Petty Theft Becomes Felony Robbery for CCW Permit Holder [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Petty Theft Becomes Felony Robbery for CCW Permit Holder


TBO
02-24-2012, 03:35
http://fox8.com/2012/02/23/petty-theft-becomes-felony-robbery-for-ccw-holder/

TBO
02-24-2012, 03:59
Quoted post deleted for inappropriate content.
What does OH law say?

copenhagen2001
02-24-2012, 04:08
Sounds Right, he gets what he gets, shouldn't have been stealing...packing a C.C.W, sounds to me he had an era in judgment. He was afforded the right to carry to defend oneself, unfortunately he is now a Inmate.

HTC 4 Tapatalk

NEOH212
02-24-2012, 04:08
Good for the jerk. He got what he deserved. He should have been aware of the law before hand and more importantly, he shouldn't have been stealing anything period.

At least that will give him something to think about while he's locked up and discovering why they call it the pokey!

:rofl:

NEOH212
02-24-2012, 04:11
Quoted post deleted for inappropriate content.

If he didn't like the rules, he shouldn't have played the game.

It's his own fault. The law holds the armed citizen to a higher standard and rightfully so.

He knew better. He did wrong and now will hopefully pay the price for it. We don't want his type carrying in Ohio anyhow. These are the kind of people that give CCW a black eye (pardon the pun.) We don't need more negative press for the law abiding legally armed citizens of this state.

G30Mike
02-24-2012, 04:48
Wow, that's one hell of a charge bump. Petty theft to armed robbery because of carrying. I honestly don't know what to think.....

Wonder if there was some kind of altercation between the man and the loss prevention officer that ended up with the charge, or if it was just the fact he had a gun on him?

RussP
02-24-2012, 05:48
Wow, that's one hell of a charge bump. Petty theft to armed robbery because of carrying. I honestly don't know what to think.....

Wonder if there was some kind of altercation between the man and the loss prevention officer that ended up with the charge, or if it was just the fact he had a gun on him?What does OH law say?Same question to you, Mike, does Ohio law require any action other than possessing a firearm?

HerrGlock
02-24-2012, 07:02
Good. Perhaps other CCW holders might get the hint that this is not acceptable.

dosei
02-24-2012, 07:13
Good. Perhaps other CCW holders might get the hint that this is not acceptable.

Agreed! :thumbsup:

steveksux
02-24-2012, 07:28
Good. Perhaps other CCW holders might get the hint that this is not acceptable.I was kind of hoping the vast majority of them already figured that part out... :tongueout::rofl:

If all it takes for armed robbery in Ohio is a robbery when armed, seems like the law is kind of screwed up.

In this case, he had plenty of opportunity to pull the gun on the loss prevention officer, but he chose not to, and allowed himself to be held for police.

That's certainly the opposite of using a firearm to commit a robbery in my view.

I'm certainly willing to change my view depending on more details, the article is pretty sparse. But I'm pretty sure it would have mentioned if he had brandished or threatened anyone with the gun.

By all means, revoke his permit, and charge him with petty theft. Based on the facts available so far, that'd be the fair outcome in my view.

Its nice to throw the book at folks, but not when there's limited space in the jails. Who are you going to kick loose to make room for this guy? Going to kick out a real armed robber to make room for the pretend armed robber? Kick a guy loose that actually robbed someone at knifepoint because you pretend this guy robbed someone at gunpoint?

Randy

wprebeck
02-24-2012, 07:29
Its the same in KY. If you're armed, its robbery. Shouldn't be a piece of crap thief.

KentuckyPatriot
02-24-2012, 07:32
Play stupid games...win stupid prizes!


Congratulations! You are a real winner.

Providence
02-24-2012, 07:38
Did he not know shoplifting was illegal? To me, there is a logic breakdown. How can a person apply for a permit to carry a gun (a responsible, civil act), and then turn around and steal from a Macy's? The two acts seem contradictory to me.

EAJuggalo
02-24-2012, 07:39
Same question to you, Mike, does Ohio law require any action other than possessing a firearm?

Since the two people who were asked the question will not answer it, I will.

2911.02 Robbery.

(A) No person, in attempting or committing a theft offense or in fleeing immediately after the attempt or offense, shall do any of the following:

(1) Have a deadly weapon on or about the offender’s person or under the offender’s control
With a statutory sentence of two to eight years.

I agree he should be arrested and tried, I don't think if he's convicted he should face two to eight years for exercising a constitutional right.

IndyGunFreak
02-24-2012, 07:47
Sorry about his luck.

I despise shoplifters.

LoadToadBoss
02-24-2012, 07:57
<<<Has no love for thieves and even less for CCW holders who are thieves.

KentuckyPatriot
02-24-2012, 08:04
Since the two people who were asked the question will not answer it, I will.


With a statutory sentence of two to eight years.

I agree he should be arrested and tried, I don't think if he's convicted he should face two to eight years for exercising a constitutional right.

Not to be argumentative here, but if the choices you make include petty theft, dui, or other irresponsible acts, then you should not be carrying a firearm. Constitutionally motivated or otherwise.

First it paints CCW's in a potentially bad light, and second it gives the anti-CCW crowd more ammunition for tighter legislation.

Second, the choice was his to make, and will be his to bear. He GAVE UP his right to carry with his arrest. It is likely that he won't do much time, but more than likely will forever lose the right to carry which is fine with me. His judgement skills and character appear sorely lacking.

Just my opinion, but stupid people should not carry firearms as stupid people make stupid mistakes...and sometimes those mistakes affect non-stupid people. I support the rights of non-stupid people of all persuasions.

Steve50
02-24-2012, 08:09
earrings?? come on! grow a pair

Sam Spade
02-24-2012, 08:10
I agree he should be arrested and tried, I don't think if he's convicted he should face two to eight years for exercising a constitutional right.

Yeah....I'm not really supportive of your concept of a constitutional right. Kinda like saying that resisting arrest is exercising your natural right to self defense. Both acts are perversions of a right, not the exercise of it.

HerrGlock
02-24-2012, 08:29
I was kind of hoping the vast majority of them already figured that part out... :tongueout::rofl:

If all it takes for armed robbery in Ohio is a robbery when armed, seems like the law is kind of screwed up.

In this case, he had plenty of opportunity to pull the gun on the loss prevention officer, but he chose not to, and allowed himself to be held for police.

That's certainly the opposite of using a firearm to commit a robbery in my view.

I'm certainly willing to change my view depending on more details, the article is pretty sparse. But I'm pretty sure it would have mentioned if he had brandished or threatened anyone with the gun.

By all means, revoke his permit, and charge him with petty theft. Based on the facts available so far, that'd be the fair outcome in my view.

Its nice to throw the book at folks, but not when there's limited space in the jails. Who are you going to kick loose to make room for this guy? Going to kick out a real armed robber to make room for the pretend armed robber? Kick a guy loose that actually robbed someone at knifepoint because you pretend this guy robbed someone at gunpoint?

Randy

I'm not seeing where brandishing or threating with a gun is necessary to commit armed robbery. He was armed. He committed theft. He met the definition of armed robbery of the state.

NEXT!

CitizenOfDreams
02-24-2012, 08:51
What does OH law say?

The law may say that the Moon is made of blue cheese, but it does not make it so.

Petty theft and armed robbery are very different crimes. No matter how much I despise both thieves and robbers, I don't like the idea of people being charged with crimes they did not de facto commit. The mere presence of a firearm should not magically turn theft into robbery, or, say, speeding into carjacking.

Bren
02-24-2012, 08:56
Quoted post deleted for inappropriate content.

Our statutes here would require that the weapon be used in the robbery in some way, or the person would at least have to use force or a threat of force to accomplish the theft, but in Ohio:

2911.02 Robbery.
(A) No person, in attempting or committing a theft offense or in fleeing immediately after the attempt or offense, shall do any of the following:

(1) Have a deadly weapon on or about the offender’s person or under the offender’s control;
* * *
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of robbery. A violation of division (A)(1) or (2) of this section is a felony of the second degree. A violation of division (A)(3) of this section is a felony of the third degree.

Their statute, they can do that.

A similar thing in Kentucky increases the degree of a bruglary if you are armed with a deadly weapon during it - the good thing about that is that it boosts the penalty range for any burglar who steals a gun from 5-10 years to 10-20 years, because he is armed with a deadly weapon during a burglary, as soon as he picks up the home owner's gun.

Bren
02-24-2012, 09:02
The law may say that the Moon is made of blue cheese, but it does not make it so.


It does not make it so, but it does make it the law.

The example I use to explain this in classes is that this is a picture of 2 cattle, as a matter of law, according to Kentucky statutes:
http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/images14/Hog_stand_2.jpg
"'Cattle' includes horse, mule, ass, cow, ox, sheep, hog, or goat of any age or sex[.]" KRS 446.010(7).

dosei
02-24-2012, 09:23
The mere presence of a firearm should not magically turn theft into robbery

A gun is a very significant force multiplier. As a result, in many states the mere existence of a gun in the possession of a person committing a crime results in the gun being a charge multiplier. Much like how the presence of alcohol in a person's body often is a charge multiplier, even if it was consumed in a perfectly legal and "constitution" (pursuit of happiness) manner. Nothing "magic" about it.

Bruce M
02-24-2012, 09:37
Since the two people who were asked the question will not answer it, I will.


With a statutory sentence of two to eight years.

I agree he should be arrested and tried, I don't think if he's convicted he should face two to eight years for exercising a constitutional right.


Thanks for posting the statute - that certainly makes this a bit clearer. That said, my guess is that the instant he decides to commit theft he apparently lost any Constitutional right regarding guns.

samurairabbi
02-24-2012, 09:45
When teaching handgun usage to students, the first issue I emphasize: carrying a firearm promotes many misdemeanors to felonies, even if the firearm never comes out of its concealment! Many choke on this doctrine.

If you are packing, don't do anything that might possibly be considered a misdemeanor. If you decide to commit a misdemeanor, check that you are not packing during that action. If you find you ARE packing, pass up that temptation.

Bren
02-24-2012, 09:52
Like one of our circuit judges was quoted saying, when he sentenced a couple of guys to the max for theft many years ago: "I don't know of anything around here that needs stealing."

Regardless of the law, I have no sympathy for the thief. It's not like he was stealing food for starving children.

Merkavaboy
02-24-2012, 10:00
The law may say that the Moon is made of blue cheese, but it does not make it so.

Petty theft and armed robbery are very different crimes. No matter how much I despise both thieves and robbers, I don't like the idea of people being charged with crimes they did not de facto commit. The mere presence of a firearm should not magically turn theft into robbery, or, say, speeding into carjacking.

In many states the commission of a misdemeanor crime while armed with a weapon, especially a firearm, elevates the crime to a felony. And it probably doesn't matter if you are legally armed or not.

steveksux
02-24-2012, 10:06
I'm not seeing where brandishing or threating with a gun is necessary to commit armed robbery. He was armed. He committed theft. He met the definition of armed robbery of the state.

NEXT!Oh, I agree, he meets the statutory definition.

But I still think its wrong, and bad policy.

The guy chose to NOT use the weapon, or draw the weapon when store security detained him. I find that (and may God have mercy on my soul for saying this) commendable...

Prosecute him for armed robbery, and the lesson you teach him is he might as well have used the gun, punishment and charges are the same either way.

If there's some discretion allowed in the DA's office, that should be taken into account, in my view.

He had the means to escape, and every reason to pull the weapon to further his escape, and did not. That to me puts a world of difference between him and the garden variety armed robber who has no regard for human life.

I think he screwed up and should be punished. But if that was regard for human life buried within that conscience somewhere, that is something worth working with. He doesn't sound like a hardened criminal yet, but a few years in the joint will change that.

Now if he was simply overwhelmed by a much bigger security guard and didn't have the opportunity to pull the pistol, that's a totally different story. Sucks to be him.

My line of thinking is entirely dependent on finding out why he didn't use the pistol when he had the opportunity, and chose to be captured rather than a killer.

Randy

HerrGlock
02-24-2012, 10:28
Oh, I agree, he meets the statutory definition.

But I still think its wrong, and bad policy.

The guy chose to NOT use the weapon, or draw the weapon when store security detained him. I find that (and may God have mercy on my soul for saying this) commendable...

Prosecute him for armed robbery, and the lesson you teach him is he might as well have used the gun, punishment and charges are the same either way.

Nope, because then you add
Brandishing
Attempted murder
Assault
Assault with intent
Assault with deadly weapon
and other assorted crimes available for the buffet line to charge him with.

It's not the same charges at all.

Hell, if they turn him over to the feds he's looking at 50-10 years for a gun crime. I'd bet that wouldn't be something he would have thought about but the next person who is wondering about shoplifting while CCWing might.

samurairabbi
02-24-2012, 10:34
Oh, I agree, he meets the statutory definition.

But I still think its wrong, and bad policy.

The guy chose to NOT use the weapon, or draw the weapon when store security detained him. I find that (and may God have mercy on my soul for saying this) commendable...
---
If there's some discretion allowed in the DA's office, that should be taken into account, in my view.

I think he screwed up and should be punished. But if that was regard for human life buried within that conscience somewhere, that is something worth working with. He doesn't sound like a hardened criminal yet, but a few years in the joint will change that.


Your presentation is excellent ... as a sentencing consideration. Packing while stealing is, I believe, properly rated as a felony; figuring out the sentence after a conviction is where your thinking becomes properly applicable.

ballr4lyf
02-24-2012, 10:49
Don't get me wrong, I'm usually one of the first guys at the stake holding a torch, but I'm not ready to call this one "case closed" just yet.

I've actually walked out of a store without paying for an item before, but I didn't do it intentionally. I've had a small item fall into a plastic tote that the cashier did not find. I did return it to the store as soon as I found it. I've also caught myself stuffing something into my pocket at a store before paying for it (I got distracted by a phone call--and I'm the kind of guy that doesn't answer the phone in the car because I don't want to be distracted while driving). Again, I caught myself and put it back. Both of these incidents happened before I got my CCW, though.

I was not negligent of the law, nor did I have the intent to take something I did not pay for. I just made an honest mistake. With the lack of details in the article, I'm not so sure that this guy didn't just make an honest mistake.

Remember, we've all been a victim of being the easiest target to pick on (it's harder for the anti-gun groups to take guns away from criminals, so they try to take them away from law-abiding citizens). I have to wonder if this guy wasn't just the easiest target for loss prevention... I.e. LP happens to be watching him while he was looking at the jewelry when he got distracted and accidentally shoved them in his pocket. As compliant as the article says he was, it leads me to believe that he may have made an honest mistake but they're going to throw the book at him anyways, so as to make an example of him.

Now, if it was his intent to steal this from the store... I'll bring the lighter fluid.

steveksux
02-24-2012, 11:27
Nope, because then you add
Brandishing
Attempted murder
Assault
Assault with intent
Assault with deadly weapon
and other assorted crimes available for the buffet line to charge him with.

It's not the same charges at all.

Hell, if they turn him over to the feds he's looking at 50-10 years for a gun crime. I'd bet that wouldn't be something he would have thought about but the next person who is wondering about shoplifting while CCWing might.
But you're assuming he would still have been caught. He would have at least escaped had he brought the gun into play, and had a chance at facing no charges at all. Depending on where that crime occurs, could be a pretty good chance.

Yet he chose not to do so.

Regardless of the letter of the law, there's a world of difference between someone stealing while armed, with the intent to use the weapon to further the crime, or the getaway; versus someone stealing who happens to have a weapon on them that they have the opportunity, means and motive to put into play, but do not. If they're not willing to use it, they're effectively unarmed.

If there's an unarmed robber that would use a weapon without hesitation should he get one, he's more dangerous to society than this guy that happened to have a weapon on them during a robbery, but refused to use it, even when it would have greatly aided his getaway. The "unarmed" guy could pick up a rock or pipe and beat someone to death. This guy, doesn't seem to have that in him.

Clearly though, this kind of thing is so rare that I'm sure the law was not written with this in mind. You do a robbery, you have a weapon, its assumed you were willing to use it. Otherwise people would be trying to get off claiming they never intended to use it, it was just for show. Clearly bull, and would cause a lot of wasted time in court trying to prove lack of intent, which the law was intended to head off at the pass.

But in this case, he essentially proved he never intended to use it, by not using it when the robbery called for its use. I concede that is irrelevant under the laws there as written. Would not be the first time what is, and what should be a law are in conflict (or not, depending on your opinion on the matter, I'm not the arbiter of right and wrong, just this doesn't feel right to me).

Randy

steveksux
02-24-2012, 11:30
Your presentation is excellent ... as a sentencing consideration. Packing while stealing is, I believe, properly rated as a felony; figuring out the sentence after a conviction is where your thinking becomes properly applicable.No disagreements here. I was thinking it could affect the charges brought against him too.

They could also charge the felony as leverage, and propose a more lenient plea than the garden variety armed robber would get offered I suppose.

Randy

dosei
02-24-2012, 11:30
Now, if it was his intent to steal this from the store... I'll bring the lighter fluid.

According to the article, he admitted to taking the items.

ballr4lyf
02-24-2012, 11:41
According to the article, he admitted to taking the items.

Admitting to taking it does not mean that he intended to. I admitted to taking the magazine (the paper kind) that fell into my tote when that happened. It does not mean I intended to take it.

The biggest thing casting doubt for me is the lack of details in the article.

kensteele
02-24-2012, 12:01
Another example of gun owners having their cake and eat it too.

NDCent
02-24-2012, 12:05
I despise thiefs and liars, but I'm glad I don't shop with the old lady anymore. I have, in the past, eat a few grapes off the bunch while we were still shopping. My wife looks at me one day and said you know you're stealing don't you? I said wtf? We're going to pay for the **** things in a few minutes. She said we're buying them by the pound, how you going to pay for the ones you're eating? Hey, stealing is stealing, where do you draw the line? Murphy's law, if anyone could spend life in prison for eating a couple grapes it's me. :dunno:

janice6
02-24-2012, 14:05
Thanks for posting the statute - that certainly makes this a bit clearer. That said, my guess is that the instant he decides to commit theft he apparently lost any Constitutional right regarding guns.


I agree with this.

The fact he didn't use the gun is of no consequence, at any time he "could have" used it.

dosei
02-24-2012, 16:08
(deleted)

samurairabbi
02-24-2012, 16:14
No disagreements here. I was thinking it could affect the charges brought against him too.

They could also charge the felony as leverage, and propose a more lenient plea than the garden variety armed robber would get offered I suppose.


A possible variation on this theme: he plea-bargains down to a misdemeanor somewhat higher than petty larceny. This would be, I believe, about the best he can reasonably hope for.

Another factor: he would go to trial in suburban Lake County as a Cuyahoga County resident. Avoiding such a trial would be a smart move by his counsel.

ColdSteelNail
02-24-2012, 16:14
He probably won't do eight years, but what a dumb move.

TexasFats
02-24-2012, 16:23
The stupid thief made every person with a CCW, CWP, CHL, or whatever it is called in your state look like a criminal and gave the anti-gun camp more ammunition for their demands that we be disarmed. However, some of you are defending him and saying that the charge is excessive or talking about constitutional right. Have you thought beyond your own ideology?

As for me, thieves and other criminals thrive on the indulgence and understanding of society. I am neither indulgent nor understanding towards thieves and other criminals. If that makes me anti-social, so be it.

RenegadeGlocker
02-24-2012, 16:32
Good. Perhaps other CCW holders might get the hint that this is not acceptable.

Just a guess, but I think he was a thief who happened to get a CCW, rather than a CCW, contemplating theft.

HarleyGuy
02-24-2012, 16:49
I remember some cases involving some police officers here. in Michigan who were indicted on criminal charges also being charged with the possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.
I would assume this would be the same for a civilian possession a CPL and carrying their firearm while commiting a felony.

Misdemeanor charges should not be treated the same way as in some cases the person may not even realize that what they may be doing is unlawful.

