www.11alive.com

Man Arrested After Killing Burglar

Last Modified: 1/6/2005 3:33:30 PM


The boyfriend of a Clarkston, Ga., homeowner ended up charged with a weapons violation after shooting and killing a teenaged intruder.

Tremaine Lee Jordan, 27, encountered two people crawling through a broken window at his girlfriend's home on South Hairston Road Wednesday, according to police. Armed with a handgun, Jordan fired after one of the intruders threatened him.

Police arrived to find Glenn Vaughn, a 15-year-old from Stone Mountain, dead of an apparent gunshot wound. An autopsy will be conducted to determine the exact cause of death.

A 13-year-old who entered the home with Vaughn is being held on a burglary charge.

Police charged Jordan with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The investigation is continuing.

Convicted felons don't have the same right to self-defense as we do.

Quoted: Convicted felons don't have the same right to self-defense as we do.

+1

Quoted: Convicted felons don't have the same right to self-defense as we do.

They have the right to defend themselves...just not with a firearm.

Quoted: Quoted: Convicted felons don't have the same right to self-defense as we do. They have the right to defend themselves...just not with a firearm.

Actually, they can't use a weapon of any kind.

I guess he suscribed to "Better judged by twelve than carried by six."  Good for him, that rogue, good for him.  

I like that.  Felon shouldn't have had a gun onhim.  No question about that.

Now, please cite some case law or statutes that say that a felon cannot use a weapon OF ANY KIND to defend himself.

Lets put this urban muth to bed.

BTW:  Felons in Texas can have a firearm in their homes 5 years after they are released from probation.  However, they are violating federal law by possessing the firearm.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Convicted felons don't have the same right to self-defense as we do. They have the right to defend themselves...just not with a firearm. Actually, they can't use a weapon of any kind.

You sure?  Not even a baseball bat?  I'd have to see some sort of cite for that.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Convicted felons don't have the same right to self-defense as we do. They have the right to defend themselves...just not with a firearm. Actually, they can't use a weapon of any kind.

Soo..  if I attempt to kill a felon, legaly they can only use their hands to defend themselves?  Or would hands count as weapons?  In any case this is good news.  Felon killing will now be much easier... legaly speaking.

Quoted: Soo..  if I attempt to kill a felon, legaly they can only use their hands to defend themselves?  Or would hands count as weapons?  In any case this is good news.  Felon killing will now be much easier... legaly speaking.

But... felons are usually people who have a track record of disregarding federal laws.  Odds are, any felon you try to kill will probably have a MAC-10 sniper rifle that fires .50 bullets full auto out of 100 round clips.  Or a .38 revolver.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Convicted felons don't have the same right to self-defense as we do. They have the right to defend themselves...just not with a firearm. Actually, they can't use a weapon of any kind. You sure?  Not even a baseball bat?  I'd have to see some sort of cite for that.

Actually, if Joe citizen has a baseball bat in his car, he better have a ball and glove, too. That's what a cop told me once. It'll be self explanatory if you ever get stopped and the popo is wondering why you've got a Louisville Slugger with you.

Convicted felons don't have the same right to self-defense as we do.

I think that's wrong.

Not for what I'd call "true" felonies, mind you.  

But you need to realize that in the last 30 years, our government has made just about EVERYTHING that used to be a routine mistomeaner into a felony crime.

The result of making what used to be non-felony crimes into felonys, even where there is not a scintilla of violence or other issues that might be considered justification to deny guns,  is troublesome in my view.

Should a guy who grew rare Orchid flowers without the required federal beaurocratic stamp of approval lose for all time his right to defend himself and his loved ones?   As it stands, its a felony, so he does.

Should a woman who's cheating husband cleans out the checking account, and causes her to bounce the $1200 mortgage check lose forever her right to defense?  In many states, bouncing a check for more than $1000 is a felony, regardless of mitigating circumstances like I just described.

In many jurisdictions, there is a movement afoot to felonize alcohol offenses (even non vehicle offenses) by minors.  Minor in possession, buying for a minor, ec.  Also, they're now trying to felonize "Napster" style copyright violations, which would make felons out of 80% of college and highschool students, I would guess.  

Isn't that nice?  Get them while they're young and stupid, and while you're at it strip them of the right to vote for the rest of their life and the right to defend themselves.

The "Felony" consequences ought to apply to certain categories of crime:  Crimes of violence, crimes of rape, crimes of arson, crimes of intimidation, high level drug trafficing (but not use), crimes.

That's just my view.

I'm not saying I agree with it, just stating fact.

These days, one can't go to bed at night without having broken SOME law that day.

Since he was in his girlfiends house could he have shot then laid the gun on the couch. Could they still get him with posession?

Quoted: I'm not saying I agree with it, just stating fact. These days, one can't go to bed at night without having broken SOME law that day.

I guess that I'm going to do some hard time

a felon shot another dirt bag.... it's shit on shit crime... what's the problem?




J

In Florida, sudden necessity is a defense to PFCF. If, for example, a felon is visiting your house, he can use arms found in the house or taken from an assailant to terminate a forcible felony or defend his life. However, if he possessed the gun beforehand he's sunk.

I had a case once where a felon pulled a pistol from his pocket and killed an assailant in a perfectly justified shooting. He was arrested for PFCF; he was looking at 30 years as a habitual offender. I gave him 6 months on carrying a concealed weapon, and told him that (1) this was his last free bite and (2) given that he'll die in prison if he's found with a gun in the future, he should be much more careful where he goes and who he hangs out with.

The only problem I have with all of this is that IF the FELON can't be TRUSTED with a WEAPON for self defense than why is that person out of jail? Hmmmmmm?

Quoted: The only problem I have with all of this is that IF the FELON can't be TRUSTED with a WEAPON for self defense than why is that person out of jail? Hmmmmmm?

That's a fair question. It's also a fair question about the citizenry of New York, DC, and Great Britain.

If it wasa non violent felony, they should drop the charges. I'm sorry but I just can't see taking somone's RKBA for check fraud or some such shit like that.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Convicted felons don't have the same right to self-defense as we do. They have the right to defend themselves...just not with a firearm. Actually, they can't use a weapon of any kind.

Wrong!

Lemme see if I can find the court case that allows it. and post back here. It's related to the law of competing harms.

Convicted felon could have been arrested for having a gun prior to anything happening, or possession of it some significant time afterwards but he was justified in possession of it during the commission of the crime against him.

UPDATE

U.S. v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 1996)

Link to the case

Summary from Bardwells' site:

U.S. v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 1996)
In this case the court reverses a conviction for possessing a firearm by a felon. The felon was not permitted to put on his defense, which was that he had an immediate need to protect himself, which the court said is generally a defense to a charge under sec. 922(g). In this case the reason the felon needed protection was because the government, after getting his help in convicting a fellow inmate in a murder for hire scheme, told the other guy who the informant was, and refused to help protect him after he began getting very serious threats to his life. On top of refusing to help protect him, they (the same prosecutors as on the first case where he was an informant) then prosecuted him for possessing a shotgun he had to protect himself. One interesting feature of this case is footnote 7, where the judge states uneqivacally that the second amendment protects the rights of persons to own guns, and that if there was no exception to sec. 922(g) for felons to possess guns to protect themselves from immediate threats, the law might well be unconstitutional, under the second amendment. The other judges on this panel wrote separate concurrences to distance themselves from the footnote. One even notes that it directly contradicts a decision from another 9th circuit panel from almost the same time, as to the second amendment (referring to the Hickman v. Block case). Compare this case to the US v. Bernard Brown case, where the court upheld the exclusion of this sort of defense to a charge of possessing an sawed off shotgun. In part, the Brown court says, because Brown could have resorted to a non-NFA firearm for defense from the street gang. No such issue in this case.

never mind

Quoted: Convicted felons don't have the same right to self-defense as we do. I think that's wrong. Not for what I'd call "true" felonies, mind you.   But you need to realize that in the last 30 years, our government has made just about EVERYTHING that used to be a routine mistomeaner into a felony crime. The result of making what used to be non-felony crimes into felonys, even where there is not a scintilla of violence or other issues that might be considered justification to deny guns,  is troublesome in my view. Should a guy who grew rare Orchid flowers without the required federal beaurocratic stamp of approval lose for all time his right to defend himself and his loved ones?   As it stands, its a felony, so he does. Should a woman who's cheating husband cleans out the checking account, and causes her to bounce the $1200 mortgage check lose forever her right to defense?  In many states, bouncing a check for more than $1000 is a felony, regardless of mitigating circumstances like I just described. In many jurisdictions, there is a movement afoot to felonize alcohol offenses (even non vehicle offenses) by minors.  Minor in possession, buying for a minor, ec.  Also, they're now trying to felonize "Napster" style copyright violations, which would make felons out of 80% of college and highschool students, I would guess.   Isn't that nice?  Get them while they're young and stupid, and while you're at it strip them of the right to vote for the rest of their life and the right to defend themselves. The "Felony" consequences ought to apply to certain categories of crime:  Crimes of violence, crimes of rape, crimes of arson, crimes of intimidation, high level drug trafficing (but not use), crimes. That's just my view.

Needed repeating...


GM

Quoted: Convicted felons don't have the same right to self-defense as we do. I think that's wrong. Not for what I'd call "true" felonies, mind you.   But you need to realize that in the last 30 years, our government has made just about EVERYTHING that used to be a routine mistomeaner into a felony crime. The result of making what used to be non-felony crimes into felonys, even where there is not a scintilla of violence or other issues that might be considered justification to deny guns,  is troublesome in my view. Should a guy who grew rare Orchid flowers without the required federal beaurocratic stamp of approval lose for all time his right to defend himself and his loved ones?   As it stands, its a felony, so he does. Should a woman who's cheating husband cleans out the checking account, and causes her to bounce the $1200 mortgage check lose forever her right to defense?  In many states, bouncing a check for more than $1000 is a felony, regardless of mitigating circumstances like I just described. In many jurisdictions, there is a movement afoot to felonize alcohol offenses (even non vehicle offenses) by minors.  Minor in possession, buying for a minor, ec.  Also, they're now trying to felonize "Napster" style copyright violations, which would make felons out of 80% of college and highschool students, I would guess.   Isn't that nice?  Get them while they're young and stupid, and while you're at it strip them of the right to vote for the rest of their life and the right to defend themselves. The "Felony" consequences ought to apply to certain categories of crime:  Crimes of violence, crimes of rape, crimes of arson, crimes of intimidation, high level drug trafficing (but not use), crimes. That's just my view.

Problem with this is many states have brought the posession amounts that constitute trafficking down so low that many addicts are getting convicted of trafficking.

Personally I think if you're convicted of using a gun in a violent crime against another person or if you use a gun to intimidate or threaten another person during the commission of another type of felony or misdemeanor crime you should never be allowed to have a gun again. You get your passport and voting rights back after your sentence is completely finished including parole and probation time.

If you were convicted of another type of felony "white collar crime, drugs, growing orchids" and there was no weapon at all involved during the commission of the crime, once you've done your time, you get your gun rights, voting rights and passport back the day you are released from jail/prison.

Basically, unless you use a gun with malice, there is no reason to remove gun rights.

And that's it.

Quoted: Convicted felons don't have the same right to self-defense as we do. I think that's wrong. Not for what I'd call "true" felonies, mind you.   But you need to realize that in the last 30 years, our government has made just about EVERYTHING that used to be a routine mistomeaner into a felony crime. The result of making what used to be non-felony crimes into felonys, even where there is not a scintilla of violence or other issues that might be considered justification to deny guns,  is troublesome in my view. Should a guy who grew rare Orchid flowers without the required federal beaurocratic stamp of approval lose for all time his right to defend himself and his loved ones?   As it stands, its a felony, so he does. Should a woman who's cheating husband cleans out the checking account, and causes her to bounce the $1200 mortgage check lose forever her right to defense?  In many states, bouncing a check for more than $1000 is a felony, regardless of mitigating circumstances like I just described. In many jurisdictions, there is a movement afoot to felonize alcohol offenses (even non vehicle offenses) by minors.  Minor in possession, buying for a minor, ec.  Also, they're now trying to felonize "Napster" style copyright violations, which would make felons out of 80% of college and highschool students, I would guess.   Isn't that nice?  Get them while they're young and stupid, and while you're at it strip them of the right to vote for the rest of their life and the right to defend themselves. The "Felony" consequences ought to apply to certain categories of crime:  Crimes of violence, crimes of rape, crimes of arson, crimes of intimidation, high level drug trafficing (but not use), crimes. That's just my view.

+1


Making it illegal for a non violent criminal who has served his time to own a gun is just plain wrong IMO.

bummer

Quoted: Quoted: The only problem I have with all of this is that IF the FELON can't be TRUSTED with a WEAPON for self defense than why is that person out of jail? Hmmmmmm? That's a fair question. It's also a fair question about the citizenry of New York, DC, and Great Britain.

The answer that pops first and foremost in my mind is that it's because of UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS!

Quoted: In Florida, sudden necessity is a defense to PFCF. If, for example, a felon is visiting your house, he can use arms found in the house or taken from an assailant to terminate a forcible felony or defend his life. However, if he possessed the gun beforehand he's sunk. I had a case once where a felon pulled a pistol from his pocket and killed an assailant in a perfectly justified shooting. He was arrested for PFCF; he was looking at 30 years as a habitual offender. I gave him 6 months on carrying a concealed weapon, and told him that (1) this was his last free bite and (2) given that he'll die in prison if he's found with a gun in the future, he should be much more careful where he goes and who he hangs out with.

Are you a judge?   or a policeman with discretion?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Convicted felons don't have the same right to self-defense as we do. They have the right to defend themselves...just not with a firearm. Actually, they can't use a weapon of any kind. You sure?  Not even a baseball bat?  I'd have to see some sort of cite for that. Actually, if Joe citizen has a baseball bat in his car, he better have a ball and glove, too. That's what a cop told me once. It'll be self explanatory if you ever get stopped and the popo is wondering why you've got a Louisville Slugger with you.

Correct....... And I'll qualify that by just saying that Connecticut is all fucked up

The ONLY thing we have right here, is the "shall issue" concealed carry permit


Beyond that....... Hopeless........  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Convicted felons don't have the same right to self-defense as we do. They have the right to defend themselves...just not with a firearm. Actually, they can't use a weapon of any kind. You sure?  Not even a baseball bat?  I'd have to see some sort of cite for that. Actually, if Joe citizen has a baseball bat in his car, he better have a ball and glove, too. That's what a cop told me once. It'll be self explanatory if you ever get stopped and the popo is wondering why you've got a Louisville Slugger with you.

I KNOW for a fact that is not true in MOST states.  It may or may not be true in your state.

Quoted: The only problem I have with all of this is that IF the FELON can't be TRUSTED with a WEAPON for self defense than why is that person out of jail? Hmmmmmm?

Great point.

Man Arrested After Killing Burglar

Nice headline. Note how they did NOT say in the headline "Felon Arrested for Illegal Possession of Firearm".

Quoted: Convicted felons don't have the same right to self-defense as we do.

Well...hold on a sec...there was a story *somewhere* about a similar case in which a convicted felon defended himself with a gun that was not his, but in the house/apt. where he was at.  It seems that the court ruled even a felon could protect himself if his life was threatened.  

Don't even ask me where I saw this, and I don't remember any of the real details.   Take it with a grain of salt, but I have a distinct recollection of the story filed in the back of my head somewhere.  

Quoted: Quoted: In Florida, sudden necessity is a defense to PFCF. If, for example, a felon is visiting your house, he can use arms found in the house or taken from an assailant to terminate a forcible felony or defend his life. However, if he possessed the gun beforehand he's sunk. I had a case once where a felon pulled a pistol from his pocket and killed an assailant in a perfectly justified shooting. He was arrested for PFCF; he was looking at 30 years as a habitual offender. I gave him 6 months on carrying a concealed weapon, and told him that (1) this was his last free bite and (2) given that he'll die in prison if he's found with a gun in the future, he should be much more careful where he goes and who he hangs out with. Are you a judge?   or a policeman with discretion?

Former prosecutor.

Quoted: Quoted: Convicted felons don't have the same right to self-defense as we do. Well...hold on a sec...there was a story *somewhere* about a similar case in which a convicted felon defended himself with a gun that was not his, but in the house/apt. where he was at.  It seems that the court ruled even a felon could protect himself if his life was threatened.   Don't even ask me where I saw this, and I don't remember any of the real details.   Take it with a grain of salt, but I have a distinct recollection of the story filed in the back of my head somewhere.

I remember reading about that also.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Convicted felons don't have the same right to self-defense as we do. Well...hold on a sec...there was a story *somewhere* about a similar case in which a convicted felon defended himself with a gun that was not his, but in the house/apt. where he was at.  It seems that the court ruled even a felon could protect himself if his life was threatened.   Don't even ask me where I saw this, and I don't remember any of the real details.   Take it with a grain of salt, but I have a distinct recollection of the story filed in the back of my head somewhere.   I remember reading about that also.

Yeah, I think it was on page one.

Fenian, you are correct. I remember hearing about this case when I was leo in Va. We had a discussion about it and most agreed he should be ale to defend himself.

I remember G Gordon Liddy talking about this, as he is a convicted felon (cough).

I think he said his wife can own firearms but he can't, so all his are hers.

Felons should not be barred from having guns.

Simple premise:  if they're still dangerous, they should still be in prison

Unfortunately, our "justice" system is a joke and so are today's sentences and paroles

That guy is screwed but at least he's still alive.  Anybody know for what kind of felony he was convicted for?