User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 9:57:48 AM EDT
[#1]
The world is an amazing place...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 10:00:09 AM EDT
[#2]
Are you actually surprised at ANYTHING the 9th Circuit rules? We're talking about the same court that doesn't believe that RKBA is an individual right.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 10:02:42 AM EDT
[#3]
They don't call it the "9th CIRCUS Court of Appeals" for nuthin'[:E][8P][:P][@:D]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 10:03:28 AM EDT
[#4]
correction... 9th Circus Court.
What do you expect from the land of fruits and nuts? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 10:05:02 AM EDT
[#5]
Although I cannot honestly say I'm surprised about this ruling, given the venue, it still boggles my mind to read such amazingly absurd idiocy.
[BD] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 10:14:21 AM EDT
[#6]
It has to be something in the water. It has to be. There can be no other explanation provided by science to explain this...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 10:16:47 AM EDT
[#7]
So, no ccw is needed in the PRK then?
If you carry a gun with no ccw that is not considered armed and thus will not be arrested and thrown in the gulag with other dissidents. [sarcasm]About time they ruled with a little common sense[/sarcasm] |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 10:27:12 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: So, no ccw is needed in the PRK then? If you carry a gun with no ccw that is not considered armed and thus will not be arrested and thrown in the gulag with other dissidents. [sarcasm]About time they ruled with a little common sense[/sarcasm] We have a winner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 10:31:36 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: Quoted: So, no ccw is needed in the PRK then? If you carry a gun with no ccw that is not considered armed and thus will not be arrested and thrown in the gulag with other dissidents. [sarcasm]About time they ruled with a little common sense[/sarcasm] We have a winner. I'll tell you what: If I lived in Kali and got busted for CCW, that's the tack I'd take! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 10:57:15 AM EDT
[#10]
A large part of the law is intent. The robber did not intend to threaten the people in the bank with a gun, so I agree with the ruling. Of course, this is a touchy subject since I just got back from a funeral for two friends that were killed in a bank robbery.z
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 11:02:51 AM EDT
[#11]
Ridiculous. [rolleyes]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 11:46:02 AM EDT
[#12]
His "intent" was to go armed even if he didn't intend to let anyone know it. [b]This[/b] makes the crime larger, not any knowledge of the victims. The act of robbing a bank leads the average person to "assume" the robbers are capable of enforcing their will. It should be presumed they are armed and I'm sure an interview with the employees would reveal this.
Do what I say and no one will get hurt!.......with what? Now his carrying will be a misdemeanor and bear almost no significance, whereas you or I could suffer much more for "illegal carry". |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 11:52:43 AM EDT
[#13]
The act of robbing a bank leads the average person to "assume" the robbers are capable of enforcing their will. It should be presumed they are armed Assume? Going by your logic, all bank robbers are armed. Then, why differentiate between robbery and armed robbery?z |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 11:55:30 AM EDT
[#14]
The sheer, unadulterated stupidity that gushes forth from the 9th Circuit court every time they issue a ruling is simply beyond amazing.
SG |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 11:59:19 AM EDT
[#15]
Once again, we don't know what he said so don't have all the story.
If he did indeed not mention a gun or killing someone, then the ruling is a fair one. It does indicate the teller is an idiot for handing over money without a threat. I guess all you have to do to rob a bank these days is ask for the moey. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 12:34:00 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: A large part of the law is intent. The robber did not intend to threaten the people in the bank with a gun, so I agree with the ruling. Of course, this is a touchy subject since I just got back from a funeral for two friends that were killed in a bank robbery.z I'm sure his intent would have been to blow off anybody's head that got in his way. He was armed regardless of intent. Maybe they should file charges of carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 3:00:33 PM EDT
[#17]
Those folks sure do make a mockery of logic and laws.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 3:20:17 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: I'm sure his intent would have been to blow off anybody's head that got in his way. If they had proved that in court then the conviction for "armed" robbery probably would have stuck. He was armed regardless of intent. Yes, but a finding of "criminal intent" is required for conviction of a crime (for everything except drug crimes). If you study the law a little you will find there are lots of good reasons for strictly requiring proof of criminal intent. Maybe they should file charges of carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. I would guess they probably already did. They tend to charge them with everything they can think of, from jaywalking on up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 3:45:49 PM EDT
[#19]
It was always my understanding that when in the commission of a crime the possession of a firearm is sufficient for an enhancement and it didn't even matter if it was drawn or not. Or loaded for that matter.
I think this 9th circuit shit is 100% BS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 4:09:44 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: The act of robbing a bank leads the average person to "assume" the robbers are capable of enforcing their will. It should be presumed they are armed Assume? Going by your logic, all bank robbers are armed. Then, why differentiate between robbery and armed robbery?z This is life preservation logic. I think you would need evidence of a weapon presented in court to make your case that it was "armed robbery. In this case they did have evidence, an eye witness saw the gun as the robber stuffed the cash in a bag. Of couse you could argue that it was not possible for the witness to absolutely know it was loaded or even that it was not a fake gun of some sort. BTW, by my logic there would be no difference as violence is implied, otherwise they would burgle the bank, n'est ce pas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 4:14:45 PM EDT
[#21]
He was excercising his God-given right to own and carry a weapon that no one should deny him under any circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 4:48:20 PM EDT
[#22]
Is it just me, or is the 9th Circuit court making some stupid judgments lately?
...Only in America... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 5:14:30 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: A large part of the law is intent. The robber did not intend to threaten the people in the bank with a gun, so I agree with the ruling. Of course, this is a touchy subject since I just got back from a funeral for two friends that were killed in a bank robbery.z My condolences zoom..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 5:34:26 PM EDT
[#24]
In this case they may be right. If the robbery was intended to be done unarmed, and they handed over the money before they saw the gun, then it was simple robbery. We had a case much like that in Michigan, only the guy got outside before whipping out his weapon, and the court ruled it was not armed robbery, only robbery.
(This is only for states where 'armed robbery' equals 'robbery done by displaying or using a gun or knife', and the feds who define it that way) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 5:39:58 PM EDT
[#25]
So, since the teller handed over enough money to stuff pillowcases full, we must assume there was a threat of violence. The story states that he and an accomplice robbed the bank. Did the accomplice brandish his weapon??? If so, the only reason this man didn't brandish his weapon was so he could handle the people and money. He still was armed and robbed the bank. He was armed in case he needed to KILL someone in order to complete his crime.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 5:57:20 PM EDT
[#26]
That ruling is 100 percent correct. Armed robbery is a crime of "SPECIFIC INTENT." If he did not intend to commit armed robbery then the conviction has to be tossed out.
Its just part of the common law and the Constitution. I doubt that many of you are familiar with such concepts though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 6:16:08 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: It was always my understanding that when in the commission of a crime the possession of a firearm is sufficient for an enhancement and it didn't even matter if it was drawn or not. Or loaded for that matter. I think this 9th circuit shit is 100% BS. There is a distinction to be made here. There may indeed be an enhancement that could be applied, but that isn't the same as convicting someone of "armed robbery." There is an enhancement for having guns with illegal drugs, even if the gun was locked in a case and not seen at all. Having a gun is different than using the gun in the course of a crime. There are all kinds of such careful distinctions in the law, usually for fairly good reasons if you study the law a little. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 6:31:09 PM EDT
[#28]
Give me a break, wasn't armed? What a bunch of morons. That goes for the 9th circuit, and anyone who buys into their logic. Moron: "a very stupid or foolish person", "a retarded person mentally equal to a child between eight and twelve years old",
Yep, it appears to me moron is the correct identifier for some of yall!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 7:23:21 PM EDT
[#29]
Like the British and Canadians... the 9th Circuit has shown to be FOR the criminals, and AGAINST the citizens.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 7:44:12 PM EDT
[#30]
So by the same logic;
If you're carrying a gun in the forest, and there's no one to see you, are you still carrying a gun? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 7:58:42 PM EDT
[#31]
US Code Sec 18 title 2113 (d) Whoever, in committing, or in attempting to commit, any offense defined in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, assaults any person, or puts in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon or device, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty-five years, or both. The article wasnt clear on whether this involved CA or US law, but above is the US Code involving 'bank robbery'. IT looks like (without reading the 9th Circuit's decision in this case) the 9th took the position that having a weapon is not the same as USING a weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 8:21:45 PM EDT
[#32]
if someone dies during a felony, even if it wasn't intended the suspect is charged with murder
this seems like a similar situation he was armed while committing a robbery |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 8:30:56 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: That ruling is 100 percent correct. Armed robbery is a crime of "SPECIFIC INTENT." If he did not intend to commit armed robbery then the conviction has to be tossed out. Its just part of the common law and the Constitution. I doubt that many of you are familiar with such concepts though. Unless this was originally tried by the 9th Circuit Court (not) there was at least ONE court (probably a superior AND a district court) that apparently is unfamiliar with this common law and the Constitution you mention. How is it that such a simple concept got by everyone? Everyone's trying to make this out to be a "no brainer" so how does such a whopper of a mistake get so easily passed on? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 8:32:49 PM EDT
[#34]
good thing he wasnt wearing MARPAT! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 8:36:39 PM EDT
[#35]
Heh...
And here in WI, we have the opposite extreme... I can be charged for 'going armed with a concealed weapon' if I have a loaded gun in my dresser or locked in the glovebox of my car... Of course, the 9th circus will have a totally different opinion WRT everyone else... Be nice to the bank robber (not armed), throw the (otherwise) law abiding citizen (ccw violation) in jail... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 8:55:37 PM EDT
[#36]
For once I have to agree with the 9th circus. The mear possession of a gun should not make it an armed robbery. Armed Robbery implies that the gun was used in the robbery.
For example, if you are packing and shoplift something...is that Armed Robbery ??? After all you were armed and stealing. The short answer is no...because, the gun was not used to shoplift. Similarly, since the tellers handed the money over without the use of a weapon, it was not an armed robbery. Now, if someone had tried to stop him and he'd showed his gun...then it would have been an armed robbery. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 9:12:02 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: For once I have to agree with the 9th circus. The mear possession of a gun should not make it an armed robbery. Armed Robbery implies that the gun was used in the robbery. For example, if you are packing and shoplift something...is that Armed Robbery ??? After all you were armed and stealing. The short answer is no...because, the gun was not used to shoplift. Similarly, since the tellers handed the money over without the use of a weapon, it was not an armed robbery. Now, if someone had tried to stop him and he'd showed his gun...then it would have been an armed robbery. Your shoplifting example is burglary. Burglary is robbery without knowledge of the owner. I would like to hear what someone has to say on why they need intent to cause the charge of "armed" robbery. Where is the hazard of assuming intent in this case? Why is it an unreasonable assumption that at least one person saw and believed this guy meant harm simply by his accidental display of his weapon. If anyone has worked where there was a chance of robbery they know that "store policy" is to not resist, to cooperate fully and follow orders. All of this assumes you are avoiding physical harm by complying with a robber. My point is that from a victim's point of view this stuff is irrelevant> |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2003 9:13:23 PM EDT
[#38]
Ok, I was wondering how weird this is, the court is coddling a criminal, letting him off light. Even weirder that this ruling came from the 9th circuit. This ruling is extremely lenient in crime involving a gun, even if you dont consider it came from the 9th circuit and their very anti-gun record.
Sure he didn't brandish the gun, but that doesn't mean he didn't mean he intended to use it. Bank tellers know you have to assume the robber is armed, which is why many bank robbers commit their crime unarmed. They know it will be assumed they're armed, and they wont get hit as hard if they get caught and convicted. Knowing this, if you bring a gun to a bank robbery, it means you're willing to use violence to prevent arrest. It is a more serious crime. I'm going to be a bit of an asshole here, but I think this explains a lot. Check out the convict's name: Deshon Rene Odom So what the 9th Circuit is doing, by being lenient because the perp is black (to assuage their liberal guilt over the fact that a majority of violent criminals in prison are black despite being an overall minority) they're sending a message through precedence to future bank robbers: "If you were thinking of doing a bank job, you might as well bring a gun and keep it hidden as an insurance policy. If you get caught, the penalties are the same." |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2003 12:31:45 AM EDT
[#39]
I always wondered about this. If you amputate both a guys limbs at the shoulder, and stick a gun in his belt, is he considered armed?
Armed but not dangerous? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2003 1:09:31 AM EDT
[#40]
I hate the 9th circuit more than I hate the [b]f[/b]rench!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2003 7:09:57 AM EDT
[#41]
Someone in S.F. needs to go into the 9th circuit courthouse and give them an upper decker.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2003 7:52:01 AM EDT
[#42]
IMHO, having a gun in your [b]possession[/b] during commission of a crime should be grounds for additional/stiffer charges and more jail time. In your enthusiasm to protect gun rights, don't forget that the key to crime control is hammering the criminals.
I CCW and I [i]know[/i] I'm armed, even if the 9th can't see it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/22/2003 7:59:37 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: I'm going to be a bit of an asshole here, but I think this explains a lot. Check out the convict's name: Deshon Rene Odom So what the 9th Circuit is doing, by being lenient because the perp is black (to assuage their liberal guilt over the fact that a majority of violent criminals in prison are black despite being an overall minority) they're sending a message through precedence to future bank robbers: "If you were thinking of doing a bank job, you might as well bring a gun and keep it hidden as an insurance policy. If you get caught, the penalties are the same." [b]DING DING DING!!![/b] FINALLY!!! We have a winner! [beer] |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