I don't think this guy will get any sympathy on this website, and while I think his concealed carry license should be revoked, and face the court for the taking of the jewelry, I think the prosecutor may be seeking a little more than justice in this case.

KentuckyPatriot
02-24-2012, 17:20
A possible variation on this theme: he plea-bargains down to a misdemeanor somewhat higher than petty larceny. This would be, I believe, about the best he can reasonably hope for.


In many non-gun friendly jurisdictions, and in some strong gun jurisdictions wanting to send a message to the criminal element, you will see a plea bargain that might include the voluntary surrender of the CCW license for a stipulated period of time without appeal. Accept the plea bargain but lose the license. Carry the gun again and the charges increase.

The stupid thief made every person with a CCW, CWP, CHL, or whatever it is called in your state look like a criminal and gave the anti-gun camp more ammunition for their demands that we be disarmed. However, some of you are defending him and saying that the charge is excessive or talking about constitutional right. Have you thought beyond your own ideology?

As for me, thieves and other criminals thrive on the indulgence and understanding of society. I am neither indulgent nor understanding towards thieves and other criminals. If that makes me anti-social, so be it.

Count me as anti-social then, too! :wavey: I will not waste a moment of time worrying about this jerk's right to carry because he has demonstrated his propensity to make bad judgements. THIS is the kind of folks that make it harder for all the other law-abiding folks, especially in locales that have an element of "may-issue" or in the "shall issue" states where one must present themselves and be "interviewed" and found worthy of carrying.

Simple...do the crime, do the time. If you want to keep your gun-toting rights, don't play stupid games.

tinman517
02-24-2012, 17:39
Whatever this kid receives, he has it coming to him . . . End of the story.

CitizenOfDreams
02-24-2012, 17:40
The fact he didn't use the gun is of no consequence, at any time he "could have" used it.

For some reason I always thought that the punishment should correspond to what a criminal did or attempted to do, not to what he "could have" done. :dunno:

BrewerGeorge
02-24-2012, 19:02
....
Petty theft and armed robbery are very different crimes. No matter how much I despise both thieves and robbers, I don't like the idea of people being charged with crimes they did not de facto commit. The mere presence of a firearm should not magically turn theft into robbery, or, say, speeding into carjacking.
This is my take on the situation, too. It's a hole in Ohio's law from before it was legal for civilians to ever have a weapon. The oversite should be corrected for CCW holders. By all means, his permit should be revoked and he should be charged with the petty theft and serve time for it. This kind of escalation is bad for everybody.

kensteele
02-24-2012, 20:15
just wait until you become an armed carjacker felony auto theft for not returning the rental car at 2am instead of 6am by mistake because you fell asleep. you carry a gun, you deserve "special" treatment. some people here just don't think and feel it's ok to have all the extra government laws until they get caught up in it themselves.

oh i forgot. you're perfect and it's impossible for you to make a honest mistake and accidentally oversleep. that's stupid. you like special gun laws and keep asking for them? well, they're coming, obama or romney, they're coming.

Dragoon44
02-24-2012, 20:52
just wait until you become an armed carjacker felony auto theft for not returning the rental car at 2am instead of 6am by mistake because you fell asleep. you carry a gun, you deserve "special" treatment. some people here just don't think and feel it's ok to have all the extra government laws until they get caught up in it themselves.

In the real world as opposed to the hallucinatory one you inhabit. returning a car late gets you charged another days rental fee. Not arrested for grand theft auto.

dakrat
02-24-2012, 21:09
Play stupid games...win stupid prizes!


Congratulations! You are a real winner.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

CitizenOfDreams
02-24-2012, 21:15
In the real world as opposed to the hallucinatory one you inhabit. returning a car late gets you charged another days rental fee. Not arrested for grand theft auto.

In the same real world, stealing a pair of earrings gets you arrested for armed robbery. I don't see the above rental car scenario being too much of a stretch.

boomhower
02-24-2012, 21:19
On the surface it sounds like overkill. But a petty theft while armed can turn into something much more serious when the subject is caught, it can turn deadly in a big hurry. Considering he was cooperative and didn't do anything stupid I think the case should be bumped down to a misdemeanor and revoke his permit.

Bruce M
02-24-2012, 21:26
Actually here in Florida there needs to be a specific demand that a rental car be returned before it will be entered as stolen. A very common method involves a registered letter and a wait of five days (FSS 812.155)

TBO
02-24-2012, 21:49
In the same real world, stealing a pair of earrings gets you arrested for armed robbery. I don't see the above rental car scenario being too much of a stretch.Try an application of Critical Thinking.

Rental Car=contract between two parties.

Theft = CRIME from the start.

Dragoon44
02-24-2012, 22:02
In the same real world, stealing a pair of earrings gets you arrested for armed robbery. I don't see the above rental car scenario being too much of a stretch.

That is probably because you understand little or nothing of the legal difference between the two things.

Deaf Smith
02-24-2012, 22:44
Question guys...

Now if you demand money from someone and have a screwdriver in your pocket, now can't they consider that an aggravated (armed) robbery? Shoplift with a bowie knife in your jeans and that's considered armed robbery. So the same thing applies when packing a gun, CCW or not.

Yes the poster was right,

Play stupid games...win stupid prizes!

Deaf

samurairabbi
02-24-2012, 22:49
Question guys...

Now if you demand money from someone and have a screwdriver in your pocket, now can't they consider that an aggravated (armed) robbery? Shoplift with a bowie knife in your jeans and that's considered armed robbery. So the same thing applies when packing a gun, CCW or not.

Yes the poster was right,

Play stupid games...win stupid prizes!

Deaf

Add an important detail to your "hypothetical" scenario: the screwdriver is sharpened!

1984 was a good year for events that continue to resonate in popular memory. The BeeGees became the "other" BG.

owl6roll
02-25-2012, 04:59
Play stupid games, win stupid prises!

EAJuggalo
02-25-2012, 06:32
Yeah....I'm not really supportive of your concept of a constitutional right. Kinda like saying that resisting arrest is exercising your natural right to self defense. Both acts are perversions of a right, not the exercise of it.
Carrying a firearm for self defense isn't a constitutional right in your mind?

I'm all for trying and convicting him on the petty theft charge, I'd even be OK with upping it to a felony with a 367 day sentence. But in no way should the fact that he was carrying a legal firearm equate to 2-8 years in prison.

NDCent raises a good point. Eating a couple grapes in a grocery store is also by law petty theft. I'd be willing to bet that most of the people here have done that once or twice in their lives. Now in OH that has become felony armed robbery in the second degree because you are carrying, is this really a good law that should be defended?

James Dean
02-25-2012, 08:13
If your a CCW permit holder and your shoplifting chances are you should not be a CCW permit holder. There is a word for this its called a criminal. Last I saw criminals don't get CCW permits.

RussP
02-25-2012, 08:36
For review purposes:Route: Ohio Revised Code » Title [29] XXIX CRIMES - PROCEDURE » Chapter 2911: ROBBERY, BURGLARY, TRESPASS AND SAFECRACKING (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2911.02)
2911.02 Robbery.
(A) No person, in attempting or committing a theft offense or in fleeing immediately after the attempt or offense, shall do any of the following:

(1) Have a deadly weapon on or about the offender’s person or under the offender’s control;

(2) Inflict, attempt to inflict, or threaten to inflict physical harm on another;

(3) Use or threaten the immediate use of force against another.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of robbery. A violation of division (A)(1) or (2) of this section is a felony of the second degree. A violation of division (A)(3) of this section is a felony of the third degree.

(C) As used in this section:

(1) “Deadly weapon” has the same meaning as in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code.

(2) “Theft offense” has the same meaning as in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code.

Effective Date: 07-01-1996BrewerGeorge touched on the effective date in his post. This 1996 law preceded concealed carry law by almost eight years. So the question is, "Why didn't the legislature exempt concealed carry licensees?" They certainly created and/or revised numerous statutes that define the details of carrying a concealed firearm in Ohio. (http://www.ohioccw.org/ohios-concealed-carry-laws.html) Perhaps they wanted this force multiplier, as dosei called it in his post (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=18624340#post18624340), to remain on the books. Why should a concealed carry licensee be exempt? Is it because he was, he was, a certified, card carrying 'good guy' right up to the moment he committed the crime?

This is the argument made very often here and elsewhere. "We who legally carry a firearm are the good guys." I know I certainly am.

We should be treated as such at all times by everyone. I should.

There should be no law or code, no rule or policy restricting our lawful carry. I agree. So does this document:Ohio Constitution:

1.04 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers (1851)
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; Okay, that's pretty clear and simple. Every Ohio citizen has the right to bear arms for their defense and security.

Now, some of you are saying, "ORC 2911.02 was written for the real bad guys. Who's the real bad guys? Simple answer: Convicted felon.

Let's say that like Mr. Young in this story, the person is just a guy carrying a firearm concealed for self defense, only he's doing so without a license, which is illegal (If he's open carrying, he'd be fine:cool:). That makes him a bad guy, right? NO? But he's just exercising his Constitutional right to bear arms for his defense and security. Damn, that does complicate things.

Anyway, as soon as he steals the earrings, and it's discovered he's armed, it is all right and good to up the charges to a second degree felony and, if convicted, send the non-card carrying person, bearing arms for his defense and security, for 2-8 years. Do all y'all agree with that?

So even though two people, without any prior criminal history, steal a pair of earrings while carrying for their defense and security, the person with a concealed carry license should be treated differently than the one without the license? Yes, I can see where an additional charge or charges would come for illegally carrying the gun.

But, the guy with the license is more responsible. All he did was steal the earrings. He was legally carrying right up until the moment he committed the crime.

I believe one or more have said just revoke/suspend his carry permit. Under Ohio law, I believe that only happens after felonies or violent misdemeanors. So those advocating revocation are okay with the increased charge, just not the jail time for someone with a license to carry concealed?

But shouldn't those legally carrying a firearm for self-defense be held to a higher standard than a citizen who doesn't have the 'good guy card'? Shouldn't those carrying with a license be expected to maintain the same status they had when they passed the background check for their 'good guy card'?

steveksux
02-25-2012, 09:44
I agree with this.

