Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Calguns LEOs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-31-2012, 5:39 AM
Watchur6 Watchur6 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 699
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default PC 186.22(a)

Anybody hear about the California Supremes action on this PC?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-31-2012, 6:17 AM
WILDMAN442's Avatar
WILDMAN442 WILDMAN442 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fairfield / Vacaville
Posts: 1,962
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Sure did...

Definitely going to affect how things are done. I saw the case though and think it was BS that his crime was not related to the criminal enterprise... WTF?!

He was getting money for the rest of the gang. Send one and its less collateral if he is caught... Effing CA man.

Justin
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MHShooter View Post
The whole time I was thinking "perfect calguns story"
1943 mosin Nagant 91/30 for sale

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1049332
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-31-2012, 6:20 AM
Watchur6 Watchur6 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 699
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Ya, unbelievable. Your right, "send one and its less collateral"
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-01-2013, 12:39 AM
Heiko's Avatar
Heiko Heiko is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,027
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

HERE is a link to the full opinion.

The rationale of the opinion is based on a pure technical interpretation of the statutory language and ignores the reality of game crime. Not all is lost since the Court points out that 188.22(b)(1) enhancement can still apply to the lone actor but that might be a little more difficult to prove than the substantive 186.22(a)(1) count. The enhancement carries more time at 2-3-4 versus 16-2-3.

Good gang packets and good gang experts will carry the day.

Last edited by Heiko; 01-01-2013 at 12:42 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-01-2013, 12:56 AM
Watchur6 Watchur6 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 699
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Thank you for the link.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-01-2013, 8:21 PM
Heiko's Avatar
Heiko Heiko is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,027
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchur6 View Post
Thank you for the link.
My pleasure!

Yes, I have to agree that California just keeps shining brightly. I am still surprised that the voters kept the DP though. Glad they did, but still surprised. Between AB109 [1170(h)], both Prop 36s (drugs and new 3 Strikes), and case law like this, it's no wonder our communities are the way they are. Job security, I guess.

I think that losing the substantive gang count does hurt. Going with the enhancement is a way to save it but I think it makes it more difficult to prove because the need to prove that the crime was committed with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members. It would be that "specific intent" that could be the hangup for often confused jurors. That's why I think a good gang expert with docs that can back up whether the defendant had committed other crimes with that specific intent or that other members of his gang have committed the same or similar crimes, and if there happens to be a similar set of facts where more than one of the gang members were involved would be great. Anything that would show that the crime was not a "one off" non-gang crime would be good. I think if it can be shown that other members of his gang do the same crimes and even with the same MO would lend credence to the gang expert testifying that it is all part of that "specific intent" because that is what that gang does and how they make money. Just some thoughts.... I'll shut up now.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-01-2013, 1:15 AM
Bobby Ricigliano's Avatar
Bobby Ricigliano Bobby Ricigliano is offline
Mit Gott und Mauser
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The People's Glorious Republik of Southern Kalifornistan
Posts: 12,524
iTrader: 283 / 100%
Default

Hey, what's one more kick in the face to law enforcement by the courts? Maybe just 212 everything and let the gangs do whatever they want.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-01-2013, 1:47 AM
Arrowhunters5's Avatar
Arrowhunters5 Arrowhunters5 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Far Northern California
Posts: 98
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

This is a really bad decision. I have been working gangs since 2008. We have been getting some really good convictions lately of 186.22 and it has been having positive impact on the streets. This state sure seems bass ackwards most of the time.

Happy New in in California
__________________
GO DUCKS
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:24 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.