Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Another Travesty

  1. #11
    Gunco Member TBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Arkansas
    Posts
    144
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sovblocgunfan View Post

    Even so, I also can't imagine an ex-con not finding at least a black powder revolver to serve HD duty in the interim. Those are not "guns".
    Maybe not under federal law, but they are considered firearms and are prohibited to felons in many states.

    Arkansas, about a year or two ago, had a big to-do about felons hunting with black powder rifles, because they are not considered firearms under federal law, and felons thought it applied here as well. They were wrong. They ARE considered firearms under Arkansas law, and they will prosecute any felon in possession of one.

    As far as my opinion, if you are considered having served your time (including parole) and are released, you under no further rights restrictions. If you're so violent you shouldn't ever have a gun, then you shouldn't ever be free.

    Yes, felons can apply to their governor for a pardon, but some states don't have a procedure for it or allow for pardons, and some states have suspended the process and are not allowing pardons.

    Texas law however says after 5 years of completion of sentence a felon can keep a firearm in his home for self defense...he still can't buy one from a dealer, because federal law says he cannot have it.

  2. #12
    No Hope For Me 1biggun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    13,805
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)

    Default

    HMMMMMM I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS. I CAN DO WITH OUT CONVICTED FELIONS HAVING GUNS . AN IN THE CASE OF THE OP,S STORY THE GUY WAS AGAIN BREAKING THE LAW BY HAVING A GUN. WHILE I FEEL FOR HIS SITUATION OF BENING DEFENSLESS HE MADE HIS BED . POOR DECISIONS GOT HIM WERE HE IS. WE ALL KNOW IF WE COMMIT A FELIOANY OR A DOMESTIC ABUSE LAW WE CAN ALL LOOSE OUR RIGHTS TIO GUN OWNERSHIP. APPARENTLY THIS GUY CHOSE A BAD PATH AN GAVE UP HIS RIGHTS. IGNORING HE STILL IS DISOBAYING THE LAW IS A BAD IDEA. IF WE THINK ITS OK THEN ANY CONVICTED FELION EXCUSE WOULD BE I JUST HAVE IT FOR PROTECTION . SHOULD LEOS JUST THEN NOT PROSICUTE ?????

    WE CONSTANTLY HEAR HOW THE GOVERMENT NEEDS TO CRACK DOWN ON CRIME AN YET HERE WE ARE SAYING HEY SERVE YOUR TIME AN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO REJOIN BEING A GUN OWNER. I DISAGREE WHEN YOUR CONVICTED OF A FELIONY PART OF YOUR CONVICTION AN YOUR SENTANCE IS YOU WILL NO LONGER BE ALLOWED TO OWN GUNS, VOTE ECT. SERVING THE TIME PART OF THE SENTANCE DOES NOT MEAN YOUR DONE.

    I HAVE NO IDEA WAHT THE GUY DID PREVIOULSY . WHAT ID DO KNOW IS HE IS STIULL WILLING TO BREAK THE LAW. HAD HE TAKEN THAT SAME GUN AN WAS COMMITING CRIMES WE WOULD ALL BE WHY IS IS HE OUT WHY DOES HE HAVE A GUN .

    IF THIS GUY WAS A CONVICTED MURDER , RAPIST , CHILD MOLESTER WPOULD YOU STILL FEEL HE HAS A RIGHT TO HAVE A GUN????????

    THERE ARE NO FACTS IN THE OP SO WE DONT KNOW WHAT HE DID PREVIOUSLY , AN WE DONT KNOW WHAT HE IS CHARGED WITH OR IF HE IS ON PAROLE OR WHY MASKED MEN WERE BRAKING INTO HIS HOUSE?? ALL I SEE IS HERE IS A GUY WHO IS ONCE AGAIN KNOWINGLY BREAKING THE LAW. HE IS NOT CHARGED WITH MURDER APARENTLY . HE IS BEING CHARGED WITH HAVING A GUN LIKELY AN IT WOULD BE NO DIFFERANT THAN IF HE WAS CAUGHT WITH IT WITH OUT A SHOOTING .

    I HAVE TO ASK HOW IS HIM BEING INVOLVED IN A SHOOTNG IN A DEFENSE SITUATION MAKING HIM STILL NOT IN VIOLATION OF HAVING A GUN IN THE HOUSE?????

    WHEN YOU COMMIT CRIMES YOUR RISKING YOUR FREEDOM AN YOUR RIGHTS AN IF YOU CHOOSE TO TAKE THOSE RISKS THEN YOUR POOR DECISIONS CAN AFFECT YOUR FUTURE.

    I MEAN THE ORIGINAL POSTER NO DISRESPECT BUT I DISSAGREE . ID BE OPEN TO ALLOWING CETAIN LEVEL OF FELIONS TO PETITION THE COURT AFTER SO MANY YEARS TO BE ALLOWED TO OWN A FIRE ARM BUT IMO THE SHOOTR HAS ALREADY ELECTED TO DISOBEY THE LAW. IS THE LAW JUST THATS A DIFFERANT MATTER.

    IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE ALL THE FACTS???????????????????

  3. #13
    No Hope For Me 1biggun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    13,805
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)

    Default

    OK I DID A LITTLE DIGGING ( I NEVER TAKE ANY HTNG AT FACE VALUE HERE) AN SOME THINGS DONT ADD UP WITH THE ORIGINAL STORY. IF THIS IS THE SAME SHOOTING.

    I APOLIGISE IF THIS IS A DIFFERANT SHOOTING IN THE SAME AREA WITH A EXCON KILLING TWO SUSPECTED ROBBERS AN THE SAME SHERIF IS NOT CHARGING THE KILLER WITH MURDER.