The fact he didn't use the gun is of no consequence, at any time he "could have" used it.If he got away clean, I'd agree with you.

The fact he let himself be taken without using the firearm is significant.

Thinking as a criminal for a moment, he could have used it, he should have used it, he chose not to.

That makes him worlds apart from an armed robber. Statutes to the contrary notwithstanding... :tongueout:

Randy

Bruce M
02-25-2012, 11:42
I agree not using the gun distances him from the typical armed robber. But I would argue that when he committed theft he is more worlds away from being an upstanding law obeying citizen than he is worlds away from being a typical robber.

Patchman
02-25-2012, 12:08
just wait until you become an armed carjacker felony auto theft for not returning the rental car at 2am instead of 6am by mistake...


I don't see the above rental car scenario being too much of a stretch.

Don't know if you guys are being disingenuous or just don't know how things work in the real world.

This (or something similar) is how it works in the real world.

Actually here in Florida there needs to be a specific demand that a rental car be returned before it will be entered as stolen. A very common method involves a registered letter and a wait of five days (FSS 812.155)

CitizenOfDreams
02-25-2012, 13:23
Don't know if you guys are being disingenuous or just don't know how things work in the real world.

This (or something similar) is how it works in the real world.

Okay, so what would happen in your RealWorld(tm) if you rent a car away from home, change your travel plans, forget to extend the rental and get stopped by the police 6 days after the return date?

LongGoneDays
02-25-2012, 13:47
I asked the hypothetical question years ago would having a legal ccw on your person make a small crime a felony, looks like in our more liberal places it will.

Sure they guy is a low life tard, but 8 years for earrings, c'monnnnnnnnnn. No real gun owner should support that. It is gun control, pure and simple. He was just as likely as any of you to be assaulted/robbed on his way into the store and on his way out of the store, so why should he not be carrying?

Patchman
02-25-2012, 14:21
Okay, so what would happen in your RealWorld(tm) if you rent a car away from home, change your travel plans, forget to extend the rental and get stopped by the police 6 days after the return date?

You mean, you forgot that you've lengthened your travel plans for an additional six days and in those additional six days have continued to drive around in the rental car that was due six days ago?

And for those additional six days you never bothered to call the rental company to tell them?

In your world, do telephones exist? Or do your telephones only reach Nebuchadnezzar? :supergrin:

Patchman
02-25-2012, 14:25
I asked the hypothetical question years ago would having a legal ccw on your person make a small crime a felony...

He was just as likely as any of you to be assaulted/robbed on his way into the store and on his way out of the store, so why should he not be carrying?

You mean, he gets robber of the stuff he just stole? Oh sweet mother of irony... :rofl::rofl:

CitizenOfDreams
02-25-2012, 14:33
You mean, you forgot that you've lengthened your travel plans for an additional six days and in those additional six days have continued to drive around in the rental car that was due six days ago?
I mean, I forgot to notify the rental company about my change of plans and kept driving around thinking that I did. Don't tell me people never forget to do anything in your RealWorld.

Patchman
02-25-2012, 15:07
I mean, I forgot to notify the rental company about my change of plans and kept driving around [for six more days] thinking that I did.

If that's the case, where you drove the rental for an additional six days and didn't call the rental company but thought you did, then just explain that to the judge. Just tell the judge that you mis-remembered. :dunno:

Dragoon44
02-25-2012, 15:16
I mean, I forgot to notify the rental company about my change of plans and kept driving around thinking that I did. Don't tell me people never forget to do anything in your RealWorld.

Sounds like a Mentally incompetent defense.

What would happen vries by jurisdiction but virtually no police dept. is going to arrest someone for Grand theft auto for being a few days late in returning a rental.

Many Jurisdictions will not even take a theft report until 30 days after the return date others also require some kind of action on the part of the rental agency to contact the renter and demand return of the auto.

While many will not make an arrest they will impound the car if they come across it if the rental agency has reported it not returned.. WITHOUT making any arrests.

jastroud
02-25-2012, 15:20
Armed robbery...no question. But really, if that is the extent of his judgment, should he be carrying a weapon?

RussP
02-25-2012, 15:35
Okay, so what would happen in your RealWorld(tm) if you rent a car away from home, change your travel plans, forget to extend the rental and get stopped by the police 6 days after the return date?Why are the police stopping you?

Patchman
02-25-2012, 16:04
Maybe the good citizen ran the red light or didn't pay for the $80 of gas at the service station but thought he did.

You know how it is. The good citizen mis-remembered. :supergrin:

SCmasterblaster
02-25-2012, 16:15
I used to live near there in Euclid, back in 1974 anyway, about 6 years before I started carrying my G17. I geuss that just about anyone can get a CCW there, including robbers. I live in VT now, where they don't even issue CCW permits. Just about any non-felon can CCW here.

kensteele
02-25-2012, 16:48
Okay, so what would happen in your RealWorld(tm) if you rent a car away from home, change your travel plans, forget to extend the rental and get stopped by the police 6 days after the return date?

You mean, you forgot that you've lengthened your travel plans for an additional six days and in those additional six days have continued to drive around in the rental car that was due six days ago?

And for those additional six days you never bothered to call the rental company to tell them?

In your world, do telephones exist? Or do your telephones only reach Nebuchadnezzar? :supergrin:

you dodged that question big time.

it is 6 days later, you forget to renew your rental, the rental car company has been calling you to find their car, you don't answer your phone (for whatever reason) and so on day 7 the car company reports the car as stolen (in a state where a car company is allowed to call in the car stolen in 7 days).

the police pull you over for a broken tail light, they run the car, it is reported stolen. you have a ccw and you have your loaded firearm in your holster at the traffic stop.

is the charge grand theft auto, carjacking, armed robbery, what?

based on the context of this thread, many people want to see this driver go to prison on gun related-charges for his stupidity.

i would rather see the driver get handled in the same way a gun-less driver would be handled whether that's a civil matter or whatever but i don't want gun charges involved in the situation just because he has a permit and is carrying his permitted weapon at the time.

i could be right or i could be wrong, but it's only my opinion, what do you say?

hankken
02-25-2012, 16:58
I think it is only an issue of possible auto theft depending on the state law. No firearms laws broken just because you legally carry concealed unless the law states that simple (legal) possession in such circumstances constitutes a violation of firearms laws. Not hardly armed robbery unless the weapon is used to gain illegal possession of the car.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

kensteele
02-25-2012, 16:58
just so i can be clear without overly debating the merits of this case, i would rather permit holders and non-permit holders be treated the same way for their misdemeanor crimes and the firearm should not come into play unless it is somehow part of the crime. whether your firearm is on your person, in your car, or at home, i don't think the proximity of the firearm is as important as determine how it is used or not used. felony crimes are different but in my mind, even some felony crimes should be exempt. basically i simply don't believe a misdemeanor crime should be elevated to a felony just because the actor owns, possess somewhere, or thinks about owning a firearm in the future...elevate if the weapon is determined to be a factor to some degreee. imho

hankken
02-25-2012, 17:01
Your point iis right on.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Patchman
02-25-2012, 17:03
you dodged that question big time.

it is 6 days later, you forget to renew your rental, the rental car company has been calling you to find their car, you don't answer your phone (for whatever reason) and so on day 7 the car company reports the car as stolen (in a state where a car company is allowed to call in the car stolen in 7 days).

the police pull you over for a broken tail light, they run the car, it is reported stolen. you have a ccw and you have your loaded firearm in your holster at the traffic stop.

is the charge grand theft auto, carjacking, armed robbery, what?

based on the context of this thread, many people want to see this driver go to prison on gun related-charges for his stupidity.

i would rather see the driver get handled in the same way a gun-less driver would be handled whether that's a civil matter or whatever but i don't want gun charges involved in the situation just because he has a permit and is carrying his permitted weapon at the time.

i could be right or i could be wrong, but it's only my opinion, what do you say?

Oh absolutely and without question you'd be wrong. But you already knew that before you even posted. :upeyes:

kensteele
02-25-2012, 17:04
Oh absolutely and without question you'd be wrong. But you already knew that before you even posted.

post the right answer so we can all learn.

CitizenOfDreams
02-25-2012, 17:05
Why are the police stopping you?

"Your brake light is out"?

Patchman
02-25-2012, 17:07
post the right answer so we can all learn.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

I thought you already had all the answers!

Patchman
02-25-2012, 17:08
"Your brake light is out"?

Or was it you didn't pay for the $80 in gas? But forgot you didn't?

kensteele
02-25-2012, 17:20
I thought you already had all the answers!

i'm looking for your opinion. i don't have your opinion, at this time, i only have my own. i know a lot of people wait for others to give them their own opinions or they look to the government to tell them what the think or feel but in the past few posts, i thought you might be able to at least state your opinion to the question that was thrown at you by another poster. if you don't have one, that's fine. you're not forced to express your thoughts or post your opinions if you care not to. but you appear to have been stumped, that's all. i'm not going to call you on that....

my thoughts. having a permit or legally carrying a firearm should not automatically have unique consequences or extra unrelated burdens. when we open the door to the firearm being "special" then we allow ourselves to be taken advantage of.

of course, if you shop lift and when you leave, the shopkeeper fails to confront you because he saw your firearm....of course, if you write a bad check for cash and the cashier pays you anyway because she saw your ccw permit....maybe there is something valid in some cases.

does committing a misdemeanor wearing a bulletproof vest upgrade the crime to a felony, would be ok with that, too for some crimes?

Patchman
02-25-2012, 17:59
My opinion is that if you're going to rent a car and then drive it for 5, 6 or more days beyond the return date, and you don't bother to call or contact the rental company. And they report it as stolen. You're a GLA.

I don't see how having a gun on you at the time the cops stop you turns it into a car jacking or robbery. These are two charges you posed. I've not heard of that happening. Can you cite some real arrests where this actually happened?

Patchman
02-25-2012, 18:19
my thoughts. having a permit or legally carrying a firearm should not automatically have unique consequences or extra unrelated burdens. when we open the door to the firearm being "special" then we allow ourselves to be taken advantage of.

I would agree with this in principle. But it comes down to how the statute is written.

For example, with speeding laws, the driver doesn't have to "knowingly" speed. Over the speed limit is all it takes.


does committing a misdemeanor wearing a bulletproof vest upgrade the crime to a felony, would be ok with that, too for some crimes?

What if the BG attempts a home invasion (BG not going to admit to this) while wearing such a vest. Makes it to the middle of the front yard (trespass at this point) before homeowner confronts him. This is a Castle Doctrine state. Homeowner shoots but BG saved by vest. BG escapes unharmed. Caught a block away.

The BG also had a roll of duct tape (fully legal) and a toy pistol (fully legal) on him.

Should wearing the vest (even if not visible to the homeowner) upgrade any of the the charges against the BG? Or is it a simple trespass?

CitizenOfDreams
02-25-2012, 18:21
I don't see how having a gun on you at the time the cops stop you turns it into a car jacking or robbery.

Let me clarify your position. You don't see anything unusual, unfair or inappropriate about being charged with armed robbery for failure to pay for a store item. At the same time, carjacking charges stemming from failure to pay for a rental car is a totally unbelievable and impossible exaggeration?

Patchman
02-25-2012, 18:33
Let me clarify your position. carjacking charges stemming from failure to pay for a rental car is a totally unbelievable and impossible exaggeration?

Carjacking charges?

I assume you have cases that you can refer to?

Otherwise, dream on citizen.

Dragoon44
02-25-2012, 18:35
At the same time, carjacking charges stemming from failure to pay for a rental car is a totally unbelievable and impossible exaggeration?

Maybe you need to look up what carjacking is comrade,

Here is a hint: it is NOT keeping a car a few days past it's return date. It's taking a car by force while it is OCCUPIED.

kensteele
02-25-2012, 18:37
My opinion is that if you're going to rent a car and then drive it for 5, 6 or more days beyond the return date, and you don't bother to call or contact the rental company. And they report it as stolen. You're a GLA.

I don't see how having a gun on you at the time the cops stop you turns it into a car jacking or robbery. These are two charges you posed. I've not heard of that happening. Can you cite some real arrests where this actually happened?

Patchman, thank you for your reply and your opinion.

I agree with you.

CitizenOfDreams
02-25-2012, 18:41
What if the BG attempts a home invasion (BG not going to admit to this) while wearing such a vest. Makes it to the middle of the front yard (trespass at this point) before homeowner confronts him.

Should wearing the vest (even if not visible to the homeowner) upgrade any of the the charges against the BG? Or is it a simple trespass?

My opinion as a non-lawyer:
The vest can be used as a piece of evidence to prove that the BG indeed attempted an invasion, along with the toy gun and duck tape. It should not "automatically" upgrade trespass to invasion.

kensteele
02-25-2012, 18:41
I would agree with this in principle. But it comes down to how the statute is written.

For example, with speeding laws, the driver doesn't have to "knowingly" speed. Over the speed limit is all it takes.




What if the BG attempts a home invasion (BG not going to admit to this) while wearing such a vest. Makes it to the middle of the front yard (trespass at this point) before homeowner confronts him. This is a Castle Doctrine state. Homeowner shoots but BG saved by vest. BG escapes unharmed. Caught a block away.

The BG also had a roll of duct tape (fully legal) and a toy pistol (fully legal) on him.

Should wearing the vest (even if not visible to the homeowner) upgrade any of the the charges against the BG? Or is it a simple trespass?


Good points, I'm not sure. Ultimately I think the vested BG deserves the same exact charges the non-vested BG gets.

Again, I believe there should be an upgrade path for violent felonies committed by BG wearing a vest. I certainly do not believe a simple trespass charge s/b upgrade to a felony simply because the trespasser was wearing a vest.

CitizenOfDreams
02-25-2012, 18:44
Maybe you need to look up what carjacking is comrade,

Here is a hint: it is NOT keeping a car a few days past it's return date. It's taking a car by force while it is OCCUPIED.
Sigh. OK, how about "motor vehicle theft", which is typically a felony?

Patchman
02-25-2012, 18:55
My opinion as a non-lawyer:
The vest can be used as a piece of evidence to prove that the BG indeed attempted an invasion, along with the toy gun and duck tape. It should not "automatically" upgrade trespass to invasion.

OK. Please understand that in real life, as long as it happened to some other homeowner/victim, I don't care one way or another. But if I were the homeowner/victim, I know what I'd press the DA to do.

Good points, I'm not sure. Ultimately I think the vested BG deserves the same exact charges the non-vested BG gets.

Again, I believe there should be an upgrade path for violent felonies committed by BG wearing a vest. I certainly do not believe a simple trespass charge s/b upgrade to a felony simply because the trespasser was wearing a vest.

OK. Same answer as above.

Ruggles
02-25-2012, 19:13
Love coming in late to these threads :)

Shoplifter dude should have thought ahead and left he gun at home, or not stolen. Screw him and his elevated charges.

Keeping a rental card beyond the rental contract by mistake is just that a mistake. It is not a intentional act as is shoplifting. Huge difference IMO.

I could be biased I work in a field effected by shoplifters so I love to see them go down.... :)

CitizenOfDreams
02-25-2012, 19:27
OK. Please understand that in real life, as long as it happened to some other homeowner/victim, I don't care one way or another. But if I were the homeowner/victim, I know what I'd press the DA to do.

That's totally understandable. As a victim of a home invasion, I would love the BG to be charged with anything I could find in the book, up to and including state treason if it would stick. As an impartial judge, however, I would charge the BG only with what I have reasons to believe he commited or attempted to commit.

TBO
02-25-2012, 20:27
why is it so often that those who know the least have the most to say?

Sent from Tapatalk

Dragoon44
02-25-2012, 20:51
I would charge the BG only with what I have reasons to believe he commited or attempted to commit.

in this case intent matters, what does someone carrying a toy firearm INTEND their victim to believe? is it not that the gun is real and he will use deadly force if the intended victim does not submit?

lets take this scenario a step further. You shoot the intruder with the realistic looking toy gun. Do you want the man you shot to be viewed merely as a trespasser, or as an armed home invader?

CitizenOfDreams
02-25-2012, 21:15
in this case intent matters, what does someone carrying a toy firearm INTEND their victim to believe?

Unless the toy firearm was actually shown or mentioned to the victim, we have no way to know or prove that the BG ever intended to use it in such a manner.

lets take this scenario a step further. You shoot the intruder with the realistic looking toy gun. Do you want the man you shot to be viewed merely as a trespasser, or as an armed home invader?
You will want the man to be viewed as an invader. And you will want to have some facts to substantiate that view. I don't think the toy gun alone should be sufficient to automatically make the trespasser an invader.

RussP
02-25-2012, 21:17
Lets not start personal attacks, they'll not be tolerated.

CitizenOfDreams
02-25-2012, 21:18
nevermind.

samurairabbi
02-25-2012, 21:30
Lets not start personal attacks, they'll not be tolerated.

... unless they are REALLY funny! In that case, they will go viral on this website.

Calico Jack
02-25-2012, 22:26
you dodged that question big time.

it is 6 days later, you forget to renew your rental, the rental car company has been calling you to find their car, you don't answer your phone (for whatever reason) and so on day 7 the car company reports the car as stolen (in a state where a car company is allowed to call in the car stolen in 7 days).

the police pull you over for a broken tail light, they run the car, it is reported stolen. you have a ccw and you have your loaded firearm in your holster at the traffic stop.

is the charge grand theft auto, carjacking, armed robbery, what?

based on the context of this thread, many people want to see this driver go to prison on gun related-charges for his stupidity.

i would rather see the driver get handled in the same way a gun-less driver would be handled whether that's a civil matter or whatever but i don't want gun charges involved in the situation just because he has a permit and is carrying his permitted weapon at the time.

i could be right or i could be wrong, but it's only my opinion, what do you say?

Did the rental car driver knowingly commit a crime in the first place?

Now how about the thief that stole the earrings?

TBO
02-25-2012, 22:48
You are talking about "Intent", which is indeed a key element to many crimes.

CitizenOfDreams
02-25-2012, 23:45
Did the rental car driver knowingly commit a crime in the first place?

Let's say that he did. He still commited car theft, not carjacking, even if he carried a gun while signing the rental agreement. Just like the subject of this thread commited theft and not robbery.

KentuckyPatriot
02-26-2012, 00:23
Here is an idea...instead of all the mental gymnastics and twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to "what-if" the story, what about a little dose of reality.


KNOW the laws of your state

If you don't like the laws of your state, quite railing about them and work to have them changed...until they are changed... OBEY THEM

Don't do stupid things (read illegal)

Don't do stupid (illegal) things while carrying a gun

If you are stupid get unstupid...life is easier when you are unstupid


As stated before I have no sympathy for this yo-yo or the lack of his 2A rights. He chose his actions and now must live with the consequences.

steveksux
02-26-2012, 09:36
in this case intent matters, what does someone carrying a toy firearm INTEND their victim to believe? is it not that the gun is real and he will use deadly force if the intended victim does not submit?exactly, and besides, otherwise any armed robbery where you can't prove the weapon recovered later was the exact weapon used, they'd be claiming they used a toy gun and try to skate by on the armed part of the robbery.


lets take this scenario a step further. You shoot the intruder with the realistic looking toy gun.That's a hell of a realistic looking toy gun if you can shoot an intruder with it!!! :tongueout:

Randy

steveksux
02-26-2012, 09:45
You are talking about "Intent", which is indeed a key element to many crimes. This is my problem with the case presented.

The statute does not require intent in this case. I'm assuming the thought while writing the statute was doing a robbery while having a weapon pretty much proves intent to use the weapon to force compliance in the robbery. Its inconceivable that someone would do a robbery with a weapon on them, without intending to use it if necessary.

Until this guy. Chose NOT to use the weapon to commit the robbery or facilitate his escape. Maybe he really had a problem with taking human life. But he didn't even choose to threaten to use the weapon, which would have likely been just as effective as using it, but could have avoided his qualms about taking human life.

