Man Jailed for Self-defense...New York, of course


PDA






qlajlu
August 17, 2006, 09:40 AM
Man denies gun charge after killing attacker


Michael Zeigler
Staff writer


(August 10, 2006) When Matthew L. McDonald tried to rob Stuart D. Miles at gunpoint, Miles responded by shooting and killing McDonald with a .38-caliber revolver.

Now Miles is in trouble for illegally possessing the gun he used in self-defense.

Miles, 25, pleaded not guilty Wednesday to second- and third-degree criminal possession of a weapon in connection with the May 1 slaying of McDonald, 18, on Jefferson Avenue.

If convicted, Miles could be imprisoned up to 15 years.

Monroe County Court Judge Patricia D. Marks ordered him held without bail in County Jail.

Miles was walking down Jefferson Avenue near Champlain Street when he heard someone walk up behind him, rack a pistol twice and order Miles to "up your chain" and "run your pockets," said Miles' lawyer, Robert A. Shapiro.

Miles turned and saw McDonald pointing what appeared to be a pistol. Miles pulled out his own gun and fired twice, killing McDonald.

McDonald's weapon turned out to be a BB gun.

But Miles couldn't tell that as he was looking down its barrel, Shapiro said.

Prosecutors presented a charge of second-degree murder to a grand jury, which refused to indict him on that charge, said Assistant District Attorney Paul Irving.

Source: http://www.rochesterdandc.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060810/NEWS01/608100370/1002/NEWS

If you enjoyed reading about "Man Jailed for Self-defense...New York, of course" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
progunner1957
August 17, 2006, 09:42 AM
Why any gun owner would live in the socialist cesspool that is New York is beyond me...:barf:
Prosecutors presented a charge of second-degree murder to a grand jury, which refused to indict him on that chargeAt least the grand jury members have some common sesne.

armedpolak
August 17, 2006, 09:52 AM
progunner1957, it's because it pays well:D and that's about it!

i've been in NYC for over two years, and recently decided to move the hell out.

this is just like socialist europe, in poland for example, an eldery lady got 25 for shooting and killing one of two attackers. outlaws are in charge there. my own grandmaa (80-yo) got jumped in the middle of a day, money stolen, and like that wasn't enough, smashed on the head, thrown down the stairs, and kicked so hard while laying on the ground. she eventually died two years later from all the complications of that attack. man, it makes my blood boil when i hear s**t like this! they would have probably jailed my grandma if she shot and killed one of those lowlifes who, in the end, killed her. :fire: :fire: :fire:

ilbob
August 17, 2006, 10:20 AM
The man was NOT jailed for self-defense, and the article clearly says that. In fact the grand jury refused to indict him for the actual shooting.

He clearly was in violation of NY law by both possessing and carrying the gun. We may not like NY law, but I'd bet he knew what the law was and made a choice to not obey it. There are consequences for not obeying the law. Even bad, unfair, or arguably unconstitutional ones.

AirForceShooter
August 17, 2006, 10:46 AM
a man that truly believes in:
"Better judged by 12 than carried by 6".
good for him.
Now he needs a jury that has figured it all out and let's him off.

AFS

armoredman
August 17, 2006, 11:26 AM
A "fully informed jury" would be good for him, one that knows they can actually throw out the law, as well.

The_Shootist
August 17, 2006, 12:12 PM
Couldn't a case be made for NY law violating his Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights?:evil:

Car Knocker
August 17, 2006, 12:26 PM
Why would that be? New York allows the possession and carrying of handguns, with a license, much like several other states.

qlajlu
August 17, 2006, 12:27 PM
dishonest thread title
A trick learned from the left-leaning press to get attention. It is pathetic that so many of our rights has been legislated out of existence. Means of self-defense should NOT have been one of them. Besides, the blog I was reading that led me to this article also used that line. The blog can be found here (http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/).

