Awesome LEO interaction in an adverse situation

[Neplusultra]

Here you go, I'm glad I decided to look it up. My memory was a bit fuzzy but not too far off:

18.2-308

E7. An individual who has been convicted of two or more misdemeanors within the five-year period immediately preceding the application, if one of the misdemeanors was a Class 1 misdemeanor, but the judge shall have the discretion to deny a permit for two or more misdemeanors that are not Class 1. Traffic infractions and misdemeanors set forth in Title 46.2 shall not be considered for purposes of this disqualification.

And

J2. An individual who has a felony charge pending or a charge pending for an offense listed in subdivision E 14 or E 15, holding a permit for a concealed handgun, may have the permit suspended by the court before which such charge is pending or by the court that issued the permit.

 

[mk4]

^^^

a summons, if that equates to a pending charge(?), against 18.2-280, would have the consequences below (from the disqualifier section), no?

18.2-308(E)
14. An individual who has been convicted of any assault, assault and battery, sexual battery, discharging of a firearm in violation of § 18.2-280 or 18.2-286.1 or brandishing of a firearm in violation of § 18.2-282 within the three-year period immediately preceding the application.

18.2-308(E)
17. An individual who has a felony charge pending or a charge pending for an offense listed in subdivision 14 or 15.

 

[OC for ME]

§ 18.2-279. ya need to bold 'maliciously'. Not including maliciously gives a entirely different meaning to the statute.

§ 18.2-56.1....as usual, user has done what he does best.

 

[mk4]

^^^

not second-guessing user in any way.

what about the second paragraph of 18.2-279, though?

18.2-279
If any such act be done unlawfully, but not maliciously, the person so offending is guilty of a Class 6 felony; and, in the event of the death of any person resulting from such unlawful shooting or throwing, the person so offending is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. If any person willfully discharges a firearm within or shoots at any school building whether occupied or not, he is guilty of a Class 4 felony.

 

[Neplusultra]

^^^

not second-guessing user in any way.

what about the second paragraph of 18.2-279, though?

18.2-279
If any such act be done unlawfully, but not maliciously, the person so offending is guilty of a Class 6 felony; and, in the event of the death of any person resulting from such unlawful shooting or throwing, the person so offending is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. If any person willfully discharges a firearm within or shoots at any school building whether occupied or not, he is guilty of a Class 4 felony.

That's an interesting point. I hate it when the law is written such that one action can violate two laws with differing penalties. To me that makes NO sense.....

 

[OC for ME]

§ 18.2-279. Discharging firearms or missiles within or at building or dwelling house; penalty.
If any person maliciously discharges a firearm within any building when occupied by one or more persons in such a manner as to endanger the life or lives of such person or persons, or maliciously shoots at, or maliciously throws any missile at or against any dwelling house or other building when occupied by one or more persons, whereby the life or lives of any such person or persons may be put in peril, the person so offending is guilty of a Class 4 felony. In the event of the death of any person, resulting from such malicious shooting or throwing, the person so offending is guilty of murder in the second degree. However, if the homicide is willful, deliberate and premeditated, he is guilty of murder in the first degree.


If any such act be done unlawfully, but not maliciously, the person so offending is guilty of a Class 6 felony; and, in the event of the death of any person resulting from such unlawful shooting or throwing, the person so offending is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. If any person willfully discharges a firearm within or shoots at any school building whether occupied or not, he is guilty of a Class 4 felony.

I think the operative clause is that someone was in the building. Granted, it appears that it is a apartment building, but if nobody was 'downstairs' then I think that a good lawyer could get this charge tossed. Is this what the cops were talking about when 'low keyed' was alluded to? SOunds like the cops may actually have known the law in this particular situation. Even though they seem to have picked the wrong misdemeanor charge.

The dude needs to buy a lottery ticket.

 

[mk4]

^^^

snippet from the original post:

"The police did find the hole and it was in the floor passing into the apartment below and striking but not passing through the wall below. Luckily the person in the room was unharmed."

 

[ed]

ok, i see more clearly now.
the guns were in the safe.

You mean the un-safe

 

[Neplusultra]

^^^

a summons, if that equates to a pending charge(?), against 18.2-280, would have the consequences below (from the disqualifier section), no?

18.2-308(E)
14. An individual who has been convicted of any assault, assault and battery, sexual battery, discharging of a firearm in violation of § 18.2-280 or 18.2-286.1 or brandishing of a firearm in violation of § 18.2-282 within the three-year period immediately preceding the application.

18.2-308(E)
17. An individual who has a felony charge pending or a charge pending for an offense listed in subdivision 14 or 15.

My understanding is the he was given a summons for a misdemeanor offense so 17 would not apply and in 14 he did not willfully fire the weapon. But from what I've been reading he's really guilty of a class 6 felony, not a misdemeanor. Yikes, I had no idea a ND could be so serious penalty wise.

 

[mk4]

My understanding is the he was given a summons for a misdemeanor offense so 17 would not apply and in 14 he did not willfully fire the weapon. But from what I've been reading he's really guilty of a class 6 felony, not a misdemeanor. Yikes, I had no idea a ND could be so serious penalty wise.

why wouldn't #17 apply? it specifically refers to a pending felony *or* a charge pending under #14, which includes 18.2-280 along with 4 other offenses.

i'm finding this thread very educational, also.

 

[Neplusultra]

why wouldn't #17 apply? it specifically refers to a pending felony *or* a charge pending under #14, which includes 18.2-280 along with 4 other offenses.

i'm finding this thread very educational, also.

18.2-280 says the discharge has to be "willfull" and from the OP the discharge seems to be accidental. Willfull would be purposely firing the gun inside or at the building with the intent to do so.

What amazes me is that I had no idea a ND in an occupied building was a FELONY.

 

[mk4]

18.2-280 says the discharge has to be "willfull" and from the OP the discharge seems to be accidental. Willfull would be purposely firing the gun inside or at the building with the intent to do so.

What amazes me is that I had no idea a ND in an occupied building was a FELONY.

right, but regardless, the summons is still for 18.2-280, it's a pending charge. 'willfulness' and apprpriateness of the charge are yet-to-be-determined. would not #14 & 17 apply until and unless the charge is modified/dropped/substituted?

keeping 18.2-279 clearly in mind, gives clear meaning to securing weapons from unauthorized access and under complete control, huh? thankfully, i've always done so. no one has access to my secured gun storage. not family, not friends.

 

[Neplusultra]

right, but regardless, the summons is still for 18.2-280, it's a pending charge. 'willfulness' and apprpriateness of the charge are yet-to-be-determined. would not #14 & 17 apply until and unless the charge is modified/dropped/substituted?

keeping 18.2-279 clearly in mind, gives clear meaning to securing weapons from unauthorized access and under complete control, huh? thankfully, i've always done so. no one has access to my secured gun storage. not family, not friends.

Good golly, you are so right. Not thinking too clearly....... He was wrongly charged but still it is a charge..... I started on the wrongly charged premise and never shifted gears for some reason.

The problem with assumptions is it's sometimes difficult to realize you're making them :^).

 

[mk4]

no worries. we're all trying to learn important lessons here. the thought processes are key.

i hope things work out as well as possible, under the circumstances, for the op's friend and the op. looks like they've been put on to expert counsel.

 

[Felix]

Pretty sure the police picked the wrong charge.

It occurred to me they may have cited 18.2-280 for a reason even though it doesn't appear to fit the circumstances as we presently know them:

E. Nothing in this statute shall preclude the Commonwealth from electing to prosecute under any other applicable provision of law instead of this section.

There's no such language associated with 18.2-179.

Consequently, the offending party is on notice with a summons but the Commonwealth Attorney can elect (or not) to prosecute under a different statute without risk of the defendant's lawyer getting a quick dismissal based on wrongful or misapplied charges. OTOH, I have no legal training and am more than likely way off base. Or maybe I'm giving too much credit to the on-scene police for actually reasoning this out.

 

[peter nap]

It occurred to me they may have cited 18.2-280 for a reason even though it doesn't appear to fit the circumstances as we presently know them:



There's no such language associated with 18.2-179.

Consequently, the offending party is on notice with a summons but the Commonwealth Attorney can elect (or not) to prosecute under a different statute without risk of the defendant's lawyer getting a quick dismissal based on wrongful or misapplied charges. OTOH, I have no legal training and am more than likely way off base. Or maybe I'm giving too much credit to the on-scene police for actually reasoning this out.

It's a guessing game at this point Felix, but my take on it could go two ways. Given decent Cops and yes, there are some, they will often charge someone with the very lowest crime possible in cases where they feel a charge has to be made.

or

They could just have charged him with what they thought the applicable charge was. That's just ignorance and there are plenty of Ignorant Cops too.

Next step is the C.A. IMO, there are very few decent Commonwealths Attorneys. It pays less than a good Lawyer makes and they run for the job because they aren't capable of making a decent living otherwise. I have an extremely close friend who unfortunately chose that path fifteen years ago and has never gone back to private practice.

They usually want convictions for campaign material and in slam dunk cases, will often go for blood.

This is a game and the defendant could be playing with some high stakes. That's why I try to get the best advice I can before there are problems, then if there is one, I have a solid foundation for my Lawyer.

You may have noticed that I don't argue with User. I learned after checking and double checking things he said and did that he was like Websters Dictionary. I just take what he says as the Gospel and shut up.

 

[nuc65]

Assumptions

1) The safe is safe even if the lock doesn't work.
2) The police are our friends and don't ever lie to us.
3) The police are there for our benefit and protection.
4) Admission of something will make the police feel we are sorry and 'not' prosecute us.
5) We don't need lawyers because we understand the ever more convoluted laws and statutes (like the addition of shooting into a dwelling from last year).
6) Internet forums are great places to get free legal advice (for what it is worth).
7) Bananas are good for you.



Personally, I wouldn't care if the 'friend' were male of female they would be gone. I would also be on the phone to a good attorney for some advice because as the owner of the firearm and dwelling there is the possibility, as raised in this thread of civil suits, not only from the landlord but also from the tenants of the lower apartment building. Already admitting negligence to the police probably puts you on the hook for this.

 

[peter nap]

1) The safe is safe even if the lock doesn't work.
2) The police are our friends and don't ever lie to us.
3) The police are there for our benefit and protection.
4) Admission of something will make the police feel we are sorry and 'not' prosecute us.
5) We don't need lawyers because we understand the ever more convoluted laws and statutes (like the addition of shooting into a dwelling from last year).
6) Internet forums are great places to get free legal advice (for what it is worth).
7) Bananas are good for you.

+1



Personally, I wouldn't care if the 'friend' were male of female they would be gone.

That is dependent on the friend

A. Kick the Hussy out:

or
B. All is forgiven!

 

[Grapeshot]

I'll check every ones ID and you can be on your way.

 

[Felix]

Looks like the OP hasn't been back since mid-day on Friday.

Maybe he retained counsel who likely told him to quit posting his version of the circumstances on an open forum...probably always good advice.