Judge who waved gun(in road rage incident) says action not misconduct

[RamboLiberal]

An Erie district judge told a state disciplinary panel Wednesday that he accepted responsibility for waving a handgun at another motorist when he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, and that he does not believe the 2009 incident and other activities cited by the state's judicial watchdog amount to professional misconduct.

-----

Nico Brandelli , 21, a student at Mercyhurst College in Erie, testified that Carney's car approached from behind at a high speed, blinked its headlights and passed Brandelli on the right. He said the two drivers exchanged obscene gestures before Carney "held out a silver handgun." Brandelli said he backed off and called his father, who alerted state police.

"I didn't know who this could be," Brandelli said.

Carney, 57, said he was hurrying home after attending a Pittsburgh Steelers game with a friend so the friend could work the midnight shift. He said he blinked his lights to get the other driver's attention and was frightened by Brandelli's angry reaction. He said he pulled his .38-caliber gun out of the car's console and held it up behind the half-open car window for two or three seconds to end the confrontation.

http://www.timesonline.com/news/state/judge-who-displayed-gun-faces-misconduct-charges/article_3604cc1e-8d5a-5ac6-9039-f99685f29c36.html

Hello judge - some judges if the rest of us did in PA would be called brandishing and we could well lose our CCW.

[Poll_Blind]

1. That's just about the most goddamned irresponsible thing you can do with a gun.

Namely, playing "My dick is bigger than yours".

Because, on top of all the other mother-scratching reasons why it's a bad and/or dangerous and/or insane idea to pull out an effing firearm and brandish it when you life is clearly not in jeopardy- there's always the chance that the other guy has a bigger dick, with a scope, and all of a sudden your quaint way to come off like a "bad-ass" has you wishing you'd just fucking let it slide.

The best way to win...is not to play. As a parent, this type of lesson is one I see kids learning on the playground and adults still learning in real life.

Oh, and dudeman should not be a judge anymore.

PB

[Logical]

2. I bet no normal CCW license holder would be treated that nice. Nor should they be. The judge....

should have been charged.

[oneshooter]

5. But he is a JUDGE, above all of us peons.

He is the law and as such is above the law. To do such a thing would lower him to the level of common folk. That can not be allowed as doing so would show that he is no more than the common folk that he lords over.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Do I need the sarcasm do-dad? :sarcasm:

[Logical]

31. So true. Cops get away with too much also. Pisses me off. n-t

[TPaine7]

3. "Equal protection of the laws" n/t

[YllwFvr]

4. So it makes me wonder if its the summary or the misdemeanor

charge. Neither is a prohibiting offense

[Hoyt]

6. Another "law abiding citizen" using a gun for intimidation. Yet, some want more guns in public.

And many want easier access to permits, or blanket concealed/open carry laws.

[TPaine7]

7. The judge should be convicted of brandishing and sentenced just like anyone else.

You or I, however, should not be punished for his offense.

Your solution--punish the innocent by assuming their guilt-- is even worse than letting this guilty judge go free.

[PavePusher]

8. Right, because banning guns in public means....

there won't be any guns in public.

:sarcasm: , if I must.

What else should we ban public possesion of, so that there will never be any abuse of it again, O Great Pumpkin?

[Hoyt]

9. Just saying. To hear you guys tell it, gun carriers don't use them to intimidate.

If you can't trust a judge with a .38 and a permit to be responsible, how you gonna trust someone who buys Hi-cap mags, tactical weapons, and drools all over the latest and greatest killing apparatus.

[rrneck]

10. I don't trust people

who can't open their mouths without spewing insulting snarl.

[Starboard Tack]

19. Sticks and stones.

As long as they aren't armed they can't hurt you. I'd rather take the mistrusted snarl than the "trusty" shooter.

[rrneck]

26. The auto complete on the phone demanded "snarl"

rather than what I typed, which was snark.

And unarmed people can kill you unless you're Chuck Norris.

[Starboard Tack]

27. Lots of things can kill you including your karma

In my world, the last thing I think about killing me is another human. Much more likely to be a virus, an earthquake, a tsunami or my own carelessness and stupidity.

[rrneck]

28. You're lucky.

Many others are not. Think about them occasionally.

[Starboard Tack]

29. I do recognize my good fortune and I am grateful for it.

And I also think of those less fortunate. I just don't see how carrying concealed or even open weapons is going to improve society. I accept that it may work out positively every now and then, but the price we pay, as a society, for endorsing such behavior, does nothing to further our civilization, let alone our image in the eyes of others. On the contrary, our "gun culture" serves only to reinforce our negative image in the minds of peace loving people around the world. A world that we are still an important part of, in spite of our declining credibility.

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. We'll just have to live with the cool kids not letting us sit at their table at lunch hour.

Is that really the best you can come up with- The disapproval of unnamed others?


I suppose it is, as the "more guns = more crime" meme didn't pan out, and the 'moral harm' argument is best left to its

originator, Robert Bork.

[Starboard Tack]

40. If that's how you want to see it, so be it.

Puerile is as puerile does.

[rrneck]

45. Image is subjective.

"I just don't see how carrying concealed or even open weapons is going to improve society."

It won't. But writing laws as if it were never necessary does considerable damage. It shows a disconnect between the culture envisioned by those in power and the way people's lives are actually lived. Ideologues creating an a priori idea of reality and forcing others to live in a world that does not exist requires totalitarian control. I can't think of cultural tragedy that didn't start there.

The ideology you express, since it isn't attached to reality in any way, cannot result in any sort of workable legislation since it cannot be fairly applied to the way people actually live. It is an interpretation of the issue based not on reality, but on appearances. You can't legislate good taste. You can't compel people to be advocates for your personal feelings about what constitutes civilized behavior. To do so would require you to brutalize them. And that's why we have a second amendment right along with all the others.

[TPaine7]

46. That's not the way it works in this universe. Trust me, I'm a native.

"As long as they aren't armed they can't hurt you."

Many people have been killed by unarmed folks. Most earthlings know this. Where do you hail from; where did you get your fanciful ideas?

[Hoyt]

21. If it's an insult, it is only aimed at those who are into that kind of stuff. Are you?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TPaine7]

12. Get back to us when "hi-cap" magazines, tactical weapons, and drool are illegal.

Unless you want to claim that a particular person is incompetent IN GENERAL (no special gun incompetency), then legal activities are none of the government's business.

And of course guns are, and should be, used to intimidate. And if intimidation doesn't stop a would-be rapist, kidnapper, murderer or assailant, then gunfire should be used.

What's wrong with intimidating with a gun? I would think you would prefer it to shooting and possibly killing with a gun.

[Starboard Tack]

20. What's wrong with intimidating with a gun?

Everything, unless used in self defense. You think it's OK to wave it around at other drivers?

[TPaine7]

23. I was responding to a(n at least apparently) categorical--and false--statement.

9. ... To hear you guys tell it, gun carriers don't use them to intimidate.

I make no such claim. As a matter of fact, I claim that they both do and should intimidate with guns. I gave examples of when they should.

Of course there are times when one shouldn't intimidate with a gun, such as the case spoken of in the OP. That's why I said in an earlier post that the judge should be convicted just as you or I would be, had we committed the offense.

What I take exception to is the idea that it is categorically wrong to intimidate with a gun--you know, the "violence is always wrong" and "violence never solves anything" school of thought.

If the poster I was responing to was talking about carriers ILLEGALL AND IMMORALLY intimidating with guns, I do admit that that happens. It happens with judges and off duty police as well as CCW permittees. It happens very rarely.

[rrneck]

25. How do you plan to know

when it needs to be used to intimidate and how? My crystal ball's still in the shop.

[Hoyt]

22. Intimidating unarmed folks is hardly proper. I guess public carriers are different.

Another reason to restrict permits.

[TPaine7]

24. Intimidating unarmed folks is extremely proper

UNDER THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES.

I hope you are never on the jury of a 95 lb woman being tried for shooting a 295 lb thug who was attacking her, or a 75 year old man who used his gun to defend himself against 5 strong men in their 20s.

Please divulge your belief system completely and fully in the jury selection process.

[Hoyt]

30. Are you a 95 lb women or 75 yo? If so, I get it. At least most women don't carry hi-cap mags, and

tactical apparatus, and other crap marketed to kill more folks than anyone needs for self-defense.

And, just for the heck of it I'll throw in that many older folks' kids better be ready to take the guns away from dad when he goes on Aricept or something similar. If not, a caregiver is in danger.

If you are a 95 pound woman, please stick a small caliber gun in your purse. If not, I think you ought to leave your guns at home.

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. If you could somehow demonstrate that high-cap mags were dangerous,....

....unusual, or not in common use, you might have a real point.


Merely repeating the claim they are dangerous, and never once producing empirical, compelling evidence that they are so, is

sheer argument from authority.


You have every right to express your opinions on the suitabilty (or lack thereof) of gun ownership and restrictions thereon. You

have no reasonable expectation of having those opinions treated as gospel.

[Hoyt]

34. Seems simple, one who carries hi-cap mag in public is either poor shot or bent on blasting away if

someone says "boo." It's not strictly for self-defense. You have to explain everything to you guys.

BTW -- Are you a 95 lb. women or 75 years old?

[rrneck]

35. How do you

get so much vitriolic bullshit in so few words?

[Hoyt]

36. Been around obsessed gun carriers most of my life. They all spout same rationalizations and fears.

Talk about BS.

[rrneck]

37. You seem more obsessed

than any gun owner I ever met. And I've met a bunch of them.

[TPaine7]

39. "Are you a 95 lb women or 75 yo?"

No, nor is that relevant.

I tried to find examples extreme enough to convince EVEN YOU that it is sometimes proper to use a gun against unarmed opponents. I succeeded.

But anyone is justified in using a gun against unarmed opponents. A marine attacked by a group of teenaged thugs would be justified; Bruce Lee attacked by a large gang of "wilding" youths would be justified; if Superman were real and he was attacked by 5 toughs bent on murder--in a place where kryptonite made him ordinary--even he would be justified in using a gun to prevent them dragging him to an area where the radiation would be lethal.

"If you are a 95 pound woman"--no, if you are a human being with vulnerabilities. If you aren't God in disguise, you have a right to keep and bear arms (provided you're sane, law abiding and old enough). (If you're God, you can carry too, you just don't need a permit.)

[right2bfree]

41. Branishing a gun is illegal in most states. You will only escalate a bad situtation with a gun. nt

[TPaine7]

44. Using a gun to intimidate a would-be rapist, kidnapper, murderer or assailant

is not brandishing--at least not in the legally forbidden sense of the term.

Self defense with a gun is not illegal brandishing, except to the most rabid anti-gun extremists.

[rl6214]

14. Juvenile post to say the least

and you fancy yourself a writer, a journalist?

[oneshooter]

16. And you expected better from him? n/t

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[right2bfree]

43. Exactly! Another "law-abiding" citizen again, only its a judge this time.

lock him up, period!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

13. The law is written with hundred dollar bills. It helps to have a white collar, too.

[Taitertots]

17. When people say they want existing laws enforced, this is the perfect example

This judge is dangerous and broke numerous laws. There is no reason he shouldn't be locked up.

[RamboLiberal]

18. +1 - at least pull his LTCF

If he has one. Or maybe on that too he thinks he is above the law. If he didn't have one in PA the glove box carry was illegal too.

[Euromutt]

47. I'd be in favor of some sanction on his driver's license as well

I don't think I'd want someone like that operating a motor vehicle.

[right2bfree]

42. I agree. Lock him up. A gun wacko is a nut, judge or not. Felony branishing, off the bench for him!

No breaks for judges.

[east texas lib]

38. Ah, the LA passing/turn signal...

Not a good move.