Thoughts After a "Brandishing" Trial

[EasyT]

I am an attorney that just finished up a jury trial where I defended a gun owner/ccw holder who was accused of brandishing his weapon in violation of Penal Code 417(a)(1). Fortunately, we were able to get an acquittal because it was obviously in self-defense. However, as a fellow ccw holder, I want to relate a few observations that became apparent from the whole judicial process.

1) If someone cuts you off in traffic, don't get out of your car to confront them. In this case, a group of teenagers on bicycles had cut off an individual, almost causing an accident. He left his truck to chew them out, thinking that would be the end of it, but it quickly escalated to a physical fight with more than one teenager taking swings at him.

2) If you do get into a physical altercation, do whatever you can to get out of it before drawing a weapon. Even then, evaluate what force is reasonable for self defense. In this case, the CCW holder quickly realized that the situation was getting out of control and made a bee line for his truck. Unfortunately, the youths kept following him, striking him from behind and trying to prevent him from getting into his vehicle.

3) If you absolutely must draw your weapon to defend yourself, do not wave it around and shout obscenities. Independent witnesses tend to find these actions very extreme. In fact, they (especially women) will focus on the gun and ignore the circumstances that required its use. Fortunately, in this case, no shots were fired and the teenagers admitted on the stand that they pursued him back to the truck and wouldn't stop striking him until shown the gun. If we had to rely on independent witnesses (2 women), it would have been much more difficult to show that the weapon was drawn in self defense. Nongun owners are generally very uncomfortable around firearms and get tunnel vision when they see one.

4) It is very expensive to go through the criminal justice system. Not only was my client deprived of the use of his firearm for several months, he racked up a decent bill in the process. Worth it? For an acquittal, of course. But the stress of the process made him lose sleep, gain weight and lighten his wallet.

5) I firmly believe that the legal system, while flawed, works. Juries will generally do the right thing. Some believe that "better to be carried by six, than to be judged by twelve." I disagree. In my opinion, criminal charges should never have been filed in this case. (In fact the police officer who took the report was surprised that charges were filed and came across as sympathetic to our cause.) However, justice prevailed, it just took a while.

In conclusion, if you choose to CCW, please adhere to a higher standard of conduct. Avoid places and situations that will require you to use your weapon. Don't let people aggravate you, situations can spin rapidly out of control if you do. There are some natural prejudices against gun owners, so use common sense when carrying.

Sorry for the lengthy post.

[bwiese]

EasyT,

Welcome to Calguns. We need some sharp legal minds here in our discussions, as I think we've pushed 'amateur hour' about as rationally far as we can.

I note you've mentioned 'women' in your discourse above, and that this was not intended (or found) to be a sexist comment - but rather a statement that has some statistical basis in the way these things fall.

I will note here that in the few technical assault weapons violations I know of [that is, charges involving AW possession due to arguments about features configuration, with the gun not being a 'named' gun, and with no other associated 'crime' of violence, DV, brandishing, etc.] (and I think I know of 85% of them) involving "off -list" receivers" , it appears that all of the prosecuting DAs are women.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

Great insight....thanks for sharing.

[Mr. Mildot]

Thanks for your post, it's good to hear advice from someone with firsthand knowledge of this type if situation and one of it's outcomes.

I'd like to make a few observations/ ask a few follow up questions of my own:
"If someone cuts you off in traffic, don't get out of your car to confront them." +1, I know it can be hard when you're really pissed, but people are frikkin crazy nowdays and you may be opening a can of worms better left closed. Just blow it off and cary on, even if it means a later belt of whiskey and a smoke.

"If you do get into a physical altercation, do whatever you can to get out of it before drawing a weapon." +1 more. If your going to carry concealed you had better get some hand to hand fighting practice. When the time comes to defend yourself you probably won't be given time to unass your gun. You have to be able to at least pause an attack by hand in order to get your weapon out, and in order to retain it.

"If you absolutely must draw your weapon to defend yourself, do not wave it around and shout obscenities." +1 more. What you do is start shooting into the center mass of the threat as fast as you accurately can and continue to do so until you are no longet threatened or you have completely expended your ammunition.

Question, were the youthful scum who attacked the (victim/defendant?) prosecuted for assault and battery, intent to do bodily harm, anthing else? Or did their drug addled mommies come rescue them from the police station, since they were victims of of a crazy man with a gun after all.

And finally, if you really wish to protect yourself from crime in PRK, well...wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which fills up first. As the above poster demonstrated, here in PRK if you fight back against violent criminals you are just as likely to go to jail as they are. This is a criminal friendly/victim unfriendly state. You as a law abiding citizen are just supposed to shut up, sheep on and take what Ma Gov gives you.

[EasyT]

Thanks for pointing out the "women" comment as I originally meant to clarify what I meant and not to make sexist remarks. I think that it is simply an unfortunate statistic that less women have exposure to firearms and are therefore less comfortable around them. The two women that saw what happened gave accounts that basically ignored the fact that my client was acting in self-defense. Had they reported the incident as it had happened, I doubt charges would have been filed. It is noteworthy that the jury was initially hung, voting 10-2 for not guilty. The only two that were voting for guilt (which boggled my mind) were women. I take this simply as evidence that we need to expose more women to hunting, shooting and related activities.

The D.A. in this case was not a female, just misdirected.

[1911su16b870]

Thank you EasyT for the great post.

[xenophobe]

Thanks for the very informative post. I hope you participate in the normal discussions here as well, anyways Welcome to Calguns!

[blacklisted]

Thank you for the informative post.

[EasyT]

Mr. Mildot,

No charges filed against the juvenile delinquents. There was conflicting evidence about who started the physical altercation. As I stated before, the only independent witnesses weren't terribly favorable.

Now, these teenagers were punks, but unarmed. Fortunately, just the exhibition of the firearm was enough to dissuade. Firing center mass into an unarmed individual gets tough to defend. Use as much force as reasonably necessary under the circumstances.

[Mr. Mildot]

[QUOTE Firing center mass into an unarmed individual gets tough to defend. Use as much force as reasonably necessary under the circumstances.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, you're right. Please forgive my excessive bravado, I was thinking in terms if you have to USE your weapon to defend yourself, i.e. if you have to shoot, shoot to kill.

We all know that concealed carry is helpful and actually reduces violence because of the fact that 99.9% of the time simply drawing a weapon ends a confrontation before it becomes violent.

Points well made and taken.

[Mr. Mildot]

you should not "shoot to kill" you should "shoot to stop".
What's the difference? Shooting someone is the same as using lethal force, it must be assumed that if you are going to shoot someone, they will die. Therefore, if you must use lethal force then you use lethal force. If you think you are going to stop a knife attack by shooting the knife hand or trying to "shoot to wound" your opening yourself up to a lot of ugly possibilities. In your hesitation to use the necessary level of force you could put yourself or others in further jeopardy. You could wind up with a permanently disabled felon suing you for everything your worth, and theres your attacker to tell his side of the story that you attacked him or some such ****.

If you don't think you have the brains or the balls to use lethal force, don't carry a gun.

