Video: Marshon Admits to Having Weapon (1 Viewer)

DaveXA said:

If you have a CCW and carrying, you have to announce. But that's probably a state to state thing, so it might depend on where you are. Not sure what the law is in Ohio.

Click to expand...

I was saying if you don't have a CHL/CCW/LTC since (I guess) you're presumed to not have a weapon or something.

But if you do, you need to announce that you have a license regardless of whether or not you have a weapon.

It probably does vary by state somewhat. Like in California they'll just look at you like they've seen a unicorn.

DaveXA said:

Where was it verified he purchased a stolen weapon? Maybe I missed it, but I'm not seeing that in the video.

Click to expand...

Well if he didn't purchase it then he stole it himself.

DaveXA said:

Sure, but we don't yet even know if he purchased a stolen gun. Who's to say he didn't do his due diligence? We don't know that for certain yet.

Click to expand...

He had a gun and it was stolen. Either he bought a stolen item or stole it himself.

MV2 said:

Well if he didn't purchase it then he stole it himself.

Click to expand...

Again, unless I missed something, they never stated which gun was determined to be stolen.

DaveXA said:

That's not what I said though.

Click to expand...

It is precisely what you said. Whether or not you have knowledge of the fact it was stolen doesn't change the legality of the sale.

DaveXA said:

Yes, whether it was the gun on his person or another one in the car is the question yet to be answered. That was never made clear in the video. If the other one wasn't his, but was a stolen gun in his car, he gets charged even if it's not his.

Click to expand...

Earlier articles made it quite clear that the gun he had on his person had in fact been reported as stolen.

WhoDat!5 said:

Earlier articles made it quite clear that the gun he had on his person had in fact been reported as stolen.

Click to expand...

And if he didn’t know it was stolen he won’t be convicted of the charge of receiving stolen property.

The prosecutors, if they decide to prosecute, have to prove that he knew it was stolen.

Some people are acting like he’s Al Capone while the likeliest outcome, at this point, is the rightful owner gets the gun back and Marshon Lattimore is playing for the Saints this season before getting a huge payday in free agency next year.

WhoDat!5 said:

Earlier articles made it quite clear that the gun he had on his person had in fact been reported as stolen.

Click to expand...

Maybe the media got it wrong. We'll see whether that is the case if this goes to court or if the details are released in a plea deal. Because of Lattimore's lack of criminal history, I fully expect he'll be able to plead to a lesser offense in order to avoid going to trial. He gets community service and a slap on the wrist if he has a good lawyer.

WhoDat!5 said:

It is precisely what you said. Whether or not you have knowledge of the fact it was stolen doesn't change the legality of the sale.

Click to expand...

Not according to Ohio state law. That has been made clear in other posts in the thread.

Edit: To be clear the sale would technically be not legal in the sense that it's not recognized as valid, but there's no penalty for Lattimore if he wasn't aware the gun was stolen. It would have to be proven that he knew. Good luck with that.

DaveXA said:

Again, unless I missed something, they never stated which gun was determined to be stolen.

Click to expand...

He was arrested and charged for being being in possession of a stolen gun correct?

MV2 said:

He was arrested and charged for being being in possession of a stolen gun correct?

Click to expand...

He was, but they'd have to prove that he knew if they go to court.

DaveXA said:

Maybe the media got it wrong. We'll see whether that is the case if this goes to court or if the details are released in a plea deal. Because of Lattimore's lack of criminal history, I fully expect he'll be able to plead to a lesser offense in order to avoid going to trial. He gets community service and a slap on the wrist if he has a good lawyer.


Not according to Ohio state law. That has been made clear in other posts in the thread.

Edit: To be clear the sale would technically be not legal in the sense that it's not recognized as valid, but there's no penalty for Lattimore if he wasn't aware the gun was stolen. It would have to be proven that he knew. Good luck with that.

Click to expand...

Yeah, all I see is a random poster on here claiming he had to have knowledge, no actual law has been cited. Further, when this news first broke, someone posted an article that stated that in Ohio, the person's knowledge of the item being stolen was irrelevant. You posses a stolen item, it's a crime. I will look it up to be sure since you're so hell bent on challenging me.

Also, most times, in the law, a reasonable person standard is applied. For example when taking in the totality of the circumstances should a reasonable person have known the item was stolen. There are many factors that can be considered such as price, the person it was purchased from, if the item's serial number is altered, etc.

Edit: After researching the law, you are correct, and the article that was posted in the initial Lattimore thread is incorrect. Knowledge is a factor; however, under this law, the prosecutor won't have to prove Lattimore had outright knowledge of such. The law states "knowing or having reasonable cause to believe." Thus, the prosecutor merely has to prove that based on a set of factual circumstances present, Lattimore should have known such.

And as to my initial comment that you cannot legally purchase stolen goods, looks like we are in agreement on that. Someone cannot legally pass ownership of something which they do not own. Thus, a person cannot legally acquire ownership of something sold to them by a person who does not legally own the thing.

No2DC said:

Not in my book. Did he actually steal it or someone sold/gave him a stolen gun?

Click to expand...

Don't know. I doubt he stole it. If anything he bought a stolen gun or someone gave it to him. But, why would someone of Lattimore's stature buy a gun from a non-reputable dealer? That in itself is shady when he could go anywhere and buy a gun without worrying about where it came from. I think the more likely situation is one of his friends gave it to him to carry or asked him to hide it when they got pulled over. Again, he didn't know where that gun came from or what it was involved in, so again, not very morally responsible. If he did purchase it by legal means then I'd think all he would need to do is turn over the name of the person or place he bought it from to avoid charges, but he didn't avoid the charges so he's likely covering for whoever he got the gun from. Again, not the moral thing to do.

I wonder if the NFL has issued a drug test for him yet? You know Goodell wants the max suspension.
I guess with the new cba in 2020 they only test during the season. He may get lucky here but he's on Rogers radar now.

DaveXA said:

He was, but they'd have to prove that he knew if they go to court.

Click to expand...

Possession is 9/10 of the law. He will face a charge regardless of whether or not he knew the gun was stolen. There's is no way to prove he didn't know unless it was purchased from a legitimate source like a store and not off of a person or the streets. Then he could argue he didn't know and the store owner would have some responsibility for selling stolen merchandise.