Do you want to be an American idiot?
It's got flown on seven hundred ww you get the important stuff, by the way, then we have the fun stuff on this Friday morning when we lose our sleep. My god, can someone who illegally possessed a weapon invoke self defense?
Yeah? But here's a twist.
Two felons shooting at one another are now each claiming self defense in the Riverfront Live shooting last weekend, So that is three in a row if you include the Fountain Square shooter. Do we have a trend here where thugs and criminals and gangbangers can shoot each other with impunity in our streets right around us, put us in danger. In the case of the nine people injured at Riverfront Live, I would say that's a hell yes, and then say, oh,
I was just defending myself. If you're a street criminal and you in the act of we had another felony shoot at someone because of some stupid street beef, how the hell can you claim self defense? And this is a disturbing new trend is a question the legal pitfalls and such. Jason Philbaum will break us down force of course, extraordinary defense attorney, former secutor and Butler County.
Jason, welcome back. How are you there? We go, Jason, You're there?
Okay?
I got I gotcha?
Good?
Before we begin on this one, is there anyway we who can we sue, file and litigate and take to court regarding this loss of one hour on Sunday? Is there anything could be done legally about the time change?
I thought Elon Musk was supposed to take care of that.
I think I think he was.
Probably we wouldn't. Yeah, supposedly it's supposed to save money. And then I guess heart attacks go up with the day after. I mean, like that's just stops as time change. But I wish I knew. I wish I knew.
All right, I'm a much serious, serious note here. So we had the March first mass shooting Riverfront Live nine wounded, eight hundred plus people.
There.
You had Freniy Cobb and Derek Long. One has just gotten out of prison and picks up a gun and sees this guy's got a gun his waistband. I don't know how he gets the security. That's another civil suit. I'm sure that's waiting to happen, as well as criminal suit. But nonetheless, they start a shootout. Cobb had a long standing grudge against mister Long. They're both convicted felons, both
prohibited from possessing firearms. It's weapons under disability. They're facing felonious assault charges in state court and federal charges for legally possessing a fireman's felons. That'll come later on, But the key legal tension here is you've got two thugs that are shooting it out in a place of little people, with no regard to the safety of complete innocent bystanders.
And now they're both claiming self defense. This feels like a like almost like a legal loophole to me, Jason, because we just saw this happen with the Fountain Square shooting.
Yeah, and I think what you're seeing in this case. And first of all, you got shooter one because and shooter two. So shooter one walks into this club seize his mortal enemy. That alone does not give rise to self defense. So you have to be in great bodily thereat fear of great bodily harm or death, and so just seeing your enemy across the bar is not enough to get to that level. So he pulls out his gun and starts by firing and ends up hitting Shooter two.
So Shooter two gets hipped and then he pulls his gun out and just starts firing indiscriminately. And I think that's that's where you kind of have to break it down. If Shooter two was shot, I think he does have the right to self defense at that moment. So you are being shot, you're in fear of great bodily harm or death, so you pull out your firearm and you fire back. That action right in that moment is likely justified.
The problem he has is he shouldn't have a gun, so he felt guilty of weapons while under disability when he left the home, when he went into the bar, and so on. At the moment, you know, I think there's an legal argument that you can probably grab a
gun and defend yourself. But it'd be like if I'm a fellon and you're my buddy carrying and someone shooting at us, and I grab your gun and fire back, I probably can get out of a weapons wunder disability charge, But the fact I carried it and left home with it, I think he's you know, he might get himself a not guilty on the blowing the assault a shooter rue, but I don't see him getting it. Not guilty on the weapons wonder, it's still got it.
So Jerry believes long generally fear for his life. They can acquit him on followence assault, even while federal prosecutors can get him on weapons under disability.
It's it's separate charge, yes.
And the other thing you've got to think about too, which is you have it when you're exercising your right to self defense, you still have a duty to be reasonable and that's in the statute as well. So the fact that he fired indiscriminately into a crowd could rise to the level of other charges. You know, if someone were to die, you could be charged with involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide. If someone you know is just seriously injured,
then you're looking at potentially reckless assault, you know. So you know, think about if you and I are fighting and you pull out your gun and then I pull out mine. I'm acting in self defense, I fire and it either goes through you or just misses you and hit some kid behind you. There's some liability there, and I think, you know, it's sort of like the example of a Breonna Taylor in Louisville where that officer on the outside just started firing it the right, you know,
the applying that. Yeah, that that action was seemed to be criminal, and he got charged. So I think, you know, if you have a situation where you fire one shot and it goes through the bad guy and hit someone behind there, I'm guessing the jury might give you a
path with you being reasonable. But if you just you know, have a you know, clip of fifteen bullets and you're just firing, you know, in the direction of the guy that shot you, and then you know, eight people get hit, I'm not sure a jury would find your actions to be reasonable there. So that's another thing you have to look at in this case.
Okay, Staniyar grind as a wrinkler, correct, because it does apply. It's a constitutional aspect of this thing. But the fact that both men were committing felony crimes by carrying guns does that change that analysis?
Does that change that?
Yeah? I think it does. You have to look at the fact that they walk out of their house already committing a felony and so that's another thing to look at too, which is, you know, there's an argument of is it a felony murder charge? Because they're committing a felony by carrying a firearm, and then you know people are are dead because of it. There's maybe approximate cause there that a jury will have to look through as whether or not it's an involuntary manslaughter or a felony murder.
But at the end of the day, they're they're carrying a firearm when no, they can't. Yeah, so that already shows that there's some some criminal conduct there. And so if you know, with a Fountain Square shooter, I think it seemed pretty clear the guy just pulled out a gun, fired and then video evidence shows him firing back and being reasonable in that regard. And so that situation here where these guys just look across the room and then you know it's it's you know, like the wild West.
They just pull their guns and start shooting at each other. I'm not sure jury's going to find their actions to be reasonable. And you know, the standard ground just means you don't have to be you don't have to retreat before you use your your response beforce, but it's still have to be reasonable. You can't just start blindly shooting into a like like a house like that. Breonna Taylor officer did.
Defense attorney Jason Philibamon with Sloane here on seven hundred WYLW involving going back to the Riverfront live shootings volviously two subjects that shot at each other and nine people and some people got hit, and they were both of them prohibited under federal law because of past convictions from owning, possessing, touching,
and thinking about or even making a finger gun. And yet we saw what happened there, and now they're both claiming self defense, which feels like some sort of standoff here in a different way in the courtroom, maybe they're both claiming self different Can two people in the same gunfight both legally claimed self defense or there's a law force conclusion one of them has to be the aggressor.
Well, they both can claim it, and then theoretically they both could have an independent jury find that they acted in self defense. But under this that they're both victims. That's kind of weird, yees, Yeah, that's theoretical. So in a law school exam, you know, that's that's an answer
for anyone listening. But technically speaking, you know, you cannot claim self defense if you are the cause, if you are the aggressor, and so a jury is going to look at if they were to look at this case, a jury's going to decide whom they think the aggressor is. And you know, so far, the evidence seems to show that shooter one pulled and just started shooting first, and then shooter two got shot and then pulled. Under those facts, I think a jury will determine that shooter one is
the aggressor. Now, so, so.
Cob Cob fired first, Okay, Cob puls Derek Lung pulls a gun out, shoots him or shoots at him. I guess anyway, does that being an initial aggressor, does that completely eliminate any self defense claim that the cod can raise her?
Theoretically, yes, it's one of those things too where you and I. Let's say I walk up to you and I push you, and I call you a name, and then I start to walk away, and then you pull out a knife and come at me. You know, a jury could find that then you escalated it from a simple push and a name calling to a now deadly assault,
and then I'm allowed to use deadly force. But again, that's something that a jury is going to have to decide and I think most jurors are going to say, look, if you walked up to some guy, push him and call him the name and then a fight ensues, I don't think you can claim self defense because you were the initial aggressor. Now, what a defense attorney is going to try to say is, look, he pushed them and called him a name and then walked away. That's the
end of that transaction. Transaction was Scott pulling an ice. Now you have a whole new situation. Scott's the aggressor and Jason is a defender. And so you know, that's what a defense attorney's going to do. He's going to try to take that one action, split it in the two, and then the prosecutor is going to say, no, this is all one action. You walk in, you push Scot, you call him a name, and then a fight happens.
You can't claim self defense. And so I think the other thing you're starting to see is people just claim self defense. They've been doing that since the beginning of time, and jurors look at it very closely and they start splicing that up. Is who was the aggressor who started it? Was the person's actions reasonable and at the end of the day, you know, right now, self defense it theems that will be applied when when it's genuine.
Yeah.
Well, this also goes back to the Cincinnati brawl back in July that Alex Cherinski Ford failed with the white guy was charged in this case. You know, the the video evidence indicates that Montus Merriweather, Jermaine Matthews, and Donna Vernon are the ones who started this one. Particularly Mayweather was taunting, pushing, shoving the white guy in this case. So if you turn around and throw a punch at someone, you know, we're talking about gun laws here and stand your ground.
But the same thing applies.
If you feel you're under threat great bodily harm, you can defend yourself. That's gonna you can't have it.
Both ways, right.
We can't look at this case and go, well, they're good to but turn around and throw the book at Aleis Dirinsky.
It's just it's not gonna work that way.
Yeah, And a lot of it comes down to the fact, you know, so if i'm you know, if you've been threatening me, you've been coming to my house, you've been throwing rocks in my window, you've been you know, doing all these pattern of conduct. And then I happen to be walking down the street and I see you coming at me menacingly, then one could argue I act and self defense when I pulled my fire on first. But aposcy, you're going to say, wait a second, all Scott did
was just, you know, walk towards you. That's not a life threatening action, and so you didn't have a right to use deadly force. And that's another thing a jury's going to look at. If I push you, then you theoretically can push me back to get me away, and that would be that would be self defense because you are using the appropriate force, non deadly force. But you can't use deadly force when someone's using non deadly force,
and that's another thing to look at. So again, if I come up and push you and then you pull out a knife and stab me, one could argue that you have used deadly force to only repel non deadly action. And so those are things that the jury has to decide, and that's what the attorneys and prosecutors are going to argue about when when we get to a jury.
Exactly, Jason Phillibaum Cobb had a long standing grudge against long How does premeditation factor to this.
It does. I mean, that's another situation where if I go to a place where I know you're going to be, I can't sit there and claim self defense when you all of a sudden come at me pretty pretty rough. I mean, obviously I can claim that, but a jury is going to look at that very skeptically, which is, if if I know you're at a place and I fear for my life, then going to that place actually is counterintuitive. I don't really fear for my life if I'm going to a place where I know you're at.
And so the fact that there's premeditation of trying to find somebody, I think takes away from the argument that you were in fear for your life.
Yeah, gotcha.
So this is going to be referred als to the federal court for the weapon under disability charge. But why wouldn't the self defense argument work there?
Because in that particular case, all they have to prove is you had a weapon while under some federal or criminal or other disability. And so, first of all, a lot of people get confused of disability, meaning like you know, you can't walk, or you're in a wheelchair or something like that. Disability for criminal is if you have a felony, a prior felony or crime of violence, or maybe even a protection or you are prohibited from having a firearm.
So that's called a legal disability. So if you are possessing a firearm while under that legal disability, that's all the prosecutor has to show. And so they may try to argue self defense at the moment of the shooting, But you still had the gun when you left the house, you still had the gun when you went into this bar. He's probably drinking and having it at the bar, and
that's another issue that consider. So that's all they have to prove, and so self defense will not apply to carrying a weapon while under disability.
Gotcha, Jason Philibaum. The Second Amendment I advocates argue that weapons under disability unfairly stripped people of their inalienable, god given inalienable rights. The second then, in particularly to self preservation and self defense, does this case, or a case like this where a prohibited person appears they have generally needed a gun to survive, does that make the argument stronger?
Well, that's an interesting argument that they've been making for years. But you know, when you're talking about, like the red flag laws. I think that's where you get into a whole due process issue and at what point, you know,
do you have the right Second Amendment right? But when you have been found guilty of a criminal offense and you're looking at a situation where a person's gone through the jujitsial system, has gone through due process, and they have found that you're guilty of that offense, either by plea or by jury, then at that particular case, that's where the course of hell that your Second Amendment right
is taken away. Just like you have a right to vote, You have a right to you know, constitutional right to vote, but if you have a felony, the Supreme Court and other courts of hell that you can take that away because of your felony status. And again there's you know, freedom, We have the right to freedom, but if you commit a crime and you go to prison, your freedom's taken away.
So I think that's the analysis the courts that I use, where if you've gone through due process and you have that criminal history, then they can take that right away.
Are we going to see this now as a legal template? Jason Philibaum and that this weapons under disability defendant argument that you know, you put yourself in a situation where you're going to go see your mortal leend me or carrying a weapon under disability, and you engage with another person who probably has a weapon under disability. Is that going to be the now legal template here, that it's just going to be a self defect of self defense claim and kind of law clean that up?
Well, I think they'll make that argument every time, but I don't think a jury and a prosecutor is going to buy it again. They have to look at the fact. I think if I had a firearm in my house and some guys breaking into my house and then at the end of the day I had a weapons under disability, that's where the self defense claim and can actually give
maybe some peace to their defense. But when you leave the house, when you go to bar hoppin and you go whatever, carrying a firearm, when you know that you're not able to then theoretically if that defense where to fly, then weapons under disability would go out the window anyway. So I don't think that's going to I don't think it's ever going to be extended to where you can just carry it all times because some guy doesn't like you.
I think at the end of the day, you have to look at the specific situation at the moment, and you might be able to get out of the Floni's assault or murder charge, but you're not going to really be able to beat that weapons water disability.
Yeah, this is the hard case.
It's all start down in court, not just also in Hamlin County, but obviously federally as well for these individuals. And at the same time, I feel badly for the owner of Riverfront Live. We tried to do everything he could to make sure it was a safe environment and yet at least two people who shouldn't have guns brought guns into the venue. There's going to be a huge civil lawsuit involving this as well, with millions and millions
of dollars at stake. Jason Philibaum, defense attorney, Thanks for coming on the show.
Have a great weekend. Good luck with the time change.
I appreciate it. Be well.
Scott Sloan Show continues after news update in just seconds here on seven hundred WW we'll get Will Gantz on our ABC Entertainment guy.
Britney Britney Spears is in jail. Let me ask you something.
Is there anyone more of a rock star than Britney Spears doing stuff that rock stars do. I mean, Harry Styles is dropping a new album, will come with that. Look at Harry South, that's a rock start. Now Britney is doing rock and roll stuff right there, getting pop for Dewey. We'll get into that next seven hundred w al