Judge Revokes NC Man's Carry Permit

T

thallub

New member
Daniel Ray Brown observed two black men chasing a white man, After the white man was caught Brown intervened. Brown fired a warning shot that landed close to one man.

The white man, a mental case, was being chased by his care givers. The judge wisely revoked Brown's carry permit.

The gun incident happened last March. Brown and his mother were eating near Hanes Mall in Winston-Salem when he saw a white man, screaming for help, being chased by two black men.

......................................................................................................

According to Winston-Salem police, Brown “attempted to stop the struggle by pointing a handgun.”

One of the black men, Fredrick Morgan, testified that Brown pointed his gun at the group and demanded that the scuffling trio show ID.

“I’m like, ‘Whoa, whoa, whoa. You need to put that gun up,’ ” Morgan testified, according to the Journal.

When the three men wouldn’t listen, Brown fired a bullet into the ground a few feet in front of Morgan.

It wasn’t until after Brown had made a new hole in the asphalt that he learned the truth. The white man was mentally ill and had fled from two care workers. The chase was their attempt to corral him near Hanes Mall.
Click to expand...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...-his-carry-permit/ar-AAomW5N?ocid=HPCOMMDHP15
 
I was talking with someone about this kind of thing the other day. It is very easy to misconstrue the circumstances of a situation that is already in progress. Without seeing the beginning and the progression of the incident, it can be easy to get the wrong impression.

There are only a few situations where a concealed carrier can use deadly force on another's behalf with some level of confidence. Here are the ones that come to me off the top of my head.

1. Where a person is in the process of assaulting a police officer, the police officer's life is obviously in danger, and there is no way to safely resolve the situation without deadly force.

2. Where a person is indiscriminately murdering bystanders.

3. Where the CC has seen the entire situation develop from the very start and has a clear understanding of the context and circumstances.

Even in these cases, it's not a sure thing. For example, in case 1, the person dressed as an officer might be impersonating an officer.

Here's a case where a person impersonating an officer pulled over a real officer. Apparently neither were in uniform, but still, how's that for confusing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u1NHAUTFek

In cases 1 and 2, the scenario could actually be some kind of prank or public performance piece as in the video below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDg5DB1HAGY
 
Last edited:
JohnKSa, both links are the same video. The pranking. I'd be interested in seeing the impersonating an officer one. I couldn't find it on You Tube.
 
Not knowing the full score lead to the 2014 death of Joseph Robert Wilcox. While trying to stop Jerad Miller from shooting people in a Las Vegas store Wilcox was shot dead by Amanda Miller apparently unaware of her connection to Jerad or the earlier cop killings.

Whether or not Wilcox's intervention saved the lives of Walmart shoppers is arguable since none were killed. Unfortunately, Wilcox's intervention only resulted in his own death.

In this case it seems that having the gun didn't get him out of a bad situation.

It got him into one. A lethal one.
 
intervention. do or don't?

cant remember where I heard or read it from but there is the classic example of witnessing a poorly dressed thug derelict beating the crap out of a nicely dressed business man somewhere like a dark alley what do you do? In this case the derelict was an undercover cop making an arrest on a very violent person.

"unless its very obvious" don't intervene... but then "very obvious" is highly often subjective isn't it..?
 
"unless its very obvious" don't intervene... but then "very obvious" is highly often subjective isn't it..?
Click to expand...
For that reason, the experts advise people to not intervene unless they have reason to KNOW the situation, and what lead to it.

In a defense of justification, that will most certainly come up.

In one state, even a reasonable belief is not sufficient, if it proves erroneous. The requirement is actual knowledge.

JohnKSa has provided sone good examples of this principle.
 
I cannot remember.

The distinction was not about whether one requires more than a reason for believing that deadly force would be required. It had to do with whether the third party would have been justified in the use of deadly force to defend himself or herself under the circumstances.

That would encompass such questions as whether the third person had initiated the confrontation, or whether mutual combat was involved, and perhaps other things.

Personally, I will not intervene unless (1) I actually know the apparent victims; or (2) I have witnessed the entire encounter from the outset and have seen the parties come upon one another and it is clear that they have not been previously acquainted and it is clear that deadly force is necessary to defend one of them from death or serious bodily harm; or (3) it is clear that one of the parties is actually using deadly force on a defenseless individual.
 
Mike38,

I corrected the link. Thanks for the heads up. The video is more of a news blurb--it doesn't actually show the scenario.
 
At an underground parking area, me and number of others heard a woman screaming hysterically. We all ran in her direction to help. What we found was a drunk woman, enraged that her boyfriend had dumped her and had locked himself in his car to keep her away.

When I was a security guard, I was told to never be embarrassed if I came upon two people having sex. I was told to ask if everything is OK, and to tell them to get the hell out. Previous to this, a guard saw two people screwing and left silently. The woman was in fact being raped.

So, sometimes you just don't know what's going on.
 
I would disregard this comment:

In one state, even a reasonable belief is not sufficient, if it proves erroneous. The requirement is actual knowledge.
Click to expand...

I wrote that from memory--I researched the subject a number of years ago.

There have been substantive changes in a number of states in the last half-dozen years. while I try to stay up with things, I really can't do that in detail. And not every precedential higher court ruling is widely publicized.

It is a good idea to know the law in whatever jurisdiction in which you happen to be traveling, and most importantly, to not look at the laws in an effort to find out how to justify the use or threat of force, deadly or otherwise.
 
Many years ago, 1972 I believe, we were in a parking lot in Fairbanks when my wife saw two guys running. A third came running from the store following the first two.

Wife tells me the first two did something and the second is after him and decided I should assist.

I had a gun, always did. But none of them have weapons that I could see. All I saw was three guys running, which could mean they just happen to be running the same direction.

I saw no justification for me to get involved, though I continued watching. Sure enough as the three neared a corner, a bus pulled up, and all three got on.

Things are not what they seem. It may be justified to intervene in disputes of others, but I believe ONLY IF LIVE OR GREAT BODILY HARM is present.

I certainly don't believe in "warning shots".

I don't know the story mentioned in the original post, except what was posted. From that small bit of information I didn't see the danger of immediate threat to life and limb.

I spent 20 years in LE, it was my job to intervene, to investigate, but not take action until I determined action was required. I'm retired, its not my job to intervene, butt in if you will, but nothing prevents me from observing to see if my limited intervention was requires, or to watch them get on the bus.

But, I don't believe warning shots are justified in any situation.

A good example, I had a reserve officer riding with me on afternoon. We observed a cow moose trying to cross the road. He thought we should fire a round to scare off the moose, I started to tell him that was a bad idea, explaining that this was an urban area and moose were use to noises.

Well I found out I was wrong. We both were. He fired out the window, into the air, the moose was indeed frightened by the noise, but instead of running toward safety he ran across the medium and was hit by another car.

Had we left her alone she might have waited until it was safe to cross. But we didn't. After taking care of the accident, I took the reserve back to the station and he was never allowed in my car again.
 
OldMarksman said:
I would disregard this comment:

In one state, even a reasonable belief is not sufficient, if it proves erroneous. The requirement is actual knowledge.
Click to expand...

I wrote that from memory--I researched the subject a number of years ago.

There have been substantive changes in a number of states in the last half-dozen years.
Click to expand...

But there's another thing to consider. Even if you're in a jurisdiction in which you're not penalized for a reasonable mistake, if you intervene with lethal force and the person you wind up shooting was not actually the bad guy, you've just shot, and perhaps maimed for life or killed, an innocent person.
 
I carry a firearm for one reason and one reason only...to protect myself and my loved ones.

Otherwise, I'm doing one of two things: leaving the scene OR remaining a safe distance from the fray, as concealed as possible, calling 911, and being a good witness.

Getting otherwise involved, IMHO, is just not worth my physical, emotional, or financial well-being.
 
Just to add a thought on intervention.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmund Burk
Click to expand...

I'm a cop in a mid-sized town. To be fair I'm in a fairly pro-2A state, but as always my state has large pockets of very... well not pro-2A folks. At any rate, LEOs here are typically very pro-2A.

