Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

State Of Connecticut vs Duane Doutel Has Been Dismissed
Ammoland ^ | 31 July, 2012 | Connecticut Carry

Posted on 07/31/2012 12:31:45 PM PDT by marktwain

Norwalk, Connecticut --(Ammoland.com)- Mr. Duane Doutel and his Attorney Rachel M. Baird appeared at the Norwalk courthouse (GA20) this morning for the newest leg of the ridiculous saga that has befallen Mr. Doutel.

Mr. Doutel’s case was called first and a surprised and befuddled Magistrate tried to play catch up as the prosecution announced that they were willing to ‘nolle’ the charges after a year and five months.

Attorney Baird made clear Mr. Doutel’s intent to see this trial through to a dismissal no matter what and that they had no plan to take a compromise like a nolle.

The prosecution completed their spineless slithering by agreeing to dismiss the charges rather than facing the onslaught that they knew would be delivered in a trial. We are confident this was a wise move for the prosecution.

Mr. Doutel’s criminal case has gone through three charges sequentially, each being dropped for a lesser charge each time the prosecution was challenged:

* · Threatening in the Second Degree (Class A misdemeanor)

* · Harassment in the Second Degree (Class C misdemeanor)

* · Creating a public disturbance (Infraction)

The record of charges shows that the prosecution from the start knew that they had no case and that they only pursued the prosecution of these charges to penalize Mr. Doutel for standing up for himself.

Connecticut Carry commends Mr. Doutel for standing up for himself, for his rights and for standing up for the rights of citizens all across Connecticut by not laying down and surrendering to the ‘contempt of prosecution’ malice brought against him.

Our sincerest thanks and congratulations go out to Mr. Doutel and all the players in Mr. Doutel’s defense counsel. They have truly made a ‘dream team’ which protected a citizen’s rights and stopped a runaway prosecution and a careless court from taking a man’s liberties without cause.

Stay tuned for the ensuing payback exacted via Federal civil right suits.

More information on this issue can be found on http://ctcarry.com/NorwalkvDoutel

Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Connecticut
KEYWORDS: banglist; ccw; ct; doutel
From a previous article:

"When Mr. Doutel left an innocuous voicemail message that he would “come down there and that it would not be pretty” if the results he had paid cash for were not forwarded as requested and instructed, Dr. Staw saw his opportunity and concocted an elaborate series of mischaracterizations and lies about Mr. Doutel. When he reported these to Norwalk Police Officer Jared Zwickler, the rookie officer took Dr. Staw’s words as gospel, gathered fellow officers into a raid team and stormed Mr. Doutel’s property, arresting the confused but compliant Vietnam-era veteran and searching his house, seizing his firearms, including priceless family heirlooms that cannot be replaced."

1 posted on 07/31/2012 12:31:59 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

Please Help To Keep The
"Conservative News and Views"
On FR Coming By "Clicking Here"!!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


2 posted on 07/31/2012 12:43:16 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

What is “nolle”?


3 posted on 07/31/2012 12:46:02 PM PDT by spel_grammer_an_punct_polise (I wanna start a Seniors' Motor Scooter Gang. Wanna join?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spel_grammer_an_punct_polise
What is “nolle”?

Nolle prosequi

4 posted on 07/31/2012 12:55:40 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

It would be nice to see what they charges were in the beginning of the article!


5 posted on 07/31/2012 1:02:15 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

And why it was good that the State lost, what was the issue involved.


6 posted on 07/31/2012 1:04:04 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

They didn’t make it easy to find, but the story is here:
http://ctcarry.com/NorwalkvDoutel/Background


7 posted on 07/31/2012 1:28:12 PM PDT by Lady Lucky (If you believe what you're saying, quit making taxable income.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I rise to place this post into nomination as the “Least Informative Post” of 2012.


8 posted on 07/31/2012 1:31:29 PM PDT by RobinOfKingston (The instinct toward liberalism is located in the part of the brain called the rectal lobe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

This does present an interesting legal situation.

1) A patient goes to his doctor’s office several times for routine matters while legally armed. The doctor’s office does not have a “no guns” policy, but they are uncomfortable with armed patients.

2) The patient wants pre-surgical tests done and forwarded to the surgeon. The tests are not done properly, and have to be redone. Then the doctors office does not forward them to the surgeon promptly, despite several requests.

3) The patient calls the doctor’s office to again request the documents, and while the first part of his message is ordinary, in the second part, based *solely* on the inflection of his voice, they feel threatened. Based on this feeling, they contact the police.

So clearly this is a case of “armed and with ‘negative waves’”. The legal issue is thus, “if a person is armed and another person *feels* that they *may* be acting in a threatening manner, may the police intervene?”


9 posted on 07/31/2012 1:47:23 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

The police can investigate anything at anytime. But I assume you mean by “intervene” take some action against the patient. Simply, no, in the sense that it wouldn’t hold up in court. To act in any way that deprives the patient of his rights or liberties, the police must have more than “armed’ with “negative waves” as evidence; that’s not enough to do it. But if things keep going the way they are, it’s only a matter of time before this is gone.


10 posted on 07/31/2012 2:48:23 PM PDT by majormaturity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

Thank you. I assumed that it was Latin-based but did not know the “prosequi” part.


11 posted on 07/31/2012 4:02:49 PM PDT by spel_grammer_an_punct_polise (I wanna start a Seniors' Motor Scooter Gang. Wanna join?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RobinOfKingston

The author obviously wants to be a mystery writer.


12 posted on 07/31/2012 4:05:41 PM PDT by Rome2000 (WILLARD ROMNEY -- MORMON MELCHIDEZEK BISHOP -HIS FAMILY HAS AVOIDED MILITARY SERVICE FOR GENERATIONS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: majormaturity

The argument would be that even the mildest kind of implication of a threat, such as happened in this case, could fit in the shadowy realm of the implied threats of extortion.

Courts have, in past considered that the exhibition of the possession of a gun, “when used to intimidate”, which is a subjective state of mind of the person being shown the gun, might be considered as unlawfully coercive.

This might fit into law that was created when guns were generally uncommon. That is, since few had guns, showing off a gun like that could be considered as threatening.

There are a large number of these laws that were not automatically updated with McDonald v. Chicago, but need to be.

That someone might be charged with a crime based on the subjective state of mind of another person is ridiculous, but not impossible, as they are the entire basis of “hate crime” laws in the absence of real evidence.

What you said is clearly the way things *should* be; what I am suggesting is that there might be injustice until the rest of the law catches up.


13 posted on 07/31/2012 5:44:00 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lady Lucky
LOL!

From the story: "Mr. Doutel peacefully exited his residence to find several Norwalk police officers looking in the windows of a neighboring house. Mr. Doutel called out to the officers to let them know they were looking at the wrong house.

What is it with the poplice and 'the wrong house'?

Could it be SOP fishing expiditions, knowing that eventually they'll go to the correct house?

There is no situation that can't be made worse with calling the police.

14 posted on 07/31/2012 5:51:20 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Liberals, at their core, are aggressive & dangerous to everyone around them,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lady Lucky

thank you.


15 posted on 08/03/2012 12:52:01 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson