Person Playing Cop claims to have CCW in DE makes me feel better its NOT Shall issue

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
5,687
Location
Delaware home of tax free shopping
Now I would probably prefer to see a shall issue permit system, rather than the may issue we have now, but on the other hand it screens out some of the ninjas and wanna be cops who probably shouldnt have a license like this gent here: The other thing about this is that the police comment that he didnt say he was making a citizens arrest. If he said "this is a citizens arrest" would he have gotten a pass for the reckless endangering threatening charge? Note it came out later that the gun he was holding these folks with was not loaded.


Local
Vigilante faces gun charges
Armed man intervened in fight in parking lot
By TERRI SANGINITI, The News Journal

Posted Friday, January 18, 2008
What started as a road rage incident ended with the arrest of a 58-year-old Brandywine Hundred man on gun charges after he got involved in a fistfight between three men and ordered them to the ground at gunpoint, police said.

Gregg N. Lynch, of the 100 block of Murphy Road, was released on $20,500 unsecured bail Wednesday after being charged with felony aggravated menacing, possession of a firearm during a felony, carrying a concealed deadly weapon and disorderly conduct.

The three men involved in the fight were not immediately charged, Cpl. Jeff Whitmarsh of the Delaware State Police said.

"It's still an active case under investigation," Whitmarsh said Thursday.

It all started at about 3:30 p.m. Wednesday in the parking lot outside Dick's Sporting Goods in the Brandywine Town Center, where the occupants of two cars each claimed the others cut them off.

The three occupants -- two teenage boys and a 27-year-old man -- stopped and got into an argument that turned physical.

Shoppers called state police.

Before troopers could arrive, Lynch pulled up in a pickup, brandished a Glock 9 mm pistol and ordered the trio to "get to the ground," police said in court records.

One of the victims got on his cell phone and told the gunman he was calling police.

Another asked if "he was a police officer and if he had ID," according to court records.

"I have every right to have a gun," Lynch replied, according to the records. "I don't have to show you anything."

Troopers who arrested Lynch said he didn't have that right because his life was not in danger.

Troopers said they found the unloaded Glock, an unloaded 9 mm Baretta pistol and a loaded .22-caliber revolver during a search of his truck.

Lynch said he had a permit to carry the weapons, but couldn't produce one, Whitmarsh said.

"If you're going to carry a concealed weapon, you're required to keep your paper with it," he said.

Lynch was arrested last year on charges of aggravated menacing, but the charges were dropped, court records show.

Whitmarsh said a woman who witnessed the incident was left shaken.

"The witness was clear that Lynch pointed a gun at the victims and ordered them to the ground," he said. "Lynch claimed he never pointed the weapon at the victims."

Whitmarsh said Lynch's brandishing of a gun implied he was going to use deadly force.

"If he's threatening someone to comply or face deadly force, then he himself has to be threatened with serious bodily injury or death, or be in fear that someone else will face seriously bodily injury or death," he said.

Lynch never claimed that he was making a citizen's arrest and made no mention of holding the men at bay until police arrived, Whitmarsh said.


Fearing for your life or the life and safety of another makes it justifiable to use deadly force in Delaware. What this gent did doesen't qualify, he escalated a situation he was not involved in. But I have to wonder if he had claimed to be protecting the 25 year old from harm and said I am making a citizens arrest would he have been charged with anything at all????:eek:
If he had known the law and what to say to the police he very well may have walked.
 
This is one of the problems with a permit system as opposed to AK/VT carry. Some permit holders somehow feel that they are a higher class due to all the training, background checking, plastic ID cards, etc, etc. (this is also the only reason mall ninja shops can market the 'CCW badges') If one simply eliminated these useless, anti-2A systems and obeyed the Constitution and natural law, one would have true liberty and avoid these kinds of situations with people who think they are pseudo-cops due to their permit.
 
Making an assumption here based on the partial information in the article, did he seriously point an unloaded gun at them? Putting the idiocy of getting involved at all aside for a second, what would happen if one of the other parties involved pulled a gun of their own?
 
One advantage of the DE permit system is that it does require you take a 4 hour class that deals with the law in Delaware. My instructor required that I read the law out-loud with him and he explained each section, he also gave examples of how the AG had treated cases where a gun was employed in legal self defense in the past. Also we went over what to say and do when the police arrive, and what to not say or do.

And in a subsequent story we found out that this gent did not have a permit, and that his gun was unloaded.
 
What makes you think that this man didn't already have a history that would have disqualified him from getting a permit in a shall issue state? He's 58 years old and it says "Lynch was arrested last year on charges of aggravated menacing, but the charges were dropped, court records show." Given his age and these two incidents it seems likely that there are more of them in his past and he didn't just start acting batty last year.
 
Troopers who arrested Lynch said he didn't have that right because his life was not in danger.
Before we all start piling on, perhaps it might be considered that the troopers were wrong.

I am not aware of the specifics of Delaware law, but in most states the statutes on use of force and use of deadly (or "lethal," depending on state) force allows an "actor" to employ force and deadly force in the protection of a third party to the same extent he would be allowed to use it in protection of himself. So if this gentlemen saw two young guys pounding on one (slightly) older guy, if he felt the one guy would have been justified to use a gun to defend himself, then he (the third party with the gun) was probably legally justified in pulling his gun to stop the fight.

I think the guy acted within the law, and I hope he has a competant attorney.

Just goes to show, "No good deed shall go unpunished."
 
"I have every right to have a gun," Lynch replied, according to the records. "I don't have to show you anything."

Troopers who arrested Lynch said he didn't have that right because his life was not in danger.



Well there you go. Clearly the man does NOT have the right to have a gun, because his life was not in danger. Thank goodness the citizenry will be safe from people who try to stop fights and believe they have some inherent right to possess firearms. Book 'em Danno.
 
Before we all start piling on, perhaps it might be considered that the troopers were wrong.

I am not aware of the specifics of Delaware law, but in most states the statutes on use of force and use of deadly (or "lethal," depending on state) force allows an "actor" to employ force and deadly force in the protection of a third party to the same extent he would be allowed to use it in protection of himself. So if this gentlemen saw two young guys pounding on one (slightly) older guy, if he felt the one guy would have been justified to use a gun to defend himself, then he (the third party with the gun) was probably legally justified in pulling his gun to stop the fight.

I think the guy acted within the law, and I hope he has a competant attorney.

Just goes to show, "No good deed shall go unpunished."
Is it not likely that if a man was being to within an inch of his life and this stranger stopped it that we would be hearing that or at least be reading that one of the other men was transported to the hospital in serious condition? It seems more likely that some parking lot tough guys were shoving each other around and he decided to play cop.
 
Is it not likely that if a man was being to within an inch of his life and this stranger stopped it that we would be hearing that or at least be reading that one of the other men was transported to the hospital in serious condition? It seems more likely that some parking lot tough guys were shoving each other around and he decided to play cop.

While that may be the case, I don't think it is necessary that I take a beating to the point that I need to go to the hospital in serious condition before I use deadly force to defend myself. The logical follow up is that I don't need to wait for someone else to take a beating either.

You are probably right. If I had to place a bet, I'd bet with you. But there isn't enough information in the article to be sure.
 
I don't know all the details, but the guy shouldn't have gotten involved. Especially these days, when people are all sue happy, I'd rather let someone I didn't know die than get involved in legal tangles. I'm selfish, yeah, but they should have taken care of themselves better. I laugh whenever people say they would chase after a shooter in a mall or something. Me? I'd quickly find my way to the nearest exit :p I carry firearms to protect myself and people I know, not some random person who is probably voting to take more money (and guns) away from me.... :cuss:
 
One advantage of the DE permit system is that it does require you take a 4 hour class that deals with the law in Delaware. My instructor required that I read the law out-loud with him and he explained each section, he also gave examples of how the AG had treated cases where a gun was employed in legal self defense in the past. Also we went over what to say and do when the police arrive, and what to not say or do.
Most shall-issue states do the same. I know that NC and FL do (I've obtained permits in both), and both are shall-issue.

NC's class was 8 hours and included a live-fire component, FWIW, as well as a written test on self-defense law.
 
but on the other hand it screens out some of the ninjas and wanna be cops who probably shouldnt have a license like this gent here:

on the other hand there are some people who drive drunk and wanna be reace car drivers who probably shouldn't have a car like this gent here.

on the other hand there are some people who do stupid tricks on motorcycles who wanna be motocross champs who probably shouldn't have a motorcycle like this gent here

Living in a free society is tough, it scares the weak. Heaven forbid the stupid be allowed to receive the just punishment for their actions. The moron is going to be punished, nothing to learn here. It is freedom in action, enjoy it and rejoice that he will learn his lesson the hard way with hard time if the prosecutor does his job. You can't stop stupidity, that is impossible, it is best to punish it when it rears its ugly head.
 
And in a subsequent story we found out that this gent did not have a permit, and that his gun was unloaded.

So what difference would it make whether Delaware is or isn't a "shall issue" state if the man did not have a permit anyway?
 
So what difference would it make whether Delaware is or isn't a "shall issue" state if the man did not have a permit anyway?

Hey that is logic. That is not allowed in an emotional argument. I petition for the removal of your observation as irrelevant to the progress of grand standing on a point that makes no sense. May I get a second please?
 
Let's be clear:

Whenever CCW is handled on a discretionary basis for "elites only", some percentage of those so blessed will assume that they are indeed "elite".

Worse, misdeeds by permitholders specifically "blessed" by top cops (chiefs, sheriffs or whatever) become embarrassing for said brass, and are more likely to be swept under the nearest rug. And the elite permitholders often KNOW that.

This is absolutely normal under a may-issue, discretionary system.

In Sacramento Calif in the late 1990s, police chiefs could issue to anybody in their county (prior to 1998 I think?). One police chief in a small town went shall-issue in a big way, at one point with 1,500 permits outstanding compared to the 250 or so "elite permits" issued by the sheriff.

Not one of the 1,500 shall-issue permitholders ever screwed up with their gun. They knew law enforcement would land on them with both feet if they did.

But the sheriff's permitholders?

http://www.equalccw.com/colafrancescopapers.pdf

Read it and weep.

You want rid of this sort of thing? Push for shall-issue.
 
I could care less what gunowners are allowed to do in DE. Could also care less that the place is might issue. What I do care about is the fact that here in OK we are by law covered when we go to the assistance of someone who is being attacked.

"I'd rather let someone I didn't know die than get involved in legal tangles." Maybe some day someone will walk away and let you get beat to death.
 
If someone is walking on the streets, he should be able to own and carry a firearm. How many of you here lived before 1968, when anyone could order any firearm, up to and including a 20mm Lahti anti-tank rifle? By mail-order. No background checks. No asking permission from any other man (except your father, perhaps.)

If someone is dangerous, he should either have already been executed, or his "wrong hands" should be holding onto prison bars until he is no longer a threat.

The same people who squall about the fact that "criminals don't care about gun laws" are the same people who say that CCW and background checks will keep "dangerous people" from carrying firearms. Let me repeat something that you yourselves have doubtless often said: criminals will always have firearms.

If you want to appoint yourself (or appoint another person by your own authority and that of your fellow self-appointed people) as worthy to decide who should be able to carry a firearm, there is a problem. A crime is an act that actually hurts another person. The act of carrying a firearm is not a crime. Threatening or shooting innocents is a crime. Punish real criminals. Not potential criminals. Every male here is probably equipped to rape someone. Do we want to go there? Do you want to render "undesirables" impotent? Sounds far-fetched? Impossible? Hitler did it. Germans, the most educated people in the world in the 1930's, were all in favor of it, based on the science of the day. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a huge supporter of Hitler's eugenics program. It would be phenomenally arrogant of anyone to pretend it could never happen here in the United States of Freedom. "We've got guns, it would never happen!" So did the Jews, gypsies, Protestants, Catholics and homosexuals slaughtered by Hitler. They seldom had the requisite ideals to utilize them in defense of their own lives, or those of their neighbors. They turned them in, much like the gun confiscation in Hurricane Katrina. You'll turn them in, too, after another such natural disaster. Don't worry. Does such a statement make anyone angry? Good. Consider why.

Laws can be passed about anything, as long as enough people are sufficiently apathetic. As long as they don't affect them, personally. As long as people feel it is their moral obligation to obey a "law" that is not based on God's law.

-Sans Authoritas
 
Now I would probably prefer to see a shall issue permit system, rather than the may issue we have now, but on the other hand it screens out some of the ninjas and wanna be cops who probably shouldnt have a license like this gent here...

Nope. Shall issue standards are entirely capable of weeding out the vast, vast majority of people who should not wander around with guns. May issue adds nothing, and deprives millions upon millions of law-abiding American citizens of the right to keep and bear arms.

Americans live by rights; the rest of the world subsists on permissions.
 
Before anyone else excoriates the troopers for this paraphrase:
"I have every right to have a gun," Lynch replied, according to the records. "I don't have to show you anything."

Troopers who arrested Lynch said he didn't have that right because his life was not in danger.
Remember that it was written by the same stellar journalist who claimed the suspect had
an unloaded 9 mm Baretta pistol and a loaded .22-caliber revolver
In his truck. If someone whose business is the written word cannot spell check a proper noun used in his article, I don't really trust him to properly parse an explanation of a legal concept.

What I imagine the troopers were trying to say is that he does not have the right to hold them at gunpoint for engaging in a fistfight, not that he doesn't have the right to own a gun.

What does this have to do with shall issue permits?
I'm still trying to figure that out. I mean, this guy seemingly did not have a permit, so not giving him a permit would have prevented- no, wait. I mean, he, uh...er...what?

Mike
 
3rd party intervention....

You know, I agree with most here that there will always be stupid people. Restricting those who aren't stupid really seems to be counter intuitive. Speaking as a CCH instructor, I have not had one class where someone didn't ask about intervening in a 3rd party situation, not one class. I usually don't have much trouble showing them the error of their ways. Education is the answer. Failing that, if I feel like a student is going to be playing wannabe with his permit then they won't pass my class. I'm under no obligation to pass anyone. I firmly believe in this type of system. I do not believe the government is capable of impartial decisions with respect to firearms. Let the instructors decide with a shall issue system.


I.C.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top