CCW Holder Charged with Murder

[buzz_knox]

Put me down as one who thinks this thread was started for a dubious purpose, and that it's backfired.

But hey, what do I know? I'm just someone who came from an area where no CCW holder has committed a murder, but a cop has. And I've never seen a CCW holder even threaten to kill someone, while a cop (in my presence) has done exactly that and not in the line of duty.

By the way, I don't think there was ever an argument that CCW holders were guaranteed to be better people. The argument was they were more likely to be. It's precisely the same argument as saying because an officer has been through X training, Y background checks, and Z evaluations, that they aren't likely to abuse their authority or commit crimes while in uniform. That argument is consistenly made on THR and elsewhere, and when the counterargument (well, they are human) is made, the immediate reaction is out of near outrage and statements that the bad apples are so rare as to be irrelevant. If they are irrelevant, why isn't this gomer?

 

[dartos]

From what I understand, the CCW holder LEFT the scene, in our CCW class we were told DO NOT leave the scene and to call 911 and inform them of a shooting that you hold a CCW and wait for the PD, we were also advised to offer aid to the victim and when the police arrive tell them you feared for your life.

We were taught, it is a justified shooting only if you fear for your, or some one elses life (came upon a woman getting stabbed, etc.)

If you shoot someone out of anger...your toast!

 

[buzz_knox]

From what I understand, the CCW holder LEFT the scene, in our CCW class we were told DO NOT leave the scene and to call 911 and inform them of a shooting that you hold a CCW and wait for the PD, we were also advised to offer aid to the victim and when the police arrive tell them you feared for your life.

We were taught, it is a justified shooting only if you fear for your, or some one elses life (came upon a woman getting stabbed, etc.)

Leaving the scene is not the best idea, but sometimes it may be the only option (i.e. the suspect was part of a group and the shooter fled from the survivors). It makes it hard to defend (especially if he failed to call 911) but not impossible.

As for the justification for shooting, you are allowed to use deadly force when there is an imminent and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily injury to you or another innocent.

 

[Master Blaster]

Which proves my point about there might be a time when a CCW holder could be a danger to a police officer.

So????

A crimminal without a CCW could be a danger as well, heck could even be carring a gun despite the fact that its illegal.

A drunk driver or a sober driver in a car with the engine running could run an officer over when he gets out of his patrol car, and this has happened many many times, despite the fact that they have a drivers license.

If you take a domestic call, and the family owns a large kitchen knife, could that also be a danger??? Knife permit? sign on the front lawn "caution all police officers we own knives" So you are warned that they could freak out and stab you????

The point you are trying to make is ??????????

As a police officer you dont want lawabiding folks to have a CCW????

 

[Ezekiel]

It's not a "shot across the bow" from a mod...

CCW is inherently dangerous, bcause John Q. Public is a dumbass.

It's quite similar to having "more cars on the road" in that it is a foregone conclusion that there will be an increase in "issues."

That being said, it is far more dangerous to not have it [CCW]. (I'll not intro those points, as folks here are aware of them.)

Still, I don't mind being referred to an article that reaffirms the inherent responsibility of owning/carrying something designed to kill. Anything that brings the message home to John Q. about his responsibility is fine with me.

"It's only a single event, draw your own conclusions."

I was fully aware that most of our general public are idiots, anyway.

 

[thumper723]

14 rounds of 45ACP is not that large of a gun, or hard to conceal.

I carry a Springfiled PX9707L (Semi-Loaded HiCap). 14+1 capacity with Para mags. 13+1 with factory. I carry IWB in an andrews holster. I usually wear an untucked hawian shirt, or a jacket depending on temp.

 

[Erebus]

Sheesh the viciousness you are attacking him with you would think he proposed taking away your children.

The point he was making is that a CCW permit doesn't mean someone isn't going to do something stupid/illegal. A CCW permit doesn't mean that an officer should assume there is no danger to himself. Just as a badge & uniform doesn't mean there is no danger to the citizen. Cops have murdered people, CCW holders have murdered people. It's the law of averages, it has happened before and will happen again.

