Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Man with gun permit shoots, kills attacker

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NOVA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    732

    Post imported post

    Hope it's not a repost, I did a quick search and didn't see anything...

    http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/p...p;pageId=3.2.1


    Man with gun permit shoots, kills attacker



    Last Edited: Saturday, 01 Mar 2008, 3:29 PM EST

    Created: Saturday, 01 Mar 2008, 3:29 PM EST









    THONOTOSASSA - A 24-year-old man is dead after investigators he attacked another man with a concealed weapons permit who pulled out his gun and shot him.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    THONOTOSASSA - A 24-year-old man is dead after investigators he attacked another man with a concealed weapons permit who pulled out his gun and shot him.

    Deputies say events began to unfold around 11:30 Friday night when 24-year-old Casey Landes and a friend were speeding through a Thonotosassa neighborhood.
    They say that 47-year-old Charles Podany rode his bicycle over to 10622 Bayhills Circle where the two were stopped and asked them to slow down.

    Deputies say Landes, who was the passenger in the truck, got upset, got out of the truck and attacked Podany, beating him to the ground.

    They say Podany pulled out a gun and fired twice, hitting Landes once in the head.
    Landes died at the scene.

    Podany, who has a concealed weapons permit, then returned to his house, and contacted the Hillsborough Sheriff to tell them what happened.

    He was taken into custody and charged with manslaughter.

    Investigators say Podany and Landes did not know each other.

    They are not releasing the name of the driver who was with Landes because they say he is a witness to the crime.

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Reads like a good shoot to me. I'm sure that the lickspittles will try to controvert.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    There's gotta be more to that story. With Florida's "make my day" law I can't see how defending yourself against someone one top of you beating on you if you offered no physical threat or provocation would be manslaughter. An on the ground fight like that can definitely be deadly and waiting until you are unconsious and having her head beaten against the pavement until you are dead or permanently brain damaged does not seem a good idea. There has to be more to it.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    A man has died at the hand of another, definitely manslaughter and arguably not a crime. Legal fine points but charges are appropriate and dismissal appropriate too, by my understanding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    A man has died at the hand of another, definitely manslaughter and arguably not a crime. Legal fine points but charges are appropriate and dismissal appropriate too, by my understanding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******
    I don't think so, Doug. Even in the link you posted, to be considered manslaughter the killing must be illegal or criminal (which is also included in the manslaughter definition in both my Black's and Barron's law dictionaries). Therefore, if it is "arguably not a crime," then it is by definition, arguably not manslaughter.

    Perhaps you intended: "A man has died at the hand of another, definitely homocide and arguably not a crime"? If not, I am confused.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    I don't think so, Doug. Even in the link you posted, to be considered manslaughter the killing must be illegal or criminal (which is also included in the manslaughter definition in both my Black's and Barron's law dictionaries). Therefore, if it is "arguably not a crime," then it is by definition, arguably not manslaughter.

    Perhaps you intended: "A man has died at the hand of another, definitely homicide and arguably not a crime"? If not, I am confused.
    I agree with you deepdiver.......The question is justifiable homicide or not.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    I've been emailing with a friend of mine in Tampa who has become very active in local 2A matters. While I am waiting for some more details from him, he expressed that this is likely to become a test case on the issue but I was not clear if that is a personal opinion or the local firearm community opinion. Hopefully I'll be able to stay on top of this with his help as I am having trouble reconciling FL statutes with the news story with the arrest and manslaughter charges.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    I'd think that the point of contention is that Podany technically initiated the interaction... even though he did not introduce violence.

    Nonetheless, unless there's more to the story, it's ridiculous that they're even considering charging him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    I'd think that the point of contention is that Podany technically initiated the interaction... even though he did not introduce violence.
    Oooh.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    399

    Post imported post

    After reading the poorly worded article, and emailing the station, I think I now understand what happened that day. I, personally, think that this could be a justifiable shooting. The reason I am not 100% on this is because we don't know what the "attackers'" physical characteristics are; mainly build. The permit holder looks like a pretty big guy from the picture the Fox station provided. I'm 24 yrs old, and about 140 lb on a good day. If I was the one that was shot, he would have a hard time justifying to a jury why he shot someone half his size. That's just my opinion. If the "attacker" was as big, if not bigger than, the permit holder that aspect might not come to light...

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Chugiak, AK, ,
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    xd.40 wrote:
    After reading the poorly worded article, and emailing the station, I think I now understand what happened that day. I, personally, think that this could be a justifiable shooting. The reason I am not 100% on this is because we don't know what the "attackers'" physical characteristics are; mainly build. The permit holder looks like a pretty big guy from the picture the Fox station provided. I'm 24 yrs old, and about 140 lb on a good day. If I was the one that was shot, he would have a hard time justifying to a jury why he shot someone half his size. That's just my opinion. If the "attacker" was as big, if not bigger than, the permit holder that aspect might not come to light...
    My thoughts too. I't would probably depend on what the other guy was like. Now if both the guys were beating on him, that would be different.

  12. #12
    Regular Member VAopencarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The 'Dena, Mаяуlaпd
    Posts
    2,147

    Post imported post

    47 is hardly an old man but would have his hands very full with a healthy 24 year old. At least thats the angle I would be playing up if I was his attorney.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ravenna, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    106

    Post imported post

    The only thing I am curious of is what he said and how he said it when he approached the truck. If you have a carry license and you provoke an incident or attack you are held accountable. (at least in Ohio)

    I think this is where the story gets fuzzy. It is almost impossible to know exactly what went down. Maybe this guy threatened the life of one of the truck occupants. Who knows? You can't carry a gun and go around spouting off at the mouth. I am not saying this is what happened but it very well may be the cause for the manslaughter charge vs. homicide.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Pauly wrote:
    The only thing I am curious of is what he said and how he said it when he approached the truck. If you have a carry license and you provoke an incident or attack you are held accountable. (at least in Ohio)

    I think this is where the story gets fuzzy. It is almost impossible to know exactly what went down. Maybe this guy threatened the life of one of the truck occupants. Who knows? You can't carry a gun and go around spouting off at the mouth. I am not saying this is what happened but it very well may be the cause for the manslaughter charge vs. homicide.
    Yeah, but unless someone had a recorder there's no way to prove who said what.

    As I imagine this scenario in my mind, I can't see any thing that calls for getting out of the vehicle and beating on the guy.

    Once when I was like 14 a woman and a man, her son, maybe, cut me off on my bicycle, screaming curse words at me the whole time. When we both stopped at a red light he jumped out of the car and threatened to kick my ass. He was like 20-25, real trailer trash in a beater car. I never said a word.

    Another time I was in a company pickup truck with some guys going to a job site and a bicyclist was not riding far enough into the shoulder for one of the hotheads in our truck. The hothead screamed epithets at the biker as we passed him.

    So multiple experiences with groups of a-holes in big vehicles vs. lone guys on small bikes has biased me in favor of the bicyclist. Guys in trucks with buddies around tend to get brave and stupid when dealing with perceived weaker people. Something about human nature.

    Which is why we carry.

    Guess that excuses me from that jury.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Dover, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    83

    Post imported post

    xd.40 wrote:
    After reading the poorly worded article, and emailing the station, I think I now understand what happened that day. I, personally, think that this could be a justifiable shooting. The reason I am not 100% on this is because we don't know what the "attackers'" physical characteristics are; mainly build. The permit holder looks like a pretty big guy from the picture the Fox station provided. I'm 24 yrs old, and about 140 lb on a good day. If I was the one that was shot, he would have a hard time justifying to a jury why he shot someone half his size. That's just my opinion. If the "attacker" was as big, if not bigger than, the permit holder that aspect might not come to light...
    The persons size has nothing to do with it. If anyone watches mixed martial art fights, you'll recognize the name Urijah Faber "The California Kid". his max fighting weight is 145 lbs. I'm 5'11" and 250 lbs. and I can assure you, that guy would whoop me good! Also, under no condition is it good judgement to get out of your vehicle and go after someone. By what I've read, Mr. Podany did nothing illegal by asking the driver to slow down in his neighborhood. I consider that a good citizens response in an attempt to protect the occupants of the neighborhood from the possibility of someone getting run over. It sounds to me like some hot headed kid got fired up and figured he wasn't going to let some old guy tell him what to do, so he got out of the vehicle and brought violence into the situation, which cost him his life. The appropriate response would have been, "Sorry sir, we'll do that" if he was speeding or "Ohh, I didn't think I was speeding. Thanks" if he wasn't.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Dover, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    83

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    I'd think that the point of contention is that Podany technically initiated the interaction... even though he did not introduce violence.

    Nonetheless, unless there's more to the story, it's ridiculous that they're even considering charging him.
    Even though, Mr. Podany initiated an interaction, it does not give the vehicle occupant reason for initiating violence. Just because you go up to someone and speak to them, does not make your right of self protection null and void.

    If Mr. Podany rode up to them and said, "Hey guys, how's it going?". He would have initiated an interaction. It doesn't mean the vehicle occupant wouldn't have done the same thing with the same outcome.

    I agree with you that there is more to the story and we will probably never know what actually transpired. The other occupant in the vehicle doesn't want charges placed on him, either. He may say Mr. Podany came up and opened the vehicle door and started smacking around his buddy, so his buddy started defending himself and then Mr. Podany shot him. It appears Mr. Podany will say he was just trying to get the driver to slow down when he was viciously attacked and fearing for his life, he had to react with deadly force. Who knows.

    I'd tend to believe Mr. Podany's story. Although he looks like a pretty tough guy in the photo, he obviously did not have any felonies on his record. Otherwise he would not be allowed to have a permit to conceal carry. According to the article it was Mr. Podany that contacted police. Criminals usually are not the ones to call the police first. That's why it is so important to call the policeas soon as possibleif you have to draw your gun. Otherwise, some bystander may call you in to 911 as someone "waving" a gun around. My $.02 (not busting your chops, just putting my thoughts in)

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    OneShot wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    I'd think that the point of contention is that Podany technically initiated the interaction... even though he did not introduce violence.

    Nonetheless, unless there's more to the story, it's ridiculous that they're even considering charging him.
    Even though, Mr. Podany initiated an interaction, it does not give the vehicle occupant reason for initiating violence. Just because you go up to someone and speak to them, does not make your right of self protection null and void.

    If Mr. Podany rode up to them and said, "Hey guys, how's it going?". He would have initiated an interaction. It doesn't mean the vehicle occupant wouldn't have done the same thing with the same outcome.

    I agree with you that there is more to the story and we will probably never know what actually transpired. The other occupant in the vehicle doesn't want charges placed on him, either. He may say Mr. Podany came up and opened the vehicle door and started smacking around his buddy, so his buddy started defending himself and then Mr. Podany shot him. It appears Mr. Podany will say he was just trying to get the driver to slow down when he was viciously attacked and fearing for his life, he had to react with deadly force. Who knows.

    I'd tend to believe Mr. Podany's story. Although he looks like a pretty tough guy in the photo, he obviously did not have any felonies on his record. Otherwise he would not be allowed to have a permit to conceal carry. According to the article it was Mr. Podany that contacted police. Criminals usually are not the ones to call the police first. That's why it is so important to call the policeas soon as possibleif you have to draw your gun. Otherwise, some bystander may call you in to 911 as someone "waving" a gun around. My $.02 (not busting your chops, just putting my thoughts in)
    Oh, I'm not saying that Podany was in the wrong. And I'm not saying that it's right that he's getting charged. I was just pointing out that the rationale to a prosecuter looking to boost his/her homocide numbers might be to blame the interaction on Podany because it may have been 99.9% perfect self-defense rather than 100%.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    399

    Post imported post

    OneShot wrote
    ...The appropriate response would have been, "Sorry sir, we'll do that" if he was speeding or "Ohh, I didn't think I was speeding. Thanks" if he wasn't.
    This is true, as well. Too many people are rude these days, but I guess its just their 1A right.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ravenna, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    106

    Post imported post

    OneShot wrote:
    Even though, Mr. Podany initiated an interaction, it does not give the vehicle occupant reason for initiating violence. Just because you go up to someone and speak to them, does not make your right of self protection null and void.
    This depends on what was actually said. If Mr. Podany started telling the occupants he was going to kick the **** out of them if he saw them speeding again he is completely liable for the way things turned out. That would make him responsible for initiating the altercation. I am not saying this is what happened at all. It is just a little food for thought to those of us who think carrying a gun shouldn't change the way we carry ourselves.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Pauly wrote:
    OneShot wrote:
    Even though, Mr. Podany initiated an interaction, it does not give the vehicle occupant reason for initiating violence. Just because you go up to someone and speak to them, does not make your right of self protection null and void.
    This depends on what was actually said. If Mr. Podany started telling the occupants he was going to kick the **** out of them if he saw them speeding again he is completely liable for the way things turned out. That would make him responsible for initiating the altercation. I am not saying this is what happened at all. It is just a little food for thought to those of us who think carrying a gun shouldn't change the way we carry ourselves.
    Good point, but re: the part I bolded, as good citizens, we should always hold ourselves to a friendly, non-confrontational standard of conduct whether or not we're carrying guns.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ravenna, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    106

    Post imported post

    What a country that would be!! Maybe someday.

    However, I have found I carry myself with a bit more humility when I have the gun. I like the demeanor it requires of me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •