Car carry is not concealed! Poor timing to removed the holster. Oh, and just because you don't know how to describe how to get somewhere, doesn't mean you don't know how to get there.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)
If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor
I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)
I think that Tran screwed himself over big time talking to the cops ... he gave them 99% of what they need to convict.
If he would have said nothing .. the cops would have this evidence:
1) word of other driver that he pointed a gun at him
2) gun was on passenger seat
Likely not enough to convict.
But he talked and now they have:
1) and 2) above PLUS
3) he removed his gun from his holster
4) he did it during the time period in question
5) he put it on the seat during the time period in question
6) admitted to the altercation with the other driver
7) said that the reason for the altercation was to tell the driver that talking on the cell phone was against the law...really? He must be very busy if he is telling all the cell phone using drivers this...not plausible IMO.
Now they do have enough to convict.
Sorry, just the way I see it.
Last edited by davidmcbeth; 11-30-2012 at 10:33 AM.
It's hard to prove a negative ("I didn't do that"). That's why the State is required to prove the positive ("he did this").Originally Posted by Law abider
And yes, it's a lot harder for them to prove anything if you don't talk to the police.
Innocent or not, talking to the police is almost never going to benefit you.
(If you've asked for help, then yeah, talk to them. Or if you know someone socially. Don't be stupid about it.)
With all the traffic-cams out there, I'd expect to see some footage of this supposed road rage incident. It would at least show if he was tailgateing & flashing his lights, as the texter claims.
I am curious how he expected to be able to talk to the texter while driving on the freeway. This is where a sign would be helpful. I've thought about making a flip sign with things like "stop texting", "tire low", "light out", "my number is..."
And I'm a bit skeptical of the claims about why he put it on his seat, and why he had to bring it into sight. My car is a stick shift, & I bet I could do that w/o a driver next to me noticing.
One of the commenters claims the guy doesn't have a license, so he may have to fight that charge too.
ETA: yep, he's charged with ccw. Don't these idiots ever learn?? (Or rather, can't they learn from the mistakes other DAs make?) Have to write this guy & tell him about a good lawyer + the outcome in my case.
And hey, did anyone catch this - it supposedly happened 12SEP, but he was just charged this Wed., more than 2 months later. Tells me they don't have much of a case.
Last edited by MKEgal; 11-30-2012 at 04:52 PM.
Originally Posted by MLK, JrOriginally Posted by MSG LaigaieOriginally Posted by Proverbs 27:12Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
Being innocent of instigation is one huge factor the jury will consider for a self defense claim. What would he have done if the other driver would have drawn their weapon after his verbal tirades and seeing him draw his? Regardless of the actions of the accused, this case illustrates the point that we are held to a higher standard when we choose to engage another person while carrying. MYOB will save you alot of BS. The fact that he engaged in disorderly conduct (yelling at the other driver, making obscene gestures, etc) illustrates that his head was not on straight. I believe that a jury is going to be less likely to believe his statements as factual regarding why the handgun was removed from the holster and why it was deliberately placed in the view of the other driver.
Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 11-30-2012 at 07:10 PM.
Illegal, but impossible to prove unless the other person had a video camera.1) word of other driver that he pointed a gun at him
One person's word against another's. I'm surprised the DA is wasting time on such flimsy evidence.
ETA: unless maybe there were passengers in the texter's car, or they found that traffic-cam video.
Legal. Not evidence of anything.2) gun was on passenger seat
Legal. Not evidence of anything.3) he removed his gun from his holster
(Though not the best idea, esp. while distracted with driving.)
Legal. Not evidence of anything.4) he did it during the time period in question
Legal. Not evidence of anything.5) he put it on the seat during the time period in question
But again, not the best idea, having a potentially flying heavy-ish object. Especially one that, if grabbed for, could make your day a whole lot worse.
Potential for conviction on the DC charge.6) admitted to the altercation with the other driver
I think he said the other driver was texting.7) said that the reason for the altercation was to tell the driver that talking on the cell phone was against the law.
not plausible IMO
I can believe that very well could have been his intent, but again I question his reasoning.
How did he expect the other driver (in a car going freeway speed, windows up) to understand what he was saying?
And if he did point the gun (impossible to prove) he went way overboard.
(Though I suppose there could be an argument made that someone who's texting while driving, esp. at freeway speed, is a direct threat to the lives of everyone around...)
Last edited by MKEgal; 12-01-2012 at 03:41 PM.
Even going to Fletcher's, which I know pretty well (at least from I-94), I usually tell my GPS to take me there.Originally Posted by protias
And if I'm coming at it from anywhere else, I rely on the GPS. I find Waukesha to be very confusing.
My directions would probably be on the order of "go west on 94 to that really confusing exit & get off so you go toward Fletcher's, then branch left, go down the hill, & it's on the left after the McDonald's." Or I find the address & give it to the person. (Which doesn't help much unless they have a GPS.)
As I mentioned in the other thread, the law has to be clarified ASAP so no more cops or DAs can harass someone for OC in the car. This makes 2 this week just in Waukesha County where (as far as we can figure from news reports) people have been charged with ccw simply for having a pistol in a car, not encased.
I guess if he can subpoena the driver's text messages and it confirms his statement regarding this then it may be helpful to him. Or the other driver confirms he was texting...either way.
He has an uphill battle because he "told his story" to the cop...not the cop's fault, right?
I think he screwed himself by not minding his Business in the frist place.
Why inject yourself into someone elses life over something so smiple as texting.
A lot of the trouble like this would be advoided if one would just let the minor things slide.
Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics firstname.lastname@example.org
Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do