Such facts say nothing about any possible inherent danger of either group.

CCW is no holier than LEO. Saying one is better or worse than the other is pointless. But it does give ammo to the true antis. "See even gun owners and police argue that the other is dangerous, we need to disarm them all."

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I think it is significant that this guy emptied his gun, another indication of anger and aggression it seems.

Or fear. Or adrenalin.

All FOUR NY police officers involved in the Diallo shooting emptied their guns at him. Does this indicate anger and aggression on their part ... or just over-reaction to the perceived threat?

 

[Erebus]

You guys have completely missed the point of the original post. You're so wrapped up in your "attack any statement even remotely anti-CCW" that you completely missed the point of the statement.

Yea I guess I have to agree that it backfired. He tried to show you that CCW doesn't mean the person is not a threat. and most of you couldn't be reasonable enough to read, digest, and see the point. Just immediate attack and discredit. It backfired because he over estimated people's ability to objective and not take a completely one-sided approach.

People make the statement on this board all the time that LEO doesn't mean no threat. But aparently can't accept that CCW doesn't mean no threat. That's pretty damned narrowminded IMHO.

 

[Baron Holbach4]

Some of you guys want to tell me again that a CCW holder would never do such a thing because he wouldn't want to give up his permit after jumping through all the hoops it takes to get one.

One could argue from the other side of the fence: an LEO would never do such a thing because he wouldn't want to give up his badge after jumping through all the hoops it takes to get one. But to put forth such an argument would be cop-bashing, wouldn't it?

 

[WayneConrad]

CCW holders... indeed, anyone, anywhere can be a threat to LEO.

Nobody, not LEO, not us, not anyone, thinks that LEOs are guaranteed a threat-free world. So what is under consideration is how much of a threat do we expect a LEO to voluntarily put up with, and at what costs to what we consider our basic human rights and dignity?

Taken to an extreme, a LEO could just frisk and disarm anyone, any time, because he'd obviously be safer if he were the only one armed. We don't allow it, and I'd be amazed to hear a LEO suggest it. That's over the line.

So where is the line? Let us suppose that LEOs themselves draw the line at disarming each other. I don't believe they do, during a traffic stop or otherwise. So obviously the threat when dealing with another LEO is considered low enough to tolerate.

Why, then, is Joe CCW Citizen more threatening to a LEO, when as a group, CCW holders are at least as law abiding as LEOs? Why two lines?

 

[Erebus]

One could argue from the other side of the fence: an LEO would never do such a thing because he wouldn't want to give up his badge after jumping through all the hoops it takes to get one. But to put forth such an argument would be cop-bashing, wouldn't it?

No, it would be reality. Neither group is perfect and never will be. There will always be bad CCWs and there will always be bad LEOs. People just take a nutty fit when someone brings either one up.

People bring problems with LEOs up here all the time like it's common and everyone should expect it everytime they encounter an LEO. The original post was to point out that it goes both ways. And there is definately an appearence of prejudice against the LEOs by the amount of discussion about bad LEOs on this board.

 

[Erebus]

Why, then, is Joe CCW Citizen more threatening to a LEO, when as a group, CCW holders are at least as law abiding as LEOs? Why two lines?

Nerves and aggrivation of being penalized for infraction does increase the chances of irrational behavior. While still remote that something will happen an LEO that assumes he is safe cause someone has a permit is at MUCH greater risk than someone who assumes a badge and uniform is safe by simple mathmatics. The number of times you get pulled over versus the number of people they pull over mathmatically puts them at much greater risk of encountering someone who will lose it. Whell since they can't smell or see who is going to snap they must assume that everyone could as a matter of survival.

I am not saying there are more bad CCWs than LEOs but how many LEOs do you encounter versus the number of CCWs they encounter? Again Law of Averages

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Some of you guys want to tell me again that a CCW holder would never
do such a thing because he wouldn't want to give up his permit after
jumping through all the hoops it takes to get one.

I don't know if I said it to Jeff White, but I will say it again:
those of us who bother to go through the process of getting a
handgun carry permit HCP are made very well aware of what we have to
lose if we have to use it: being charged with voluntary manslaughter
before adjudication by grand jury, trial judge or trial jury, even
in a justifiable homicide situation.

That report is too vague to draw any conclusions ....

Correct. I would add he was probably charged BECAUSE he left the scene.
In a self defense situation known to me--not a HCP carrier but a woman
who had a gun at her home for protection--the defender fled the scene
out of fear, was charged because her assailant stayed and filed charges(!?)
The judge threw the charges out at trial. Flight = guilt in the eyes of the law.

Don't put it past the lawyers to count EXIT WOUNDS as well.

Well, did not JFK: The Movie count Kennedy's neck wound, Connally's
chest and wrist, as Six wounds (actually three entry and exit pairs) and
the entry and stop in Connally's thigh as a seventh? There is precedence
for that.

Let's wait untill he's found guilty, OR NOT before carrying this too much farther....

SPOILSPORT nobody can have any fun around you

dare I say it? The only confirmed murder by an NFA holder 1934-1986
was by a police officer using a legally registered machinegun. No one
claims there are not BGs flying under a GG flag, but most GGs really
are GGs, LEO and CCW alike.

 

[RealGun]

All FOUR NY police officers involved in the Diallo shooting emptied their guns at him.

If I couldn't carry anything but 9mm, I would too. 8 x .45ACP with 7 hits is likely more than "shooting to stop". I wouldn't dispute that emptying a gun out of fear or adrenalin is a possibility, but that's some fancy shootin'. He would have dropped before the last round, don't you think? Wanting to make sure he was dead is not going to play well legally.

Then again, if he was shooting FMJ, clean holes clear through, the results of his hits might have been disappointing.

Notice I didn't have to mention "LEO" once. This thread was not about resenting the police.

 

[Michael Courtney]

Police were not certain of the nature of the quarrel between the two men.

This quote fom the paper makes it clear that the police have no idea whether or not the nature of the conflict would support a claim of self defense.

So the murder 1 charge came without knowing whether or not the details would support a self-defense claim.

I would hope that law enforcement would be more certain of events before bringing charges.

Michael Courtney

 

[buzz_knox]

People bring problems with LEOs up here all the time like it's common and everyone should expect it everytime they encounter an LEO. The original post was to point out that it goes both ways.

The problem is that many LEOs (including Jeff) argue that because they go through heightened training, background checks, etc., they are exceedingly unlikely to commit crimes, abuse authority, whathaveyou. And then, he posts an article and takes CCW holders to task for using that same argument.

Either people are human and going through hoops/getting training doesn't change that, or they are not. But don't argue one position when it's an LEO and then another when it's a CCW holder.

 

[Baba Louie]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order for the shooting to be "Self-Defense" the shooter needs to actually claim his "affirmative" defense and state that, yes, he DID shoot and that A, O & J was clearly present... (not to mention, he could not retreat, be one of those to call in the shooting if possible, and not to leave the scene of the shooting unless he needed medical treatment).

Any other actions will leave it as a homicide and depending on how the police present their findings to the DA's office and their subsequent ruling, the charge will either be Justifiable/clean, Manslaughter, Murder2 or M1.

Someone was either asleep in class, or is guilty of something. The exactitude of which remains to be seen. Stupid is as stupid does... to coin a phrase

 

[Gordon Fink]

The fact remains that a law-enforcement agent can destroy your life without ever drawing a weapon against you. Therefore, it is not surprising that a few people hold the police to a very high standard, perhaps unreasonably so.

My proposed solution to this problem continues to be the reduction of our reliance on the police.

~G. Fink

 

[buzz_knox]

Still, I don't mind being referred to an article that reaffirms the inherent responsibility of owning/carrying something designed to kill. Anything that brings the message home to John Q. about his responsibility is fine with me.

Agreed. I think in the end of the day, the manner in which the subject was presented was more problematic than the subject itself. Posts that start by mentioning police impropriety and end with "tell me again why we should trust cops" are pretty much instantly relegated to the status of cop bashing. So, by the same standard, shouldn't starting a thread about one individual being involved in a possible crime and finishing with "tell me again why CCW holders are trustworthy" be considered CCW bashing?

The subject (CCW potentially does wrong) was important; the method of presentation was . . . unfortunate.

 

[Erebus]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order for the shooting to be "Self-Defense" the shooter needs to actually claim his "affirmative" defense and state that, yes, he DID shoot and that A, O & J was clearly present... (not to mention, he could not retreat, be one of those to call in the shooting if possible, and not to leave the scene of the shooting unless he needed medical treatment).

Fleeing the scene and not reporting the shooting may have caused him to 'forfeit' his right to claim self defense as when you flee the scene in an MVA.

This quote fom the paper makes it clear that the police have no idea whether or not the nature of the conflict would support a claim of self defense.

So the murder 1 charge came without knowing whether or not the details would support a self-defense claim.

I would hope that law enforcement would be more certain of events before bringing charges.

Well unless there is clear object of objection present it is difficult to know the true nature of the argument with half the argument dead. Now innocent until proven guilty applies but when you flee the scene and make no report you really don't help your case. And unless there is an apparent reason(other guy MUCH bigger than him, or armed) why he felt his life or safety in danger it's going to be even more difficult. Does MI have a 'Stand your ground' law? If not and the dead guy wasn't armed he is in up to his eyeballs.

Police don't determine charges, the DA does. DA might be looking at the circumstances I described above and is going for the highest charge he thinks he can convict on. Dead guy isn't armed, and shooter ran and didn't report.

 

[Michael Courtney]

Now innocent until proven guilty applies but when you flee the scene and make no report you really don't help your case.

Silence can never be interpreted as guilt. If you allow silence to be interpreted as guilt, the protection against self-incrimination is forfeited.

In addition, how do you know that the shooter made no attempt to report the incident. Might it be possible that he fled the scene because of ongoing concern for his safety and that he was in the process of communicating with his attorney regarding how to report the incident?

Dead guy isn't armed, and shooter ran and didn't report.

How do you know that the shooter did not have a reasonable belief that the dead guy was going to cause death or great bodily harm? Could it be that the dead guy has AIDS and threatened to spit on the shooter? Don't we need to wait until the shooter (or his attorney) explains his side of events?

One needs to consider both sides before rushing to judgement. Too many facts are missing for a murder charge before the police have a good idea what the dispute involved.

Michael Courtney

 

[HankB]

He tried to show you that CCW doesn't mean the person is not a threat. and most of you couldn't be reasonable enough to read, digest, and see the point.

There aren't enough facts in the report to make an informed judgement as to whether or not the shooter is someone who committed cold-blooded, premeditated murder, or is himself the victim of an over-zealous prosecutor with a poltical agenda. Maybe the CCW holder is a bad guy, or maybe he's a victim of local politics - we just don't know based on what was presented.

First off I doubt there are a million CCW holders nationwide.

As of Dec 27 2005, TX had 247,345. As of April 30, 2006, Florida had 369,655, not including people like security guards and recovery agents. So we're up to 617,000. Tennessee's Department of Safety website says 165,000 have been issued - total is now 782,000. An article at Indystar.com reports that 300,000 Hoosiers have concealed weapon permits, bringing the total up to 1,082,000 in TX, FL, TN, and IN alone.

And people in VT and AK don't need a permit at all.

 

[Jeff White]

Buzz,
The method of presentation was deliberate. It was designed to accomplish several objectives. Some people have picked up on it and some people haven't.

