Bru ha ha - guns confiscated

[seeknulfind]

This story is all second hand as told to me by an eyewitness...

Apparently some local unsavory types had a heated argument that spilled outside their property lines and into public areas. One person known to associate with this group recently returned from jail. Someone called the cops.

The 21 year-old son of my witness' next door neighbor armed himself by placing a handgun in the back of his waistband. At some point a LEO noticed the firearm drove up on the person's property and confiscated the gun.

From what I've been able to ascertain, he neither threatened anyone nor did he do anything that could be described as "brandishing".

I can understand the LEOs wanting to diffuse the situation and remove any threats. And while I do not know anything concerning the demeanor of the individual who had his gun confiscated, I heard nothing to indicate he did anything that in any way could be viewed as a threat. He was on his own property. He armed himself in response to a ruckus serious enough to draw a slew of law enforcement.

In a recent thread on this forum, someone asked about obtaining some sort pre-emptive legal protection. At the time I thought he was being a bit over-cautious. Now I'm not so sure. I think it would be an advantage in this case to at least have a number one could call in such an incidence.

Another, more paranoid, speculation extrapolates on events already detailed in other posts where agencies, judges and others are abusing their power to harass citizens and even go so far as to confiscate legal weapons. Will things come to the point where LEOs decide to search a neighborhood, going from house to house, preemptively confiscating weapons? At one point, I would have thought such a scenario to be ludicrous. Now I'm not so sure.

Keep in mind the events described above are from one perspective only. I have no idea what led the LEO to confiscate this gun, thus I still believe it is too early to proclaim any judgements here. However in light of this, I do wonder if we should not also be "armed" with one more weapon - good legal council.

Andy

[Jakeiscrazy]

Well if the story as told to you is true then I would say get a good lawyer, get your gun back, and stay inside if another argument begins.

[seeknulfind]

Well if the story as told to you is true then I would say get a good lawyer, get your gun back, and stay inside if another argument begins.

I spoke to another witness who added a couple of things.

1) One person was particularly of interest to the police as he was threatening to kill several people, including officers apparently. He was arrested for assault and battery and later released on his own recognizance. (This person's antics agreed with the first witness.)

2) The person above was the one who told the police "they have a gun", indicating someone on the property where the gun was confiscated.

3) The police not only confiscated the gun, but also placed the owner in custody. The second witness, one I would term as reliable, stated that this person was in no way involved in the fray, nor was he in any way threatening or abusive.

From what I can see, I do not think this person would be able to afford a lawyer so maybe it's would be a good thing to be arrested as at least he should be provided a public defender.

Andy

[gunderwood]

provided a public defender.

Who will try his hardest to convince the defendant that their only option is a plea bargain...

If the person in question, which for now I'm assuming you are correct (aka did nothing wrong), wants to walk away innocent they need a lawyer. A public defender simply won't do.

[Jakeiscrazy]

Well if the story as told to you is true then I would say get a good lawyer, get your gun back, and stay inside if another argument begins.

I spoke to another witness who added a couple of things.

1) One person was particularly of interest to the police as he was threatening to kill several people, including officers apparently. He was arrested for assault and battery and later released on his own recognizance. (This person's antics agreed with the first witness.)

2) The person above was the one who told the police "they have a gun", indicating someone on the property where the gun was confiscated.

3) The police not only confiscated the gun, but also placed the owner in custody. The second witness, one I would term as reliable, stated that this person was in no way involved in the fray, nor was he in any way threatening or abusive.

From what I can see, I do not think this person would be able to afford a lawyer so maybe it's would be a good thing to be arrested as at least he should be provided a public defender.

Andy

Maybe he could get in contact with VCDL, even though he isn't a member they may be willing to help him out.

[seeknulfind]

For all I know it might not be necessary. Maybe they took him to the station, questioned him and let him loose. Let's face it, unless you have plenty of money or are willing to put everything you own on the line, as well as years of your life - justice is little more than a fantasy these days.

[rod]

Without knowing all the details, it's impossible to make a call on that story. A few things come to mind, although they may not pertain to this situation (don't know all the details). First of all, why would anyone arm themselves and jump in the middle of someone else's business? To a jury, it looks a lot like the armed person was looking for a fight. Instead, arm yourself with a camera, notepad, or whatever else will assist you in being a good witness.... from a safe distance. If someone's life was in danger, well, that's a different story. Doesn't sound like it though.

Another thing that sounds a little off is it's perfectly legal to carry a gun on your own property. It doesn't matter if there's a fight or not. I don't understand why the cops confiscated the gun if it was legally carried. A couple of simple questions could have cleared that up and no one should have gone to jail and lose their gun just for standing around. Seems like there's more to the story than what's been disclosed so far.

[seeknulfind]

Without knowing all the details, it's impossible to make a call on that story. A few things come to mind, although they may not pertain to this situation (don't know all the details). First of all, why would anyone arm themselves and jump in the middle of someone else's business? To a jury, it looks a lot like the armed person was looking for a fight. Instead, arm yourself with a camera, notepad, or whatever else will assist you in being a good witness.... from a safe distance. If someone's life was in danger, well, that's a different story. Doesn't sound like it though.

Another thing that sounds a little off is it's perfectly legal to carry a gun on your own property. It doesn't matter if there's a fight or not. I don't understand why the cops confiscated the gun if it was legally carried. A couple of simple questions could have cleared that up and no one should have gone to jail and lose their gun just for standing around. Seems like there's more to the story than what's been disclosed so far.

As far as there being more to the story then I've been able to gather so far, there is no doubt.

Per your first statement, I think your perspective is a bit skewed. To my knowledge the young man in question did not "jump in the middle of someone else's business". There was a loud and potentially violent scuffle right in front of his residence. The participants all lived in the area but none lived adjacent to the residence in question. At least some of those who WERE involved are reputed to be trouble and are also well-known by local law enforcement. Given these circumstances, I do not blame him for arming himself. He stayed on his own property and apparently did not interfere.

As far as you not understanding why the firearm was confiscated, I am equally puzzled.

Should I find out more I'll let you know.

Andy

[SHMIV]

On the subject of public defenders:

I needed an attorney, once, and used a public defender. A public defender is better than no attorney at all. In my case, he did a good job. That being said, I had a number of supporting character witnesses who all wrote letters to my public defender.

A defending attorney, whether you paid for him or not, is a bit jaded and will probably automatically assume you to be guilty. (Because, in many cases, he is defending a guilty person) If you can prove to your attorney that you are worth defending, he will work harder for you. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. If you are a high dollar client, he's going to work hard to keep that income. In other cases, some attorneys are overworked and apathetic.

[seeknulfind]

Today I talked to someone directly involved in this. To those who suspect there is more to the story, I will say you are correct to a point but from what I can gather this seems to be a clear case of one officer going too far.

I'm not going to get into any more details about this because this needs to be aired out in court. However I will say I firmly believe this kid is being railroaded. I do not think he did anything wrong. He was eventually charged with brandishing. Not only was he NOT brandishing his firearm in any form or manner, the code specifically exempts persons who are acting in self defense.

§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense.

From I've been able to ascertain, there was no basis for any charges at all.

I believe a good lawyer could straighten this out and get the case dismissed, saving the county and the accused a lot of time money and grief. Maybe they can light a fire under a public defender. I don't know. What I suspect is the real culprit will walk while this kid will lose his gun and end up with a record. I do not believe he will actively seek out a lawyer who will look out for this best interests.

Andy

[AtomicPunk]

2) The person above was the one who told the police "they have a gun", indicating someone on the property where the gun was confiscated.

If the gun was tucked in the back of his waistband, how did the "person above" know he had it?

[Jakeiscrazy]

2) The person above was the one who told the police "they have a gun", indicating someone on the property where the gun was confiscated.

If the gun was tucked in the back of his waistband, how did the "person above" know he had it?

Your quote is wrong I didn't say that seeknulfind. Easy mistake just wanted to clear it up.

[seeknulfind]

Sorry for any misunderstanding - I was referring to the person in my point number 1 - in other words - this person :

One person was particularly of interest to the police as he was threatening to kill several people, including officers apparently.

As I said, I will no longer expound on any details in this situation until the courts have had their say.

Andy

[GunShopGuy]

While there are not enough details to form a legal opinion, not that I'm lawyer, if the person was on his own property he was well within his rights to be armed regardless of whether or not a threat exists. There is legal precident where similar "brandishing" convictions were overturned on appeal. Lawyer needed.

The problem would have come if the man had been forced to use his gun. Virginia has no Castle Doctorine and it needs it. As it is now, a person must allow themselved to be shot, or shot at, stabbed, assualted or some other way be in "imminent" danger before they can defend themselves with a gun even on their own property.

Sucks.