Speaker 1: Do you want to be an American idiot?
Speaker 2: It's got flown on seven hundred ww you get the
Speaker 2: important stuff, by the way, then we have the fun
Speaker 2: stuff on this Friday morning when we lose our sleep.
Speaker 2: My god, can someone who illegally possessed a weapon invoke
Speaker 2: self defense?
Speaker 1: Yeah? But here's a twist.
Speaker 2: Two felons shooting at one another are now each claiming
Speaker 2: self defense in the Riverfront Live shooting last weekend, So
Speaker 2: that is three in a row if you include the
Speaker 2: Fountain Square shooter. Do we have a trend here where
Speaker 2: thugs and criminals and gangbangers can shoot each other with
Speaker 2: impunity in our streets right around us, put us in danger.
Speaker 2: In the case of the nine people injured at Riverfront Live,
Speaker 2: I would say that's a hell yes, and then say, oh,
Speaker 2: I was just defending myself. If you're a street criminal
Speaker 2: and you in the act of we had another felony
Speaker 2: shoot at someone because of some stupid street beef, how
Speaker 2: the hell can you claim self defense? And this is
Speaker 2: a disturbing new trend is a question the legal pitfalls
Speaker 2: and such. Jason Philbaum will break us down force of course,
Speaker 2: extraordinary defense attorney, former secutor and Butler County.
Speaker 1: Jason, welcome back. How are you there? We go, Jason,
Speaker 1: You're there?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 1: I got I gotcha?
Speaker 3: Good?
Speaker 2: Before we begin on this one, is there anyway we
Speaker 2: who can we sue, file and litigate and take to
Speaker 2: court regarding this loss of one hour on Sunday? Is
Speaker 2: there anything could be done legally about the time change?
Speaker 3: I thought Elon Musk was supposed to take care of that.
Speaker 2: I think I think he was.
Speaker 3: Probably we wouldn't. Yeah, supposedly it's supposed to save money.
Speaker 3: And then I guess heart attacks go up with the
Speaker 3: day after. I mean, like that's just stops as time change.
Speaker 3: But I wish I knew. I wish I knew.
Speaker 2: All right, I'm a much serious, serious note here. So
Speaker 2: we had the March first mass shooting Riverfront Live nine wounded,
Speaker 2: eight hundred plus people.
Speaker 3: There.
Speaker 2: You had Freniy Cobb and Derek Long. One has just
Speaker 2: gotten out of prison and picks up a gun and
Speaker 2: sees this guy's got a gun his waistband. I don't
Speaker 2: know how he gets the security. That's another civil suit.
Speaker 2: I'm sure that's waiting to happen, as well as criminal suit.
Speaker 2: But nonetheless, they start a shootout. Cobb had a long
Speaker 2: standing grudge against mister Long. They're both convicted felons, both
Speaker 2: prohibited from possessing firearms. It's weapons under disability. They're facing
Speaker 2: felonious assault charges in state court and federal charges for
Speaker 2: legally possessing a fireman's felons. That'll come later on, But
Speaker 2: the key legal tension here is you've got two thugs
Speaker 2: that are shooting it out in a place of little people,
Speaker 2: with no regard to the safety of complete innocent bystanders.
Speaker 2: And now they're both claiming self defense. This feels like
Speaker 2: a like almost like a legal loophole to me, Jason,
Speaker 2: because we just saw this happen with the Fountain Square shooting.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I think what you're seeing in this case.
Speaker 3: And first of all, you got shooter one because and
Speaker 3: shooter two. So shooter one walks into this club seize
Speaker 3: his mortal enemy. That alone does not give rise to
Speaker 3: self defense. So you have to be in great bodily
Speaker 3: thereat fear of great bodily harm or death, and so
Speaker 3: just seeing your enemy across the bar is not enough
Speaker 3: to get to that level. So he pulls out his
Speaker 3: gun and starts by firing and ends up hitting Shooter two.
Speaker 3: So Shooter two gets hipped and then he pulls his
Speaker 3: gun out and just starts firing indiscriminately. And I think
Speaker 3: that's that's where you kind of have to break it down.
Speaker 3: If Shooter two was shot, I think he does have
Speaker 3: the right to self defense at that moment. So you
Speaker 3: are being shot, you're in fear of great bodily harm
Speaker 3: or death, so you pull out your firearm and you
Speaker 3: fire back. That action right in that moment is likely justified.
Speaker 3: The problem he has is he shouldn't have a gun,
Speaker 3: so he felt guilty of weapons while under disability when
Speaker 3: he left the home, when he went into the bar,
Speaker 3: and so on. At the moment, you know, I think
Speaker 3: there's an legal argument that you can probably grab a
Speaker 3: gun and defend yourself. But it'd be like if I'm
Speaker 3: a fellon and you're my buddy carrying and someone shooting
Speaker 3: at us, and I grab your gun and fire back,
Speaker 3: I probably can get out of a weapons wunder disability charge,
Speaker 3: But the fact I carried it and left home with it,
Speaker 3: I think he's you know, he might get himself a
Speaker 3: not guilty on the blowing the assault a shooter rue,
Speaker 3: but I don't see him getting it. Not guilty on
Speaker 3: the weapons wonder, it's still got it.
Speaker 2: So Jerry believes long generally fear for his life. They
Speaker 2: can acquit him on followence assault, even while federal prosecutors
Speaker 2: can get him on weapons under disability.
Speaker 1: It's it's separate charge, yes.
Speaker 3: And the other thing you've got to think about too,
Speaker 3: which is you have it when you're exercising your right
Speaker 3: to self defense, you still have a duty to be
Speaker 3: reasonable and that's in the statute as well. So the
Speaker 3: fact that he fired indiscriminately into a crowd could rise
Speaker 3: to the level of other charges. You know, if someone
Speaker 3: were to die, you could be charged with involuntary manslaughter
Speaker 3: or reckless homicide. If someone you know is just seriously injured,
Speaker 3: then you're looking at potentially reckless assault, you know. So
Speaker 3: you know, think about if you and I are fighting
Speaker 3: and you pull out your gun and then I pull
Speaker 3: out mine. I'm acting in self defense, I fire and
Speaker 3: it either goes through you or just misses you and
Speaker 3: hit some kid behind you. There's some liability there, and
Speaker 3: I think, you know, it's sort of like the example
Speaker 3: of a Breonna Taylor in Louisville where that officer on
Speaker 3: the outside just started firing it the right, you know,
Speaker 3: the applying that. Yeah, that that action was seemed to
Speaker 3: be criminal, and he got charged. So I think, you know,
Speaker 3: if you have a situation where you fire one shot
Speaker 3: and it goes through the bad guy and hit someone
Speaker 3: behind there, I'm guessing the jury might give you a
Speaker 3: path with you being reasonable. But if you just you know,
Speaker 3: have a you know, clip of fifteen bullets and you're
Speaker 3: just firing, you know, in the direction of the guy
Speaker 3: that shot you, and then you know, eight people get hit,
Speaker 3: I'm not sure a jury would find your actions to
Speaker 3: be reasonable there. So that's another thing you have to
Speaker 3: look at in this case.
Speaker 2: Okay, Staniyar grind as a wrinkler, correct, because it does apply.
Speaker 2: It's a constitutional aspect of this thing. But the fact
Speaker 2: that both men were committing felony crimes by carrying guns
Speaker 2: does that change that analysis?
Speaker 1: Does that change that?
Speaker 3: Yeah? I think it does. You have to look at
Speaker 3: the fact that they walk out of their house already
Speaker 3: committing a felony and so that's another thing to look
Speaker 3: at too, which is, you know, there's an argument of
Speaker 3: is it a felony murder charge? Because they're committing a
Speaker 3: felony by carrying a firearm, and then you know people
Speaker 3: are are dead because of it. There's maybe approximate cause
Speaker 3: there that a jury will have to look through as
Speaker 3: whether or not it's an involuntary manslaughter or a felony murder.
Speaker 3: But at the end of the day, they're they're carrying
Speaker 3: a firearm when no, they can't. Yeah, so that already
Speaker 3: shows that there's some some criminal conduct there. And so
Speaker 3: if you know, with a Fountain Square shooter, I think
Speaker 3: it seemed pretty clear the guy just pulled out a gun,
Speaker 3: fired and then video evidence shows him firing back and
Speaker 3: being reasonable in that regard. And so that situation here
Speaker 3: where these guys just look across the room and then
Speaker 3: you know it's it's you know, like the wild West.
Speaker 3: They just pull their guns and start shooting at each other.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure jury's going to find their actions to
Speaker 3: be reasonable. And you know, the standard ground just means
Speaker 3: you don't have to be you don't have to retreat
Speaker 3: before you use your your response beforce, but it's still
Speaker 3: have to be reasonable. You can't just start blindly shooting
Speaker 3: into a like like a house like that. Breonna Taylor
Speaker 3: officer did.
Speaker 2: Defense attorney Jason Philibamon with Sloane here on seven hundred
Speaker 2: WYLW involving going back to the Riverfront live shootings volviously
Speaker 2: two subjects that shot at each other and nine people
Speaker 2: and some people got hit, and they were both of
Speaker 2: them prohibited under federal law because of past convictions from owning, possessing, touching,
Speaker 2: and thinking about or even making a finger gun. And
Speaker 2: yet we saw what happened there, and now they're both
Speaker 2: claiming self defense, which feels like some sort of standoff
Speaker 2: here in a different way in the courtroom, maybe they're
Speaker 2: both claiming self different Can two people in the same
Speaker 2: gunfight both legally claimed self defense or there's a law
Speaker 2: force conclusion one of them has to be the aggressor.
Speaker 3: Well, they both can claim it, and then theoretically they
Speaker 3: both could have an independent jury find that they acted
Speaker 3: in self defense. But under this that they're both victims.
Speaker 3: That's kind of weird, yees, Yeah, that's theoretical. So in
Speaker 3: a law school exam, you know, that's that's an answer
Speaker 3: for anyone listening. But technically speaking, you know, you cannot
Speaker 3: claim self defense if you are the cause, if you
Speaker 3: are the aggressor, and so a jury is going to
Speaker 3: look at if they were to look at this case,
Speaker 3: a jury's going to decide whom they think the aggressor is.
Speaker 3: And you know, so far, the evidence seems to show
Speaker 3: that shooter one pulled and just started shooting first, and
Speaker 3: then shooter two got shot and then pulled. Under those facts,
Speaker 3: I think a jury will determine that shooter one is
Speaker 3: the aggressor. Now, so, so.
Speaker 2: Cob Cob fired first, Okay, Cob puls Derek Lung pulls
Speaker 2: a gun out, shoots him or shoots at him. I
Speaker 2: guess anyway, does that being an initial aggressor, does that
Speaker 2: completely eliminate any self defense claim that the cod can
Speaker 2: raise her?
Speaker 3: Theoretically, yes, it's one of those things too where you
Speaker 3: and I. Let's say I walk up to you and
Speaker 3: I push you, and I call you a name, and
Speaker 3: then I start to walk away, and then you pull
Speaker 3: out a knife and come at me. You know, a
Speaker 3: jury could find that then you escalated it from a
Speaker 3: simple push and a name calling to a now deadly assault,
Speaker 3: and then I'm allowed to use deadly force. But again,
Speaker 3: that's something that a jury is going to have to
Speaker 3: decide and I think most jurors are going to say, look,
Speaker 3: if you walked up to some guy, push him and
Speaker 3: call him the name and then a fight ensues, I
Speaker 3: don't think you can claim self defense because you were
Speaker 3: the initial aggressor. Now, what a defense attorney is going
Speaker 3: to try to say is, look, he pushed them and
Speaker 3: called him a name and then walked away. That's the
Speaker 3: end of that transaction. Transaction was Scott pulling an ice.
Speaker 3: Now you have a whole new situation. Scott's the aggressor
Speaker 3: and Jason is a defender. And so you know, that's
Speaker 3: what a defense attorney's going to do. He's going to
Speaker 3: try to take that one action, split it in the two,
Speaker 3: and then the prosecutor is going to say, no, this
Speaker 3: is all one action. You walk in, you push Scot,
Speaker 3: you call him a name, and then a fight happens.
Speaker 3: You can't claim self defense. And so I think the
Speaker 3: other thing you're starting to see is people just claim
Speaker 3: self defense. They've been doing that since the beginning of time,
Speaker 3: and jurors look at it very closely and they start
Speaker 3: splicing that up. Is who was the aggressor who started it?
Speaker 3: Was the person's actions reasonable and at the end of
Speaker 3: the day, you know, right now, self defense it theems
Speaker 3: that will be applied when when it's genuine.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, this also goes back to the Cincinnati brawl back
Speaker 2: in July that Alex Cherinski Ford failed with the white
Speaker 2: guy was charged in this case. You know, the the
Speaker 2: video evidence indicates that Montus Merriweather, Jermaine Matthews, and Donna
Speaker 2: Vernon are the ones who started this one. Particularly Mayweather
Speaker 2: was taunting, pushing, shoving the white guy in this case.
Speaker 2: So if you turn around and throw a punch at someone,
Speaker 2: you know, we're talking about gun laws here and stand
Speaker 2: your ground.
Speaker 1: But the same thing applies.
Speaker 2: If you feel you're under threat great bodily harm, you
Speaker 2: can defend yourself. That's gonna you can't have it.
Speaker 1: Both ways, right.
Speaker 2: We can't look at this case and go, well, they're
Speaker 2: good to but turn around and throw the book at
Speaker 2: Aleis Dirinsky.
Speaker 1: It's just it's not gonna work that way.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And a lot of it comes down to the fact,
Speaker 3: you know, so if i'm you know, if you've been
Speaker 3: threatening me, you've been coming to my house, you've been
Speaker 3: throwing rocks in my window, you've been you know, doing
Speaker 3: all these pattern of conduct. And then I happen to
Speaker 3: be walking down the street and I see you coming
Speaker 3: at me menacingly, then one could argue I act and
Speaker 3: self defense when I pulled my fire on first. But aposcy,
Speaker 3: you're going to say, wait a second, all Scott did
Speaker 3: was just, you know, walk towards you. That's not a
Speaker 3: life threatening action, and so you didn't have a right
Speaker 3: to use deadly force. And that's another thing a jury's
Speaker 3: going to look at. If I push you, then you
Speaker 3: theoretically can push me back to get me away, and
Speaker 3: that would be that would be self defense because you
Speaker 3: are using the appropriate force, non deadly force. But you
Speaker 3: can't use deadly force when someone's using non deadly force,
Speaker 3: and that's another thing to look at. So again, if
Speaker 3: I come up and push you and then you pull
Speaker 3: out a knife and stab me, one could argue that
Speaker 3: you have used deadly force to only repel non deadly action.
Speaker 3: And so those are things that the jury has to decide,
Speaker 3: and that's what the attorneys and prosecutors are going to
Speaker 3: argue about when when we get to a jury.
Speaker 2: Exactly, Jason Phillibaum Cobb had a long standing grudge against
Speaker 2: long How does premeditation factor to this.
Speaker 3: It does. I mean, that's another situation where if I
Speaker 3: go to a place where I know you're going to be,
Speaker 3: I can't sit there and claim self defense when you
Speaker 3: all of a sudden come at me pretty pretty rough.
Speaker 3: I mean, obviously I can claim that, but a jury
Speaker 3: is going to look at that very skeptically, which is,
Speaker 3: if if I know you're at a place and I
Speaker 3: fear for my life, then going to that place actually
Speaker 3: is counterintuitive. I don't really fear for my life if
Speaker 3: I'm going to a place where I know you're at.
Speaker 3: And so the fact that there's premeditation of trying to
Speaker 3: find somebody, I think takes away from the argument that
Speaker 3: you were in fear for your life.
Speaker 1: Yeah, gotcha.
Speaker 2: So this is going to be referred als to the
Speaker 2: federal court for the weapon under disability charge. But why
Speaker 2: wouldn't the self defense argument work there?
Speaker 3: Because in that particular case, all they have to prove
Speaker 3: is you had a weapon while under some federal or
Speaker 3: criminal or other disability. And so, first of all, a
Speaker 3: lot of people get confused of disability, meaning like you know,
Speaker 3: you can't walk, or you're in a wheelchair or something
Speaker 3: like that. Disability for criminal is if you have a felony,
Speaker 3: a prior felony or crime of violence, or maybe even
Speaker 3: a protection or you are prohibited from having a firearm.
Speaker 3: So that's called a legal disability. So if you are
Speaker 3: possessing a firearm while under that legal disability, that's all
Speaker 3: the prosecutor has to show. And so they may try
Speaker 3: to argue self defense at the moment of the shooting,
Speaker 3: But you still had the gun when you left the house,
Speaker 3: you still had the gun when you went into this bar.
Speaker 3: He's probably drinking and having it at the bar, and
Speaker 3: that's another issue that consider. So that's all they have
Speaker 3: to prove, and so self defense will not apply to
Speaker 3: carrying a weapon while under disability.
Speaker 2: Gotcha, Jason Philibaum. The Second Amendment I advocates argue that
Speaker 2: weapons under disability unfairly stripped people of their inalienable, god
Speaker 2: given inalienable rights. The second then, in particularly to self
Speaker 2: preservation and self defense, does this case, or a case
Speaker 2: like this where a prohibited person appears they have generally
Speaker 2: needed a gun to survive, does that make the argument stronger?
Speaker 3: Well, that's an interesting argument that they've been making for years.
Speaker 3: But you know, when you're talking about, like the red
Speaker 3: flag laws. I think that's where you get into a
Speaker 3: whole due process issue and at what point, you know,
Speaker 3: do you have the right Second Amendment right? But when
Speaker 3: you have been found guilty of a criminal offense and
Speaker 3: you're looking at a situation where a person's gone through
Speaker 3: the jujitsial system, has gone through due process, and they
Speaker 3: have found that you're guilty of that offense, either by
Speaker 3: plea or by jury, then at that particular case, that's
Speaker 3: where the course of hell that your Second Amendment right
Speaker 3: is taken away. Just like you have a right to vote,
Speaker 3: You have a right to you know, constitutional right to vote,
Speaker 3: but if you have a felony, the Supreme Court and
Speaker 3: other courts of hell that you can take that away
Speaker 3: because of your felony status. And again there's you know, freedom,
Speaker 3: We have the right to freedom, but if you commit
Speaker 3: a crime and you go to prison, your freedom's taken away.
Speaker 3: So I think that's the analysis the courts that I use,
Speaker 3: where if you've gone through due process and you have
Speaker 3: that criminal history, then they can take that right away.
Speaker 2: Are we going to see this now as a legal template?
Speaker 2: Jason Philibaum and that this weapons under disability defendant argument
Speaker 2: that you know, you put yourself in a situation where
Speaker 2: you're going to go see your mortal leend me or
Speaker 2: carrying a weapon under disability, and you engage with another
Speaker 2: person who probably has a weapon under disability. Is that
Speaker 2: going to be the now legal template here, that it's
Speaker 2: just going to be a self defect of self defense
Speaker 2: claim and kind of law clean that up?
Speaker 3: Well, I think they'll make that argument every time, but
Speaker 3: I don't think a jury and a prosecutor is going
Speaker 3: to buy it again. They have to look at the fact.
Speaker 3: I think if I had a firearm in my house
Speaker 3: and some guys breaking into my house and then at
Speaker 3: the end of the day I had a weapons under disability,
Speaker 3: that's where the self defense claim and can actually give
Speaker 3: maybe some peace to their defense. But when you leave
Speaker 3: the house, when you go to bar hoppin and you
Speaker 3: go whatever, carrying a firearm, when you know that you're
Speaker 3: not able to then theoretically if that defense where to fly,
Speaker 3: then weapons under disability would go out the window anyway.
Speaker 3: So I don't think that's going to I don't think
Speaker 3: it's ever going to be extended to where you can
Speaker 3: just carry it all times because some guy doesn't like you.
Speaker 3: I think at the end of the day, you have
Speaker 3: to look at the specific situation at the moment, and
Speaker 3: you might be able to get out of the Floni's
Speaker 3: assault or murder charge, but you're not going to really
Speaker 3: be able to beat that weapons water disability.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is the hard case.
Speaker 2: It's all start down in court, not just also in
Speaker 2: Hamlin County, but obviously federally as well for these individuals.
Speaker 2: And at the same time, I feel badly for the
Speaker 2: owner of Riverfront Live. We tried to do everything he
Speaker 2: could to make sure it was a safe environment and
Speaker 2: yet at least two people who shouldn't have guns brought
Speaker 2: guns into the venue. There's going to be a huge
Speaker 2: civil lawsuit involving this as well, with millions and millions
Speaker 2: of dollars at stake. Jason Philibaum, defense attorney, Thanks for
Speaker 2: coming on the show.
Speaker 1: Have a great weekend. Good luck with the time change.
Speaker 3: I appreciate it. Be well.
Speaker 2: Scott Sloan Show continues after news update in just seconds
Speaker 2: here on seven hundred WW we'll get Will Gantz on
Speaker 2: our ABC Entertainment guy.
Speaker 1: Britney Britney Spears is in jail. Let me ask you something.
Speaker 2: Is there anyone more of a rock star than Britney
Speaker 2: Spears doing stuff that rock stars do. I mean, Harry
Speaker 2: Styles is dropping a new album, will come with that.
Speaker 2: Look at Harry South, that's a rock start. Now Britney
Speaker 2: is doing rock and roll stuff right there, getting pop
Speaker 2: for Dewey. We'll get into that next seven hundred w
Speaker 2: al