    1. THE GUN WAS NOT IN THE HOUSE IT WAS IN THE EXCONS CAR! HE HAD TO LEAVE HIS HOME OBTAIN A GUN IN CAR AN THEN ENGAGE THE SUSPECTED ROBBERS WHO HID BEHIND AN AIR CONDITUIONER . I SERIOULSY AM QUESTION IF HE WAS IN ANY DANGER AT ALL. MY STATE I NEED TO BE IN INIMANTE DANGER TO SHOOT SOME ONE. SO WHEN THIS WAS ALL GOING ON DID ANY ONE CALL 911?? JUST ASKING

    2. HE IS NOT MARRIED

    3 THE EX CON RETRIEVED HIS GUN FROM A CAR AN THEN WAS ABLE TO SHOT TWO INVADERS BOTH IN THE HEAD????

    4. THE SUSPECTS WERE NOT IN THE HOUSE WHEN SHOT THEY WERE SEEN BY A WINDOW OF AN APARTMENT COMPLEX WERE THE SHOOTER LIVED. THIS IS A LOT DIFFERANT THAN THEY CAME IN THROUGH A WINDOW . IN MANY STATES HE WOULD BE CHARGED WITH MURDER. I CAN SHOOT BURGLERS OUT SIDE MY HOUSE . HE BASICAL SAW SOE ONE OUT SIDE GOT A GUN AN THEN KILLED THEM OUT SIDE IF THIS STORY IS RIGHT ????????????????????????????????????????????????

    5 ITS NOT HIS WIFES GUN OR HIS GIRLFRIENDS GUN.

    WTF????????? THE GUY IS A CON DRIVING AROUND WITH A GUN ????

    HE IS NOT CHARGED WITH THE SHOOTING BUT I CAN SEE WHY HE IS CHARGED WITH OTHER ISSUES.

    HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW THIS CASE? IS YOUR BUDDY FEEDING YOU BS???? I APOLIGISE IF THIS IS NOT THE SAME SHOOTING BY EX CON .


    Posted: Apr 10, 2012 10:20 AM CDT
    Updated: April 10, 2012 12:55 PM
    By Casey Vaughn - email
    Spartanburg Co. Sheriff Chuck Wright says no charges will be filed against the man who shot and killed two burglary suspects Saturday. (April 10, 2012/FOX Carolina)

    Spartanburg Co. Sheriff Chuck Wright says no charges will be filed against the man who shot and killed two burglary suspects Saturday. (April 10, 2012/FOX Carolina)
    Previously: Deputies: Resident shoots, kills burglary suspectsSPARTANBURG, SC (FOX Carolina) - Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright held a press conference Tuesday morning to announce that the man accused of shooting and killing two burglary suspects Saturday will not face charges.

    Wright spoke with the media to announce that solicitor Barry Barnette and his office had determined the shooter was protected under the law.

    Deputies said on Saturday, the resident of an apartment at the Lees Crossing complex on Powell Mill Road told deputies he and his girlfriend saw two men near the window of their apartment.

    The man then retrieved a gun from his car and went to confront the two men, according to investigators. Investigators were told by the resident when he confronted the men, they tried to hide behind the air conditioning units by the apartment, so in fear for his life, he fired shots at them.

    According to the coroner, the burglary suspects, 22-year-old Michael Gentry-Hil Jr. and 18-year-old Darren Hill, both died from gunshot wounds to the head.

    Wright consulted with the 7th Circuit Solicitor's Office in reviewing the evidence and the laws that apply to this case, and the decision was made not to bring charges against the resident.

    Deputies said the shooter was protected under the Brayboy Ruling by the South Carolina Court of Appeals in 2010. Wright said even though the shooter was a convicted felon, the ruling allowed him to have a handgun to defend himself and protect his property.

    Deputies said the apartment belonging to the resident and his girlfriend had been broken into three previous times.

    During the press conference, Wright said he regrets two individuals lost their life in this incident and once again emphasized a firearm should only be used as a last resort. He said calling 911 and allowing trained law enforcement to handle situations whenever possible is preferred.

    Copyright 2012 FOX Carolina (Meredith Corporation). All rights reserved.

  4. #14
    No Hope For Me 1biggun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    13,805
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)

    Default

    DIFFERANT VERSION . THE SHOOTER WAS NOT INSIDE WHEN HE FIRST SAW THE ROBBERY SUSPECTS HE WAS DRIVING UP TO HIS APARTMENT . THE OTHER STORY IS DIFFERANT. ONE SUSPECT IS SAID TO HAVE AGUN ON HIM . STILL ITS A LONG WAYS FROM LAYING IN BEED GRABING YOUR WIFES GUN WARD OFF INTRUDERS. HE MUST HAVE BEEN A GOOD SHOT WITH TWO HEAD SHOTS OR IT WAS CLOSE RANGE.



    MAN HE SHOT THEM AT 5 TO 10 FEET AWAY SOUNDS TO NME LIKE HE CORNERED THEM AN KILLED THEM . NO MENTION IF THE DEAD GUYS GUN WAS DRAWN OR NOT.
    IM A LITTEL DISTUBED BY SEVERAL THINGS .

    HE IS A FORGER BTW GOT HIM HIS FELIONY CONVICTION.

    IM NOT SURE ID SHOOT SOME ONE IF I DROVE UP AN SAW THEM IN FRONT OF MY APARTMENT I WASENT THERE . .

    By Jenny Arnold
    jennifer.arnold@shj.com

    Published: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 at 10:45 a.m.
    Last Modified: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 at 10:45 a.m.
    Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright said Tuesday no charges will be filed in connection with a fatal double shooting at a west-side apartment complex on Saturday.

    The fatal shooting occurred at 12:10 a.m. Saturday at Lee’s Crossing Apartments, off Powell Mill Road. Douglas Williams, 29, later told deputies that he shot the two men after catching them trying to break into his apartment.

    Michael Deangelo Gentry-Hill Jr., 22, of 102 Richborough Drive, died at the scene of the incident. Darren Tyree “Ty” Hill, 18, of 112 Shelby St., died at Spartanburg Regional Medical Center later Saturday morning, according to the Spartanburg County Coroner’s Office.

    Wright said two shots were fired during the incident, and that Gentry-Hill and Hill had single gunshot wounds to the front part of their heads.
    “Douglas Williams is the victim here,” Wright said during a news conference Tuesday. “He has a right to defend himself.”

    Williams has a criminal record, according to the State Law Enforcement Division. According to his criminal history, he was convicted of forgery in 2008 and is prohibited by the federal gun control act of 1968 from possessing or acquiring a gun or ammunition, according to S.C. Law Enforcement Division records.
    “Just because someone has made a mistake doesn’t mean they can’t protect themselves,” Wright said. “Me personally, I would have been telling someone to call 911. That should be the first option. I’d have preferred he had called 911.”

    According to investigators, Williams and his girlfriend drove up to their apartment and saw the two men trying to break in through a window. Wright said Williams got out of the car with his girlfriend’s gun and confronted Gentry-Hill and Hill from a distance of 5 to 10 feet. Gentry-Hill and Hill took cover behind some air-conditioning units.
    Wright said one of the two men trying to break in had a gun. The sheriff would not comment on whether the gun Williams used was registered to his girlfriend, or give any information about Williams’ gun or the one found with Hill and Gentry-Hill. He said the gun Hill and Gentry-Hill had was “near” them when deputies began their investigation Saturday morning.

    “We’re doing investigations on both of those pistols,” Wright said.

    Both men were wearing dark clothing and one had on a ski mask, according to an incident report.

    No one was inside the apartment at the time of the shootings. Deputies searched the apartment and found pry marks on the window, Wright said. Williams did not indicate to investigators that he knew Hill or Gentry-Hill, but told deputies that Saturday was the third time someone tried to break into the apartment, Wright said.

    Hill and Gentry-Hill have criminal records as well, according to SLED.

    Hill was convicted under the Youthful Offender Act in September of second-degree burglary and sentenced to six years in prison. That sentence was suspended upon service of 111 days in jail and three years of probation, according to SLED, and he also was prohibited from possessing or acquiring a gun or ammunition.

    Gentry-Hill’s arrest record dates back to 2006 and includes mostly minor charges that were later dismissed. He was convicted of a minor purchasing or in possession of alcohol in July 2011. He was not prohibited from having a gun or ammunition, according to SLED.

    Wright said he and investigators met with 7th Circuit Solicitor’s Office officials on Monday to discuss the case and determine whether charges would be filed against Williams.

    “We were very methodical about this,” Wright said, in consulting with the solicitor’s office before coming to a decision on charges. During the news conference, Wright cited the State vs. John Brayboy, a law that he says supports a convicted felon using a gun in self-defense.

    Solicitor Barry Barnette said under the state’s Castle Doctrine, a person has a right to protect their property, automobile or people on their property with the use of deadly force.

    According to the law, a person is “presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person” when a suspect is “in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling ... or occupied vehicle.”

    Barnette also cited the State vs. John Brayboy, a Spartanburg case involving a convicted felon who used a gun in self-defense.

    “You can act lawfully if you’re acting in self-defense,” Barnette said. “They (Gentry-Hill and Hill) could have shot Williams — they had a gun. If it had been my window, I’d have called 911. But he (Williams) didn’t have to do that under the law.”

    Wright said Tuesday he continues to stand by his comments about residents obtaining concealed weapons permits and arming themselves for protection against crime.

    “I’ve never encouraged anybody to shoot any person,” Wright said. “You only use a weapon as a last resort. I hope it sends a message to the bad guys: You better start leaving us be. The bad guys better start paying attention.”

    Attempts to reach Williams were unsuccessful.