Its perhaps not unlike pursuing homicide charges against Dr Kervorkian. Murder statutes were written assuming the person killed didn't specifically request to be killed. Is Kervorkian really no different than a serial murderer? Clearly the law states he's no different, but he clearly IS a different animal altogether.

Both cases, the law was written to cover the foreseeable circumstances, but did not anticipate some rare, odd cases. The law can't be written to cover every possibility, no matter how remote.

So sucks to be this guy, he satisfies all the elements of the crime. Even if they changed the law to accomodate this situation, it would not be retroactive.

Even if I'm correct in my reasoning, and its not fair.... welcome to life, life ain't fair.

Randy

Dragoon44
02-26-2012, 10:02
That's a hell of a realistic looking toy gun if you can shoot an intruder with it!!! :tongueout:

Randy

Mind over matter.

:tongueout::rofl:

kensteele
02-26-2012, 11:21
Here is an idea...instead of all the mental gymnastics and twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to "what-if" the story, what about a little dose of reality.


KNOW the laws of your state

If you don't like the laws of your state, quite railing about them and work to have them changed...until they are changed... OBEY THEM

Don't do stupid things (read illegal)

Don't do stupid (illegal) things while carrying a gun

If you are stupid get unstupid...life is easier when you are unstupid


As stated before I have no sympathy for this yo-yo or the lack of his 2A rights. He chose his actions and now must live with the consequences.

Like I said, people make mistakes. Nobody is perfect, even if they know all the laws. I do my best to obey all the laws (that's why I call myself a law-abiding citizen) but that doesn't not mean everyday I break no laws.

If I do something stupid, I expect a stupid-level punishment. If I do something stupid, I don't expect a severe over-reaching punishment.

If I commit a crime, I should be punished the exact same way as someone else who commits the same crime. We shall not condone different levels of punishment for the same crime just because somone has a permit.

I don't expect separate, harsher rules for legal permit holders and their firearms. That's what obama and the brady's want and apparently some guns owners. I will obey the law but I shall resist and fight back against all stupid guns laws, not support them and embrace them, and enjoy sticking them on other gun owners who I've personally determined to be "stupid." I get no joy for calling people who make mistakes "stupid."

If you shoplift, you deserve shoplift punishment. I won't throw him under the bus just for personal gain or enjoyment because I get nothing out of it, it doesn't help anyone. there is no need to send a message like that to the ccw community because none of us are shoplifters and half of us see it as a threat. Send a message to the criminal element, not us.

KentuckyPatriot
02-27-2012, 12:21
Like I said, people make mistakes. Nobody is perfect, even if they know all the laws. I do my best to obey all the laws (that's why I call myself a law-abiding citizen) but that doesn't not mean everyday I break no laws.

He did...he CHOSE to break the law while carrying a firearm, thereby at least violating two Ohio laws. Gotta pay the piper.

If I do something stupid, I expect a stupid-level punishment. If I do something stupid, I don't expect a severe over-reaching punishment.

I don't see how this is "severe" punishment. He is carrying a firearm which requires a tad more responsibility with life decisions than not carrying. He chose poorly, now he pays.

If I commit a crime, I should be punished the exact same way as someone else who commits the same crime. We shall not condone different levels of punishment for the same crime just because somone has a permit.

Penalty enhancements will get you treated the same as any other in that category, except that prosecutorial discretion still exists...it has NOTHING to do with the permit as this law was apparently enacted well before CCW was the law.

I don't expect separate, harsher rules for legal permit holders and their firearms. That's what obama and the brady's want and apparently some guns owners. I will obey the law but I shall resist and fight back against all stupid guns laws, not support them and embrace them, and enjoy sticking them on other gun owners who I've personally determined to be "stupid." I get no joy for calling people who make mistakes "stupid."

He made no "mistake". He CHOSE to commit a crime while carrying his firearm...hence the descriptor of being stupid. I will stand by my statement as I believe many others will.

If you, or anyone else wants to examine their state statutes for a similar "problematic law", do so. Work through the system to change the law. That is the American way of doing things. Whining and moaning about how a law is unfair, while sipping a cold one won't change a thing...except perhaps your equilibrium.

If you shoplift, you deserve shoplift punishment. I won't throw him under the bus just for personal gain or enjoyment because I get nothing out of it, it doesn't help anyone. there is no need to send a message like that to the ccw community because none of us are shoplifters and half of us see it as a threat. Send a message to the criminal element, not us.

Perhaps this WILL send a message to the criminal element, however I doubt most of the criminal element gives two turds what you, I, or the law thinks, says, or is written...hence the reason they are called stupid and criminal.

For those who cannot, and will not abide by the laws of polite and civil society, I say good riddance when these members are removed from society.

This stellar citizen CHOSE to commit a crime. Therefore what befalls him was something he could have avoided by leaving his firearm a home, in the car, or letting a friend hold onto it while he stole the earrings...of course, he could have done what most other standup folks would do: admire the earrings and then either buy them, or say "Darn, wish I had the money to buy them" and then move on.

If you want to continue twisting your comments into what-ifs and other strange anomalies, feel free to do so. This is the last comment I will make on the topic as it is VERY obvious that the dude deserves the fallout for his actions. He is not being "targeted" because of being a CCW licensee. Rather he won the stupid prize because he chose to commit a crime while carrying a firearm which is a penalty enhancing element of Ohio law.

Bren
02-27-2012, 13:44
Like I said, people make mistakes. Nobody is perfect, even if they know all the laws. I do my best to obey all the laws (that's why I call myself a law-abiding citizen) but that doesn't not mean everyday I break no laws.

If I do something stupid, I expect a stupid-level punishment. If I do something stupid, I don't expect a severe over-reaching punishment.

If I commit a crime, I should be punished the exact same way as someone else who commits the same crime. We shall not condone different levels of punishment for the same crime just because somone has a permit.

I don't expect separate, harsher rules for legal permit holders and their firearms. That's what obama and the brady's want and apparently some guns owners. I will obey the law but I shall resist and fight back against all stupid guns laws, not support them and embrace them, and enjoy sticking them on other gun owners who I've personally determined to be "stupid." I get no joy for calling people who make mistakes "stupid."

If you shoplift, you deserve shoplift punishment. I won't throw him under the bus just for personal gain or enjoyment because I get nothing out of it, it doesn't help anyone. there is no need to send a message like that to the ccw community because none of us are shoplifters and half of us see it as a threat. Send a message to the criminal element, not us.


He isn't being punished for having a CCW, he is getting exactly the same punishment as anyone stealing while armed with a deadly weapon in Ohio, regardless of whether he has a permit, or even whether it's a gun .


No different treatment for CCWers.

No different treatment for people with guns.

Patchman
02-27-2012, 14:46
And for some people, having a CCW badge or a gun on them emboldens them.

Like beer muscles.

Please let's discourage any form of emboldened stupidity.

Dragoon44
02-27-2012, 14:48
He isn't being punished for having a CCW, he is getting exactly the same punishment as anyone stealing while armed with a deadly weapon in Ohio, regardless of whether he has a permit, or even whether it's a gun .


No different treatment for CCWers.

No different treatment for people with guns.

You are missing the general consensus of those crying about this.

CCW holders are the GOOD guys, they should not be treated like criminals. even when they commit criminal acts.

:rofl::rofl:

CitizenOfDreams
02-27-2012, 15:42
You are missing the general consensus of those crying about this.

CCW holders are the GOOD guys, they should not be treated like criminals. even when they commit criminal acts.


Quote please? :dunno:

CitizenOfDreams
02-27-2012, 15:51
He isn't being punished for having a CCW, he is getting exactly the same punishment as anyone stealing while armed with a deadly weapon in Ohio, regardless of whether he has a permit, or even whether it's a gun .

No different treatment for CCWers.

Forget the CCW. Mine (and other posters') problem with the Ohio's law is that two persons doing the same exact thing (walk in the store, steal an item, walk out) will get very different punishments based on the contents of their pockets.

RussP
02-27-2012, 16:34
You are missing the general consensus of those crying about this.

CCW holders are the GOOD guys, they should not be treated like criminals. even when they commit criminal acts.

:rofl::rofl:Quote please? :dunno:Sure thing..."We who legally carry a firearm are the good guys." I know I certainly am.

We should be treated as such at all times by everyone. I should.

There should be no law or code, no rule or policy restricting our lawful carry. I agree.

So even though two people, without any prior criminal history, steal a pair of earrings while carrying for their defense and security, the person with a concealed carry license should be treated differently than the one without the license?

But shouldn't those legally carrying a firearm for self-defense be held to a higher standard than a citizen who doesn't have the 'good guy card'? Shouldn't those carrying with a license be expected to maintain the same status they had when they passed the background check for their 'good guy card'?:cool:

RussP
02-27-2012, 16:37
Forget the CCW. Mine (and other posters') problem with the Ohio's law is that two persons doing the same exact thing (walk in the store, steal an item, walk out) will get very different punishments based on the contents of their pockets.When the content of the pocket is a gun, as in this case, yes, pursuant to current Ohio law.

RussP
02-27-2012, 16:43
People who carry a firearm for self defense should be held to a higher standard of behavior.

Does anyone disagree with that statement?

Dragoon44
02-27-2012, 16:44
Quote please? :dunno:

This is my take on the situation, too. It's a hole in Ohio's law from before it was legal for civilians to ever have a weapon. The oversite should be corrected for CCW holders. By all means, his permit should be revoked and he should be charged with the petty theft and serve time for it. This kind of escalation is bad for everybody.

just wait until you become an armed carjacker felony auto theft for not returning the rental car at 2am instead of 6am by mistake because you fell asleep. you carry a gun, you deserve "special" treatment. some people here just don't think and feel it's ok to have all the extra government laws until they get caught up in it themselves.

oh i forgot. you're perfect and it's impossible for you to make a honest mistake and accidentally oversleep. that's stupid. you like special gun laws and keep asking for them? well, they're coming, obama or romney, they're coming.

There are two. Both clearly reflect the idea that CCW holders should be treated differently.

