Wrongful Conviction for "firearm" possession

imported post

mobeewan wrote:

However, my point in makingmy post was andas in the original post, neither person had a "firearm". He should be charged and convictedfor robberies and go to jail, buthe shoudn't be convicted for a"firearm". It will be wrong for theprosecuterto comment about his use of a "firearm" at the sentencing to try to get him more time by implying the persons being robbed were in danger of loosing their lives. In either case itstill isn'ta "firearm".

Click to expand...

I have to disagree. The felon who merely carried a pellet gun did not show it or threaten anybody with it. In the Eighth Grader's case the broken BB gun was used to commit the robbery. That is a big difference.

In Virginia if somebody points what appears to be a gun at me without provocation, then they have committed the crime of brandishing.If people are made to fear for their lives, whether the gun is real or not,then I think it should be armed robbery.

imported post

Thundar wrote:

If people are made to fear for their lives, whether the gun is real or not,then I think it should be armed robbery.

Click to expand...

I disagree, the crime of armed robbery should not be based on the feelings of the victims. Instead the difference between robbery and armed robbery, is the determination of the perpetrator. In the case of Armed robbery, it is a more severe offense because the possession and use of a deadly weapon indicates that the thief was willing to mortally wound or kill in order to get his loot, where someone who is committing a robber unarmed, presumably is not willing to take a life and has not shown evidence of being as dangerous of an individual as the armed robber has.

By possessing a fake gun, the criminal obviously did not have intent to mortally wound or kill any of his victims.

imported post

asforme wrote:

By possessing a fake gun, the criminal obviously did not have intent to mortally wound or kill any of his victims.

Click to expand...

Possibly. Here's another possibility ... The criminal couldn't get hold of a real gun at that moment, so used the BB gun he could get and figured if someone didn't cooperate that he would just use the cheapy BB gun to beat them to death because their property and life mean nothing to him.

imported post

A steel toed boot would be just as effective. Does having a steel toed boot while committing a robbery make it armed robbery?

imported post

asforme wrote:

A steel toed boot would be just as effective. Does having a steel toed boot while committing a robbery make it armed robbery?

Click to expand...

You may be on to something there.:idea:

imported post

Hokie wrote:

under a 2004 Virginia law allowing prisoners to present new, non-DNA evidence of their innocence.

Click to expand...

Yes, because we want to make sure we keep innocent people in jail. How dare you prove your innocence!

Click to expand...

That's right! I'm innocent but that's not going to stop the FBI or the CA from railroading me :^).

imported post

da7f2q8 wrote:

However, tests conducted by the Virginia Department of Forensic Science later determined the weapon he had was a "gas gun" that does not fit the definition of a firearm under state law. A gas gun uses compressed gas to fire a round, whereas state law defines a firearm as an instrument "intended to expel a projectile by means of an explosion."

Click to expand...

In that case, I don't own any firearms as defined by Virginia law. Smokeless powder doesn't explode, it BURNS. To get technical, a smokeless powder firearm is a "gas gun" as the burning of the powder creates gasses that expell the projectile. A black powder firearm does, however fire by creating an "explosion."

imported post

savery wrote:

da7f2q8 wrote:

However, tests conducted by the Virginia Department of Forensic Science later determined the weapon he had was a "gas gun" that does not fit the definition of a firearm under state law. A gas gun uses compressed gas to fire a round, whereas state law defines a firearm as an instrument "intended to expel a projectile by means of an explosion."

Click to expand...

In that case, I don't own any firearms as defined by Virginia law. Smokeless powder doesn't explode, it BURNS. To get technical, a smokeless powder firearm is a "gas gun" as the burning of the powder creates gasses that expell the projectile. A black powder firearm does, however fire by creating an "explosion."

Click to expand...

Point and counter point but I don't think that I'll take that to court with me.

Yata ehy

imported post

Maybe the gun was unloaded. In that case it would have been (and was) sent to the lab.