Victim of road rage defends himself, ends up in jail & loses home & property ...

Status
Not open for further replies.
"did not indicate Mr. Lewis did not have the right - i.e. because of an invalid CCW - to defend himself against two people attacking him.
So I wonder why are we elaborating on this at this point?"


I thought we were discussing the finer points of his lack of judgement and disregard for the law. I am not yet convinced he was victim and not yet convinced who the road rager was, if there actually was road rage.

To paraphrase an earlier post, I've seen too many one-sided stories here that turned out to be not quite precisely as initially presented.

John
 
Does putting somebody in jail for 3.5 months for exercising his Second Amendment RIGHT violate the "shall not be infringed" clause?
Click to expand...

First of all, he was not arrested for exercising his Second Amendment right. Two of the three charges were for intimidation with a weapon...which is not a right protected by the Constitution.

Jailing Lewis on charges is not a violation of his Second Amendment Right. It is part of due process of the law which has it foundation in the Constitution.

Black guys get screwed in this country. He needs to start suing and not stop until he is whole again.
Click to expand...

I fail to see your connection with race in this case. What may or may not have happened previously to other African Americans isn't a basis for Lewis to sue.

How is the landlord at fault? They won the court judgement for eviction, and they had to clean the apartment out.
Click to expand...

Right, it was suggested above that Lewis sue his landlord for his eviction. Given that Lewis did not meet his contractual obligations in paying rent, the landlord felt Lewis had defaulted (which he had) and took the appropriate measures. The landlord is in no way responsible for carrying a non-paying resident. More over, the lease Lewis would have signed probably explained quite clearly what consituted a default and what would happen after default. Being as Lewis would have signed the contract, then he agreed to those conditions.

I noted he got the firearm used in his case returned, didn't say if his other firearms seized in the eviction were returned, which he might hold off on, having no place to store them.
Click to expand...

He got his .380 back because it was held by the police. His other guns likely won't be returned to him because they were likely liquidated so that the landlord could recover lost rent and expenses surrounding the eviction and reletting of the apartment.
 
But now you had the opportunity to do some research on highroad.org for ... and learn that they are really recommended by Mas Ayoob?
Click to expand...

Spandaur, Mr. Ayoob is a member here at THR. If he feels like advocating on behalf of a commercial enterprise, I'm sure he will contact our site owner and make proper arrangements to do so. I don't think he needs your help with that.

Capisce? Savvy?
 
So if you're considered a resident after 30 days, but you have to be a resident for 3 months before you can get a carry permit, what do you do for the other 60 days?
 
Spandauer said:
I don't have detailled information on his CCW status. The article indicated he had a KS CCW. Perhaps he actually moved to Des Moines in the fall of 2011 (instead as reported in 2010). In that case he would not have been issued an Iowa CCW as you have to have been a resident for 3 months prior to application.
Click to expand...

GoWolfpack said:
So if you're considered a resident after 30 days, but you have to be a resident for 3 months before you can get a carry permit, what do you do for the other 60 days?
Click to expand...

There is no requirement in Iowa law to be a resident for 3 months before getting the permit.

Also from this document:
http://www.iowacarry.org/download/SF2379_FAQ.pdf

QUESTION: I live in another state. Can I get an Iowa nonprofessional permit to carry weapons?
ANSWER: No. Iowa nonprofessional permits to carry weapons will only be issued to qualified Iowa residents. Nonresidents will still be
able to apply for professional permits to carry weapons if needed for employment related reasons.

QUESTION: I live in another state. Will Iowa honor my concealed weapon permit issued in another state?
ANSWER: Iowa will honor any valid carry permit issued by any other state and will grant all privileges to such permit holders as those
granted to Iowa residents including the concealed or open carrying of a firearm (excluding those classified by Iowa law as offensive
weapons (federal NFA or Class 3)) and the concealed carrying of other non-firearm dangerous weapons such as knives with blades in
excess of five inches, switchblade knives, Tasers/stun guns, or any other dangerous weapon. Non-firearm dangerous weapons may be
carried openly without a permit. Non-firearm dangerous weapons may also be regulated by local ordinance that is more stringent than
Iowa law. You do not have to be a resident of the state from which your permit was issued. However, an Iowa resident may only carry
with an Iowa issued permit.
Click to expand...

Also, notice in this document:
http://www.iowacarry.org/download/DPS_Admin_Rules.pdf

there is no 3 month residency requirement.

In fact, an Iowa resident can obtain a carry permit without even having an Iowa driver's license or Iowa ID Card.

“Identification documentation for an Iowa resident” means any of the following:
2. A motor vehicle license or nonoperator identification card that contains a
photograph of the person and that has been issued by a state other than Iowa and at
least one current document indicating Iowa residency, including a residential lease
agreement, utility bill, voter registration, tuition receipt for a college or university in Iowa,
or other documentation that is acceptable to the officer issuing the permit and that
indicates the intent of the person’s presence in Iowa is something other than merely
transitory in nature;
Click to expand...

spandauer was mistaken. This is exactly why I refuse to jump on bandwagons simply because the driver of the bandwagon in questions beckons me to.
 
Last edited:
"came to Iowa with a permit to carry a concealed weapon."

How did he get an Iowa permit before he moved there? Hmm. Probably not.
Click to expand...

If he was former LEO, then HR-218 may have applied.

The news reporter may not have accurately delineated between a CCW "permit" and the automatic "permission" granted to current/retired LEO.

I carry everywhere I go, save an airport, and I never give it a second thought. While I may not have a permit in a given state, my commission card and shiny thing are said to suffice per HR-218. I wouldn't fear a LEO contact in California when carrying concealed, and that state has a poor reputation as far as gun rights are concerned. I haven't carried my CCW card in years and I make a valiant effort to avoid drama off-duty.


Anyone who carries a gun should have some sort of prepaid legal representation set up. In the age of excessive litigation I think everyone needs that personal insurance, regardless of gun standing.
 
How about they pass a law requiring the state or federal government to pay people's rent and maintain other similar things that would otherwise expire while the person is being held before the trial, then if the person is found guilty have the person pay the state or federal government back in fines. It is ridiculous that people's lives can just be destroyed before they are even tried for something.
 
NavyLCDR: "There is no requirement in Iowa law to be a resident for 3 months before."

... getting the permit."

I had to prove to my Sheriff that I had been IA resident for 3 months. Fact. However this may have changed in 2011.
 
Capisce? Savvy?
Click to expand...
:confused:
Click to expand...
A couple of slang terms for "Do you understand?"

My meaning here is to kill off the side-track debate over who is, or isn't, shilling, or not shilling, for whom or what. Let's carry on the discussion of the events and the law and leave off the debate over the self-defense insurance company.
 
This isn't addressed to anyone in particular, but...

Way too much conjecture, opinion and misrepresentation of actual law comprise most of the content---and that is sad.:banghead:

From the OPs original citations:
  1. A bad guy got shot during some type of road incident.:)
  2. The good guy was arrested, charged with much less than what might have been expected from reading only the first citation.:confused:
  3. The good guy was acquitted by a jury of peers in short order.:D
  4. The good guy was held in jail for a disturbingly long period of time before trial.:what:
  5. The good guy is homeless and stripped of valuable possessions by an entity that pre-judged and side-stepped rational and responsible behavior.:cuss:

The OP suggests forum members make a contribution to help the good guy through these tough period.------I'm considering it.;)
 
Spandauer said:
I had to prove to my Sheriff that I had been IA resident for 3 months. Fact. However this may have changed in 2011.
Click to expand...

It changed January 1, 2011, as a matter of fact. If your Sheriff required 3 months residency after January 1, 2011 they are violating state law.
 
BTW: Did anybody happen to do some research on ...

... the shot intoxicated male w/ a criminal background?

As we're getting into discussing Mr. Lewis' legal status and making hypothetical assumptions - as at this time according to the sources I have access to his CCW is out of question - what do you think about the tape and was anybody able to find information pertaining to the other party's medical / legal condition?
 
jfdavis58: The OP suggests forum members make a contribution to help ..."

"...the good guy through these tough period.------I'm considering it."
Click to expand...

Amen!

I did.

"Donations should be sent to Westminster Presbyterian Church, 4114 Allison Ave., Des Moines, Iowa 50310. Include a note or write on a memo line that the donation is to be used for “Jay Rodney Lewis.”
Click to expand...
 
NavyLCDR: "3 months residency"

Then I "misspoke" ;) in this regard. Cannot be right always and all the time.
 
WilleRupert: "Black guys get screwed in this country."

IMO this case is not about race (maybe it was a contributing factor when the road rage thing initially started) but instead one of the rare cases where a CCW holder defends himself with a firearm in Des Moines (...that make it into the local media).

The more gun-haters and those who love to play the race card will hate when a bunch of predominately white guys support a black guy. (Check out Condoleeza Rice's story on how the 2A saved her uncle / dad!)

So it's the DA against 2A rather.

Also read the initially posted second link (on the phony Des Moines Register poll). It is no coincidence that those two articles appeared almost at the same time.
 
NavyLCDR: "3 months residency"

Then I "misspoke" in this regard. Cannot be right always and all the time.
Click to expand...