    Sheriff: No charges to be sought in fatal double shootingBy Jenny Arnold
    Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright gives further details on a fatal double shooting from Saturday night. Here, Wright indicates that two...Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright gives further details on a fatal double shooting from Saturday night. Here, Wright indicates that two...
    GoUpstate.comApril 10, 2012 10:45 AM
    <p>Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright said Tuesday no charges will be filed in connection with a fatal double shooting at a west-side apartment complex on Saturday.</p><p>The fatal shooting occurred at 12:10 a.m. Saturday at Lee's Crossing Apartments, off Powell Mill Road. Douglas Williams, 29, later told deputies that he shot the two men after catching them trying to break into his apartment.</p><p>Michael Deangelo Gentry-Hill Jr., 22, of 102 Richborough Drive, died at the scene of the incident. Darren Tyree “Ty” Hill, 18, of 112 Shelby St., died at Spartanburg Regional Medical Center later Saturday morning, according to the Spartanburg County Coroner's Office.</p><p>Wright said two shots were fired during the incident, and that Gentry-Hill and Hill had single gunshot wounds to the front part of their heads.</p><p>“Douglas Williams is the victim here,” Wright said during a news conference Tuesday. “He has a right to defend himself.”</p><p>Williams has a criminal record, according to the State Law Enforcement Division. According to his criminal history, he was convicted of forgery in 2008 and is prohibited by the federal gun control act of 1968 from possessing or acquiring a gun or ammunition, according to S.C. Law Enforcement Division records.</p><p>“Just because someone has made a mistake doesn't mean they can't protect themselves,” Wright said. “Me personally, I would have been telling someone to call 911. That should be the first option. I'd have preferred he had called 911.”</p><p>According to investigators, Williams and his girlfriend drove up to their apartment and saw the two men trying to break in through a window. Wright said Williams got out of the car with his girlfriend's gun and confronted Gentry-Hill and Hill from a distance of 5 to 10 feet. Gentry-Hill and Hill took cover behind some air-conditioning units.</p><p>Wright said one of the two men trying to break in had a gun. The sheriff would not comment on whether the gun Williams used was registered to his girlfriend, or give any information about Williams' gun or the one found with Hill and Gentry-Hill. He said the gun Hill and Gentry-Hill had was “near” them when deputies began their investigation Saturday morning.</p><p>“We're doing investigations on both of those pistols,” Wright said.</p><p>Both men were wearing dark clothing and one had on a ski mask, according to an incident report.</p><p>No one was inside the apartment at the time of the shootings. Deputies searched the apartment and found pry marks on the window, Wright said. Williams did not indicate to investigators that he knew Hill or Gentry-Hill, but told deputies that Saturday was the third time someone tried to break into the apartment, Wright said.</p><p>Hill and Gentry-Hill have criminal records as well, according to SLED.</p><p>Hill was convicted under the Youthful Offender Act in September of second-degree burglary and sentenced to six years in prison. That sentence was suspended upon service of 111 days in jail and three years of probation, according to SLED, and he also was prohibited from possessing or acquiring a gun or ammunition.</p><p>Gentry-Hill's arrest record dates back to 2006 and includes mostly minor charges that were later dismissed. He was convicted of a minor purchasing or in possession of alcohol in July 2011. He was not prohibited from having a gun or ammunition, according to SLED.</p><p>Wright said he and investigators met with 7th Circuit Solicitor's Office officials on Monday to discuss the case and determine whether charges would be filed against Williams.</p><p>“We were very methodical about this,” Wright said, in consulting with the solicitor's office before coming to a decision on charges. During the news conference, Wright cited the State vs. John Brayboy, a law that he says supports a convicted felon using a gun in self-defense.</p><p>Solicitor Barry Barnette said under the state's Castle Doctrine, a person has a right to protect their property, automobile or people on their property with the use of deadly force.</p><p>According to the law, a person is “presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person” when a suspect is “in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling ... or occupied vehicle.”</p><p>Barnette also cited the State vs. John Brayboy, a Spartanburg case involving a convicted felon who used a gun in self-defense. </p><p>“You can act lawfully if you're acting in self-defense,” Barnette said. “They (Gentry-Hill and Hill) could have shot Williams — they had a gun. If it had been my window, I'd have called 911. But he (Williams) didn't have to do that under the law.”</p><p>Wright said Tuesday he continues to stand by his comments about residents obtaining concealed weapons permits and arming themselves for protection against crime.</p><p>“I've never encouraged anybody to shoot any person,” Wright said. “You only use a weapon as a last resort. I hope it sends a message to the bad guys: You better start leaving us be. The bad guys better start paying attention.”

    Page 3 of 3

    Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright said Tuesday no charges will be filed in connection with a fatal double shooting at a west-side apartment complex on Saturday.

    The fatal shooting occurred at 12:10 a.m. Saturday at Lee’s Crossing Apartments, off Powell Mill Road. Douglas Williams, 29, later told deputies that he shot the two men after catching them trying to break into his apartment.

    Michael Deangelo Gentry-Hill Jr., 22, of 102 Richborough Drive, died at the scene of the incident. Darren Tyree “Ty” Hill, 18, of 112 Shelby St., died at Spartanburg Regional Medical Center later Saturday morning, according to the Spartanburg County Coroner’s Office.

    Wright said two shots were fired during the incident, and that Gentry-Hill and Hill had single gunshot wounds to the front part of their heads.

    “Douglas Williams is the victim here,” Wright said during a news conference Tuesday. “He has a right to defend himself.”

    Williams has a criminal record, according to the State Law Enforcement Division. According to his criminal history, he was convicted of forgery in 2008 and is prohibited by the federal gun control act of 1968 from possessing or acquiring a gun or ammunition, according to S.C. Law Enforcement Division records.

    “Just because someone has made a mistake doesn’t mean they can’t protect themselves,” Wright said. “Me personally, I would have been telling someone to call 911. That should be the first option. I’d have preferred he had called 911.”

    According to investigators, Williams and his girlfriend drove up to their apartment and saw the two men trying to break in through a window. Wright said Williams got out of the car with his girlfriend’s gun and confronted Gentry-Hill and Hill from a distance of 5 to 10 feet. Gentry-Hill and Hill took cover behind some air-conditioning units.

    Wright said one of the two men trying to break in had a gun. The sheriff would not comment on whether the gun Williams used was registered to his girlfriend, or give any information about Williams’ gun or the one found with Hill and Gentry-Hill. He said the gun Hill and Gentry-Hill had was “near” them when deputies began their investigation Saturday morning.

    “We’re doing investigations on both of those pistols,” Wright said.

    Both men were wearing dark clothing and one had on a ski mask, according to an incident report.

    No one was inside the apartment at the time of the shootings. Deputies searched the apartment and found pry marks on the window, Wright said. Williams did not indicate to investigators that he knew Hill or Gentry-Hill, but told deputies that Saturday was the third time someone tried to break into the apartment, Wright said.

    Hill and Gentry-Hill have criminal records as well, according to SLED.

    Hill was convicted under the Youthful Offender Act in September of second-degree burglary and sentenced to six years in prison. That sentence was suspended upon service of 111 days in jail and three years of probation, according to SLED, and he also was prohibited from possessing or acquiring a gun or ammunition.

    Gentry-Hill’s arrest record dates back to 2006 and includes mostly minor charges that were later dismissed. He was convicted of a minor purchasing or in possession of alcohol in July 2011. He was not prohibited from having a gun or ammunition, according to SLED.

    Wright said he and investigators met with 7th Circuit Solicitor’s Office officials on Monday to discuss the case and determine whether charges would be filed against Williams.

    “We were very methodical about this,” Wright said, in consulting with the solicitor’s office before coming to a decision on charges. During the news conference, Wright cited the State vs. John Brayboy, a law that he says supports a convicted felon using a gun in self-defense.

    Solicitor Barry Barnette said under the state’s Castle Doctrine, a person has a right to protect their property, automobile or people on their property with the use of deadly force.

    According to the law, a person is “presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person” when a suspect is “in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling ... or occupied vehicle.”

    Barnette also cited the State vs. John Brayboy, a Spartanburg case involving a convicted felon who used a gun in self-defense.

    “You can act lawfully if you’re acting in self-defense,” Barnette said. “They (Gentry-Hill and Hill) could have shot Williams — they had a gun. If it had been my window, I’d have called 911. But he (Williams) didn’t have to do that under the law.”

    Wright said Tuesday he continues to stand by his comments about residents obtaining concealed weapons permits and arming themselves for protection against crime.

    “I’ve never encouraged anybody to shoot any person,” Wright said. “You only use a weapon as a last resort. I hope it sends a message to the bad guys: You better start leaving us be. The bad guys better start paying attention.”

    Attempts to reach Williams were unsuccessful.

  5. #15
    No Hope For Me 1biggun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    13,805
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)

    Default

    ok here is what he is charged with an why . odd in one story the sherrif is saying they don't know whos gun it is an then later he is saying its the girlfriends.



    Man sheriff held guiltless in fatal shootings pleads guilty

    Federal charge trumps state law, leading to federal plea

    Published 4:28 PM EST Feb 20, 2013
    Share



    NEXT STORY

    Police investigate drive-by shooting
    .


    Text Size:
    A
    A
    A
    ..Lee Crossing apartments

    Lee Crossing apartments

    View Large




    Lee Crossing apartments

    SPARTANBURG COUNTY, S.C. —A man who an Upstate sheriff said would not be charged in connection to a “stand your ground” case in which two burglary suspects were killed has pleaded guilty to federal charges and faces up to 10 years in prison.




    Sheriff: No charges for resident who killed 2 suspects


    Lee Crossing apartments

    Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright says the man accused of shooting two men who he says were robbing his home will not face any charges.
    More



    Deputies: Resident shoots, kills 2 suspects


    Burglars Shot

    The Spartanburg County Sheriff’s office is investigating a shooting that left two people dead early Saturday morning.
    More

    The U.S. Attorney’s Office said Douglas Lamar Williams pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm.

    After the 7th Circuit Solicitor reviewed the case in April 2012, Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright said that Williams would not be charged in the case because he “acted in accordance with the law.”

    Federal authorities disagreed and charged Williams with the weapons violation. No charges were brought in connection to the deaths of the two men Williams shot.

    2 men killed outside apartment

    Just after midnight on April 7, 2012, Williams returned to his Lee's Crossing apartment on Powell Mill Road. He was the front seat passenger in a vehicle driven by his girlfriend.

    Williams told authorities he found 22-year-old Michael Gentry-Hill Jr. and 18-year-old Darren Hill behind an air conditioning unit outside his apartment. Authorities said one of the men was wearing a ski mask.

    Williams said he believed that the men were attempting to break into the ground floor apartment he shared with his girlfriend. Williams, who was at the time a convicted felon, got out of the car with a loaded Smith and Wesson .38 caliber revolver and walked up to the two men while announcing his presence. Williams then shot the men in the head. Both died at the scene.

    After the shooting, state police said Williams should not have had a weapon or ammunition because of a 2008 forgery conviction. But Wright said the gun was William's girlfriend so he was not in violation of the law.
    On Wednesday, Williams pleaded guilty to the federal indictment

    Williams faces a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years, a fine of $250,000, a three-year term of supervised release and a $100 special assessment fee.

    Read more: Man sheriff held guiltless in fatal shootings pleads guilty | Spartanburg/Cherokee News - WYFF Home

  6. #16
    GuncoHolic 2ndAmendican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Taylors, S.C.
    Posts
    4,856
    Feedback Score
    34 (100%)

    Default

    I was repeating the information that I had been told, which was slightly different than presented, but still close enough to the actual circumstances to get the point across. Guy is a felon because of a "Forgery" charge, and his 2nd Amendment rights are gone. Sorry, that's not right. I can understand about murder, rape, or some other violent crime, but bad checks, forgery, tax evasion, etc.... shouldn't cause this kind of issue. As far as I'm concerned the Sheriff handled it properly, but the Feds went overboard.
    Enforcement, NOT Amnesty!!!!!!

    "If they’re going to come here illegally, apply for & receive assistance through a corrupted Government agency encouraging this lawless behavior, work under the table & send billions of dollars each year back to their families in Mexico, while bleeding local economies dry, protest in our streets waving their Mexican flags DEMANDING rights, while I have to press ’1′ for English, then they need to be shipped back to where they came from!" -Chad Miller

  7. #17
    No Hope For Me 1biggun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    13,805
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)

    Default

    I MEAN NO DISRESPECT AT ALL . I SEE THIS AS A DISCUSSION AN YOU STATED IT WAS AS YOUR RECALLED . PLEASE DONT FEEL IM CALLING YOU A LIAR IM NOT.

    I SEE THE POINT ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO DEFEND YOUR SELF ONCE FREE FROM JAIL ECT AN IT IS NOTED IN THE ARTICLES THAT HE IS PROTECTED UNDER LAWS THE SHERRIF NOTED.

    I ALSO SEE THAT THE LAW CANT BE IGNORED AN THE FEDS CANT JUST TURN A BLIND EYE . EVEN IF WE DONT LIKE THE LAW IT IS STILL THE LAW. NOW IF THIS GUY HAD GONE TO A NEIGHBORS AN GOT A GUN TO FREE HIS WIFE OR SOMETHING SIMUALR ID SAY THAT IS DIFFERANT OR IF HE HAD GONE AN GOT HIS GIRLFRINEDS GUN FROMHERE CAR WERE HE WAS NOT PRIVIOUSLY IN POSSESION OR IT WAS NOT IN HIS HOME IS SAY HE SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED . HOWEVER IT APPEARS TO ME HE HAD A GUN PRIOR AN IF HE DIDNT THENHE SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT IT. HE HAD THE SHERRIFS SUPPORT .

    ILL ADMITT I SMELL SOME OF THE FEDS VS THE OUTSPOKEN PRO GUN SHERRIF HERE ALSO.

    HOWEVER I DO SEE SOME SERIOUS ISSUES HERE. THE SHOOTER WAS NOT LIKELY UNDER ANY DANGER WHEN HE DECIDED TO GET OUT OF A CAR WITH A GUN HE IS NOT SUSPOSED TO HAVE . I DONT FEEL THE LAWS PRESENT GIVE HIM THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE THOSE MEN ESPECIALY OUT SIDE OF HIS HOME IN A APARTMET COMPLEX.

    THE SHERRIF IS VERY PRO GUN I HAVE READ SOME OF HIS STORIES . BY HIS THINKING THE SAME CONVICTED RAPIST HE IS REFERING TO WHEN HE TELLS A WOMEN AN OTHER TO GET A GUN AN CARRY IT CONCILED WOULD ALSO BE ABLE TO CARRY TO TO PROTECT HIM SELF FROM ROBBERS.

    I THINK WE WOULD BE BOTH HARD PRESSED TO START DEFINING WHAT FELIONIES ARE OK TO HAVE A GUN AFTER YOU SERVED YOUR TERM AN ALSO PAROLE IF THAT IS PART OF YOUR RELEASE. IN HIS CASE FORGERY IS NOT A VIOLENT CRIME BUT NEITHER IS ROBBERY IF THE ROBBER DOES NOT HURT ANY ONE AS INTHE CASE OF A UNOCUPIED HOME ROBBERY. FORGERY IS ROBBERY JUST LIKE STEALIING FROM HOME .

    THE FORGER IS ROBBER JUST LIKE THE GUYS HE SHOT . IS SEE NO WERE IN ANY OF THE STORIES THAT THE SHOOTER CLAIMED THE ROBBERS FIRED BACK BRANDISHED THE WEAPON OR DID ANY HTING BUT HIDE. I TRUELY QUESTION IF HE SIMPLY DID NOT WALK UP AN SHOT THEM . HE STATED HE ANOUNCED HI S PRESANCE AN SHOT THEM. IM MY STATE THAT IS MURDER UNELSS YOU ARE IN FEAR OF YOUR LIFE YOU CANT SHOOT .

    IN THIS CASE THE SHOOTER WAS NOT IN DANGER HE CHOSE TO GET A WEAPON AN ENGAGE THE SUSPECTS PUTTING HIM SELF IN JEPORAY . I GUESS IN HIS STATE HE IS ALLOWED TO SHOOT ANY ONE STEALING FROM HIM . HOW EVER THESE GUYS WERE NOT EVEN IN THE APARTMENT . THERE OUT SIDE WHAT THERE MOTIVE IS IS UNKNOWN . THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN THERE TO KILL HIM WE WILL NEVER KNOW.

    HE IS NOT CHARGED WITH THE SHOOTING HE IS CHARGED WITH POSSESING A GUN ILLEAGLY AN IMO HE OBVIOULSY HAD A GUN IN HIS POSSESION AN NOT ONLY THAT HE HAD IT IN A VEHICLE AN NOT ONLY THAT HE OR SHE APARENTLY HAD CONCILED CARRY . I DONT KNOW IF IT WAS CONCILED OR LEGALY BEING TRANSPORTED INTHE CAR??? THERE SEEMS TO BE VERY LITTEL INFO ABOUT THE CASE AN WHY HE PLEAD GUILTY.

    HE HAD A LOT OF CHOICES HE COULD HAVE DROVE OFF AN CALLED THE COPS HE COULD HAVE YELLED AT THEM FROM HIS CAR LIKELY SCARING THEM AWAY ( OR MAYBE BEING SHOT AT) HE COULD ILLEGALY TAKE A GUN HES NOT SUSPOSED TO HAVE AN ENGANGE THEM AN SHOOT THEM.

    I CANT FIND A PIC OF THE CRIME SCENE BUT I SAW PICTURES OF THE APARTEMT BUILDINS I DONT SEE PATIOS OR DECKS OR FENCES THERE BIF TALL TOWER TYPE STRUCTURES AN I EVEN QUESTION IF BEING OUT SIDE A WINDOW OF A GROUND FLOOR APARTMENT IS A CRIME . I DID NOT SEE ANY DESCRIPTION OF THE SUSPECTS BEING WATCHED BREAKING IN OR TRYING TO FORCE OPEN ANYTHING I ONLY SAW THEY WERE SEEN OUT SIDE THE APARTMENT WINDOW. THE APARTMENT HAD BEEN BROKEN IN SEVERAL TIEMS BEFORE AN IT WAS NOTED IN ONE STORY THERE WERE MARKS ON THE WINDOW . I SERIOULSY WONDER FROM WHAT BREAK IN????

    HAD THIS GUY BEEN IN BEED AN SOME ONE CAME IN THE WINDOW AN WAS INSDIE ID SAY YEAP HE HAD EVERY RIGHT TO SHOOT . ID ALSO SAY YEAP HE ALSO HAD A ILLEGLE GUN . HE IS ALLOWED TO SAVE HIS LIFE EVEN WITH AN ILLEAGFE WEAPON . EVEN IF HE IS A EX MURDER HIM SELF .

    IF I WAS DRIVING A STOLEN CAR THAT I HAD JUST TAKEN AN SAW SOME ONE TRYING TO SHOOT ME 20 MINUTES LATER PULLINGINTO MY DRIVE WAY AN I RAN THEM OVER TO SAVE MY LIFE AM I STILL NOT A CAR THIEF ????? WOULD I NOT EXPECT TO BE CHARGED WITH CAR THEFT???? HOW IS IT ANY DIFFERANT IF I COME HOME AN SHOOT A PERSON WHO IS IN MY DRIVE WAY WITH AN ILLEAGE GUN????

    IMO WHEN YOU DECIDE TO KNWOINGLY COMMIT A CRIME YOU ARE A CRIMINAL AN YOU HAVE GIVEN UP YOUR RIGHTS AS A HINEST CITIZEN THE FACT YOU GET GAUGHT AN SERVE TIME DOES NOT ERASE YOUR FORFITURE TO YOUR RIGHTS. WOULD IT BE ANY DIFFERNT IF WAS STILL AT ALRGE AN NEVER ARESSTED???? HE WOULD STILL BE A CRIMNAL WITH A GUN.

    IMO WHEN YOUR CONVICTED IT IS PROVEN YOU ARE A CRIMINAL AN YOU HAVE ELECTED TO NO LONGER BE A HONEST CITIZEN . OR LAWS CALL FOR YOU SERVING TIME AN ALSO THE LOSS OF PREVILIGAES FOR LIFE. HE VIOLATED THE LAW BY HAVING A GUN HAD HE BEEN STOPED FOR A TRAFIC VIOLATION AN GUN WAS FOUND HE WOULD BE FACING THE SAME CHARGES.

    THE FACT HE WAS NOT CHARGED WITH MURDER FOR SHOOTING TWO PEOPLE OUT SIDE HIS APPARTMENT WH WERE SUSPOSEDLY ROBBING HIM AN OR ENDANGERING HIS LIFE SOME HOW IS ACTUALY AN ENTIRELY DIFFERANT MATTER.

    WERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE???? GUYS HERE ARE STAING IF YOU DO THE TIME ALL YOUR RIGHTS SHOULD BE RESTORED . IM SAYING NO . WERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE. MURDER? ATTEMPTED MURDER??/ ARMED ASSULT ???? ASSULT ????, RAPE WITH A GUN ??? RAPE WITH OUT A GUN?????? ARMED ROBBERY??? UN ARMED ROBBERY???
    FORGERY OVER $5000 FORGERY UNDER $500O? DOMESTIC BATTERY VS BATTERY???

    HOW ARE WE GOING TO PICK AN CHOOSE WHO CAN HAVE A GUN AFTER COMMITING CERTAIN CRIMES AN WHO CAN NOT. MOST MURDERS ARE SOME OTHER TYPE OF CRIMINAL BEFORE THEY FINALY COMMIT MURDER. HAD THIS FORGER DONE THIS IN WISCONSIN HE WOULD BE LIKELY CHARGED AN CONVICTED AS I SEE NO IMINATE TREAT TO HIS SAFTY. SHOULD HE BE ALLOWED TO HAVE AGUN AFTER HE GETS OUT????


    I KNOW A FEW PEOPLE WHO CANT OWN GUNS . SOME GOT DRUG CHARGES AN WEAPONS VIOLTAINS WHEN THEY WERE 18. SOME HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF FELONLY ASSULT DUE TO A FIGHT . I KNOW ONE WHO HAS A DISTURBING THE PEACE IN CONJUCTION OF DOMESTIC DISTURBANCE AN LOST HIS RIGHT BECAUE HE WAS SCREAMING AT HIS WIFE. HE WAS A LEO !!!!

    THIS COUNTRY HAS DECIDED THAT CERTAIN CLASS FELIONS FORFET THERE RIGHTS TO GUN OWNERSHIP. THERE ARE ALSO FEDERAL LAWS ON DOMESTIC CRIMES.

    I DISAGREE WITH SOME OF THE DOMESTIC CRIMES. HAVING AN ARGUMENT WITH YOUR WIFE AN GETTING A DISTURBING THE PEACE IMO SHOULD NOT BE AN AUTOMATIC FEDERAL LOSS OF GUNS. I HAVE CAME CLOSE TO THIS AN SO HAVE MANY OTHERS I KNOW . IMO JUDGES AN PROSICUTERS LOVE TO USE THIS AS A TOOL TO TAKE YOUR GUNS. THEY ALSO USE IT TO FORCE PLEA DEALS AN RACK UP LOTS OF FEES FOR DEFERED PROSICUTION DEALS AN AS TOOL TO GET PEOPLE INOT ANGER MANAGMENT CLASSES. AROUND HERE ALMOST 95 PERCENT OF DOMESTIC DISTURBANCE CALLS END IN DISTURBING THE PEACE OR OTHER MISDIMEANER THAT ENDS UP BEING PROSICUTION DEFERED AFTER A GUY OR GAL SPENDS ABOUT $10,000
    GOING THROUGH THE SYTEM IF THERE A GUN OWNER. THEY USE USE IT AS A TOOL TO FORCE A GUN OWNER TO DO THIS VS PAYING A $100 FINE AS MOST GUYS WILL DO WHAT EVER THEY CAN TO KEEP THERE GNS ESPECIALY IF THRE A HUNTER OR AVID SHOOTER. IN CASES WERE THE VIOLATERS DONT OWN GUNS LIKELU 85% JUST PLEAD GUILTY TO THE MISDAMENAER AN MOVE ON.

    MY LEO BUDDY SAYS THEY ARE PUSHED TO WRITE AT LEAST A MISDEMANER TICKET AT ALL DOMESTIC DISTURBANCE CALLS EVENIF THEY FEEL THERE IS NO DANGER TO EITHER PARTY. THIS INCLUDES PARENT TO KID ARGUMENTS THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED SOMEWHAT NORMAL. ITS A TOOL TO FORCE ANGER MANAGMENT AN COUNSELING CLASSES.

    IM AGAINST BEING IN A RGUMENT WITH A FAMIALY MEA,MBER WITH NO VIOLANCE COSTING YOU YOUR RIGHT. HOWEVER IF THERE IS A FELONY DOMESTIC ABUSE CHARGE THATS DIFFERANT .

    ILL STICK WITH NOT EVERY ONE SHOULD HAVE A GUN IF THEY HAVE DISPLAYED POOR CHOICES IN LIFE. THE OTHER ALTERITAVE IS WE JUST NEVER LET ANY CRIMINALS OUT AN THATS A WHOEL DIFFRANT DISCUSSION.

    PEACE

  8. #18
    No Hope For Me 1biggun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    13,805
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)

    Default

    THERE ARE SOME PICS OF THE CRIME SCENE AN THE BUILDING .

    UNLESS THOSE GUYS WERE KILLED IN SIDE ONE OF THOSE FNECED IN SECTIONS AN I DOUBE THEY WERE AS I SEE NO AIR CONDITIONER UNITS IN ANY OF THEM. IM REALLY WONDERING HOW THE SHOOTER CAN PROVE HIS PALCE WAS EVEN BEING ROBBED. I SERIOUSY DOUBT THE OUT SIDE OF THIS BUILDING CAN BE CONSIDERED HIS PROPERTY OR UNDER HIS CONTROL UNLESS THYE WERE OVER THE FENCE. SINCE THE SUSPOECTS WERE FOUND DEAD BEHIND A AIRCONDITIONES THAT ARE NOT IN ANY OF THOSE APARTMENTS PATIOS I CAN AONLY CONCLUDE HE SHOT THEM OUT SIDE HIS RENTED AREA AN I ALSO CAN CONCLUDE THAT EVEN IF THEY WERE THERE WHEN HE GOT THERE THEY HAD LEFT THE SCENE AN WERE TRYING TO FLEE OR POSSABLY NEVER THERE TO START WITH. WERE THEY ABD GUYS ?? LIKEY BUT I REALLY WONDER HOW THEY ARE CALLING THIS PROTECTION OF PROPERTY OR LIFE????

    ID BET THAT PLACE IS CRAWLING WITH KIDS OUT SIDE . ID ALSO THINK ANYTHING OUT SIDE THAT FENCED IN AREA IS A COMMON AREA. ITS LOW INCOME HOSUING AREA I BELIEAVE FROM THE OTHER INFO ON THE NET.

    IS IT LEGAL TO SHOOT BURGULARS OUT SIDE YOUR HOME IN THAT STATE??????????

    PICS IN LINK


    2 shot to death at west-side apartment complex in Spartanburg | GoUpstate.com

  9. #19
    GuncoHolic 2ndAmendican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Taylors, S.C.
    Posts
    4,856
    Feedback Score
    34 (100%)

    Default

    Personally, I think it's an easy distinction to determine who should/shouldn't have their 2A rights reinstated after serving their time. If you're serving time for a violent offense, or any offence that where you were armed at the time of arrest, like a drug dealer being busted for selling coke and he has a gun on him. To me that's not very hard to come up with a line. Hell we/they do it all the time with plenty of things in life. Up to this point is fine, after that, it's not fine. Hell you do it every day when you go to work. I'll keep working here as long as they treat me at least this good, or pay me this much. If the treatment gets worse, or the pay gets cut, I'm outa here and will look for another job. So that's easy, sorry.

    IMHO, even though this guy is probably NOT a fine upstanding member of the community, if his felony conviction that prevents him from defending himself, was not a violent crime, as in the Forgery charge, then AFAIC he should have walked as long as the local LEO's saw no evidence of wrong doing. The Sheriff said the gun was his girlfriends, and IIRC somewhere it was said that he got it out of her purse, so it wasn't HIS gun, at least according to the LEO's. It's the Feds that decided that they wanted a piece of him. I'm sorry, but if the local and State athorities said it was a clean shoot, that's all I need to know. The Feds have no freaking business in it at that point.

    As far as being able to shoot someone outside the apartment, I believe in S.C. it's a stand your ground state, so that if you're on your property, and you feel that your life is in jeapardy you are within your legal right to stand your ground and defend yourself. Personally I think that if you see masked men in your yard, going and grabbing a firearm is a normal reaction. Hell I do it regularly when my dog barks in such a fashion that I feel there may be some type of threat he is trying to alert me to. I can't think of any firearm owner that I know who wouldn't immediately grab their personal/home defense weapon if they came home and saw masked men in their yard. Doesn't mean that you have to shoot, but grabbing the firearm to me is legitimate. After that, if there is some type of threat and you feel that your life is in danger, then you go from there. Just my 2 cents.
    Enforcement, NOT Amnesty!!!!!!

    "If they’re going to come here illegally, apply for & receive assistance through a corrupted Government agency encouraging this lawless behavior, work under the table & send billions of dollars each year back to their families in Mexico, while bleeding local economies dry, protest in our streets waving their Mexican flags DEMANDING rights, while I have to press ’1′ for English, then they need to be shipped back to where they came from!" -Chad Miller

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Search tags for this page

There are currently no search engine referrals.
Click on a term to search our site for related topics.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •