Any update on this story?

This man was on the USCCA when I joined.

He’s no longer on the webpage. I just wonder what happened.

4 Likes

Just speculation but given the state of the world at the moment and his apparent age could he have just died?

I’m not trying to be callous however, if he did pass and nobody at CCA was made aware it would likely lead to a termination in his subscription and that might have been outlined in his contract for the video. I almost hope it’s that over the possibility of some sort of disagreement or infraction though I’ll say when I got signed up just last week there was no example of someone being rejected from USCCA.

Hope this helps even if it’s just educated guesses and sorry if you knew the man and weren’t able to stay in touch due to COVID.

3 Likes

No like what was the end scenario for him and I’m pretty sure he’s still alive they took him off before Corona.

4 Likes

This guy didn’t even use a weapon. He tried escaping

4 Likes

@Forensic_Wow
The “bad guy” knew what he was doing was illegal. And, seemed to have knowledge that police strongly side with whomever calls them first. And the law abiding/innocent person decision would have eventually been to call the police. So, by the bad guy calling first he got himself off the hook/got away. (Notice the police did not go after the aggressor) so they may not even know who he is. And, the victim/witness is preoccupied with his own legal defense making it less likely for him to find witnesses or point out evidence that the other guy is the guilty one and press the issue to the police that a dangerous person is out there free. Sadly I have met SOME officers that were lazy. Arresting a law abiding person is easier them a criminal because the do not have experience in working the system. But, when good lawyers are in the mix it makes it easier on all Leo’s because the amazing officers can have that wight (knowledge of an innocent person being in jail on account of a loophole) lifted off their shoulders. And, the lazy ones can decide to drop everything because the lawyer is digging into everything. This is from my experience and observation.
Side note- leo’s seem to be getting better in spite of recent events. Super encouraging! Any input? @Dawn @MikeBKY @Johnnyq60

2 Likes

It is hard to say much without having all of the facts regarding the incident. That being said, Police do not automatically side with the first caller, however, that caller is, in many cases, the only one who supplied information to the officers, whether it be right or wrong. When officers arrive at a scene, they have to proceed based upon the information they have with a goal of getting all of the information relating to the incident. But, once someone is a “suspect”, it is human nature that they be treated as the suspect until there is some verifiable information to contradict the original statement.
As for a legal defense, the prosecution cannot proceed without a witness to the actual crime that is being charged. You have the right to face your accuser at trial and, if the accuser is cannot be located, and their statement is the only evidence, there is no evidence.

6 Likes

What the officer did was based on probable cause. He was not lazy at all. The “idiot complainant” was simply trying to cause the guy grief, lying about what happened. If he had no gun the officer would not arrest.

The fact this guy actually had a gun, built “reasonable suspicion” based on the complaint into a “probable cause” arrest… based on that complaint.

It’s basically a good reason to have GOOD CCW insurance!

4 Likes

Reasonable suspicion would not rise to the level of probable cause unless the police are able to identify the person(s) making the claim. Anonymous tips do not generally rise the level of probable cause unless they can be verified. Legal possession of a gun should not be enough to rise to that level without a named witness.

5 Likes

I believe the OP’s primary concern is why the individuals information/story was removed from the Website sometime early this/late last year. Unsure if your affiliation allows you to know anything on the matter or if you could even share the information but I believe that was the reason they created the thread.

3 Likes

I do not know and would not expect to receive any information unless I was involved in the case and, even then, it would be subject to confidentiality and attorney/client privilege.

5 Likes

That’s basically what I figured, I just wanted to try and get back to the intent vs the lawn-chair lawyering. Not aiming that at you obviously but it can be distracting from the original point.

2 Likes

we all like to speculate to fill in the blanks @amnoverwatch! It’s all good!

4 Likes

All great points and discussion!

2 Likes

This is true if the complainant couldn’t provide a description of the person as well as the vehicle. Since the police pulled the vehicle over based on the complainant description, it’s very likely it does meet reasonable suspicion, that can become probable cause.

The unknown here is the information provided in the complaint.

2 Likes

I agree there is reasonable suspicion justifying the stop. The question is that the defendant has a 6th Amendment right to face and question his accuser. If the bad guy anonymously contacted the police and they cannot present the witness, the case will fail. What the witness said to the police is hearsay and is not admissible at trial. Presumably, the police will be able to identify the caller. Then the question is will they ID the caller and will the caller cooperate?

5 Likes