public, particularly concealed guns. I am curious as to who might support returning these weapons to the man if and when he is released without any felony charges.

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #22)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 09:54 PM

gejohnston (12,835 posts)

23. the answer is

due process, but I'm guessing he won't be walking out with anything. If you support a right, like due process, you have to be consistent without exception. That doesn't mean you support him walking with the guns, It simply means you support a principal much larger than him. Otherwise, you would be giving up freedom for security to. Ben Franklin and all of that.
But I don't see it happening.

Reply to this post

Response to gejohnston (Reply #23)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 12:42 PM

Starboard Tack (8,014 posts)

25. So, if he is deemed to be sane

and the DA decides there isn't a case worth pursuing, based on a phone call and a T shirt, it would be an infringement of his rights to hold on to his arsenal? We "have to be consistent without exception" even when he is obviously someone that nobody would want as a neighbor. Or am I being prejudicial? Of course I am. Shame on me, but sometimes I just can't help it.

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #25)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 03:13 PM

gejohnston (12,835 posts)

34. I remember a debate between Jerry Falwell and Larry Flint

Falwell said porn is bad because it degrades sex and women
Flint said first amendment

I don't like either one, agreed with them both. Their arguments were not mutually exclusive

Reply to this post

Response to gejohnston (Reply #34)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 04:37 PM

Starboard Tack (8,014 posts)

36. True, but I wouldn't have a problem living next door to either one.

This dude not so much. It will be interesting to see if he is charged with anything. Feds could bust him for terrorist threats, which would probably be the best solution.

Reply to this post

Response to slackmaster (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 08:31 PM

Starboard Tack (8,014 posts)

9. You must have missed this part.

"He has not yet been charged."

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #9)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 09:21 PM

slackmaster (60,567 posts)

17. I don't think they allow people who are being kept in jail to have firearms

I could be mistaken about that. Please let me know if you learn otherwise.

Even if he makes bail, I don't believe the state has any obligation to return his property promptly.

Reply to this post

Response to slackmaster (Reply #1)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 12:39 PM

Starboard Tack (8,014 posts)

45. Guns will be returned. Charged with a misdemeanor for misuse of a phone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/charges-to-be-announced-against-man-police-say-threatened-mass-shooting/2012/08/01/gJQAk4bJPX_blog.html

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Original post)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 04:53 PM

X_Digger (13,269 posts)

3. "in a warrant" .. duh

So yes, charges have been filed.

*sigh*

Reply to this post

Response to X_Digger (Reply #3)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 08:35 PM

Starboard Tack (8,014 posts)

10. Sorry, but search warrant is not a charge.

*sigh*

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #10)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 08:40 PM

X_Digger (13,269 posts)

12. It's in your title.. "taken a man into custody"

Last edited Fri Jul 27, 2012, 08:42 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

You don't take a person into custody on a search warrant.

"suspect arrested" -- what, you expect us to say he should have a gun in jail?!?

Swing and a miss.. again.

Reply to this post

Response to X_Digger (Reply #12)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 08:47 PM

Starboard Tack (8,014 posts)

13. You can be arrested without being charged.

Do you understand so little about the justice system or didn't you bother to read past your own imagination? He is being held for a psychological evaluation. No charges yet.

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #13)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 08:51 PM

X_Digger (13,269 posts)

15. It's called swearing out a warrant for arrest.

The officer (or more usually the SA) has to articulate probable cause, based on an affidavit, in front of a judge.

Derp.

If he is held via TRO (or that state's equivalent) and involuntarily committed for a period of more than 72 hours, that would *also* disqualify him.

Reply to this post

Response to X_Digger (Reply #15)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 09:09 PM

Starboard Tack (8,014 posts)

16. If it were an arrest warrant, you would be correct.

Here, maybe this will help you understand
http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/07/27/Local/Graphics/search%20warrant.pdf

So far, no charges, just LE doing it's job. We'll see if they hold him for more than 72 hours.

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #16)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 09:32 PM

gejohnston (12,835 posts)

19. they are being held as evidence

so they won't be going anywhere anytime soon. Don't you need a permit in Maryland?

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #16)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 09:41 PM

X_Digger (13,269 posts)

21. What, you think you can be arrested without a warrant?!?

Property can be seized, but to arrest a person, an arrest warrant has to be issued.

I honestly wonder how you think the justice system works.

Reply to this post

Response to X_Digger (Reply #15)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 12:41 PM

Starboard Tack (8,014 posts)

46. What do you think now?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/charges-to-be-announced-against-man-police-say-threatened-mass-shooting/2012/08/01/gJQAk4bJPX_blog.html

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #46)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 01:25 PM

Jenoch (1,784 posts)

54. The warrant refers to

an arrest warrant, not a search warrant.

