one too many

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Vanya

Suppose he hadn't (allegedly) administered a coup de grâce, in which case it would have been a justifiable self-defense shooting. Would it still be right to charge him with the weapons violation because he used the mugger's gun to defend himself?

I think that there is a section of law which negates the potential possession charge in a lawful instance of self defense. I've seen it referenced before in NY when a woman who did not have a pistol permit used a handgun in SD.

In this case, theoretically, he would only be charged for illegal possession for the final, illegal shot and not for the others. Technicality, yes.

[markj]

Suppose he hadn't (allegedly) administered a coup de grâce, in which case it would have been a justifiable self-defense shooting. Would it still be right to charge him with the weapons violation because he used the mugger's gun to defend himself?

I think no charges would have been brought up on him as up until the shot to the back of the head was SD, only after he committed the criminal act would the weapons charge stick.

Convicted felon? Now I do know a lot about this type of person, I sat at a table years ago and watched 2 guys type up a hundred or so birth certs using dead peoples ss numbers. Both had large revolvers in their boots and drugs on the table. Both eventually went back to prison.

Prison folks cant be trusted, not one bit. I have seen a few in my time.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

I think that there is a section of law which negates the potential possession charge in a lawful instance of self defense. I've seen it referenced before in NY when a woman who did not have a pistol permit used a handgun in SD.

Huh. Interesting. State or federal, I wonder? If the former, would it apply to felons, who are prohibited persons under Federal law, or just to those who are prohibited under state law?

Perhaps NavyLT will step in and enlighten us.

Originally Posted by markj

I think no charges would have been brought up on him as up until the shot to the back of the head was SD, only after he committed the criminal act would the weapons charge stick.

But a charge of "possession" relates to, well, possession, does it not? To having the gun as opposed to using it... the fact that he fired it at all should be irrelevant, except insofar as a specific law makes an exception for self-defense.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Not knowning anything about the legality - but absolutism would be silly. Someone comes at you with a gun and you disarm him. Then for that moment in time you are breaking the law?

I wonder if they threw it in just as something to maintain control of the charges - meaning tying the guy up in court.

Also, Jan Libourel from Handguns once told me that many of the self-defense stories we see are just BG vs BG.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

Not knowning anything about the legality - but absolutism would be silly. Someone comes at you with a gun and you disarm him. Then for that moment in time you are breaking the law?

Yes, exactly. It would seem a bit... petty.

I wonder if they threw it in just as something to maintain control of the charges - meaning tying the guy up in court.

One of the articles I quoted (I hope at not too great length ) did mention that Mr. Peterson had been charged with various other (unspecified) parole violations, in addition to the weapons charge. So, yes, they clearly do want to hang on to him...