Quantcast
Possible legal repercussions of Stamford shooting - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Social Situations > Legal

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 14, 2014, 09:46 AM   #1
19-3Ben
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 5, 2006
Location: CT
Posts: 4,463
Possible legal repercussions of Stamford shooting

Quote:
STAMFORD Four men and one woman were shot following an altercation outside a local nightclub early Sunday.

...

Dayron Wills, 22, of 300 Tresser Boulevard, admitted he was involved in the altercation.

...

Wills told police he pulled out a handgun and began shooting the other person involved in the altercation and then discarded his weapon.

...

Police said Wills does have a valid pistol permit and was legally registered to carry the weapon.

Police said they also seized a small amount of marijuana from Wills.

...
Link to article plus video of shooting.

So here we have a nightmare situation. In CT, which was already turned rabidly anti-gun after the Sandy Hook shooting (it was only anti-gun before but would not characterize it as being rabidly so until Dec. 2012) we have a licensed, legal gun owner acting like a jackwagon and shooting up people in the street in Stamford. One of our main arguments has always been that the legal/licensed guys aren't the ones committing crimes. Of course out of thousands and thousands with permits in this state it is ONE example. A statistical anomaly. But that's all it takes to get the antis all riled up all over again, especially because Gov Malloy was mayor of Stamford before his big promotion, so this is kind of his back yard.

So question is, what legal repercussions do we see coming, if at all, now that the anti gun crowd has a poster child for "responsible gun owners gone bad!"

And at this point is there anything we should be doing to counter it? I realize that may fall under the topic of activism and mods, if you want to move it feel free. I'm just thinking this is a legal matter since there may be resulting legislation related to this.

At least nobody got killed....
__________________
"You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough." Mae West

Last edited by 19-3Ben; July 15, 2014 at 10:58 PM.
19-3Ben is online now  
Old July 14, 2014, 09:52 AM   #2
Sam1911
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 27,384
Highly unlikely to be any repercussions at all. No one died, local news story. One shooting just like thousands of others.

One of our enemy groups will probably make note of it, but it's not like this is the first CCW type that's ever broken the law and/or shot someone he shouldn't have. The statistics are in our favor (heavily) but that doesn't mean there are zero bad actors among "us."

It is distressing and frustrating, but doesn't make us especially more vulnerable to alarmists and antis.
__________________
-- Sam

"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
-D. Stanhope

Sights Practical Shooters -- IDPA

My Knife Showroom
Sam1911 is offline  
Old July 14, 2014, 10:30 AM   #3
Midwest
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 13, 2011
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,637
This is the first I heard of it.
.
__________________
I am not a lawyer, I just study the history of gun control laws.
__________________________________________________________________________
Looking for "ghost guns" that shoot "heat seeking bullets" with "more thrusts per squeeze" using "magazines that can only be used once" featuring "the shoulder thing that goes up" and "assault weapons that can be bought at a store without a NICS check".

.
Midwest is offline  
Old July 14, 2014, 10:56 AM   #4
JohnBT
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 26, 2002
Location: Richmond, Virginia
Posts: 13,072
"we have a licensed, legal gun owner"

He wasn't legal if he was carrying a gun and pot. Or is pot legal there?
JohnBT is offline  
Old July 14, 2014, 11:05 AM   #5
Red Wind
Member
 
 
Join Date: October 13, 2013
Location: Rock Harbor,Florida
Posts: 433
As Sam said, a local story.. Which ,until cable in the '80's and the 'net in the '90's. almost every story was. 24/7 news and social media have changed it all.

For the worse. IMO.
Red Wind is online now  
Old July 14, 2014, 11:06 AM   #6
Sam1911
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 27,384
Quote:
He wasn't legal if he was carrying a gun and pot. Or is pot legal there?
That wouldn't matter, as the pot would make him federally a prohibited person.
__________________
-- Sam

"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
-D. Stanhope

Sights Practical Shooters -- IDPA

My Knife Showroom
Sam1911 is offline  
Old July 14, 2014, 11:37 AM   #7
desidog
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 21, 2008
Posts: 1,869
Well, since his permit was issued 3 DAYS before the shooting, i think someone in the permitting office has some explaining to do.

I don't understand why he was issued a permit, with a previous weapons charge in 2011...
desidog is offline  
Old July 14, 2014, 11:39 AM   #8
kwguy
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 17, 2012
Posts: 687
Quote:
That wouldn't matter, as the pot would make him federally a prohibited person.
That would be the thing. This isn't the first time a "legally sanctioned" ccw carrier acted like an idiot.

