He's not allowed to possess a firearm, his offence was completed when he took possession/exercised control of the handgun seen in the video. He wouldn't be charged additionally for a defensive gun use, but he's committed a state felony (possession of a firearm by a prohibited person) on video and in later admissions reported by his friends. I'd say that the video evidence is at least enough to arrest and charge him, and you can jam him up with unlawful assembly and curfew breaking charges while you investigate.
IMO he's additionally guilty of disorderly conduct (brandishing with intent), a misdemeanor A. I'd like to see him hooked for felony murder (he and his friends conspired to commit arson, a felony, resulting in the deaths of the paedophile and the woman beater), but that probably puts wildly excessive faith in the local judiciary.
You’re correct, but in practice it doesn’t work that way, unless you’re arrested with the firearm. For example, in 90% of rap videos they show a felon with a gun. An arrest post facto is very rare
Thats opinion imo. Just like the left has to accept Kyle's innocence we should keep in mind this guy's lawyer could make a few good arguments as to why he should not be charged with anything. Esp if denies it was his own gun...
The defensive gun use itself may not attract charges, but you'd need a great lawyer to avoid being charged with felon in possession- in order to defend yourself with a firearm (or, of more interest to LE, to use the firearm in other ways), you very likely have to be in at least 'constructive possession', in that the weapon is readily available to you, and you know it's there. If the State doesn't think it can prove both of those elements, or indeed a very forgiving DA decides it's not in the public interest to argue a weak case, you won't be charged.
A felon unthinkingly grabbing his wife's usually-secured, legally held firearm as he feels he's physically better equipped to take on burglars might expect leniency, and idiot 'gangsta' types posing with firearms can be a tough prosecution as you have to prove it was legally a firearm, but declining to prosecute Grosskreutz, who was videoed in actual possession, made extremely incriminating statements, and was carrying the gun while engaged in other felonies, seems like wild abuse of discretion.
Edit to add- here's a case where a felon in actual possession successfully argued privilege- it's pretty important that Coleman didn't have the gun on his person, and he only exercised control over it while in fear for his life inside a family member's home- the felon's privilege is restricted to the following circumstances:
We thus conclude that a narrow defense of privilege under Wis. Stat. § 939.45(6) exists to a charge of felon in possession of a firearm. In order to be entitled to the defense, the defendant must prove:
(1) the defendant was under an unlawful, present, imminent, and impending threat of such a nature as to induce a wellgrounded apprehension of death or serious bodily injury, or the defendant reasonably believes he or she is under such a threat;
(2) the defendant did not recklessly or negligently place himself or herself in a situation in which it was probable that he or she would be forced to possess a firearm;
(3) the defendant had no reasonable, legal alternative to possessing a firearm, or reasonably believed that he or she had no such alternative; in other words, the defendant did not have a chance to refuse to possess the firearm and also to avoid the threatened harm, or reasonably believed that he or she did not have such a chance;
(4) a direct causal relationship may be reasonably anticipated between possessing the firearm and the avoidance of the threatened harm;
(5) the defendant did not possess the firearm for any longer than reasonably necessary.
I am talking practical application based on info from a gun rights forum.. in the real world not all felons are prosecuted for having a gun. I believe there was a California case where the state even lost a case since the felon was attacked in his own home and had no criminal record since his felony. A lot of conservative gun rights people think this is good. One dumb mistake 20 years ago and your rights are gone... esp now that everything is a felony.
He's not allowed to possess a firearm, his offence was completed when he took possession/exercised control of the handgun seen in the video. He wouldn't be charged additionally for a defensive gun use, but he's committed a state felony (possession of a firearm by a prohibited person) on video and in later admissions reported by his friends. I'd say that the video evidence is at least enough to arrest and charge him, and you can jam him up with unlawful assembly and curfew breaking charges while you investigate.
IMO he's additionally guilty of disorderly conduct (brandishing with intent), a misdemeanor A. I'd like to see him hooked for felony murder (he and his friends conspired to commit arson, a felony, resulting in the deaths of the paedophile and the woman beater), but that probably puts wildly excessive faith in the local judiciary.
You’re correct, but in practice it doesn’t work that way, unless you’re arrested with the firearm. For example, in 90% of rap videos they show a felon with a gun. An arrest post facto is very rare
OK, so this is a bit lawyerish (I'm not a lawyer) but you don't seem to understand the reply you are replying to.
This does not mean brandish nor have on one's person, possession means be within reach of or ease of accessibility to.
This is clearly a Federal firearms charge,
Thats opinion imo. Just like the left has to accept Kyle's innocence we should keep in mind this guy's lawyer could make a few good arguments as to why he should not be charged with anything. Esp if denies it was his own gun...
Doesn't matter if it is his or not. He was in possession of it.
To go back to my first post... it does matter. I have read about felons not being charged for defending themselves with a gun.
The defensive gun use itself may not attract charges, but you'd need a great lawyer to avoid being charged with felon in possession- in order to defend yourself with a firearm (or, of more interest to LE, to use the firearm in other ways), you very likely have to be in at least 'constructive possession', in that the weapon is readily available to you, and you know it's there. If the State doesn't think it can prove both of those elements, or indeed a very forgiving DA decides it's not in the public interest to argue a weak case, you won't be charged.
A felon unthinkingly grabbing his wife's usually-secured, legally held firearm as he feels he's physically better equipped to take on burglars might expect leniency, and idiot 'gangsta' types posing with firearms can be a tough prosecution as you have to prove it was legally a firearm, but declining to prosecute Grosskreutz, who was videoed in actual possession, made extremely incriminating statements, and was carrying the gun while engaged in other felonies, seems like wild abuse of discretion.
Edit to add- here's a case where a felon in actual possession successfully argued privilege- it's pretty important that Coleman didn't have the gun on his person, and he only exercised control over it while in fear for his life inside a family member's home- the felon's privilege is restricted to the following circumstances:
I am talking practical application based on info from a gun rights forum.. in the real world not all felons are prosecuted for having a gun. I believe there was a California case where the state even lost a case since the felon was attacked in his own home and had no criminal record since his felony. A lot of conservative gun rights people think this is good. One dumb mistake 20 years ago and your rights are gone... esp now that everything is a felony.