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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The wording of Texas law is such that in some cases, valid self defense in an affirmative defense to prosecution on a weapons charge.

However, should a person be charged for a weapon that saved his life? Or maybe that should be rewritten to ask if he should be charged with the laws he violated before an act of self defense because it was made known at the time of self defense that he was violating the law?

I dunno, should a person be charged for a concealed weapon such as a brick of cocaine if it was used to save his life?
 
The type of firearm is irrelevant to me. Did the 43 year old have the right of self defense?

We had the same type of incident in San Francisco with our own version of Bernard Getz (sp)? Fellow was on a date when he was mugged by four folks from Oakland. They punched him, broke his glasses and he pulled out a P-35. Killed one, crippled another.

District Attorney charged him with murder. Jury ruled self defense.

On retrial, DA charged him with assault with a deadly weapon. Jury again ruled it was self defense.

Round III, the D.A. got him to agree to carrying a concealed weapon in public. He got credit for time served.

Frankly (by CA law and I don't know TX law), the 43 year old is guilty. However, if I were the D.A., I wouldn't bother pressing charges.
 
> [The thug] walked up to the area where Virgis Canteen was, [accompanied by] two
> unidentified suspects, with a pistol, and open fired striking Canteen in the upper extremities.
> ...Once Canteen was stuck by the attack, he pulled out his own pistol and returned fire...."
Click to expand...

This is a no-brainer.
The DA would be a fool to pursue.

.
 
4V50 Gary said:
We had the same type of incident in San Francisco with our own version of Bernard Getz (sp)? Fellow was on a date when he was mugged by four folks from Oakland. They punched him, broke his glasses and he pulled out a P-35. Killed one, crippled another.

District Attorney charged him with murder. Jury ruled self defense.

On retrial, DA charged him with assault with a deadly weapon. Jury again ruled it was self defense.

Round III, the D.A. got him to agree to carrying a concealed weapon in public. He got credit for time served.
Click to expand...

What did agreeing to carrying a concealed weapon do for the D.A.? Less likely to be sued, marginal save of face, better looking wins for the books, and/or better chances of keeping their job. Whatever the reason, I doubt it included justice...
 
ATN082268 said:
What did agreeing to carrying a concealed weapon do for the D.A.?...
Click to expand...
The guy violated the law. He was subject to prosecution. You might think it's a dumb law, but it is the law.

Yes, there is such a thing a prosecutorial discretion. But first, the discretion belongs to the prosecutor and not to you. And second, no one should count on it. If a prosecutor cuts you slack, you've received a gift.

The bottom line is that if you violate the law, whether or not you think it's a good law, you should expect to be prosecuted if you are caught; and you really can't complain if you are.
 
Justice?

Frank Ettin said:
The guy violated the law. He was subject to prosecution. You might think it's a dumb law, but it is the law.

Yes, there is such a thing a prosecutorial discretion. But first, the discretion belongs to the prosecutor and not to you. And second, no one should count on it. If a prosecutor cuts you slack, you've received a gift.

The bottom line is that if you violate the law, whether or not you think it's a good law, you should expect to be prosecuted if you are caught; and you really can't complain if you are.
Click to expand...

Actually my main complaint was more along the lines of the inefficient use of judicial resources and possible harassment. If someone breaks multiple law(s), then they should be charged with all known offenses at the same trial instead of spreading them out because the D.A. couldn't win the first, second (or possibly more) times.

It was almost like the D.A. was trying to charge someone for the same crime more than once by calling it something else. Especially given the complexity and broad nature of the law, I'm sure the D.A. could have tried to pin something else on the poor guy had he not pled guilty (or been convicted of) concealed weapon charges.
 
14 years old. Very sad. What's even sadder is that the article describes him being arrested for attempted murder prior to this incident. Doesn't attempted murder get you any incarceration these days?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
The guy violated the law. He was subject to prosecution. You might think it's a dumb law, but it is the law.

Yes, there is such a thing a prosecutorial discretion. But first, the discretion belongs to the prosecutor and not to you. And second, no one should count on it. If a prosecutor cuts you slack, you've received a gift.

The bottom line is that if you violate the law, whether or not you think it's a good law, you should expect to be prosecuted if you are caught; and you really can't complain if you are.
Click to expand...

I gotta agree completely with Frank. If the shooter had been a convicted felon and was prohibited from possessing any firearms, would folks here still claim he should walk, scott free? The shooter was, by law, prohibited from carrying concealed. So, he broke the law. Odds are he knowingly broke the law. He(like many folks) weighed the risk between being caught CWCing illegally and saving his life. Used to happen here in Wisconsin quite a bit, half a dozen years ago too, before we were able to legally CWC. Odds are, he has no problem with being charged with CWCing without a license, cause he's still alive to be charged.

It's well known that the probability, that one can shoot and kill another human, even in self-defense without some sort of legal hassles is almost nil. Massad Ayoob tells us we should not use handloads for SD because they could cloud the issue of whether the shoot was justified or not. Is this going to cloud a juries decision if it comes to it? Who knows. But it's something to consider when one considers carrying a firearm illegally. There are a multitude of clinics offered to CWCers as to what to do after the shoot to help your case. The idea that the shooter would be patted on the back for illegally carrying concealed after killing a 14 year old is pretty far fetched. Now, whether the charges stick or if the case goes to trial and a jury convicts him is another thing. But, if fair is fair, he'll probably be charged.
 
First, this thread has been inactive for over 2 years. NO NEW information has been given.

Second, when the thread was current, the information given by the OP and the link he provided differed in details, and details matter in cases like this.

So, this one is being closed. If you have new information, and want to discuss this specific case, fine, contact us and we'll reopen it.

If you want to discuss the idea in general, please, open a new thread, with current information.

CLOSED.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top