From Sector 111’s Lt.Minton:
In an effort to combat quality of life issues on the 25th Street corridor, the Richmond Police Department working with the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office has started the interdiction process again on Habitual Drunkards in the East End.
The Richmond Police Department recently held a sector problem solving workshop at the Martin Luther King middle school. During this workshop quality of life issues were a major concern for residents in and around the 25th street corridor.
With this in mind the circuit court process has been completed with Linwood Carr. Linwood Carr has been arrested over 40 times. The vast majority of these offenses were alcohol related. We are sharing this information with the community because we want you to know that we listen to your concerns and this is one of the ways we have addressed the issue.
Linwood Carr is hereby ordered not to possess alcohol or be drunk in public. If he violates this he can be sentenced up to 12 months in jail.
The Code of Virginia, section 4.1-333, says that the Circuit Court can enter an interdiction order on any resident after notice has been given, IF the Court finds one of two things:
1. The person “has been convicted of driving any automobile, truck, motorcycle, engine or train while intoxicated”, or
2. The person “has shown himself to be an habitual drunkard”.
The Code (4.1-322) does prohibit that person from even possessing an alcoholic beverage or from being intoxicated in public. If the person violates 322, they could be sentenced up to 12 months in prison and/or given a $2500 fine.
And the Code (4.1-324) also criminalizes selling alcoholic beverages to anyone to whom that sale is prohibited.
32 comments
Yeesh.
That is an odd sentence to read. I get that you can arrest somebody for being drunk in public, but you can “ban” somebody from possessing alcohol altogether? I don’t know if I like that.
RT @chpn: Linwood Carr is banned from possessing alcohol http://t.co/Qnc7OPqdcv
I am grateful for this action on the part of the city, which will benefit all involved…those who are drinking themselves to ill health or death, and those impacted by that drunkeness. Thank you.
It’s great to live in such a free country!
That said, I’ve run into this guy a few times when he’s been sauced up and he has been obnoxious.
Ann, I would like to review your daily menus and personal habits sometime to make sure I approve of all of your choices. I am concerned that some of those choices may shorten your life expectancy. Can you let me know what would be a good time to do so?
We might as well take Linwood to the town square and shame him by throwing rotten vegetables from our urban gardens. This is so degrading. Our brother needs faithful friends to help him w/ sobriety, not public shaming.
With everything else going on in the world, I’ll certainly sleep better knowing alcohol is being banned to this man. Will he have a personal policeman with him at all times to keep him sober? And unless he’s too intoxicated to make a purchase, how are alcohol sellers supposed to know he’s banned & they are committing a criminal act? Will he have to wear a scarlet letter ‘A’ with a slash through it?
‘Big Brother’ coming to a block near you….because we need more laws & bigger gov’t!
As a longtime resident near the drunk walk stretch of 25th Street I’m glad to see this. Its obvious the man has problems with alcohol, but he is not my brother or my friend he is that obnoxious drunk man who is a public nuisance. As a tax-paying citizen I have some rights to be able to use the public streets without harassment.
“We are sharing this information with the community because we want you to know that we listen to your concerns and this is one of the ways we have addressed the issue.”
What “community” is being helped here? Is this man not part of the community? If he is truly alcoholic then he needs help and support from his community, not public shaming and judgment.
I’ll just say that getting “help & support”, and being essentially “cut off at the bar” are not mutually exclusive. It’s a little overbearing, sure, but clearly this man isn’t capable of helping himself. I support it.
So they’re just going to ban someone who is very clearly an alcoholic from buying alcohol under the threat of imprisonment or a fine?
Sure, that’s going to work.
How about we spend some of the $24,000 it will inevitably cost us to jail this man for a year to provide addiction counseling?
I am one of the members of the ‘community’ that asked for this to happen. As a member of the ‘community’, I am sad that Mr. Carr had not previously availed himself of the numerous opportunities he has had to receive help for his problem(s) and now finds himself in this situation. I completely support this action and I will support future similar actions. As a resident of the community at large, I am no longer willing to accept that my quality of life should be adversely impacted by the problems and crimes of people who refuse the help that has been offered and continue to walk the same tired path.
@Thirty Deuce Dogs…hear hear!
If he’s that deep into alcoholism, cutting him off can very easily kill him. He needs to be sent to proper rehab.
I agree with Nick; however, my guess is the court wasn’t concerned with the practicality of its punishment and didn’t actually expect him to go cold turkey. It’s about popping him with additional violations when he is found drunk in public again.
I really doubt he will be able to stay sober without serious help. And I doubt there are adequate facilities at the local jail to help him. I’d rather see him sentenced to some kind of half way house or something. I wonder what the cost is the keep locked up in city jail? Maybe they ought to just send him to a re-hab facility instead.