To the point... We actually had an incident a couple of years ago where an armed citizen stopped a violent assault with his firearm. A young 20-something lady had been involved with a feud with a very young and small teenager. She saw the girl at a store and decided to pull her out of the car and beat her with a broom handle. And I mean beat to a pulp. A bystander who had his CCH, and didn't know either of them, pulled out his pistol and presented it to the girl who was beating the teenager (who was on the ground, barely conscious). The CCH holder who intervened was held in high regard. Of course he didn't fire a warning shot either or do anything else stupid either. The girl was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. She tried to argue that a broom handle wasn't deadly... the judge didn't buy that. It ended well, but I wonder what would have happened if the girl would have turned on him. If he would have had to shoot because she charged at him, it would have been a mess and his life would have sucked for a while until he was cleared. At that point, as law enforcement, we have to do our job and start an investigation and present evidence to a prosecutor. Even if we believed he was right. At any rate, it didn't arise to that so no need in "what iffing" it now.

Anyway, that's it. Just one little anecdote. There are probably thousands of cases like this a week where someone ends something bad with the responsible use of a firearm. All of those could go the worst way, and it's a big decision to choose whether you will intervene on behalf of another. I fully support those who do.
 
Just to add a thought on intervention.
Click to expand...
That's a good thought. Of course, it's important not to fall into a false dichotomy.

There's a lot of room between "doing nothing" and intervening with a firearm. It's not as if one must choose between only two options.

By the way, I'm not saying people shouldn't intervene, nor even that they shouldn't intervene with deadly force. But I am saying that intervening with deadly force in a situation where there's any room at all for doubt as to what's going on is very risky. Not just from a legal standpoint, but also from the standpoint of the potential for killing/injuring an innocent person.

Even in cases where there is very little room for doubt as to the circumstances of the situation, there is still a risk that something out of the ordinary/unusual/difficult to understand is going on and that intervening with deadly force may be the wrong course of action.

It's also worth noting that drawing and displaying a firearm (as happened in the scenario you describe) isn't quite the same thing as intervening with deadly force.
 
It is vital one understand exactly what is going on, before interfering, and most of the time, its difficult to do. However, there are times when its crystal clear.

I am reminded of two incidents, one many years ago, in Texas, and one within the past year or so, in Seattle.

In the Texas one, a guy stops at the mall to pick up more ammo, on his way to go shooting, sees the bad guy shoot his (ex?) girlfriend on the sidewalk infront of the mall. Bad guy shoots her again after she's on the ground. Then badguy goes for his car, pointing gun at people in the parking lot. Gets in his car, still pointing his gun at people, including the "goodguy", who shoots once. Bad guy drives off, crashes car into phone pole, right outside the parking lot. DOA. The case does go to the Grand Jury. End result, good guy gets charged with "usurping the authority of the State of Texas". (because he acted as judge, jury and executioner). Gotta love Texas.

The other, a King County coffee shop. Wackjob enters with a hatchet. Swings at the counterman, slicing open counterman's belly. As wackjob is pulling back for another swing, customer produces licensed CCW, fires one shot, wackjob DRT.

In an untypical fashion, the customer, hailed as a hero by both counterman and responding cops, refuses to speak to the press, at all. They didn't even get his name. All the press got was that he was a regular customer, in his late 50s or early 60s. Without info to beat their agenda drum with, the news dropped coverage of the matter in two days. last we heard, the matter was being sent to the country prosecutor, "for review" (in that country, everything is..). Never heard of any charges being filed.

It's rare, but there are situations (which 99.99% of us will never be involved in) where it is crystal clear what is going on, and citizen action was justifiably taken, ending the threat.

A CCW does not make you a cop. Laws allowing the use of deadly force to stop certain crimes are not there to encourage us to intervene where we don't know what is going on with absolute certainty, they are there so that, if we do, (and are right) our butts are legally covered.
 
warning shots indicate you didn't take even one class or investigate the legal ramifications of deadly force.
its amazing what a persistent myth it is, the notion that it is somehow OK to shoot when your life is not in danger, because imo if my life is in danger - I shoot center mass
 
And yet, many of the general public will expect a warning shot, especially from non-LEO. That's why a reasonable prosecutor is important. You don't want to have to educate a jury at trial
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top