I wonder if Maryland has a law in which a court can say if someone is deemed a danger to themselves or others they can keep the firearms until he is deemed to not be a danger to himself or others?

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Original post)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 05:19 PM

AtheistCrusader (14,581 posts)

4. Well, that went over well, didn't it?

Reply to this post

Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #4)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 08:49 PM

Starboard Tack (8,014 posts)

14. Glad you find such things humorous.

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #14)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 09:34 PM

AtheistCrusader (14,581 posts)

20. It's your fault I'm trying to picture them giving his guns back to him IN HIS CELL.

Reply to this post

Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #20)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 12:49 PM

Starboard Tack (8,014 posts)

26. If you read the article you would see that he has not been charged

He is being held for a psych evaluation, which could well deem him sane. The DA may consider the evidence too flimsy for a prosecution and never charge him. Should his arsenal be returned to him in such a case?

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #26)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 02:10 PM

AtheistCrusader (14,581 posts)

31. Of course.

Innocent until proven guilty.

No mental health issue, no crime, no problem.

(Highly unlikely they will determine he has not mental health issues)

Reply to this post

Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #31)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 02:23 PM

Starboard Tack (8,014 posts)

33. "Highly unlikely", based on what?

The phone calls?
The T shirt?
The arsenal?
The combination of any two of the above?

Would he have been arrested without at least two, especially the third?

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #33)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:10 AM

AtheistCrusader (14,581 posts)

44. The alleged phone call.

You know, the actual crime, as alleged.

The 'arsenal'? ffffffffpt that ain't shit.

Reply to this post

Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #20)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 12:41 PM

Starboard Tack (8,014 posts)

47. Picture this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/charges-to-be-announced-against-man-police-say-threatened-mass-shooting/2012/08/01/gJQAk4bJPX_blog.html

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #47)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 12:57 PM

AtheistCrusader (14,581 posts)

50. Yeah, no shit.

He's been in custody the whole time.

"Neil Prescott, 28, has been hospitalized, receiving treatment and undergoing evaluations for possible mental health problems, since police took him into custody last week. "

That is involuntary evaluation. It's specified in state and federal statutes for permanent disqualification for firearms possession.

You know, like everyone told you on day 1 you posted this story.

He wasn't going to get his guns back yesterday, and he's not going to get them back tomorrow, charges or no (and everyone pretty much everyone predicted so.).

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Original post)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 05:38 PM

krispos42 (45,273 posts)

5. He looks pretty funny

Reply to this post

Response to krispos42 (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 06:15 PM

slackmaster (60,567 posts)

6. I met Richard Kiel at a car show. He autographed a photo of his James Bond "Jaws" character...

...For my stepson. The man is HUGE!

Reply to this post

Response to slackmaster (Reply #6)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 06:19 PM

krispos42 (45,273 posts)

7. Nice....

Reply to this post

Response to krispos42 (Reply #7)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 07:08 PM

slackmaster (60,567 posts)

8. If I ever get a chance to meet him again, I'll mock up a copy of "To Serve Man"

Reply to this post

Response to slackmaster (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 12:55 PM

Missycim (950 posts)

27. He was huge...

I think he passed away not too long ago

Reply to this post

Response to Missycim (Reply #27)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 03:38 PM

slackmaster (60,567 posts)

35. Wikipedia shows him as born in 1939 but no death date.

Older than I thought.

Reply to this post

Response to slackmaster (Reply #35)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 08:38 PM

Missycim (950 posts)

41. I could be mistaken but I thought i heard he had passed

Sorry if I was mistaken.

Reply to this post

Response to krispos42 (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 08:37 PM

Starboard Tack (8,014 posts)

11. Nice to see our host keeping things on track.

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #11)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 09:24 PM

krispos42 (45,273 posts)

18. It's not an OP.

I'm powerless.

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #11)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 01:51 PM

Clames (2,038 posts)

30. Have some cheese.

It'll go well with that whine.

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Original post)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 11:10 PM

Kaleva (11,406 posts)

24. My local jail has a silly tradition of not allowing people held in custody have guns.

From the article:

"Authorities have taken a man into custody who referred to himself as “a joker” and threatened to shoot people at his former workplace in Prince George’s County, investigators said Friday."

Reply to this post

Response to Kaleva (Reply #24)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 12:59 PM

Starboard Tack (8,014 posts)

28. In custody for a psych eval.. Not charged. May well be released without charges.

Hospital psych units are not jails. Try to take the question seriously please.

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #28)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 02:11 PM

Kaleva (11,406 posts)

32. I'll refer then to your question in the OP.

Last edited Sat Jul 28, 2012, 02:13 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

"No charges filed on this "joker" yet. Should his guns be returned?"

