Should A Man Be Charged For Concealed Weapon That saved his Life

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JYD

New member
14 year old shoots it out with 43 year old victim

It seems these wannabe thugs are getting younger, or I am just getting older.

A man had accused a 14 year old of burglary, and he did have a record of it.

So the kid walks up to him at his home and starts shooting, can you guess what happens?

The 43 year old, in his own yard, pulls a concealed weapon and kills the 14 year old after he had been shot himself.

http://junkyarddog911.blogspot.com/2014/08/14-year-old-thug-wannabe-shoots-43-year.html

Now, report are sufficing that the surviving victim might not have had a permit for the concealed weapon that saved his life.

If that is the case, it brings up an interesting topic, should the victim face charges for a law violation that ended up saving his life? I think not.

After all, there are instances where you can legally break a law for the greater good. As in trespassing lets say on property that is posted, if you see someone drowning.

Discuss.....
 
Not sure where this occurred (Lakeland, FL?) but I'm not aware of any state that prohibits concealed carry in your own home or on your own property, regardless of whether you have a license. As long as the shooter was not a felon or otherwise prohibited from owning a weapon, I don't see how he can be charged.
 
Not sure where this occurred (Lakeland, FL?) but I'm not aware of any state that prohibits concealed carry in your own home or on your own property, regardless of whether you have a license. As long as the shooter was not a felon or otherwise prohibited from owning a weapon, I don't see how he can be charged.
Click to expand...

In California for instance, your front yard, if not secured by a solid fence (not cosmetic) tall enough to keep out the public, the state considers it PUBLIC PROPERTY, but only when guns are involved. you can nt even open carry a sidearm in your own front yard.
 
The incident took place in Lakeland, FL in a courtyard next to Canteen's apartment. That introduces a couple of variables.

1. I don't know if the courtyard would be treated like Canteen's property.
2. I don't know the FL laws about carry without a permit on private property.

That said even if Canteen was carrying illegally, it's sometimes possible to mount an affirmative defense in cases like this. The gist of the claim would be that since he clearly needed a gun to save his life (he didn't shoot until he, himself had already been shot) that he was justified in having it at the time of the shooting.
 
It depends if the state (Florida n this case) has a necessity defense provision in the law. For example in Illinois it is this:
(720 ILCS 5/7-13) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-13)
Sec. 7-13. Necessity.
Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justifiable by reason of necessity if the accused was without blame in occasioning or developing the situation and reasonably believed such conduct was necessary to avoid a public or private injury greater than the injury which might reasonably result from his own conduct.
Click to expand...
 
FL has Stand Your Ground, Castle Doctrine and other assorted laws for the law abiding citizen. You defend yourself on your property from immediate threat, I do not see an issue - unless there is some racial factor I am missing that the news wants to play up
 
The reality is that one can be exonerated for the defensive use of a gun and still be convicted on an unlawful weapons charge. The poster child for that result is Bernie Goetz, the 1984 "Subway Vigilante." He was acquitted of assault on a self defense plea but went to jail for unlawfully possessing an unregistered handgun.

Whether anyone thinks that's wrong is kind of beside the point. One might be justified in shooting someone, but still have violated a weapons law.

Folks who think that's wrong can get politically active and try to change things.

Armed_Chicagoan said:
It depends if the state (Florida n this case) has a necessity defense provision in the law. For example in Illinois it is this:
(720 ILCS 5/7-13) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-13)
Sec. 7-13. Necessity.
Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justifiable by reason of necessity if the accused was without blame in occasioning or developing the situation and reasonably believed such conduct was necessary to avoid a public or private injury greater than the injury which might reasonably result from his own conduct.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The necessity defense really doesn't work. It can help when one violates the law during an unfolding situation in order to prevent harm. It doesn't necessarily excuse a continuing violation of the law, like illegally walking around with a concealed weapon, on the off chance you'll need it.
 
The reality is that one can be exonerated for the defensive use of a gun and still be convicted on an unlawful weapons charge. The poster child for that result is Bernie Goetz, the 1984 "Subway Vigilante." He was acquitted of assault on a self defense plea but went to jail for unlawfully possessing an unregistered handgun.
Click to expand...

I do believe that there have been several NYC and Chicago cases just like this, some of which occurred in people's own homes.
 
Gary, not true

Not sure where this occurred (Lakeland, FL?) but I'm not aware of any state that prohibits concealed carry in your own home or on your own property, regardless of whether you have a license. As long as the shooter was not a felon or otherwise prohibited from owning a weapon, I don't see how he can be charged.

In my st of Ohio, we can OPEN carry in our yard but NOT conceal carry without CHL.
 
Frank Ettin said:
The necessity defense really doesn't work. It can help when one violates the law during an unfolding situation in order to prevent harm. It doesn't necessarily excuse a continuing violation of the law, like illegally walking around with a concealed weapon, on the off chance you'll need it.
Click to expand...
From what I understand about this case the kid and his friends had been taunting the guy earlier that very day. I think a good case could be made that carrying the pistol that day was necessitated by being harassed by known gangbangers. A more detailed version of the story is here: http://www.theledger.com/article/20140807/NEWS/140809471?p=1&tc=pg

Looks like that kid comes from a whole clan of gangbangers.
 
My knowledge of New Jersey law is rudimentary, I do know carrying on your own property is perfectly legal. Like driving on private property without a license.
 
From what I understand about this case the kid and his friends had been taunting the guy earlier that very day. I think a good case could be made that carrying the pistol that day was necessitated by being harassed by known gangbangers....
Click to expand...
Still most likely "no." Necessity generally works only in exigent circumstances.
 
First is the common area of an apartment complex considered private property, second can they find a jury that would convict him with the history of the attacker.
 
tony pasley said:
First is the common area of an apartment complex considered private property, second can they find a jury that would convict him with the history of the attacker.
Click to expand...

First, the common areas of an apartment complex are not the private property of any resident. In general while it might be legal to carry a gun on your private property, that will generally not extend to common areas to which all residents are entitle to equal use and access.

Second, the jury will most likely not know about the history of the attacker. In general a defendant claiming self defense may not introduce evidence of the bad character or past misdeeds of his attacker unless --

  1. The defendant can show he knew that before the attack; or

  2. The prosecution introduces evidence of the good character of the defendant's attacker.
 
concealed wepon

if i read tenn. law right one wont be charged in self-defense shooting even if the weapon is illegally possessed.:confused:
 
should the victim face charges for a law violation that ended up saving his life?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. In fact, I personally believe he should receive a hero's medal from the local Sheriff and a gift certificate to Cabela's for a free Sig of his choice and self-defense training.
 
jughead2 said:
if i read tenn. law right one wont be charged in self-defense shooting even if the weapon is illegally possessed.
Click to expand...
Or maybe you're not reading Tennessee law correctly. Have you fully researched all possibly applicable statute law? Have you thoroughly researched the case law? Can you cite for us the applicable statutes and courts of appeal decisions?
 
Ultimately is it going to depend on the specific wording of the applicable laws, AND the decisions of the prosecutors office.

There have been many, many cases of a weapon, carried/kept in violation of local laws and ordnances, having been used, successfully, for self defense.

Sometimes, the victim (defender) gets off without any charges (good shoot). Sometimes they get a "good shoot" on the shoot, but get charged with possession charges (or discharging a firearm within city limits, etc.), because while they were justified in defending themselves, the did break the law just having the tool they used.

Prosecutors cannot forbid self defense (though some act as if they wish they could), but they can "send a message" that they disapprove of it, by charging the defender with gun law violations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top