How would you like to spend $500 to buy your gun back?
- Thread starter Ehtereon11B
- Start date
- Status
allaroundhunter
Member
Removing his firearm could have been justified..... Extorting him afterwards is the problem. If there was a justifiable reason for them to take it, the proper thing to do next would have been to call the police and let them handle how he should go about getting it back instead of trying to line their own pockets.
Sent from my HTC One X
Sent from my HTC One X
General Geoff
Member
Yes it is. Just need a sheriff to do the transfer (the sheriff does not need to be an FFL holder).
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Aaaahhh, got me on a technicality.
I tend to forget that one as I don't know anyone who's done it. I'm sure it happens a lot and it would be cheaper, just never seen it done myself.
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
A bunch of Un answered questions, bad judgements, and a total lack of situational awareness.
S\Somebody should have got the cops involved on site, in real time.
Time for a real lawyer to get involved.
S\Somebody should have got the cops involved on site, in real time.
Time for a real lawyer to get involved.
BSA1
member
A bunch of Un answered questions, bad judgements, and a total lack of situational awareness.
+1
Why is it everytime something like this everyone assumes the gun owner is a poor innocent victim?
ALL we know is he was packing heat in a bar and got into fight.
So consider this;
During the fight property belonging to the bar was damaged by the gun owner i.e. table smashed, glasses broken, mirror behind the bar broken (like in all good western movie fights).
This act could be the bases of a criminal charge(s) if management decided to call the police.
Sometime during or immediately after the fight security or bar employees took the owners gun for their own protection and protection of other bar patrons.
The bar manager decides not to immendiately return his gun to him because of these concerns and tells him he can come back tomorrow after he has cooled down to get his gun.
Maybe technically llegal but a very good policy to keep him for coming back and shooting up the place before he has the chance to coll down.
In the meantime management tallies up the damage caused by the gun owner. When he shows up the next day to claim his gun he is handed a bill for the $500.00 in damages he caused. He balks at paying the bill to which the bar owner says "look you can either pay up and we will forget the whole thing or I can call the cops and have you arrested for coming in with a gun and busting my place up."
Gun owner knows, or maybe he is too stupid to know, how poor of decision it was to bring a gun into a bar but he isn't too stupid to figure out what being arrested and going to court is going to cost him so he pays the damages.
But to gain sympathy after the fact he screams extortation and the Internet lynch mob forms.
+1
Why is it everytime something like this everyone assumes the gun owner is a poor innocent victim?
ALL we know is he was packing heat in a bar and got into fight.
So consider this;
During the fight property belonging to the bar was damaged by the gun owner i.e. table smashed, glasses broken, mirror behind the bar broken (like in all good western movie fights).
This act could be the bases of a criminal charge(s) if management decided to call the police.
Sometime during or immediately after the fight security or bar employees took the owners gun for their own protection and protection of other bar patrons.
The bar manager decides not to immendiately return his gun to him because of these concerns and tells him he can come back tomorrow after he has cooled down to get his gun.
Maybe technically llegal but a very good policy to keep him for coming back and shooting up the place before he has the chance to coll down.
In the meantime management tallies up the damage caused by the gun owner. When he shows up the next day to claim his gun he is handed a bill for the $500.00 in damages he caused. He balks at paying the bill to which the bar owner says "look you can either pay up and we will forget the whole thing or I can call the cops and have you arrested for coming in with a gun and busting my place up."
Gun owner knows, or maybe he is too stupid to know, how poor of decision it was to bring a gun into a bar but he isn't too stupid to figure out what being arrested and going to court is going to cost him so he pays the damages.
But to gain sympathy after the fact he screams extortation and the Internet lynch mob forms.
Or both people are C&R holders and the weapon is C&R eligible.
BSA1
member
Extortion (also called blackmail, shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence of unlawfully obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.
Coercion ( /koʊˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force.
The gun owner is not being forced to act in a "involuntary manner." He has the choice to take it or leave it. He has the option of leaving the bar and remaining free to move about in society until the police obtain a arrest warrant and capture him.
The bar owner could file a civil suit which will cost him money fo have a lawyer to sue the gun owner.
But why should he when he can call the police, file a criminal complaint and let the legal system bear the cost of prosecuting the gunowner?
The result is the gun owner now has a criminal arrest record (which alone may prevent him from getting some security sensitative jobs), take his chances with a public defender or hire a better one (which will cost $$$$) and if convicted, lose his ccw and right to own a firearm, lose his gun , pay court costs AND STILL have to pay the bar owner for the damages he caused.
And the bar owner still gets money for his damages back...
plea bargain - (criminal law) a negotiation in which the defendant agrees to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser charge and the prosecutor agrees to drop a more serious charge.
On the other hand his lawyer may be able to produce witnesses that he did not start the fight and was defending himself and win the case.
How in reality is it any different than what the bar owner is offering?
Coercion ( /koʊˈɜrʃən/) is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force.
The gun owner is not being forced to act in a "involuntary manner." He has the choice to take it or leave it. He has the option of leaving the bar and remaining free to move about in society until the police obtain a arrest warrant and capture him.
The bar owner could file a civil suit which will cost him money fo have a lawyer to sue the gun owner.
But why should he when he can call the police, file a criminal complaint and let the legal system bear the cost of prosecuting the gunowner?
The result is the gun owner now has a criminal arrest record (which alone may prevent him from getting some security sensitative jobs), take his chances with a public defender or hire a better one (which will cost $$$$) and if convicted, lose his ccw and right to own a firearm, lose his gun , pay court costs AND STILL have to pay the bar owner for the damages he caused.
And the bar owner still gets money for his damages back...
plea bargain - (criminal law) a negotiation in which the defendant agrees to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser charge and the prosecutor agrees to drop a more serious charge.
On the other hand his lawyer may be able to produce witnesses that he did not start the fight and was defending himself and win the case.
How in reality is it any different than what the bar owner is offering?
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
BSA...seriously?
You do something I don't like (or are involved or near something that happens that I don't like) in my establishment. I could lawfully tell you that you must leave. I could call the police and trespass you.
As I do not choose to call the police and press any charges on you, there is no evidence or indication that you've broken any laws. I have my private strong-men take away your private property. (Might be a knife, a gun, or a television. Really doesn't matter if the item was lawfully possessed in that place and I'm not pressing charges to say you broke the law with it.)
I tell you that you may have your property back if you pay me $500 for it.
This meets the EXACT definitions of extortion and coercion you gave, except you forgot to add that the "threats or intimidation or other some other form of pressure or force" is THEFT!
The owner is under no lawful authority to take someone's possessions by force -- except as would be justified by a claim of necessity to protect someone's life and prevent violence. If he's going to make that claim, he would also be filing a criminal complaint against the patron if for no other reason than to establish his justification for the taking.
To do something so sleazy as to offer that the (oh, so dangerous we had to disarm him) man may have his gun back for $500 is both a clear case of extortion AND negates ANY legitimacy the owner's claim of "necessity" would have.
You do something I don't like (or are involved or near something that happens that I don't like) in my establishment. I could lawfully tell you that you must leave. I could call the police and trespass you.
As I do not choose to call the police and press any charges on you, there is no evidence or indication that you've broken any laws. I have my private strong-men take away your private property. (Might be a knife, a gun, or a television. Really doesn't matter if the item was lawfully possessed in that place and I'm not pressing charges to say you broke the law with it.)
I tell you that you may have your property back if you pay me $500 for it.
This meets the EXACT definitions of extortion and coercion you gave, except you forgot to add that the "threats or intimidation or other some other form of pressure or force" is THEFT!
The owner is under no lawful authority to take someone's possessions by force -- except as would be justified by a claim of necessity to protect someone's life and prevent violence. If he's going to make that claim, he would also be filing a criminal complaint against the patron if for no other reason than to establish his justification for the taking.
To do something so sleazy as to offer that the (oh, so dangerous we had to disarm him) man may have his gun back for $500 is both a clear case of extortion AND negates ANY legitimacy the owner's claim of "necessity" would have.
smalls
Member
BSA, he wasn't doing anything illegally, that we know of. He very well might have been, but we don't know of it.
The bar took his gun illegally, and decided to charge him to regain his own property. That is extortion. Plain and simple.
The bar took his gun illegally, and decided to charge him to regain his own property. That is extortion. Plain and simple.
Not to mention....but since the stolen property is a loaded firearm I might not advise it , in some states the property owner can use physical force to retrieve his property.
Like mine....(Connecticut)
Sec. 53a-21. Use of physical force in defense of property. A person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent an attempt by such other person to commit larceny or criminal mischief involving property, or when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to regain property which he reasonably believes to have been acquired by larceny within a reasonable time prior to the use of such force; but he may use deadly physical force under such circumstances only in defense of person as prescribed in section 53a-19.
Which would place the bouncers in a sticky situation , as well as the bar owner......
Like mine....(Connecticut)
Sec. 53a-21. Use of physical force in defense of property. A person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent an attempt by such other person to commit larceny or criminal mischief involving property, or when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to regain property which he reasonably believes to have been acquired by larceny within a reasonable time prior to the use of such force; but he may use deadly physical force under such circumstances only in defense of person as prescribed in section 53a-19.
Which would place the bouncers in a sticky situation , as well as the bar owner......
BSA1
member
Since the incident happened in a bar I figured fights might not be uncommon occurance there.
While taking the patrons gun for protection of oneself, employees are other patrons and not returning it until he had cooled down might technically illegal I think most would agree with the reason for doing it.
In some communities repeated calls to a bar for fights can lead to their alcohol or business license being revoked. Thus the bar owner may have strong motivation not to call the cops every time a fight occurs.
The gun owner must not be a poker player and know how to read a bluff. What if he said' Go ahead and call the cops. It doesn't change the fact you are holding my gun illegally" (which probably would be my response).
Again I don't see it as extortion, the gun owner had at least three choices, well four if he called the cops himself, open to him.
Of course that assumes he was responsible for busting the joint up and the bar owners aren't jerks or worse themselves.
While taking the patrons gun for protection of oneself, employees are other patrons and not returning it until he had cooled down might technically illegal I think most would agree with the reason for doing it.
In some communities repeated calls to a bar for fights can lead to their alcohol or business license being revoked. Thus the bar owner may have strong motivation not to call the cops every time a fight occurs.
The gun owner must not be a poker player and know how to read a bluff. What if he said' Go ahead and call the cops. It doesn't change the fact you are holding my gun illegally" (which probably would be my response).
Again I don't see it as extortion, the gun owner had at least three choices, well four if he called the cops himself, open to him.
Of course that assumes he was responsible for busting the joint up and the bar owners aren't jerks or worse themselves.
Just because one has choices, does not mean one is not being forced to act in an involuntary manner.
In the classic extortion pattern of paying protection money to avoid getting one's business being vandalized or burned, the business owner has many choices, but is still being forced to pay money with threats. If the owner refuses (choice 1), shoots the thug (choice 2), sells the business and moves to Canada (choice 3), pretends to be a chicken to convince the thug he is crazy (choice 4), pays up (choice 5), or pays but all in pennies (choice 6), it does not change the fact that extortion (whether successful or not) is being attempted.
Even if someone is holding the proverbial gun to one's head, there are still choices. Does that mean that there is no such thing acting involuntarily?
In the classic extortion pattern of paying protection money to avoid getting one's business being vandalized or burned, the business owner has many choices, but is still being forced to pay money with threats. If the owner refuses (choice 1), shoots the thug (choice 2), sells the business and moves to Canada (choice 3), pretends to be a chicken to convince the thug he is crazy (choice 4), pays up (choice 5), or pays but all in pennies (choice 6), it does not change the fact that extortion (whether successful or not) is being attempted.
Even if someone is holding the proverbial gun to one's head, there are still choices. Does that mean that there is no such thing acting involuntarily?
Ehtereon11B
internet infantryman
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2012
- Messages
- 983
That is always the downside about stories like this. A few paragraphs ended with "police are investigating" while everyone else is asking the questions.
BSA1
member
Just because one has choices, does not mean one is not being forced to act in an involuntary manner.
True enough. But I can think of a lot of situations that involves making choices I don't want to do.
For example a bill collector demands payment for a bill I don't owe. He tells me if I don't pay it they will put it on my credit report. It just so happens that if that occurs it will lower my credit score and I will not be able to qualify for the loan for the house I am trying to buy. Sure I can fight it and probably win but what about the cost to me in the meantime?
What about classic cop story where the officer tells you to do something or go to jail even though what you doing is perfectly legal?
And on and on and on?
I view extortation more along the lines of the potential damage to the victim. If a Godfather held a gun to head and said sign this paper or your brains will be on it I'll sign anything he wants. Or if I was a important public figure and someone demanded money not to release pictures which would prove to be damaging to my career and/or marriage.
A divorce could be very expensive.
On the other someone gives me the choice of settling a civil claim without having to defend myself in court...it happens everyday in our legal system with lawyers filing B.S. lawsuits to get money.
Of course as I previously said the bar owners could be jerks or worse and are shaking the gun owner down. Just looking at both sides of the quarter.
True enough. But I can think of a lot of situations that involves making choices I don't want to do.
For example a bill collector demands payment for a bill I don't owe. He tells me if I don't pay it they will put it on my credit report. It just so happens that if that occurs it will lower my credit score and I will not be able to qualify for the loan for the house I am trying to buy. Sure I can fight it and probably win but what about the cost to me in the meantime?
What about classic cop story where the officer tells you to do something or go to jail even though what you doing is perfectly legal?
And on and on and on?
I view extortation more along the lines of the potential damage to the victim. If a Godfather held a gun to head and said sign this paper or your brains will be on it I'll sign anything he wants. Or if I was a important public figure and someone demanded money not to release pictures which would prove to be damaging to my career and/or marriage.
A divorce could be very expensive.
On the other someone gives me the choice of settling a civil claim without having to defend myself in court...it happens everyday in our legal system with lawyers filing B.S. lawsuits to get money.
Of course as I previously said the bar owners could be jerks or worse and are shaking the gun owner down. Just looking at both sides of the quarter.
- Status