Dragoon44
02-27-2012, 16:47
Forget the CCW. Mine (and other posters') problem with the Ohio's law is that two persons doing the same exact thing (walk in the store, steal an item, walk out) will get very different punishments based on the contents of their pockets.

Except they are both not doing exactly the same thing. One is committing a theft without carrying a firearm and the other is committing a theft while armed.

Ohio and many other states recognize the difference.

CitizenOfDreams
02-27-2012, 17:41
Except they are both not doing exactly the same thing. One is committing a theft without carrying a firearm and the other is committing a theft while armed.

Ohio and many other states recognize the difference.

Yes, I understand that the state law says there is a difference. But what is the reasoning behind that law? Do you think other non-violent crimes, such as forgery or tax evasion, should also be automatically converted to a violent crime and carry tougher penalties if the perpetrator is armed? If not, why?

kensteele
02-27-2012, 17:57
There are two. Both clearly reflect the idea that CCW holders should be treated differently.

Like I said, people make mistakes. Nobody is perfect, even if they know all the laws. I do my best to obey all the laws (that's why I call myself a law-abiding citizen) but that doesn't not mean everyday I break no laws.

If I do something stupid, I expect a stupid-level punishment. If I do something stupid, I don't expect a severe over-reaching punishment.

If I commit a crime, I should be punished the exact same way as someone else who commits the same crime. We shall not condone different levels of punishment for the same crime just because somone has a permit.

I don't expect separate, harsher rules for legal permit holders and their firearms. That's what obama and the brady's want and apparently some guns owners. I will obey the law but I shall resist and fight back against all stupid guns laws, not support them and embrace them, and enjoy sticking them on other gun owners who I've personally determined to be "stupid." I get no joy for calling people who make mistakes "stupid."

If you shoplift, you deserve shoplift punishment. I won't throw him under the bus just for personal gain or enjoyment because I get nothing out of it, it doesn't help anyone. there is no need to send a message like that to the ccw community because none of us are shoplifters and half of us see it as a threat. Send a message to the criminal element, not us.


I will correct the record for you. My feelings are posted in #113 and they are clear.

NDCent
02-27-2012, 17:58
Wasn't there an old saying that went something like....if you can't do the time, don't do the crime?

In most states there is a list of things you can't do or places you can't enter if you are carrying CCW. So apparently CCW holders are, and should be, held to a higher responsibility while carrying. Should they really have to add stealing to the list?

kensteele
02-27-2012, 18:00
Quote please? :dunno:

He dodged the question in part by quoting me out of context. lol

kensteele
02-27-2012, 18:02
Wasn't there an old saying that went something like....if you can't do the time, don't do the crime?

In most states there is a list of things you can't do or places you can't enter if you are carrying CCW. So apparently CCW holders are, and should be, held to a higher responsibility while carrying. Should they really have to add stealing to the list?

Diagree ccw should be held to a higher responsibility.

they should be held to the same responsibility.

Especially when it has nothing to do with the firearm.

If the firearm is involved in a material or relevant way, perhaps. otherwise, no.

No special rules for CCWers. Ugggh!!!!

CitizenOfDreams
02-27-2012, 18:11
In most states there is a list of things you can't do or places you can't enter if you are carrying CCW. So apparently CCW holders are, and should be, held to a higher responsibility while carrying.

I don't see what higher responsibility has to do with that. You cannot enter most stores with a dog, but that does not mean pet owners are "held to higher standards".

NDCent
02-27-2012, 18:18
He's not being held to a higher responsibility because he has a CCW in this case though, he's being held to it for having the gun period. Whether he has a CCW permit or not doesn't matter. My opinion however is that if you take the responsibility to carry a weapon you take on other responsibilities as well, ymmv.

Dragoon44
02-27-2012, 18:30
Yes, I understand that the state law says there is a difference. But what is the reasoning behind that law? Do you think other non-violent crimes, such as forgery or tax evasion, should also be automatically converted to a violent crime and carry tougher penalties if the perpetrator is armed? If not, why?

The most obvious difference is that in the case of "Tax evasion" the person is simply not doing something. (paying their taxes) this requires no overt action on their part (Inaction actually) or contact with anyone when they do it.

on the other hand as in this case, the person is actually actively committing a crime and there is the high likelihood of contact directly if they are detected while doing it.

The state takes the view that the presence of the firearm in the second scenario could very well lead to an even more serious crime than mere theft.

Dragoon44
02-27-2012, 18:37
If I commit a crime, I should be punished the exact same way as someone else who commits the same crime. We shall not condone different levels of punishment for the same crime just because somone has a permit.

You and Citizen keep claiming it is the same crime, but the law disagrees with you. State statute not your personal opinions determine the elements of a crime. in the case of Ohio and other states the presence of a firearm while committing a crime places the crime in a different category that if the crime were committed without the presence of a firearm with the offender.

The reclassification or severity of the offense is not based on the possession of a permit. it is based on the presence of a firearm.

I don't expect separate, harsher rules for legal permit holders and their firearms.

Once again there are no separate harsher rules for permit holders. there are separate harsher rules for those that commit crimes while in possession of a firearm.

If you shoplift, you deserve shoplift punishment

The State of Ohio says that if you shoplift while armed you deserve more than just shoplifting punishment.

kensteele
02-27-2012, 18:40
imo, it's a silly law because in part,
1. it escalates the punishment (in this specific case) to a higher level than it needs to be, and
2. it leave the door open to find all kinds of other petty crimes to turn into "serious" crimes for permit holders.

sounds like a stupid gun law you might expect to find in nyc, chicago, or other liberal gun hating locations. no such law in my state, ymmv. always obey the law, if obama or some democratic anti-gun governor signs one similar into law, fight it...don't embrace it or prop it up as some model or try to explain away how everyone should love it. red states like ks reject that nonsense. :rofl:

kensteele
02-27-2012, 18:41
You and Citizen keep claiming it is the same crime, but the law disagrees with you. State statute not your personal opinions determine the elements of a crime. in the case of Ohio and other states the presence of a firearm while committing a crime places the crime in a different category that if the crime were committed without the presence of a firearm with the offender.

The reclassification or severity of the offense is not based on the possession of a permit. it is based on the presence of a firearm.



Once again there are no separate harsher rules for permit holders. there are separate harsher rules for those that commit crimes while in possession of a firearm.



The State of Ohio says that if you shoplift while armed you deserve more than just shoplifting punishment.

agreed.

CitizenOfDreams
02-27-2012, 19:23
The state takes the view that the presence of the firearm in the second scenario could very well lead to an even more serious crime than mere theft.

That's what I'm asking - since when the law punishes people for something they could do? Not for something they did, not for something they attempted to do, but for something they could do?

Should we punish a speeding SUV driver differently from a speeding motorcycle rider because he could run over the officer who stopped him?

Dragoon44
02-27-2012, 19:39
That's what I'm asking - since when the law punishes people for something they could do? Not for something they did, not for something they attempted to do, but for something they could do?

Should we punish a speeding SUV driver differently from a speeding motorcycle rider because he could run over the officer who stopped him?

Lets look at something more in tune than your example.

weaving running off, the road, speeding. etc might get yu are careless driving citation.

Add alcohol to the equation and it just became a more serious offense DUI.

Both drivers doing the same thing, the only difference is alcohol.

CitizenOfDreams
02-27-2012, 19:59
Lets look at something more in tune than your example.

weaving running off, the road, speeding. etc might get yu are careless driving citation.

Add alcohol to the equation and it just became a more serious offense DUI.

Both drivers doing the same thing, the only difference is alcohol.

Excellent example.

Was the alcohol in the driver's bloodstream, impairing his thought process and muscle control? Or was the alcohol inside a bottle, playing no part in the equation - much like our shoplifter's gun?

Dragoon44
02-27-2012, 21:33
Excellent example.

Was the alcohol in the driver's bloodstream, impairing his thought process and muscle control? Or was the alcohol inside a bottle, playing no part in the equation - much like our shoplifter's gun?

DUI means the alcohol is in the blood stream.

That does not change the point. The point being that two different people doing the same thing (For which both are pulled over) end up with different results based on one having an additional factor.

Neither had wrecked their cars or hit anyone else so why the difference in the charges?

And let's not forget, neither alcohol or drinking is illegal.

CitizenOfDreams
02-27-2012, 21:54
The point being that two different people doing the same thing (For which both are pulled over) end up with different results based on one having an additional factor.

Yes, you can probably view it as an example of a different punishment for the same crime. And for the record, I do not 100% agree with that practice either (a sober driver receiving a lighter punishment for causing a wreck, or a drunk driver receiving punishment without putting anyone in danger).

Bren
02-28-2012, 05:53
Forget the CCW. Mine (and other posters') problem with the Ohio's law is that two persons doing the same exact thing (walk in the store, steal an item, walk out) will get very different punishments based on the contents of their pockets.

The idea being fairly obvious - a person caught stealing while unarmed is less potentially dangerous than a person caught stealing while armed, so we want an extra penalty to discourage thieves from arming themselves. As I mentioned before, we do the same with burglars ere. Breaking into a house is bad, but burglars who get caught and have a deadly weapon to use to escape are more dangerous, so they get an extra penalty to deter that. Surprisingly, it is very uncommon for a theft-type burglar, especially an experience one, to get caught carrying a weapon here - funny how that works.

I don't see what higher responsibility has to do with that. You cannot enter most stores with a dog, but that does not mean pet owners are "held to higher standards".

Then you are looking at it from the wrong perspective - nobody is "held to a higher standard" - the law is designed to deter more dangerous conduct. Have you ever arrested shoplifters? When they get caught, they often fight the unarmed store employees to get away (here in KY, where any employee can hold them) before the police come, or fight the police when they get there. That's why they don;'t want them armed - not because of some moral duty as an illegal carrier of deadly weapons, or whatever.

John Galt
02-28-2012, 17:07
A thief is a thief. This "petty" theft crap is moronic. If you steal anything it should be a felony.

This scumbag intentionally walked into a store, intentionally picked up items that did not belong to him, intentionally put said items into his pockets and intentionally attempted to leave the premises without paying for them.

That in itself tells you what kind of person your dealing with.

Why it makes any differance what the items cost is beyond me. :dunno:

A thief is a thief.

Sometimes, occasionally, in a select few scenarios, I think Sharia Law might be onto something. Just cut his hands off. He won't be able to steal or carry a gun again.

Problem solved.

Civilian sheep Dog
02-29-2012, 11:37
Do the crime do the time! when your carrying you have to police yourself to a even higher standard then non-carriers, IMO. If they give him a break due to a plea he should def lose his ccw rights.

jpa
02-29-2012, 11:56
Not shoplifting would have prevented this.

Gokyo
02-29-2012, 18:39
Petty theft and armed robbery are very different crimes. No matter how much I despise both thieves and robbers, I don't like the idea of people being charged with crimes they did not de facto commit. The mere presence of a firearm should not magically turn theft into robbery, or, say, speeding into carjacking.

I what you said here is fair. I think that the Ohio Law unjust.

steveksux
02-29-2012, 21:19
Open carry of merchandise to the cash register would have prevented this...

Randy

glockbob
02-29-2012, 21:20
I think the law is poorly titled. If Ohio wants to punish any person with a felony charge for being armed while committing a theft that is Ohio's right. But label the statute as theft/larceny while armed with a deadly weapon.

I'm no lawyer but to me robbery requires the threat or use of force against another person while committing a theft.

If Ohio wants to call a theft while armed robbery fine, but it sounds inconsistent with what most people associate with robbery.

Just some really stupid hypothetical situations to consider with Ohio's definition of a deadly weapon and robbery in mind.
“Deadly weapon” means any instrument, device, or thing capable of inflicting death, and designed or specially adapted for use as a weapon, or possessed, carried, or used as a weapon."

If a handyman were in the same situation as the this man from Ohio and was wearing a tool belt with a hammer and utility knife would he too be guilty of robbery?

If a police officer in Ohio while on duty (armed) takes a 50 cent candy bar from the honor system candy display at his/her department. Is that officer guilty of robbery?

Has anyone ever forgot to pay for gas at the pump, then went inside and bought something and not payed for the gas? Have you ever been armed while doing this? In Ohio you would have to convince the police officer and DA that you did not intentionally commit armed robbery?

Don't think that I am condoning this idiots behavior. I just don't agree with the way the law is written. There are also many details missing from the OP linked article.

MinnesnowtaWild
03-01-2012, 00:04
Well he got what he had coming to him. When you are carrying a firearm, you should probably not be doing stuff like this. That's all I really have to say.

Fanner50
03-01-2012, 22:30
He's a THIEF. Lock the jerk up.

iluv2viddyfilms
03-01-2012, 23:08
Sounds Right, he gets what he gets, shouldn't have been stealing...packing a C.C.W, sounds to me he had an era in judgment. He was afforded the right to carry to defend oneself, unfortunately he is now a Inmate.

HTC 4 Tapatalk

You're justifying this abuse of the individual? The punishment must fit the crime and he did not utilize the gun during the robbery or brandish, so the gun is a non-issue.

iluv2viddyfilms
03-01-2012, 23:12
Good. Perhaps other CCW holders might get the hint that this is not acceptable.

The gun is a mute point. The issue is theft. That he legally had a gun is irrelevant as it was not used.

For the crime to be increased because of the gun is an arguement the anti gun movement would make. It's surprising to see the support of the felony charge because of a gun on a pro-gun site.

But this confirms what I believe about a large amount of posters on Glock Talk being more right winged than libertarian when it comes to freedoms.

iluv2viddyfilms
03-01-2012, 23:14
I was kind of hoping the vast majority of them already figured that part out... :tongueout::rofl:

If all it takes for armed robbery in Ohio is a robbery when armed, seems like the law is kind of screwed up.

In this case, he had plenty of opportunity to pull the gun on the loss prevention officer, but he chose not to, and allowed himself to be held for police.

That's certainly the opposite of using a firearm to commit a robbery in my view.

I'm certainly willing to change my view depending on more details, the article is pretty sparse. But I'm pretty sure it would have mentioned if he had brandished or threatened anyone with the gun.

By all means, revoke his permit, and charge him with petty theft. Based on the facts available so far, that'd be the fair outcome in my view.

Its nice to throw the book at folks, but not when there's limited space in the jails. Who are you going to kick loose to make room for this guy? Going to kick out a real armed robber to make room for the pretend armed robber? Kick a guy loose that actually robbed someone at knifepoint because you pretend this guy robbed someone at gunpoint?

Randy

:cool: Thank you for the dose of common sense, logic, and consistency in pro-gun ideology.

vkscott
03-01-2012, 23:17
In this case, he had plenty of opportunity to pull the gun on the loss prevention officer, but he chose not to, and allowed himself to be held for police.

That's certainly the opposite of using a firearm to commit a robbery in my view.

I'm certainly willing to change my view depending on more details, the article is pretty sparse. But I'm pretty sure it would have mentioned if he had brandished or threatened anyone with the gun.

By all means, revoke his permit, and charge him with petty theft. Based on the facts available so far, that'd be the fair outcome in my view.

Randy


Not enough information to decide. Take his permit away, for good, and give him 30 days in the hole.

iluv2viddyfilms
03-01-2012, 23:19
Hell, if they turn him over to the feds he's looking at 50-10 years for a gun crime. I'd bet that wouldn't be something he would have thought about but the next person who is wondering about shoplifting while CCWing might.

So a person's rights are game to be compromised in order to set an example for potential criminals? Sounds like fascism to me.

vkscott
03-01-2012, 23:20
Just my opinion, but stupid people should not carry firearms as stupid people make stupid mistakes...and sometimes those mistakes affect non-stupid people. I support the rights of non-stupid people of all persuasions.

And you can't fix stupid :rofl:

RussP
03-02-2012, 06:09
You're justifying this abuse of the individual? The punishment must fit the crime and he did not utilize the gun during the robbery or brandish, so the gun is a non-issue.The gun is a mute point. The issue is theft. That he legally had a gun is irrelevant as it was not used.

For the crime to be increased because of the gun is an arguement the anti gun movement would make. It's surprising to see the support of the felony charge because of a gun on a pro-gun site.

But this confirms what I believe about a large amount of posters on Glock Talk being more right winged than libertarian when it comes to freedoms.:cool: Thank you for the dose of common sense, logic, and consistency in pro-gun ideology.So a person's rights are game to be compromised in order to set an example for potential criminals? Sounds like fascism to me.No, the gun is not a non-issue, is not a mute point, is not irrelevant in Ohio.

Yes, this is a pro-gun site. It is a pro-legal carry of a gun site. What he did, in his state, was not legal.

Yes, the punishments established by laws are meant to be a deterrent to potential criminals.

Sam Spade
03-02-2012, 08:50
So a person's rights are game to be compromised in order to set an example for potential criminals? Sounds like fascism to me.

I'm unaware of any right to steal. The right to steal while armed doesn't seem to be enumerated, either. Perhaps you're pushing for his right to self-defense as he goes to and from the place he's stealing from, but I'm not even tracking on that.

In a nutshell, you seem to be inventing rights that please you. I'm thinking you need to go back to basics and rebuild.

ScottieG59
03-11-2012, 21:11
I realize things change when you are armed with a deadly weapon. Some simple things can become quite complex when firearms are in the mix. I hope by the age of 22, one should know shoplifting is a crime.

Still, the complexities of the legal system are not fully understood by young people and the escalation of the charges were probably unknown to the young man.

Stealing is already a crime. When I carry a concealed deadly weapon, I do my best to consider how circumstances can be radically reinterpreted. For example, verbal or visual improper communications by a person becomes quite tolerable.

There are many crimes that have factors that raise the stakes. Breaking into an unoccupied home compared to when someone is home. Punching someone in the street for winning your girlfriend away from you compared to entering his home without permission and punching him there.

To loosely borrow from Sun, if you are unwilling to accept the logical extremes of the course of action you have chosen, you should consider an alternative.


Out there in fly-over country...

Hour13
03-11-2012, 21:52
If he didn't like the rules, he shouldn't have played the game.

It's his own fault. The law holds the armed citizen to a higher standard and rightfully so.



:agree:

When I made the decision to get my CHL, I did so with the understanding that I would have to be more careful about my behavior. I am a boisterous *******, always have been, lol. Also something of a lead-footed gearhead.

I don't bar-hop like I used to, and when I do go out drinking, the gun goes in the trunk. Same deal when I feel the need to flog my Mustang on back-country roads, gun stays at home, or goes in the trunk. I've learned to use my horn in traffic, instead of my middle finger.

Other stupid **** I did, that doesn't need to be broadcast online, I got out of my system long ago.

Bottom line, I have no pity for this idiot. Conceal carry is a right of the law abiding citizen, which this guy is not. When he made the decision to steal something while carrying, he stopped being a permit holder.

He is just a criminal with a gun.

Nail his ass to the wall. :steamed:

17&27
03-11-2012, 22:05
If you're gonna be dumb, ya gotta be tough.

RussP
03-12-2012, 05:11
If you're gonna be dumb, ya gotta be tough.That's good...:thumbsup:

dvrdwn72
03-12-2012, 05:39
I do know florida is similar with the laws. any kind of theft while in possession of a firearm will be a felony.you should know the laws well before deciding to ccw.

Bruce M
03-12-2012, 06:11
I am thinking that maybe it should be mandatory to mention the increase in the severity of the crime that the presence of a firearm causes during the permitting process. The everyone should know.

xmanhockey7
03-12-2012, 06:17
Good. It's guys like this that give us a bad name.

RussP
03-12-2012, 10:13
Folks, I removed two posts asking for opinions on and responding to a topic already under discussion. Trayvon Martin's Family Calls For Arrest Of Man Who Confessed To Shooting (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1407266)

Lets keep discussions in their proper threads.

Thanks

Hour13
03-12-2012, 21:16
Lets keep discussions in their proper threads.

Thanks

Sorry bout that Russ, was not aware.
:embarassed: