Fellow Gunnie in PA getting railroaded on gun charges

[magsnubby]

Biggest mistake the guy made was to not call 911 himself to report the assault by the homeless guy. Had he done that there's a good chance he'd have been considered the "victim" and the homeless guy the "perp" rather the other way around.

+1

The first one to call 911 becomes the victim. Always call it in no matter how trivial the incident seems. Remember, the @$$ you save will be your own.

 

[mountainclmbr]

The Libs love to have crimminals roaming among us. Especially if we are disarmed. It makes us dependent on government for protection. Killing or injuring a crook deprives the Libs of some of their power. They will get even for any threat we pose.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

HE SHOULD HAVE CALLED 911 - ASAP!!!

"He who calls 911 first gets the best seat on the bus."

 

[telewinz]

Am I missing something? It's a far cry from being charged and being convicted. The cops have a procedure to follow and I doubt that the Philly cops are much different than other police departments. I do know that PA has a fairly libreral CCW law. It's one man's word against another...who do you think is going to win in a court of law? Can anyone on this board vouch for EITHER man? Maybe the CCW is an immature "cowboy", maybe the "street person" has only been on the streets a short time and is an ex-clergyman. The purpose of a trial is to sort-out the facts, often times that imposes an inconvenience. Can the DA just assume "he's CCW, he must be OK" or "he's a 'street person' to hell with him". What kind of legal system is that? Responsible people don't make important decisions based sorely on assumption, at least not if they wish to hold their responsible job for long.

 

[Father Knows Best]

Am I missing something? It's a far cry from being charged and being convicted. The cops have a procedure to follow and I doubt that the Philly cops are much different than other police departments. I do know that PA has a fairly libreral CCW law. It's one man's word against another...who do you think is going to win in a court of law? Can anyone on this board vouch for EITHER man? Maybe the CCW is an immature "cowboy", maybe the "street person" has only been on the streets a short time and is an ex-clergyman. The purpose of a trial is to sort-out the facts, often times that imposes an inconvenience. Can the DA just assume "he's CCW, he must be OK" or "he's a 'street person' to hell with him". What kind of legal system is that? Responsible people don't make important decisions based sorely on assumption, at least not if they wish to hold their responsible job for long.

Your points about people's assumptions/biases are well taken. You're missing another critical point, however.

First, there is indeed a difference between being charged and being convicted. That said, being charged is still a life-altering and miserable experience, even if you are never convicted. I'm a lawyer, so I see it first hand. It can ruin your health, your finances, your career, your friendships -- your entire life.

Second, nobody should ever be charged with anything without sufficient evidence to establish that a crime was probably committed and the defendant committed the crime. Based on the info in the articles, it seems that such evidence is lacking.

 

[FPrice]

Am I missing something?

Did you see this?

Man leaves, homeless person reports he was threatened by a man with a gun. Police arrest him, seize his firearm and carry permit, charge him for carrying without a permit, making threats etc. To top it off, they get a search warrant at his house and seize all his other guns.

Pretty harsh treatment for just being arrested. Well, normal practise, so let's say pretty harsh treatment that might have been prevented by reporting the incident before the other guy.

 

[The Drew]

I would've shot the bum and immediately called 911...

That's the proper thing to do, as I'd have been threatened with deadly force, "crazy homeless guy accosting me with knife, I feared for my life and fired in self defense"

I live in PA (not Philly) and carry here. As to the question about brandishing, There is no such law here, open carry is OK. The crime as stated is terroristic threats, and that is only when you threaten someone with your weapon. Merely seeing a gun or having it exposed in PA is NOT a crime.

 

[NineseveN]

I would've shot the bum and immediately called 911...

That's the proper thing to do, as I'd have been threatened with deadly force, "crazy homeless guy accosting me with knife, I feared for my life and fired in self defense"

I live in PA (not Philly) and carry here. As to the question about brandishing, There is no such law here, open carry is OK. The crime as stated is terroristic threats, and that is only when you threaten someone with your weapon. Merely seeing a gun or having it exposed in PA is NOT a crime.

+1
I live in PA also (not Philly thank Frank!) and I endorse this message.