The Daily News
The off-duty correction officer who allegedly shot his teenage son after they fought over the boy’s shoplifting arrest is using the Oscar Pistorius defense.
Robert Smalls, 39, claimed in court Monday he mistook his son for an intruder in their Queens home when he fired a shot into the 17-year-old’s stomach early Sunday morning.
Now the boy is relieved just to be alive.
“I’m thankful,” Quasaun said from his bed at Elmhurst Hospital, before disappearing from the facility Tuesday morning.
The elder Smalls was arraigned on charges of felony assault and criminal possession of a weapon in Queens Criminal Court after shooting Quasaun about 4:30 a.m. Sunday.
“By the time I realized it was my son the gun had discharged,” Smalls told police, according to court papers.
Rikers Island co-workers and union delegates showed up in court to support Smalls, who offered an eerie account to detectives of how he ended up shooting his son.
According to court papers, Smalls said he heard steps inside his home Sunday and shouted, “Who is it?”
Why criminal possession of a weapon? Being a prison guard, wouldn't he be allowed?
Regardless, I count him as another lawful gun owner who went bad. You guys are dangerous, as a group, very dangerous.
The logic is weak in you, Mikeb. Please explain how a person can be both a lawful gun owner and in criminal possession of a firearm. That would be more fun than watching the Three Stooges.
ReplyDeleteThe answer to your question is simple. Smallis obviously didn't have the required permission from the city to own a gun. So he was an unlawful gun owner, and this is an example of gun control failure.
I find it odd since he was presumably armed at work.
DeleteOh, what a minute, is this an example of how only celebrities and rich guys can have guns in the de facto gun free zone of NY?
Too bad your comment is too full of sarcasm for the truth of it to sink in.
DeleteNo, he presumably isn't armed at work.
DeletePrison guards are NOT allowed to carry weapons inside a prison, jails or confinement areas. Neither are law enforcement officers allowed. Riot teams are the only armed support at unrest times only. Until such an event riot teams are disarmed and arms are locked up. There are very good reasons for this.
ReplyDeleteThat makes sense. I suppose a corrections officer might not have a gun at home or at work.
DeleteA corrections officer is a civilian just the same as you and I and as long as he or she is not prohibited from legally possessing a gun can certainly have one at home. At work, that is different.
DeleteHere is a bit of info that may surprise you Mike. There are law enforcement officers that are paid to enforce the law and are issued firearms that CAN NOT pass a NICS check to own their own firearm legally. Its the departments policy to determine who is fit to be a law enforcement officer or not. These guys carry a gun and a badge and determine law infringements on you, but cant legally own their own gun.
Go figure.
"Why criminal possession of a weapon? Being a prison guard, wouldn't he be allowed?"
ReplyDeleteIts likely an add on crime to cover the government's ass. The handgun was issued to him by the Department of Corrections.
Wow! So you can be a straight up Criminal gun owner and still land on the Mikeb list of lawful owners.
ReplyDeleteMikey, thanks for the openness in telling us how you will manipulate facts in any way possible to support your position.
At worst he was a hidden criminal.
DeleteNo, Mike, because your definition of hidden criminals are lawful owners who have committed crimes but not been disqualified from gun ownership yet.
DeleteThat doesn't apply here. This guy illegally possessed a firearm, either because he was violating the permitting laws of NY or because he was a prohibited person. Neither qualifies as a "hidden" criminal lawfully owning a gun.
So, when will you be correcting the title and issuing a retraction admitting you called this one wrong?
DeleteIs something wrong with the title of the post?
DeleteMy definition of "hidden criminal" is a bit wider than you said. Besides, who are you to tell me what my definition of something is? You want so badly to capture a gotcha that you make shit up. Get off it, man.
Mikeb, your problem is that you tailor your definitions to suit whatever story we're discussing.
DeleteSorry, I forgot that you define "hidden criminal" to also include people who haven't committed crimes--even people who wouldn't have committed crimes if you got all of your favorite ideas passed.
DeleteSo I guess I limited your definition too much because I forgot that when you use the term Criminal you don't actually mean criminal in any sense of the word.
In other words, your definition of "criminal," which includes the disabled and the elderly, is an example of the mutilation of the English language which you regularly engage in to make your arguments. After all, it's hard for people to argue against you when they have to keep remembering foolish definitions like this to avoid being accused of lying.
You love to sling the word liar about so much that you often assign it to another's opinion or their personal definition of a phrase that they themselves coined.
DeleteActually, I've not been slinging around the word liar. You have.
DeleteAnd yes, you coined a term that uses words in ways contrary to their definitions. You're not lying about your personal definition of "hidden criminal"--instead, you're just brutalizing our mother tongue.
And, By the way, from this post:
Deletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/08/lawful-gun-owner-and-rebel-patriot.html
Greg Camp: "Nothing in the source articles says anything about his being a lawful gun owner."
Mikeb: "His charge was brandishing, not illegally possessing. That's how we know."
Hmmm, it would seem that you even disagree with yourself.
Another feverish attempt at a gotcha that's indecipherable to anyone but you.
DeleteIf you can't figure that one out, you're hopeless laddie.
DeleteOh, what the Hell, I'll try and explain it.
DeleteIn the old post you said that we knew the guy was a lawful gun owner since he wasn't charged with illegal possession.
Here, I said that this guy can't be a lawful gun owner because he was charged with illegal possession.
See the connection?
Yeah, I got ya. That's why I decided to label him a hidden criminal. You see how useful that designation is?
DeleteLet me give you my guess. The firearm is issued to him for self defense due to his contact with inmates who eventually might want some payback. Maybe he works in some function where he does carry for work.
DeleteHe was in lawful possession of the pistol before this all went down. He used the gun to shoot his son. He isn't charged with illegal possession, he's charged with criminal possession. It likely means possession of a gun while committing an illegal act, which likely boosts his sentence.
If he's acquitted of ag assault, the other charge will likely go away too. I might be wrong, but it has that feel.
Except that your "hidden criminal" designation is a subset of "lawful gunowners"--Group B on you Venn Diagram. He is not a member of group B, therefore he cannot be a member of the intersection of A and B--a.k.a. your "hidden criminals" designation because that would imply his being a LAWFUL GUNOWNER rather than someone who is in ILLEGAL POSSESSION of a gun.
DeleteI'll grant that Sarge also offers a potentially valid interpretation of the charges--we'd have to delve into the statutes and see what the actual code sections he's charged under are to be sure--or we can wait to see the outcome.
Delete(And if Sarge's guess is correct, then yes, he would be a lawful gun owner and qualify as a "good guy gone bad" in your lingo.)
This looks like what would apply. Though in NYC, gun laws are another world. There seems to be quite an industry there for attorneys who specialize in gun law.
DeleteCriminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree – 265.03
In order to prove that an individual is guilty of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, it must be established that the person:
(1) with intent to use the weapon(s) unlawfully against another person:
(a) possesses a machine-gun;
(b) possesses a loaded firearm;
(c) possesses a disguised gun; or
(2) possesses five or more firearms; or
(3) possesses any loaded firearm (unless the possession takes place in such person’s home or place of business.)
http://www.newyork-defense-lawyer.com/GunPossessionNY.html
Well, presuming that the paper properly listed the charges (hopefully we can presume that safely) your suggestion would seem to be correct. Especially since there isn't a listed defense of possessing a firearm license (whatever the ownership license is called in NY). So, yeah, this guy may have been a legal owner who snapped.
DeleteThanks for doing the legwork.
BTW, Regarding the morass of laws in NY, this statute raises interesting questions: Are people with all the proper licenses limited to four guns in NY? Or is there some provision--license or otherwise--that defends against prosecution under this provision if you jump through the right hoops?
(And before Mike, or someone else, demands why anyone could possibly need more than 4 guns, for example: .22 for practice and small game, Deer rifle, black powder rifle for that season, shotgun with multiple barrels for fowling and home defense--and now there are no open slots for an old family heirloom with sentimental value; a collector's item; a handgun for home defense, personal defense, or competition shooting; a smaller shotgun for a child or spouse (or a larger shotgun if the spouse likes that) so that they can hunt too; similar duplicates for other types of hunting; etc., etc., etc.
Another "only one" turns out to be a criminal? Huh.
ReplyDeleteMoonshine
Not according to Texas Colt carry. This guy is just like a civilian.
DeleteI think I'm starting to get you, Moonshine. You're jealous of anyone who wears any kind of uniform or has any kind of job that requires a gun. Is that it?
Ah, adjusting the bounds of your undefined, personal definition of only ones so that you can make ad hominem attacks.
DeleteIs that the best you can do?
Mike, cops are civilians. I spent 8 years wearing a uniform and defending your right say such things, during which time we referred to police as "civilian authorities". Jealous of cops? Spare me.
DeleteMoonshine
Mike, he is not just like a civilian, he is a civilian. Law enforcement, corrections officer, jailer or what ever branch of civil service you can think of are still civilians. They are not the military.
DeleteThe only similarity is tax payer funded. The military service is for the country. Civil servants work locally.
Please do not equate military as the same as civil servants or vice-versa, they are not the same.
Moonshine, first of all, I don't think that's what "civilian authorities" means. I think it means "those "only ones" who have authority over civilians," not that they themselves are civilians.
DeleteSecondly, You're talking to the wrong guy with that macho military bullshit about defending our rights. Most vets joined the service for all the wrong reasons and afterwards some of them spout all that nonsense about having defended us who are safe at home.
There hasn't been a war in our lifetimes that fits that bill. You don't think by fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan you single-handedly, or even collectively, you and your buddies, are responsible for any freedom we enjoy as Americans today, do you? We often hear this, but it's nothing more than braggadocio and self-aggrandizing.
Mike,
DeleteFirst of all, You're wrong.
Secondly, whether they joined for the right reasons or not, defending the nation and Constitution was still their job description.
Sure, they've been misused by those with the power to command them. How about going after those people rather than the soldiers?
I do "go after" those in command, but I refuse to silently listen to bullshit like Moonshine pulled.
DeleteRight. That's why you prefer to insult veterans and also tell the rest of us that the only reason we don't like Obama is because we're Racists.
Delete