Process accordingly. No different than if a legally licensed driver did something illegal with a vehicle.
kwguy is online now  
Old July 14, 2014, 11:49 AM   #9
Arkansas Paul
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 5,975
Yep. People are people.
I've learned in my line of work that the number of morons with a CHL/CCL pretty much mirrors the numbers of morons in the general population. We're no different or inherently better.
__________________
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences of attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it - Thomas Jefferson
Arkansas Paul is offline  
Old July 14, 2014, 12:36 PM   #10
AlexanderA
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 27, 2011
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,078
Arkansas Paul wrote:

Quote:
I've learned in my line of work that the number of morons with a CHL/CCL pretty much mirrors the numbers of morons in the general population. We're no different or inherently better.
If that's true, it pretty much destroys the whole reason for licensing. Licensing is supposed to restrict gun carrying to the more "responsible" sections of society. Either we need to make the vetting process more thorough, or get rid of licensing altogether.
AlexanderA is offline  
Old July 14, 2014, 12:40 PM   #11
Arkansas Paul
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 5,975
Don't get me wrong, I didn't say there were just as many criminals with licenses, just that there moron ratio was similar.

There are a lot of stupid gun owners out there. If you don't believe that just look at the Target/Chilis/Chipoltle/Starbucks threads.

Quote:
Licensing is supposed to restrict gun carrying to the more "responsible" sections of society.
No, its not. It is supposed to restrict gun carrying to the "non-prohibited" sections of society. I suspect the main purpose of licensing is to create more revenue for the state.
Most states are shall issue, meaning that if you are not a prohibited person and you sit through a minimal class you are issued a permit. That tells us little of whether or not a person is responsible.

I do agree with getting rid of the licensing altogether BTW. We definitely do not need to make the process to legally carry get more difficult. Our rights have been infringed enough.
__________________
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences of attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it - Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Arkansas Paul; July 14, 2014 at 12:48 PM.
Arkansas Paul is offline  
Old July 14, 2014, 01:46 PM   #12
19-3Ben
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 5, 2006
Location: CT
Posts: 4,463
Look, of course we all know that a CCW permit doesn't automatically make someone a 'good guy,' and we all know that even irresponsible dunces can get carry permits so long as they pass the class (the instructor goes over the answers with us before we submit the test, so nobody ever really fails).

But that is US, coming from OUR perspective. If OUR perspective were the majority opinion in CT and in many other states, we'd be pretty well set and we would have never had to fight tooth and nail in 2013 to save the 2A from being further gelded.

My fear is that FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, when someone who is 'government sanctioned' to carry a gun, commits a public act of violence in violation of the law, it calls into questioning the entity that allows people to carry and makes the sheeple start to bleat about how even the .gov approved guys are 'mad men with guns' and we should further restrict rights.

I can already see it. Different sets of rules for guns one can own, vs. carry. In CT we are already limited loading ten rounds for carry, but if it's a standard cap mag we can load it to higher capacity if left at home.
What if they take it to the next level? We can keep a S&W M&P9 loaded with 10 rounds at home, but can't carry anything other than a 5 shot revolver for CCW?

Or what if they decide that we need to get references and psychological testing to profile us prior to getting a CCW permit? What if we do like NY and have to get each pistol we could carry actually registered and attached to our license?

These are the things of which I am... I don't know if fearful is the word, but certainly leery.

I can absolutely understand that nobody died, it's one nut, etc....
But those of us in CT realize that it doesn't take much to get the antis fired up here, and they unlike some other parts of the country, they really can hurt us very very badly here. Look at what happened last April.

Time to contact my reps and then go hit the range.
__________________
"You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough." Mae West
19-3Ben is online now  
Old July 14, 2014, 01:51 PM   #13
Sam1911
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 27,384
Quote:
Time to contact my reps and then go hit the range.
Well, if that's the take-home message here, I'm all for it!
__________________
-- Sam

"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
-D. Stanhope

Sights Practical Shooters -- IDPA

My Knife Showroom
Sam1911 is offline  
Old July 14, 2014, 03:12 PM   #14
HankR
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 14, 2011
Location: upper midwest
Posts: 399
Quote:
Licensing is supposed to restrict gun carrying to the more "responsible" sections of society.
Close: Licensing is supposed to restrict gun carrying <extra words snipped>.



Quote:
Either we need to make the vetting process more thorough, or get rid of licensing altogether.
This. What other basic human rights require a license?
HankR is offline  
Old July 14, 2014, 03:27 PM   #15
Red Wind
Member
 
 
Join Date: October 13, 2013
Location: Rock Harbor,Florida
Posts: 433
Quote:
This. What other basic human rights require a license?
None.
Red Wind is online now  
Old July 14, 2014, 03:46 PM   #16
RustyShackelford
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 27, 2006
Posts: 1,975
Stamford CT.....

I worked briefly for a few weeks at different times in 2013 in Stamford CT.
The city is considered the wealthiest in the US but when you go around a few parts of the downtown area, it seems really rough & gritty.