[Mr. Mildot]

I think I see your point Kimbercarry, that the focus should not be on the kill but on the ending of threat. That's reasonable. My point is that correctly applied lethal force is just that, lethal, and should be treated as such.

[Blackwater OPS]

1) If someone cuts you off in traffic, don't get out of your car to confront them.


I have to disagree with that 100%. If you can't drive out of there (you are stuck in traffic or they block you) then you MUST exit the vehicle. You are a sitting duck otherwise. (I speaking tactically here, not legally)


Some believe that "better to be carried by six, than to be judged by twelve."


Actually, you have that quote backwards... I think most people would agree that it's better to be tried in court than end up in a coffin (fighting for civil rights aside).

[Dont Tread on Me]

EasyT - looking forward to you future posts and thanks for this one.

I know who to call if I need a gun friendly lawyer.

[EasyT]

I have to disagree with that 100%. If you can't drive out of there (you are stuck in traffic or they block you) then you MUST exit the vehicle. You are a sitting duck otherwise. (I speaking tactically here, not legally)

My point was to discourage someone from acting on their own road rage and elevating the situation higher than it needs to be. I'll defer to others on how to tactically get out of a scrap from someone else's road rage.

[/QUOTE]Actually, you have that quote backwards... I think most people would agree that it's better to be tried in court than end up in a coffin (fighting for civil rights aside).[/QUOTE]

I think you're right. The saying seems to imply that you have to do whatever you have to do to protect yourself and then let the jury decide. Just try to make the force match the danger presented.

[LECTRIKHED]

I would have convicted this guy, at least for being an idiot. He gives the rest of gun owners a bad name.

Pulling over to lecture kids. Who does he think he is. How do we know the kids did not have the right of way. It's not his job to lecture kids/teens. I bet he would not have done that if he didn't have a gun on him, that he knew he could fall back on.

If some crazy guy got out of his car came up to me and started screaming at me, I would have hit him too. He is lucky one of them wasn't carrying, and shot him.

I have oppurtunities to chew out people for cutting me off all the time, but I don't because I am an adult and have self control. This guy was not an adult.

[EasyT]

Lectrikhead,

Remind me not to let you on one of my juries:p Actually, your point is well taken and is part of the learning experience that I'm trying to share. My client was probably out of line by getting out and confronting these youths. He should have either ignored them, or at the most, scolded them out his window as he drove by.

He was not carrying on his person when he got out and left his firearm in the truck. His initial actions may have been unsavory, but he regained enough common sense to try to get out of there. The teenagers just wouldn't let it go once it started.

[artherd]

EasyT, welcom to calguns.net, we can use more of your kind around here, especially when CA legislature or DOJ tries somethign funky.

Regarding your case, interesting situation, surprising that the DA not only filed but took it all the way to trial with no other charges. It seems as if the applicable charge here could have been assault/harassment (for getting out of the car and yelling) rather than brandishing. The brandishing happened as a clear self-defense situation after the encounter had been escelated to the level of deadly force. He's also a bit of an idoit a couple of different ways in my head.
1) Letting road rage enter the adult world. Come on.
2) Actually getting out and into an altercation with several people and leaving his gun behind clearly not thinking too well!

Kids should be locked up for battery I would think.

Care to share in which county/municipality charges were filed for future reference?

[KenpoProfessor]

I would have convicted this guy, at least for being an idiot. He gives the rest of gun owners a bad name.

Pulling over to lecture kids. Who does he think he is. How do we know the kids did not have the right of way. It's not his job to lecture kids/teens. I bet he would not have done that if he didn't have a gun on him, that he knew he could fall back on.

If some crazy guy got out of his car came up to me and started screaming at me, I would have hit him too. He is lucky one of them wasn't carrying, and shot him.

I have oppurtunities to chew out people for cutting me off all the time, but I don't because I am an adult and have self control. This guy was not an adult.


Your line of reasoning is WHY these kids, and others like them, will get away with this sort of thing again and again, and think nothing of it because they can get away with it all the time. If the kids knew they were wrong and someone called them on it, then an apology was in order from the kids, and if they weren't, then an apology was in order from the driver. Your line of reasoning is also why this man spent time in court and lost money in the process. I wonder, would you think the same if he caught them vandalizing his car or truck? What if he had injured one or more of them when they cut him off, would you convict him then of some crime? Put yourself in his shoes for awhile before throwing them at him.

BTW, read the entirety of this thread, it might make you aware of some of the problems with youths like this.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=541029#post541029



Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

[KenpoProfessor]

Lectrikhead,

Remind me not to let you on one of my juries:p Actually, your point is well taken and is part of the learning experience that I'm trying to share. My client was probably out of line by getting out and confronting these youths. He should have either ignored them, or at the most, scolded them out his window as he drove by.

He was not carrying on his person when he got out and left his firearm in the truck. His initial actions may have been unsavory, but he regained enough common sense to try to get out of there. The teenagers just wouldn't let it go once it started.



Thanks for the informative posts, it's nice to hear from real lawyers out there, we can use them here LOL.

I can only hope these kids got some jail time for their indiscretion, do you happen to know the particulars of their cases? If any of these kids were under 18, did their parents bear some of the responsiblilty for injury?

It's also interesting how you mentioned that the women who witnessed it, for whatever reason, didn't see it as legitimate self defense. Care to elaborate, if you can, on this a bit?


Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

[Wulf]

I would have convicted this guy, at least for being an idiot. He gives the rest of gun owners a bad name.


I hear what you're saying, but at the same time, I think part of what's wrong with society is parents dont do much parenting these days and when kids start transitioning away from their parents, society doesn't do any parenting like it used to. When I was a kid starting to get away on my own more and more you could expect other adults around to keep you in check if you got crazy or stupid. I think that was a good thing.

EasyT. Thanks for the good story and good discussion.

[EasyT]

The DA actually did try to amend the complaint to add a battery charge right before trial. Frankly, that would have been a closer issue given the fact that my client got out of the truck and confronted the kids in the first place. Fortunately, I was able to block the amendment with a motion.

The witnesses got "tunnel vision" once they saw the gun. Everything else seemed to fade to black for them.

[luvtolean]

Guys, what's with the sexism?

To the points quoted above, I ask, what sex is the President of the NRA?

Who has a more compelling argument for the need of a firearm in a courtroom for the right to self defense, a man or a smaller in stature, and protected class, woman?

Let's leave this snipes out of a discussion like this, and rally for every woman we can by making them feel welcome.

[spaceburger]

Welcome EasyT,
Well spoken too. When I was very young I remember the words of an elder in response to my question about shooting someone in the arm/leg/wound ect. The other day I was in Big5 (Antioch) and a group of kids ~16 to 18 were getting ready to buy an airsoft look-a-like Glock. They were discussing scaring another group of kids who beat up one of their own. So the one kid asks me about if I would shoot to wound. I reiterated the words of wisdom that have stuck with me all these years:

"If you are stupid enough to pull a gun, you had better be stupid enough to use it."

