Man Charged With Hitting Norwalk Cop, Carrying Gun

  • Comments (26)
Frank Wright, 21, of Bridgeport was charged with carrying a gun and assaulting a Norwalk police officer.
Frank Wright, 21, of Bridgeport was charged with carrying a gun and assaulting a Norwalk police officer. Photo Credit: Norwalk Police Department

NORWALK, Conn. ‒ A 21-year-old Bridgeport man was arrested Saturday for allegedly carrying a handgun and punching a Norwalk police officer, police said.

Frank Wright was charged with carrying a dangerous weapon, assault on a police officer, criminal possession of a revolver, interfering with an officer and carrying a gun without a permit. He was held on a $100,000 bond and will appear in court Feb. 26.

Police received a call early Saturday morning about a fight on Washington Street. They saw Wright running from a crowd and gave chase, according to police reports.

An officer saw Wright reach into the front of his pants and pull out a shiny metal object, according to the report. The officer pinned Wright against a Jeep and saw him throw the object underneath the car, according to the report. As police tried to handcuff him, Wright began resisting and hit one officer in the face, according to the report.

Police finally cuffed him and transported him to headquarters. They looked underneath the Jeep and found a Smith and Wesson .38-caliber revolver, according to the report.

  • 26
    Comments

Comments (26)

If he didn't want the gun any more, I wonder why he didn't sell it when the police were buying back guns a few weeks ago.

The idea is to make it more difficult for them to break the law. No one thinks that gun registration/background checks is a panacea. Most of the guns on the street were bought legally and NOT stolen but transported from ez gun law States to tougher gun laws States. Sensible gun control laws are no closer to repealing the 2nd Amendment then laws against yelling fire in a crowded moving theatre is a repeal of the 1st amendment.

You are a bit outdated there.

"Though the image often represents illegal speech, "shouting fire in a crowded theater" refers to an outdated legal standard. At one point, the law criminalized such speech, which created a "clear and present danger." But since 1969, for speech to break the law, it can’t merely lead others to dangerous situations. It must directly encourage others to commit specific criminal actions of their own...

"With that ruling, the Court overturned the Schenck decision that had introduced "shouting fire in a crowded theater." No longer was "clear and present danger" a sufficient standard for criminalizing speech. To break the law, speech now had to incite "imminent lawless action."

So if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law. But merely falsely shouting "fire" does not break the law, even if it risks others’ safety."

How about a new federal law- if you are caught with a gun and don't have a permit you get five years for the first offense and life for a second. No appeals. If you commit a crime with a gun and don't have a permit, the death penalty. If all you liberals wanna get tough, well get tough, just don't take my legally purchased gun. And by the way- has anybody tried to purchase ammo lately? There is little or no ammo to be found to be purchased anywhere. Maybe that's the answer- no ammo!

Gun owners are a very sloppy and careless group. They think nothing of leaving these lethal weapons laying around. They also take responsibility for nothing. The pro gun group is the reason we need to repeal the second Amendment

Gun owners who follow the laws of this state are far from sloppy or careless, and your over-generalizations show your utter lack of intelligence. The fundamental problem with all of your statements is that you are placing the blame in the wrong place. If you would stop criminalizing people who have done nothing wrong, you might stand a better chance of convincing people who believe in the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution that you have a legitimate point. Your statement is akin to saying that everyone who drives is a sloppy and careless person because a small subset drives drunk or texts while driving and kills people.

Furthermore, there are roughly 200,000,000 guns owned legally in America. Less than 10,000 - most obtained illegally - are used in homicides (assuming that each gun is never used to kill more than one person, which is not accurate. This number is, in fact, quite a bit lower). That is a clear indication that the vast majority of gun owners are extremely safe and careful with their firearms. If not, there would be a lot less people in this country.

Tim
I agree most gun owners do have very low self worth and are cowards

I agree most anti-gun people do have very low self worth and are cowards

Miss Nelson or should I say ponytail Steve I suggest you reread the post. The weapons of mass destruction in Newtown were certainly legally purchased by the mother. She did not have them secure. The son killed with them. Now do you understand why we need done control

Thats one way to look at it. But its like blaming lax match control on a fire in a place that people banned fire extinguishers, in other words its stupid.

Gun free zones killed those people much more than lax gun laws did. Think a little bit. We have ALWAYS had guns in this country, whats NEW are the gun control laws & the mass murders, NOT access to guns.

Not sure how you secure something from somebody willing to kill to get it anyway. I'd imagine a person can be convinced to open a safe under threat of death.

Nah, at the end of the day the ONLY rational conclusion IS that we should let people carry or at least have armed security in schools. Newtown agrees obviously since they recently voted FOR armed security. If it was YOUR kids I cant imagine a sane person thinking leaving them unprotected was smart.

Also let us not forget the weapons of mass destruction that slaughtered the innocent children in Newtown were legally purchased

"Weapons of mass destruction"? I wasn't aware that he used nuclear bombs at the school. Propaganda much?

Next week, Right Wing Are Wackos shall turn a toothpick into a Giant Sequoia.

If you want people to take you seriously, try to avoid hyperbole.

Um, no, they were stolen. Let us not ignore reality in our zest to deny people their civil rights.

That is incorrect, the shooter did not legally purchase those fire arms.

Right, the mother purchased them and left them unsecured, thinking that her mentally ill son would never harm a person with them. She was wrong. So can we all agree that a key lesson from Newtown is, secure your guns, lest something like this happen again?

I am willing to bet that one or more families of the deceased will sue the estate of Ms. Lanza for gross negligence, and win big.

Spoon,

Several people I know are waiting to read the police reports on Sandy Hook when they are released to the general public. Where did you find the report?

@Paige

I did not see the report, I don't think it has been released yet. My comment was based on the following from the Stamford Advocate:

"Investigators also have concluded that Adam Lanza's mother did not restrict his access to the Bushmaster rifle and three other guns he took to Sandy Hook school to embark on his killing spree, according to another law enforcement source familiar with the investigation.

Nancy Lanza "had the means to secure the weapons" inside the Yogananda Street home she shared with her 20-year-old son, but the security measures she employed didn't include keeping them away from Adam, the source said. Nancy Lanza and her son had frequently used area firing ranges."

Source: http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/default/article/Investigators-recover-Lanza-computer-data-4284989.php

Right wing are wackos
You are 100 percent correct.

I find that most gun owners are cowards that are terrified of their own shadow. They usually have very low self worth and the gun makes them feel important. Actually they are very sad group.

I find that most anti-gun people are cowards that are terrified of their own shadow. They usually have very low self worth and the fear of guns makes them feel unimportant. Actually they are very sad group.

Really? How many do you know? Legal gun owners I mean.
I find that silly people are funny & make fools of themselves regularly.

Yet another reason why we need gun control. With gun control over time it will limt the availability of guns to criminals.

@right wing wacko
I agree

Just like drugs, right?

Another example of why gun control will fail. CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY THE LAW.

Exactly Steve!

What is wrong with people that do not get this simple fact??