Bad: Idaho GOP leader arrested

This is a discussion on Bad: Idaho GOP leader arrested within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; UPDATE BOISE, Idaho -- An Idaho Republican Party leader charged in 4th District Court with assault with a deadly weapon doesn't have permit to carry ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32

Thread: Bad: Idaho GOP leader arrested

  1. #16
    Distinguished Member
    Array Chorizo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,981
    UPDATE
    BOISE, Idaho -- An Idaho Republican Party leader charged in 4th District Court with assault with a deadly weapon doesn't have permit to carry a concealed weapon.

    Challis McAffee, an Idaho Republican Party Central Committee member and District 16 chairman, was arrested Tuesday.

    Robert Lutes told police in Meridian, Idaho, that McAffee retrieved a .357 Magnum revolver from the passenger side of his car where it had been concealed beneath a cloth.

    McAffee, who at the time of the altercation was working for Wells Fargo & Co. documenting homes where mortgages are delinquent, pointed the gun at Lutes, according to Lutes' account.

    McAffee doesn't have a license to carry a concealed weapon, Ada County Sheriff's spokeswoman Andrea Dearden said Friday.

    McAffee didn't immediately return a phone call.

    He was released from jail Thursday after posting a portion of his $50,000 bond.
    21 years and 21 days, United States Marine Corps & NRA Life Member since 1972

    "The trouble is with the increasingly widespread problem of idiots prancing around out there confusing their opinions with actual facts." peckman28

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    Lutes may be a goof-ball, but Challis is in trouble.He could have easily driven off. Gun owners like this give the rest of us a bad name.
    +1

    Exactly.

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,782
    "The contractor is liable, he (McAffee) is liable and Wells Fargo is liable," Lutes said. "He wouldn't have been there if it wouldn't have been for Wells Fargo strong-arming people."
    Every person who commits a crime is liable for damages of the crimes they commit, sure.

    The question is: does a "slap" on a car in those circumstances amount to legitimate (reasonable) fear of loss of life or limb, and is that the criterion for the use of lethal force in Idaho?

    If I'm inside a car and someone exits the house and "slaps" my car, I'm not going be in fear of loss of life/limb. Circumstances depending, I might well be on guard to ratchet up the defensive steps, if there is obvious serious aggression, verbalization and other actions to corroborate what appears to be happening. Without that, though, I can't see the severity of the threat (from the slap). But then, I wasn't there.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  5. #19
    Distinguished Member
    Array Chorizo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,981
    You make the call:

    TITLE 18
    CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
    CHAPTER 40
    HOMICIDE
    18-4009.Justifiable homicide by any person. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in either of the following cases:
    1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
    2. When committed in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or,
    3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mortal combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or,
    4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

    TITLE 18
    CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
    CHAPTER 40
    HOMICIDE
    18-4010.Fear not sufficient justification. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned in subdivisions 2 and 3 of the preceding section, to prevent which homicide may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of such fears alone.
    21 years and 21 days, United States Marine Corps & NRA Life Member since 1972

    "The trouble is with the increasingly widespread problem of idiots prancing around out there confusing their opinions with actual facts." peckman28

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,782
    ^ That's for commission of homicide. To be fair, what the "defender" did was NOT homicide. He showed his ability to stop an attempt on his own life, ostensibly to defuse the situation and stop what he deemed was an impending attack.

    What do Idaho's statutes say about the use of force or display of force, generally?

    Looks like Idaho's Title 19, Chapter 2 covers self-defense, basically:
    TITLE 19 -- CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    CHAPTER 2 -- PREVENTION OF PUBLIC OFFENSES

    19-202. Resistance by threatened party.

    Resistance sufficient to prevent the offense may be made by the party about to be injured:
    1. To prevent an offense against his person, or his family, or some member thereof.
    2. To prevent an illegal attempt by force to take or injure property in his lawful possession.
    This implies a "reasonable man" standard, though it's unstated.

    It's stated in 19-202A:

    19-202A. Legal jeopardy in cases of self-defense and defense of other threatened parties.

    No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting himself or his family by reasonable means necessary, or when coming to the aid of another whom he reasonably believes to be in imminent danger of or the victim of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, murder or other heinous crime.
    Arguably, the display was sufficient to stop the claimed impending attack.

    As usual, it comes down to what was reasonable, whether the perceived assault had reached the point of an impending "heinous" crime, and whether the stopping of it via display of the ability to halt the attack was justified.

    As always, what might be justifiable in one circumstance or for one set of actors might be unjustified in another set of circumstances. In situations of disparity of force, for example, or when one actor is disabled or aged, or ...
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  7. #21
    Distinguished Member
    Array Chorizo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,981
    CHAPTER 9
    ASSAULT AND BATTERY
    18-901.Assault defined. An assault is:
    (a) An unlawful attempt, coupled with apparent ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another; or
    (b) An intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.


    TITLE 18
    CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
    CHAPTER 33
    FIREARMS, EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER DEADLY WEAPONS
    18-3303.Exhibition or use of deadly weapon. Every person who, not in necessary self-defense, in the presence of two (2) or more persons, draws or exhibits any deadly weapon in a rude, angry and threatening manner, or who, in any manner, unlawfully uses the same, in any fight or quarrel, is guilty of a misdemeanor.


    or

    CHAPTER 33
    FIREARMS, EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER DEADLY WEAPONS
    18-3304.Aiming firearms at others. Any person who shall intentionally, without malice, point or aim any firearm at or toward any other person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) and not less than five dollars ($5.00).

    or
    CHAPTER 33
    FIREARMS, EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER DEADLY WEAPONS
    18-3301.Deadly weapon -- Possession with intent to assault. Every person having upon him any deadly weapon with intent to assault another is guilty of a misdemeanor.
    21 years and 21 days, United States Marine Corps & NRA Life Member since 1972

    "The trouble is with the increasingly widespread problem of idiots prancing around out there confusing their opinions with actual facts." peckman28

  8. #22
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,782
    ^ The above are crimes and not the criteria for justification. They each presume an unjustified and illegal act has occurred, for which the punishments are identified. None indicates the criteria of justification of a given degree of force in presumed self-defense.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  9. #23
    Distinguished Member
    Array Chorizo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,981
    Uugh, that is why he was charged with a crime and not released for defending himself.

    Read what you just wrote. We aren;t talking about justified use of force. He used force unjustified.

    He was placed in jail for 18-901, Felony Assualt.
    21 years and 21 days, United States Marine Corps & NRA Life Member since 1972

    "The trouble is with the increasingly widespread problem of idiots prancing around out there confusing their opinions with actual facts." peckman28

  10. #24
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,782
    Of course. I understand that. As is often the case, being accused of a crime doesn't mean a crime occurred.

    But what I was asking about was the criteria for justification, since what we're discussing in this thread is a situation such as this where we'd be in the shoes of the players. At the moment of the situation brewing, the person has to decide whether the threat has reached the point of requiring defense, and whether that defense is necessary to stop the presumed attack.

    Note: I don't justify what was done. I'm merely exploring the criteria for justifiability in such circumstances. We've all been there, where a situation is threatening to blow sideways. Some of us have been there when it blew a big hole in the day, and where life was threatened. At that moment, it matters very much whether you're able to mount a defense sufficient to stop the attack. Circumstances depending, what's far "too early" for some might well be far too late for others.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,738
    I think the "owner" is not being close to telling the truth on what really happened and his behavior prior to the gun coming out. He was upset... he was angry, he was displaying it ... hitting the guy's windshield, etc. ... that they were checking the house. He knew they were going to foreclose on him.

    I'm very doubtful on his story.

  12. #26
    Senior Member Array kellyII's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    West Tn, formaly Baghdad
    Posts
    518
    Quote Originally Posted by mr.stuart View Post
    Lutes may be a goof-ball, but Challis is in trouble.He could have easily driven off. Gun owners like this give the rest of us a bad name.
    My thought exactualy, he banged on his window. He didnt smash it with a crowbar, just drive off bonehead...

  13. #27
    Member Array Ramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    167
    I look at it like this if Challis had shot Lutes could he justify Lutes death with the statement he presented. "We got in an argument he slapped my car so I shot him because I got scared." It doesn't sound justified to me.

    I have the feeling Challis was pissed someone slapped his car. To much testosterone.

  14. #28
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,659
    Chorizo posted this from a newsy article: "McAffee doesn't have a license to carry a concealed weapon, Ada County Sheriff's spokeswoman Andrea Dearden said Friday."

    So, what you have is an assault with a deadly weapon possessed illegally. That indicates that McAffee wasn't (isn't) exactly a rule follower. He is someone who makes his own rules.

    We don't know what he really was doing, but the circumstances indicate he was likely there to send a message to the guy in the house. That is as close as it gets in our commercial world to sending Guido to break knees.

    High bond on a known community figure doesn't happen unless THERE IS MORE TO THE STORY. Bet he was in trouble for something before.

  15. #29
    Member Array socal2310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Camarillo, CA
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Chorizo posted this from a newsy article: "McAffee doesn't have a license to carry a concealed weapon, Ada County Sheriff's spokeswoman Andrea Dearden said Friday."

    So, what you have is an assault with a deadly weapon possessed illegally. That indicates that McAffee wasn't (isn't) exactly a rule follower. He is someone who makes his own rules.

    We don't know what he really was doing, but the circumstances indicate he was likely there to send a message to the guy in the house. That is as close as it gets in our commercial world to sending Guido to break knees.

    High bond on a known community figure doesn't happen unless THERE IS MORE TO THE STORY. Bet he was in trouble for something before.

    According to the Colorado P.C. he was not necessarily unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon. The same situation applies in most free states where concealed carry in a vehicle is treated the same as concealed carry in your home: perfectly legal without any permit whatsoever:


    18-12-105. Unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon - unlawful possession of weapons.

    (1) A person commits a class 2 misdemeanor if such person knowingly and unlawfully:

    (a) Carries a knife concealed on or about his or her person; or

    (b) Carries a firearm concealed on or about his or her person; or

    (c) Without legal authority, carries, brings, or has in such person's possession a firearm or any explosive, incendiary, or other dangerous device on the property of or within any building in which the chambers, galleries, or offices of the general assembly, or either house thereof, are located, or in which a legislative hearing or meeting is being or is to be conducted, or in which the official office of any member, officer, or employee of the general assembly is located.

    (d) (Deleted by amendment, L. 93, p. 964, 1, effective July 1, 1993.)

    (2) It shall not be an offense if the defendant was:

    ...

    (b) A person in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance who carries a weapon for lawful protection of such person's or another's person or property while traveling;
    Those who will not govern their own behavior are slaves waiting for a master; one will surely find them.

  16. #30
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,659

    Point well taken, so what justified the bond?

    Quote Originally Posted by socal2310 View Post
    According to the Colorado P.C. he was not necessarily unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon. The same situation applies in most free states where concealed carry in a vehicle is treated the same as concealed carry in your home: perfectly legal without any permit whatsoever:
    Your point is well taken. He may have possessed the gun legally in his car, depending on the law there.

    Still, 50K is a fairly high bond for an otherwise "upstanding" member of the community and participant in the political affairs of the community.

    I was put off by the negative comment in the original article about the judge. It just didn't sit right with me.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Idaho Falls Idaho training class
    By yzcrasher in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 3rd, 2011, 09:19 PM
  2. BG = 1 dead, 1 wounded & arrested, one more just arrested...
    By DaveH in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 22nd, 2010, 03:12 PM
  3. Virginia Senate Leader Denigrates Gun Owners
    By waynesan in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: February 10th, 2008, 11:16 AM
  4. Gang Leader's Perspective;Thought Provoking
    By randytulsa2 in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: October 5th, 2006, 10:14 AM

Search tags for this page

18-3304 idaho

,

challis arrested idaho statesman

,

idaho 18-3304

,

idaho code 18-3303

,

idaho code idaho code 18-3303 penalties first offense

Click on a term to search for related topics.