Joseph and Courtney Irby had gone to the courthouse to negotiate their divorce. As they were leaving, words were exchanged. This escalated until Joseph rammed Courtney’s car several times, eventually running her off the road. He was arrested and taken to jail for one day. Courtney immediately got a restraining order against him based on this incident.
While he was in jail, Courtney broke into his apartment, took his collection of guns and gave them to police, fearing Joseph would use them to threaten, harm or kill her.
Police arrested Courtney for armed burglary and she subsequently spent 6 days in jail.
IMO this was justified vigilantism and Courtney had every right to protect herself. For the State to prosecute this crime would be a miscarriage of justice, IMO.
What say y’all?
And of course, for those who don’t agree that Courtney’s actions were justified, in your opinion are there any times when contravening the law is appropriate?
Does Florida have a law allowing someone to request guns from a potentially dangerous person be confiscated? If not (and I’m guessing not) then what she did was totally justified. It would be best to report them to the police, but absent the law they wouldn’t have any justification in taking them. And promises of protection haven’t seemed to be very effective.
BTW, if they were still legally married I’d wonder about whether there is a case for her having access to his place.
If I were on a jury, this woman would walk.
I would need more information to have a strong opinion. But, at the very least, “armed burglary” doesn’t seem to make any sense because presumably at the point of the burglary (the act of entering the premises to commit an offense) she wasn’t armed and while the statute seems to reference “becom[ing] armed” while in the dwelling, it doesn’t seem like that should include stealing firearms.
I also can’t imagine charging this case or, if I did, having her arrested pre-indictment.
Substantively, the articles I skimmed indicated that the ex-husband was released (or going to be released) with a requirement that he surrender his guns to the police; the ex-wife decided (on her own and before he was released) that he would not do that; so she went and took them. I’d probably want to know more to know if the theft was “justified” but I certainly don’t think it makes sense to prosecute it.
Falchion, would your views on whether “armed burglary” applied if it was a gang that broke into a gun store for the express purpose of arming themselves before going off to rob a bank?
Good question. For me, the answer is probably that it’s the same. Burglary focuses on the entering of the premises to commit the offense. So to me, the “armed” ought to relate to the specific burglary being charged. (You might also be able to charge conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery… perhaps even an attempt).
That said, a very short Google search tells me that Florida has held that “the theft of a loaded gun while committing a burglary suffices to enhance the crime to armed burglary” (Hardee v. State), so I’m wrong as a matter of Florida law at least.
Ah, Florida. Where this woman gets arrested for armed robbery, and the police probably told her that the right way to avoid being murdered by an angry ex-spouse is to get her own gun and pray that her aim is more true than his at 3 o’clock in the morning.
If the OP is asking about legalities, then IANAL and don’t know. But if he is asking about moralities here then yes I think it is well justified vigilantism. The law cannot and does not suffice in all situations. Sometimes you have to do what is necessary outside of the law, should there be more pressing safety or other well being interest at stake. (Just don’t make a habit out of it, ideally)
I mean, I understand the lady was scared and scared people don’t make the most rational actors ; but what’s to stop hubby dearest from going out and buying eleventy shotguns the next day no questions asked, this being Florida and all ?
A domestic violence restraining order in theory, and by the law, prevents passing a federal background check to buy a gun while it’s in force. As a practical matter, that requires that it’s been reported by the state to the database used in the check. There can be issues with that reporting actually happening and timeliness.
IANAL so I’m not going to comment on her status under Florida law. With that being said, any prosecutor wishing to advance criminal charges against her deserves a thorough and extended public scathing. Legal/not legal is not the sum total of correct or justifiable behavior.
Assault with a deadly weapon is a crime, but warranted her husband only a day in jail (presumably awaiting trial). By this measure, she should have been in jail for no more than, hmm, 8 hours.
Given the reaction of the police to her turning the guns into them, not much I bet. They could not break into his place to get the guns, and given that he had an assault rifle, and was shown to be irrational by ramming her car, why would police risk their lives to take his guns away.
The cream of the link is this:
In other words, gun loving scum think it is just dandy if this guy keeps his guns. And would no doubt blame her if he killed her.
Let’s put it this way. Say some nut waves a gun at you and threatens to kill you. Then for some reason he puts it down, on his property, and goes off for a second.
You take the gun and bring it to the police to report him.
Should you be put in jail. Or should you just hope he doesn’t kill you?