steveracer
August 17, 2006, 12:46 PM
NY is really a beautiful place, and many millions have come to realize this. I applaud the folks there who are carrying on the fight for their right to bear arms. I don't like the sentiment that gun owners should get out of a place that's got bad laws. I would hope that, should laws like them get passed anywhere else, they'd be fought tooth and nail. My family is part of that fight in NY now, just as I would be if the laws here in VA were bad.
"Get out", although the easy way, is not a solution to NY state's problems. "It's your home, so fix it" is better. My roof leaked, but I didn't move out of my house. I fixed it.

freedom and guns
August 17, 2006, 01:04 PM
New York allows the possession and carrying of handguns, with a license, much like several other states.
It would seem that way. State law says that all handguns have to be licensed and, once you get that license, you can also ccw, HOWEVER the state makes up for it by "regulating" "assault weapons", making you pay alot of cash for a pistol licensce, putting restrictions on the way they are sold, and letting every single little county, city, and local government make their gun laws as stringent as they want to, even worse than the state's. The only way to buy, "posses", or ccw a handgun without a permit is to be a peace officer ( after you retire you have to sell your handguns or pay money for a license for every handgun you own) or a gang member. This http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/StateLaws.aspx?ST=NY isn't the only reason I know this, don't ask me the other.

tellner
August 17, 2006, 01:40 PM
On one hand I like the idea that the jury is the people's representative in the justice system (oooh! Collectivist! Statist! oooh! :neener: ) On the other hand, if a jury isn't responsible about this you get people acquitting or convicting based on something other than the facts and the law such as ethnicity, religion or "I don't care what the law says. She was dressed like a slut."

HankB
August 17, 2006, 02:04 PM
In civilized parts of the nation, reporting incidents like this to the authorities makes sense.

BUT . . . based only on the story as presented, and given the location (New York - Rochester?) Stuart D. Miles may have been better off making himself scarce . . . given that the bad guy had probably "cased" the area and determined there was no cop around to catch him, then there was probably no cop around to catch Miles, either.

And if he ditched the gun, proving possession would have been much harder.

USSR
August 17, 2006, 02:39 PM
State law says that all handguns have to be licensed and, once you get that license, you can also ccw...

Uhhh, not quite. While it is a state law, the actual pistol permit is issued by a judge in each county. And, each county judge seems to set his own rules/limitations on the permits he issues. Many of the county judges will issue the permits without a CCW provision, unless you own a business and claim to be making large cash deposits of business receipts. And, to top it all off, even if your county judge issues you a permit with a CCW provision, you are prohibited from carrying in NYC should you travel there. So, you can carry concealed in a safe, rural part of the state where you live, but if you go into a crime infested part of the state (NYC), you are prohibited from carrying. Now how smart is that?

Don

Rumble
August 17, 2006, 02:42 PM
I have heard that in some states, actually having to use a weapon in self-defense can be an affirmative defense against weapons charges (I think maybe Maryland?)--I guess that's not the case in New York. Anybody out there able to enlighten me?

DragonFire
August 17, 2006, 03:00 PM
I live in one of the small towns outside of Rochester. I own pistols, shotguns and rifles, even a couple of "assault rifles".

It cost me about $100 and a 3 month wait to get my original pistol permit. Now when I want to add a new gun to my permit, it costs me $3 and about 6 days of waiting. Buying a long gun from a store/dealer requires an additional 5 minutes while the NICS check is called in.

I have not had one person hassle me about my permit or carrying (except some of my own family). I haven't wanted a gun, or accesssory that I couldn't have (though hi-cap mags still run alot higher here than across the border in PA).

So NY state can be quite different from NY city. It's neither a socialistic hell-hole, nor a marxist state. It's not paradise, but it not what most outsiders think it is either.

I agree with tellner, I rather not see the time comes when the "law" is whatever 12 random people want it to be. If you don't agree with a law, fight to get it changed, but until it is, you have to obey it, or live with the consequences if you get caught.

