Good talk on blocks

Sensei Canna offers insight into the real world of self defense!

Moderator: Van Canna

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:42 pm

The waiver of your Fourth Amendment rights is why states with “duty to inform” laws create such a constitutional dilemma.

If, as a condition to carrying a firearm, I am required by law to inform an officer that I have a firearm in my vehicle, then I am simultaneously required to waive my Fourth Amendment privacy rights.

That is a violation of the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine and is long overdue for a legal challenge.

BUT PHIL, POLICE OFFICERS ONLY PUT CRIMINALS IN JAIL, AND I’M NOT A CRIMINAL!!! WHY WOULD I CARE IF I GET SEARCHED?!?
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56884
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:44 pm

IMPLICATION NUMBER 2: YOU ARE A CRIMINAL, YOU JUST DON’T KNOW IT…YET

You are a criminal, we all are from time to time. Do you have any idea how many gun laws there are out there? No? Neither does our own department of justice.

If you don’t even know how many gun laws there are, how can you possibly know you are abiding by all of them simultaneously?

Justice Robert Jackson (U.S. Supreme Court Justice) once said, “any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect [his client], in no uncertain terms, to make no statement to the police, under [any] circumstances.”

The reasoning behind Justice Jackson’s quote isn’t because police officers are bad, it is simply because the average civilian has no idea how many laws they may be breaking at any given time.

As a prosecutor, and later a defense attorney, I deal with clients routinely that are charged with crimes they had no idea they were committing.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56884
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:46 pm

Here is a simple example of how the “I have nothing to hide” mentality can land you in jail.

Let’s imagine you are a Utah resident and a Utah concealed permit holder. Your Utah permit is valid in well over 30 states so you decide to take a road trip with your firearm.

As you’re driving through Idaho (where your permit is valid) you get pulled over for speeding in a school zone.

Because you are an upstanding citizen and you have nothing to hide, you tell the officer that you have a firearm in the vehicle.

Aaaaannd now you’re a felon. Wait, what? How did that happen? Let’s review why you’re now a felon
.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56884
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:47 pm

18 U.S.C.A. § 922(q)(2)(A), otherwise known as the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA), states that:

It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

The term “school zone” means in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.

The term “school” means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law (see 18 U.S.C.A. § 921).
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56884
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:49 pm

There are a few narrow exceptions to this law, one of which is:

“if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;” 18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (emphasis added)

You have a permit from Utah which is valid in Idaho, but was not issued by Idaho, which means this federal law is in full force against you. See how fun that is?

Don’t worry, the penalty for violating the law is only 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. If you would like more details about this law you can read the ATF’s analysis of it here.

Of course, as is often the case, the Idaho police officer may sympathize that you are not intending to violate the law and may choose not to escalate the situation beyond a mere traffic stop.

Millions of people violate the GFSZA every year and few are prosecuted. Given the harsh penalty, however, it’s not a gamble I personally want to take.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56884
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:51 pm

IMPLICATION NUMBER 3: SEARCHES ARE ALMOST ALWAYS BAD.

I would challenge anyone reading this to think of any instance where someone waiving their rights, or consenting to a search/seizure, has made their life better.

In my career I certainly haven’t seen it. I have, however, seen a significant amount of good people get charged with serious crimes because they were overly generous with the amount of information they shared with law enforcement.

It is my experience that nothing good can come from waiving your rights. Consider the wording of the the oft cited Miranda warning:


The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 469, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1625, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966) (emphasis added).

Can and will be used against you. The best case scenario of waiving your rights is you get to go home. The worst case scenario is you go to prison.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56884
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:53 pm

Once again, it is not our intent to tell you how you should interact with law enforcement or imply in any way that law enforcement are villains or out to get you. As a prosecutor I worked with law enforcement every day, and as a firearm instructor over the past decade I can say some of the best people I know are police officers.

Police officers, by and large, support the shooting sports community and are members of it themselves. We strongly encourage everyone to treat law enforcement with respect. Very little is accomplished in life by acting belligerent, rude or demeaning.

Phil Nelsen is a nationally recognized firearms law attorney, expert witness, college professor, author and co-founder of Legal Heat, the nation’s largest firearms training firm.

Legal Heat offers CCW classes nationwide, and also publishes the industry leading Legal Heat 50 State Guide to Firearm Laws and Regulations which can downloaded on iTunes, GooglePlay and Kindle App stores. You can purchase the paperback version of the Legal Heat 50 State Guide or sign up for a class at https://mylegalheat.com
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56884
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:16 am

https://ccwsafe.com/blog

The Shooting of Joe McKnight: A Cautionary Tale To All Drivers- Part II Location


Posted: Thursday, June 7, 2018

After a five-mile “tit-for-tat mutual road rage” incident, former New York Jets running back Joe McKnight got out of his car at a red light and confronted 56-year-old Ronald Gasser.

It’s a matter of debate whether McKnight simply rested his forearms on the opened window of Gasser’s car as the prosecution said, or whether McKnight lunged at Gasser as the defense claimed.

What was not in dispute, however, is that Gasser fired his .40 caliber Smith & Wesson pistol three times, striking McKnight in his right shoulder, his hands and, fatally, his chest.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56884
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:18 am

Gasser claimed self-defense and was initially released after eight-hours of questioning. But ultimately, when witness testimony and forensic evidence refuted some of his claims, Gasser was arrested on charges of second degree murder.

During jury selection at Gasser’s trial, defense attorney Matthew Goetz reminded potential jurors that Louisiana law allows for lethal force if an intruder crosses the threshold of a person’s home -- or car.

According to statute, if McKnight reached into Gasser’s car, Gasser could be justified in using deadly force.

At trial, prosecutors conceded that McKnight’s hands crossed the threshold. A bullet struck his hands, and blood splatter was found in the car. At first blush, it seems Gasser was justified.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56884
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:22 am

But was McKnight truly an “intruder” when he crossed the threshold? Prosecutor Shannon Swaim suggested to the jury that “someone resting a hand on a window does not amount to forcible entry.”

It’s a subjective statement, and whether it’s true depends on McKnight’s intent.

That’s where the testimony of witness Veronica Hoye became critical. She said she heard McKnight yell, “No, YOU get out of the car.”

The implication is that Gasser essentially invited McKnight to come to his vehicle.


When you read these real life cases, it makes you shudder at what's out there coiled like a dark venomous snake ready to strike at any moment's notice...

Should be enough to dispel the fantasies and dreams of the 'super MA' maybe just waiting to prove how tough he is.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56884
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:24 am

In our articles on Castle Doctrine shootings, we explored the cases of Markus Kaarma and Byron Smith.

Both men were homeowners who made clear efforts to lure would-be burglars into their home with the intention of shooting the intruders.

Both men made statements following the shootings suggesting they had performed a valuable service for their neighborhoods.

Kaarma got 70 years. Smith got life.

The same lesson applies to automobiles.

Many states extend the idea of the Castle Doctrine to vehicles, but it’s not a green light to shoot just because someone leans into your car.

To be justified, a shooting still must be reasonable.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56884
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:25 am

Because of Louisiana’s law, Gasser did not have a duty-to-retreat before using deadly force in his automobile. At trial, attorney Goetz said, “If there were vehicles in front, all around, he would have nowhere to go.”

He was trapped at the red light, and according to Gasser’s statements to police, he wanted to escape the situation.

“I’m waiting for the light to turn green so I can get the f--- out of there,” he said.

If the law said Gasser didn’t have a duty to retreat, why did the defense lawyer bother to make this point?

Because when juries decide whether a shooting is reasonable, they often like to know that the shooter didn’t pass up obvious opportunities to avoid the shooting.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56884
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:27 am

Because of Louisiana’s law, Gasser did not have a duty-to-retreat before using deadly force in his automobile. At trial, attorney Goetz said, “If there were vehicles in front, all around, he would have nowhere to go.” He was trapped at the red light, and according to Gasser’s statements to police, he wanted to escape the situation.

“I’m waiting for the light to turn green so I can get the f--- out of there,” he said. If the law said Gasser didn’t have a duty to retreat, why did the defense lawyer bother to make this point? Because when juries decide whether a shooting is reasonable, they often like to know that the shooter didn’t pass up obvious opportunities to avoid the shooting.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56884
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:28 am

The lesson for the concealed carrier is that even if the law in your state doesn’t mandate a duty to retreat when an intruder enters your car, to be justified, the use of deadly force must always be reasonable.

Furthermore, if you invite someone to approach your vehicle, it’s hard to argue later that they were an “intruder” if they enter the vehicle.

While it may have been unclear whether the jury regarded McKnight as an “intruder” or not -- it’s much more clear regarding who they held most responsible for initiating the confrontation.

In the next installment of “The Four Elements of Self-Defense,” we explore how concept of escalation affected the legal defense of Ronald Gasser in the shooting of Joe McKnight
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56884
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:31 am

56-year-old Louisiana man Ronald Gasser had been arrested for a road rage incident before.

In 2006, a motorist dialed the “How's My Driving?” bumper sticker on Gasser's work truck to complain.

The number went to Gasser's cell phone, and he took umbrage with the criticism.

At the intersection of Holmes Boulevard and Behrman Highway -- just outside New Orleans -- Gasser got out of his truck and confronted the motorist, punching him several times in the head and body.


Keep that phone in your pocket, or it will kill you.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 56884
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

PreviousNext

Return to Van Canna's Self Defense Realities

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron