Grandma Margaret Johnson packs a gun. A big gun, in fact. A.357 Magnum, which is quite a gun for a granny to carry, And she is clearly not afraid to use it, according to that pinnacle of anti-sensationalism, the New York Post. Via Walter Olson at Overlawyered,
Deron Johnson, 48, a man “with a lengthy rap sheet”, denies that he was trying to rob Margaret Johnson, 59, of her purse and gold chain when she shot him from her motorized wheelchair with her licensed .357 Magnum. Cops grabbed him but he won acquittal at trial and he’s now suing her and the landlord of her Lenox Terrace housing complex in Harlem, asking millions.
What’s wrong with this picture? Plenty. It sounds just awful that this terrible Deron Johnson, the man “with the lengthy rap sheet,” went after this wheelchair bound granny who merely tried to defend herself. But then, he was acquitted. You see, Johnson had a different explanation:
He said he kicked the woman’s Shih Tzu, Malika, after it attacked him, and the gun-loving granny shot him.
That’s the funny thing about granny’s with guns. Sometimes they use them.
“I’m a peaceful person. I wish that I had killed him,” said Margaret Johnson, 59, whose grandfather, Ellsworth “Bumpy” Johnson, once ruled Harlem’s underworld and was immortalized in several hit movies.
But the real flaws of this story have yet to be discussed. This happened in Harlem, a lovely area in the northerly part of Manhattan, which is part of New York City. In NYC, it’s easier to win the lottery than get a carry permit. Now the story says that her .357 Magnum was “licensed”, but it doesn’t exactly say that she was licensed to carry a concealed weapon as she scooted to Lenox Avenue and 133rd Street in her motorized wheelchair. It is inconceivable that she would have a carry permit. So what happened to the part of the story where the shooter was illegally carrying a concealed weapon? Notably, there’s nothing in there about her being arrested for the unlawful possession of a weapon.
Every criminal defense lawyer knows that the “lengthy rap sheet” excuse is the reddest of herrings around. What are the offenses involved, jaywalking or murder? He had nine “previous arrests,” but no mention of how many convictions. A gilded lily perhaps?
Apparently, since whatever he did, if anything, wasn’t so terrible that it landed him in prison for life, as he was strolling down Lenox Avenue that fine day. And aside from all else, does that mean that people with “lengthy rap sheets” can’t protect themselves when attacked by a little puff ball dog? His purported propensity bears no causal connection to anything that happened here.
On the other hand, as this photo of Margaret Johnson in a happy moment shows, she does like her Uzi, a weapon preferred by many in uptown Manhattan, though usually frowned upon by the New York Police Department.
She is not bashful about her love of guns, especially the .357 Magnum.But granny’s story doesn’t smell all that good. If Deron was trying to snatch Margaret’s purse, an act which takes a fraction of a second, how did Granny find the time to whip out the Magnum and shoot? It seems likely that the gun would be in the purse, meaning that she would have had to go into the purse and pull out the gun before he grabbed the purse and pulled it away from her. Frankly, unless she was holding the gun in her hand when Deron allegedly tried to mug her, it strains credulity that she was able to shoot before he grabbed whatever he wanted to grab and ran. It just doesn’t take long enough to react that way.
“I love that gun. It’s so powerful,” she said. “I don’t know too many women who can handle that gun. I almost fell on my butt when I first fired it.”
And finally, we get to the bottom line of this curiously reported tale. The law in New York is quite clear that a person cannot lawfully use deadly force except in the protection of a human life. While granny complained that Deron of the “lengthy rap sheet” (did he have it tattooed on his forehead for all to see?) was trying to snatch her purse and gold chain, she fired a round into his left elbow. She shot him in order to protect her purse and gold chain.
Even if we assume Margaret’s claims to be true, you just can’t shoot people on the street for trying to snatch a purse. At least not in New York City. No matter how much granny loves her guns.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As will perhaps not shock you, I followed this story when it first came out, and came to at least one of the same conclusions — that she had a premises permit, not a carry permit; I concluded that the cops writing it up (and the prosecutor, later on) decided to not notice that.