That's not the right answer. If the sherrif is requiring 3 months residency before accepting applications, than the sherrif is violating state law and should be called to task for it. The facts would be brought to the attention of the District Court with jurisdiction over the Sherrif and the District Court would issue a Writ of Mandamus to the Sherrif ordering him to comply with the state law and accept applications from all qualified persons, and if the Sheriff failed to do so, he would be in contempt of court.
 
Double Naught... is there a separate news story you can reference? I don't see anything in the links given that supports your statement.

"Right, it was suggested above that Lewis sue his landlord for his eviction. Given that Lewis did not meet his contractual obligations in paying rent, the landlord felt Lewis had defaulted (which he had)"

First article says eviction proceedings began 2 weeks after the incident, and NOT for Non-payment.

"One week after the shooting, a lawyer for Regency Woods typed up a notice that eventually was posted on the door of Lewis’ apartment. It described Lewis as a “clear and present danger to the health or safety of the other tenants.” As evidence, it cited Lewis’ involvement in “an assault with a weapon within 1,000 feet of the property described above” and the fact that he’d been arrested because of it.

Court papers were filed Nov. 14 to have Lewis evicted."

Double Naught- "He got his .380 back because it was held by the police. His other guns likely won't be returned to him because they were likely liquidated so that the landlord could recover lost rent and expenses surrounding the eviction and reletting of the apartment."

The guns were not Liquidated, the police officer who let the Jailed fellow know that his stuff was on the curb collected the firearms for him on November 30th. He called first to ask if there were any family that could collect his possessions before they were stolen. The landlord only posted on his door, and as he couldn't post bail, he never knew about this before the 30th.

"Lewis learned about all this at roughly 7:30 a.m. on Nov. 30. One jail guard led him to another, who was on the phone. The deputy serving the eviction warrant wanted to know if Lewis had any relatives who could get Lewis’ belongings off the 11th Street curb.

"The evicting deputy seized four handguns, three rifles, a shotgun and a machete that had been left in the apartment. But all his clothing and furniture disappeared on Nov. 30, along with a laptop containing the only copy of his fourth novel (a western)."

~~~~

Just watched the Video, (meant not chasing the baby... rarely happens) He apparently even had arranged for his mother to pay his rent in November, the landlord just wanted him out. Period.

Very much within their rights, but having evicted a few folks (or at least being the bearer of bad news) on my Great-Grandmother's behalf... I would have at least forwarded the eviction notice to the Jail.
 
Last edited:
Dnaltrop: "It described Lewis as a “clear and present danger to the health or safety"

.... of the other tenants.”

Dnaltrop, I appreciate your additional information and point of view!

jfdavis58, thank you very much for your summary - you spoke out what lots of us here feel!

NavyLCDR,
playing devil's advocate
Click to expand...
... illustrates excellently how a lot of people think outside of the 2A community and how a potentially questionable CCW status might easily make a criminal out of a victim. Without you lots would have thought "clear cut case" and have moved on with life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not a point of view, just experience telling me to read the full article. Everyone is guilty of skimming large blocks of text once in a while, and sometimes some very salient points can be missed.

I'm guilty of it at times myself. It's the Freakin' internet! I sure as heck won't try to read it all!! :D

The guy is working on his 4th book (or was apparently, whether or not he's published) and holds a white-collar job at the dreaded IRS (waits for the Booos to die down)

I was simply confused on where the conflicting conclusions were coming from, I wasn't seeing any other news reports in conflict with this one.

Also, as he's suing the landlord now, I'm wondering how it will affect the standing of the Eviction, if the Eviction is indeed based on his being charged with a crime that he has now been cleared of.

What if this had been a homeowner's association driving out a homeowner who legally shot assailants in front of their house?
 
Last edited:
Even if you jump to the conclusion that he was more involved in the road rage than the story indicates, the fact remains that his life was in danger.

If some nutjob in a blue Mustang raced you down the street, intentionally side-swiped you and ran you off the road, then illegally brandished an illegally carried firearm on you, illegally intimidated you with it, and had time to dial 911 before shouting multiple fake warnings to cover his murderous intent, there's no way a reasonable victim would have been shot anywhere but in the back, several hundred yards away from the scene. :) I don't think Dave Sevigny coulda made a shot on me with a .380 pocket pistol, as fast as I would have ran outta there. :)

It's hard to imagine the alleged attackers were only approaching him to exchange insurance info.
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone is saying his decision to shoot wasn't justified. I believe at the point when he fired he was justified.

My point is that racing a random drunk and then attempting to turn across their path is asking to put yourself in a dangerous situation. I believe an SD shooting however justified is terrible thing to be forced to do, in my opinion one should avoid situations where gunfire becomes necessary. This man made several bad decisions that led him to a point where he was forced to shoot someone.

Maybe the silver lining is he got a drunk driver off the road that night.

Sent from my PB99400 using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top