Zed's_Dead

Isn't our problem as D's that we care too much?

Forgot to say thanks for getting my back up sights, wrench and spiffy midwest px hat to me in a hurry! Now I can shoot when the battery in my red dot goes dead next time lol Thanks Ty!

Ahh, I did leave that part out. GG was driving a big box truck. He says he didn't feel any impact and had no idea why victim was following him. Damage on car was minor. As to the "violent" actions of the guy in the Escalade I believe there was testimony that he was driving "aggresively" enough to concern GG. As to the stock, my buddy didn't remember the specific model name off the top of his head, but he thought it was a Magpul.

I talked to my buddy, Joe Chiarello, who represented the defendant. Here are the basic facts of the case as I understand them: Defendant (hereinafter Good Guy or GG) is driving his work truck home and allegedly sideswipes a Cadillac Escalade driven by "victim" with his wife as passenger. Victim then aggressively follows good guy home, allegedly attempting to force him off the road at points. Good guy calls wife to explain what's happening and asks her to call 911 to have police meet him at his house and unlock his gun safe. Victim follows good guy all the way to his house, blocking driveway with his car. Both good guy's and victims wives are on phone with 911. Good guy goes in house and gets his semi-automatic handgun and goes back outside to ask what victim is doing and telling him to get off property. Good guy never points gun at victim, just holds it at his side. Victim's wife is on phone with 911. According to testimony in case, she never once mentions to 911 that good guy is pointing gun at them until she is asked that question by 911 operator. She was merely complaining about car getting sideswiped. Good guy gets on phone with 911 operator who tells him to go in house (he does) and put gun away. He refuses saying his wife is home and he's not putting the gun away until the police get there as he does not know the intentions of "Victim" who is on his property. Police get there. Good guy secures his handgun and police arrest him for allegedly pointing the gun and charge him with aggravated assault. Search of the house turns up a Bushmaster AR15 clone with an adjustable stock. Charges added for possession of an assault weapon. No charges filed against alleged victim believe it or not. Defense attorney retains a retired member of the NJSP Firearms ID Unit as his expert. State has the current head (I believe) of the NJSP FIU as their expert. State expert acknowledges expert credentials of defense expert. Testimony comes out that "telescoping" is not defined anywhere in the law, but that according to the dictionary definition of telescoping, the stock on the Bushmaster (sorry, don't have exact name)is NOT telescoping, it is adjustable. Further, it is adjustable only between two LEGAL lengths and at no point could the rifle be illegal in the state of NJ if stock was pinned at any of the adjustable stops. Jury took 45 minutes to find not guilty on all counts. I may be leaving some stuff out, but this is the gist of it. While the "not guilty" is great, the jury finding on whether the gun is an assault rifle is not a finding by the court that is not an assault rifle. So the State can still file a complaint seeking to have Good guy forfeit all his guns. This is a civil action with no jury so the state only has to show the judge by a "preponderance of the evidence", less than "reasonable doubt", that the rifle in an assault weapon and good guy will lose the rifle. Think OJ civil trial after he was acquitted of the murders. There's more to come on this one.

Not in NJ. In addition to the things vjf mentioned, they also get called to crime scenes in the middle of the night. Naturally, these are often not in the best areas.

Great article. I guess those of us who want to be sheepdogs have been neutered by the State!

Looking into the future, if the PPD actually did make stops according to that directive, and along the lines of Terry stops, I think the courts would approve of that because of the special license requirement to carry in Philly. I'm not saying I agree, so please keep your flames off lol!!!

+1 Puerto Rico!

Great post Dark! Do you have a link for it somewhere? I'd love to share it with some friends.

I'm a member at USANA and even though I have no airsoft equipment, I'd love to come watch if that's possible.

I've been trying to call Joe for a few days now to see what happened. I told him about the forum and was hoping he'd hop on to talk about it. I haven't been able to find a thing about the case online anywhere! When I do talk to him, I'll get whatever information I can and post it here.

As a lawyer, I never like to give definitive answers , but IMHO, I don't think you would have any problem keeping the gun at either home or transporting it between the two, as long as it's transported in the manner described in the statute.

There is a criminal case pending in Cumberland County where the issue of the "telescoping" stock is very important to the defendant. A friend of mine is representing the defendant. I'm waiting to hear back from him to see if it went to the jury yet. I'm waiting to hear back from him and will give the facts and outcome when I get it.

Pete, I think you've misread my post. This is a direct quote from jack's post: Sorry buddy, but i do not have to obey a police officers demands when i am doing nothing illegal. Police officers cannot detain a person who is legally doing nothing wrong Do you agree that that is a very general statement? That is the only problem I had with it. It's not true 100% of the time. All I was pointing out was that the police do, in certain circumstances (as you've also said), have the right to detain "innocent" people. I certainly agree that the Philly police were misinformed and should have known about the open carry law. Since open carry in Philly requires a LTCF, then gun owners and the police both need to know what the proper protocol is for examining a license if it's requested before they go on patrol, and before the private citizen starts to carry. Can't we all just get along?

Well done! I assume you were just being polite when you didn't point out to the host that HP ammo is in fact legal for HD.

I know....did you read the quote? I was referring to a general statement made by the poster, not the facts of this case.

I was answering your very general statement that law abiding folk do not have to obey the orders of a police officer if they are not doing anything wrong. That's simply not the case. If, say in this instance in particular, you want to say you can disobey the lawful order of a police officer, that's one thing. But a general statement like originally made is clearly inaccurate. And again, for those of us who are not police officers, you have to remember that they are working in the real world. Not some hypothetical Utopia where we can all carry our guns and no crime is ever committed. In a place like Philadelphia, where gun crime is rampant, can you really expect a police officer not to at least question someone who is open carrying? If I was a savvy criminal that just read this article I'd just start open carrying now to avoid any suspicion. I read article in the Philadelphia Daily News and the PD has reacted to this incident by providing a refresher course for lack of a better word to its members on the open carry laws. Additionally, the official spokesman, a Lt. Healy I believe, said that this was not an appropriate way to conduct a stop in this situation. I also think the criminal case gets dismissed...maybe with this publicity even before it goes any further.

Really? So if someone calls the cops and describes a white man with a gun wearing a red Phillies hoodie that just robbed a store the police can't stop any white male with a red Phillies hoodie in the area to detain him long enough to determine if he's the suspect? In the word or Pizza Bob, FAIL.

I knew it was a typo, Ty. No worries.

I just placed an order today (under $100) at around 3:30 PM and not only has it shipped today, I got this e-mail from Ty: Hello, Thank you for your order. I was able to upgrade you to Priority Mail at [no] charge. This is a faster and more reliable class of service and your delivery confirmation number is 9405 XXXX 3800 86 Thanks, Ty Great customer service!

On a legal note, the filing of a Tort Claims Notice does not necessarily mean that a suit will be filed. The NJ Tort Claims Act requires that as a precursor to suing the State or other public entity, you must provide notice within 90 days of the incident in question. Many times, 90 days isn't enough to get a real idea as to the liability in a case so an attorney must allege everything he can. I agree that this one doesn't sound like it's going anywhere.

For a second I thought I was reading a Penthouse Forum!

Congrats!

Good luck!

I don't know if Mr. Downing is a lawyer, but he argued the case himself. Rarely a good idea, even if you are a lawyer. I think litigants are sometimes too close to the issue and don't see both sides of the issue clearly enough to make a convincing argument against their adversary's points.