Please think it through before thinking it is not great advice to kids. What it really means is if you have to pull one, you had better be BRAINS ENABLED. Basically I didn’t really understand it until I was in my 30’s. The situation must call for the measured use of force to stop the threat. Brains must be enabled. Pulling a gun/pistol/rifle always adds a new tier to the situation. If the trucker would have pulled a bat for self defense..probably no trial. Probably his only choice was the gun and by then he was in fear for his life. He should have repeatedly said, “Stop Or I will shoot in Defense of my life” while training the gun center mass on a few of them. Again Brains enabled.

[Richard]

EasyT ,excellent post....your write on the mark with the advice....unfortunately it seems like your client slipped thru the CCW screening process. His CCW should be revoked if he is the type that doesn't know when the actions he takes can escalate a situation. Getting out of his vehicle to confront these individuals seemed like a impulsive response without any idea of the consequences.

It's not like the truck driver was cornered or the kids were confronting him.

Here is something I wrote to a newly issued CCW holder last April.

And WELCOME.:)

.....ever since I was permitted a CCW 10 years ago my mindset definitley changed....a lot of factors came into play...being sued/jail for wrongful shooting, landing in the can for brandishing,.....hell,even pulling it and having it to your side prematurely can land you in court. Goes without saying that it carries a great responsibility......with all that in mind my propensity to accept challenges visual or verbal ceased immediately, although that type of behavior was mostly attributed to my youth.

If you have a CCW you need to realize the legal/financial exposure.

Best advise...be ready for anything....run as many scenarios in your mind as possible. Have a plan,but most important stay in control and avoid escalation.

A gun doesn't guarantee your safety only betters your odds, unfortunately your odds to land in front of a Judge also increase.

[xrMike]

His CCW should be revoked if he is the type that doesn't know when the actions he takes can escalate a situation. Getting out of his vehicle to confront these individuals seemed like a impulsive response without any idea of the consequences.Have to agree with that assessment. He never should've got out of the car, ESPECIALLY if he had a gun in there with him, where he was safe to begin with...

[Aluisious]

I must agree that the guy should lose his CCW. The fact that he got out of his vehicle in traffic proves he has more balls than brains.

Everyone knows that getting out of your vehicle in traffic after an "incident" is an extremely threatening behavior. You don't get to threaten people while you're carrying.

[Wulf]

His CCW should be revoked if he is the type that doesn't know when the actions he takes can escalate a situation. Getting out of his vehicle to confront these individuals seemed like a impulsive response without any idea of the consequences.


If you really believe that you're playing into the Anti's mindset that being armed is a privilege and not a right.

You don't loose your privilege to drive (and it is in fact a privilege) for a momentary lapse in judgment that results in a ticket, a fender-bender, or DUI although those have equal potential to be as disastrous as a CCW misadventure.

Everybody has had a day where their Id has overtaken their Superego. And while I don't support those lapses being consequence free, stripping a person of a fundamental human right would be wrong; particularly in a case like this where the damage caused by the lapse was conceptual (brandishing) and not literal.

I think an appropriate consequence for this guy would have been 16 hours of instruction in use of force law and conflict avoidance. Although I'm guessing at this point he's earned the equivalent of a Masters Degree in that field from EasyT. And probably at an hourly rate several times that of anybody else doing CCW training.

[KenpoProfessor]

I can't even believe what I'm reading here from some of you. You're actually perpetuating the idea that bad behavior from young adults should basically just be ignored when it's on your front door, or car door for this matter. He had every right to confront those kids, in fact, probable evidence to hold them for citizen's arrest. Maybe you guys are forgetting why society is rolling downhill this fast is because these issues are addressed in the courtroom now instead of the bedroom or living room with paddle by the parents.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

[Aluisious]

I can't even believe what I'm reading here from some of you. You're actually perpetuating the idea that bad behavior from young adults should basically just be ignored when it's on your front door, or car door for this matter. He had every right to confront those kids, in fact, probable evidence to hold them for citizen's arrest. Maybe you guys are forgetting why society is rolling downhill this fast is because these issues are addressed in the courtroom now instead of the bedroom or living room with paddle by the parents.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

You don't "confront" people anywhere, especially not in traffic where your duty is to be operating your vehicle safely.

It's got nothing to do with the kids being young, and everything to do with only idiots get out of their vehicle because they're mad about being cut off.

[KenpoProfessor]

You don't "confront" people anywhere, especially not in traffic where your duty is to be operating your vehicle safely.

It's got nothing to do with the kids being young, and everything to do with only idiots get out of their vehicle because they're mad about being cut off.

Maybe YOU don't confront people, I do. If I've got an issue with someone, they are going to know about it. I've got a moral code that says that those who try to take advantage of others will probably do so at an exponential rate. Once they get away with something, there's a good chance they'll up the ante and go bigger. I like to nip it in the bud before it grows.

Is it possible for Easy T to post the circumstances around the incident, ie. location (on/off roadway, parking lot, etc.), time of day, conditions?

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

[Aluisious]

Maybe YOU don't confront people, I do. If I've got an issue with someone, they are going to know about it. I've got a moral code that says that those who try to take advantage of others will probably do so at an exponential rate. Once they get away with something, there's a good chance they'll up the ante and go bigger. I like to nip it in the bud before it grows.

Is it possible for Easy T to post the circumstances around the incident, ie. location (on/off roadway, parking lot, etc.), time of day, conditions?

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

You can have whatever moral code you want, but you are far more inclined to be involved in violence trying to police the world.

Furthermore, you might commit all kinds of crimes while "confronting" people.

I'm not going to risk my life or my freedom just because some moron pisses me off momentarily.

[spaceburger]

I think it is important to respect the position EasyT is in. He still holds attorney client privilege and we should not expect him to infringe on that by answering specific questions about that event.

[KenpoProfessor]

You can have whatever moral code you want, but you are far more inclined to be involved in violence trying to police the world.

Furthermore, you might commit all kinds of crimes while "confronting" people.

I'm not going to risk my life or my freedom just because some moron pisses me off momentarily.


Not trying to police the world, but take care of what is mine and that around me.

Let me give you a scenario. Let's say I know you personally, even have your cell phone number. If I saw those same kids breaking into your car, should I (A) just ignore it, (B) tell you about it, or, (C) do something about it?

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

[Wulf]

Not trying to police the world, but take care of what is mine and that around me.

Let me give you a scenario. Let's say I know you personally, even have your cell phone number. If I saw those same kids breaking into your car, should I (A) just ignore it, (B) tell you about it, or, (C) do something about it?

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

Problem is, some people have the people skills and self control to confront somebody without turning it into a physical altercation, and some people don't have the skill. Typically the people that don't have that skill don't know that they don't have it. That's the problem. Its another one of those situations where a handful if inept idiots ruin it for everybody else.

[Aluisious]

Not trying to police the world, but take care of what is mine and that around me.

Let me give you a scenario. Let's say I know you personally, even have your cell phone number. If I saw those same kids breaking into your car, should I (A) just ignore it, (B) tell you about it, or, (C) do something about it?

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

B, especially since you have my cell number in your scenario.

Calling the cops would help too. You shouldn't risk violent confrontations over other people's property.

It's also a much different situation than "those kids pissed me off, I'm going to go give them a piece of my mind."

[KenpoProfessor]

B, especially since you have my cell number in your scenario.

Calling the cops would help too. You shouldn't risk violent confrontations over other people's property.

It's also a much different situation than "those kids pissed me off, I'm going to go give them a piece of my mind."

Tell you about it when exactly? If my cell phone is in my car (where I leave it turned off until I need it)? What about the next day because I know how you feel about confrontations? Why should I call the cops, you know as well as I those "kids" will be long gone before they get there? At that point, I'm not going to hang around either.

Where do you draw the line?

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

[pewpewguns]

Guys, what's with the sexism?

To the points quoted above, I ask, what sex is the President of the NRA?

Who has a more compelling argument for the need of a firearm in a courtroom for the right to self defense, a man or a smaller in stature, and protected class, woman?

Let's leave this snipes out of a discussion like this, and rally for every woman we can by making them feel welcome.

He wasn't talking about the president of the NRA, he was talking about your average American woman.

Sometimes it's important to use stereotypes.

[Aluisious]

Where do you draw the line

Apparently further away than you do.

[KenpoProfessor]

That's the problem. Its another one of those situations where a handful if inept idiots ruin it for everybody else.

This sounds like what goes on daily in the State Assembly and DOJ firearms division LOL.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

[EasyT]

I've reached the point that I'm not really at liberty to say much more. Let me conclude my thoughts by saying that my client had a CCW for many years without incident. His intent was never to let things get physical or escalate the way they did, he just didn't judge the situation very well. He is a stand up guy that has learned from the incident. If he had things to do all over again, I'm sure he would have stayed in his vehicle, which is my recommendation to all.

[megavolt121]

EasyT,

Where do/don't you practice? Do you specialize in firearms law? (IE your client seeked you out in this field vs. you are his regular attorney who happens to be progun, etc.)

Thanks

[Diablo]

That was great information. Thank you. Makes me think....again...;)

[firecaptdave]

The DA actually did try to amend the complaint to add a battery charge right before trial....

Great post, Easy; good info for us all to keep in mind.

If you can say, I'm curious to find out if your client lost his permit due to the issuing agency thinking his actions were over the top/unwarranted.

[Directshot]

EasyT, same as the others.... thanks for the post.
So much of what we read is how shooters want to get a CCW. Earning the right to carry doesn't put you into a superior position if you fail to use good judgement at the moment your require to protect yourself.
Welcome and look forward to hearing more from you.

[EasyT]

Megavolt,

PM sent.

[Richard]

If you really believe that you're playing into the Anti's mindset that being armed is a privilege and not a right.

You don't loose your privilege to drive (and it is in fact a privilege) for a momentary lapse in judgment that results in a ticket, a fender-bender, or DUI although those have equal potential to be as disastrous as a CCW misadventure.

Everybody has had a day where their Id has overtaken their Superego. And while I don't support those lapses being consequence free, stripping a person of a fundamental human right would be wrong; particularly in a case like this where the damage caused by the lapse was conceptual (brandishing) and not literal.

I think an appropriate consequence for this guy would have been 16 hours of instruction in use of force law and conflict avoidance. Although I'm guessing at this point he's earned the equivalent of a Masters Degree in that field from EasyT. And probably at an hourly rate several times that of anybody else doing CCW training.

He used extremely poor judgment, (basic CCW scenario 101)
I do understand your point, but this had the potential to turn extremely ugly in a matter of seconds, it could of ended up as any number of scenarios,especially since he didn't know how these kids were going to react.

He could have shot one of the kids, innocent bystanders, or they could have taken the gun from him and shot him(did they know he was a CCW holder or some pissed off guy with a gun?).....any number of scenarios.
All for what?

Good thing is he learned his lesson.
They stress these points at the state mandated safety classes.
Furthermore, these CCW's are issued for self protection...not to be a lone ranger. They show this video of an off duty deputy that ends up having his little girl killed by some robbers that he confronted while in the parking lot of a shopping center. He left her in what he thought was a secured location. The robbers saw her and shot her so the deputy would focus his attention on his girl and they would have an opportunity to escape.

You have to think of these things before you strap on the gun.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

B, especially since you have my cell number in your scenario.

Calling the cops would help too. You shouldn't risk violent confrontations over other people's property.

It's also a much different situation than "those kids pissed me off, I'm going to go give them a piece of my mind."


Excuse me, but that is your opinion. Thankfully, CA law gives all citizens the power to arrest another for committing a crime in their presence. If the average person took more responsibility as a citizen and actually did something when they witnessed a crime being committed perhaps we would be in better shape...

CA Penal Code 834
An arrest is taking a person into custody, in a case and in
the manner authorized by law. An arrest may be made by a peace
officer or by a private person.

CA Penal Code 837
A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not
in his presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable
cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.


Additionally, you can use a loaded handgun/rifle to make a citizens arrest if you deem it necessary. No CCW required.

CA Penal Code 12031
(k) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the carrying
of a loaded firearm by any person while engaged in the act of making
or attempting to make a lawful arrest.

[socalguns]

you should not "shoot to kill" you should "shoot to stop".

Exactly. Anyone seen the dateline on Harold Fish?

Teacher, hiking in woods, attacked by dogs ... their master ...
shot in self-defence, sentenced to 10 years for 2nd degree homocide.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/

Prosecutor argued 10mm hollowpoints were evil killer bullets,
and the female juror dateline interviewed just couldn't
see past the fact that the defendent
wanted to kill this man which is why he
used these evil super killer bullets


the dateline interviewer asked the guy why'd you have to shoot.
did you think to hit the guy with your gun? after all its a piece of metal

sad the bullspit some people will swallow

[KenpoProfessor]

He used extremely poor judgment, (basic CCW scenario 101)
I do understand your point, but this had the potential to turn extremely ugly in a matter of seconds, it could of ended up as any number of scenarios,especially since he didn't know how these kids were going to react.

He could have shot one of the kids, innocent bystanders, or they could have taken the gun from him and shot him(did they know he was a CCW holder or some pissed off guy with a gun?).....any number of scenarios.
All for what?

Good thing is he learned his lesson.
They stress these points at the state mandated safety classes.
Furthermore, these CCW's are issued for self protection...not to be a lone ranger. They show this video of an off duty deputy that ends up having his little girl killed by some robbers that he confronted while in the parking lot of a shopping center. He left her in what he thought was a secured location. The robbers saw her and shot her so the deputy would focus his attention on his girl and they would have an opportunity to escape.

You have to think of these things before you strap on the gun.


Geez, I really think some of you guys should just wear a sign that says VICTIM on it, others should say VICTIM OF SOCIETY. You sound like Rosie at the Million Mommy March.

He learned a lesson that day, that people are sheeple and it cost him dearly. Don't try to be a good citizen and correct a wrong when you can, just ignore it, or maybe call the police, but for god's sake, don't get involved.

He was unarmed when he got out of the truck, that tells me his intentions were NOT to shoot these kids, bottom line. Would it have made a difference if he told them he was a CCW permittee? What kind of question is that?