I’m pretty sure that’s not the full-auto Uzi, by the way, but the semiauto one — the long barrel’s a, err, dead giveaway.
The purse, by the way, is a lousy place to carry a handgun, for the reasons you imply. I’ve had several folks go through my class who are wheelchair-bound; at least most of them carry in a fanny pack.
Granny needs to move to Texas. All that stuff that’s NY-verboten is not only lawful but actually encouraged here.
I’d expound on this, but I can hear gunfire closer than normal. I have to duck.
Perhaps the real mistake was that she didnt get him in the back of the head… thereby saving everyone a lot of time and money 🙂
And if she really is the former wife of a deceased highly known gangster… then in all probability this individual will be disuaded from taking his claim to far… lol
“The law in New York is quite clear that a person cannot lawfully use deadly force except in the protection of property.”
Is that a typo, or is a purse not property?
Nope, that’s a typo, which is now corrected. Thanks for picking that up.
Wha? They have a thing about shih tzu’s in Texas? I would have thought they preferred big dogs. Or at least dogs that could rip the throat out a big dog.
Every story needs a village idiot. Thanks for commenting.
You are indeed correct. I am not shocked, though I appreciate your Uzi insight since I would never have been able to distinguish the full-auto from the semi.
Never bring a shih tzu to a gun fight. (FYI, I know it was the same person who had both. I’m just feeling silly.)
Here in Chicago, police and prosecutors are notably uninterested in prosecuting elderly or disabled people for firearms violations. In fact, the Illinois legislature was debating a slightly crazy law that would make it not-illegal to illegally possess a gun if you used it in a self-defense shooting:
Cops discover you have an unregistered gun when a disgruntled neighbor dimes you out—that’s a crime. Cops discover you have an unregistered gun when you shoot an intruder with it—not a crime.
No need to apologize. It was worth it.
Interesting. Generally, my understanding is that is not the approach in New York. I know of at least one fairly recent case where a burglar who had been shot testified against a homeowner who shot him, regarding that homeowners possession of an unlicensed firearm.
In defense of property? Do you mean “real” property or real estate? ‘Cause a granny’s purse is “property.” And hey, she wouldn’t carry a magnum in her purse. She hid it in her shoulder holster, right? (This is tongue in cheek.)
More generally . . .
Speaking as an erstwhile consumer of robber services, I’d really like it if at least most erstwhile robbers would worry that they might get shot while robbing folks, and switch to less strenuous activities — Ponzi schemes, say, or even, well, jobs.
But I’m not at all fond of folks acting, as they say, as judge, jury, and executioner, as I’m not of the opinion that a purse snatching really should be punished by killing the perp (heart, bleeding, one each) — or even wounding him with a gun. I’d just like the folks considering it as part of their financial planning to reconsider it; who knows? Maybe somebody I care about might even carry a purse, from time to time.
About the only good thing I can see in this is that it works as a teaching moment — even if the shooter doesn’t get prosecuted, the civil suit will probably ruin her.
Isn’t it interesting that everybody took for granted that he must have been a mugger, as opposed to her dog attacked him and she shot him when he kicked the dog? Certainly the aquittal didn’t seem to do much to change that. Funny how easily people take stuff like this granted, even here.
Well, as we all know, Bob, the standard for conviction is different (as, IMHO, it should be) than the standard for conventional belief. Me, I dunno, either way — but in terms of my own agenda, it doesn’t much matter (I’ll concede, willingly, that it matters a whole lot to Mr. Johnson); I still think it’s a bad idea to shoot an actual purse snatcher, and it’s a good thing if somebody who might be considering snatching a purse reconsiders, even if it’s as a result of the publicity from what in fact turns out to be an incident of a guy fending off a killer squirrel-sized dog getting shot for trying to kick it away.
Me, I’d at least run away from a shih tzu, and even given my age, weight and infirmity, I can run pretty fast when I’m scared of a vicious, albeit tiny, dog. Then again, I scare easy.
The law ought to allow killing in defense of property. No one forces thieves to steal.
But the law should also protect those who strike back when attacked by a dog.