An ex-felon uses a gun for SD? A Cleveland grand jury says OK.

[chemist]

I follow the news from Cleveland since it's where I grew up, but man, what a rathole it is now: the new Detroit.


Robbery suspect shot by store clerk dies 4 days later | cleveland.com

Grant had argued with the clerk, who was in a bulletproof booth. Grant kicked in the door to the booth and went inside, Morris said. The clerk grabbed a handgun and fired multiple times.
Grant was not armed. Court records show that he lived near the store in an apartment in the 20200 block of Euclid Avenue.
The clerk, whose name was not released, was arrested on suspicion of felonious assault and having a gun after a felony conviction.

Charges dropped against store clerk who shot robber | cleveland.com

The Grand Jury at Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court declined to indict Sterling Edmonds of East Cleveland on charges of felonious assault and having a gun after a felony conviction.
Edmonds shot 32-year-old Curtis Grant six times Sept. 25 at the Mini Mart at 17801 Euclid Ave.

Grant had a lengthy criminal history in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court.

Mr. Grant's record (just in Cleveland!) is summarized in this screencap from the Court website -


So what do y'all think? Should an ex-felon be allowed to walk if he defends himself with a gun? It seems to me that he should still have to answer for being an ex-felon in possession, even if the shooting is justifiable.

Note: So what if the gun wasn't his? My understanding is that a ex-con can't even be in the same house with a gun that he has access to.

Read More

 

[hermannr]

I follow the news from Cleveland since it's where I grew up, but man, what a rathole it is now: the new Detroit.


Robbery suspect shot by store clerk dies 4 days later | cleveland.com



Charges dropped against store clerk who shot robber | cleveland.com


Mr. Grant's record (just in Cleveland!) is summarized in this screencap from the Court website -
View attachment 52012

So what do y'all think? Should an ex-felon be allowed to walk if he defends himself with a gun? It seems to me that he should still have to answer for being an ex-felon in possession, even if the shooting is justifiable.

Note: So what if the gun wasn't his? My understanding is that a ex-con can't even be in the same house with a gun that he has access to.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves by whatever means are available...does not matter if they were a felon or not. The "prohibited person" garbage should be thrown down the toilet along with the rest of the CGA68 and it's amendments. Do you think that felons life less valuable than yours? Do you think you should be able to defend yourself in a similar situation?

 

[Bushman]

An aquaintances wife is a convicted felon (something about check fraud). I really don't think just because these people are felons they should not be allowed to own a gun. If they are so dangerous why are they free?

It still amazes me you can be arrested hundreds of times for assault and battery (misdermeanor) and still get a gun, but being a felon for vandalism in exces of $250 (at one time in WA this was the case) = felon and no gun.

Some brilliant laws we have.

 

[2506]

If the misdemeanor falls under the umbrella of domestic violence, you can't get a gun.

 

[gaijinsamurai]

I'm a strong supporter of convicted felons being able to get their records expunged if the convictions were for non-violent crimes, they've paid their debts to society and have successfully completed parole/probation, and have spent a certain period of time crime-free.

IIRC, in Oregon, Class C Felons can get their convictions expunged three years after they've completed probation or parole. When I was a Parole Officer, I encouraged many of my probationers to pursue it.

 

[chemist]

While no one would disagree with the tenet that "everyone has a right to defend themselves," that does not equate to "every citizen can be trusted to the same degree with deadly devices."

Just like drunk drivers lose the right to drive, it's common sense that somebody with a history of criminal violence should have to resort to some other means than a firearm to defend himself. His life is not worth less than mine, but his word is.

The Constitution applied originally only to propertied white males. A slave was worth 3/5 of a person, vote-wise, but his owner got to decide how to cast his vote. And your wife or daughter? Fuggeddaboutit. So don't wave 2A at me; the Constitution is a living document, subject to interpretation by the Supremes. If you disagree, then you need to brush up on civics.

I'm not happy with the choice of "lock him up or give him all the rights of a law-abiding citizen." That's a false dilemma, and it flies in the face of the whole notion of rehabilitation. Halfway-houses, parole, probation - they all serve a purpose, and despite the awful failures in the system, it still works for a lot of people that just want another chance. But trust them with a CHL or even simple ownership? That's another ball o' wax entirely.