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

[Wulf]

He used extremely poor judgment, (basic CCW scenario 101)
I do understand your point, but this had the potential to turn extremely ugly in a matter of seconds, it could of ended up as any number of scenarios,especially since he didn't know how these kids were going to react.

He could have shot one of the kids, innocent bystanders, or they could have taken the gun from him and shot him(did they know he was a CCW holder or some pissed off guy with a gun?).....any number of scenarios.
All for what?

Good thing is he learned his lesson.
They stress these points at the state mandated safety classes.
Furthermore, these CCW's are issued for self protection...not to be a lone ranger. They show this video of an off duty deputy that ends up having his little girl killed by some robbers that he confronted while in the parking lot of a shopping center. He left her in what he thought was a secured location. The robbers saw her and shot her so the deputy would focus his attention on his girl and they would have an opportunity to escape.

You have to think of these things before you strap on the gun.

I disagree entirely. You could just as easily say the kids used extremely poor judgment in cutting him off and nearly causing an accident. I'm betting if someone unwittingly or even intentionally created a situation that sufficiently threatened your life you'd want to have a word with them about it; you might even be so profoundly motivated the threat that you'd think it would be improper and injudicious in the extreme to not have your word with them. Letting somebody know when they've nearly caused your demise is an important part of avoiding future threats.

You're what-if's are a joke and right from the anti's play book. A concealed weapon is the most useless and benign thing in the world untill you get to the point where the situation could "turn extremely ugly in a matter of seconds" and you "could have shot one of the kids, innocent bystanders, or they could have taken the gun from him and shot him". Concealed weapons are all about easing those threats. Of course they can exacerbate a threat if inappropriately used, much like using a water based fire extinguisher on a fuel fire can spread it. But the very idea of extinguishing a persons human and civil right because of the harm that you fear exercise of that right MIGHT cause is the definition of tyranny. By that logic I could eliminate every right you or anybody else had.


I think in this case the prosecutor was guilty of much worse judgment that the CCW'er. The CCW'er got cut off. He felt it important to have a word with the people that nearly caused an accident. (There's nothing wrong or illegal about that. You might think that course of action is ill advised, but I would say that advice is in the same vein as telling a rape victim to just go along with it or to ignore the drug dealer working on the corner of your block. Its just another way of lawful society submitting to the tyranny of the lawless) When they took his intent wrong and when THEY INITIATED AND ESCALATED TO VIOLENCE, he attempted to retreat and disengage and they pursued him. As evidence by the verdict in this trial, the jury obviously did not believe he got out of his car with violent intent, they also further believed that he was sufficiently threatened before accessing his weapon to justify use of the weapon. You could just as easily say he exercised good judgment in being able to defuse the situation without firing a shot.

I've been through plenty of CCW training and plenty of tactical training that deals with use of force law. I believe I have a good feel for the standards of good judgment that go along with going armed. And in fact I personally would likely forgo my right to have a word with the boys in a situation like this. But that doesn't mean that I think what this guy did represents so disastrously bad judgment that this guy should loose his rights.

[KenpoProfessor]

I disagree entirely. You could just as easily say the kids used extremely poor judgment in cutting him off and nearly causing an accident. I'm betting if someone unwittingly or even intentionally created a situation that sufficiently threatened your life you'd want to have a word with them about it; you might even be so profoundly motivated the threat that you'd think it would be improper and injudicious in the extreme to not have your word with them. Letting somebody know when they've nearly caused your demise is an important part of avoiding future threats.

You're what-if's are a joke and right from the anti's play book. A concealed weapon is the most useless and benign thing in the world untill you get to the point where the situation could "turn extremely ugly in a matter of seconds" and you "could have shot one of the kids, innocent bystanders, or they could have taken the gun from him and shot him". Concealed weapons are all about easing those threats. Of course they can exacerbate a threat if inappropriately used, much like using a water based fire extinguisher on a fuel fire can spread it. But the very idea of extinguishing a persons human and civil right because of the harm that you fear exercise of that right MIGHT cause is the definition of tyranny. By that logic I could eliminate every right you or anybody else had.


I think in this case the prosecutor was guilty of much worse judgment that the CCW'er. The CCW'er got cut off. He felt it important to have a word with the people that nearly caused an accident. (There's nothing wrong or illegal about that. You might think that course of action is ill advised, but I would say that advice is in the same vein as telling a rape victim to just go along with it or to ignore the drug dealer working on the corner of your block. Its just another way of lawful society submitting to the tyranny of the lawless) When they took his intent wrong and when THEY INITIATED AND ESCALATED TO VIOLENCE, he attempted to retreat and disengage and they pursued him. As evidence by the verdict in this trial, the jury obviously did not believe he got out of his car with violent intent, they also further believed that he was sufficiently threatened before accessing his weapon to justify use of the weapon. You could just as easily say he exercised good judgment in being able to defuse the situation without firing a shot.

I've been through plenty of CCW training and plenty of tactical training that deals with use of force law. I believe I have a good feel for the standards of good judgment that go along with going armed. And in fact I personally would likely forgo my right to have a word with the boys in a situation like this. But that doesn't mean that I think what this guy did represents so disastrously bad judgment that this guy should loose his rights.

Now this is what I'm talking about.

Thank you for those profound words Wulf, I can see we're definitely on the same page here.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

[LECTRIKHED]

I just want to reiterate my point. Near traffic accidents happen all the time. The point is one didn't happen. Everyone is taking his word that it was the kids on bikes fault. You do not get out of your vehicle to lecture/assault kids. You keep driving, and say to yourself "note to self, watch for kids on bicycles". There is no moral code in society that allows you to lecture and degrade whoever you feel like. I bet they felt threatened by the psychopath that was jumping out of his car and running up to them. I don't blame them at all for defending themselves, I would have probably done the same. The guy should have been convicted.

As for all the slippery slope stuff, thats all garbage, let's deal with the facts. Also you can't put people under citizens arrest for a traffic infraction.

PS I had a similar incident like this happen when I was 14 to me. Some idiot thought I didn't stop my bike long enough at a stop sign. He began trying to lecture me and accusing me of not knowing how to read. He was psycho, and I could tell he wanted to fight me. I just mouthed something fresh back at him and kept going. If he had come at me I would have immediatley hit him. If he came at me with a gun, I like to think that he would have gone to jail.

[JPN6336]

PS I had a similar incident like this happen when I was 14 to me. Some idiot thought I didn't stop my bike long enough at a stop sign. He began trying to lecture me and accusing me of not knowing how to read. He was psycho, and I could tell he wanted to fight me. I just mouthed something fresh back at him and kept going. If he had come at me I would have immediatley hit him. If he came at me with a gun, I like to think that he would have gone to jail.

So you're saying we shouldn't confront or provoke anyone but in your own story, instead of just moving along, you felt the need to mouth something fresh back at him, would have immediately hit him, simply because you could tell he wanted to fight.