Few, if any, here would suggest that the man's guns be returned to him while he is in the psych unit.

Furthermore, the police are under no obligation to immediately return seized property upon request of the property owner. While the rules vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, one usually has to file a motion in court first in order to start the procedure to reclaim seized property. A judge could very well rule not to return the guns to the man if there are charges pending.

If the man is determined not to be a threat to himself or to others and the PA decides there isn't enough evidence to charge him with a crime, then he'll have the right to get his guns back in time.

Reply to this post

Response to Kaleva (Reply #32)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 12:43 PM

Starboard Tack (8,014 posts)

48. I don't think a misdemeanor qualifies

His guns were obtained legally
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/charges-to-be-announced-against-man-police-say-threatened-mass-shooting/2012/08/01/gJQAk4bJPX_blog.html

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #48)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 01:04 PM

AtheistCrusader (14,581 posts)

51. How can you POSSIBLY still not understand how this works?

I mean fucking really. How many times does it have to be explained.

I can't find a state that doesn't have a provision like this:

(2)(a) A person, whether an adult or juvenile, is guilty of the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree, if the person does not qualify under subsection (1) of this section for the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree and the person owns, has in his or her possession, or has in his or her control any firearm:

(ii) After having previously been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment under RCW 71.05.240, 71.05.320, 71.34.740, 71.34.750, chapter 10.77 RCW, or equivalent statutes of another jurisdiction, unless his or her right to possess a firearm has been restored as provided in RCW 9.41.047;

Felony conviction not required. They stuck him in a mental health facility for more than a week, that's a state and federal disqualifier. He will be entered into NICS, and state patrol databases. If he's found with a firearm, he goes to jail.

Reply to this post

Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #51)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 01:08 PM

Starboard Tack (8,014 posts)

52. OK, let's see how it washes out.

Great system that let this freak acquire such an arsenal before realizing he was nuts. Oh right, they didn't figure it out till he forced them to.

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #52)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 01:11 PM

AtheistCrusader (14,581 posts)

53. If he wants them back, he'll have to petition a court and a judge will have to restore the right

for him to possess any firearms at all.

That's how rights work in this country. You have them until you demonstrate you shouldn't via due process.

In the interim, people can be hurt, yes, but it took a long time before another nation surpassed our expansive set of rights for the individual. It's still a pretty good system, even if it could use a little updating.

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Original post)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 01:21 PM

petronius (19,796 posts)

29. At the conclusion of the proceedings, if he has not become a prohibited person,

then his private property should be returned and there would be no further justification to interfere with his rights, liberties, or privacy...

Reply to this post

Response to petronius (Reply #29)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 04:40 PM

Starboard Tack (8,014 posts)

37. Correct.

Now, assuming that is what happens, would you hesitate moving in next door to him, based on what you now know?

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #37)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 04:50 PM

petronius (19,796 posts)

38. No, absent additional info, it wouldn't affect my homebuying decision

But I doubt I'd go out of my way to socialize or associate with anyone who found that t-shirt funny; there's a good chance our personalities wouldn't mesh...

Reply to this post

Response to petronius (Reply #38)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 07:12 PM

Starboard Tack (8,014 posts)

39. Hmm! Interesting. I find it hard to relate to living in such an environment.

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #39)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 08:00 PM

petronius (19,796 posts)

40. I don't think there's any "environment" involved, but for my part I can't relate

to a mindset that would allow major decisions to be influenced by something like your hypothetical...

Reply to this post

Response to petronius (Reply #40)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 09:47 PM

Starboard Tack (8,014 posts)

42. What hypothetical?

I could not imagine wanting to live next to someone who is obsessed with guns, wears a T shirt bearing such a slogan and thinks it's OK to make death threats. The fact that he might skate because a DA may not feel he has enough to secure a conviction an thus further his career, has no bearing on my desire to have such neighbors. I understand there are people of his ilk all over this country and I find reassurance in my decision to not have to deal with them as neighbors a long time ago.

Reply to this post

Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #42)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 11:01 PM

petronius (19,796 posts)

43. "Assuming that is what happens" = 'hypothetical,' as does your imagined motivation for

Last edited Sat Jul 28, 2012, 11:09 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

a DA. If you think there's enough information here to guide a life-decision that's great; personally I wouldn't base anything important on such nebulous worries...

Reply to this post

Response to petronius (Reply #43)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 12:45 PM

Starboard Tack (8,014 posts)

49. I wonder if the DA would move in next door to this freak

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/charges-to-be-announced-against-man-police-say-threatened-mass-shooting/2012/08/01/gJQAk4bJPX_blog.html

Reply to this post

Gun Control & RKBA (Group)