Newsnewspolicemisconductcopscriminal

Thu Feb 4, 2016, 10:29 AM

Career criminal caught, or responsible gun owner harrassed.

I honestly don't know where to take this story. Perhaps you can tell me. The court issued a protective order prohibiting Joel Richards Addison, 34, of Painter from possessing, purchasing, or transporting a firearm. Joel Richards Addison was served with the court order from January 2015, and while we don't know the specific details these types of orders are normally part of a Divorce proceeding where the potential for violence is fairly strong.

Now, Joel was driving along a road at night as part of his job. A Deer jumped out in front of him, and he struck it. No problem so far. The State Police officer who responded conducted a normal investigation and ran the license of the driver as part of a normal procedure. The protective order was listed in the computer, and Joel was in direct violation of the order that offered no exceptions. In other words, he wasn't to have a gun in any way, shape, or form, for any reason. Joel was arrested and taken to jail for violating the court order, and has been released on bond, basically being his word that he'll show up to court when he's promised to.

So anyone who violates a court order for a year is obviously a career criminal. There can't be any way to look at it other than that. You see, we know that Joel was carrying a guy on him during the entire year, because as you might have guessed, he is a cop. Yes, a police officer was in violation of a court order for an entire year, and nobody noticed.

So you decide. Was Joel a fine responsible gun owner who is being harassed by the liberal courts who were trying to deprive him of his second amendment rights, and deprive the nation of a damn fine heroic cop?

Or was Joel a career criminal who habitually broke the law over the last year flaunting the legal order of the court?

EDIT: I forgot to add the link. I'm sorry, here it is. http://www.delmarvanow.com/story/news/local/virginia/2016/01/29/onley-police-officer-arrested/79526760/?platform=hootsuite
1 vote, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Joel Richards Addison is a damn fine American being tormented by the Anti Gun cop hating minority
0 (0%)
Joel Richards Addison is a career criminal who flaunted the authority of the court for a year.
1 (100%)
Savannahman just hates cops and should be on everyone's ignore list.
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

12 replies, 1485 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply Career criminal caught, or responsible gun owner harrassed. (Original post)
SavannahMan Feb 2016 OP
Ax Crazy Feb 2016 #1
spike61 Feb 2016 #8
Ax Crazy Feb 2016 #10
spike61 Feb 2016 #11
goodwords Feb 2016 #2
nolens volens Feb 2016 #3
His Daughter Feb 2016 #4
goodwords Feb 2016 #5
SavannahMan Feb 2016 #12
News2Me Feb 2016 #6
oldenuff35 Feb 2016 #7
spike61 Feb 2016 #9

Response to SavannahMan (Original post)

Thu Feb 4, 2016, 10:58 AM

1. What's good for the civilian is good for the cop.

That's what I've always maintained. Regardless of how I feel about the law in general(and I'd probably need more information about why the protective order was issued in order to form an opinion on this case), his status as an officer should not confer any special exemption.

The career I'm about to begin will require me to maintain eligibility to carry a handgun. If I'm disqualified for any reason, I won't be able to work. That doesn't mean I should be immune to those disqualifications. That should be true regardless of who my employer is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ax Crazy (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 4, 2016, 01:00 PM

8. There ya go. he should have taken a desk job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spike61 (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 4, 2016, 07:55 PM

10. Well, ideally...

We wouldn't allow people with protective orders against them to be law enforcement officers at all(if, indeed, the protective order had some legitimate foundation and wasn't some standard precautionary measure).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ax Crazy (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 4, 2016, 08:14 PM

11. "legitimate foundation". Theres the thing

The article I read has no mention of why it was given. And of course the OP writer has his own agenda.
These days a lot of attys tell women to get them for little or no reason. Were they getting a divorce?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Original post)

Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:00 AM

2. IF Joel was the subject of an RO, then he had an opportunity for a hearing and if he had one and

LOST then that generally becomes a finding of some DV but not a conviction (doesn't trigger Lautenburg).

If he chose not to fight what is usually (>90% of the time if there are kids involved) a bullshit RO, then he is an idiot.

Either way his judgement sucks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to goodwords (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:11 AM

3. ^^This^^

With piss poor judgment one wonders why any department would want to keep him on, although as one starts to look at data on these types of issues there are a lot of municipalities paying settlements for the piss poor judgment of officers.

I expect that the insurance carriers will be the prime driver behind altering behavior because those municipalities won't be able to find a carrier if they are continually subject to payouts on insurance for malfeasance or poor judgment calls by their uniformed officers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to goodwords (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:31 AM

4. Here in CA such orders are entered routinely at the request of either party

Apparently contesting them is fairly rate. An acquaintance was getting a divorce. No kids, wife had gone hippy, husband worked for a defense contractor. Her lawyer asked for the RO, saying it was routine. For those with security clearances any restraining order is a big deal. Friend's lawyer fought it to the surprise of the other lawyer who was shocked by it. Judge ruled in favor of the husband once he learned there were significant impact on the husband, that the wife had not asked for it, and they owned no guns.

People going through a divorce needs to watch the details. Taking bets this guy did not. Shame on him for being stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to His Daughter (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 4, 2016, 11:34 AM

5. The Family Court Grinder is NO joke. But it IS possible for a man to win big if he just understands

the system and plays a long, dispassionate and strategic game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to goodwords (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 4, 2016, 10:37 PM

12. I agree.

For a year he's been in criminal contempt of court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Original post)

Thu Feb 4, 2016, 12:39 PM

6. In your OP you mention a protective order.

Other posters have mentioned restraining orders. Is there a distinction between the two?

I was under the impression that restraining orders are routinely issued to both parties during divorce proceeding to stop harassment etc. I have never heard that possession of firearms was prohibited by a routine RO.

I was also under the impression that a protective order was issued when there was reason to suspect a violent act may be committed. In that case, a restriction on possession of firearms might be advisable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Original post)

Thu Feb 4, 2016, 12:48 PM

7. There is more to this story, that is obvious.

If this was a valid court order without any exceptions then the LE agency that employs him would not have been able to put him on the street. YES they would have known about it!!!!! The employing agency would have had a huge liability in putting him on the street with a firearm and simply would never have allowed him to continue working with a firearm.

So something is wrong with this whole story.

The other part is that these orders have an end date they are not open ended and do not go on forever without being extended by subsequent judicial action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SavannahMan (Original post)

Thu Feb 4, 2016, 01:04 PM

9. "Career criminals" are people with long criminal records.

Yes, this doofus violated the order, but does he also have a long list of previous offenses? No? Then no, he's NOT a career criminal. He's been charged ONCE.
But you already knew that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Newsnewspolicemisconductcopscriminal