I will grant you that if he had come out of the vehicle with a gun and pointed it, that would have been excessive but if the fight had started and you refused to let him retreat (as it was in this case), that gives him cause to believe you have intentions of inflicting great bodily harm and possibly killing him making him justified in pulling a gun and you, in this hypothetical situation, are now the aggressor and should go to prison having pushed past self-defense.

Without knowing exact details it is hard to tell whether the kids were acting in self-defense to start with but they definitely crossed the line when the refused to let him go.

You propose that attacking someone who is yelling at you is good policy but having a word with someone who has just done something dangerous is not. In the case which this thread references, the kids should likely have apologized, thanked the driver for being one of the few people paying enough attention to the road so as to be able to stop in time, and learned to watch where they're going in the future.

[LECTRIKHED]

Society nor the law works that way. You have no right to stop your car and lecture/berate kids that you feel were incorrect. Imagine if someone nearly ran you over and then decided to stop their car and confront you over it. As a teen I doubt anyone would have apologized for nearly being ran over. Who's to say it was the kids fault. If you decide to do this type of macho bravado, you have to be prepared to get your *** kicked, or deal with the consequences. This entire thing could have been avoided if he didn't feel the need to stop his car and confront the group of teens. It is his fault, and he should have been convicted. I don't care if his life was threatened, maybe he saved his own life with the gun, but that doesn't justify his stupid actions. He should have been an adult and plead guilty.

I think in the case of most of us, if someone nearly ran us over and then got out of their car and ran up to us screaming vulgarities, we would be likely to hit them. You shouldn't always wait for someone to break your jaw before you hit back. In this type of circumstance I think most people would attack. Self defense doesn't always mean they took the first punch.

[spaceburger]

Society ..... Self defense doesn't always mean they took the first punch.


What? Self Defense means waiting for the first punch. Preemptive action means taking the first punch to prevent or disable an attack.

[JPN6336]

The usefulness of his decision to get out of his vehicle and yell at the teens aside, the fact of the matter is that he did nothing wrong criminally unless he threw the first punch in the physical altercation. I'm not sure what you're saying he should have been convicted for. Certainly nothing relating to the firearm because his actions there are certainly reasonable. Maybe his vehicle was still blocking traffic but I think that's a fine, not a conviction. If he was at fault and nearly ran the bicyclists over on a sidewalk or crosswalk then perhaps they'd be justified in being angry at him. They still wouldn't be justified in attacking him unless they tried to ride away and he chased them with his vehicle. If they rode out in front of him and nearly caused an accident like the description seems to state then they should have apologized to him or at the very least, just left. We have raised young adults in society today that have a very self-centered view and believe that they are in the right in everything. I'm not saying that I'm personally going to go out and look for a chance but if anyone, kid or adult, is performing criminal acts or being a danger to me, I'm going to have a talk with them about it and/or try to put a stop to it. I think that policing other members of a society is the job of responsible citizens. Maybe if we policed each other better there wouldn't be as much crime and it would be easier to fight the anti-gun laws. If that makes me a bad person in your eyes, oh well, if that means I run the risk of getting beat up, I look at that as a small risk but if it happens it happens but I'll at least know I stood up for what I believed and wasn't scared into a hole in the ground. There can be self-defense in throwing the first punch but a lot of people yell and scream with no intention of getting physically violent so it'd be a lot harder to prove. Better to be ready for the first punch than to throw the first punch.

[KenpoProfessor]

Society nor the law works that way. You have no right to stop your car and lecture/berate kids that you feel were incorrect. Imagine if someone nearly ran you over and then decided to stop their car and confront you over it.


Yes you do, I have every right to do so. Please, show me the law in the U.S. or in CA where this is a crime.

Wow, to think our Founding Fathers were Floundering with the first Amendment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

[Richard]

Geez, I really think some of you guys should just wear a sign that says VICTIM on it, others should say VICTIM OF SOCIETY. You sound like Rosie at the Million Mommy March.

He learned a lesson that day, that people are sheeple and it cost him dearly. Don't try to be a good citizen and correct a wrong when you can, just ignore it, or maybe call the police, but for god's sake, don't get involved.

He was unarmed when he got out of the truck, that tells me his intentions were NOT to shoot these kids, bottom line. Would it have made a difference if he told them he was a CCW permittee? What kind of question is that?

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

Well at least you did not call me Diane Fienstien this time.:)
Kempo, you and I seem to be at opposite ends on a lot of issues....so let's not turn this into a hate thing, after all it's only opinions.

It's been talked about in many forums that in an altercation involving vehicles, the person that gets out of the car first is the instigator. Same thing applies here, he could have defused the situation by letting it go.
Don't tell me about principles and rights because in a court of law,that doesn't mean squat. If your going to fight the good fight ,make it count, pick your battles....Because if you think all challenges are righteous causes,then odds are one day your going to meet up with the wrong guy. If you have nothing to lose, I can see how you could feel that way.

I had that same mentality when I was in my 20's, 6'1" and a solid 220 lbs.....and I challenged guys and invited them to pull over and the ever popular "what the F are you looking at." I'm now 42 and I can't believe how stupid and immature I was, but that's how I grew up...tough neighborhood.:o
Never did anything unlawful....just to clarify.;)

You made a statement about getting involved and correcting wrong....news flash(it's not your place.)"No good deed goes unpunished" I've seen many times,things go wrong.
Fight for your family and friends.....everyone else, do what you can,without affecting the former. Be a good witness. Most cops will tell you that would be the smartest thing to do. And you especially don't risk your life for material things.

You keep knocking on enough doors,eventually the devils going to answer....or something to that effect.

Basically look before you leep, unless you have nothing to lose.

[LECTRIKHED]

Well at least you did not call me Diane Fienstien this time.:)
Kempo, you and I seem to be at opposite ends on a lot of issues....so let's not turn this into a hate thing, after all it's only opinions.

It's been talked about in many forums that in an altercation involving vehicles, the person that gets out of the car first is the instigator. Same thing applies here, he could have defused the situation by letting it go.
Don't tell me about principles and rights because in a court of law,that doesn't mean squat. If your going to fight the good fight ,make it count, pick your battles....Because if you think all challenges are righteous causes,then odds are one day your going to meet up with the wrong guy. If you have nothing to lose, I can see how you could feel that way.

I had that same mentality when I was in my 20's, 6'1" and a solid 220 lbs.....and I challenged guys and invited them to pull over and the ever popular "what the F are you looking at." I'm now 42 and I can't believe how stupid and immature I was, but that's how I grew up...tough neighborhood.:o
Never did anything unlawful....just to clarify.;)

You made a statement about getting involved and correcting wrong....news flash(it's not your place.)"No good deed goes unpunished" I've seen many times,things go wrong.
Fight for your family and friends.....everyone else, do what you can,without affecting the former. Be a good witness. Most cops will tell you that would be the smartest thing to do. And you especially don't risk your life for material things.

You keep knocking on enough doors,eventually the devils going to answer....or something to that effect.

Basically look before you leep, unless you have nothing to lose.

Good post. You're right. It is not your place to pull over and confront others when you feel they made a mistake while driving. That's called road rage. It doesn't matter what the kids did. Maybe they made a mistake, or maybe he didn't see them. Accidents nearly happen all the time, but smart people who don't end up being arrested don't jump out of their cars and assault those who they felt did them wrong. I would never pull over and get out of my car to lecture teens on a bike. I've also never been arrested for brandishing a weapon like a psychopath. He's lucky one of them wasn't packing and shot him.

That is a good attorney that was able to get him out of it.

[KenpoProfessor]

Well at least you did not call me Diane Fienstien this time.:)
Kempo, you and I seem to be at opposite ends on a lot of issues....so let's not turn this into a hate thing, after all it's only opinions.

It's been talked about in many forums that in an altercation involving vehicles, the person that gets out of the car first is the instigator. Same thing applies here, he could have defused the situation by letting it go.
Don't tell me about principles and rights because in a court of law,that doesn't mean squat. If your going to fight the good fight ,make it count, pick your battles....Because if you think all challenges are righteous causes,then odds are one day your going to meet up with the wrong guy. If you have nothing to lose, I can see how you could feel that way.

I had that same mentality when I was in my 20's, 6'1" and a solid 220 lbs.....and I challenged guys and invited them to pull over and the ever popular "what the F are you looking at." I'm now 42 and I can't believe how stupid and immature I was, but that's how I grew up...tough neighborhood.:o
Never did anything unlawful....just to clarify.;)

You made a statement about getting involved and correcting wrong....news flash(it's not your place.)"No good deed goes unpunished" I've seen many times,things go wrong.
Fight for your family and friends.....everyone else, do what you can,without affecting the former. Be a good witness. Most cops will tell you that would be the smartest thing to do. And you especially don't risk your life for material things.

You keep knocking on enough doors,eventually the devils going to answer....or something to that effect.

Basically look before you leep, unless you have nothing to lose.


First off it's KeNpO, not an M but an N.

2nd- I've gotten out of the car first during incidents to examine any damage to vehicles, so now I'm the bad guy instigator?

3rd- I do pick my battles carefully, which is why I can still buy guns and have never been arrested.

4th- I'm 6' and 210, so I get second looks (and thoughts) when I raise my voice when needed.

5th- my family doesn't live here, and my folks are dead, so I fight for what I believe.

6th- Cops also tell you to give your money to muggers and thieves, and to let them have their way with you, and to not resist. I ain't buyin' it. Be a good witness my butt, the two women in this trial were good weren't they, and the criminal's testimony is what saved him?

7th- It's my place if I make it my place, and I'll take the consequences.

You still sound like Rosie and now that you mention it, Feinstein as well. Let's just let the criminals have their way and maybe they'll get caught, but don't interfere!!!! And where again is the hate thing you're referring to?

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

[Jicko]

I have to disagree with that 100%. If you can't drive out of there (you are stuck in traffic or they block you) then you MUST exit the vehicle. You are a sitting duck otherwise. (I speaking tactically here, not legally)

If you a stuck in traffic or they block you and then coming to your vehicle to harrass you, one of the better way to get out of the situation or to signal help (tactically) is:

1) stay in your vehicle, with windows and doors locked

2) call 911, tell them that a crime is in progress, and someone is threatening your life, and is still there.....

3) start honking the horns, long honks or 3-longs-3-shorts (S.O.S); long, loud honks will imitate people who are immediately close to the vehicle and attracts attentions, while SOS will hopefuly attracts someone to come to your aid

[KenpoProfessor]

3) start honking the horns, long honks or 3-longs-3-shorts (S.O.S); long, loud honks will imitate people who are immediately close to the vehicle and attracts attentions, while SOS will hopefuly attracts someone to come to your aid



Geez, these guys just said that we shouldn't get involved but to just be a good witness until the police arrive to save you.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

[jnojr]

4) It is very expensive to go through the criminal justice system. Not only was my client deprived of the use of his firearm for several months, he racked up a decent bill in the process. Worth it? For an acquittal, of course. But the stress of the process made him lose sleep, gain weight and lighten his wallet.

Any reason he can't sue the "misguided youths" and/or their families to recover his legal costs?

[jnojr]

Originally Posted by kimbercarry View Post
you should not "shoot to kill" you should "shoot to stop".

What's the difference?

Intent.

"I only wanted to stop him from killing me" will get you an acquital much faster than "I wanted to kill that SOB before he got me!"

[jnojr]

The usefulness of his decision to get out of his vehicle and yell at the teens aside, the fact of the matter is that he did nothing wrong criminally unless he threw the first punch in the physical altercation.

But, his choice to stop and get out of his car cost him an arrest, some time in jail, a lot of money, and a huge risk of losing his ability to lead his own life.

I used to flip out and scream at traffic idiots. Now, i bite my tongue and look for the quickest way away from them. If I'm "enabling" them, tough... it isn't my job to try to correct their behavior. If society wants me to take over their failed parenting, they need to pin a badge on me, pay me, and indemnify me against the risk in dealing with their yo-yo kids. Otherwise, i'm going to go and live my own life, and let them come to a bad end at someone else's hands.

[KenpoProfessor]

If I'm "enabling" them, tough... it isn't my job to try to correct their behavior. If society wants me to take over their failed parenting, they need to pin a badge on me, pay me, and indemnify me against the risk in dealing with their yo-yo kids. Otherwise, i'm going to go and live my own life, and let them come to a bad end at someone else's hands.


So where does it end when you have the masses now dealing with the anarchy these kids create in the very near future when no one will deal with them because they're scared? BTW, attitudes such as yours, Richard's, and Letrikhed's is why England has gone so nutty with cameras, searches, and total Big Brother syndrome, social discourse. You can be arrested for revving your motor in a threatening manner.


These kids will find other ways to vent, and you might just be their next victim. Let's just hope you have good witnesses if you live, or a nice funeral if you don't.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

[grammaton76]

I've noticed that folks tend to get cranky about anything from a motorist lately.

If you notice a guy's lights are out at a stoplight at 9pm, and you helpfully say, "Hey, your headlights are off" - expect 'em to get irate at you.

If a guy is skateboarding down the middle of the road wearing all black, and you tell him he needs to wear something you can SEE at night - expect him to scream something, then try to catch up to your car to damage it.

There's idiots in the world... seems most of them are on the road lately.

BTW, KP, I can imagine your voice would work pretty well. You've sorta got that growling Riddick quality to it...

[KenpoProfessor]

I've noticed that folks tend to get cranky about anything from a motorist lately.

If you notice a guy's lights are out at a stoplight at 9pm, and you helpfully say, "Hey, your headlights are off" - expect 'em to get irate at you.

If a guy is skateboarding down the middle of the road wearing all black, and you tell him he needs to wear something you can SEE at night - expect him to scream something, then try to catch up to your car to damage it.

There's idiots in the world... seems most of them are on the road lately.

BTW, KP, I can imagine your voice would work pretty well. You've sorta got that growling Riddick quality to it...

LOL, Riddick quality. Actually, the guys at my old job called me Chuck Bonaduce because people say I look like Chuck and sound like Danny. I might call a radio station one of the these days as an impersonator and see if I can pull it off as Danny LOL.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

[Wulf]

If I'm "enabling" them, tough... it isn't my job to try to correct their behavior. If society wants me to take over their failed parenting, they need to pin a badge on me, pay me, and indemnify me against the risk in dealing with their yo-yo kids. Otherwise, i'm going to go and live my own life, and let them come to a bad end at someone else's hands.

Well its certainly your right do not participate pro actively in shaping the future, but to do such is hardly noble.

I spend a lot of time on my kids grade school campus for various reasons. Since I'm not a teacher, kids will occasionally behave in my presence in ways they're not supposed to. I could let it go (roll up my windows, lock the door, dial 911, and put my thumb on the send button) but instead I choose to behave like a teacher or their parent would if they were there and issue an appropriate correction. Now grated, doing this with 10 year olds on campus is certainly a less involved affair than trying to show a teenager out on the town the error of their ways, but its only a question of degree. As long as you're not planning on putting them over your knee for a whooping, there's very little difference between telling a 10 year old they're not supposed to run in the halls and telling a 17 year old they need to yield to oncoming traffic.

[EasyT]

Although a trial is a public forum, I don't have transcripts, nor am I inclined to post them. I want to respect the privacy and identity of my client. If anyone feels absolutely compelled to track down the information, I would ask that any information obtained be redacted to protect the names of those involved.

[Richard]

[QUOTE=KenpoProfessor;542774]First off it's KeNpO, not an M but an N.
KeNpo.....my bad

2nd- I've gotten out of the car first during incidents to examine any damage to vehicles, so now I'm the bad guy instigator?
Come on.....That's a totally different motive.of course you need to exit your vehicle in an accident.
3rd- I do pick my battles carefully, which is why I can still buy guns and have never been arrested.
well good for you,then.

4th- I'm 6' and 210, so I get second looks (and thoughts) when I raise my voice when needed.
I know what you mean....Command presence got me out of some potential scrapes when I was younger.


5th- my family doesn't live here, and my folks are dead, so I fight for what I believe.
That's too bad...it's important to have family close. Fighting for belief is good in moderation.

6th- Cops also tell you to give your money to muggers and thieves, and to let them have their way with you, and to not resist. I ain't buyin' it. Be a good witness my butt, the two women in this trial were good weren't they, and the criminal's testimony is what saved him?
Well I wouldn't call those ladies good witnesses. Wait a minute ,I never said anything about rolling over unconditionally. If they got the jump on you, co-operate until they slip up or your demise is imminent. It's just common sense.

7th- It's my place if I make it my place, and I'll take the consequences. YES YOU WILL

You still sound like Rosie and now that you mention it, Feinstein as well. Let's just let the criminals have their way and maybe they'll get caught, but don't interfere!!!! And where again is the hate thing you're referring to? we're talking about kids and the guy escalating the situation. Making things worse.

You seem to have a talent for straying from the issue at hand .....criminal activity/scenarios are issues that need to be examined case by case.


I think we all know where we all stand on this post......so see you at the next one.
I'm done with this one,we're just beating a dead horse here.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

Thank you for posting what you have already posted. Extremely useful to see actual information from the front lines, instead of armchair quarterbacking and innuendo.

If I remember civics class correctly, trials are by definition public. That includes their transcripts. If that is indeed correct, then nothing would prevent you from posting a complete transcript of the trial. Or any of us could do a little looking around, find the court this happened in, pull the record of the trial from the file, and post it here. Or any of us could have sat in the courtroom and taken super-careful notes of everything that was said, and post the result here.

Is this assessment correct?

Why dont you just research some cases to find what you need?

www.findlaw.com

The gentleman asked NOT to go into further detail. Is it NOT apparent that this is his profession and speaking on specifics, although the transcripts might be obtainable, could put him in a bad light from his clients perspective?

If you are dying for court transcripts find a case that interests you and request them.

[Victor]

CA Penal Code 834
An arrest is taking a person into custody, in a case and in
the manner authorized by law. An arrest may be made by a peace
officer or by a private person.

CA Penal Code 837
A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not
in his presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable
cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.


On a side note: First, does this apply to traffic violations. Second, for discussions sake, if I were to see someone swerving from lane to lane recklessly, who I presumed was DUI, but did not see him drink and start driving, is this grounds for citizens arrest?

[LECTRIKHED]

So where does it end when you have the masses now dealing with the anarchy these kids create in the very near future when no one will deal with them because they're scared? BTW, attitudes such as yours, Richard's, and Letrikhed's is why England has gone so nutty with cameras, searches, and total Big Brother syndrome, social discourse. You can be arrested for revving your motor in a threatening manner.


Oh my god!! It's a slippery slope. First you don't get out of your car to assault someone while you're experiencing road rage, and the next thing you know the United states has turned into england and cameras are following you around everywhere you go.

Mr. Kenpo, I noticed you post a lot during the day. I'm around between classes. Are you just unemployed or do you work the graveyard shift at McDonalds?

[mike452]

EasyT, How much did this cost your client?

I'm a small guy. I would think any pissed-off 6 foot guy approaching my car would be danger to my life.

Is your client a big guy? This might not be true, but I have always imagined larger/tough/rightist guys would get out of their vehicles for a little physical confrontation.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

On a side note: First, does this apply to traffic violations. Second, for discussions sake, if I were to see someone swerving from lane to lane recklessly, who I presumed was DUI, but did not see him drink and start driving, is this grounds for citizens arrest?

I'm not an attorney so I cant give you legal advice on specific situations.

I can tell you taffic violations are NOT considered public offenses.

Reckless Driving and DUI are misdemeanors, but can be felony's in extreme cases.

[KenpoProfessor]

Oh my god!! It's a slippery slope. First you don't get out of your car to assault someone while you're experiencing road rage, and the next thing you know the United states has turned into england and cameras are following you around everywhere you go.

Mr. Kenpo, I noticed you post a lot during the day. I'm around between classes. Are you just unemployed or do you work the graveyard shift at McDonalds?

I did ask for you to show me the law where it said you can't get out of your car to berate people when they're doing something stupid, you haven't done so, is there a reason you haven't?

Clyde

[KenpoProfessor]

I'm a small guy. I would think any pissed-off 6 foot guy approaching my car would be danger to my life.

Is your client a big guy? This might not be true, but I have always imagined larger/tough/rightist guys would get out of their vehicles for a little physical confrontation.


I really hope you're kidding. If not, I believe you have some self esteem issues to work on.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

[Smokeybehr]

Mr. Kenpo, I noticed you post a lot during the day. I'm around between classes. Are you just unemployed or do you work the graveyard shift at McDonalds?

Gee, are you this much of an a-hole in real life, or just on the Internet?

[megavolt121]

Are you guys done trashing this thread that WAS full of useful information?

[FreedomIsNotFree]

You can tell a thread has headed down hill when the OP has removed himself, and the original points of interest, from the discussion.

[Wulf]

Are you guys done trashing this thread that WAS full of useful information?

You kinda have to get used to the idea that the really good threads get "over loved". Its just the nature of the internet gun forum beast.