Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: BB gun lands man in jail

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    21

    Post imported post

    http://www.newsobserver.com/news/wak...ry/126815.html

    I dont condone what this guy did. If he would have pointed that at me he wouldnt like the outcome.

    Its my understanding that what he did does not qualify for Going Armed to the Terror of the People.

    The law says, it is unlawful for a person to arm himself/herself with any unusual and dangerous weapon, for the purpose of terrifying others, AND go about on public highways in a manner to cause terror to others.

    Western Blvd isnt a highway its a Blvd. Is anyone able to clarify this?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    mbgreite wrote:
    http://www.newsobserver.com/news/wak...ry/126815.html

    I dont condone what this guy did. If he would have pointed that at me he wouldnt like the outcome.

    Its my understanding that what he did does not qualify for Going Armed to the Terror of the People.

    The law says, it is unlawful for a person to arm himself/herself with any unusual and dangerous weapon, for the purpose of terrifying others, AND go about on public highways in a manner to cause terror to others.

    Western Blvd isnt a highway its a Blvd. Is anyone able to clarify this?
    Misleading title.

    It should read:

    Acting like a brain dead MORON lands BB gun toting man in jail.

    Webster's II - Highway: A main public road.

    Most states, in the Penal Codes, use the term highway to mean any publically maintained paved road.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    678

    Post imported post

    He pointed something that looks very much like a gun at cars. he's a moron.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wallace, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    Decoligny hit the nail on the head. A public highway is any road designed for travel by all members of the public. A parking lot for example is not a public highway even though some would argue it is because generally anybody can use it. The reason it is not though is because it is private property that anybody can be banned from.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    North Carolina, ,
    Posts
    169

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    mbgreite wrote:
    http://www.newsobserver.com/news/wak...ry/126815.html

    I dont condone what this guy did. If he would have pointed that at me he wouldnt like the outcome.

    Its my understanding that what he did does not qualify for Going Armed to the Terror of the People.

    The law says, it is unlawful for a person to arm himself/herself with any unusual and dangerous weapon, for the purpose of terrifying others, AND go about on public highways in a manner to cause terror to others.

    Western Blvd isnt a highway its a Blvd. Is anyone able to clarify this?
    Misleading title.

    It should read:

    Acting like a brain dead MORON lands BB gun toting man in jail.

    Webster's II - Highway: A main public road.

    Most states, in the Penal Codes, use the term highway to mean any publically maintained paved road.
    Nice call.

    I would have soiled myself if the laser hit me and I followed the light back to an Ak. The line between fake and real is getting blurred everyday by these airsoft/BB guncompanies, it is getting to be impossible to spot real and fake without actually holding the rilfe/handgun in question.

    There have been more thana few times i've seen kids holding those airsoft guns... they are so realistic I have to do a double take. The lesson is don'tbe irresponsible with real guns or BB/airsoft guns.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    462

    Post imported post

    He pointed it at people? Why isnt he charged with armed assault?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wallace, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    mekender wrote:
    He pointed it at people? Why isnt he charged with armed assault?
    He should be charged with either assault by pointing a gun or assault with a deadly weapon in addition to the going armed to the terror of the people charge. Both are class A1 misdemeanors. I would personally go for assault with a deadly weapon and let the court plea it down to assault by pointing a gun if they wanted.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    462

    Post imported post

    partemisio wrote:
    mekender wrote:
    He pointed it at people? Why isnt he charged with armed assault?
    He should be charged with either assault by pointing a gun or assault with a deadly weapon in addition to the going armed to the terror of the people charge. Both are class A1 misdemeanors. I would personally go for assault with a deadly weapon and let the court plea it down to assault by pointing a gun if they wanted.
    were i the prosecutor i would charge him with that and also with carrying a gun in the commission of a crime.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    Well, I tend to agree with most of the posts, in that this putz should have the book thrown at him. He did an idiotic thing, and even a bb gun (or Airsoft, which is probably what it was) can cause serious injury.

    However, the reason why he won't be charged with GATTTOTP or "carrying a gun in the commission of a crime" is because it was an air-powered gun, and under NC statute (the way I read it, anyway), only "firearms", which is a VERY specific type of gun, are covered by these charges.

    A gun or firearm is defined by federal law to mean any weapon that is designed to fire a bullet or other projectile by means of an explosive. [18 USC 921 (a)(3)]

    The specific NC statute is this:

    N.C.G.S. § 14-409.39, the definition section in article 53B,:

    [A firearm is defined as a] handgun, shotgun, or rifle which expels a projectile by action of an explosion.
    since a BB gun or Aisoft gun expels its projectile through mechanical force (springs) or compressed gas (CO2, "green gas", etc), it does not meet the definition of a "firearm" under NC or Federal laws.

    However, there are a myriad of other statute violations that you could get this yuck-a-puck on--assault, inciting a riot, civil disturbance, etc, etc, etc...

    This is a PERFECT case to support the passing of a statute prohibiting "felony stupidity"...

    I hope this guy sets sent up the river for a LONG time...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    462

    Post imported post

    I totally agree, In FL the definition of assault was a threat where the victim believed you were capable of carrying out the threat. I couldnt find a NC definition but i would be it is similar, thus armed assault would qualify because it only matters what the victim thinks is a gun not what it actually is.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Dreamer wrote:
    Well, I tend to agree with most of the posts, in that this putz should have the book thrown at him. He did an idiotic thing, and even a bb gun (or Airsoft, which is probably what it was) can cause serious injury.

    However, the reason why he won't be charged with GATTTOTP or "carrying a gun in the commission of a crime" is because it was an air-powered gun, and under NC statute (the way I read it, anyway), only "firearms", which is a VERY specific type of gun, are covered by these charges.

    A gun or firearm is defined by federal law to mean any weapon that is designed to fire a bullet or other projectile by means of an explosive. [18 USC 921 (a)(3)]

    The specific NC statute is this:

    N.C.G.S. § 14-409.39, the definition section in article 53B,:

    [A firearm is defined as a] handgun, shotgun, or rifle which expels a projectile by action of an explosion.
    since a BB gun or Aisoft gun expels its projectile through mechanical force (springs) or compressed gas (CO2, "green gas", etc), it does not meet the definition of a "firearm" under NC or Federal laws.

    However, there are a myriad of other statute violations that you could get this yuck-a-puck on--assault, inciting a riot, civil disturbance, etc, etc, etc...

    This is a PERFECT case to support the passing of a statute prohibiting "felony stupidity"...

    I hope this guy sets sent up the river for a LONG time...
    Then how exactly is it that when a person uses a BB Gun in the commission of an store robbery, they get charged with "armed robbery"?

    If the person getting the "gun" pointed at them was in fear for their life, then they should be charged as if it were a real gun.

    I for one would have probably have emptied a magazine center of mass had someone paintedme with the laser sight ofan "AK".

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wallace, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    Dreamer wrote:
    Well, I tend to agree with most of the posts, in that this putz should have the book thrown at him. He did an idiotic thing, and even a bb gun (or Airsoft, which is probably what it was) can cause serious injury.

    However, the reason why he won't be charged with GATTTOTP or "carrying a gun in the commission of a crime" is because it was an air-powered gun, and under NC statute (the way I read it, anyway), only "firearms", which is a VERY specific type of gun, are covered by these charges.

    A gun or firearm is defined by federal law to mean any weapon that is designed to fire a bullet or other projectile by means of an explosive. [18 USC 921 (a)(3)]

    The specific NC statute is this:
    N.C.G.S. § 14-409.39, the definition section in article 53B,:

    [A firearm is defined as a] handgun, shotgun, or rifle which expels a projectile by action of an explosion.
    since a BB gun or Aisoft gun expels its projectile through mechanical force (springs) or compressed gas (CO2, "green gas", etc), it does not meet the definition of a "firearm" under NC or Federal laws.

    However, there are a myriad of other statute violations that you could get this yuck-a-puck on--assault, inciting a riot, civil disturbance, etc, etc, etc...

    This is a PERFECT case to support the passing of a statute prohibiting "felony stupidity"...

    I hope this guy sets sent up the river for a LONG time...
    What you have read is wrong. In order to be charged with going armed to the terror of the public you don't have to even have a gun. The statute in my North Carolina crimes book says:

    "A person guilty of this offense
    (1) arms himself or herself with unusual and dangerous weapons
    (2) for the purpose of terrifying others and
    (3) goes about on public highways
    (4) in a manner to cause terror to others"

    So if you have any weapon that can make people fear for their lives you can be charged with this.



  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wallace, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    Dreamer wrote:
    Well, I tend to agree with most of the posts, in that this putz should have the book thrown at him. He did an idiotic thing, and even a bb gun (or Airsoft, which is probably what it was) can cause serious injury.

    However, the reason why he won't be charged with GATTTOTP or "carrying a gun in the commission of a crime" is because it was an air-powered gun, and under NC statute (the way I read it, anyway), only "firearms", which is a VERY specific type of gun, are covered by these charges.

    A gun or firearm is defined by federal law to mean any weapon that is designed to fire a bullet or other projectile by means of an explosive. [18 USC 921 (a)(3)]

    The specific NC statute is this:
    N.C.G.S. § 14-409.39, the definition section in article 53B,:

    [A firearm is defined as a] handgun, shotgun, or rifle which expels a projectile by action of an explosion.
    since a BB gun or Aisoft gun expels its projectile through mechanical force (springs) or compressed gas (CO2, "green gas", etc), it does not meet the definition of a "firearm" under NC or Federal laws.

    However, there are a myriad of other statute violations that you could get this yuck-a-puck on--assault, inciting a riot, civil disturbance, etc, etc, etc...

    This is a PERFECT case to support the passing of a statute prohibiting "felony stupidity"...

    I hope this guy sets sent up the river for a LONG time...
    Then how exactly is it that when a person uses a BB Gun in the commission of an store robbery, they get charged with "armed robbery"?

    If the person getting the "gun" pointed at them was in fear for their life, then they should be charged as if it were a real gun.

    I for one would have probably have emptied a magazine center of mass had someone paintedme with the laser sight ofan "AK".
    You are absolutely right in your way of thinking about both being charged with armed robbery and what to do if somebody pointed any type of gun at you. The reason they can be charged with armed robbery is the same reason this guy can be convicted of going armed to the terror of the public. The third element in the statute for armed robbery says "by the possession, use, or threatened use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon"

    That is why they can be charged with it when they have a knife.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    462

    Post imported post

    I looked and couldnt find it, can anyone find a NC statutory definition of Assault?

    Can you be charged with assault with a deadly weapon if the person BELIEVES it is a deadly weapon? Or must it actually be a deadly weapon?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    203

    Post imported post


  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    462

    Post imported post

    American Patriot wrote: Nothing in there defines what "assault" is in NC.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wallace, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    mekender wrote:
    I looked and couldnt find it, can anyone find a NC statutory definition of Assault?

    Can you be charged with assault with a deadly weapon if the person BELIEVES it is a deadly weapon? Or must it actually be a deadly weapon?
    I don't remember exactly what my book says. I will try to remember to look at it when I get home. But it does not define a deadly weapon. It basically says anything can be a deadly weapon (which anything can) if the knowledge or ability of the person using it can make it dangerous.

    Again, I will get the exact definition for you when I get home.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wallace, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    "A "deadly weapon" is any instrument that under the circumstances of its use is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. Whether a weapon is deadly may depend on its nature and size, however it is used (for example, whether it left cut marks), and the strength of the defendant compared to the victim. If the deadly character of the weapon depends on such factors, the jury decides whether the weapon is deadly. Some weapons, such as guns, are deadly by their very nature, and the judge should instruct the jury that they are deadly weapons.
    Examples of deadly weapons include a pistol; a pistol used to strike rather than shoot at a victim; a knife; a belt with a metal buckle used for hours on a child; an automobile; a firebomb; a fire used to burn a house and harm a person inside; a dog; a box cutter; and a broken wine bottle.
    Hands, fists, and feet may be considered deadly weapons given the manner in which they were used and the relative size and condition of the parties involved. In one case, the court concluded that the defendant's fists could have been a deadly weapon when the defendant, a 39-year-old male weighing 210 pounds, hit the victim, a 60-year-old woman, in the head and stomach;brain hemorrhages and other injuries resulted from the beating, causing the victim to be unable to care for herself. The court came to the same conclusion in a case where the defendant weighed approximately 175 pounds and the victim weighed approximately 107 pounds; the defendant beat the victim with about the head with the fists, breaking the jaw and causing her to require extensive hospitalization and choked her three separate times, leaving marks around her neck. The evidence was sufficient to go to the jury on use of a deadly weapon when the defendant hit the victim, causing a cracked cheekbone, a broken nose and a broken jaw requiring surgery; the defendant choked the victim leaving red marks on her neck; and the defendant was a six feet two inches tall male weighing 165 pounds while the victim was a female approximately five feet three inches tall and 99 pounds in weight. the same result obtained in a case where the male defendant weighed 230 pounds and the female victim weighed 190 pounds; the defendant beat the victim with his hands and feet so severely that she had to be flown to a special hospital for treatment of substantial injuries, was was admitted to intensive care and was placed on a ventilator, her injuries included fractures of the left orbit and the left maxillary and swelling and contusions about her face, neck and upper chest; and the victim was pregnant at the time. Although one court of appeals case reached the same conclusion without analyzing the relative size of the defendant and victims, a case decided one month later struck down a conviction on grounds that the state had not presented sufficient evidence to the defendant's size or condition compared to that of the victim. in the later case, the court rejected the state's argument that the jury had an opportunity to observe the victim and defendant at trial, concluding that mere observations at trial was not sufficient evidence. In an even more recent case, the court of appeals found the evidence sufficient to sustain a motion to dismiss where it showed a great disparity in the height between the defendant ( six feet five inches) and the victim (four feet eleven inches), but no evidence was presented as to their respective weights.
    If the weapon is not deadly by its very nature, the criminal pleading needs only (1) allege that it is a deadly weapon without describing it further (for example, by saying " a stick, a deadly weapon") or (2) describe it so as to necessarily demonstrate its deadly character."

Posting Permissions

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