Good Samaritan pulls gun to stop alleged hit-and-run driver

Status
Not open for further replies.

Warp

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
9,655
Location
Georgia
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/good-samaritan-pulls-gun-to-stop-alleged-hit-and-run-driver

Good Samaritan pulls gun to stop alleged hit-and-run driver

Amazing moments were caught on camera Monday night when an armed citizen helped take down a man who tried to flee the scene after allegedly hitting a pedestrian with his car.

Matthew Shaykin, 31, is facing felony hit and run charges after allegedly hitting a pedestrian near Maverick and Smoke Ranch, but the only thing on everyone's minds today is his takedown.

In the dramatic video taken by a bystander before it was posted to Facebook, Brandon Francis could be seen pulling his gun and making a citizen's arrest of Shaykin. Francis says what you don't see on the video are the moments leading up to the confrontation.

According to Francis, after hitting the pedestrian, Shaykin kept driving, so Francis said he quickly followed.

"I went to cut him off, and he still went to go, so that's when I jumped out of my car and drew my firearm and was like you need to get the heck out of the car," Francis said. "I have all rights to do a citizen's arrest because he's doing a hit and run and he could have just killed that guy, so I drew my firearm not only in my self-defense but in everyone else's self-defense that was at that intersection."

Metro Police officers arrived on scene shortly after the confrontation, and Francis' weapon was still drawn; his foot was on Shaykin's back.


Due to all of the confusion, officers had to draw their weapons on Francis. Francis said he followed their instructions, put his weapon down and explained what had happened with the help of other witnesses.

Metro police said every situation is different when it comes to citizens arrests, but in this case, the officers on scene determined Francis would not face any charges. Metro Police says the 24-year-old man who was hit suffered multiple broken bones but is recovering from non-life threatening injuries.

Francis said the man's family reached out to him to thank him for his efforts last night.
 
When they started using "alleged" to describe a crime any number of people saw happen, we started our decline.
 
When they started using "alleged" to describe a crime any number of people saw happen, we started our decline.

Innocent until proven guilty.

And eye witnesses are not known to always be ironclad reliable.
 
Las Vegas has a big problem with pedestrian fatalities. Combination of speeding drivers, dui or distracted drivers, and 6 lane streets. And a probably more than a few jaywalking or incompetent pedestrians. Plenty of hit and run drivers. My friend got a ticket for using a handheld device while stopped at a red light. He was setting his phone to play music over the Bluetooth connection.
Alleged and person of interest vs suspect go hand in hand.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
BigBore44 said:
Glad he's not being prosecuted....
We don't know whether he will be prosecuted or not.

The article says:
...the officers on scene determined Francis would not face any charges.....
But it's not their decision whether Francis will be prosecuted. That's going to be up to the District Attorney and/or a grand jury.
 
Another story where it ended well but with actions that probably should not have been taken. Seems like a plate ID would've been being a GREAT witness and probably had the same outcome with less drama.


A question slightly off topic, I don't know if anyone else watched the actual video of the interview with the "good guy", but his eyes and overall demeanor got me thinking. If you have a legal medical marijuana card in CA are you still able to purchase/carry a firearm? I mean, CA still has 4473's like everyone else right?
 
Another story where it ended well but with actions that probably should not have been taken. Seems like a plate ID would've been being a GREAT witness and probably had the same outcome with less drama.


A question slightly off topic, I don't know if anyone else watched the actual video of the interview with the "good guy", but his eyes and overall demeanor got me thinking. If you have a legal medical marijuana card in CA are you still able to purchase/carry a firearm? I mean, CA still has 4473's like everyone else right?

What on the 4473 would be a problem?
 
What on the 4473 would be a problem?
These two pretty clear statements seem like an issue to me...


"You may not receive a firearm if prohibited by federal or state law."

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"


As far as I know marijuana is still federally illegal and 4473 is a federal form is it not?
 
These two pretty clear statements seem like an issue to me...


"You may not receive a firearm if prohibited by federal or state law."

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"


As far as I know marijuana is still federally illegal and 4473 is a federal form is it not?


But if you have a government issued permit for it, is it illegal?

I don't know that anybody can give an answer to this other than maybe "want to be the test case?"
 
I guess some folks just can't be bothered to pay attention.

Good Ol' Boy said:
....I don't know if anyone else watched the actual video of the interview with the "good guy", but his eyes and overall demeanor got me thinking. If you have a legal medical marijuana card in CA are you still able to purchase/carry a firearm? I mean, CA still has 4473's like everyone else right? ...
What does California have to do with this? This took place in Las Vegas, Nevada. Nevada is a different State.

In any case, what does marijuana have to do with this?

Warp said:
...But if you have a government issued permit for it, is it illegal?

