Businessman kills burgler.... then he is arrested for being a felon with gun

[jsalcedo]

This bugs me.


Jackson Clarion-Ledger of December 23, 2005
Tow firm shooter faces gun charge

A Jackson businessman who shot and killed a suspected burglar is facing a new charge because of a conviction more than two decades ago.

Fred James Perry, 55, owner of Livingston Towing & Recovery at 3228 Medgar Evers Blvd., has been charged as a felon in possession of a firearm.

Perry was convicted in 1982 of armed robbery, according to Hinds County Circuit Court records.

A felon can't own or possess a firearm. Under federal law, felons convicted of possessing firearms face up to 10 years in federal prison or a $250,000 fine. Under state law, the maximum penalty is three years in prison.

Jackson Police Department Detective Brendon Bell said Perry has not been charged in the Saturday night shooting of Timothy Darby, 36, of Jackson. The shooting is still under investigation, he said. The case will be presented to a grand jury.

Bell said he did not know when detectives did a background check on Perry. But Perry was taken to the police station and questioned Saturday night, police said.

Perry was arrested Wednesday, according to the police docket. He was released Thursday afternoon on $10,000 bond from the Hinds County Detention Center at Raymond.

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051223/NEWS/512230371/1002/NEWS01

 

[Firethorn]

Hmmm.. Conviction 23 years ago. Business owner. Sounds like he's reformed.

There should be a way for felons to regain their rights, after proving themselves reformed.

I'll assume that the shooting was adjucated as self-defense, seeing as how they're only charging him with felon in possession, not murder.

edit:I need remedial math.

 

[Langenator]

Some states have ways for felons to regain their rights-and it always requires a good bit of legal effort on the part of the felon-and some states don't. Don't know what the law is in that state.

 

[newfalguy101]

He knew he was taking a risk as I am quite sure he knew he couldnt legally possess a firearm.

He may have been able to get his rights restored and if thats the case, he should have jumped through the legal hoops to do so.

Its true enough that "felony" is used to paint a pretty broad stroke these days, but c'mon, the guy was CONVICTED of armed robbery, to my way of thinking, that( in my mind anyway), is a legitamate reason to bar someone from enjoying the same rights I enjoy as someone who has never committed a serious crime.

 

[HighVelocity]

Perry was convicted in 1982 of armed robbery, according to Hinds County Circuit Court records.

Regardless of whether he was justified in shooting the burgler, there's no way he didn't know it was illegal for him to be in posession of a firearm.
Everything we do in life has consequences even if it's 20+ years after the fact.

 

[Rem700SD]

iirc, There WAS a way to petition the BATFE to regain firearm owner status as a felon. In 1994, Congress (remember that Clinton guy) forbid any funding for this program. It was challanges a couple years ago in the ourts, and congress won. I don't recall the case name, but the defendent was caught in Mexico w/ a case of ammo, and was appealling to get his FFL back, as he had broken no US law, regardless of his location.
Sounds like this guy may have been trying to pull his life back together, that's a tragedy.

 

[Firethorn]

I feel that there's a good chance of jury nullification at some point in this case. It'd be interesting if somebody kept track of this.

Heck, even if convicted, he might end up only on probation or something.

I wonder if he realizes now that "That could have been me... 20 years ago".

 

[Flyboy]

This is precisely why I'm opposed to the law forbidding felons--even violent felons--from owning guns. This guy was pretty clearly justified in shooting; his life was in jeopardy. The fact that he did something stupid a quarter-century ago has no bearing whatsoever on his right to defend himself from harm, using the most effective tools possible.

If he's still a threat, he should still be locked up; if he's not a threat, he's a citizen, and should be treated as such.

 

[Firethorn]

If he's still a threat, he should still be locked up; if he's not a threat, he's a citizen, and should be treated as such.

Well, I disagree with this at least a bit. I think that additional restrictions after release are reasonable. Prison/jail is such a different enviroment that you have to verify that they've reformed in real society.

Still, 5-10 years should be plenty of time to figure this out.

 

[mmike87]

Hmmm.. Conviction 23 years ago. Business owner. Sounds like he's reformed.

There should be a way for felons to regain their rights, after proving themselves reformed.

I'll assume that the shooting was adjucated as self-defense, seeing as how they're only charging him with felon in possession, not murder.

edit:I need remedial math.

I would tend to agree - however it's difficult to know really when someone is reformed.

The ironic thing here is that if this now otherwise respectable member of society had died at the hands of the burglar, the law would be happy with the outcome. :banghead:

 

[Firethorn]

I would tend to agree - however it's difficult to know really when someone is reformed.

The ironic thing here is that if this now otherwise respectable member of society had died at the hands of the burglar, the law would be happy with the outcome. :banghead:

From my reading, a person who manages to stay out of trouble for around five years has chances of being arrested again little higher than the standard population.

edit: would the law really be 'happy'? I'd be thinking that the burglar would have been charged with murder, assuming they caught him.

 

[db_tanker]

how can we know what is truly in a mans (or womans) heart?

I feel that there should be a legit process for someone who has been convicted to expunge the felony from his record. Should it be easy? HELL no.

BUT it should be possible.

We all have our own oppinions of this...and we always will. Which is why THR is such a good place to get oppinions.


D

 

[EghtySx]

He will now be judged by 12 instead of being carried by 6.

Sounds like he made a choice. How many of us agree with that choice?

 

[One of Many]

Do Black Powder guns qualify as firearms for the Felon in Possession charge? If not, he could have kept a replica black powder revolver in his home or business for defense.

 

[grimjaw]

Perry was convicted in 1982 of armed robbery

If there was ever anyone who knew the value of the right to keep and bear arms, it was this man. Not only did he commit a crime using a weapon, one in which he might have been stopped if his victims had been carrying, he stopped a crime similar to the one he committed with a weapon.

I feel bad for the guy if he's truly reformed, but if we don't enforce the current law, people opposed to guns will use this as just more ammunition.

jmm

 

[ARperson]

This is precisely why I'm opposed to the law forbidding felons--even violent felons--from owning guns. This guy was pretty clearly justified in shooting; his life was in jeopardy. The fact that he did something stupid a quarter-century ago has no bearing whatsoever on his right to defend himself from harm, using the most effective tools possible.

If he's still a threat, he should still be locked up; if he's not a threat, he's a citizen, and should be treated as such.

I totally agree. If they're so damn dangerous that they shouldn't have firearms, then they shouldn't be let out to roam the public streets either. Such a mindset would negate the argument on whether felons should own firearms, because it wouldn't be an issue of their status as a felon, but would focus on their status as a danger/menace to society.

I don't care what the crime/conviction was for or how many years ago. If the person is okay to let loose on the streets he/she is okay to let loose with all of their rights restored. Period.

Part of the problem is that we let people out who should never be let out and it creates a public mindset that criminals cannot/do not reform themselves. So the poor bastard who does some stupid thing 20+ years ago can't get a fair shake. If our country actually held to the belief that "he served his time/debt to society" and accepted that by being released he was no longer a threat, we wouldn't have this problem. Of course, that goes back to my original premise that you have to keep the dangerous ones locked up.

 

[Ryder]

Wonder if the burglar knew this guy was not legally allowed to own guns? Surprise, surprise, surprise

Fred's unalienable rights were not negotiable.
I don't see a problem with that.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I wonder how long it's going to take some enterprising leftist extremist to think of redefining virtually all crimes as felonies to cut down on the number of citizens who can legally keep and bear arms.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Reformed? Sure, whatever. Every day he was in possession of a firearm, he broke the law...all while being a "reformed" criminal. Sorry. It just ended up that while being reformed and illegally possessing a gun, he had to use it and that resulted in the cops learning of his possession of a firearm.

I think some of y'all are confused with "reformed" and "not caught yet this time."

 

[rfurtkamp]

I'd do the same exact thing the business owner did.

I grew up in Chicago - us peons couldn't have handguns, let alone carry them.

We made choices every day, that if caught, would have put us in prison for a long, long time.

If the man was deemed safe to release for his armed robbery, and hasn't continued doing so (although I'm sure there are some who would consider a towing business to be just that in some cases), I have no problem with his having a firearm.

Judging yesterday's "violent criminal" for what they might do once the courts are through with them is just as flat out wrong as the gun-grabbers judging normal folks for what they might do with them.

The Second Amendment has no prohibitions on the people. Neither does the First - and felons can scream and whine and slander and commit criminal acts with words with no additional penalty for recidivism based on their choice of "weapon."

 

[Firethorn]

Reformed? Sure, whatever. Every day he was in possession of a firearm, he broke the law...all what being a "reformed" criminal. Sorry. It just ended up that while being reformed and illegally possessing a gun that he had to use it.

I think some of y'all are confused with "reformed" and "not caught yet this time."

And you have to remember that us libertarians draw a line between crimes that affect others and those that don't. We don't really like the latter. Mere possession of a firearm isn't a big deal to us. Using it on others is. Threatening constitutes use. This guy managed to go for sometime, perhaps years, without giving the police any reason to search him for a gun. Unless he's very, very good, he's kept his nose otherwise clean for years.

 

[Flyboy]

I wonder how long it's going to take some enterprising leftist extremist to think of redefining virtually all crimes as felonies to cut down on the number of citizens who can legally keep and bear arms.

You say that like it isn't already happening.

 

[Majic]

I don't know what others think, but he is a convicted felon. He could have applied to get his rights back, but he didn't. When he chose to disobey the law and carry a firearm is something he only knows, but at that moment he had a jail cell waiting for him. Now that it is 23 years later changes nothing. Let's not start applying the law only where we think it should be.

 

[newfalguy101]

I see this as kind of poetic justice.

He killed someone for DOING the VERY THING HE WENT TO PRISON FOR!!!!!!!

If someone had killed him during his criminal activities, this discussion wouldnt be happening.

Spose he has realized how fortunate he was to have gone to prison and NOT the morgue.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I see this as kind of poetic justice.

He killed someone for DOING the VERY THING HE WENT TO PRISON FOR!!!!!!!

At least with the current information, it is tough to tell if he killed a person for the same reason he went to jail. Perry was convincted of armed robbery. The person he shot was a burglar and we don't know yet if the burglar was armed or not.