What would happen if?? Just a scenrio!!

Dupont

This is just a scenerio!!!

Mister Terrorist walks into a crowded resteraunt in DC, just a few blocks away from the capital. Where The Pres, Vice Pres and all cabinet members and a few world leaders are in a huge debate over terrorisim. Now this terrorist has enough nukes strapped to his butt to level 3 states (remember just a scenerio!). Any way lets say some normal Joe see's this man get out of a van and put on a jacket that looks awful wierd! And the Joe decides to follow him. Well he does and once in the resterant, the terrorist pulls out some sort of gizmo that looks like a detonation button. Now let's say that this Joe has been in trouble with the law on occassion, nothing big but is restricted to own any guns. On this day he decided to carry a little 38 with him due to some buisness he has to due later in the day.
Anyway back to the scenerio! This joe see's this guy pull out something from his jacket that looks like a detonator. Joe, without any hesitation pulls his 38 and pop's the terrorist in the head with one shot! Terrorist drops to the floor dead! Joe decides there are no reasons to run and stays put, waiting for the police to arrive! Ok now the police arrive and the scene is secured. It is determined that the dead terrorist has on his persons a live nuke device that is capable of destroying 3 states. It was ready to go off with a push of the button!It is also determined that this device would have killed at least 4 million people had it gone off, Not to mention the pres and cabinet and foreign leaders.Now remember this all happens in a crowded resteraunt! Lets say maybe 50+/- witnesses! So there is no way the Goverment can keep a lid on this incedent and has to go public with it!!! The media turns it into a circus!! Now it is also determined that this Joe has past convictions but nothing out standing! Although he was in possesion of an illegal firearm. He dissarmed a very serious situation and saved the live's of millions. Would the goverment treat him like a hero or would they prosecute him as a murderer??? And an ex con with a gun??

What do you think might happen????

OK now I know there are some vary large holes and gaps some could be's and not could be's in this scenerio! But it is just that! A scenerio!
I am sure to catch lots of flack for this one, I am Sorry!
But was just wondering What IF!!!!! What would be the outcome!!!!

Of course I can play the piano, as long as it has pedals!

oneshy

Same thing would happen that would have happened if the 4 planes had been shot down before hitting their targets. A thousand lawyers would contact the family or families, start a wrongful death lawsuit, the heroes would go to prison, and the families would get a ridiculous settlement.

22WRF

Headline Washington Post....
Armed Criminal Shoots Unarmed Restaurant Patron!

Hilley Clinton calls for congressional investigation.
DC police search area but find no evidence or body.


I Refuse to be a VictimGrumpy old man

JustC

I got it happening this way,...

He is aquited of the murder charge. Who is going to claim loss of income or any other civil suit, due to the fact that they would admit having knowledge of his actions. This, because they would have had to live with or have frequent contact with him.

He gets the charge for possesing the firearm, however, the 12 American jurors levy the least punishment in light of his saving 4 million American citizens.

He is forever, an american hero who has at least 1 page of every text book dedicated to his actions and sacrifice for the US.

A great rifle with a junk scope,....is junk.

varmit hunter

C, I so hope your right.That would come close to justice.

The most important things, Are not things.

offeror

There is a legal principle whose name escapes me at the moment that has something to do with the greater of two wrongs. Given your scenario, the charge of illegal possession would probably be dropped, although how Joe could tell by looking at a gizmo and a garage door opener that he was killing a nuclear terrorist is a bit far-fetched.

In the vast majority of more likely scenarios where Joe carries his illegal .38, he's going down for it, hard. Only in this "Superman" episode does he come out looking good, and then if it isn't clear as a bell that he's Mr. Clean he could still wind up in Bernie Getz' or Richard Jewell's position, getting off but tainted by it.

- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

AZ9J

And remember Joe would be 25 million dollars richer from the reward for stopping an act of terrorism......................uh huh sure

carbineking

Jesus Dupont, I think you've seen too many Die Hard movies (they are spectacular movies nonetheless), you're not John McClane. I used to have ideas of being some random hero shooting the angry terrorist when I was 12yrs old. Its all Hollywood stuff. I am currently in the waiting process for my first handgun permit. I have no doubt tha I will get it becuase I have no criminal record whatsoever. It isn't that hard to obey laws, one has to try pretty hard to get arrested, even if you're drunk(alcohol, while may being a mitigating defense, is not a complete defense unless you were forced to drink it at gunpoint pretty much). Working for a law enforcement agency, I can understand the reasoning for not allowing everyone to own a handgun and certainly not concealed carry. While I voted yes on Missouri's Prop B (the first state ever to put a CCP issue to vote), I wonder if I still would today. After meeting some of the * we arrest, you seriously have to wonder. Yes, they could carry if they wanted to illegally, it would just be another charge they face, but police have to deal with enough crap let alone more John McClane's packing heat. I truly don't see a need to concealed carry unless you have a current threat (a filed restraining order, carry currency, work a dangerous job, etc). Anybody who carries to save the world or whatever is just asking to get their * sued by everyone. As for this guy, it would be kept on the hush-hush, just like half the crap that happens and nobody hears about. Actually, he would probably have about 20 bullets in him from Secret Service agents who mistaked him for an assasin.

Shootist3006

justc - ignoring the absurdity of the 'what if', why would 12 jurors convict him. If such a person were to be tried for "unlawfull possession", it would be a perfect place for jury nullification.



Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis

twins

"I truly don't see a need to concealed carry unless you have a current threat (a filed restraining order, carry currency, work a dangerous job, etc)".

Good, then don't ever do it, but don't tell me I can't because you don't see the need. Everyone knows cops are always right there when you need them. People have been killed for less than money, in the state I live, concealed carry is not allowed for the reason of personal protection. As far as money, why should Joe Blow get one just because he has $500.00 in his pocket on a routine basis. Walking down the street is some places is a dangerous situation. As far as cops facing a dangerous situation, that is part of the job description, no cop gets sympathy from me for that reason. My dad did it for many years before he died and never once did I hear him complain about people legally owning or carrying firearms or going to dangerous situations. Criminals are not the ones getting ccws or where required, registering their firearms.

Working for a law enforcement agency, I can understand the reasoning for not allowing everyone to own a handgun and certainly not concealed carry.

I agree that not all people are suited to own weapons ,but at what degree is/are, that/those right(s) revoked. Only for felons, violent felons, mentally unstable people or anyone else the powers that be dictate? Please clarify the "everyone" in your statement. I would also like to know about long guns and other dangerous but as of yet, mostly un regulated weapons. Cops have no more of a right to concealed carry than I do for any reason in any state or situation. I guarantee I am a better shot than some and have more common sense than some.

I will be the first to admit and agree, as I have said in the past, some people do not have the ability to responsibly own firearms and carry concealed because they are a serious and constant threat to others. Then again we are not talking about law abiding citizens in that context either.

Hopefully you have not taken this as a personal "attack" and if you have, it was not meant to be. But, I am really disappointed when I hear someone say that some people (this obviously excludes criminals) do not have the right to personal safety, especially when it comes from someone who can have considerable pull or influence on public officials when they join together (police unions, etc). One such as yourself, in the LE field.

twins

Josey1

In case law there is a thing called "Competing evils".It is used by many defense attornys in defending armed self defense cases in which the defendant is carrying illegally.Basicly what it is, is a defense in which you are saying if not for the lesser infraction of the law(illegal CCW) a catastrophic event or loss of life could not have been prevented,thus making you justified in your actions.Your example is not fiction,I've read of this same thing happening and being defended successfully.If I recall correctly the case I read about was when a police officer and a purse snatcher were engaged in hand to hand combat for their lives.The officer was handcuffing the perp. when he fought back and pulled a knife on the officer.During the ensueing battle the officers gun became unholstered and dropped to the ground.A passerby saw the battle and made his move to assist the officer at which time the officer was stabbed once in the chest.Before the officer could be stabbed again the passerby grabbed the officers' gun (which by now was on the ground well away from the fight) and fired two shots into the attacker,point blank.Now you would think this passerby would have gotten a medal or at least a commendation from the mayor,well maybe if the passerby wasn't a felon himself out on parole.Instead what he got was charged with murder,being a felon in possession of a firearm,violating his parole and numerous other charges.I guess the chief was embarrassed that a felon had to rescue one of his officers and was worried about how that would look in the press.To make a long story short,the passerbys' attorney used the competing evils defense and with support from several experts was aquitted on all charges.If he didn't commit a crime by picking up the LEO's pistol and shooting his attacker,the LEO would be dead.

If there are any defense attorneys here,they can probably explain it better than me.If you really wanted to know more about this,I can look out the exact article and post it,Josey.

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

JustC

shootist30/06, the jurors would have been instructed by the judge, to follow the letter of the law and not their feelings. I think that if they were to let him off on the gun charge, the judge would overturn their ruling and/or nulify for another trial until he was convicted. I don't beleive the competing evil argument would work do to the fact that he had no knowledge of the event and therefore was carrying the gun illegaly. If he picked it up from a wounded security guard or something else, then he would have the chance. He would probably in this case be convicted of carrying in violation of parole, but maybe the judge would levy only a 6 month extension of parole in exchange for the persons brave act.

A great rifle with a junk scope,....is junk.

simonbs

Great post Twins.

CarbineKing,
I worked as a LEO for a few years. I'm now an investigator in the private sector. I would much rather have law abiding, competent citizens ARMED than unarmed. Makes the job easier. People don't carry to "save the world" as you say, they carry for personal protection and the protection of their loved ones. And who are you to decide who can and who cannot protect themselves? It is a God-given right that is garunteed by The Constitution of The United States. Only those whose rights have been forfeited should not be allowed.

---

I'm not afraid of the dark...the dark is afraid of me!

carbineking

No insult taken twins. I am not advocating anything that will infringe on your rights, etc to concealed carry a gun, I just personally don't see the need. I am not worried about my personal safety. Interestingly, in Missouri, Prop B passed extraordinarily in the rural areas and failed miserably in the urban ares (St. Louis and kansas City). One can reason that it is the urban areas where you are most likely to be in danger, yet these people feel the least need to concealed carry according to their votes. Also of course, the number of liberal voters would be higher than those in rural areas. While many of the people that I know in rural areas voted yes, almost all had no deisre to get a CCW. In urban areas, it was the fear of guns portrayed by the media that I'm sure caused many of the nay votes. Contrary to what many beleive, the 2nd amendment is not an "all or none" idea. Individuals can have feelings toward the proper regulation of gun rights and still own firearms and be an advocate of gun rights. Many other rights of ours are regulated. Yes, there is freedom of speech, but you cannot hold a rock concert outside city hall, it infringes on the rights of other citizens and prevents the city from performing its business. Perhaps this is part of the NRA's weakness, they incorporate an "all or none" stance and Gun Control Inc. is picking and chiseling away more and more. Banning 90 round mags or whatever has not put me in the slightest worry the government is going to eventually ban a handgun or my hunting rifles and shotguns. The Constitution was written for the common good of the citizens. Government officials who enact laws restricting gun ownership do so for the betterment of the rest of the citizens. They beleive that there are many people who think that you carrying a CC is an infringement on their rights to safety. Beleive what you want about this either way, but that is the fact. Laws are written on a fine balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of society. We pay taxes for law enforcement, so legislators feel they can protect us. Feel what you may about cops being around when you need them, I have never been robbed, don't know anybody who has been robbed (robbery is different from burglary), and have never had to call 911 to get a police emergency response, so my view is I guess different from others who are paranoid (justifiably or not) that someone will attack them and the police won;t get there in time. Yes, I own firearms, but keep them unloaded and locked, the way they should be kept. As far as law enforcement individuals saying they are all for CCW, simonbs, you are either saying this to humor people or are from a rural area where the likelihood of you ever drawing your duty piece in the line of duty is pretty rare. True, I am sure their are exceptions, but talking to urban cops who count the number of bullet holes in their car before and after, they all think that the fewer guns, the better. The Police Chief's Association did not endorse Prop. B in Missouri and the Sheriff's Association's endorsement was somewhat skewed from what I hear. I forgot the tecnicals of the matter, but basically, what someone said was blown out of proportion and thrown on every billboard in Missouri as an endorsement.

Shootist3006

justc, the beauty of a jury trial is that the judge cannot quote: overturn their ruling and/or nullify for another trial until he was convicted. absent evidence of either jury tampering or juror misconduct. The concept of jury nullification is 'upsetting' to many in the justice system because they fear the people having the ultimate power - too bad because the people DO have that power. Whenever there is a bad law or a law being wrongfully applied - it is the jury's RESPONSIBILITY to nullify that law or prosecution.

Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis

Shootist3006

carbineking; you wrote quote:The Constitution was written for the common good of the citizens but I have to disagree. The constitution was written to CONTROL and LIMIT government with the belief that doing so would provide for the common good. Without the need to limit government, there would be no need for a constitution.

If you review amendments 9 and 10, you see that the government is strictly controlled and limited
quote: Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



You also said quote: Government officials who enact laws restricting gun ownership do so for the betterment of the rest of the citizens
Do you really believe this? I don't, I believe that MOST of the government officials who restrict gun ownership do so in order to enhance the power of government and thus their own power. As it has been said - never trust a government that does not trust its own people!!


Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis

Shootist3006

I am also reminded of this definition of government quote:"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire: a dangerous servant and a terrible master".

-George Washington



Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis

thesupermonkey

CarbineKing,

"...I am sure their are exceptions, but talking to urban cops who count the number of bullet holes in their car before and after, they all think that the fewer guns, the better."

I'd be willing to bet most if not all of those bullet holes are from illegally obtained and/or carried firearms.

Sure you could make getting a CCL much more difficult, but the only people who'll be effected by it are those who DON'T break the law. Instead of making the streets safer, you're just helping to disarm law-abiding citizens for gun toting criminals who don't give your new CCL restrictions a second glance.
Munkey


Don't worry about the bullet with your name on it, worry about the fragmentation grenade addressed 'To Occupant'.

Edited by - thesupermonkey on 06/12/2002 14:16:33

JustC

The jury not convicting of carrying illegally would be misconduct. I have seen it in a courtroom. the judge refused the jury decision because there was no other outcome but guilty. The evidence was cut and dried, he told the jury that just because they had a well deserved distaste for the plaintiff and his actions, that the evidence clearly pointed to the defendants guilt. He dismissed the jury and pronounced a guilty verdict. He also levied a minimal punishment because he knew that the plaintiff had caused the outcome, but that wasn't the purpose of that particular case.He did however, recommend the defendant file charges relating to his becoming involved due to the plaintiffs actions. the judges way of saying, "I know he made you have to do this, so file charges on him and I'll take care of the rest".

A great rifle with a junk scope,....is junk.

Shootist3006

justc, sounds like a civil trial (plaintiff???). I don't know what state you are in but there is no way (in any state I know of) where a judge can throw-out a jury's verdict in a criminal case.

You may want to look at http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-09-98.html for more information on jury nullification.

I like the following quotes for an understanding of the principles involved quote:Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." John Adams said, "It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty . . . to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."


Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis

Edited by - shootist3006 on 06/12/2002 17:17:46

carbineking

I thought I replied to this but I think I accidently threw it into another post or something by accident. Supermonkey, I'm sure they are almost all by illegal guns also. How is an officer to know if you are carrying a legal CCW or if you do not have a permit to own it? For an officer, the less guns he has to face, the less danger to him, the more likely he is going to go home safe, plain and simple. You can muddy it up with hypothetical situations, but most government officials, including police officers, want fewer guns out there. I guess they are just trying to take the power out of your hands so they can opress you, whatever. It is interesting how this forum has so many military people, but so few law enforcement people. Law enforcement are the ones who statistically are most likely to be engaged in a firefight. There are many Vietnam vets on here too it seems, but the military has changed alot since then thankfully. When nobody really flinched to the scores of young men who died there then, the media creates an uproar if even one soldier is killed in action today. Hence, politicans prefer to use stand-off weapons to complete the objective and save pilot's and ground-crew's lives. Just mmy thoughts.

96harley

Joe is doubled tapped by a cross eyed agent who was actually thinking the same as Joe and taking aim on the suspect. But Joe first punches the suspect's ticket. Everyone's rushed out including patrons. The Feds do find a camel pack drinking vest (one of those that hikers and bikers use with the long drinking straw attached)but keep it hush, telling the media it was actually a bomb. Chris the cross eyed agent goes free and becomes a hero. Media says Joe gets his just desserts.

imadork

Joe, who is something of an armchair nuclear weapons enthusiast, mistook the guy's Palm Pilot and Thinkpad for a detonator device and nuclear bomb, because its owner was vaguely "Arab looking" and because he saw the sample bomb in the latest issue of Maxim. Little did he know, the Arab-looking guy was a high-ranking businessman from Saudi Arabia who was in town to discuss a new oil field in Dahran with Exxon. Not only is Joe convicted of second degree murder, he gets sentence enhancements for using a gun and for being a felon in unlawful possession of a firearm. He gets 30 years in Leavenworth. The judge says "while Joe's concern for the public welfare is admirable, he should exercise better judgment in deciding what is and is not a nuclear device before pulling the trigger." CNN says "if only he had followed the law, this tragedy could have been averted." The Brady Campaign and Million Mom March release a joint statement that says "this shows the need for strong gun laws in our country." Points are tallied in favor of the DC handgun ban, and against all of the progress made by RKBA in the last 10 years.

offeror

Josey1 -- Exactly. "Competing Evils." That's the phrase I was looking for in my post above. In a case wherein the relatively minor infraction stops a much more major crime, it might be excused.

But those who say this scenario sounds like a Die Hard movie are right. First, we have a "fictitious" guy who apparently has a felony or for some reason has been barred from carrying, but he wants to carry anyway. This scenario does not justify breaking the law and carrying a gun, just in case.

Sadly, the laws are meant for all of us, not just other people. Those of us who live in the wrong state will just have to keep lobbying our congressmen. If you are carrying against the laws of your state, you won't find me helping you justify it if you pay the consequences. I carry legally in my state, but when my license expired for a couple months I stopped until I got it renewed. You're not going to be the one guy out of two hundred million Americans to meet up with a nuke-armed terrorist and get the drop on him. Sorry, but if you're wanting to carry, get a permit first. I haven't yet seen people on this board encourage breaking the laws of the land so far. We don't like the political climate at times, and we have some idea of the limits we think the Second Amendment can be pushed to, but nobody here is openly condoning law-breaking. The first right you would lose if caught with an illegal gun is the right to ever legally carry one. Not only that, you would attract attention so that they'd be checking you for another infraction.

If you want to break the law, on the old rationalization that "it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6," be my guest, but don't say I told you to do it. Since many cops retire without ever having to use their guns, you may never have to whip it out anyway, unless you are a cowboy, in which case you deserve what it costs you to play John McClain and get sued for it.

I guess what I'm saying is, we can think of all kinds of "what if" scenarios, but none of them would make an excuse to carry illegally, nor likely save you (from the law's retribution) if you did.

- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Edited by - offeror on 06/13/2002 14:18:40