FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 06/29/2022 4:37:46 AM PDT by marktwain
SAN FRANCISCO - A man who shot and killed a passenger on a San Francisco subway commuter train will be charged with gun crimes but not homicide in what was "clearly" a case of self-defense after he was attacked with a knife, his attorney said Monday.
Javon Green, 26, will face charges of having a concealed weapon in a public place and having a loaded gun in a public place, both felonies that possibly could be reduced to misdemeanors, attorney Randy Knox told the San Francisco Chronicle.
Green was scheduled for a court appearance on Tuesday.
The San Francisco District Attorney's Office declined to comment to the paper Monday. Messages from The Associated Press seeking comment weren't immediately returned.
Green shot to death Nesta Bowen, 27, last Wednesday on a Muni train, his attorney said.
Knox told the paper that his client was a security guard who carried a gun for protection because he had twice been shot, and that he had twice tried to move away from a man on the train who is believed to be Bowen.
The man had been sitting next to Green. According to his client's account, the man was mumbling and saying "aggressive things" to Green, who got up and walked away from him, but the man followed him and took a knife from his pants, Knox said.
According to Knox, Green said to him, "’what are you going to do, stab me?’"
"And that’s when he started to run away," Knox said. "It’s a clear case of self-defense."
Surveillance footage obtained by the Chronicle appeared to show the man pulling something from his pocket and charging at Green, swinging at his face with his fist and what appears to be a knife, the paper said.
Green backs up but as they approach the end of the train car, Green shoots the man, the paper said.
Police said the shooter fled when the train stopped in the Castro neighborhood. Green was arrested the next day in the San Francisco Bay Area city of Pittsburg.
A 70-year-old passenger on the train was wounded and received non-life threatening injuries. Knox said Green apologized to the man and to other train passengers.
California's AG is working overtime to insure anyone like him will never be able to obtain a California carry permit.
It’s a black security guard shooting a black nutcase in self defense. BLM will not riot and burn.
A Goetz Squad on public transport couldn’t hurt.
If the facts submitted in this case are as reported and with the recent Supreme Court ruling on gun permits this might be a good case to take to trail against California’s anti-Second Amendment gun laws
Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
But, didn’t the Supreme court just this week make concealed weapons legal everywhere?
Isn’t the gun charge illigitimate?
democrat party led government is so horrible. They hope for your death and punish you if you even dare to defend yourself.
I will always ultimately blame those who are really the cause of this. It is democrat party voters.
In Cali does a “gun crime” carry a heavier sentence than a major felony like murder?
[[In Cali does a “gun crime” carry a heavier sentence than a major felony like murder?]]
It all depends on the prosecutor.
https://www.leahlegal.com/practice-areas/firearms/weapon-charges
If the prosecutor decides to stack charges (illegal possession, illegal concealed carry, having a firearm on public transportation, etc, etc) that can easily be a total of 20 years or so.
P.S. If the attacker "passenger" had survived, he'd have been released on his own recognizance. The victim, however, will be prosecuted to full extent of the law.
> This man would have been unable to obtain a carry permit because of California’s unconstitutional gun permit law. <
You raise an interesting point. Can a person be prosecuted based on a law that is not constitutional? I would guess not. But then again, this is California. A woke DA will hound this guy mercilessly until some judge puts an end to it.
As a side note, awhile back I attended a talk given by an NRA lawyer. One of the things he said was never bring a gun intro DC. You could follow every DC law regarding the transportation of guns perfectly, and it wouldn’t matter.
If you’re caught with that gun, off to jail you’ll go. And you’ll sit there until your lawyer gets you out.
Problem is typically the Supreme Court decision is not immediate. Some take 30 days to go into effect. This guys timing is unfortunate.
Really 30mn days to have legal source that says that.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
SCOTUS set the stage for legal CCW everywhere but the rollout is going to take time.
As far as this case goes, laws are rarely undone retroactively. So a law changed today doesn’t help you violating that law a month ago. It doesn’t work that way. If I get a speeding ticket for doing 75 on a highway marked 65 mph, and the next week they raise the speed limit to 80 mph, it doesn’t retroactively reverse my speeding ticket. I was still doing 10 mph over the limit at the time.
In a just world, a finding of lawful self-defense ought to neutralize any other ancillary criminal charges associated with the tools used in that act of self-defense. But, that’s not the world we live in, and it very certainly isn’t the case in CA.
Shouldn’t there be a difference between a law that was changed (65 mph turns to 80 mph) and a law that was found to violate the Constitution, i.e. going back to the time it was passed?
“An act which violates the Constitution has no power and can, of course, neither build up or tear down. It can neither create new rights nor destroy existing ones. It is an empty legislative declaration without force or vitality.”
Carr vs. State
Sorry, I am not a lawyer.
The ruling I cited implies such a difference. Apparently when a law is found unconstitutional, “it was never a law”.
The “gun crime” will be used as an excuse to bar him from any permit in the future.
I prefer that the existence of the constitution is the permit to carry. What amounts to a mere administrative problem is always used to deny rights en toto.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.