Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/21/2003 9:54:01 AM EDT
[url=http://news.excite.com/odd/article/id/134797|oddlyenough|05-21-2003%3A%3A10%3A05|reuters.html]Court: Bank Robber Had Gun, Wasn't 'Armed' [/url] May 21, 9:55 am ET LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A federal appeals court has tossed out the armed bank robbery conviction of a Los Angeles man after finding that -- while he admitted being armed and robbing the bank -- he did not mean to show his gun to a teller while demanding money. Deshon Rene Odom carried a loaded revolver in the waistband of his pants while he and an accomplice robbed a Los Angeles-area bank in 1996, but he did not brandish the weapon or even mention it to employees. A manager noticed the gun only when Odom raised his jacket to stuff away a pillowcase full of stolen cash. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Tuesday in a written ruling that that Odom should have been convicted of unarmed bank robbery -- which carries a lesser prison term -- instead of armed robbery. The court ordered a Los Angeles federal judge to sentence Odom again. Odom's attorney, Maria Stratton, said the ruling would not likely change his sentence, because he was also convicted of two other charges. But she said her client "didn't commit an armed robbery" and should not have been convicted of one.
View Quote
So let's see... you can get thrown off a plane for carrying a 2-inch plastic GI Joe gun, you can get thrown out of grade school for drawing a gun or 'shooting' people with your fingers, you can get convicted of "armed" robbery if you PRETEND to have a gun and the teller believes you, and most importantly - you can be arrested for "showing" your CCW if anyone accidentally sees it - but if you actually DO carry a gun while robbing a bank and the teller sees it - it's NOT considered 'armed' robbery. Uh-huh.... [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 9:57:48 AM EDT
The world is an amazing place...
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:00:09 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:02:42 AM EDT
They don't call it the "9th CIRCUS Court of Appeals" for nuthin'[:E][8P][:P][@:D]
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:03:28 AM EDT
correction... 9th Circus Court. What do you expect from the land of fruits and nuts?
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:05:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2003 10:05:19 AM EDT by Emoto]
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]
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:14:21 AM EDT
It has to be something in the water. It has to be. There can be no other explanation provided by science to explain this...
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:16:47 AM EDT
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]
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:27:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Tactical_Jew: 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]
View Quote
We have a winner.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:31:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By magnum_99:
Originally Posted By Tactical_Jew: 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]
View Quote
We have a winner.
View Quote
I'll tell you what: If I lived in Kali and got busted for CCW, that's the tack I'd take!
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 10:57:15 AM EDT
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
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:02:51 AM EDT
Ridiculous. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:46:02 AM EDT
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".
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:52:43 AM EDT
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
View Quote
Assume? Going by your logic, all bank robbers are armed. Then, why differentiate between robbery and armed robbery?z
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:55:30 AM EDT
The sheer, unadulterated stupidity that gushes forth from the 9th Circuit court every time they issue a ruling is simply beyond amazing. SG
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 11:59:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 12:34:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By zoom: 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
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 3:00:33 PM EDT
Those folks sure do make a mockery of logic and laws.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 3:20:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Guess: I'm sure his intent would have been to blow off anybody's head that got in his way.
View Quote
If they had proved that in court then the conviction for "armed" robbery probably would have stuck.
He was armed regardless of intent.
View Quote
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.
View Quote
I would guess they probably already did. They tend to charge them with everything they can think of, from jaywalking on up.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 3:45:49 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 4:09:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2003 8:39:27 PM EDT by nightstalker]
Originally Posted By zoom:
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
View Quote
Assume? Going by your logic, all bank robbers are armed. Then, why differentiate between robbery and armed robbery?z
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 4:14:45 PM EDT
He was excercising his God-given right to own and carry a weapon that no one should deny him under any circumstances.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 4:48:20 PM EDT
Is it just me, or is the 9th Circuit court making some stupid judgments lately? ...Only in America...
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 5:14:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By zoom: 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
View Quote
My condolences zoom.....
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 5:34:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/22/2003 5:35:26 PM EDT by Happyshooter]
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)
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 5:39:58 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 5:57:20 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 6:16:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SeaDweller: 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.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 6:31:09 PM EDT
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!!
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 7:23:21 PM EDT
Like the British and Canadians... the 9th Circuit has shown to be FOR the criminals, and AGAINST the citizens.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 7:44:12 PM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 7:58:42 PM EDT
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.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 8:21:45 PM EDT
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
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 8:30:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SouthernShark: 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.
View Quote
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?
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 8:32:49 PM EDT
good thing he wasnt wearing MARPAT!
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 8:36:39 PM EDT
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...
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 8:55:37 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 9:12:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cc48510: 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.
View Quote
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>
Link Posted: 5/21/2003 9:13:23 PM EDT
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."
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 12:31:45 AM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 1:09:31 AM EDT
I hate the 9th circuit more than I hate the [b]f[/b]rench!
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 7:09:57 AM EDT
Someone in S.F. needs to go into the 9th circuit courthouse and give them an upper decker.
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 7:52:01 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/22/2003 7:59:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By raven: 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."
View Quote
[b]DING DING DING!!![/b] FINALLY!!! We have a winner! [beer]
Top Top