Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/15/2006 1:16:23 AM EDT
I know, forensic investigation, but WHY do the lab guys ALWAYS need to have the gun for forensic investigation? Why do they need to impound all available guns and ammo?

It seems to me that there are logical flaws in the mandate for a "forensic investigation" that effect us all - LEOs, active service, vets, and pure civvies too. Please let me set a scenerio...

As in this thread, the homeowner was obviously within his rights and fully cooperative. As a good guy, he would volunteer access to all other weapons and ammo when asked. However, if the shooter were somehow a bad guy and DID have anything to hide, he would have simply lied and said, "No other weapons here sir". It is unlikely that a full Search Warrant type effort would be undertaken at the moment and, even if forensics eventually shows a mismatch, BG is now in Costa Rica via Holland, Singapore, and several false IDs. It's even more illogical to do the same thing with a cop who had to shoot a BG. His gets confiscated too.

Go ahead - flame - but I'm missing the whole point of defaulting to confiscation when the situation is obvious to on-scene investigators. Why not just record S/N, confiscate some evidential ammo (and barrel if it's a semi), and instruct the shooter to NOT dispose of the gun until after forensics can determine if additional testing is necessary?
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 1:19:29 AM EDT
What would happen if you said all the other guns were someone elses...ie...the wife, friend, father etc?
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 1:20:08 AM EDT
redundant question. You know you only have a privilege to defend yourself that can be taken away like a driver's license.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 1:21:12 AM EDT
Its that whole evidence thing. Hell, they take our weapons from us if we get involved in a shooting.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 1:28:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:
Its that whole evidence thing. Hell, they take our weapons from us if we get involved in a shooting.


All of them? Even the ones not fired? Or not present? I guess I would have to specify, duty weapons only, not personal.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 1:29:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By yekimak:
You know you only have a privilege to defend yourself that can be taken away like a driver's license.


"a privilege" !?

you sound like a cop.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 1:29:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By osprey21:

Originally Posted By yekimak:
You know you only have a privilege to defend yourself that can be taken away like a driver's license.


"a privilege" !?

you sound like a cop.



My sarcasm does not translate well to the interweb.

Link Posted: 1/15/2006 1:31:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By geerhed:

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:
Its that whole evidence thing. Hell, they take our weapons from us if we get involved in a shooting.


All of them? Even the ones not fired? Or not present? I guess I would have to specify, duty weapons only, not personal.

- For us, its just the one fired. Which is fine if it is a duty weapon, we'll get another assigned. If it is our backup (if the officer carries one) we are SOL.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 1:47:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/15/2006 1:48:58 AM EDT by 4get_No1]
This is something that get all of us. If someone dragged out the ol' trusty Ka-Bar, would we loose all our butter knifes? Nope, just applies to guns. What's the benefit? The cost, especially to someone who just survived a home invasion, is very high.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 1:48:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 4get_No1:
This is something that get all of us. If someone dragged out the ol' trusty Ka-Bar, would we loose all our butter knifes? Nope, just guns. What's the benefit? The cost, especially to someone who just survived a home invasion, is very high.



If you used your knife, would you lose your guns too?
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 1:49:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By yekimak:

Originally Posted By 4get_No1:
This is something that get all of us. If someone dragged out the ol' trusty Ka-Bar, would we loose all our butter knifes? Nope, just guns. What's the benefit? The cost, especially to someone who just survived a home invasion, is very high.



If you used your knife, would you lose your guns too?



Oops... edited my prior post .
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 1:52:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 4get_No1:

Originally Posted By yekimak:

Originally Posted By 4get_No1:
This is something that get all of us. If someone dragged out the ol' trusty Ka-Bar, would we loose all our butter knifes? Nope, just guns. What's the benefit? The cost, especially to someone who just survived a home invasion, is very high.



If you used your knife, would you lose your guns too?



Oops... edited my prior post .



Actually I was just curious. IIRC if one gun is used, the rest are confiscated as well, so if a knife was used, would they take the guns for some reason?
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 1:54:55 AM EDT
Logic? We don't need no stinking logic!
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 1:55:53 AM EDT
They will take the one used in the shooting, if asked for any others I'd admit having them and refuse letting the police take them. Private property, there is no grounds for them to be seized if you dont give consent. People need to learn to say NO. You dont have to lie but you also dont have to give up anything that is not part of the investigation. If they have reason to get the others they'll come back with a warrant.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 2:33:56 AM EDT
I have some first hand experience in this matter. Some idiot decided to kick in my front door and start shooting at me. And people say I don't need a Mossberg 500 for home protection.

Bad guy went to hospital and I was 'cuffed and stuffed.' After what seemed like hours they came to a conclusion on what to do. I was let go but charged with discharging a firearm within city limits. WTF? They emptied and confiscated my gun. They didn't take any of my other guns or ammo. I was given a receipt and told where I could pick it up. The next day I went there, gave them the receipt, and they handed me my gun wrapped in paper.

I fought the charge and won, discharged during self defense. The judge said they were still going to destroy my gun. I don't think so bitch. My stupid lawyer told her that I already got it back. She said they shouldn't have given it to me and I had to return it. I said sorry but I already gave it away. She said fine, as long as I wasn't going to be hurting anyone else with it.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 2:35:09 AM EDT
I don't understand why they need to conduct a "forensic investigation".

"Yes officer, I shot the guy with this gun."

Why isn't it that simple?

What are they investigating? They don't need the gun to determine if you killing the person(s) was lawful. (IMO)
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 2:41:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SUPERSPORT:
I have some first hand experience in this matter. Some idiot decided to kick in my front door and start shooting at me. And people say I don't need a Mossberg 500 for home protection.

Bad guy went to hospital and I was 'cuffed and stuffed.' After what seemed like hours they came to a conclusion on what to do. I was let go but charged with discharging a firearm within city limits. WTF? They emptied and confiscated my gun. They didn't take any of my other guns or ammo. I was given a receipt and told where I could pick it up. The next day I went there, gave them the receipt, and they handed me my gun wrapped in paper.

I fought the charge and won, discharged during self defense. The judge said they were still going to destroy my gun. I don't think so bitch. My stupid lawyer told her that I already got it back. She said they shouldn't have given it to me and I had to return it. I said sorry but I already gave it away. She said fine, as long as I wasn't going to be hurting anyone else with it.



Verdammter liberal bi^ch
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 2:50:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SUPERSPORT:
I have some first hand experience in this matter. Some idiot decided to kick in my front door and start shooting at me. ........ The judge said they were still going to destroy my gun. I don't think so bitch. My stupid lawyer told her that I already got it back. She said they shouldn't have given it to me and I had to return it. I said sorry but I already gave it away. She said fine, as long as I wasn't going to be hurting anyone else with it.



Another turd wearing black robes.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 5:50:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By blacklisted:
I don't understand why they need to conduct a "forensic investigation".

"Yes officer, I shot the guy with this gun."

Why isn't it that simple?

What are they investigating? They don't need the gun to determine if you killing the person(s) was lawful. (IMO)



Because you may recant that statement later or claim it was coerced.

They shouldnt be seizing all the guns in what appears to be a lawfull homocide, just the one that was used.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 5:53:54 AM EDT
If you kill someone with your car, your car is impounded. What's the difference? The police are investigating a homicide and want control over the evidence until the case is disposed of.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 5:56:31 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:06:06 AM EDT
Because a cop's job is to collect evidence of a crime. You are considered as much a potential criminal as the cooling body on your floor.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:08:21 AM EDT
The logic of them taking ALL your guns is simple.

Next time they come to your house the only gun that they will need to seize is the one the criminal used on you and yours. It makes investigation so much simpler.

Actually they may feel that they cannot take your word on which gun was used. If it doesn't match up with the rest of forensics and they come back and can't find a match they might assume you've disposed of the real one and maybe because it was a stolen or otherwise illegal weapon etc.....
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:09:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RichinCM:
Because a cop's job is to collect evidence of a crime. You are considered as much a potential criminal as the cooling body on your floor.



all hail our new police overlords
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:09:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:
If you kill someone with your car, your car is impounded. What's the difference? The police are investigating a homicide and want control over the evidence until the case is disposed of.



I think that's apples & oranges because cars can have mechanical defects (either known or unknown) that require impersonal and controlled disassembly, etc. In addition, an automobile accident has no relationship to my self-defense shooting scenario anyway. Please do make your point though, maybe another way?
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:13:53 AM EDT
I have had a buddy in shooting situation at his home. He had a ton of guns lying around. They only took the one involved in the shooting. The rest were left alone. I think the LEOs would need some real evidence that other crimes have been committed before they will take other weapons.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:18:10 AM EDT
Actually, it's really simple, they impound all your weapons so that when the other gang members of the guy you killed or put in the hospital (hope you're not that bad a shot) come back for revenge you'll be un-armed!!
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:19:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RichinCM:
Because a cop's job is to collect evidence of a crime. You are considered as much a potential criminal as the cooling body on your floor.



If that's the reason, then are the cops considering their brother as a potential criminal too? I think my original question is still valid and mandatory confiscation is still illogical.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:19:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/15/2006 6:21:13 AM EDT by pale_pony]
Repeat after me..."Officer(s), I know you are just trying to do your job(s), but I won't be saying anything until my attorney gets here. You have an attorney, the DA, so I should also have mine here just to make sure things don't get confused. Thank you, that's all I have to say for now..."

If you think that you can represent yourself after you just shot someone, I don't give a damn if you have a JD and you are the world's greatest lawyer, justified or unjustified, you have a fool for a client.

Edited to add: Even surgeons don't operate on themselves.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:20:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/15/2006 6:21:40 AM EDT by 4get_No1]

Originally Posted By nightstalker:
The logic of them taking ALL your guns is simple.

Next time they come to your house the only gun that they will need to seize is the one the criminal used on you and yours. It makes investigation so much simpler.

Actually they may feel that they cannot take your word on which gun was used. If it doesn't match up with the rest of forensics and they come back and can't find a match they might assume you've disposed of the real one and maybe because it was a stolen or otherwise illegal weapon etc.....



Well... sort of a good reason except:

"...if the shooter were somehow a bad guy and DID have anything to hide, he would have simply lied and said, "No other weapons here sir". It is unlikely that a full Search Warrant type effort would be undertaken at the moment and, even if forensics eventually shows a mismatch, BG is now in Costa Rica via Holland, Singapore, and several false IDs..."
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:25:16 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:33:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/15/2006 6:35:39 AM EDT by Ring]
what comie police state do u live in... AFAIK they ONLY take then that was shot, not all that u own..
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:50:18 AM EDT
It all depends on the situation. We're going to take all the guns you had access to at the time of the shooting. Only have one gun out of the safe at a time? We're not going to bother.

Where your problem comes in is with those idiots with a gun on every horizontal surface in the house.

Beleive it or not, murderers like to claim self defense. Imagine what happens when the bullet does not match the gun you said you used in the living room, but DOES match the one behind the potted plant in the master bath.

BTW: In my shooting they took my duty gun, my backup, my shotgun, and the spare out of my duty bag. Just like anyone else in my situation, one of my friends lent me his backup until I got home.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 6:56:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SUPERSPORT:
I have some first hand experience in this matter. Some idiot decided to kick in my front door and start shooting at me. And people say I don't need a Mossberg 500 for home protection.

Bad guy went to hospital and I was 'cuffed and stuffed.' After what seemed like hours they came to a conclusion on what to do. I was let go but charged with discharging a firearm within city limits. WTF? They emptied and confiscated my gun. They didn't take any of my other guns or ammo. I was given a receipt and told where I could pick it up. The next day I went there, gave them the receipt, and they handed me my gun wrapped in paper.

I fought the charge and won, discharged during self defense. The judge said they were still going to destroy my gun. I don't think so bitch. My stupid lawyer told her that I already got it back. She said they shouldn't have given it to me and I had to return it. I said sorry but I already gave it away. She said fine, as long as I wasn't going to be hurting anyone else with it.




Sounds like the judge was treating the gun like a bad dog that had bitten someone.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 7:05:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RichinCM:
Because a cop's job is to collect evidence of a crime. You are considered as much a potential criminal as the cooling body on your floor.




True, my dad had a similar experience when he was a victim of a crime. My dad was stashing a bunch of money in his house because he was going through a divorce and feared she would end up with everything he had. His "buddy" {roommate} stole the money one day and made it look like a break-in.

The cops took the report. It took about ten minutes. They then proceeded to grill my dad for the next 45 mins. over the reasons why he had all that money in the house in the first place.

My dad told the cops who did it because the "buddy" immediately disappeared after the incident. They did nothing to investigate the "buddy".

The lesson is: If you call the cops out, they will be looking to arrest someone for something, that includes you.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 7:18:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BangStick1:

Originally Posted By SUPERSPORT:
I have some first hand experience in this matter. Some idiot decided to kick in my front door and start shooting at me. And people say I don't need a Mossberg 500 for home protection.

Bad guy went to hospital and I was 'cuffed and stuffed.' After what seemed like hours they came to a conclusion on what to do. I was let go but charged with discharging a firearm within city limits. WTF? They emptied and confiscated my gun. They didn't take any of my other guns or ammo. I was given a receipt and told where I could pick it up. The next day I went there, gave them the receipt, and they handed me my gun wrapped in paper.

I fought the charge and won, discharged during self defense. The judge said they were still going to destroy my gun. I don't think so bitch. My stupid lawyer told her that I already got it back. She said they shouldn't have given it to me and I had to return it. I said sorry but I already gave it away. She said fine, as long as I wasn't going to be hurting anyone else with it.




Sounds like the judge was treating the gun like a bad dog that had bitten someone.



Well, we all know that those dangerous killer assault weapons can kill upon contact all by themselves. They might have taught your other guns to do this as well!
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 7:22:02 AM EDT
Reading the Kbar, take all the butter knives analogy...

I have heard about the ops cleaning out the gun lockers because of a home defense shooting.

WTF is up with that.

1.) Why tell the cops you have more than what was used in the shooting?
2.) If they say they are taking them don't they have to provide some sort of reason?
3.) What if you refuse? If you get in a car accident they don't tow away all the cars you own for "evidence". It makes about as much sense as any other ridiculous analogy you can come up with.

Sounds like cops overstep the limits of their power by miles...
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 7:24:56 AM EDT
If we were involved in a shooting, they would take your duty weapon, back up weapon, long guns, all mags and ammo available to the officer at the the time.

Link Posted: 1/15/2006 7:26:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 4get_No1:
I know, forensic investigation, but WHY do the lab guys ALWAYS need to have the gun for forensic investigation? Why do they need to impound all available guns and ammo?

to leave you with no means of self defense when his family/friends come for revenge.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 7:52:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
If we were involved in a shooting, they would take your duty weapon, back up weapon, long guns, all mags and ammo available to the officer at the the time.



So do the simply think that's the way it's supposed to be done across the board or is it written somewhere that that's what they're supposed to do?
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 7:54:20 AM EDT
i for one am considering hiding one of my pistols seperately from the rest of my guns. Fuck, maybe those guys burying guns in PVC in their back-yard have a good thing going.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 7:55:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
If we were involved in a shooting, they would take your duty weapon, back up weapon, long guns, all mags and ammo available to the officer at the the time.



So do the simply think that's the way it's supposed to be done across the board or is it written somewhere that that's what they're supposed to do?



SOP
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 8:01:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
If we were involved in a shooting, they would take your duty weapon, back up weapon, long guns, all mags and ammo available to the officer at the the time.



So do the simply think that's the way it's supposed to be done across the board or is it written somewhere that that's what they're supposed to do?



SOP



That the problem Bama. There is no apparent distinction for the LEOs and some of y'all are not disturbed... okay. That's a personal opinion and we all have that. However...

The underlying basis is flawed and illogical. If the shooter does not deserve to be arrested (no evidence to show wrongdoing and no reason for suspicion), then why does his gun need to be impounded? Especially, in some cases, ALL of his guns?
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 8:06:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
If we were involved in a shooting, they would take your duty weapon, back up weapon, long guns, all mags and ammo available to the officer at the the time.



So do the simply think that's the way it's supposed to be done across the board or is it written somewhere that that's what they're supposed to do?



SOP



It goes a little further. IF there are other officers on scene their guns get confscated as well. Also, everyone involved submits to an AA kit. (Gunshot residue test) Let's say you have one officer and three backup units. That means around 12 guns and a bucketload of ammo/mags, each individually tagged and processed.

Oh yeah, the dead guy gets processed too.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 8:09:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 4get_No1:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
If we were involved in a shooting, they would take your duty weapon, back up weapon, long guns, all mags and ammo available to the officer at the the time.



So do the simply think that's the way it's supposed to be done across the board or is it written somewhere that that's what they're supposed to do?



SOP



That the problem Bama. There is no apparent distinction for the LEOs and some of y'all are not disturbed... okay. That's a personal opinion and we all have that. However...

The underlying basis is flawed and illogical. If the shooter does not deserve to be arrested (no evidence to show wrongdoing and no reason for suspicion), then why does his gun need to be impounded? Especially, in some cases, ALL of his guns?



Even if a shoot looks from the beginning to be a good shoot they are still going to ivestigate it.

Also there have been cases in the past where the gun that was turned in was not the shooters actual weapon. So I guess over time they just started taking all the guns to make sure they have the right one, cops and regular Joe Blow included.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 8:10:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/15/2006 8:18:27 AM EDT by Johninaustin]

Originally Posted By 4get_No1:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
If we were involved in a shooting, they would take your duty weapon, back up weapon, long guns, all mags and ammo available to the officer at the the time.



So do the simply think that's the way it's supposed to be done across the board or is it written somewhere that that's what they're supposed to do?



SOP



That the problem Bama. There is no apparent distinction for the LEOs and some of y'all are not disturbed... okay. That's a personal opinion and we all have that. However...

The underlying basis is flawed and illogical. If the shooter does not deserve to be arrested (no evidence to show wrongdoing and no reason for suspicion), then why does his gun need to be impounded? Especially, in some cases, ALL of his guns?



Because what seems apparent at first may not be once you start looking into it. If your "obvious self-defense shoot" after interviewing the neighbors/co-workers turns into "lover's quarrel/homicide" it's a little late to go back and ask for the evidence.

You see, investigations are not handled the way most folks outside the profession think.

Most people make a supposition in the beginning. "It's a good shoot" They will then seek evidence to support that supposition.

The police are going to collect all the evidence FIRST. Then make a decision based on the evidence. "Good shoot/bad shoot" is the LAST step in the process.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 8:12:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RichinCM:
Because a cop's job is to collect evidence of a crime. You are considered as much a potential criminal as the cooling body on your floor.

Link Posted: 1/15/2006 8:16:05 AM EDT
Investigators take the weapon used and other weapons to determine what weapon was used. Some people aren't honest.

Let's say, someone has a stolen .44mag handgun. They defend themselves with the .44mag and hand over a legally owned .22cal automatic to the investigator as the weapon used. Or you don't want your .44 mag taken as evidence so you hand them the .22cal.

Ballistic tests would be all screwed up.



_______________________



Link Posted: 1/15/2006 8:23:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/15/2006 8:31:20 AM EDT by 4get_No1]

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
Because what seems apparent at first may not be once you start looking into it. If your "obvious self-defense shoot" after interviewing the neighbors/co-workers turns into "lover's quarrel/homicide" it's a little late to go back and ask for the evidence.

You see, investigations are not handled the way most folks outside the profession think.

Most people make a supposition in the beginning. "It's a good shoot" They will then seek evidence to support that supposition.

The police are going to collect all the evidence FIRST. Then make a decision based on the evidence. "Good shoot/bad shoot" is the LAST step in the process.




Originally Posted By Colt_SBR:
Investigators take the weapon used and other weapons to determine what weapon was used. Some people aren't honest.

Let's say, someone has a stolen .44mag handgun. They defend themselves with the .44mag and hand over a legally owned .22cal automatic to the investigator as the weapon used. Or you don't want your .44 mag taken as evidence so you hand them the .22cal.

Ballistic tests would be all screwed up.



Mmmmmm... Now you guys have me thinking.

ETA: I'm still not convinced guys. What's wrong with a "take the S/N and some sample ammo" approach? If it looks like a good shoot at the beginning you wouldn't have arrested the shooter anyway and would have enough evidence to show a need to impound the gun and perhaps arrest later (if the shooter doesn't run and that's a potential either way).
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 8:58:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 4get_No1:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
Because what seems apparent at first may not be once you start looking into it. If your "obvious self-defense shoot" after interviewing the neighbors/co-workers turns into "lover's quarrel/homicide" it's a little late to go back and ask for the evidence.

You see, investigations are not handled the way most folks outside the profession think.

Most people make a supposition in the beginning. "It's a good shoot" They will then seek evidence to support that supposition.

The police are going to collect all the evidence FIRST. Then make a decision based on the evidence. "Good shoot/bad shoot" is the LAST step in the process.




Originally Posted By Colt_SBR:
Investigators take the weapon used and other weapons to determine what weapon was used. Some people aren't honest.

Let's say, someone has a stolen .44mag handgun. They defend themselves with the .44mag and hand over a legally owned .22cal automatic to the investigator as the weapon used. Or you don't want your .44 mag taken as evidence so you hand them the .22cal.

Ballistic tests would be all screwed up.



Mmmmmm... Now you guys have me thinking.

ETA: I'm still not convinced guys. What's wrong with a "take the S/N and some sample ammo" approach? If it looks like a good shoot at the beginning you wouldn't have arrested the shooter anyway and would have enough evidence to show a need to impound the gun and perhaps arrest later (if the shooter doesn't run and that's a potential either way).



The tool markings guy is going to have a hell of a time test-firing a serial number. Also, guns can be altered after the fact. (Same way with cars. That's why we impound them after a DWI collision) I actually caught a lawyer once helping his girlfriend clean off the blood and hide her vehicle under a blue tarp in his back yard.

I've impounded front doors, microwaves, pool cues, a canoe, and a can of turkey gravy for the same reasons.

BTW: Whether the shooter is arrested or not has no bearing at all on what guns are taken as evidence.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 9:47:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/15/2006 10:03:18 AM EDT by 4get_No1]
Maybe we're getting to the point now John. Why must the gun be test fired if there is no reason to think it was a bad shoot? To capture a "fingerprint" of the gun regardless?

ETA: Dumb question - they can have those of the LEO's guns anytime they want anyway so that's not it. ETA2 ...since LEO's guns get confiscated too.

I'm still struggling with how confiscating the gun(s) but not needing to arrest the shooter helps. Good guys loose and bad guys could run anyway - okay - put the gun in jail?

ETA3: Regarding modification, wouldn't that guarantee a good guy shooter would thereby become a bad guy? The gun he claimed was used would then not match.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top