Deputies on October 25 responded to a burglary in progress call at a business in Pittsburg.
Investigators say a relative of the business owner showed up after an alarm sounded. He told investigators he was confronted by an intruder inside and shot him. The man died from injuries in the shooting.
Investigators say a 34-year-old man went to the home looking for his ex-girlfriend when he kicked the door in. According to authorities, the door was completely kicked off the hinges.
Preliminary investigation says at least four shots were fired.
A man inside the home, who police say has a permit to carry, shot the man in the chest and leg. He died at the scene.
A gas station employee halted a would-be armed robbery in Texas, officials said. Two people entered a convenience store with a get-away vehicle ready on Monday in Houston, the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said. The armed man tried to rob the store clerk, but the worker shot him, deputies said.
A homeowner who claims he shot and killed a suspected burglar in his front yard this weekend said he didn’t want to fire his gun, but felt he had no choice.
During a brief phone interview Monday about the shooting on his lawn in the 2800 block of Paris Avenue, Philip Cooper III said the intruder was a “habitual offender (who) kept coming back every night.”
“It was an unfortunate incident,” said the 69-year-old. “I really didn’t want to shoot anybody — but this guy kind of forced me.”
He is accused of chasing the guard before hitting him in the head with the bat. That's when police said the guard drew his weapon and fired at the man three times, hitting at least once in the hip.
Both men were taken to the hospital for treatment when police arrived. Investigators said the security guard received stiches and the shooting victim is expected to survive his injuries.
HPD Lt. E. Pavel said both have been taken into custody, and it's likely the nightclub patron will be charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
A 29-year-old man listed a gaming console online and was contacted by the 15-year-old and 19-year-old man about it, police said. The three met up for the sale in the 3600 block of North Octavia at about 10:10 p.m. when one of the males grabbed the console without paying for it and began to walk toward his car. The 29-year-old ran after him and saw a second male in a car pointing a gun at him. That’s when police said the 29-year-old pulled out his gun and shot both the 19-year-old and 15-year-old.
Judge Bruce Schroeder Listens to DA Binger claim, who was the aggressor does not matter, in a self defense case (Rittenhouse case)
On October 25, 2021 there was a hearing on evidence to be presented at trial in the Kyle Rittenhouse case in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The most important issue covered appeared to be the prosecution arguing who the aggressor was in the incident, is irrelevant.
The video is two hours and 29 minutes long. This article covers the highlights of the action, as judged by this correspondent.
There was trouble with the video equipment. Near the beginning, Judge Schroeder quips:
"What do you want for $50,000, right?"
The prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Binger, is a bit confused on his motion numbers. It is amusing but not a serious issue, at about 13:50.
DA Binger argues police interaction with Rittenhouse on the night of 25 October, has no relevance.
Judge Schroeder does not wish to rule out evidence beforehand.
The Defense and Prosecution reach an agreement on the issue of expert witnesses. Dr. Black, the expert witness for the Defense, will be able to testify as to timing and how people's subjective view of time is often different. The Prosecution agrees and agrees to not to have the prosecution expert testify.
Judge Schroeder says he is not going to muzzle the Defense in the terms used in court to describe the people who were shot. The Defense will be allowed to present evidence and make their case based on the evidence. Terms such as "rioter, looter, arsonist" will be allowed. It is up to the defense to make their case to the jury.
An incredible exchange takes place, starting about 1:58 (one hour and 58 minutes) and continuing to 2:10 in the video.
It starts with evidence about events shortly before the shooting, on the night of the event, bearing on the character of the first person shot and killed, Joseph Rosenbaum.
DA Binger claims: Who is the aggressor, has nothing to do with self defense.
Judge Schroeder appears puzzled. At first, he cites rules of evidence, from federal guidelines:"In most jurisdictions today, the circumstantial use of character is rejected, but with important exceptions:"
"An accused may introduce pertinent evidence of the character of the victim (and they do use the word victim by the way) as in support of a claim of self defense in the case of homicide or in consent in the case of rape."
"That is without reference to whether the defendant knew anything about it."
He spends time talking about relevant portions of a Wisconsin Supreme Court case known as "Jackson".
At about 2:00 this important point is made.
Judge Schroeder:
What is the essential element that the defense is attempting to prove here?
Who was the aggressor?
"I think, on that issue..."
DA Binger, interrupting:
I disagree your honor. I think that's part of it, but we have an armed, a person armed with an AR15, shooting an unarmed man. I...
Judge Schroeder, interrupting:
"An unarmed man can't be an aggressor?"
DA Binger, interrupting:
"I don't think it matters whether he is. I don't think you get to kill somebody with a gun when they are unarmed, even if they are the aggressor. I mean, let's think about a bar fight, your honor, we have a lot of bar fights...
Judge Schroeder, interrupting:
Lets not talk about a bar fight. This isn't about a bar fight.
This was a bar fight that the Supreme Court was talking about. (holding up papers of the case being cited, Jackson). It (the Rittenhouse case) is not a bar fight.
DA Binger:
You've got an armed person shooting an unarmed person, your honor.
Judge Schroeder:
Right.
DA Binger:
That, that's the question.
Judge Schroeder:
Does that mean it doesn't need to go to the jury? I just take it away from them, and tell them he's guilty?
DA Binger:
No. I'm saying the issue is whether or not deadly force was justified. Was there a risk of great bodily harm or death to the defendant at that time? That is the question.
Judge Schroeder:
And one of the factors in that is: Who was the aggressor?
DA Binger:
I think, I think the aggressor issue can preclude the defendant from presenting self defense.
Judge Schroeder:
Probably.
DA Binger:
But, I don't think otherwise it has an impact on it.
Judge Schroeder:
It is not a factor to be considered?
DA Binger:
Only if it precludes the defendant from presenting self defense. I don't think it has any other. I don't think it bears on the use of deadly force and whether or not the defendant was at risk of great bodily harm or death. I, I don't think whether he is the aggressor or the other side is the aggressor changes that equation. The essential question is was he at risk of great bodily harm or death.
Defense Attorney Richards:
That's a jury question. It goes into the reasonableness. I mean, if the jury doesn't think that an armed man with an AR15 shooting an unarmed man is reasonable, then that's the finding that they make. But to say...I am not totally following the argument...
Judge Schroeder (to DA Binger):
Your question is really knowing, is suggesting to me, that the jury cannot acquit the defendant, because he had the gun and the other man did not.
Do you think that is consistent with our law?
DA Binger:
Your Honor, I want to take a look at the jury instructions here on self defense, here. So we have jury instruction 805, which talks about self defense, and, unless I am reading it wrong, I don't see anything in that jury instruction about who is the aggressor. It is not an element as to that issue.
Judge Schroeder:
This is a dissenting opinion, and this is the late Justice Abrahamson, paragraph 126, talking about the particular case that was before the court, the record demonstrates that the issue of who was, and this is a brief synopsis, the defendant shot and killed a man who was unarmed. and it was a post-bar fight. But the defendant wanted to offer evidence of the mean disposition, the violent disposition of the person whom he shot, of which he was not aware, and that was the discussion of the entire case.
Judge Schroeder, quoting the late former Chief Justice Abrahamson of the Wisconsin Supreme Court:
"The record shows that who was the first aggressor was an essential part of the case, for both parties. During and after the presentation of evidence "
You are telling me that who is the aggressor, in a case where an armed man shoots an unarmed man, that's not an issue. Now, you're right in the sense that Justice Abrahamson was in the dissent, but, she certainly made a point there, that varies with what you are telling me.
DA Binger:
Your Honor, I am reading Jury instructions 805, 810, and 815, that I think are most pertinent to the self defense issue. 805 or 810 say nothing about who is the aggressor or who provoked.
815 brings in the issue of provocation, and it applies to the defendant. It talks about the defendant provoking an attack and therefore being, essentially prohibited from claiming self defense. And then it talks about if the defendant provokes an attack and may use proportionate self defense. The defendant, if he provokes the attack may, would initially, lose the right to self defense but could regain it if he withdraws in good faith and gives adequate notice to the other party. But then it says the person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm, is not entitled to a self defense.
As far as I can tell your Honor, in terms of the elements of self defense, provocation only comes into play in the jury instructions, in that narrow scope, of whether or not the defendant, if he provoked the attack, therefore would not have the right to claim self defense. None of these elements or jury instructions talk about the victim or the deceased here, whether he provokes it or whether that somehow affects the decision of the defendant here. So, I disagree with the Court that provocation is the key issue in this case.
Now, we're going to talk about it. I understand that. There is going to be some evidence about that, the defense is going to argue, as to who provoked it, and we're going to respond with an FBI video which shows the defendant chasing down Mr. Rosenbaum and confronting him first. But legally, in terms of the elements here, and again, Jackson stands for whether or not this evidence is relevant to the elements of the crime, I don't see any element here where Mr. Rosenbaum, provocation, or being the aggressor, changes the juries decision pursuant to the elements of self defense.
Defense Attorney Richards:
That makes no sense, as it goes to the reasonableness. If I attack you, and you use self defense, the jury gets to hear that because that goes to your, the reasonableness of your actions. It doesn't say provocation. It uses it all in terms of the reasonableness of what the defendant poses.
If someone else, if Rosebaum is the aggressor, it goes directly to the issue of whether or not someone would believe that Mr. Rittenhouse's actions were reasonable.
They are not reasonable if he walks, if we are having a prayer circle and he walks up and shoots Mr. Rosenbaum. Not reasonable.
If Mr. Rosenbaum is, and he is, waiting for him, chases him, after telling him he is going to kill him? That goes to whether or not Mr. Rittenhouse's actions were reasonable.
It is that simple. That's it. The aggressor goes to the reasonableness. Period.
Judge Schroeder (addressed to DA Binger):
Anything else?
DA Binger then appears to give up on trying to claim who is the aggressor is irrelevant, and continues to claim the evidence of what Mr. Rosenbaum did earlier is irrelevant.
Judge Schroeder then cites an "Ancient Rule".
Judge Schroeder:
The decision was made long ago. Long ago.
What is the probability that if someone acts in a threatening and belligerent way, (they) would have been threatening and belligerent in this close encounter a while later?
That is the end of the claim by DA Binger, that who is the aggressor in the case has no relevance as to whether the Jury should know the information, in determining whether the incident was valid as self defense or not.
Judge Schroeder ruled the filing of a lawsuit by Grosskruetz (the last person shot by Kyle Rittenhouse) is evidence of bias (on the part of Grosskruetz), and can be brought up in court.
This correspondent did not hear any mention of the “Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.” charge.
The Defense has filed a motion to dismiss the charge. Judge Schroeder has not ruled on the motion. The defense submitted additional information on the issue to the court since the last hearing.
©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
On Thursday, Joyner was at a Chevron station in West Oakland refueling his vehicle when three suspects pulled up in a black car, brandished firearms and attempted to rob him around 1 p.m., sources told KTVU.
While facing the armed gunmen, Joyner drew his own weapon and opened fire, hitting and killing one of the suspects and injuring another, video at the gas station reveals. Two of the suspects returned fire and injured Joyner. On the video, the dead man’s co-conspirators try briefly to drag him to the getaway car, then give up and flee without him.
The video suggests a fourth person acting as the getaway driver was also involved.
When the guard walks to the vehicle, you see the would-be thief jump out and run toward him with a gun.
As the suspect announced the robbery, the Brinks driver pulled out a gun and opened fire.
Police said the attempted robber did not get away with anything, and no one was hurt.
Anyone with information on the attempted robbery should contact the FBI.
Police said the man and his girlfriend followed instructions from dispatch and the officers who arrived at the scene and were removed from the apartment. Medical aid was unable to revive Weisberg and he was pronounced dead.
Weisberg’s family has been contacted. Police say he had a history of mental illness and at least one prior psychotic episode.
The decision to not file criminal charges was made after consulting the Lane County District Attorney’s Office. We are withholding the name of the resident at this time as he is not facing charges in the incident.
Two men who have stolen large volumes of cigarettes from Walgreens stores across the North Side had a little scare when they targeted one of the chain’s River North stores on October 14: They came face to face with a concealed carry holder who sent them running.
CWB Chicago first told you about the thieves one month ago.
But, according to a new community alert from Chicago police, the thieves have struck several more times since then — including two thefts within hours of being confronted by the licensed gun carrier.
Police went to the Walgreens at 641 North Clark in River North around 8:30 p.m. on October 14 after two men hopped the front counter, confronted a manager, and began collecting cigarettes. But a concealed carry holder interrupted the theft, and the duo ran away.
KANAWHA COUNTY, W.Va. (WCHS) — Kanawha County deputies said they are investigating after an intruder trying to enter an apartment in Jefferson was shot by the resident who also accidentally wounded his own friend.
The incident happened just after midnight Tuesday, according to a news release from the Kanawha Sheriff’s Office.
Deputies said it appears the intruder mistook the apartment for a neighboring unit belonging to a relative. The gun the intruder held was a pellet gun, which he drew while wrestling with friends of the resident in the apartment.
"Ernst told Weisberg his wife was not at the location and asked him
to leave," EPD said. "Weisberg continued to bang on the window to the
apartment, eventually breaking the window and making entry into
apartment. The man was armed with a handgun and continued to tell
Weisberg to leave."
According to police, Weisberg advanced toward Ernst making comments about death. Ernst shot at Weisberg twice causing Weisberg to temporarily stop advancing toward Ernst, but then began advancing again. Ernst shot at Weisberg a third time and Weisberg fell to the ground just feet away from the hallway leading to Ernst’s bedroom.
Ernst and his girlfriend followed instructions from the 911 call taker and arriving police officers, and were removed from the apartment. Responding officers provided medical care to Weisberg until the arrival of Eugene Springfield Fire personnel who pronounced Weisberg deceased.
Image from facebook, page taken down. Cropped, scaled, and green text added by Dean Weingarten.
In the Kyle Rittenhouse self defense case in Kenosha, Wisconsin, much has been written about prosecutors choosing to charge Kyle with "Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18." and the exemptions to the law which apply to Kyle.
The legislative history in Wisconsin and of the particular law, 948.60 are at the crux of the matter. Ordinary rifles and shotguns, which are not considered "concealable" in Wisconsin or federal law, have never been defined as "dangerous weapons" under Wisconsin law. The definition of "dangerous weapons" is very limited.
It is reasonable that rifles and shotguns were excluded from the list of "dangerous weapons", because they are not "concealable" under the law. Wisconsin has a long history of differentiating between rifles and shotguns and concealable firearms. Rifles and shotguns are used in crime a tiny fraction of the amount concealable weapons are. Traditionally firearms which cannot easily be concealed are considered less dangerous because other people can see them and avoid confrontations with the armed person. DA Binger makes that case, talking about Kyle carrying a rifle in a previous hearing:
..it is designed to deter people. It is designed to threaten others; to let them know, don’t mess with me, look what I’ve got.
There have been age restrictions on the access to particular weapons in Wisconsin law for decades. The precursor to statute 948.60, Statute 941.22 prohibited the possession of a pistol by a person under the age of 18 in Wisconsin, in 1955. It includes an exception for a pistol given by a parent for supervised target shooting.
In 1955, the age of majority was 21. The law was an age restriction, not a restriction of all minors. "Pistol" was defined as any firearm having a barrel less than 12 inches.
(4) In this section "pistol" means any firearm having a barrel less than 12 inches long.Wisconsin already had restrictions on the carry of concealed weapons; this law banned the possession of concealable firearms by children under the age of 18. It allowed the possession of pistols for target shooting and while target shooting under the supervision of an adult. The law required law enforcement officers to confiscate pistols found in the possession of children under the age of 18.
In 1984, the legislature restricted hunting and the possession of all firearms by age gradations from under 12 years, 12-14 years,14-16 years, 16 - 18 years in statute 29.226 (hunting) and 29.227 (possession and control), (1983 Wisconsin Act 420 Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.) and the previously mentioned 941.22. The effective date of the act is January 1, 1985.
In 1987, the legislature creates 948.60, as part of the 1987 Wisconsin Act 332, transferring and expanding the prohibitions on the possession of concealable firearms, (with a barrel length less than 12 inches) to include other specific weapons defined as "dangerous weapons". Act 332 is an enormous bill, creating chapter 948 as an entire new chapter in Wisconsin law. There are massive changes in Wisconsin law.
The "dangerous weapons" statute appears to be part of the trendy weapons laws passed in the period, in response to "kung fu" movies.
The list of dangerous weapons is very specific. All of them are concealable.
(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm having a barrel less than 12 inches long; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (4); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
The new law deleted the part of the previous law which required law enforcement officers to seize pistols possessed by people under the age of 18. This allowed more discretion on the part of officers, and was likely required as due process of law.
In 1991, the law is re-written to move "having a barrel length of less than 12 inches long" from section 1 to section 3(C),
948.60 (3) (c) This section does not apply to a child who possesses or is armed with a firearm having a barrel 12 inches in length or longer and who is in compliance with ss. 29.226 and 29.227. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a firearm having a barrel 12 inches in length or longer to a child who is in compliance with ss. 29.226 and 29.227.
This creates an exception in the definition of what is a dangerous weapon for children "who possess or is armed" and who are in compliance with ss 29.226 (possessing a hunting certificate while hunting for anyone born after January 1, 1973) and ss 29.227, which restricts the possession of firearms, by age, for people under the age of 16.
Months later in 1992, (1 April) Act 139 is passed. It includes Section 948.55 (Leaving or storing a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a child.) This part of the law applies to children under 14 years of age. The crime here applies to a loaded firearm, not a dangerous weapon.
Act 139 includes sections 2 (a), (b) and (c) to be inserted into 948.60.
Section 2 (a) defines the crime of a going armed with a dangerous weapon while under the age of 18 as a class A misdemeanor;
Section 2 (b) create a crime for someone who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18, and defines the crime as a Class A misdemeanor; except in the case of Section 2 (c), where the crime becomes a felony.
Section 2 (c) Changes the crime to a felony if a person violates 2 (b) and the child who is in possession of the firearm discharges it and someone dies because of it.
Analysis:
The 1991 changes created some minor ambiguity in the law. Ordinarily, "in compliance with" for a hunting statute would be satisfied if someone is not hunting. If a child is not hunting, and is in possession of a firearm with a barrel longer than 12 inches, but meets the age requirements in 29.227, they would be in compliance with both 29.226 and 29.227. If they meet these requirements, the firearm is not considered a "dangerous weapon" under 948.60.
Federal law and state law restrict the possession of short barreled rifles and shotguns. Section 948.60 creates an exception in the definition of what are dangerous weapons, for children, if the firearms have a barrel length of more than 12 inches. The federal and state laws on the restrictions for short barreled rifles and shotguns restrict barrel lengths to more than 16 inches for rifles, 18 inches for shotguns, and an overall length of more than 26 inches.
There is a lot of overlap in the 1991 version of 948.60 definition and the federal and state laws on short barreled rifles and shotguns, but it is not completely the same. When the definitions do not match, 948.60 appears to create an exception to the state law for children to possess what adults may not possess without a federal tax stamp. An example would be a short barreled shotgun with a barrel length of 12+ inches whose overall length is less than 26 inches.
2 (c) changes the wording from dangerous weapon in (b) to firearm in (c). Firearms are the only dangerous weapons listed which can be "discharged".
Some dangerous weapons are firearms, but not all firearms are dangerous weapons, because of the exceptions in 3(c). Firearms with barrels longer than 12 inches are not dangerous weapons if the children who are possessing or armed with them are "in compliance" with 29.226 and 29.227.
Section 948.60 2(c) becomes important for Dominic Black, Kyle Rittenhouse's friend, who supplied the rifle to him, because he can be charged with a felony if Kyle Rittenhouse is convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under the age of 18. This charge can be used as leverage on Dominic Black, perhaps to coerce cooperation with the prosecution.
In 1995,in Act 27, the legislature changes the wording in 948.60 from "child" to "person", and repeals 948.60 2(d) in Act 77.
In 1995, Wisconsin passes a strict firearms preemption law, limiting almost all firearms legal authority to the state legislature.
In 1998 in Act 248, the legislature re-numbers statutes 29.226 to 29.593 and 29.227 to 29.304
In 1998, Wisconsin passes an amendment to the state constitution protecting the right to keep and bear arms. No age restrictions are mentioned. It seems to apply to the Rittenhouse case:
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
In 2001, in Act 109 , the Legislature changes the felony in 948.60 2(c) to a class G from a class D.
In 2005, in Act 163, the Legislature Amends 948.60 3(c). The change clarifies the ambiguity in the 1991 law. Instead of saying the law does not apply to a person under 18 who possesses or is armed with a firearm having a barrel 12 inches or longer, the prohibition which has been in effect since 1955, the law brings the Wisconsin statute in to harmony with the Wisconsin and federal law on short barreled rifles and shotguns.
At present, 948.60(c) says it applies only to persons under the age of 18 if they are armed with rifles and shotguns that are short barreled rifles or shotguns. This is in accordance with existing state and federal restrictions on short barreled rifles and shotguns. It removes the exception in the law for some short barreled rifles or shotguns for persons under the age of 18. The section of the law dealing with short barreled rifles and shotguns is Wisconsin Section 941.28. The change is consistent with the long established precedent that the definition of "dangerous weapons" in 948.60 is for concealable weapons.
Instead of saying a person under the age of 18 has to be "in compliance" with the hunting and possession statutes in what is now 29.304 and 29.253, the law is changed to say the law applies only if they are not in compliance. It is difficult to violate a hunting law if you are not hunting.
The law makes very limited changes, simply clarifying what already exists in the law. From the Act:
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.In 2011, Wisconsin passes their "shall issue" concealed carry permit statute. It creates another age limit in the law, dealing with concealed weapons. To obtain a concealed carry permit, the person must be 21 years old or older. Wisconsin now has several different age limitations on the possessing weapons or being armed. They are: under 12, from 12 to 14, 14 to 16, 16 to 18, 18 to 21, and 21 and above.
To sum up, the age restrictions in Wisconsin statutes on possession and control of firearms outside of family land, require the accompaniment of a person 18 or more, until the person is 16.
From 16 to 18 rifles and shotguns may be carried openly without the presence of an adult, but not dangerous weapons as defined by law. From 18 to 21 legal weapons may be carried openly, the list of dangerous weapons in 948.60 no longer applies, but concealed carry is still prohibited. Age 21 or over, a concealed carry permit shall be issued if applied for. Most adults are eligible.
These complicated restrictions have been arrived at through a long series of laws. A general prohibition on the open carry of rifles and shotguns has never been part of Wisconsin law for persons aged 16 to 18.
The author is not a lawyer, but has read and studied a great deal of firearms law in numerous states. It does not appear 648.60 2(a) is "swallowed up" by 3(c). 2(a) only applies to dangerous weapons as defined in the law. 3(c) removes rifles and shotguns which are not short barreled rifles and shotguns from the law. Short barreled rifles and shotguns, all pistols, and all the listed "dangerous weapons" are still included in the law.
©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Fayetteville officers were sent to respond to reports of a residential break-in shortly after 5 p.m., the police department said in a news release.
While the officers were on their way to the scene, a caller said he shot people who broke into his residence.
Police confirmed when they arrived that the two people were dead, according to the release. The shooter has not yet been identified, and the names of the victims won’t be released until their relatives are notified.
An armed home invasion robbery in Coral Springs led to a wild gun battle Monday, with the victim and one of the robbers reportedly exchanging gunfire in the street, court records show.
Deja Goods, 26, who Coral Springs Police said was working with the robbers, was arrested and charged with home invasion. She was being held without bail at the Broward Main Jail late Wednesday, records show.
A man who shot and fatally wounded his neighbor’s dog in southern Stafford County earlier this year is no longer facing charges.
Fred Asiedu, 26, went to Stafford General District Court Wednesday facing felony charges of maiming a dog and destruction of property and a misdemeanor charge of reckless handling of a firearm.
At the end of a preliminary hearing, Judge Angela O’Connor decided not to send the charges to circuit court for trial. O’Connor ruled that the evidence was insufficient even for probable cause, a much lower standard than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required for an eventual conviction.
A jury acquitted an Augusta man of murder charges Wednesday in a 2020 fatal shooting at the victim's home.
All the eyewitnesses and Jaron Moore said he shot 39-year-old Reginald Frank on Oct. 10, 2020. The question for the Richmond County Superior Court jury this week was whether the shooting was in self defense or an unjustified killing and therefore murder.
The jury deliberated about an hour and a half before returning its verdict of not guilty.
Moore, 28, had been held in jail since his arrest last year but he was to be released Wednesday. Moore had no criminal history outside of misdemeanor offenses.
A woman shot a man during an attempted burglary Wednesday in the 6000 block of Starling Drive, police said. Police responded to the area after receiving a report of shots fired. Upon arriving at the scene, officers found a man who they believe is in his 30s suffering from a gunshot wound. He was taken to a hospital and is expected to recover.
WEST PARK, Fla. – A South Florida woman was nearly killed over two dogs she was selling.
She got into a shootout with three attempted dog robbers Monday night, and the entire ordeal was caught on camera. The video was obtained exclusively by Local 10 News.
One of the suspects, a 16-year-old boy, has been arrested, the Broward Sheriff’s Office said Wednesday morning. Investigators believe the other two are also juveniles.
The woman said she was in fear for her and her girlfriend’s life and was forced to open fire after a group of young men started shooting at her.
A bullet narrowly missed her head and she ducked behind her car for cover.
Sheriff’s Maj. Troy Skebo said the victim was at the Bank of America ATM in the 10300 block of Courthouse Road at 9 p.m. Friday holding his cash in his hand when the suspect approached in a “threatening” manner. He then hit the victim several times, Skebo said.
The victim, a concealed weapon permit holder, responded by drawing his firearm and firing several shots at the suspect, Skebo said.
The suspect, who was not hit, ran across Courthouse Road in the direction of Mill Garden South subdivision. Deputies were already responding to the reported robbery attempt when the suspect called 911 and reported being shot at while at the ATM.
Burton broke into the home moments before Kester shot him with a revolver, Jahner said. The apartment belonged to a woman who shared an “on again, off again” relationship with Burton, according to court documents that detailed domestic violence and terrorizing charges against Burton.
When officers arrived on the scene, they located a man suffering from an apparent gunshot wound.
Following a preliminary investigation, officers determined the incident happened in a parking lot between a Wawa and a Harris Teeter. Neither store would comment, nor would Virginia Beach police except for a basic narrative on what happened.
Police say the suspect approached the victim and lunged at him with a knife. The victim, who possesses a concealed carry permit and was armed, shot the suspect.
Scanner traffic said after the shooting, the man put his gun in his truck.
The man who had the knife was transported to a local hospital for treatment.
A man fired from a south central Nebraska grain complex Thursday returned to the facility and started shooting at his former colleagues killing two, and injuring on others according to the Nebraska State Patrol.
The gunman, identified as Max Hoskinson, 61, was shot and killed by another employee of the Agrex facility in Superior, Nebraska.
In a significant win for supporters of Second Amendment rights, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted a preliminary injunction order to William Drummond and the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. on October 13, 2021.
Drummond had sought to open a sportsmans club at an existing range which had operated as the Greater Pittsburgh Gun Club since the middle 1960's. It consists of 265 acres in Robinson Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania.
In December of 2017, Drummond entered into a lease to operate the club. On February 19, 2018, the Robinson Township Board of Supervisors commenced proceedings to deny Drummond the ability to operate the range, through a change in the zoning ordinance.
The Board denied Drummond's application for a zoning permit to operate the club. The lawsuit was brought by Drummond, with the aid of the Second Amendment Foundation, the zoning ordinance violated Drummond's Second Amendment Rights.
The District Court dissmissed the lawsuit in January of 2019. The case was appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court's dismissal and sent the case back, based on the violation of the Second Amendment by the zoning ordinance.
One of the findings of the court seems of particular significance. From the order:
Although the health, safety, and welfare are substantial government interests, the Township must provide some evidence of how the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance serve those substantial government interests. The government must “persuade us that ‘the recited harms are real, not merely conjectural, and that the regulation will in fact alleviate these harms in a direct and material way.’”
Although the case took most of four years to resolve, this is a very significant win. Those who want to restrict Second Amendment rights must show real evidence of harm, not just a generic "health, safety, and welfare" claim. They must also show how their law or regulation will actually alleviate the harm. That is very difficult to do for Second Amendment rights.
Judge Marilyn J. Horan, the United States District Judge, did as she was required to do. She issued the injunction. From the Preliminary Injunction Order:
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction is hereby GRANTED as follows:
Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction are enjoined from enforcing Robinson Township Zoning Ordinance Sections 311(D), 601, and 208, Table 208(A).
The township may try to continue the case, but it seems unlikely. Another case, in a Pennsylvania state Commonwealth Court reached a similar conclusion in a separate case brought in Monroe County in May of 2021.
Federal courts in the Third Circuit and the Pennsylvania state courts are now in agreement. You cannot use zoning ordinances to shut down gun ranges simply because you do not like them. That violates the Second Amendment and is not allowed under the rule of law.
©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
EUGENE, Ore. -- An alleged burglar was shot and killed after entering a south Eugene apartment early Monday morning, Eugene police said.
The Eugene Police Department responded to reports of a burglary in progress around 3:40 a.m. at South Crest Apartments on Donald Street. According to officials, neighbors called 911 to report gunfire before patrol officers were able to arrive on scene.
Police said an armed bystander who was in another store and wasn’t involved in the fight heard the shots and then shot one of the people struggling over the gun -- apparently the 16-year-old who initiated the shooting. Police said the 16-year-old was hospitalized for a non-life-threatening gunshot injury.
Police said the armed bystander waited for police to arrive and turned over his weapon. Police said the county district attorney will decide if the bystanders’ actions were legal and justified.
When deputies arrived, two men in the front of the home said that an unknown man, later identified as 28-year-old Lennin Elizalde, had kicked down the front door and began assaulting them. One of the men then told deputies that he had shot the intruder in self-defense.
Elizalde was declared dead at the scene, the sheriff’s office said.
During the investigation, deputies found that Elizalde had been arrested the day before for breaking into that same home.
More Here
Georgia police on Wednesday identified a dead female robbery suspect who allegedly tried to rob two men at gunpoint inside a vehicle but was shot and killed by her own gun during a struggle.
The Warner Robins Police Department said its officers were dispatched at 12:30 a.m. Sunday to the 100 block of Fred Drive and found 21-year-old Kyndal Reynolds with a gunshot wound. Reynolds was transported to Houston Medical Center, where she died.
Reynolds and another woman, 42-year-old Tywana Antonette Cody, met two men earlier in the night. While all four were together inside a vehicle, Reynolds "attempted to rob the male companions," police said. Investigators believe one of the men attempted to disarm her, and Reynolds was shot with her own weapon during a struggle.
Top from left of frame: Corey Chirafisi, defense attorney; John Black, expert on reasonable force and video analysis;Karen Howell, Court Reporter
Bottom from left of frame: Bob Willis, prosecution expert witness; Kimberley Motley, representing Gaige Grosskruetz; View of courtroom from Judge Schroeder's bench, left side prosecutor Binger, right side defense attorney Richards.
The video of part 1 is a few seconds short of one hour and fifty minutes. Part 2 is another hour and twelve minutes.
The Kyle Rittenhouse hearing on October 5th was primarily about expert witnesses and the motion by the defense to dismiss the charge against Kyle Rittenhouse of illegal possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor.
A technical term for determining the suitability of expert witnesses is a Daubert hearing.
Judge Schroeder started the hearing by noting there is no report from the prosecution's proposed expert witness, even though he spent some time checking for it over the weekend:
"Over the weekend, I had been checking periodically for the report by Witness Willis, and couldn't find any, so I left a note for the clerk to contact Mr. Binger and see where the report was, and found out for the first time yesterday, that there is no report.
Do you want to comment on that?" (Directed to DA Binger).
This correspondent has noted Judge Schroeder has carefully, gently, almost subtly, corrected or admonished DA Binger at several times during these proceedings.
The lead Prosecutor, DA Binger answered with a carefully scripted reply.
Almost all the players in the courtroom appeared to have a heightened awareness they are on camera, they are being recorded, the recording is live and will be a part of a near permanent record available to the public on the Internet. The exception seemed to be Bob Willis. He is the proposed expert witness for the prosecution. He is located in Milwaukee. He is the only one who seems casual and unconcerned about his appearance.
DA Binger did not have a report from the expert witness, Willis. Binger says Willis has been working on it for the last two months. Binger said it will be ready on October 18th. His main argument was no expert witnesses are needed, because the jury instructions make clear the jury is to determine if the accused acted as a reasonable person might act in the circumstances. He claimed they do not need expert testimony to make that decision.
Judge Schroeder then quoted from the record of a previous hearing on May 21, 2021.
Judge Schroeder said the pre-trial minutes from May 21 say the defense will have expert witnesses ready by 8-1, including the report. (Directed to DA Binger)
"What does that mean to you?"
Binger: 'It says the defense will be doing that."
Commentary:
The adversarial relationship which has developed between the prosecution and Judge Schroeder is exposed in this question and response. Ordinarily, prosecutors work hard to cooperate with judges. Here, Judge Schroeder knows this is a Daubert hearing. Everyone knows it. It is a hearing about expert witnesses. Judge Schroeder expects the two sides to be ready, which is why he calls out DA Binger.
But Binger has a ready response: That date only applied to the defense. The prosecution was not specifically included in that order. He notes he argued for more time, earlier.
This embarrasses Judge Schroeder, something most prosecutors would avoid. Perhaps there is a strategy here. If Binger can goad Judge Schroeder into a mistake, perhaps the prosecution can have the Judge removed from the case. Judge Schroeder has been very careful, very deliberate, very correct. The leftist activists involved have already called for him to be taken off the case because he refuses to make it a political case.
Judge Schroeder is an old pro. He refuses to be provoked. He sees DA Binger is correct, on the record, and he accepts a new date, only a week from trial, for another Daubert hearing for the prosecution's proposed expert witness, Bob Willis.
Back to the event
There is considerable discussion about expert witnesses. Judge Schroeder said he is leaning toward allowing John Black as an expert witness for the defense. He saaid he learned things from the report Black submitted, which he, as a judge, did not know before.
Judge Schroeder said the Prosecution has used expert witnesses in prior homicide cases in Kenosha.
DA Binger replied those were police involved cases, where the public had to be informed about police rules and training. Binger cited cases where judges have not allowed expert witnesses in homicide trials.
Judge Schroeder gave a little lecture about judicial discretion in allowing evidence in cases. Judges have wide discretion, he explains. He reminded the prosecution that one judge is not bound by the decisions of another judge in another case; that even the same judge in the same case can change his mind and allow evidence which was previously excluded.
Judge Schroeder: "The judge has enormous discretion on the evidence."
"What Judge Wagner did in an particular case, a ways back, I have no knowledge, is absolutely no precedent for me."
Defense Attorney Richards explained why an expert witness will be useful to the jury in this case.
Judge Schroeder summed up his decision on the expert testimony.
"I am going to open the door to the testimony of Dr. Black. After I hear the presentation by the State, then also to evidence of Mr. Willis when I have more information about it and then I will see what can come in and what cannot."
DA Binger said some of the witnesses for the prosecution have expressed concerns and have received threats.
He asked that photos and video of witnesses be limited. He asked that photographs or images of witnesses be limited.
Defense Attorney Richards said he does not know who DA Binger is talking to. He said he does not have much of an opinion on this, but would not want masks on witnesses.
Judge Schroeder said it would have to be witness specific. The level of comfort of the witness is not the test which will be applied.
The hearing moved to the subject of the defense motion to dismiss the charge of illegal possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor. Judge Schroeder noted it is a "difficult" statute.
Defense Attorney Corey Chirafski did a fair explanation of the somewhat complicated statute.
He glossed over the exception which eliminates the restrictions for people under age of 18 for ordinary rifles and shotguns. This exception applies to the definition of what are "dangerous weapons" for people under the are of 18. Ordinary rifles and shotguns are not dangerous weapons under the statue.
He explained the parts about hunting do not apply to 17 year old people; that Kyle was 17 at the time, so it does not apply to him. In any case, he was not hunting.
DA Binger claimed the exception in 948.60 3(C) only applies to hunting. He claimed that is the intent of the legislature. But the statute says no such thing.
Defense Attorney Richards offered to supply more legislative history, but he is not sure it will be helpful. Judge Schroeder agreed to look at it and make another decision later.
Judge Schroeder decided he is going to to deny the motion to dismiss the firearms charge for now. He wanted to give more study to this. He wanted to look at legislative history. For now, motion denied.
Judge Schroeder stated that people are supposed to be able to read the law and understand it. He said if highly trained and experienced lawyers are having a difficult time understanding the law, then how can ordinary people be expected be understand it? He referenced a potential appeals court. He seems to be concerned the law might be ruled too vague to be constitutional. This correspondent fails to see how the attorneys and the judge can ignore the exception in 948.60 3(C) which exempts rifles and shotguns from the definition of dangerous weapons. The exception is not limited to hunting or to the restrictions in chapter 29. This deserves treatment in a separate article.
The court then heard testimony form Dr. John Black as to his suitability as an expert witness. This testimony took over an hour for the questioning by the defense. Dr. Black is shown to be eminently qualified, knowledgeable, and very careful in his responses. He showed clear reasons why a person in Kyle Rittenhouse' position would have believed it reasonable to use deadly force to protect his life and/or bodily integrity.
The court then took a break. It is the end of the part 1 video. The part 2 video is 1 hour and 12 minutes long. It shows the part of the hearing held after the break. Almost the entire part 2 deals with the testimony of Dr. Black.
Part 2 of the video starts with the cross examination of Dr. John Black. There is an attempt by the prosecution to show Dr. Black's expertise is only for the use of force by police. The prosecution tries to have Dr. Black agree with certain propositions the prosecution puts forward. Dry Black is a pro, he evades the traps.
The prosecution tries to have Dr. Black agree that Joseph Rosenbaum was unarmed on the night of 25 October, 2020. Defense Attorney Richards raises an objection, claiming Rosenbaum was armed at some point.
Dr. Black states he only knows, in the videos he watched, he did not see obvious arms possessed by Rosenbaum. There might have been weapons which he did not observe.
DA Binger argues that skateboards are not weapons, and Huber's use of the skateboard was not as a weapon.
In later rebuttal, Defense Attorney Richards clarifies with Dr. Black that skateboards can be used effectively as deadly weapons.
Commentary:
The defense is likely to bring up, at trial, videos exist online, to train people how to use skateboards as weapons, particularly at demonstrations. This site includes a video of a person using a skateboard to smash the rear window of a police car.
Here is another case where a skateboard was used as a weapon.
The hearing went reasonably well. While no definitive decisions were made about expert testimony, Judge Schroeder signaled he is likely to allow Dr. Black's testimony. Judge Schroeder denied the motion to dismiss the weapons charge at this point, but indicates the statute is not clear and he is open to additional input from the defense attorneys.
©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
HSCO Lt. Paul Bruce said it appears the two men were driving in the area when one person cut off the other. He said the driver who was cut off got out of his vehicle with a crowbar in hand.
That's when the gunman fired once, and the other man started hitting the shooter's truck with the crowbar, deputies said. Bruce said the shooter then fired at the man, grazing him in the forehead and hand.
The shooter then left the scene fearing for his life, and according to deputies, called 911 when he was a few blocks away.
TONOPAH, Ariz. — A suspect accused of critically injuring a Maricopa County Sheriff's deputy in Avondale was shot Saturday night.
Officials said that 30-year-old Clinton Hurley was shot by a homeowner around 6:30 p.m. when he attempted to enter a home near Buckeye and Wintersburg roads in Tonopah. He was airlifted to the hospital after the shooting where he is in critical condition.
Hurley and the homeowner had a "history" and gunfire was exchanged, according to Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone.
Hurley was wanted by law enforcement after a sheriff's office deputy was found unconscious and bleeding allegedly after an altercation with him on Saturday morning.
Home in Anderson where shooting took place
On September 27, 2021, a little after midnight, in Anderson, Indiana, surveillance cameras captured a man lurking around a home on a quiet residential street.
The address on 8th Street is not far from the university and the police station. The man, later identified as Jeffrey Flowers, was not content to lurk and look in windows. It has been reported he broke into the house through the back door.
On Fox59.com, prosecutor Cummings states the recordings reveal Flowers pretended to be a police officer. He demanded to know the location of a woman, saying "Where is she?!" and "Where is the money?!". Cummings described the man as wearing a mask over his face.
The resident of the house, a woman, saw Flowers breaking into her home. Police say she retreated to an upstairs bedroom and accessed a firearm. It was reported Flowers threatened to start shooting. Instead, the woman shot and killed him.
ANDERSON, Ind. — An Anderson woman shot and killed a man suspected of breaking into her home overnight.
911 dispatchers received a call from a female homeowner in the 1300 block of E. 8th Street around 12:47 a.m. The woman told police there was a break-in at the home, and she shot the suspected burglar.
By the time police arrived, they found the alleged suspect dead in an upstairs bedroom.
With home surveillance cameras rolling, prosecutors insist a man forced his way into the woman’s home.
“Neighbors had videos of him parking in front of the residence and looking through windows, ultimately breaking through the door and pulling a weapon out,” said Madison County Prosecutor Rodney Cummings.
Prosecutor Cummings says the suspect could also be heard on video asking for money and pretending to be law enforcement.
After the shooting, the woman ran from the house seeking help from neighbors. The neighbors described what they observed to a reporter. From wthr.com:
ANDERSON, Ind. — Neighbors in Anderson say a woman was going door to door in the middle of the night asking for help after she shot and killed a man who broke into her home early Wednesday.
"There was somebody screaming, 'Help me, help me! Please call the police!'" said Amari Lewis.
Lewis and Caitlin Knox woke up to their doorbell ringing over and over and their neighbor from across the street desperate for help.
"She was very scared and frantic. She didn't want to go to jail. She wanted to make sure her kids were OK," Lewis said.
No toxicology reports have been released. The neighbors reported the woman said she did not know Flowers. This may be a case of the wrong address and/or the influence of drugs. This correspondent has read of many cases where people on meth, alcohol, or other drugs have committed stupid and dangerous crimes under the influence.
Prosecutor Rodney Cummings illustrated the changing attitude toward defense of self and others, especially in your own home. From fox59.com:
“In your home is probably the most protected place you can be,” said Cummings. “If you’re breaking into someone’s home in the middle of the night, if you don’t get shot or killed you should feel fortunate.”
A defender who forces the attacker to come to them has many advantages. They can be behind cover. They have the advantage of surprise, where the aggressor has to look for and locate them. Legally, when you have retreated to a defensible position, it strengthens their case for self defense.
As nations around the world have trended toward authoritarian, the United States stands out as one where defense of home, one's self, and others, is enshrined in law and the public mind as morally just and acceptable.
The investigation in Anderson will continue. The purpose should be to insure the initial impressions are consistent with the physical evidence and personal history of those involved.
©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
A homeowner in Poolesville fatally shot a man inside his home Monday morning as he was on the phone with 911 reporting a burglary, Montgomery County police said.
Around 9 a.m., the homeowner called the county’s Emergency Communications Center (ECC) to report that a man was trying to break into his home in the 18000 block of River Road, which runs through Montgomery’s relatively spread-out western area.
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (KWWL) - Cedar Rapids Police are reporting that a man being taken into custody was shot by a bail bondsman as he was attempting to escape, and also hit a bondsman with his car.
Around 4:50 p.m. Friday, two bail bondsman were attempting to take 40-year-old Richard Hamilton Jr. into custody near the Dairy Queen at Wilson Ave. and Bowling St. SW.
This is one of a series of detailed accounts of bear attacks found with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by AmmoLand. The author believes this is the first publication of this account.
On September 7, 2010 a pair of out of state archery hunters were stalking moose in a remote part of Wyoming out of Pinedale. The area is known as Horse Creek. They were attacked by a large boar grizzly bear. Fortunately, they were able to shoot the bear and stop the attack.
In the morning, one of their guides had been scouting the area. He had seen two bull moose and what he thought was a large black bear. When he told the hunters about the moose and the bear, the guide mentioned he had a black bear tag. He asked the archery hunters if they would mind him taking a gun along in case they saw a black bear to be harvested. The gun belonged to the lead guide.
The gun was a Marlin lever action rifle chambered in .450 Marlin, sporting iron sights. It was loaded with four rounds of ammunition. It is not clear if the guide carried any additional rounds. It was reported the lead guide took the rifle from a saddle scabbard and handed it to the guide.
The hunters were able to spot two moose, one of which was a bull. They proceeded to stalk the bull. They stalked to withing 60 yards, but the wind changed, the bull winded them, and walked away through the burned out timber. They decided to go back to the horses to see if they could get downwind of the moose for another try. It was about 2 p.m.
As they cautiously worked their way through the dense cover, they passed near where the guide had seen the bear. They did not see the bear. Suddenly, the guide heard a roar and turned to see a bear charging from his left, very fast and very close. From the report:
I hear a big roar. As I looked I saw a bear charging, he was coming very fast and was very close. I acted all on instinct and knew I only had 1 chance. I shouldered my rifle and shot at the bear which was way close, probably 10 feet. My bullet hit him and he sorta rolled but was still clearly alive and moving so I shot again. I had backed up 3 to 4 steps and he was still wanting to get up so I placed my shot in the neck.
The lead guide reported he was shouting "Hit him again!" after the first shot, then "Hit him again! after the second shot. The attack was stopped.
The adrenaline aftermath set in. The guide who shot had kept his calm as the attack occurred. Shortly after, he felt nauseous; his legs started to shake so much, he had to sit down.
Many hunters have experienced variations of this. In Wisconsin, it is called "buck fever". This correspondent recalls similar reactions after shooting his first buck.
When they saw the dead bear, they discovered it was a grizzly. This immediately changed their plans. The lead guide, who owned the rifle, told everyone not to touch anything. He told them not to even take a picture. (This correspondent believes taking pictures is a good idea, to preserve evidence) They left the area to return to where they had cell phone coverage. They reported the incident to the Wyoming Game and Fish office in Pindale, Wyoming. The Game and Fish officer was able to receive the report less than two hours after the attack.
The next day two wardens came out to investigate the incident. They accompanied the lead guide back to the location of the attack. They investigated the area, took pictures, and performed a field assessment of the gunshot wounds. They found two bear day-beds 45 feet from where the men were attacked.
Two cartridge cases were recovered. It wasn't clear if the third case had been ejected. The bear had been hit with all three shots. The first shot hit the bear in the back over the top of the head, about two inches right side of the spine. The second shot hit the bear in the middle, about six inches down from the spine. The third shot hit the bear in the neck, from the side. The bear was in good condition with about three inches of fat over the rump.
The wardens interviewed the hunters separately. One of the hunters had bear spray in a fanny pack. The fanny pack had been left with the horses.
Given the speed of the encounter, it was unlikely a hunter would have been able to drop a bow and access bear spray from a fanny pack in time to be of use.
The hunters all agreed to give written statements to the wardens for their investigation.
The physical evidence and the written statements were consistent with the verbal account. The wardens secured the bear head and four paws as evidence.
A report of the incident was forwarded to the the US Fish and Wildlife service.
On September 27, 2010, a letter of declination to prosecute was signed by the Assistant United States Attorney, Darrell L. Fun, because no crime had been committed. The letter was sent to the Fish & Wildlife Service in Lander, Wyoming.
It is not clear when, if ever, the hunters and guides were informed of the decision.
Both guides noted it was fortunate they had decided to take the rifle with them.
This points out the advantage of a pistol over a rifle. Pistols are designed to be worn on the person. A pistol you have with you is far superior to a rifle left in a scabbard.
Pistols can be very effective in such scenarios as this. It is a very similar attack to what happened in Alaska in 2018, when Jimmy Cox stopped a charging grizzly with a 10mm Glock at 10 feet.
©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
A man who robbed and shot at a woman who was selling him an Xbox fled and was arrested after she managed to wound him with her own gun, Baton Rouge police say.
Police issued an arrest warrant for 20-year-old Dane Johnson on Sept. 29, the day after the shooting. He was booked Wednesday evening on counts of attempted murder and armed robbery.
Authorities
responded to a report of a shooting at Willow Bend Apartments, 11070
Mead Road, around 8:10 p.m. on Sept. 28, according to the affidavit.
Upon arrival, they found shell casings and the victim inside her home.
The Habersahan Sheriff's Office reports 55-year-old Corey Merchant shot 26-Year-old Justin Rachal to stop an attack on Merchant's daughter. There were significant injuries to the daughter. After the initial investigation, charges were dropped against Corey as the shooting appeared to be justified in defense of his daughter.
A suspected intruder was shot and killed during an attempted home invasion at an apartment complex in Gahanna, Ohio, Sunday night, police said.
A resident in the 800 block of Falcon Hunter Way called 911 to report a shooting around 8:31 p.m.
The
man reporting the incident told police someone knocked on his door and
upon answering it, a man with a gun tried to push his way in. That's
when the man living in the apartment said he shot the suspect and
observed a second man take off running.
Wichita police report a homeowner shot a man who was breaking the windows on his house.
Officers were called to a home in the 2500 block of East Wilma, near Harry and I-135, around 7 p.m. Monday. Responding officers found a 40-year-old with a gunshot wound, and he was sent to a hospital with critical injuries. As of Tuesday morning, there has not been an update on the man’s condition.
g.
A man was shot at while attempting to rob an apartment in Harrisburg, according to Swatara Township police.
Lareese Rashshawn Dean, 33, of Harrisburg, was found with a wound to his left arm outside an apartment complex he was attempting to rob on Tuesday, police say.
A shooting was reported at Chestnut Pointe apartment complex located at 3655 Chambers Hill Road at 6:22 p.m.
On 15 May, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the government of the District of Columbia, for violating the constitutional rights of people who had been arrested before the Wrenn case was decided on July 25, 2021. The lawsuit was brought under the 1983 Civil Rights Act.
There originally were 10 claims. Judge Lambert struck down seven of those claims in May of 2019 in a memorandum and opinion.
Three claims, numbers I, III, and VI remained. On September 29, 2021, Judge Lambert granted summary judgement for the plaintiffs on claims I and III, and granted summary judgement for the defendants (the District of Columbia) on claim VI.
Summary judgement for the plaintiffs on claim number I, the Second Amendment reads:
In sum, the plaintiffs were arrested, detained, and had their guns seized under a gun control regime that completely banned carrying handguns in public. That fact is undisputed.
Accordingly, this Court finds that there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to the District's liability on Claim 1. Construing the facts most favorably to the defendants, the District violated the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights by arresting them, detaining them, prosecuting them, and seizing their guns based on an unconstitutional set of D.C. laws. This Court will GRANT plaintiffs' motion for a partial summary judgement and DENY the District's motion for summary judgement as to liability on Count 1.Claim number III, the Fifth Amendment claims, were about equal protection rights and the right to travel. Judge Lambert granted summary judgement for the plaintiffs on these points as well. From the decision:
B. There is No Genuine Dispute of Material Fact Regarding Plaintiffs Fifth Amendment Claims, and No Reasonable July Could Find for the District
Judge Lambert applies some excellent logic here. In short, the equal protection claims apply because the Second Amendment is a fundamental right, and the District of Columbia treated residents and non-residents very differently. Residents had the potential to obtain a permit, even if difficult. Non-residents did not have that option.
Judge Lambert notes the right to travel applies because non-residents were categorically denied the right to travel with firearms.
Unfortunately, Judge Lambert falls short when analyzing claim number VI, the Fourth Amendment claims. Judge Lambert writes, on page 18:
It is undisputed that basic registration requirements are constitutional. See Wrenn, 864 F.3d at 677 ("[T]raditional limits include, for instance, licensing requirements.")This is poor analysis. Licensing applies to people. Registration applies to firearms. Your car is registered. You are licensed. Licensing does not lend itself to government confiscation nearly as readily as registration of firearms does. There have been licenses to carry for a considerable period in a considerable number of states. This is not true for registration of firearms, which is far more recent, uncommon, banned by federal law, and by state law in eight states. From Wrenn page 29:
At the Second Amendment's core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions. These traditional limits include, for instance, licensing requirements, but not bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C.or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense.
Registration of guns illegal in several states. It is not certain all the victims of the District of Columbia's unconstitutional gun control scheme could get their property back by showing gun registrations, when registering a gun may be illegal for some members of the class action lawsuit.
The three specific laws mentioned in the class action lawsuit have been repealed. From thehill.com:
The three gun laws that the six plaintiffs were arrested under have all since been repealed.
William Claiborne, the attorney for the six plaintiffs, told The Washington Post that they “are very happy with the ruling, which completely vindicates their claim that they had a constitutional right to carry their handguns in public for self-defense.”
The District of Columbia continues to have some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the nation. Open carry is prohibited outside the home or a place of business, according to The Hill. A license is required to carry at all. There are numerous "gun free" zones.
Analysis: the most interesting part of this decision is the precedent that governments can be sued for damages, stemming from infringements of Second Amendment rights under the 1983 Civil Rights act, and those rights are intrinsically wound together with the right to travel and equal protection under the law.
The decision could be appealed, but it may not be, by the District of Columbia. The Wrenn decision was not appealed. Those who want a disarmed population feared it would be upheld at the Supreme Court, establishing precedent for the nation, instead of merely the District of Columbia.
The same fear applies in this case, more emphatically, with two new Supreme Court Justices appointed by President Trump, on the Court, since Wrenn.
©2021 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch