General Categories > Newsworthy
Customer Shoots Robber in Drug Store???
AAllen:
Husker_Fan, there are more cases than that. Ernie Chambers was not charged with CCW under affirmative defense, I believe that was back in the late 70's.
I remember when I was young someone had made threats against my mother in a court room, before the person could get out of the courthouse the County Sheriff was picking my mother up at work and taking her to a gun store and arming her. His direction, he could not be there all the time to protect her so she needed to carry it all the times.
Affirmative defense is a difficult case to make but valid for persons even when they are not "working". But then it has not yet been definitively established he was concealed. Remember when the CCW law was enacted the definition of what a concealed firearm was changed, and that may apply here more than anything.
FarmerRick:
Link to KFAB's Scott Voorhees talking to NFOA past-President Chris Zeeb this morning concerning the shooting and NFOA's donation of a new pistol to Mr. McCullough. Interview starts at about 9 minutes into the recording.
http://www.kfab.com/cc-common/mediaplayer/player.html?redir=yes&mps=ScottVoorhees.php&mid=http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/OMAHA-NE/KFAB-AM/Walgreens%20Warrior%20III%204-30-10.mp3?CPROG=PCAST?CCOMRRMID&CPROG=RICHMEDIA&MARKET=OMAHA-NE&NG_FORMAT=newstalk&NG_ID=kfab1110am&OR_NEWSFORMAT=&OWNER=&SERVER_NAME=www.kfab.com&SITE_ID=611&STATION_ID=KFAB-AM&TRACK=
Famous556:
Donated to this corageous man. I'm glad everything turned out the way it did, no innocent people were harmed and overall it seems the media is protraying this man in a positive light. This guy is certainly a hero and should continue to be touted as such, I think it's great that this board and the NFOA is setting up the donations for this man. Great work guys!!!
Dan W:
Husker_Fan,
I don't believe that "engaged at the time in any lawful business, calling, or employment at the time he or she was carrying" literally requires one to only be carrying while at work.
I am not a lawyer, so I can only read the statute as it is written. Doesn't mention any limitations other than the requirement to be engaged in legal activities
I read that to mean that one must not be engaged in any illegal activity to claim the affirmative defense.
I don't assume a legal calling need be a job, and I don't buy the "only ones" argument that only certain occupations are deserving of an affirmative defense.
Even lawyers with a "get out of jail free" card need to stand in line at the drug store at times.
Husker_Fan:
Dan,
That's why I said I don't like the result. It's just my opinion on the meaning of the law, not my preferred meaning. I would prefer a much broader defense.
My antecdote about the atorney was not meant to be the only case I am aware of, just that I think it is indicative of what might be required to win on the defense. I don't think that is the way it should be.
Honestly, a jury may well aquit someone in this situation, but it is far from an easy case. You roll the dice and take your chances.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version