PDA

View Full Version : Remember the Senators aide that carried the loaded firearm...


hawk1
04-28-2007, 6:03 PM
The loaded firearm into the Capitol?
Old thread on this (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/webb-says-he-did-not-give-aide-his-gun-2007-03-27.html/)

Two sets of rules depending on WHO you are or who you know...:mad:

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/042007/04282007/279797

Webb aide's gun charge dropped by prosecutor

WASHINGTON--Authorities dropped charges yesterday against an aide to Virginia Sen. Jim Webb who carried a loaded gun into the U.S. Capitol complex.

"After reviewing and analyzing all of the evidence in the case, we do not believe the essential elements of the crime of carrying a pistol without a license can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt," said U.S. Attorney Jeff Taylor, top prosecutor in the District of Columbia.

Webb senior aide Phillip Thompson, 45, of Stafford County, was arrested on March 26 after Capitol Police spotted the loaded pistol and two other loaded magazines in a briefcase being scanned by an X-ray machine at the entrance of the Russell Senate office building.

Thompson told the officer at the building's entrance that the weapon belonged to Webb.

The senator said later he did not give Thompson the gun but refused to say whether it was his. Webb told reporters Thompson had carried the gun into the building "completely inadvertently."

District of Columbia law prohibits carrying a handgun or concealed weapon without a license.

--The Associated Press

LAK Supply
04-28-2007, 6:08 PM
You mean the serfs have different rules? :confused:

dwtt
04-28-2007, 7:21 PM
I think the cynical side of every one of us knew the outcome when the aide was arrested. Now it's official.

Socal858
04-28-2007, 7:26 PM
same with those two correctional facility idiots that tried the mail order automatic fire kit in their AR. i dont have the link to the article but the charges were dropped

Fate
04-28-2007, 8:38 PM
Why are you not surprised?

My favorite line in the LA Times version was something along the lines of the prosecuting DA saying "there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute this case."

Um....hello? He had the gun in his possession trying to get it in the building. Seems like there was a PREPONDERANCE of evidence.

"I didn't mean to do it" isn't a defense. Intent is irrelevant to the LAW...well for most of us peons anyway.

Bleh.

stator
04-28-2007, 10:03 PM
I believe the proper argument is not the charges being dropped in this case, but why are charges not being dropped for others, and why do such charges exists in the first place.

It is hard to argue what the 2nd amendment means while arguing that charges should stick in this case.

ldivinag
04-29-2007, 3:09 AM
dont you get it yet...

all men are created equal... some are just more equal ThAN YOU!


[/sarcasm]

FreedomIsNotFree
04-29-2007, 3:34 AM
Why are you not surprised?

My favorite line in the LA Times version was something along the lines of the prosecuting DA saying "there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute this case."

Um....hello? He had the gun in his possession trying to get it in the building. Seems like there was a PREPONDERANCE of evidence.

"I didn't mean to do it" isn't a defense. Intent is irrelevant to the LAW...well for most of us peons anyway.

Bleh.

Actually, intent is a major component in any criminal prosecution. For any criminal action there must be the act(actus reas) and intent(mens rea) occurring at the same time.

If the prosecution can not prove these two elements there is no crime. Period.

If the prosecution does not believe there was intent, they have a duty to NOT prosecute the case.

***This is textbook law. We all know there are the rules for them and the rules for the rest of us.

hawk1
04-29-2007, 7:55 AM
Actually, intent is a major component in any criminal prosecution. For any criminal action there must be the act(actus reas) and intent(mens rea) occurring at the same time.

If the prosecution can not prove these two elements there is no crime. Period.

If the prosecution does not believe there was intent, they have a duty to NOT prosecute the case.

***This is textbook law. We all know there are the rules for them and the rules for the rest of us.

Oh I beg to differ. Would the charges be dropped if your brother used your range bag for a carry on for his next flight. TSA xrays finds a loaded 1911 match gun used in your last IDPA match that you forgot was in the inside pocket. No intent there...He'd be prosecuted.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-29-2007, 9:01 AM
Oh I beg to differ. Would the charges be dropped if your brother used your range bag for a carry on for his next flight. TSA xrays finds a loaded 1911 match gun used in your last IDPA match that you forgot was in the inside pocket. No intent there...He'd be prosecuted.

If the DA thinks they can prove intent, perhaps. Intent is still a major portion of the prosecution and without it the defendant walks.

Knauga
04-29-2007, 9:15 AM
Many crimes require a DA to prove intent, other crimes are considered implied intent by the very nature of the crime. There is no need to prove he intended to bring the gun into the capitol, only that he did. Just like there is no need to prove intent when somebody is speeding only that they were.

If they were trying to charge him with attempted murder then they would have to prove that he intended to use that gun to kill somebody. In this case the law is clear, you are not allowed to bring a firearm into the Capitol building (or carry it loaded anywhere in DC). If that were you or I we'd be sitting in the Marion Barry Memorial Suite of the DC jail.

ryang
04-29-2007, 4:52 PM
Actually, intent is a major component in any criminal prosecution. For any criminal action there must be the act(actus reas) and intent(mens rea) occurring at the same time.Since this is Calguns I'll assume you're talking about California law. Assuming that is the case, you're completely wrong. Some penal codes explicitly require intent, some have implied intent and there are a bunch that simply don't care.

Here's one example:
PC 191.5(a) Gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-29-2007, 5:57 PM
Many crimes require a DA to prove intent, other crimes are considered implied intent by the very nature of the crime. There is no need to prove he intended to bring the gun into the capitol, only that he did. Just like there is no need to prove intent when somebody is speeding only that they were.

If they were trying to charge him with attempted murder then they would have to prove that he intended to use that gun to kill somebody. In this case the law is clear, you are not allowed to bring a firearm into the Capitol building (or carry it loaded anywhere in DC). If that were you or I we'd be sitting in the Marion Barry Memorial Suite of the DC jail.

I believe the facts of this case, or those reported, play exactly into the question of intent. I agree with you that there are some case where intent is implied by the action itself. In this case, from reports, there was a question of wither or not the defendant even knew he was carrying the weapon.

In this case, the staffer was charged with carrying a pistol without a license and possessing an unregistered firearm and unregistered ammunition.

The DA still must prove the defendant intended to carry the pistol. If the defendant did not know, or the DA does not think he can prove he knew, there is no case.

Are you saying a gun could be planted on a person, without that persons knowledge, and they still have the required intent?

As to the speeding analogy....it does not apply. Violations of the vehicle code, although presented as criminal proceedings, are simply administrative violations and the nexus between the act and the intent is not required to be proven.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-29-2007, 6:05 PM
Since this is Calguns I'll assume you're talking about California law. Assuming that is the case, you're completely wrong. Some penal codes explicitly require intent, some have implied intent and there are a bunch that simply don't care.

Here's one example:
PC 191.5(a) Gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought.

ALL criminal law prosecutions require both the act and the intent. That is a fundamental part of ANY criminal prosecution. Yes, some intent can be implied, but they are still required.

As to the PC 191.5 example you use as supporting your view that intent is not required....you are dead wrong. The PC 191.5 charge is specific to those that are intoxicated. If malice aforethought was present it would not be gross vehicular manslaughter....it would be some sort of homicide.

Intoxication is NEVER an excuse for intent. A person can not claim they were drunk and didn't intent to commit the crime.

Gshock
04-29-2007, 7:00 PM
Regardless of if there was intent or not, Washington DC laws were broken. They clearly state carrying a handgun is prohibited, all guns must be kept unloaded and locked with a trigger lock. Whoever the owner of this gun is clearly and knowingly broke the law by keeping it loaded, period.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-29-2007, 7:01 PM
Regardless of if there was intent or not, Washington DC laws were broken. They clearly state carrying a handgun is prohibited, all guns must be kept unloaded and locked with a trigger lock. Whoever the owner of this gun is clearly and knowingly broke the law by keeping it loaded, period.

Yes, but the question that must be answered is....Did he know he was carrying the gun?

Knauga
04-29-2007, 9:13 PM
Sure, I have a package that I need you to bring to me from Bogata next chance you get ;)

My only point is that there would not be these games played with John Q Public, you and I would be busy being railroaded into a plea deal while this guy is going to get a walk because of his connections.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-29-2007, 9:22 PM
Sure, I have a package that I need you to bring to me from Bogata next chance you get ;)

My only point is that there would not be these games played with John Q Public, you and I would be busy being railroaded into a plea deal while this guy is going to get a walk because of his connections.


Trust me, I get it....like I said in a previous post on this thread....there are the rules for them, then there are the rules for the rest of us....

That being said, its the lack of intent that the DA is using for his reasoning to not to prosecute.