A Significant Failure in the Victim Selection Process

… seems to be a bit of an understatement.

Thugs Try Brazen Robbery, Get Shot by 3 Workers, Each with their own gun

Nice! I expect they needed new underwear after that little fiasco.

END OF LINE

Leave a comment

5 Comments

  1. steve

     /  January 26, 2014

    First off, I like the fact that people defend themselves with an equal or superior amount of force that ‘” they ”’ themselves are being threatened with – but I do not care for the fact that after the self defensive shots are taken they no longer have those weapons in their possession; the police now have them as ” evidence “. I have always found that to be inherently wrong, now, they will give you some sort of song and dance reason for it – citing crap like ” needing it for a ballistics conformation ” but, there really is NO reason why YOUR weapon should be taken away from you for any time period longer then 30 seconds. I hope, I articulated this point well enough . :)

    Reply
    • While I don’t necessarily disagree, I can see how in this type of case it is necessary. They do have to at least get ballistics tests on the guns used, so that when one of the bad guys shows up at the hospital with a GSW, matching the bullet to the gun gives positive proof that he was involved (unless he wants to try arguing that the owner shot him somewhere else). Ballistics testing can’t be done in the field, and the chain of custody needs to be preserved for trial.

      Innocent until proven guilty, after all, even for the bad guys.

      There does need to be some system for someone in a DGU situation to get a “loaner” gun, or something, so that someone with only one CCW-suitable pistol isn’t left disarmed in the meantime.

      Reply
  2. steve

     /  January 26, 2014

    And I don’t necessarily disagree with you – in fact, I think the loaner solution you present is an idea worth exploring, so long as the loaner is comparable to the one seized in caliber, weight, velocity & ease of use ( familiarity with a weapon is important ). I see a weapon being seized should the perp. decide to go to the hospital to be an act much like putting the cart before the horse, When a GSW who fits the description perp. comes into the hospital then the gun should be relinquished in conjunction with your loaner idea – assuming the victim wants a conviction.

    Reply
    • Unfortunately, that runs into the “chain of custody” issue. Any decent defense lawyer will tear the connection apart if the gun’s whereabouts, and what might have been done with it, are not clearly accounted for. Plus, the defendant must have the opportunity to have the evidence evaluated by his own experts before trial. If the gun gets fired again before that happens (say there’s another robbery the next day), it could change the “fingerprint” enough to render that evidence useless. So can cleaning it.

      To protect both the victim and the accused, the evidence must be preserved. This means proper accounting of who had it when and where, and what (if anything) was done to it to evaluate it. Holding the gun used in a DGU for this purpose is a legitimate exercise of .gov power (since punishing strongarm robbery is inarguably a legitimate purpose of government). The problem is doing so in a manner that doesn’t force the victim to spend their own money if they don’t want to remain disarmed.

      Reply
  3. Steve

     /  January 27, 2014

    And people wonder what I mean when I say there is no common sense or fairness in the Justice system – it gets clogged ( BY DESIGN ) up with the details of convoluted legality – it is not blind, the more money you have, the clearer the glasses the judges wear. But, getting back to the subject of your initial post, I guess your loaner idea would be the best ”immediate” remedy to my concern. Oh, and one other thing I forgot to mention in the prior post of mine is that they would also have to allow me to fire a blank shell from it, just so I could check to make sure the firing pin wasn’t taken out of it. I am not much for trusting law enforcements motives, and yes, I am well aware that there is probably a law which forbids discharging a weapon within city limits ( I don’t know where you are, but most every city in the country has one ) – but ” oh well ” we do not exist to serve them and their protocols !

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers

%d bloggers like this: