Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.
Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by TBO, Mar 8, 2012.
Already had 3 guns previously confiscated... Sounds like something is up with this character.
Good. The police should not be allowed to abuse their power. And their power should never be extended beyond the minimum required to do their job. In this case, they should be forced to return the confiscated weapon. And the officers involved in this confiscation, those in the administrative process and the city administration should be held liable for attempted illegal taking. They should be forced to pay money damages individually and collectively for their wrong doing that has hindered this man in possessing and using his property.
I would want to know what the department's policy is regarding other property in other homicide investigations. Just because this particular charge has not been levied, is it possible there may be other charges, or a civil trial, or charges in a different court?
Re the third gun (prohibited possessor): there's "dismissed" and there's dismissed. Just because the charges are set aside pending lab results or similar (dismissed without prejudice) doesn't mean they won't be refiled. If that's the case, his gun is rightly evidence in a pending case and he should be more careful to whom he lends things.
WRT the gun he used: if there's a pending case, there's a pending case. The prosecutor might say he doesn't need it, but the police have no business whatsoever making that decision.
Gosh, perhaps there needs to be a new Wisconsin law addressing the return of weapons to innocent citizens.
It would depend on the nature of the two incidents not described.
The third incident, gun given to friend who took it to felon brother's home, probably not unless he knew that was the destination.
Here is an earlier article about Al-Mujaahid. Aldi customer won't be charged in shooting
Are you being serious or sarcastic? How is taking evidence from a crime scene abuse of power? Seems like you have had some bad experiences with the police.
I take for granted that a gun will spend a great deal of time as evidence if it is used in a shooting. I do not blame police for this.
I read of a case where a citizen came to the aid of a fallen police officer, risking his own live in the process. When his handgun went into evidence, police officers pitched in to get him another one.
Perhaps, either the writer of the article or his attorney said the police is not returning it because it is in their possession while being considered evidence and its the prosecutor that hasnt released it? Is the prosecutor the only that can order the weapon be retained in evidence for the pending case? Can the defense make the same demand and it have to be honored?
The part I dont understand is, why would the firearm he used in self-defense be kept as evidence in the case against the other man unless at some point he had direct contact with the weapon. That is, assuming it is the prosecutor that hasnt released it.
Perhaps someone can enlighten me on the value of the "evidence" here. Is Al-Mujaahid denying he shot the robber? Are there no witnesses to the actual shooting event? Would there be any reason to believe that ballistics from the gun would need to be studied (was there perhaps a second shooter from a grassy knoll?). The answer is no. There is absolutely no value of any kind for the weapon to remain confiscated as evidence. No one is denying who shot whom, or how, or why, or when, or where, or with what weapon.
Now, please explain to me why it is necessary to maintain control of this man's gun as evidence. Thank you in advance.
Well, there is the fact that the store was posted prohibiting firearms and he entered anyway.
There is no value unless more information comes to light which causes a criminal charge to be filed, and either a prosecutor or a defense attorney wished to introduce the gun into evidence but can't because it isn't there anymore. There is no value to keeping the weapon unless someone wished to introduce into evidence in a civil trial.
Having three guns confiscated doesn't pass the smell test, at least for me.
Loaning guns, especially a handgun that ends up in the hands of a covicted felon is irresponsible at best.
IMO, the judge was right not returning a gun found in the possession of a felon.
Quite simple, it doesn't make much sense to prohibit a felong from buying and or possesssing a handgun, then having someone just had it to him.