I don't know that anybody can give an answer to this....
Yes, it is still illegal to possess a gun if one is a user of marijuana, even in a State in which marijuana may legally be used under state law. Good Ol' Boy said so (at least he got that right). And we've had a bunch of discussions on this, including this post:
Frank Ettin said:
TennJed said:
Before this thread I had no idea someone on medical marijuana couldn't own or buy a gun, or citizens of CO and WA that use it recreationally...

  1. State law on marijuana is irrelevant.

  2. Under federal law (the Controlled Substances Act, 21 USC 801, et seq.), marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance which may not, therefore, be lawfully prescribed or used. Therefore, any user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, is, under federal law, an unlawful user of a controlled substance.

  3. Under federal law, a person who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance is prohibited from possessing a gun or ammunition (18 USC 922(g)(3)). Therefore, any one who is a user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, is a prohibited person and commits a federal felony by possessing a gun or ammunition.

  4. Federal law defines "unlawful user" as follows (27 CFR 478.11):
    Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. A person who uses a controlled substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of controlled substance; and any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct. A person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm. An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year. For a current or former member of the Armed Forces, an inference of current use may be drawn from recent disciplinary or other administrative action based on confirmed drug use, e.g., court-martial conviction, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative discharge based on drug use or drug rehabilitation failure.

  5. And in U.S. v. Burchard, 580 F.3d 341 (6th Cir., 2009) the Sixth Circuit found that (at 355):
    ...the regular use of a controlled substance either close in time to or contemporaneous with the period of time he possessed the firearm...
    would support conviction under 18 USC 922(g)(3).

  6. Being a prohibited person in possession of a gun or ammunition is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and/or a fine. And since it's a felony, conviction will result in a lifetime loss of gun rights.

And so, for anyone gnashing his teeth and rending his garments about this being wrong:

  1. The law at present is that someone who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance (including a user of marijuana, even under a state medical marijuana law) is prohibited under federal law from having possession of a gun.

  2. That could be fixed. Congress could amend 18 USC 922(g) to provide that an unlawful user of a controlled substance would not include someone using marijuana under a state medical marijuana law. Or Congress could amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for the lawful prescribing of marijuana (just as it does for Oxycontin). Or Congress could fix this in a variety of other ways.

  3. So have you written you Congressional representatives?

TennJed said:
..."unlawful user" seems like a pretty grey area...
Not all that gray. See above.

But please get back on topic.
 
Frank, once again my multitasking and east coast incompetence has gotten the better of me. It was posted Las and I for some reason saw Los, as in Angeles. My mistake.

But thank you for sorting that out for me/us.


Now back to our regular program.......
 
I live here in Las Vegas,and I for one,am glad to see the suspect was apprehended even tho the good citizen who chased him down pushed the envelope by drawing his weapon.We see way to many cases of hit and run that result in serious injury or death.,and the driver getting away.I'd say the odds are 20 to 1 the the citizen who drew his gun gets no grief from the DA
 
Frank,
I know who determines prosecution. In our other thread, you stated I "know nothing about the law or how it works". And you were wrong. If you'd like I can post my college transcripts for my criminal just degree...... Some people.... Now I'm going to follow this case just so when he isn't prosecuted, I can say "Told you so".
 
BigBore44 said:
Frank,
I know who determines prosecution.....
Then why did you write:
Glad he's not being prosecuted....
when we can't possibly know that he's not being prosecuted based on the information we had at the time?

Here, for reference, so everyone can understand the context, is post 6:
Frank Ettin said:
BigBore44 said:
Glad he's not being prosecuted....
We don't know whether he will be prosecuted or not.

The article says:
...the officers on scene determined Francis would not face any charges.....
But it's not their decision whether Francis will be prosecuted. That's going to be up to the District Attorney and/or a grand jury.

Maybe he won't be prosecuted or maybe he will be, but the fact is that as of the time of that post we had no accurate or reliable information that would allow us to conclude that he definitely wouldn't be.
 
Frank,
I wrote "Glad he's not being prosecuted" because.... I'm glad he's not being prosecuted. And unless there is new evidence that everyone was unaware of, including the officers who were on scene, if they have a DA in Las Vegas that decides to prosecute the Samaritan who placed an accused driver in a hit run, under citizen's arrest, with eye witnesses to the crime, after the man attempted to flee the scene, without a shot being fired, and the victim's family has reached out to the Samaritan to thank him...?? Then I guess I'll just have to update my post to say "I'm sorry he was prosecuted :("

But it ain't gonna happen.
 
"Good Samaritan", NOT

A "good Samaritan" is someone who offers and provides aid and comfort to strangers.

What we seem to have here is someone who pursued and used force or the threat of force to detain someone who was fleeing.

That is always an extremely risky thing to try to undertake.

And since the guy could most certainly have been apprehended by sworn officers with a little cell-phone video, there was no upside--only downside.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top