Cumberland MD gun charges. Idiot

[gfmgp]

— CORRIGANVILLE — A Hyndman, Pa., man was arrested Sunday after he allegedly fired a handgun during a confrontation outside a Corriganville tavern, according to the C3I Unit.

No one was injured in the 4:40 p.m. incident that occurred when Michael Logsdon, 28, fired one shot in an effort to “scare” the boyfriend of his estranged wife in a confrontation in a business parking lot, according to the C3I Unit.

Logsdon then drove away but later turned himself in and was charged with two counts of reckless endangerment and one count of transporting a regulated firearm in a vehicle.

Logsdon was jailed on $25,000 bond at the Allegany County Detention Center.

The Allegany County Bureau of Police conducted the initial investigation before the matter was referred to the C3I Unit.

Text Only

 

[Markp]

If he was fearing for his life, is he an idiot?

Too few facts to make a determination... He did transport the handgun illegally and as a result he is going to not have fun.

Since this happened in MD... He'd be looking at 5 years plus. Since Reckless Endangerment presumes the intent to cause harm.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:

(i) wear, carry, or transport a handgun, whether concealed or open, on or about the person;

(ii) wear, carry, or knowingly transport a handgun, whether concealed or open, in a vehicle traveling on a road or parking lot generally used by the public, highway, waterway, or airway of the State;

(iv) violate item (i) or (ii) of this paragraph with the deliberate purpose of injuring or killing another person.

B. if the person violates subsection (a)(1)(iv) of this section, the person is subject to imprisonment for not less than 5 years and not exceeding 10 years.


§ 3-204. Reckless endangerment.
(a) Prohibited.- A person may not recklessly:

(1) engage in conduct that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another; or
(2) discharge a firearm from a motor vehicle in a manner that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another.

(b) Penalty.- A person who violates this section is guilty of the misdemeanor of reckless endangerment and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or a fine not exceeding $5,000 or both.

 

[Knuc]

Mark p FYI Corrignasville is in Maryland, just NW of Cumberlandand about 2 mile from the Pa line . Hyndman Pa is where the law caught up with him. Maryland Judiciary Case Search has a fair amount of info on him.

 

[gfmgp]

I guess not. But Maryland will cut his balls off.

 

[Inigoes]

I guess not. But Maryland will cut his balls off.

If the crime was not committed in MD, they have no say.

How much jail time for reckless endangerment?

It depends on the state. In Pennsylvania, this crime is a 2nd degree misdemeanor. The longest allowable minimum sentence for a 2nd degree misdemeanor is 1 year and the maximum is 2 years in prison. And because there is no minimum mandatory sentence for this crime, there might be no jail at all. There are many factors to consider before one can determine how much jail time for a conviction of this offense, like the nature of the crime, impact on victim, prior record of offender, etc.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_jail_time_for_reckless_endangerment#ixzz169epujR4

 

[gfmgp]

If the crime was not committed in MD, they have no say.

It was in Maryland

 

[Inigoes]

It was in Maryland

Link?

 

[gfmgp]

Link?

http://times-news.com/policelog/x1468305194/11-23-Incident-prompts-man-s-arrest

 

[Inigoes]

Yep, this idoit is screwed. Expect a couple of federal charge for travelling interstate to commit a crime.

 

[gfmgp]

Yep, this idoit is screwed. Expect a couple of federal charge for travelling interstate to commit a crime.

I think he took the back roads the bar is close to the Md Pa line.

 

[Afield]

Is this crime reports or the 2A section of the board?! Really, this guy is as relevant to RKBA as a Baltimoron gangbanger.

 

[drking2]

There is only one road, rt 35. I grew up only a mile from there.

 

[Markp]

Is this crime reports or the 2A section of the board?! Really, this guy is as relevant to RKBA as a Baltimoron gangbanger.

Really???

It is very relevant to the RKBA, because one of the charges has NOTHING to do with the "criminal" conduct but rather with the transportation of the handgun itself. Fact is that the law regarding the transport of a pistol is a violation of our right to keep and bear arms. He should not be guilty of transporting a weapon, because the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." So let's look a little deeper... what was the real crime and what facts do we have?

Real Crime: Reckless endangerment
Facts: The accused fired a shot at another man.

Given we know little about the facts, let me paint you a scenario:

Guy and his girl go to a restaurant, have dinner, and exit the restaurant. As the couple exits the restaurant, her now drunken ex-boyfriend exiting the tavern sees the couple and states to the man, "I'm gonna ****in' kill you both." The man reaches into his car and grabs his weapon, the ex-boyfriend continues to approach menacingly. Convinced that he and his girlfriend are facing serious harm he fires and the ex-boyfriend flees. When apprehended by the police, the naive man claims it was a warning shot.

Is the man in the wrong??? Not if he believed that during the confrontation that the only way he was going to survive the encounter was to resort to deadly force.

We can arm chair quarter back this all day.

An alternate scenario is that the man saw the ex-boyfriend, grabbed his gun, and attempted to intimidate or threaten the ex-boyfriend from frequenting locations preferred by the ex-girlfriend and there was no belief that he was in imminent danger at any time... in which case he is guilty of the crime he was charged of...

Without details, it's hard to say whether the guy was in the right or wrong.

 

[Afield]

Really???

It is very relevant to the RKBA, because one of the charges has NOTHING to do with the "criminal" conduct but rather with the transportation of the handgun itself. Fact is that the law regarding the transport of a pistol is a violation of our right to keep and bear arms. He should not be guilty of transporting a weapon, because the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." So let's look a little deeper... what was the real crime and what facts do we have?

Real Crime: Reckless endangerment
Facts: The accused fired a shot at another man.

Given we know little about the facts, let me paint you a scenario:

Guy and his girl go to a restaurant, have dinner, and exit the restaurant. As the couple exits the restaurant, her now drunken ex-boyfriend exiting the tavern sees the couple and states to the man, "I'm gonna ****in' kill you both." The man reaches into his car and grabs his weapon, the ex-boyfriend continues to approach menacingly. Convinced that he and his girlfriend are facing serious harm he fires and the ex-boyfriend flees. When apprehended by the police, the naive man claims it was a warning shot.

Is the man in the wrong??? Not if he believed that during the confrontation that the only way he was going to survive the encounter was to resort to deadly force.

We can arm chair quarter back this all day.

An alternate scenario is that the man saw the ex-boyfriend, grabbed his gun, and attempted to intimidate or threaten the ex-boyfriend from frequenting locations preferred by the ex-girlfriend and there was no belief that he was in imminent danger at any time... in which case he is guilty of the crime he was charged of...

Without details, it's hard to say whether the guy was in the right or wrong.

Completely agree. One doesn't know who did the threatening, I guess. It will take some more case law being built up before such arcane MD laws can be stricken. Not reckless endangerment, of course, the other one I mean.

 

[hole punch]

Really???

It is very relevant to the RKBA, because one of the charges has NOTHING to do with the "criminal" conduct but rather with the transportation of the handgun itself. Fact is that the law regarding the transport of a pistol is a violation of our right to keep and bear arms. He should not be guilty of transporting a weapon, because the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." So let's look a little deeper... what was the real crime and what facts do we have?

Real Crime: Reckless endangerment
Facts: The accused fired a shot at another man.

Given we know little about the facts, let me paint you a scenario:

Guy and his girl go to a restaurant, have dinner, and exit the restaurant. As the couple exits the restaurant, her now drunken ex-boyfriend exiting the tavern sees the couple and states to the man, "I'm gonna ****in' kill you both." The man reaches into his car and grabs his weapon, the ex-boyfriend continues to approach menacingly. Convinced that he and his girlfriend are facing serious harm he fires and the ex-boyfriend flees. When apprehended by the police, the naive man claims it was a warning shot.

Is the man in the wrong??? Not if he believed that during the confrontation that the only way he was going to survive the encounter was to resort to deadly force.

We can arm chair quarter back this all day.

An alternate scenario is that the man saw the ex-boyfriend, grabbed his gun, and attempted to intimidate or threaten the ex-boyfriend from frequenting locations preferred by the ex-girlfriend and there was no belief that he was in imminent danger at any time... in which case he is guilty of the crime he was charged of...

Without details, it's hard to say whether the guy was in the right or wrong.

actually it was the ex-bf that fired the shot and was charged

but i totally see where you're coming from. need more info to judge this one.