I just think this whole think is a bit wrong-headed. It’s part of that thinking that some people are “bad” and not worthy. I know that being a drunk is not good or desirable, but he is still human being whose life is valuable.
Sarah Johnson liked this on Facebook.
I understand why the court and the police took this route. At the same time, I cannot imagine that Mr. Carr can remain compliant for any length of time since, given his history, he has such profound alcoholism that he cannot realistically be expected to resist alcohol on willpower alone.
At some level, it seems to me that Mr. Carr’s judgement and self-responsibility are so far gone, based on the history, that is hard to believe that he is competent to remain in the community since with his level of drunkenness he has to be considered a danger to himself if not to others. Accordingly, isn’t this a place where the mental health system needs to step in with some sort of involuntary intervention, rather than slapping Mr. Carr with a penalty that he cannot hope to meet?
Don’t get me wrong. I live on 25th less than two blocks from Ocean Grocery. I see the problems every day and I want them dealt with. But we also have to recognize the very real problems of substance abuse. Most of these folks are not violent although they may exhibit unacceptable behavior. We need to find a way to resolve the very real problems in the corridor while deal with a very real health issue for many of these offenders.
Nice!
Although you may disagree with the actions taken by the police, I am puzzeled by the quick condemnation of their efforts to help law abiding citizens. I have had the experience of coming across this man when he was loaded and I observed him harassing a frail little lady waiting for the bus. She was terrified! I went over to get him away from her and of course he turned his fowel mouth on me. He has been around a long time and has shown himself to have NO RESPECT for whomever he runs into AND he IS NOT interested in getting help! It is this type of individual that ruins the “quality of life” for anyone who has to hear his profanity, MF this and MF that. I think the MF has lost all rights to be coddeled.
I thank the police for their efforts and am impressed with the “out of the box” solution!!
This is a good result. I have seen this guy act aggressively on the street in a number of areas around the neighborhood. The culture of public acceptance of addiction behaviors must be broken in this neighborhood.
Well, if all other efforts have been exhausted (although it’s not clear as to what those have been), then here’s an “out of the box” attempt. I guess we just see what happens?
I have a feeling that the possibility of going to jail is not going to work as a deterrent for this guy. Sure, not having booze won’t be fun, but he’ll get three hots and a cot on the city’s dime for a while and I’m sure there are others who will gladly audition for the role of Annoying Neighborhood Drunk while he’s gone.
I participated in the sector problem solving workshop and the subsequent meetings. I can tell you that we all wish for a better life for Linwood Carr and others like him. The decision and power to make a change is Mr. Carr’s. I wish we could make the decision for him, but we can’t. At some point, we have to decide to save this neighborhood and protect the people that live here now, or may want to live here in the future. Church Hill is stuck – not able to go forward and held hostage by this sad history of apathy and addiction. I appreciate the work done by the RPD on this matter and I commend their efforts, along with the efforts of my fellow workshop participants.
I think this is an example where we do need to think out of the box. I know the police are doing their job, but the way that job is done, vis a vis Alcoholism, mental illness, and drug addiction, needs to change. We aren’t really helping anyone by continuing to incarcerate these individuals in the city jail. The paradigm needs to change and we should spend money on treatment or in-house rehab that on continuous incarceration.
I’m not in love with this idea but I sure do appreciate that the police are trying something here. I commend the effort!
I’m perplexed by the sympathy. This “he’s human and has value” notion since sounds like nonsense to me. Some people have so debased themselves that they are of no value in any sense. Quit being so naive.
Gordon Miller liked this on Facebook.
Jason, this is far from a “journalistic” web site. This one individual has a disproportionate adverse affect on the entire neighborhood. By making public the court decision, we, as a community can participate in controlling this obnoxious, persistant person.
If you don’t want to know about him and you haven’t had the pleasure of a personal encounter, don’t read this web site!
I stand by my comment. I firmly believe the right answer is NOT in dehumanizing individuals, but in compassion. Not to say I condone the drunkards, etc. on this block. But, there is a better way to tackle the problem.
Well that escalated quickly….
As was mentioned before I have a concern about a sudden cutoff of alcohol, withdraw can be deadly. Though I’m sure a motivated alcoholic will find a way, which is another concern entirely. Addicts don’t obey restrictions and they aren’t capable of rational thought. If they can’t buy it, they’ll most likely steal it. Someone who is this bad off really needs safe medical detox.
But I am loving bringing back terminology that hasn’t been used in a long time. Now that the “drunkards” are being handled what are we gonna do about those harlots?