Businessman kills burgler.... then he is arrested for being a felon with gun

newfalguy101 said:

I would guess you mean Felons should be allowed longguns but not handguns??? Not busting your chops just getting a clear idea.

As I understand it, Nebraska used to be that way, meaning a felon ,could posses longguns but nothing "concealable".

I believe they changed it to exclude ALL guns, EVEN with the other civil rights restored, which I dont think I agree with.

But, since I have not committed a felony, I am not especially worried about it.

Click to expand...

That's be correct. My apologies for being unclear.

jsalcedo said:

There is a fish distributor who transported fish in the wrong colored mesh plastic bags. He is now a felon.

Montana:
1. It is a felony for a wife to open her husbands mail.


Indiana or Ohio. Both of these enlightened states have odd laws that prohibit male skating instructors from having sexual relations with their female students. This atrocious misdeed, called "the seduction of female students" in the ludicrous legislation, is prosecuted as a felony!

The list goes on and on.

Click to expand...

I get your point.

That said, become a legislator and change the law, or barring that help a legislator get elected that will change the law.

We simply can't go about our daily business ignoring any law that we don't consider valid.

Please remember that the person that is the point of discussion was convicted of a violent felony.

I was planning to go into all kinds of things that show my point. From what I've seen on this board I really don't think I need to.

PS

On that skating instructor thing...... If it was your fifteen year old daughter he seduced, you might think the offense more a capital offense rather than a felony

FedGunner said:

On that skating instructor thing...... If it was your fifteen year old daughter he seduced, you might think the offense more a capital offense rather than a felony

Click to expand...

Damn skippy!!!!!!!!!

On that skating instructor thing...... If it was your fifteen year old daughter he seduced, you might think the offense more a capital offense rather than a felony

Click to expand...

Why is this not already covered under statutory rape? That's already a felony.

This law above is so open ended that a 28 year old male ice skating instructor can be prosecuted for dating a 24 year old female ice skating student. (Assuming the male instructor isn't gay...he IS an ice skating instructor after all )

The number of non-violent felony offenses possible out there is staggering. The punishments often do not merit the offense in most cases, too. Add on the later civil liberty losses, and you have a very unjust system.

ARperson said:

I totally agree. If they're so damn dangerous that they shouldn't have firearms, then they shouldn't be let out to roam the public streets either.

I don't care what the crime/conviction was for or how many years ago. If the person is okay to let loose on the streets he/she is okay to let loose with all of their rights restored. Period.

Part of the problem is that we let people out who should never be let out and it creates a public mindset that criminals cannot/do not reform themselves. So the poor bastard who does some stupid thing 20+ years ago can't get a fair shake. If our country actually held to the belief that "he served his time/debt to society" and accepted that by being released he was no longer a threat, we wouldn't have this problem. Of course, that goes back to my original premise that you have to keep the dangerous ones locked up.

Click to expand...

Absolutely!

I feel that we have far too many 'special circumstances' laws.

I don't care that a gun was used in a crime. I care that armed robbery was commited, or burglury, or mugging, etc...

I don't care that a kid was shot in school. I simply care that he was shot.

I don't care that an assult was a 'hate crime'. An assault was commited. I hardly care about the motivation was based on skin color, religion, or sex.

The book of law shouldn't be bigger than the phone book.

Should we "pick and choose" which of these two crimes should be enforced? It's what the gun hating libs love to see, and use in their quest to remove ALL guns from ALL of us. The business owner knew, or should have know, that as a convicted felon he was NOT entitled to own a firearm. Ignorance is not a legitimate defense in ANY court. It appears that he never made any attempts to become a LEGAL gun owner, or if he did, failed, and knowingly broke the law. He took his chance and now he, too, should be proscuted for his crimes.

I'm sure the criminal charges will be the least of his worries. The civil suit that will be filed against him is what will ruin him.

FedGunner said:

We simply can't go about our daily business ignoring any law that we don't consider valid.

Click to expand...

Sure we can. There is no moral obligation to obey an immoral law. Still, if you get caught you'd better be ready to face the consequences -- one way or another.