I feel sorry that the guy, but he was carrying illegally. It may be more of a hassle than it should be, but it is possible for people to get CCW permits in Rochester.

A majority of the time, when crimes like this occur in the city, it comes out later the "innocent" victim wasn't so innocent. If they are keeping him without bail, and talking about 15 years for this, I would guess that there's more to this and a random mugging.

armedpolak
August 17, 2006, 03:11 PM
DragonFire, you shouldn't need a PERMIT !!!

It's your GOD, not Judge, given right !!!

And BTW, good luck getting a CCW in NYC.

And one more thing. Yes, it is a socialist hell-hole!

gunsmith
August 17, 2006, 09:24 PM
NYC born, & NYC makes CA (even Frisco/bezerkely) seem like a bastion of common sense.
Up state NY is beautifull, I would love to visit and camp out...but untill I either become LE or we gunnies win a huge legal victory in SCOTUS I doubt I will.

Even with my NV ccw I would be in violation of the law by bringing my glock with me to (say) Lake George

distra
August 17, 2006, 10:00 PM
I hate that state, I hate that state, I hate that state. :fire: Every time I drive through it on the way to see family in the midwest, I get p***ed thinking about the firearm laws. With leaders like Hillary and Bloomberg what should we expect. :banghead:

Limeyfellow
August 17, 2006, 10:41 PM
this is just like socialist europe

In the most famous socialist states in Europe they tend to have less gun laws than the US. Good examples being the likes of Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Finland and so on. Socialism has nothing much to do with firearms and different branches of it have far different rules on the role of firearms, many believing its essential for the security of the state and to prevent the manipulation by the few over the masses.

Standing Wolf
August 17, 2006, 10:49 PM
There are consequences for not obeying the law. Even bad, unfair, or arguably unconstitutional ones.

There are, indeed, ugly consequences for not complying with patently unjust, unconstititional laws. Nobody ever said justice prevails all the time.

armedpolak
August 18, 2006, 08:11 AM
Limeyfellow, yes, that's nice!
Except... have you ever lived in socialism? Comunism? Did you ever see much less experience a governemnt actually IMPLEMENTING the socialist ideas? Well I have:fire:!

How do you assume people "agree" to be equalized in the name of social fairness? How do you think the rich "agree" to have their money taken away and their private posessions and businesses taken over by the noble government? How do intelectual elites agree to be broght down to a level of a common farmer and discredited for their thoughs? Ever asked yourself that???

So yes, gun control has a lot to do with socialism. I dare to say one couldn't exist past the books without the other!

DragonFire
August 18, 2006, 10:07 AM
armpolak said It's your GOD, not Judge, given right !!!


Not quite. It's a right given to us by the Constitution. Apparently even the framers of the Constitution recognzied the fact that this right wasn't a "given" otherwise they wouldn't have felt the need to spell it out.

I need a permit to drive a car, I need to register to vote, and license to even get married. I can live with the fact that I need a permit to own a handgun.

No, I don't agree with all the gun laws, or all the hoops to jump through to get a permit, but I do agree with the fact that not everyone should be able to own or carry a gun. The fact the some politicians/judges/cities corrupt the process doesn't necessarily mean that there should be no regulations or restrictions.

armedpolak
August 18, 2006, 10:15 AM
So who gets to decide? Judge? Sherif? What makes them better than, say, you or me? Any sort of discresion will always lead to corruption. Plus you're entering a slippery slope. Why do you think that not everyone should be able to buy or carry? Do you think they are not responsible enough? Are you? Who decided for you? Some judge who doesn't even know you?

And no, I don't think we get rights from constitution... government does, and the 2nd, the way I understand it, prohibits government from stopping you from getting a gun. You wanna read a constitution that gives the rights to people, read the recently rejected EU constitution... 500 pages!!!

