When threaten; Judge says at least point your gun

[Guest SigVol]

You can defend yourself in other ways besides a gun on school property.

Yeap...a knifeless man is a lifeless man; if you can handle one and I can.

There is always pepper spray. If after a good doucing of pepper spray the douche bag is still coming; not court in the land would convict you for popping a cap in his ass!

[Guest RISC777]

This case was sent back to the trial court from the appelate court.

The orginal trial judge did dismiss the case based upon 39-17-1322 and that the guy did use his gun in self-defense. The state appealed that ruling. The appleat court found the trial judge erred in dismissing. The appleate court said the "self-defense" would have to be detemined at trial and not in a pre-trial motion and reffered the case back.

What is posted here is the results of the second trial.

I agree that he "displayed" it in self-defense. However in the article the judge is quoted as saying the guys own testimony said he did not display or touch it in self-defense. If he did say that...he pretty much shot his case right there.

Exactly.

The part ... Clark said, “I did not know what the best thing to do was.†... screams that people like that need education.

Yes, I own a firearm and I have a legal carry permit. . . . . . . . It doesn't stop there.

[Fallguy]

Fallguy - how would you have handled the situation?

Have you found any information as to any charges filed against the knife brandishing moron?

Thanks!!!

As far as Mr. Span (The guy with the knife) it says in the appellate court ruling that he was charged with possession of weapon on school property and later pleaded guilty. But I don't know what his sentence was.

On how I would have handled it.....hard to say. Without being there it is real hard to know all the exact particulars. But, for the most part I am a non-confrontational person. Depending on what the other person said about me or my son I may have just got on in my vehicle and drove off.

But, if it escalated to the point where a knife was pulled on me it would depend on how I felt at the moment and what my tactical situation was. If I could get in my vehicle (which you would have to do to retrieve your handgun, if you abide by the law and left it there) and the guy was just standing there looking at me....I'd probably drive off. If he was rushing me, raising the knife or anything else that appeared immanently threating, I feel I would have at the very least drawn and aimed my weapon, if not fired.

On a side note....I have a feeling the first responding officer only charged Mr. Clark because he was not aware of 39-17-1309©(1) (being discussed in this thread. Also which is what he was eventually convicted of since it was a Class B misdemeanor and not a Class E Felony as in 39-17-1309((1) that he was originally charged with.) because in my opinion Mr. Clark was not breaking the law by having the handgun in his vehicle, until he handled it and then he only did for the purposes of self-defense. Which if that was the case he would be protected under 39-17-1322. He even testified to that in the first case. (Not sure why he didn't in the second one) Which it seems the first judge agreed, however the second one didn't. The appellate court didn't really rule either about that issue, it just said the trial court couldn't make the finding of self-defense and dismiss the case at the point it did.

Anyway...just goes back to what I've said about the law.....You never know what a LEO, the judge or a jury is going to do.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Fallguy

[Guest HexHead]

In the article it says he was found guilty. Also I don't see anything in the appellate ruling that says he pleaded guilty to anything then, just says he was charged with carry of weapon on schools grounds and filed a motion to dismiss based upon 39-17-1322. The first trial judge granted that, but the appellate court overruled him and sent it back.

He was finally sentenced to 20 days, plus anger management and can not handle or possess a weapon in the last trial.

However I would say you are correct in that he can appeal the conviction, since the other appeal was by the state for the dismissal.

But too, not sure what the grounds for the appeal would be. If you have ever read and appellate court ruling they say they look at the case most favorable to the state (when a defendant appeals) since the case has already been adjudicated. So you have to show that the judge, DA or someone really screwed up to have the guilty ruling changed...not just because you didn't like it.

No, I meant the guy with the knife pleaded guilty to carrying a weapon on school property. That was in the appellate brief.

[midtennchip]

Okay, let's clear some things up:

1. Article's Unstated Facts -- the article says Judge Martin sentenced the defendant. I know both Judge Martin and the defense attorney, but haven't spoken to either. However, I think a jury found the defendant guilty. If that is the case, Judge Martin's comments only infer what he believes would have been helpful in the eyes of the jury..

2. Appellate Opinions -- the appellate opinion and the concurring opinion both state the the original judge committed reversible error because the judge (Judge Easter) made a factual determination on the self-defense argument before the trial. That is a problem because the jury is the one to decide the facts (i.e., the jury weighs the evidence). The appellate opinion and concurring opinion did not say that the self-defense argument was a bad argument, just that the jury should determine whether to believe the argument (not the judge).

Practicing law in Nashville and living in Franklin (which is where the trial occurred), I know the judges and the attorneys. Unfortunately, the reporting in the Tennessean is worse than anything done by the attorneys or the judges. If a jury decided the guilt of the defendant, the problem is with the jurors, not the attorneys or the judges.

This case should serve as notice to all of us that juries are VERY unpredictable. Just because we think it is a "slamdunk" self-defense case, juries may not see it that way. The jury probably said, "if he thought sitting the gun on the seat was enough, he wasn't using it for self-defense." Reasonable people can debate whether he should have pulled the gun out if he didn't intend to use it (or at least point it at the guy), but the jury didn't think that was self-defense.

Edited May 23, 2009 by midtennchip

[Fallguy]

Good summary midtennchip.

No, I meant the guy with the knife pleaded guilty to carrying a weapon on school property. That was in the appellate brief.

Ah...ok

[Guest HexHead]

Reasonable people can debate whether he should have pulled the gun out if he didn't intend to use it (or at least point it at the guy), but the jury didn't think that was self-defense.

Considering the gun was unloaded, had he pulled it out, I would have concluded it wasn't for self defense.

Unless he intended to throw it at the other guy.

[Fallguy]

Considering the gun was unloaded, had he pulled it out, I would have concluded it wasn't for self defense.

Unless he intended to throw it at the other guy.

Well...a thrown gun is pretty dangerous...remember Superman? He would hold out his chest when they were shooting at him, but then he ducked when they threw the gun.

[threeshot]

Considering the gun was unloaded, had he pulled it out, I would have concluded it wasn't for self defense. ...

Fallguy posted the link to the original trial that contains the details missing from the newspaper article. Read pages 2 - 3.

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/tcca/PDF/082/clarktopn.pdf

The trial court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss on December 18, 2006. During that hearing, Appellee testified that he attended his ten-year-old son’s basketball game at Westwood Elementary School on January 30, 2006. He drove his truck to the school and parked in the school parking lot. His handgun was concealed within the truck’s console. Appellee had a valid handgun carry permit.

At some point during the game, Appellee became involved in a conflict with another parent, Mr. Spann. After the game was over, Mr. Spann, his wife, and son followed Appellee and his son to the parking lot and their truck. Appellee put his son into the vehicle. As he was walking around to get into the driver’s seat, Mr. Spann made a “crude†comment about Appellee’s son. Appellee asked Mr. Spann to “go and leave me and my son alone.†Mrs. Spann got in between the two men. According to Appellee, Mr. Spann “brandished a knife†and looked as if he was going to “throw the knife.†Appellee “retrieved the handgun [from the console], still in its holster, and placed it on [his] seat.†Appellee retrieved the handgun to “scare†Mr. Spann and as “a deterrent.†The weapon was not loaded, but there was a magazine attached by velcro to a sleeve on the top of the holster that contained the handgun. Appellee told Mr. Spann that he had a handgun permit and that he would “protect†himself and his son if Mr. Spann came any closer. Appellee asked Mr. Spann to leave and attempted to call the police. In the meantime, someone inside the school had already called the authorities. Mr. Spann got into his truck and left the scene. Mrs. Spann remained at the scene and apologized to Appellee for the incident. Appellee remained in his vehicle until the police arrived.

Appellee testified that he was “very much in fear for [his] son and [himself]†when Mr. Spann pulled out the knife.

Corporal Pat Stockdale was the first officer to arrive at the scene. When he arrived, he spoke with Appellee and Mrs. Spann about the incident. Appellee advised Officer Stockdale that he was “engaged in an altercation at this sporting event†that resulted in a “verbal altercation.†Officer Stockdale later spoke with Mr. Spann, who initially claimed that he did not have a knife and did not threaten Appellee. Mr. Spann later recounted his version of the altercation. Mr. Spann was charged with possession of a weapon on school property. According to Officer Stockdale, Mr. Spann later pled guilty to the charge.

The trial judge entered an order on the motion to dismiss on January 24, 2007, in which he ruled as follows:

The proof before the court was uncontroverted in that there was no testimony from Mr. Spann. Furthermore, the Court found it highly significant in granting this motion that Mr. Spann was not present to

testify to anything contradictory to [Appellee’s] testimony. Based upon the testimony of [Appellee], the Court found this case to be justifiable self-defense based upon the evidence before the court. [Appellee] was, in fact, a victim of a crime in that he was a victim of an assault. Therefore, the defense set forth in TCA § 39-17-1322, is certainly applicable and apparent. [Appellee] was acting in selfdefense, in justifiable self-defense and in justifiable self-defense of his son. Therefore, this is an appropriate motion and the motion to dismiss is granted.

The State filed an untimely notice of appeal on February 26, 2007. This Court found it to be in the interest of justice to waive the timely filing of the notice of appeal.

And now you know the rest of the story.

[midtennchip]

Threeshot, not sure where you are going with that last post.

[threeshot]

I thought it would help the thread by sharing the details of the incident that were explained in the police report of the first trial instead of the newspaper's lack of details.

[midtennchip]

I thought it would help the thread by sharing the details of the incident that were explained in the police report of the first trial instead of the newspaper's lack of details.

Gotcha.

[threeshot]

As far as Mr. Span (The guy with the knife) it says in the appellate court ruling that he was charged with possession of weapon on school property and later pleaded guilty. But I don't know what his sentence was.

...

For some reason the Tennessean is running the story again with new details that answers your question.

Fairview parent convicted for gun at school | tennessean.com | The Tennessean

New details are:

Assistant District Attorney Chris Vernon asked Clark why he didn't just get in his truck, close the door and leave. Clark said he was scared Spann could have broken a window and come at him with the knife. He said he wishes he'd have taken a different course of action.

Spann testified on Thursday that he didn't pull out his knife, which has a 3-inch blade, until after Clark told him he had a gun and was prepared to use it. Spann pleaded guilty to attempting to carry a weapon on school property in 2006. He was placed on probation for a year and ordered to complete 80 hours of community service.

Vernon said he offered the same plea deal to Clark but was turned down.

[Guest HexHead]

And now you know the rest of the story.

All of that begs the question, why was the guy with the gun ordered to undergo anger management classes? He's not the one that instigated it in the parking lot, doesn't sound like he instigated it in the gym and he seems like he was the only cool headed one of the bunch mentioned.

[Fallguy]

All of that begs the question, why was the guy with the gun ordered to undergo anger management classes? He's not the one that instigated it in the parking lot, doesn't sound like he instigated it in the gym and he seems like he was the only cool headed one of the bunch mentioned.

Guess that is the difference between accepting a pre-trial plea bargain from the DA and being convicted in court and sentenced by a judge.

[DaveTN]

-- and said the man might have been better off if he’d pulled the trigger.

“There’s no question he was in a situation where a man pulled a knife on him,†Martin said. “It’s an extremely unusual statute… in the defense side of it. While it’s illegal to possess a firearm (on school grounds) it’s OK if you use it to defend yourself.â€

That is the type of Judge we do not need. He is sure that deadly force was warranted; but is sending a guy to jail because he didn’t actually shoot the perp.

This Judge is obviously not capable of differentiating from the letter of the law and the intent of the law.

I hope the defendant can appeal this case; I would guess charges will be dismissed if it gets in front of real judges

[threeshot]

According to the newspaper article, the judge said if he pointed or used the gun to prove self-defense.

Martin said under state law regulating weapons on school property, Clark might have avoided a conviction if he had actually pointed the gun or used it because that would have demonstrated self-defense.

“There’s no question he was in a situation where a man pulled a knife on him,†Martin said. “It’s an extremely unusual statute… in the defense side of it. While it’s illegal to possess a firearm (on school grounds) it’s OK if you use it to defend yourself.â€