Akron man issued handgun certificates without training

[RamboLiberal]

A man is facing charges after Summit County authorities say he issued handgun training certificates without proper training.

Alvin Bagley was a NRA-certified trainer until the Summit County Sheriff’s Department received a tip. The caller claimed that Bagley was not providing students with the state minimum handgun training for a certificate required to obtain a concealed carry permit.

“It’s serious. People are required to have 10 hours of training to get this certificate,” said Inspector Bill Holland of the Summit County Sheriff’s Department. “We’ve spoken to several people, none of which have received this training.” People with concealed carry licenses must have two hours of training on the range.

Bagley has issued more than 200 certificates in Summit County. Holland said they have suspended all concealed carry licenses to those who received certificates from Bagley. After an investigation, some of those licenses could be reinstated.

Read more: http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/akron_canton_news/Investigation-Akron-man-issued-handgun-certificates-without-training#ixzz1WjysOjZs

One student was Matthew Warmus convicted of murdering a parking lot attendant. Tried to claim self-defense.

[gejohnston]

1. fraud?

Part of his restitution should be to refund the students.

[RamboLiberal]

2. I question that "students" didn't report him

[gejohnston]

3. didn't totally understand the

requirements? The feeling of sliding by with the bare min? A little of both? Either way, he screwed more than just his students and the county. Some anti is going to use him for their propaganda.

[Starboard Tack]

4. Sounds like he may be charged as an accessory to murder too.

[doc03]

5. I don't see how he would be charged with accessory to

murder?

[Starboard Tack]

6. He certified the guy fraudulently, enabling him to obtain a CC permit

He could well be considered an "accessory before the fact".
A person who aids, abets, or encourages another to commit a crime but who is not present at the scene. An accessory before the fact, like an accomplice, may be held criminally liable to the same extent as the principal. Many jurisdictions refer to an accessory before the fact as an accomplice.

[PavePusher]

7. You seem to imply that the permit enabled the crime....

:rofl:

Pull the other one, it's got bells on....

[Starboard Tack]

8. Not at all. The certification enabled the permit, which facilitated the crime.

[petronius]

9. But doesn't an accessory 'before the fact' need to share in the criminal intent of the actor?

In other words, wouldn't he have to knowingly do something which specifically furthers or encourages the specific crime?

I think that's an insurmountable barrier, even without getting into the question of whether the permit itself had any real effect on the commission of the murder - in which case one would need to show a reasonable doubt that the murderer would have had or used the gun without the permit. That too strikes me as highly undemonstrable.

I would like to see the guy in the OP charged with 200 (or whatever) separate and unique counts. Even if it's just a misdemeanor, that would have to add up to something...

[Starboard Tack]

10. No. The accomplice does not have to share the same criminal intent.

In this case, if it could be proven that he facilitated the crime by committing a criminal act himself then that may well be construed as aiding and abetting, especially if he planted in the killer's mind the justification of self defense, which apparently he claimed.

[petronius]

11. What are you basing that on? Everything I can find indicates the opposite

For example (and this is just an example, I know nothing of the reliability of this site, but it's typical of what I've been finding): "Aiding and abetting applies to someone who assists or helps one or more other people commit a crime. To be held accountable as an aider and abettor, you must know of the criminal objective and do something to make it succeed." http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Criminal-Law-Crime-Definition-FAQs.html#7

And in Ohio: "State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St. 3d 240, 2001-Ohio-1336 -- An aider and abettor must share the criminal intent of the principal. Such intent may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the crime. Gang member was part of a three car caravan searching for a member of a rival gang they planned to kill in revenge." http://www.opd.ohio.gov/RC_Casebook/complicity.htm

So even setting aside the notion that the permit facilitated or encouraged the murder - which I think is a real stretch - I don't see any way that the phony instructor could be said to have aided and abetted the crime if he had no reasonable notion of it occurring...

[X_Digger]

12. Yeah, neither does 'accessory' or 'accomplice' apply.

Too many law and order re-runs is my guess.

[Starboard Tack]

18. It may be a bit of a stretch, but not too much

The shooter would have been carrying without a permit, or not carrying at all, if the instructor had not certified him. If the instructor gave the shooter erroneous information regarding the "legal" use of the gun regarding self-defense, which resulted in a homicide, then instructor could be charged as an accessory, even if the shooter had been acquitted.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/447/10/case.html

[petronius]

20. It's an impossible stretch, and your reply is not on point

Whether or not Warmus was convicted is immaterial, and nobody claimed it was. The question is whether the fraudulent instructor could be considered an accessory in the specific crime, and everything I've been able to find indicates that he cannot. Do you have any sources that actually suggest otherwise?

At most, Warmus (and the other permit recipients) might have a civil case against the instructor, but I doubt many of them will want to open that can of worms...

[rl6214]

14. Of course he wouldn't have had the gun had he not gotten the

fraudulent CC permit. Criminals leave their guns at home all the time because they don't have the proper CC permit. :sarcasm:

[Starboard Tack]

16. You obviously missed the point of the sub-thread

[PavePusher]

15. "facilitated"... how?

He didn't need any piece of paper with government words and ink to go out and commit a crime.

You have not yet demonstrated how he did something he could not have done without the piece of paper...

[Starboard Tack]

17. We are not talking about the shooter.

The fraudulent instructor certified the shooter, enabling him to obtain a CCW permit without proper training. The shooter then killed someone claiming self-defense. If that claim was based on instruction, or lack thereof, from the instructor, then the instructor could be found guilty of aiding and abetting.

[PavePusher]

21. My same question still applies.

For the record, I've found factual errors in every CCW class I've ever attended. This is why I read the actual laws, generally out of books or from on-line government sources.

[rl6214]

13. Someone doing criminal things.

Hell, let's make a law saying he can't do that. Oh wait, we already have laws concerning training for CC.

Well let's make it super duper illegal. That'll show him.

People do criminal things, it's just because the word GUN is in the story that get's people's panties in a bunch.

[SteveM]

19. Yank his license, and if convicted, send him to jail. nt