P.S. "I need a permit to drive a car, I need to register to vote, and license to even get married. I can live with the fact that I need a permit to own a handgun." -> your life is over regulated by other human beings. That is wrong !!! That is not TRUE FREEDOM !!!

cbsbyte
August 18, 2006, 10:28 AM
People here are not getting through there heads that Mr. Miles was carrying an illegal firearm in NY. He plainly broke the law the state firearm laws. People might not agree with the laws, but that is what they are in NY. Mr. Miles was given a break, the Grand Jury DID NOT find him liable for the shooting. Which was deemed justifilable under the situation. Had it happen in Texas (or any other state that mandates a LTC), wouldn't he also be charged for not having the proper license to carry?

DragonFire
August 18, 2006, 11:00 AM
So who gets to decide? The people we elect into office.
Do you vote? In every election, not just the presidential ones?

What makes them better than, say, you or me? Nothing, but if everyone had to vote or agree to every law before it was passed, than we'd be voting all the time, and probably no laws would be passed.

Why do you think that not everyone should be able to buy or carry? I'd prefer convicted felons, mental patients, juveniles, (and these days) non-citizens to not being able to own guns. Plus, if a person isn't committed enough to go through a resonable licensing process, then I don't think they are committed enough to responsibly own a gun either. (and no, I don't believe every licensing process is a resonable one)

your life is over regulated by other human beings. That is wrong !!! That is not TRUE FREEDOM !!! I completely agree, I just don't see an alternative.

YOUR freedom ends where it affects ME, and mine ends where it affects you. If for me to be "Truly Free", it means you have to be free to harm me, than I'm willing to give up "true freedom" for some security and peace of mind.

And before you say it, yeah, in alot of ways I see us giving up too much freedom for a false sense of security. But I also believe that laws are laws and individuals can't decide which ones they want to obey, and which ones they want to disobey without consequences. Don't like a law, fight to get it changed. Work to get polticians elected who are favorable to your ideas and values.

blackguns
August 18, 2006, 11:25 AM
Yeah I think we missed the point in this article.

He is NOT being tried for shooting the guy. Right or wrong the DA tried to bring that charge and the good people of Upstate stopped it cold.

This guy is being held for carrying with out a permit. Period. If this took place in the city limits he is actually looking at serious time. I think they still have PROJECT EXILE in the city. Basically if you are convicted of a weapons charge in the city limits you are sent to FEDERAL prision. This was not a NY or even CA program, project exile was first started in Virginia.

This is a case of breaking a gun law. It had nothing to do with shooting the attacker. The guy could have walked up and stood next to a cop and had the gun fall out of his pants and he would still be in this much trouble.

I don't like it, I will vote to change it, but in the meantime I jumped through the hoops that allow me to access my rights to carry.

I shouldn't have to but I do, and until i can change it I preferrr to stay out of prision.

HankB
August 18, 2006, 11:38 AM
Not quite. It's a right given to us by the Constitution. Apparently even the framers of the Constitution recognzied the fact that this right wasn't a "given" otherwise they wouldn't have felt the need to spell it out.No. The Constitution does not grant rights - the Constitution prohibits government from infringing rights which the Founders recognized as inherent.

Think about the wording in the Bill of Rights:

"Congress shall make no law . . . "

". . . shall not be infringed."

" No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered . . . "

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, . . ."

It's not until the 6th amendment - dealing with the right to a trial by jury - that one can plausibly argue of rights being "granted."

Of course, I'm an engineer, not a lawyer, so I believe the words mean just what they say . . . and I don't see "auras" and "penumbras" the way some judges do.

armedpolak
August 18, 2006, 11:53 AM
Thank you, HankB. Exactly the point I was trying to make.

DragonFire...

"I'd prefer convicted felons, mental patients, juveniles, (and these days) non-citizens to not being able to own guns." - Of course! But they will anyways if they try hard enough. Regulating hurts the good guys.

"I completely agree, I just don't see an alternative." - Stop the over-regulation! Too many laws!