Objective one of my (what some would consider neferious) plan was to draw certain members who always are right there posting broad condemnations of every police officer everytime an article on a police shooting is posted out into the open where they would be making the same statements about waiting for the whole story and that you can't trust the media to get things right. This phase was successful. Every targeted member but one rose to the bait and made those statements or similar ones. I couldn't help but chuckle as certain members demonstrated that they can dish it out, but they can't take it.

Objective two was to illustrate that any group is going to close ranks to attempt to protect the group from damage when one of its members disgraces it or appears to. There are a lot of posts here about the so called Brotherhood of the Badge, The Thin Blue Line, the Blue Wall of Silence. Yet when faced with a news story that makes a CCW holder out as a cold blooded killer, the CCW holders on the board closed ranks. What's up with that, should we call it The Brotherhood of the CCW Badge ? Why? Could it be that it's just a natural reaction not to want to be painted with the same broad brush?

Objective three was to bust the myth that a person who holds a CCW is a Supercitizen. The only thing in common with all CCW holders is that they haven't been convicted of a crime. There are almost as many reasons people get a CCW permit as there are people with CCW permits. Those permit holders who actually carry their weapon regularly are probably for the most part a little more switched on about the security of themselves and their loved ones then the person without a permit. But just like there are some people who become cops because they like pushing people around there are some people who get a CCW permit because they get much of their sense of self worth from carrying a gun.

All a CCW permit means is that you had your fingerprints run through the FBI. I think that there are some states where they don't even send fingerprint cards in. I don't accept a CCW permit as a guarantee that the holder of said permit didn't just come home to find that his wife left him for his shooting buddy, taking every gun but the one he's carrying with her and the citation I'm about to write for speeding isn't going to be the straw that breaks his camel's back and pushes him over the edge.

I would bet that if someone were to research it, they would find that CCW holders commit crimes in about the same numbers of other groups that pass a perfunctory background check, like school bus drivers.

No one, not in any of the CCW disarm threads has ever addressed my working conditions. When I point out that I work alone and that backup can be as much as 30 minutes away (and I'm far from being the only person to work under those conditions, troopers and deputies in more rural areas can have even longer waits for help) it is ignored or I'm called a JBT for wanting to disarm someone who is a certified good guy.

Myth: CCW = Supercitizen BUSTED

The sad fact of human nature is there are no supercitizens, not CCW holders, not cops, not supreme court justices or ordained members of the clergy. We're all human beings.

Objective four, the final objective was to bring out some of what's wrong with THR. THR was founded with the idea that it would be a unique place. It would be different then other firearms forums. Civil discourse would be the norm here. For the first couple years things went well. Then as the membership grew, standards began falling. Much of what passes for civil discourse in General Gun Discussions and Legal and Political would have gotten members banned when THR was young.

If you want to know why we're losing the culture war, you don't have to look any farther then here. If we don't start looking inward and policing ourselves, our granchildren won't enjoy the shooting sports. Not that they'll necessarily be legislated out of existance, but it will become too politically incorrect.

There are many posts on THR that do nothing but prove to the casual observer who is not in the gun culture that we're all nothing more then fat, tobacco chewing, camouflage wearing, government hating, Tim McVeigh wannabes who are just itching to kill someone to prove our manhood.

There are plenty of other forums where you can go and act like that. It's even encouraged on some of them. But this one was named THE HIGH ROAD for a reason. If we can't be smart enough to watch our public image we're going to be marginalized right out of existance.

Jeff

 

[Carl N. Brown]

deja vu all over again

Sometime back there was the case of a chap in London, I believe
his name was Steve Chapman, beaten in a home invasion,
facing charges because he had admitted he had been gifted
a .32 handgun for his self-defense.

A LEO THR member jumped to the conclusion that he had to be
a drug dealer: beaten by home invaders, illegal gun in house =
drug dealer. It turned out not to be the case, Chapman was
a former bodyguard for diplomatic big-wigs, under death threat,
and had actually been 'gifted' a handgun 'anonymously,' and
there were no drugs involved in the home invasion.

It pays to wait for suffucient evidence before going off half-cocked.