armed robbery conviction reversed because he "never intentionally displayed the gun."

Status
Not open for further replies.

2dogs

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
1,865
Location
the city
http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/CC-ninthdecisionagain.htm

NINTH CIRCUIT'S ODOM RULING MORE PROOF
THAT COURT NEEDS A CLEANING, SAYS CCRKBA

For Immediate Release:

BELLEVUE, WA - In yet another insult to justice and common sense, the ultra-liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the armed robbery conviction of California bank robber Deshon Rene Odom because he "never intentionally displayed the gun."

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) today called the May 21 ruling "more proof that this court needs a cleaning."

"This is just the latest outrage from a federal appeals court that makes a habit out of handing down irresponsible decisions," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "This is the same court that insists law-abiding Americans have no right to own guns, but now says an armed bank robber shouldn't get the maximum punishment because he never intended that anyone see his illegally-carried handgun."

The ruling was written by Judge Richard R. Clifton of Hawaii. It noted incredibly, "Can a bank robber with a concealed gun who never mentions or insinuates having one, but who displays it inadvertently, be convicted of armed bank robbery? We believe the answer is no…" Odom pulled the robbery with an accomplice and both were arrested outside the bank. They were both carrying loaded revolvers.

"I thought the Ninth Circuit had hit bottom when it ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, and said the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right," Gottlieb marveled, "but I was wrong. I suspected this court had lost its bearing, but now it appears the judges have lost their marbles.

"This court," Gottlieb added, "would no doubt uphold the conviction of any law-abiding citizen who inadvertently carried a legally-licensed gun into, say, a school or some other restricted area. Yet 'here come da' judge' with a ruling that a deliberately armed thug who accidentally flashed his loaded gun during a bank holdup is somehow innocent of armed robbery.

"The Ninth Circuit Court needs a thorough house-cleaning," Gottlieb concluded. "With goofy rulings like this, it is no wonder they call this bunch the 'Ninth Circus Court,' and it has a record of being the most overturned appeals court in the nation. When common sense was handed out, the Ninth Circuit was obviously out to lunch, and it stayed there."
 
Before even reading the full story, I knew {never mind how I knew, I just knew} that it had to come from the La-La Land of the 9th Circuit. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

In some states that have CCW, you would probably lose your CCW ticket for "brandishing" if your shirt came up and revealed a handgun the way the BG's gun was 'brandished" in this article.

Sheeeeeeeesssh.
 
What constitutes 'use'?

(I'm playing the devil's advocate here. Flame at will :fire: :neener: )
(I am not a lawyer, just someone trying to get/keep the discussion going)

The decision seems to make sense in a somewhat warped kind of way. The law text under discussion states:
... puts in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon ...
The point discussed is: Does unintentional display constitute use? The same court has said that intentional display, even of a fake weapon, does constitute use, as does telling you're armed. The crux seems to be that there has to be an intentional act by the perp.

There is also mention of past legal hairsplitting (by the USSC) on what constitutes 'use' of a firearm. The law discussed there stated 'carry or use a firearm' and the USSC came to the conclusion that 'use' required active employment, otherwise 'carries' would have been unneccessary.

Please note that I'm not defending the perp here. It's the point of law I'm trying to disect and that law, like it or not, applies to all cases, even the bad ones.

I don't think all of this will make any difference to the perp. He got two concurrent 33 month and one consecutive 60 month sentences. This appeal is only about one of the 33 month sentences.

Anyway, for further reading, see the decision.

Hoping to keep the discussion boiling,
ErikM :evil:
 
Actually, the ruling seems quite rational. He was convicted of conspiracy, and of knowingly using or carrying a firearm in a crime of violence. He admits he had a loaded gun, and he is not appealing that conviction at all. And he's not saying that he didn't rob a bank.

According to the statues cited, armed bank robbery is an enhancement to bank robbery, where,

“Whoever,[…] [while robbing a bank] assaults any person, or puts in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon or device, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty-five years, or both.â€

“Odom asserts that his conviction for armed bank robbery under § 2113(d) was improper because he did not put in jeopardy the life of any person “by the use of†a dangerous weapon. We agree.â€

Judge goes on to note that “use†does include the intentional display or mentioning/threatening during the robbery, but concludes that the mere fact that someone accidentally saw a gun that Odem was not attempting to display did not constitute "use" as required by previous rulings.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable call to me.

In any case, it did not affect his sentence at all, as the 5-year enhancement for armed robbery would have double-counted with the “carrying a firearm in a crime of violence†enhancement, and so wasn’t used anyway. It was appealed purely to distinguish bank robbery from armed bank robbery on his record.

IMNSHO, after reading the verdict, Alan Gottlieb sounds rather dumb.

Dex
FIREdevil.gif
 
That's great news!

So if I put my P-32 in my front pocket where no one can see it, I'm really not carrying and don't need a CCW!

Packing my stuff to move out to the Left Coast even as we speak!!
 
I believe that 'use' and 'display' are different terms in that display comes under the heading of use. There are other 'uses' than display.

They used the firearms to give them the ability to settle disputes during their transaction. The intent was there. If there were no intent to be able to use deadly force, there wouldn't have been guns present.
 
this wouldnt even be an issue if the bank teller had just shot this scumbag in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top