RS
__________________
If you don't practice, you don't deserve to win.

Andre Agassi
RustyShackelford is online now  
Old July 14, 2014, 03:55 PM   #17
PBR Streetgang
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 15, 2011
Posts: 346
From what I heard ,the license was for a security employment position and not a private citizen carry permit....Under Federal law possession of marijuana is still a Federal crime and violated his right to legally carry .

Even if it wasn't, the stats on legally licensed firearm carriers show the number of ccw people committing violent crimes is miniscule compared to non-firearm licensed people..To blame a whole group of people for ones actions is ludicrous.
PBR Streetgang is offline  
Old July 14, 2014, 05:45 PM   #18
RustyShackelford
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 27, 2006
Posts: 1,975
Leosa.....

To my limited knowledge, the subject in the Tampa Florida movie theater event has LEOSA status.
I'm not sure if the retired Tampa PD captain had a valid Florida W license too but he carried a compact .380acp pistol.

As noted, with more CCW license holders & gun permits, more crimes or events could occur. It's mathematics.
__________________
If you don't practice, you don't deserve to win.

Andre Agassi
RustyShackelford is online now  
Old July 14, 2014, 06:53 PM   #19
mp510
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 13, 2006
Location: PRKt
Posts: 2,996
Quote:
From what I heard ,the license was for a security employment position and not a private citizen carry permit...
In Connecticut, armed guard or BEA (or armed guard and BEA) are pistol permit endorsements rather than restrictions as in Mass or New York.
mp510 is offline  
Old July 14, 2014, 06:59 PM   #20
mp510
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 13, 2006
Location: PRKt
Posts: 2,996
Quote:
I don't understand why he was issued a permit, with a previous weapons charge in 2011...
If it was a Connecticut charge, the arrest never happened if the case was resolved by non-conviction (nolle pros, upon a substantiated motion, upon completion of a pretrial diversion program, NG verdict). The conduct that resulted in the (non) arrest could be used to substantiate a suitability denial (along with any other information about the applicants general reputation, behavior, decision making, etc...) Out of state arrests that do not result in conviction may or may not be arrests depending on that state's laws.

Quote:
Under Federal law possession of marijuana is still a Federal crime and violated his right to legally carry .
Under Connecticut law, federal prohibited status disqualifies an applicant. However, he probably simply said nothing about it (who would?). Since there's no drug test, if he were a user at the time he applied, the issuing authority probably would not have known.
mp510 is offline  
Old July 14, 2014, 07:26 PM   #21
HankB
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 29, 2003
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 4,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam1911
Highly unlikely to be any repercussions at all. No one died, local news story. One shooting just like thousands of others.
Story might have more legs - I saw it a little while ago here on FOX News, and it included cell phone video.

Here's hoping it fades soon . . .
__________________
Pay attention - the inmates really are running the asylum.
HankB is online now  
Old July 15, 2014, 11:02 AM   #22
desidog
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 21, 2008
Posts: 1,869
Quote:
The city is considered the wealthiest in the US but when you go around a few parts of the downtown area, it seems really rough & gritty.
Haha. No. Greenwich, next door, holds that accolade, and Darien on the other side is very nice too, but Stamford is definitely NOT. Stamford is essentially two different towns, the downtown/inner city/displaced from NYC housing projects/City part is so awful that some of the taxpayers in "the back country" or North Stamford/ the less developed side of town want to secede from the downtown part.
desidog is offline  
Old July 15, 2014, 12:09 PM   #23
Spats McGee
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 15, 2012
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Article
Wills told police he pulled out a handgun and began shooting the other person involved in the altercation and then discarded his weapon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Article
Police said Wills does have a valid pistol permit and was legally registered to carry the weapon.
Hmmm . . . Something smells fishy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Article
Police said they also seized a small amount of marijuana from Wills.
Oh, yeah. That would explain it, now wouldn't it.

What? No "simultaneous possession of guns and drugs charge?"
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old July 15, 2014, 03:16 PM   #24
RustyShackelford
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 27, 2006
Posts: 1,975
Stamford; post 22....

I disagree.
I read a few online articles & website posts that listed Stamford CT as having the "richest" tax base or the highest # of wealth. This was in 2013 too not 1986 or 1998.
I would agree that the "depressed" areas or sections are not hard to find but the more wealthy citizens might be in the estates/mansions in the HOAs or upscale areas.
My metro area is laid out the same way. The "unincorporated" parts of the county are looked down on & there are "upscale" cities/suburbs with crime or gangs/drugs.

A lot of it is perception & stereotypes but some places are just bad.
__________________
If you don't practice, you don't deserve to win.

Andre Agassi
RustyShackelford is online now  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.