A man was arrested early Wednesday afternoon after he was spotted carrying what appeared to be a grenade.
Emporia Police Lt. John Koelsch said this morning that the police department got a call of a suspicious device around noon. The man was stopped at Fifth Avenue and Commercial Street and was taken into custody. The grenade was a relic souvenir, which could be used as a paperweight, and was not dangerous.
The police department kept the device and the man was released. His name is not being released.
hjcary (anonymous) says...
So why did they keep it? If it was a relic souvenir they have no reason to take if from the man. Maybe tell him to keep it in his home and not carry it around town which was an odd thing to do but they don't have a right to take it from him, let alone arrest him.
January 22, 2009 at 5:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jmb232 (anonymous) says...
If the object was evidence, such as the person was cited for disorderly conduct for creating a distubance for carrying an object that appeared to be an explosive.
It would have to be used as evidence and logged in as such.
After court, if the case went forward, the judge would likely decide if the person
would get the object back. If he is carrying it around town, he might not..
January 22, 2009 at 7:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hellfirebluefish (anonymous) says...
Over the holidays, a man in Aspen had threatened banks with explosives, disguised as Christmas gifts. Most of the time when something as terrible as an explosion happens, it is disguised as something ordinary. My hats off to the Emporia PD for taking the matter seriously. But when they realized it was a relic souvenir, it seems they should have given it back, with a very stern warning of course. Maybe they should be called out when you see someone carrying a box down the street, but that is ordinary, isn't it...?
January 22, 2009 at 7:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
IF you work downtown, you know the man in question, and while he may appear somewhat odd on occassions he is usually harmless. At least the EPD knew this and took it into consideration before they called the bomb squad out of Leavenworth to deal with it..
Good job everyone!
Steve
January 22, 2009 at 8:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Who do I have to talk to get my grenade back?
January 23, 2009 at 1:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...
josiesbar, lmao!
January 23, 2009 at 5:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Would that be the Chap walking the sidewalks that wears army issue clothing including a trench coat in the summer?
January 23, 2009 at 5:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
yep!
January 23, 2009 at 7:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1999emp (anonymous) says...
It was a young man and did not have a beard. I was standing right out side the courthouse when it happen. It wasn't the guy who wears the safari type hat sometimes.
January 23, 2009 at 8:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
I tend to agree that if it was found to be harmless, a paper weight more or less, they should have returned it right there. They have no right nor reason to confiscate and retain his legal personal property. The City of New Orleans is learning that lesson following legal action brought against them for illegally confiscating legal firearms from non-criminal citizens following Katrina.
January 23, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
It had the appearence of maybe possibly being harmfulish so you see it was a must that it be confiscated to protect all of us. Or something like that.
January 23, 2009 at 9:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
romano1784 (anonymous) says...
If it was it was discovered to be a relic and nothing more it should have been returned to him. He did nothing illegal, and deserves the benifit of the doubt. Remember that pesky "innocent until proven guilty" line?
January 23, 2009 at 9:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Ah, but in order to protect us we need to over look such principles of "innocent until proven guilty" and common sense and all that stuff. Man I hope you know I'm joking!
January 23, 2009 at 10:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
O.K. if this guy really wanted to make a statment and wanted his paperweight back, he would have said so and the city would have obliged. Suffice to say he was some "NUT" who wanted to get his five minutes or fame nd he has done that. Give it a rest.
Steve
January 23, 2009 at 10:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
outdoorsman25 (anonymous) says...
the police are dumb
January 24, 2009 at 2:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I know a few police officers and they aren't dumb. They have to follow orders from people who are dumb.
January 24, 2009 at 9:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justthefacts (anonymous) says...
Glad to see there are so many "experts" on police practices and the law. You are also making the ass/u/mption the paper got the whole story. I heard on my scanner that a number of businesses called to say this guy was yelling he was going to blow up people. That would constitute terroristic threats and would be so charged and hence the "item" would be evidence. If the guy is a kook, do you really want him doing this kind of thing again. Given the information I heard, the cops used restraint and good judgement. Before you start calling people "dumb" you may want to check out the whole story.
January 24, 2009 at 10:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )