• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Smithfield Woman Charged Armed To The Terror Of the Public

M

madcitysw

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2012
Messages
35
Location
Selma, NC
I found a newspaper article in the Smithfield Herald today that a woman was charged GATTOTP after she took out her 22 caliber rifle out of her car to stop a public street fight. Who ever wrote this article states that it is illegal to carry guns or any other deadly weapons in the state of NC. She was released after paying her bond and has to goto court. Anyone else know about this?
 
Last edited:
Medic1210

Medic1210

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
298
Location
Rockingham, NC
Link would be nice. Sounds like GATTOTP isn't the right charge, but rather should be charged with brandishing a firearm.
 
Last edited:
MAC702

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
This was an interesting bit:
Police say they seldom charge anyone with “going armed to the terror of the public.”
Click to expand...

How much is "seldom" and what were their circumstances? Not being from your area, I've heard of the charge, but may have missed where else it has been used, rightly or (more probably) not...
 
Last edited:
M

madcitysw

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2012
Messages
35
Location
Selma, NC
MAC702 said:
This was an interesting bit:

How much is "seldom" and what were their circumstances? Not being from your area, I've heard of the charge, but may have missed where else it has been used, rightly or (more probably) not...
Click to expand...

I heard of this charged before, but I not too sure about this area since I moved here a couple years ago. I guessing Smithfield don't have too many problems with guns that much. You would think they do since Selma is bad area to live lol.
 
J_Oliver

J_Oliver

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
151
Location
Haw River, North Carolina
IANAL, but...

By common law in North Carolina, 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 marmer to cause terror to others. The N.C. Supreme Court states that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense.

The reasons it will/will not stick:

1) By common law in North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to arm himse/herself with any unusual and dangerous weapon.

- The N.C. Supreme Court states that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Check.

2) For the purposes of terrifying others.

- I believe using it to scare people into not fighting qualifies. Check.

3) AND go about on public highways in a marmer to cause terror to others.

- Now what a minute. I thought she was in front of her house? Because if this is the case, I'm pretty sure the absense of this will render this charge null and void.

Was it right of her to do? No. Would it have been if someones head was being pummeled into the pavement? Yes. However, this wasn't specified and since the report said everyone involved in the altercation fled the scene, I'm assuming nobody was in immediate danger.

End rant...

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk
 
J

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
If the comment in the linked article regarding the Attorney General's office stating it was "unclear" on what would justify this charge is accurate then it would seem to me that one charged could argue "unconstituional" based upon vagueness. After all if the States top law enforcement official isn't clear on what would justify a charge then it certainly isn't written in a NON VAGUE manner.
 
Last edited:
Ruger

Ruger

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
545
Location
Occupied Greensboro, North Carolina, United States
J_Oliver said:
Would it have been
if someones head was being pummeled into the pavement? Yes.​
Click to expand...


Oh come ON! Everyone knows that having one's head pummeled into the pavement does not justify shooting someone! After all, the assailant is unarmed. You can't shoot an unarmed assailant even if he is pounding your head into the pavement. That isn't a life or death situation. Didn't you learn ANYTHING from the fracas in Florida? :banghead:


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk 2​
 
J_Oliver

J_Oliver

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
151
Location
Haw River, North Carolina
Ruger said:
Oh come ON! Everyone knows that having one's head pummeled into the pavement does not justify shooting someone! After all, the assailant is unarmed. You can't shoot an unarmed assailant even if he is pounding your head into the pavement. That isn't a life or death situation. Didn't you learn ANYTHING from the fracas in Florida? :banghead:


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

I almost spit my coffee out reading this. I would add if they're unarmed and wearing a hoodie, but you know how vague these things can be....

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk
 
M

madcitysw

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2012
Messages
35
Location
Selma, NC
I think I can agree with you that you shouldn't be pointing a gun at a group of people that are fighting in the street to try and stop it. But I think she should had just call the police. But ain't it the same way if the police came along and points his gun at the people fighting on the street to try and stop it????

J_Oliver said:
IANAL, but...

By common law in North Carolina, 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 marmer to cause terror to others. The N.C. Supreme Court states that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense.

The reasons it will/will not stick:

1) By common law in North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to arm himse/herself with any unusual and dangerous weapon.

- The N.C. Supreme Court states that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Check.

2) For the purposes of terrifying others.

- I believe using it to scare people into not fighting qualifies. Check.

3) AND go about on public highways in a marmer to cause terror to others.

- Now what a minute. I thought she was in front of her house? Because if this is the case, I'm pretty sure the absense of this will render this charge null and void.

Was it right of her to do? No. Would it have been if someones head was being pummeled into the pavement? Yes. However, this wasn't specified and since the report said everyone involved in the altercation fled the scene, I'm assuming nobody was in immediate danger.

End rant...

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
 
papa bear

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
the main concern for me is if this sticks or she pleads guilty than the rest of us in NC will be charged readily for it also
 
Dreamer

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
OK, here we go...

As the "unofficial resident expert" on GAttTotP in NC, I'll weigh in on this one.

First of all, GAttTotP is almost NEVER filed as a "stand-alone" charge. It is almost ALWAYS used as a "piling-on" charge, when someone has done something else with a firearm that is egregiously stupid, dangerous or criminal, and involves being in a vehicle or walking on a public road.

Second, NC has no "Brandishing" charge on the books. You CANNOT be charged with "brandishing" in NC, because such an offense is not defined or prohibited under the law. We DO have "Assault with a deadly weapon", "pointing a gun" and a few other charges that involve pointing a gun at someone in a menacing way, but there is NO SUCH THING as a "brandishing" violation under NC law. (This is why LEOs and DAs use the GAttTotP violation in weapons-related assault cases...)

Third, it is, in fact, illegal to carry a loaded long gun in a vehicle in NC if it is accessible from the passenger compartment, AND it is "concealed". As far as I can find, there is no statutory prohibition on loaded long gun transport in a vehicle if it is in plain view. But on the floor, behind/under the seat, or under a blanket will get you in trouble.

So now that we know these things, let's see what this woman did...

She had a loaded long gun in her car. It is not known how or where it was stored in her vehicle, so we cannot make a call based on this story whether or not she was in violation of NC's CC statutes...

She witnessed a fight, and decided she was going to go all "RoboCop" on them. She then retrieved her rifle (which we don't even know was loaded or not, because no shots were reported fired), and pointed it at the people in the fight to persuade them to stop.

So is she guilty of GAttTotP? Depends...

Did she walk with the gun on the street, or a public roadway? If she remained on private property while she was waving her gun around, then GAttTotP is NOT applicable, regardless of how "terrifying" her actions were.

It DOES, however, sound like she is guilty of "assault with a deadly weapon", which is a MUCH more serious crime, but requires a victim to testify that they were personally assaulted. From the sound of it, the people in the fight are not the sort of people who would willingly cooperate with police, so I doubt anyone will file an assault charge against this woman.

So the only real option that the police have is to toss a GAttTotP charge at her and see if they can get it to stick.

I hope she gets a decent lawyer. If they make this one stick, it sets a VERY bad precedent in NC, and could allow the police to levy GAttTotP charges at ANYONE who some random person says was waving a gun around--which could include ANY deranged, lying "anti" who wanted to ruin the day of a lawful OCer...

Good luck on this one, folks.

It sounds like this woman is probably too stupid and ignorant to be trusted with anything more dangerous than a plastic butter knife. Unfortunately, she will probably get represented by a public defender, and will most likely be convicted of the GAttTotP charge. As much as she DESERVES to be charged with SOMETHING and punished for her stupidity, there are potentially long-ranging ramifications to such a conviction that could make things a little dicey for OCers in NC, if they have contact with aggressive, psycho "antis" who are willing to file false claims against them.

This does not bode well...
 
Last edited:
Medic1210

Medic1210

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
298
Location
Rockingham, NC
FlyBoy276 said:
From the Smithfield Harold article posted above:



:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Easily understood, because open carry isn't specifically listed from my understanding. The law is such that if it isn't stated as being against the law, it is allowed. That means for some, it's unclear, because they like to see something actually say it is allowed.
 
papa bear

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
sawah said:
There is nothing I saw that indicated it was a loaded gun.
Click to expand...

doesn't matter. nothing wrong with a gun in the car. loaded or unloaded

i agree with dreamer, the probable is that. but it is unclear in NC wither that is with a loaded weapon or not
 
Last edited:
N

NC-Heel

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
326
Location
Charlotte, NC
Where to start. First off people have already been convicted of GATTTOTP in this state so her being convicted will not create a legal precedent. I do know the State Supreme Court has ruled a holstered firearm is not GATTTOTP, State Vs. Huntley.

With that out of the way, I still believe people should be charged, convicted and lose their firearms rights when they do stupid acts. The acts I deem stupid are warning shots, showing someone you are armed to claim your superiority and displaying an unholstered firearm to deter any potential unlawful acts that have not yet occurred are some of them.

When I unholster my pistol or present my long gun I do it with the intent of discharging it to stop an immediate threat. Pulling out a rifle and pointing it at people to stop a particular action that is not life threatening and not intending to discharge that weapon should lead to charges.
 
Last edited:
sawah

sawah

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
436
Location
Virginia
NC-Heel said:
With that out of the way, I still believe people should be charged, convicted and lose their firearms rights when they do stupid acts. The acts I deem stupid are warning shots, showing someone you are armed to claim your superiority and displaying an unholstered firearm to deter any potential unlawful acts that have not yet occurred are some of them.

When I unholster my pistol or present my long gun I do it with the intent of discharging it to stop an immediate threat. Pulling out a rifle and pointing it at people to stop a particular action that is not life threatening and not intending to discharge that weapon should lead to charges.
Click to expand...

Though I agree with you, I think we are a LITTLE too harsh with people who do stupid acts with their firearms when those people probably did not harm anyone or really mean to harm someone. I know warning shots are bad, but no one dies as a result. I know brandishing is very bad, but here again, no one dies or is harmed. I'd like to see some discretion afforded to those who are truly afraid, but probably over-estimating the threat. I'm not advocating we create a culture of fear, but there are a lot of females, elderly, disabled people who are choosing to be armed and who sometimes are faced with situations where they need an intermediate remedy when backing up is not enough and shooting someone is too much.

We allow LEOs to do a bit of brandishing, maybe we can re-think the penalties for a LAC doing so. Having said that, I'm dead set about doing those things when operating a motor vehicle - i.e. flashing your gun at other drivers to intimidate them should be dealt with harshly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top