Unlawful body armor charge?

[MT1]

It's not just about bullets. Read the statute's definition again. Then read the promotional literature regarding those Kevlar gloves, see if they say they're "cut-resistant".

(d) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:
“Body armor.” Any protective covering for the body, or parts thereof, made of any polyaramid fiber or any resin-treated glass fiber cloth or any material or combination of materials made or designed to prevent, resist, deflect or deter the penetration thereof by ammunition, knife, cutting or piercing instrument or any other weapon.

http://www.dupont.com/products-and-s...echnology.html

I agree. Some arguments could come down to how a product is advertised. I have several pieces of military issue equipment that have a Kevlar component that are marketed as "abrasion resistant". However, in the case of the news article I am sure the wearer of the protective vest wasn't thinking of avoiding a few scrapes.

[Deleted]

You have to look at the intent of the law... the intent was not to add an additional penalty to someone for wearing gloves. The intent was to cover ballistic and STAB resistant vests when used in conjunction with commuting a crime.

I am surprised this case is not going federal.

[GunLawyer001]

You have to look at the intent of the law... the intent was not to add an additional penalty to someone for wearing gloves. The intent was to cover ballistic and STAB resistant vests when used in conjunction with commuting a crime.

. . .

Look at the intent of Pennsylvania's weapons-free school law, which was to stop kids from bringing weapons into schools for nefarious purposes, not to prosecute licensed adults for having legal guns for self-defense.

How's that one working out so far?

[TXDMERC73]

Interceptor body armor is illegal to own unless your active in the military, years ago when i was buying body armor on Ebay i was bidding on interceptor armor like 3 or 4 times i lost all bids (which got me pissed and got me banned from Ebay for life) i was lucky i didnt cuz those who bought the interceptor armor had to return it with no refund! it was stolen government property.

now see i got 3 PAGST vests from Ebay, which was government property but its not reported stolen, strange...

[streaker69]

Interceptor body armor is illegal to own unless your active in the military, years ago when i was buying body armor on Ebay i was bidding on interceptor armor like 3 or 4 times i lost all bids (which got me pissed and got me banned from Ebay for life) i was lucky i didnt cuz those who bought the interceptor armor had to return it with no refund! it was stolen government property.

now see i got 3 PAGST vests from Ebay, which was government property but its not reported stolen, strange...

Technically, it isn't that the armor itself is illegal to own, as in there isn't any law that says you can't. You just aren't allowed to be buying stolen government property.

[Carson]

In response to MT1 and Gunlawyer001,

like I said, depends how bad they want to screw you over.

So just how exactly are Delgado and Watts getting screwed over ?

[gnbrotz]

I'll bite.

Even if worn during the commission of the alleged robbery (a fact not in evidence), the body armor contributed nothing to the danger/damage done to the victim, and since there is no account of any type of altercation during the incident, it would seem that the armor provided no legitimate advantage to the defendants. It's a silly add-on charge based on an element that (probably) had zero effect on the overall incident for any involved party.

[raxar]

It's not just about bullets. Read the statute's definition again. Then read the promotional literature regarding those Kevlar gloves, see if they say they're "cut-resistant".

(d) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:
“Body armor.” Any protective covering for the body, or parts thereof, made of any polyaramid fiber or any resin-treated glass fiber cloth or any material or combination of materials made or designed to prevent, resist, deflect or deter the penetration thereof by ammunition, knife, cutting or piercing instrument or any other weapon.

http://www.dupont.com/products-and-s...echnology.html

So if I go on a chainsaw rampage I should leave the kevlar chaps at home, handy info......

[Carson]

I'll bite.

Even if worn during the commission of the alleged robbery (a fact not in evidence), the body armor contributed nothing to the danger/damage done to the victim, and since there is no account of any type of altercation during the incident, it would seem that the armor provided no legitimate advantage to the defendants. It's a silly add-on charge based on an element that (probably) had zero effect on the overall incident for any involved party.

I am assuming they were wearing the armor or had it readily available. If the victim was armed and engaged them or responding officers did, then the advantage would be on their side.

I have no problem with law abiding people armed and armored up, someone committing armed robbery, not so much.

[gnbrotz]

I am assuming they were wearing the armor or had it readily available. If the victim was armed and engaged them or responding officers did, then the advantage would be on their side.

I have no problem with law abiding people armed and armored up, someone committing armed robbery, not so much.

*Would be*, but in this case, apparently, was NOT. Thus the "bogusness" of the charge, *in this case*.