"Don't like a law, fight to get it changed." - Or removed:D

USSR
August 18, 2006, 12:01 PM
Good post, although I'll disagree with the following:

Plus, if a person isn't committed enough to go through a resonable licensing process, then I don't think they are committed enough to responsibly own a gun either.

Substitute "gun" with "handgun", and I have no problem. Unlike some states, like Illinois, New York State has no licensing provision/requirement for long guns; nor should we have one IMHO.

Don

History Prof
August 18, 2006, 12:18 PM
HankB, you beat me to it. NONE of the amendments in the Bill of Rights *gives* freedom, they *protect* freedoms that are "Natural Rights" or "God Given Rights," depending upon your personal point of view. Both "Natural" and "God Given" fall under the blanket term "Inalienable Rights." Inalienable means that they are rights that you already have. The reason that the founders "felt the need to spell it out" is that they recognized that governments have a habit of trampling these rights (read your US History from 1763-1775). Therefore, the Bill of Rights was written to PREVENT government from infringing upon rights, not to *grant*them.

So far, so good, right?:(


DragonFire, you further stated:

I need a permit to drive a car, I need to register to vote, and license to even get married.
You may drive a car without a license on private property. Licensing is to protect the general public from untrained drivers in PUBLIC roadways. Civil Libertarians still debate this one.

Voter registration? It is only a record keeping system to be sure voters are eligible. It CANNOT be denied (but again, this right has been trampled throughout our history, too).

Marriage license? Again, a state created record keeping thing. In the eyes of God, you are married the minute you do the funky tango. Many states have "Common Law" marriage - shack up for a few years, and the state consideres you married. No License required.

ChickenHawk
August 19, 2006, 10:06 AM
It always amazes me when threads turn to this discussion.

I have a CHL and carry every time and every where I legally can. I am a big time believer in RKBA, I try to be a positive influence about gun ownership to friends and in every conversation I can work the subject into. And I shoot a LOT.

That said, it amazes me how some people consider guns a birthright of some sort. God (if you believe in him) has been around a whole lot longer than guns. They were invented just a few hundred years ago.

They are deadly.

To expect a civil government NOT to have some form of regulation on a deadly weapon isn't reasonable.

I can live with that. And, yes, I know what "Shall not infringe" means, but I don't think our constitutional framers were gods either. Albeit, they did show amazing insight and crafted the best and most enduring document of all time. And 'regulation' and 'permits' needn't be equated with infringement.

So long as 'regulation' isn't prohibition and does not prevent me from buying and carrying my guns I think that is the cost of living in a society with laws (which is sort of my preference). It is however our responsibility (through our power of the vote) to insure that these rights are not taken away from us.

Just my 2 cents,
ChickenHawk

RON in PA
August 19, 2006, 11:59 AM
This is Bernard Goetz all over again. New York City resident tired of being violated by thugs illegally obtains a revolver and while sitting in a subway car is attacked by 4 youths demanding money. Goetz shots one or two, paralyzing one. He turns himself in and is ultimately convicted of unlawful possession. His actions were found to be legitimate self defense. After he does his time, Goetz is convicted in a civil trial brought by the people he shot and is fined some incredible sum.

Double Naught Spy
August 19, 2006, 12:02 PM
DragonFire

DragonFire, you shouldn't need a PERMIT !!!

It's your GOD, not Judge, given right !!!

And BTW, good luck getting a CCW in NYC.

And one more thing. Yes, it is a socialist hell-hole!

I don't recall God signing the Bill of Rights, Constitution, or any federal document. Besides, it would not be a judge-given right, but a legislative-given right.

And if you are going to cite some out of context mish mash from the Bible to justify handguns in New York, I am sure that I and others can cite similar out of context Biblical mish mash where it says the law of the land is supposed to be followed. The law of the land in NY may suck, but it is the law of the land.

If you enjoyed reading about "Man Jailed for Self-defense...New York, of course" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!