Mediaite
There are some defenses that work well when you’re charged with a crime. Not a single one of them is “But the Vice President said!” Vancouver, Washington resident Jeffery Barton was arrested for discharging his gun into the air to scare of potential carjackers. When he was outside the courtroom, Barton explained himself with the following: “I did what Joe Biden told me to do. I went outside and fired my shotgun in the air.”
There are some defenses that work well when you’re charged with a crime. Not a single one of them is “But the Vice President said!” Vancouver, Washington resident Jeffery Barton was arrested for discharging his gun into the air to scare of potential carjackers. When he was outside the courtroom, Barton explained himself with the following: “I did what Joe Biden told me to do. I went outside and fired my shotgun in the air.”
Law enforcement officials explained to KOIN 6 News that you can’t just fire shots into the air unless there is a legitimate self-defense concern. Barton pled not guilty to the charge, and presumably the “I was just following orders” defense won’t work here.
Barton was referring to a Facebook town hall Biden held with Parents Magazine earlier this year, in which the VP received a question about banning high-capacity magazines. This is how Biden responded to the question.
“If you want to protect yourself, get a double barrel shotgun.” Biden indicated that it’s the same thing he tells his wife. “I said, ‘Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out onto the balcony, put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house. I promise you whoever is coming in…’”
As predicted...
ReplyDeleteLets start with the fact is that they werent carjackers. My understanding is that carjacking requires someone to be in the vehicle. Basically the difference between theft and robbery.
ReplyDeleteSo, he's on the hook for illegal discharge. Though it was obviously effective since the police found no sign of the criminals.
And the wheels of justice turn so slowly....
ReplyDelete"Clark County's prosecutor said Tuesday he will dismiss a firearms-related charge against a Vancouver man who said he was merely taking Vice President Joe Biden's advice on how to defend his property from car prowlers. Instead, the man will be prosecuted for obstructing a police officer."
"Barton was scheduled to be tried next week in Clark County District Court on a misdemeanor charge of illegally discharging a firearm in connection with the incident at his home. But Clark County Prosecutor Tony Golik said Tuesday he has doubts that a jury would be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Barton violated the law when he fired shots into the air in a county-designated no-shooting zone.
"A person, even in a no-shooting zone, still has the right to defend their person or their property," Golik said. "In this case, based on the facts, there is a reasonable argument that Mr. Barton may have been defending his person and property when he fired in the air."
"However, the firearms charge will be replaced with a charge of obstructing a law enforcement officer, Golik said.
Golik said ethical guidelines prevent him from discussing specific reasons for the new charge.
"Based on (Barton's) conduct, we are going to pursue the obstruction charge," he said.
According to Washington law, a person commits the crime of obstruction by willfully hindering, delaying, or obstructing any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties."
"Barton said Tuesday that the new charge also is groundless.
"Tony Golik is desperately grasping at straws to keep his ass out of a civil suit, which he's going to get anyway," Barton said.
"They have to charge me with something; they've let this go on too long," he added."
http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/aug/19/joe-biden-defense-case-to-see-action-vancouver/
I am too wondering the basis for the obstruction charge. Stay tuned....
Aren't you also wondering about the decision to drop the shooting charge. The explanation was pretty weak. Even the imaginative and highly creative TS didn't mention this scenario when inventing possible justified reasons for firing warning shots.
DeleteThe prosecutor was fairly clear as to his reasons. If state law allows discharge of a firearm for defense of property, then it wasn't an illegal discharge.
DeleteI'm not a fan of warning shots, especially into the air where the round ends up god knows where. I don't know for sure, but my guess is that the rounds fired were bird shot and it would be tough even trying to prove anyone would be injured by a falling BB.
Most cities, at least here in Minnesota have ordinances restricting the discharge of firearms except in the course of lawful self defense. In fact, the state's firearms preemption law specifically allows such ordinances as being exempted from the law.
I'm going to have to look at my town's ordinance and see what the wording says. I know the deadly force statute here doesn't allow deadly force to protect property, but does allow it to prevent commission of a felony in the home.