imported post
PT111 wrote:
I have some serious problems with this story. From what I can tell from the article he never said that he planned to kill or harm anyone. The only thing he said was that he was going to prison and the UCW charge sends him there. If he had just gotten a permit then they woyld have nothing to charge him on. I can't go along with the terrorist charges and 10 years for carrying a gun into Wal-Mart without a permit. Give me abreak that is BS.
And just what is an unreasonable amount of ammunition. There are a bunch on this board that most people would consider their everyday carry an unreasonable amount of ammo. I mean a primary weapon, two BUGS and at least 3 reloads for each one is not common but many people carry that.
I think the fellow is getting screwed.
PT111,
While I understand the position you have taken as you see it, I feel you have based your position on too many assumptions that are not supported by the information.
First off, the article is just that, a compiled story that includes only what the writer wanted to put in it. While you are correct that it does not quote him as say he intended to hurt, kill or otherwise harm people, it did not say otherwise either. Without knowing the content of the entire note and the emails it is hard to say for sure. However, he did state that he planned to be a criminal and the wife did say he owned a handgun that was missing. Couple this with the email statement of turn on your TVs is enough circumstantial evidence to establish a risk if not intent. The fact that he felt his actions would be on the TV immediately says he intended a spectacular, out of the ordinary event. Then top this off by catching him loitering inside the store that he was recently terminated from illegally carrying a firearm pretty much ices the cake for establishing reasonable suspicion that he intended to commit a violent and horrific act in that store.
Second, you state that
"ifhe hadjust gotten a permit then they woyld have nothing to charge him on". If he had a permit, 1.) he probably would not be doing this; 2.) he would still be in violation due to the implied threat of violence and the intent to commit a crime as stated in his note. The fact that they charged him with UCW says he did not have a CHL.
Finally, you state
"I can't go along with the terrorist charges and 10 years for carrying a gun into Wal-Mart without a permit". The charge is actually
Making a Terroristic Threat, not to be confused withthe federal terrorism laws. Terroristic threat is located in PC22.07 and refers toa person whothreatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property (whether it is actually followed through on or not). As for the 10 years for UCW in Wal-Mart, that is the maximum possible jail time for UCW in a TABC licensed establishment, no matter if it is a bar, aliquor store or a Wal-Mart licensed to sell beer and wine. The offense carries a max penalty of a $10,000 fine and/or 10 years imprisonment (or anything in between).
Personally, I feel this guy is probably a few bricks shy of a load, which his defense attorney will surely exploit to his advantage. I seriously doubt he will spend much time inside (not that I agree). I applaud the APD for acting on this information and for catching him before he committed anything more serious, but I must question why it took them an hour to send officers to the Wal-Mart store in the first place? I realize they were making sure the note and emails were legit, but they knew they were already playing catchup and should have sent officers to the store immediately to watch for him while checking out the information. If the call turned out to be a prank, then the caller could be charged with that crime, but don't delay a potential lifesaving response just to confirm the report is legitimate.
With the preponderance of the evidence in this case and the risk it posed, immediate action was warranted. If the guy turned out to be legit or simply misunderstood, thenthey can simplylet him go. I had rather them apologize to him for the misunderstanding of his rants than for themto have to apologize to dozens of families for not acting quick enough to stop him from killing their loved ones. As for the "unreasonable amount of ammunition" statement, I have to agree that I would probably fall in that category by most peoples standards, especially law enforcement, but it is just a media thing to help build their story with the public and the case against the guy.
Fortunately, no one was hurt and the guy will get his day in court to explain any misunderstanding that might have occurred. Even if he can show that his notes were not intended to cause alarm or that his carrying the handgun was not intended to be used to commit a crime, he still broke the law by carrying it and should be charged with that offense.
Just my take on it.
Take care,
Doc
