Why was this player never charged with AW?

[Gawernator]

Los Angeles Chargers LB Denzel Perryman gun charges being further investigated, DA says

Chargers' Denzel Perryman's gun case was sent back to law enforcement for more investigation, according to the LA County District Attorney’s Office.

www.usatoday.com

Seems like an easy possession case, so why did the DA let him go free with no AW/SBR charges? Theory I read was "If it were to go to court, the 2A infringement would undergo scrutiny and potentially be ruled unconstitutional."

 

[dvoncock]

I have no inside info, but if I were to guess …

Everything was legally owned and compliant. (In my experience, many patrol officers don’t actually know what is and isn’t an “assault weapon” and/or SBR under California definitions.)

Or, there was an issue with the legality of the traffic stop and they knew a pro-athlete’s legal team would trash them in a motion to suppress evidence.

 

[Gawernator]

I have no inside info, but if I were to guess …

Everything was legally owned and compliant. (In my experience, many patrol officers don’t actually know what is and isn’t an “assault weapon” and/or SBR under California definitions.)

Or, there was an issue with the legality of the traffic stop and they knew a pro-athlete’s legal team would trash them in a motion to suppress evidence.

Makes sense

 

[CadeH]

He has the $ to fight it out in court so the DA offered to drop the charges if he allows the seized weapons to be destroyed if I were to guess.

If it went to court he risked felonies and prison time if he lost, while the state risked losing the AWB if he won. Easier for both sides just to wipe their hands of it.

 

[RickD427]

This is not surprising. I spent 10 years as a patrol deputy at what is now the South L.A. Station and another 7 years as a supervisor at two adjoining stations. I don't know the facts of this particular case, so I can't comment specifically. But as a general rule, the filing DDAs generally defer felony prosecution on gun cases involving generally responsible citizens. That's not just for the politically-connected and sports figures. It's across the board. Most often, the result is a misdemeanor plea bargain with a firearms prohibition. If the probation is completed, everyone wins. If it isn't the the DDA drops the hammer on the second filing.

I hate to agree, but I must, that a lot of deputies are not as familiar with weapons as they should be. The range of laws that we enforce is just too wide to be an expert in everything. I once did a shift briefing on Assault Weapons (as law existed in 2004) and I showed a photo of a tripod-mounted, single shot, Browning M2 chambered in .50 BMG. I asked the shift deputies what they would do if they encountered a person firing this weapon at the range ( the station I was working at had a large range in our service area). Every deputy on duty replied that they would arrest for possession of a .50 BMG Rifle. So followed the on-scene instruction of the elements of that offense. But it's worth noting that SB23 (1999) changed the definition of "Assault Weapon" such that the same M2 would be an illegal Assault Weapon (but still not a rifle) today.

We lost a fair number of Vehicle Search cases when presented for filing. The key issue usually being the articulation of the lawful standing needed to conduct the search. The state of the case law makes it very easy to lawfully search vehicles, but it's not automatic and the burden is on the deputy to sufficiently show their legal standing.

 

[grandpapeepap]

This is not surprising. I spent 10 years as a patrol deputy at what is now the South L.A. Station and another 7 years as a supervisor at two adjoining stations. I don't know the facts of this particular case, so I can't comment specifically. But as a general rule, the filing DDAs generally defer felony prosecution on gun cases involving generally responsible citizens. That's not just for the politically-connected and sports figures. It's across the board. Most often, the result is a misdemeanor plea bargain with a firearms prohibition. If the probation is completed, everyone wins. If it isn't the the DDA drops the hammer on the second filing.

I hate to agree, but I must, that a lot of deputies are not as familiar with weapons as they should be. The range of laws that we enforce is just too wide to be an expert in everything. I once did a shift briefing on Assault Weapons (as law existed in 2004) and I showed a photo of a tripod-mounted, single shot, Browning M2 chambered in .50 BMG. I asked the shift deputies what they would do if they encountered a person firing this weapon at the range ( the station I was working at had a large range in our service area). Every deputy on duty replied that they would arrest for possession of a .50 BMG Rifle. So followed the on-scene instruction of the elements of that offense. But it's worth noting that SB23 (1999) changed the definition of "Assault Weapon" such that the same M2 would be an illegal Assault Weapon (but still not a rifle) today.

We lost a fair number of Vehicle Search cases when presented for filing. The key issue usually being the articulation of the lawful standing needed to conduct the search. The state of the case law makes it very easy to lawfully search vehicles, but it's not automatic and the burden is on the deputy to sufficiently show their legal standing.

did any deputy say they would ask to shoot it first then arrest the person? or is that one of those, dont mention it things

 

[RickD427]

did any deputy say they would ask to shoot it first then arrest the person? or is that one of those, dont mention it things

The deputies that I have worked with have made hundreds of firearms arrests and there have probably been less than 10 where they shot anyone.

Do the math.............

 

[grandpapeepap]

The deputies that I have worked with have made hundreds of firearms arrests and there have probably been less than 10 where they shot anyone.

Do the math.............

i meant more, shoot the m2 at the range then take it away. not shoot a human. me and some friends had a sheriff deputy come out once to check out the loud noises and want to try out shooting the tannerite stuff we were shooting, then after his shots said "okay thats enough for today boys"

 

[RickD427]

i meant more, shoot the m2 at the range then take it away. not shoot a human. me and some friends had a sheriff deputy come out once to check out the loud noises and want to try out shooting the tannerite stuff we were shooting, then after his shots said "okay thats enough for today boys"

i meant more, shoot the m2 at the range then take it away. not shoot a human. me and some friends had a sheriff deputy come out once to check out the loud noises and want to try out shooting the tannerite stuff we were shooting, then after his shots said "okay thats enough for today boys"

OK, now I got you. When I read "shoot first" my mind jumps to conclusion. I did roll by the Angeles Range complex once when I was on duty, just to see the place and get oriented in the event we ever had to respond to a call for service there. But I noted that a lot of folks seemed to be "nutted up" over my presence, so I never went back up there, and we never had a call for service up there while I was on duty.

 

[Gawernator]

This is not surprising. I spent 10 years as a patrol deputy at what is now the South L.A. Station and another 7 years as a supervisor at two adjoining stations. I don't know the facts of this particular case, so I can't comment specifically. But as a general rule, the filing DDAs generally defer felony prosecution on gun cases involving generally responsible citizens. That's not just for the politically-connected and sports figures. It's across the board. Most often, the result is a misdemeanor plea bargain with a firearms prohibition. If the probation is completed, everyone wins. If it isn't the the DDA drops the hammer on the second filing.

I hate to agree, but I must, that a lot of deputies are not as familiar with weapons as they should be. The range of laws that we enforce is just too wide to be an expert in everything. I once did a shift briefing on Assault Weapons (as law existed in 2004) and I showed a photo of a tripod-mounted, single shot, Browning M2 chambered in .50 BMG. I asked the shift deputies what they would do if they encountered a person firing this weapon at the range ( the station I was working at had a large range in our service area). Every deputy on duty replied that they would arrest for possession of a .50 BMG Rifle. So followed the on-scene instruction of the elements of that offense. But it's worth noting that SB23 (1999) changed the definition of "Assault Weapon" such that the same M2 would be an illegal Assault Weapon (but still not a rifle) today.

We lost a fair number of Vehicle Search cases when presented for filing. The key issue usually being the articulation of the lawful standing needed to conduct the search. The state of the case law makes it very easy to lawfully search vehicles, but it's not automatic and the burden is on the deputy to sufficiently show their legal standing.

Unless you're an active duty sailor with a squeaky clean record and a TS/SCI in Alameda county... ha ha ha.... and you have a Saiga 5.45... though it was a misdemeanor

 

[grandpapeepap]

OK, now I got you. When I read "shoot first" my mind jumps to conclusion. I did roll by the Angeles Range complex once when I was on duty, just to see the place and get oriented in the event we ever had to respond to a call for service there. But I noted that a lot of folks seemed to be "nutted up" over my presence, so I never went back up there, and we never had a call for service up there while I was on duty.

no problem, i didnt word it the best either. and yeah i can understand not wanting to go back to somewhere you arent made to feel welcome. sorry you had to deal with that