 

[Capn Jack]

Have a friend who is a "convicted felon" for lieing to a police officer.

Go figure...


Jack...

 

[HahnsXD]

I really don't think just because these people are felons they should not be allowed to own a gun. If they are so dangerous why are they free?

Yep, if they are too dangerous to own a gun, they should be locked up. If they are out, they'll get a gun regardless.

 

[chariot13]

While no one would disagree with the tenet that "everyone has a right to defend themselves," that does not equate to "every citizen can be trusted to the same degree with deadly devices."

Just like drunk drivers lose the right to drive, it's common sense that somebody with a history of criminal violence should have to resort to some other means than a firearm to defend himself. His life is not worth less than mine, but his word is.

The Constitution applied originally only to propertied white males. A slave was worth 3/5 of a person, vote-wise, but his owner got to decide how to cast his vote. And your wife or daughter? Fuggeddaboutit. So don't wave 2A at me; the Constitution is a living document, subject to interpretation by the Supremes. If you disagree, then you need to brush up on civics.

I'm not happy with the choice of "lock him up or give him all the rights of a law-abiding citizen." That's a false dilemma, and it flies in the face of the whole notion of rehabilitation. Halfway-houses, parole, probation - they all serve a purpose, and despite the awful failures in the system, it still works for a lot of people that just want another chance. But trust them with a CHL or even simple ownership? That's another ball o' wax entirely.

You're totally wrong. If someone says something I disagree with to my soul, such as you have. You still deserve to speak your truth even according to our 1st. And i agree with that number as much as any consecutive ones that follow it.

 

[hermannr]

While no one would disagree with the tenet that "everyone has a right to defend themselves," that does not equate to "every citizen can be trusted to the same degree with deadly devices."

Just like drunk drivers lose the right to drive, it's common sense that somebody with a history of criminal violence should have to resort to some other means than a firearm to defend himself. His life is not worth less than mine, but his word is.

The Constitution applied originally only to propertied white males. A slave was worth 3/5 of a person, vote-wise, but his owner got to decide how to cast his vote. And your wife or daughter? Fuggeddaboutit. So don't wave 2A at me; the Constitution is a living document, subject to interpretation by the Supremes. If you disagree, then you need to brush up on civics.

I'm not happy with the choice of "lock him up or give him all the rights of a law-abiding citizen." That's a false dilemma, and it flies in the face of the whole notion of rehabilitation. Halfway-houses, parole, probation - they all serve a purpose, and despite the awful failures in the system, it still works for a lot of people that just want another chance. But trust them with a CHL or even simple ownership? That's another ball o' wax entirely.

So you think that some people's lives are more valuable than some other persons? That is just exactly what is wrong with anti-gun retoric, and as pointed out is Orwells 1984,,,oh yes, we are all equal, just some people are more equal than others. When a person is released back into society after violating that societies norms, he should either be accepted as everyone else, or he sould not re-enter society.

When a felon is incarcerated the state is required to provide for his protection...when he is outside the protection of the state (back in society) he has just the same right to life as you do, and should be allowed to have the tools to do so.

If he cannot possess those tools, then the state should still be responsible for his safety (that is, he should still be incarcerated)

 

[chemist]

You're totally wrong. If someone says something I disagree with to my soul, such as you have. You still deserve to speak your truth even according to our 1st. And i agree with that number as much as any consecutive ones that follow it.

If you think that the job of the Supreme Court does not include interpreting the Constitution, then it's you who's wrong.

I can't be wrong in my beliefs, actually, because they're just my opinions, which are not right or wrong, like facts are.

 

[chemist]

So you think that some people's lives are more valuable than some other persons? That is just exactly what is wrong with anti-gun retoric, and as pointed out is Orwells 1984,,,oh yes, we are all equal, just some people are more equal than others. When a person is released back into society after violating that societies norms, he should either be accepted as everyone else, or he sould not re-enter society.

When a felon is incarcerated the state is required to provide for his protection...when he is outside the protection of the state (back in society) he has just the same right to life as you do, and should be allowed to have the tools to do so.

If he cannot possess those tools, then the state should still be responsible for his safety (that is, he should still be incarcerated)

Reading comprehension just isn't your thing, is it? Let's try again:
"His life is not worth less than mine, but his word is."

 

[chariot13]

If you think that the job of the Supreme Court does not include interpreting the Constitution, then it's you who's wrong.

I can't be wrong in my beliefs, actually, because they're just my opinions, which are not right or wrong, like facts are.

The supreme court? Are you a jester of the kings court or just a fool?

 

[Grunwald]

While no one would disagree with the tenet that "everyone has a right to defend themselves," that does not equate to "every citizen can be trusted to the same degree with deadly devices."

Just like drunk drivers lose the right to drive, it's common sense that somebody with a history of criminal violence should have to resort to some other means than a firearm to defend himself. His life is not worth less than mine, but his word is.

The Constitution applied originally only to propertied white males. A slave was worth 3/5 of a person, vote-wise, but his owner got to decide how to cast his vote. And your wife or daughter? Fuggeddaboutit. So don't wave 2A at me; the Constitution is a living document, subject to interpretation by the Supremes. If you disagree, then you need to brush up on civics.

I'm not happy with the choice of "lock him up or give him all the rights of a law-abiding citizen." That's a false dilemma, and it flies in the face of the whole notion of rehabilitation. Halfway-houses, parole, probation - they all serve a purpose, and despite the awful failures in the system, it still works for a lot of people that just want another chance. But trust them with a CHL or even simple ownership? That's another ball o' wax entirely.

Bull crap. The constitution is NOT a living and breathing document (as that moron Al Gore claimed).
It is the ultimate law of this nation. If the nation decides that it needs to be changed, there is a process to do that - it is called an amendement, and it was designed to be very difficult to do on purpose in order to protect the nation from whims of the moment.

Once someone serves their time all of their constitutional rights need to be restored.
Just because politicians write laws and the black robbed jackasses afirm them, it still does not mean that they are true to the constitution. There are enough outragiously wrong decisions out of the supreme court to question any of their rulings.

 

[fd15k]

Yep, if they are too dangerous to own a gun, they should be locked up. If they are out, they'll get a gun regardless.

I didn't know we lock people up for being dangerous. I am dangerous (firearms training, hand to hand combat training, etc), should I be locked up ?

 

[chariot13]

While no one would disagree with the tenet that "everyone has a right to defend themselves."

Just like drunk drivers lose the right to drive.

If a "drunk driver" decided to drive a bleeding out soon to be dead police officer to the hospital but kept him or her alive because of it, i'd see no difference if that'drunk driver' managed to do it for him or herself. Or any other human life and i'll thank them accordingly with gratitude.

 

[Vantage]

If they are so dangerous why are they free?

Exactly...

If they're not to be trusted, then they're not to be trusted. And if they're not to be trusted, then they shouldn't be out.

If they're going to do something bad, then a "rule" that says they can't own a gun. They were tried (assuming), sentenced and did their time. So why are we continuing to punish them?

 

[hermannr]

Reading comprehension just isn't your thing, is it? Let's try again:
"His life is not worth less than mine, but his word is."

Well, If you believe ANYONE should not be able to access the same tools for their own self defense as you have access to, then you think your life is more valuable then theirs. If you say that in so many words, or not.

The biggest anti gun hypocrites in the US today..Feinstein, Shumer, X Chicago Mayor Daily, Bloomers, Obuthead...doesn't matter...if they do not actually carry (Feinstein and Shumer) they have armed Guards around them and theirs at all times.

As these people do not think that average Joe Citizen should be able to defend themselves...they also think their life is more valuable than anyone elses....just like you say you do...oh, not in those words, the anti's don't use those words either...but in their actions the speak loud and clear...I count, you don't.

 

[Vantage]

Just like drunk drivers lose the right to drive,

Driving is not a right. It's a privilege.

And you don't lose your privilege to drive off of one offense. It typically takes multiple convictions.

 

[slingshot1943]

Living and breathing constitution is the stupidest thing anyone ever made up to con the people. The worst thing is people buying it.