In fact, if you want to challenge a law on constitutional grounds, you pretty much have to be convicted under it. It's difficult to have standing, otherwise.

If I was the President I would pardon him. Absolutely.

When my daughter was 19, young and stupid, she worked for her boyfriend, a dirtbag who was trying to start a computer sales and service business. One day she was at the office alone when UPS showed up with $5,000+ worth of computer equipment, COD. Faith called her boyfriend on his cellphone and he told her to go ahead and write a check for it and he'd pay her back. She did, and of course, he didn't. Faith had no way to cover a check that large (and neither did we) so of course it bounced and the computer supply company eventually filed a complaint with the state's attorney's office. Faith was arrested and pled no contest to a felony charge of writing a worthless check. She was placed on five years probation and also ordered to pay restitution, which she did over a period of two years. For this she lost her right to vote, to own a firearm, to hold a nursing license, a real estate sales license, a barber or beautician's license and who knows what else. It cost her more than $3000 in legal fees to have the conviction vacated and her record expunged so she could regain her rights. She's now 37, living in California and quite successful, but while on probation it was almost impossible for her to find a decent job. Under the terms of her probation she was required to tell any prospective employer of her probation status, and of course once they heard that the interview was over. She worked as a movie theater ticket seller and a Hooter's waitress. Imagine trying to support yourself, pay for college and pay off $5,000 in restitution on a waitress' salary.

There is justice in the world, however. A few years after this incident the ex-boyfriend was driving on I-4 in Florida when a giant roll of sheet steel rolled off a flatbed truck he was passing and squished him flat.

My point of all this is just to point out that people can lose their rights for minor things and the cost of having those rights restored can be staggering. Sorry for the rant.

Firethorn said:

I feel that we have far too many 'special circumstances' laws.

I don't care that an assult was a 'hate crime'. An assault was commited. I hardly care about the motivation was based on skin color, religion, or sex.

Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you say, but not this one. I think there is a major difference between two guys getting into an argument in a bar and one punching the other in the nose, and someone who is beaten simply because of their skin color or religion (or whatever else). The crimes are different, and the penalties should also be different.

Kick and Update: No indictment for Perry.

Jury deems killing justified
By Kelli Esters
[email protected]


JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE

The 2006 Legislature passed a bill that expands gun owners' rights to use deadly force against someone invading their home, business or vehicle. Senate Bill 2426 was signed by Gov. Haley Barbour and goes into effect July 1.

The bill is online at http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents.


For the second time in six months, a Hinds County grand jury has declined to indict a person who killed another while defending his home or business.

In the latest case, the grand jury said Fred James Perry, 55, owner of Livingston Towing & Recovery at 3228 Medgar Evers Blvd. in Jackson, should not be prosecuted for fatally shooting suspected burglar Timothy Darby, 36, of Jackson on Dec 17.

Police did not arrest Perry in Darby's death but did charge him as a felon in possession of a firearm because of Perry's 1982 conviction for armed robbery.

But the grand jury also returned no indictment on that charge.

"We presented to the grand jury on both a felon in possession of a firearm and the homicide, and they returned a no bill (didn't indict) on both charges," Hinds County District Attorney Faye Peterson said. "Why, I don't know. We thought they might convict on the felon in possession of a handgun."

But Peterson said the grand jury may have looked at the circumstances of the case and decided not to indict on either charge.

Perry saw Darby on his lot late the night of Dec. 17 attempting to break into a vehicle, Jackson police said. Words may have been exchanged between the two before Perry fired one shot that hit Darby.

Darby was pronounced dead at the scene from a gunshot wound to the left shoulder, Hinds County Coroner Sharon Grisham-Stewart said.

A woman who identified herself as Perry's wife said Monday they did not want to comment about the fatal shooting, but then added that Jackson is a high-crime area.

"We are going to support the city officials, police and district attorney," she said. "They are working hard to do what they have to do."

In a Nov. 27 shooting, Jackson homeowner Cedric Marshall wasn't indicted in the death of Marcus D. Rawls, 23, also of Jackson.

Marshall was indicted in March on gun and possession-of-cocaine charges from an Oct. 14 arrest.

Police found Rawls dead on the porch at 464 Willaman St. at 4:36 a.m. Nov. 27. He was wearing a ski mask and gloves. He died from a gunshot wound to the head, Grisham-Stewart said.

Published reports said Marshall thought two men were trying to break into his home and shot through the door to scare away the intruders.

Police would not say at the time of the shooting if Rawls was accompanied by anyone else.

Under current Mississippi law, a citizen can legally kill someone when resisting an attempt to commit a felony upon the person or in that person's dwelling. A killing also is justified if a person thinks there is imminent danger of a felony being committed or the infliction of great personal injury upon him.

A new law passed by the 2006 Legislature expands the self-defense law to an occupied vehicle, place of business, place of employment or in the immediate premises. It goes into effect July 1.

A person deemed not guilty of any crime, under the new law, would be immune from civil liability.

Source: http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060509/NEWS/605090389/1002/NEWS01

Click to expand...

Glad the Grand Jury had some sense in this case.

If its an inalienable right, how can you talk about "giving felons back their rights..."

Do we really want to turn the RKBA into something that can be given (and taken away) with the stroke of a pen?

"You have the right to bear arms, but only if they are for sporting purposes, and only if you're not a felon, black, gay, a jew etc..."

Doesn't sound too inalienable to me.

Freedom and Liberty are frightening. It means you're going to have to deal with people saying things you don't agree with, doing things you don't like and bearing arms, ON YOUR BEHALF, to protect that freedom and liberty.

The jury did right, to all you "but he was a felon" folks, .

I love how folks like to point fingers and take the so-called high-road as if someone's life is somehow worth less than theirs because of an act they committed over 20 years ago.

People that like to put on that they've never done anything wrong or have never committed what could be construed, charged as or twisted into a felony or an offense that might somehow be punishable by removing their right to keep and bear arms are usually liars in my experience. It's easy to forget what you did when it's not on a rap sheet to be used against you, mighty convenient too.

Oh no, the felons are winning! They, *gasp* might have some rights after all, even some endowed by their creator as inalienable!!! Who would have thought it?


P.S. For those of you that like to harp on the "you can take legal routes to have rights restored" have obviously very little experience in the matter, it's not easy, it's not cheap (some folks could never afford it and money should never, ever be a barrier to liberty), it can take a very long time and in the end, it's often still up to someone else's "discretion".

If I had been in this guy's shoes, I would have done the exact same thing with no burden on my conscience. The gun-grabbers and JBT's be damned!

The tea-content of the Atlantic has fallen to near-disastrous levels.

A felon getting his (her) rights restored has a tough row to hoe. The BATFE program to restore rights after a federal conviction exists on paper but the program has not been funded for many years. Therefore, in effect the program does not exist.

And the BATFE may or may not accept a state's restoration of rights based on a state felony conviction. That's the crux of Wyoming's lawsuit against the federal government. Wyoming apparently has the chutzpah to believe that if they took away a person's rights, they can give 'em back. And the BATFE has a problem with that

That Catch-22 is huge. I would love to challenge some of those laws, but I don't particularly enjoy the prospect of being arrested under them and becoming the test case. The system is stacked against the citizens. In this FL case, the tow truck guy now cannot sue to claim the law is unconstitutional. He wasn't tried and convicted under it, so a court would rule that he has no standing. The legalistic equivalent of "no harm, no foul." It does keep the courts from getting clogged with nuisance suits, but it also makes it difficult to go after dumb laws.

Thank God for jury nullification. In this case ... it worked as it should.

TWO WORDS

jury nullification

great decision by the Jury

a little of my faith has been restored.

some anal retentive nitwit prosecuter wanted to
ruin this guys life for a "crime" a quater century old.

I am willing to bet (25yrs ago) he had a shoddy public defender
who told him to just plead guilty and we will let you go.

So if a guy kidnaps a young women at gun point takes her some place and rapes her ,but doesn't kill her. He goes to jail and does his time and gets out. Some of you guys believe this man should be able to own a firearm again no questions asked because he served his time. That is what's wrong with this country ladies and gentlemen.

So if a guy kidnaps a young women at gun point takes her some place and rapes her ,but doesn't kill her. He goes to jail and does his time and gets out. Some of you guys believe this man should be able to own a firearm again no questions asked because he served his time. That is what's wrong with this country ladies and gentlemen.

Click to expand...

No, that's not what's wrong with this country. What IS wrong with this country is a system that releases back to the streets people who should still be in prison. Back in the dark ages when I attended school, we were taught that prison time was "paying your debt to society." When you were released (and parole completed, if any), you were supposed to be a "free man" and your "debt to society" was deemed to have been paid.

If the debt to society was paid, why should the supposedly "free man" be deprived of a Constitutionally-guaranteed right to self defense?

If you don't think he is safe enough to be allowed the means to defend himself and his family, why are you okay with his being released from prison?

So if a guy kidnaps a young women at gun point takes her some place and rapes her ,but doesn't kill her. He goes to jail and does his time and gets out. Some of you guys believe this man should be able to own a firearm again no questions asked because he served his time. That is what's wrong with this country ladies and gentlemen.

Click to expand...

Hawkmoon nailed the part about the fact that these kinds of criminals should not be let back into society so easily, but another thing I want to expand on, or more to the point, rant about is that some of you people have no clue, none whatsoever as to what freedom and liberty really is.


Freedom means free, a free people cannot be ruled, they must rule themselves. This means that under the right system of democracy, the government actually works for us, it serves us; the farmer, the painter, even the homeless person. The government exists to provide for us the services we deem necessary and to perform the duties within the scope that we allow them, no more, no less.

Liberty means that people are going to say things you might not like, but they're free to say it any way. It means people are going to do things you may not approve of, but so long as they're not causing any actual damage to any other person, they're free to do such things. Liberty means folks are going to practice faiths that may be in direct conflict with your own personal and religious beliefs, but they're free to worship their creator as they see fit, or even no creator at all so long as no one is damaged in the process. Liberty means that you make judgment and pass sentences on crimes when they happen and you do not impose restrictions on the liberty of another free person in order to avoid crime; a crime not committed is not a crime. Liberty means that as a free society, we enact laws to govern the punishment for a given crime, not to be cruel or unusual and that any sentence imposed serves to force the culpable to pay their debt to the people for breaking the trust that a free society requires in order to operate under liberty. Liberty means you take your lumps when you have to no matter how much safer an alternative is or would be if that alternative so much as approaches the hindering of the liberty of another free person.

Freedom and liberty means that you err on the side of the individual, not on the side of restriction. This means that yes, some aspects of our system will be exploited by nefarious individuals and that in some cases, we may need to force ourselves to allow rapists and murderers exercise their own freedom despite their payment of debts to society going unfulfilled because the punishment simply does not begin to atone for the crime. In such cases, our society may need to change the laws to set the punishment more in accordance with the severity of the crime, it also means that when a punishment is set, once that sentence has been served, the punished is free to reenter society and live under that warm, comfy blanket of liberty so long as they abide the rules that we, as a free people have set, no matter how detestable this may be to our sensibilities. Freedom and liberty means that the onus is on society to ensure that the punishment fits the crime and that we do not, under any circumstance, restrict the freedom and liberty of any person not incarcerated in accordance with their crimes because we, as a society failed to adequately punish them.

Those that would give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. There is noting sterile about freedom, liberty is wild and it cannot be tamed, and that means that sometimes it will rise up and snap at us when we get careless, reckless or lazy, but we must accept that because the only alternative is accepted servitude.


Some of you need to think real hard on this, the gallows that you're demanding be built and satisfied will be the ones that the rope around your neck is nailed to in the end.

jtward01 said:

She's now 37, living in California and quite successful, but while on probation it was almost impossible for her to find a decent job. Under the terms of her probation she was required to tell any prospective employer of her probation status, and of course once they heard that the interview was over. She worked as a movie theater ticket seller and a Hooter's waitress. Imagine trying to support yourself, pay for college and pay off $5,000 in restitution on a waitress' salary.

Click to expand...

I take my hat off to her - that must have been absolutely horrific to have gone through

at one time i lived in jackson, and in the part of town that this happened he would have been a damn fool not to have a gun! *csa*