No offense, but that has to be the stupidest idea I’ve seen here in a while. Bone did a fine job explaining the legal possibilities so I wont bother. Here’s some advice though, if you find a weapon on the street, do like the NRA’s Eddie Eagle says:
Stop
Don’t Touch
Leave the Area
Tell an adult
The last thing you want is to get caught with a potential murder weapon on your way home or the cop shop. In either case, have fun proving to the fuzz that the weapon in your possession is not yours.
Except this isn’t a gun rights case. Had she broken in and taken all his booze because she “knew” he was going to drink and drive and kill someone it would still be a burglary, not self defense.
There is no way of knowing how many guns the guy owns. He could have some in other locations, guns he stole, guns he borrowed, guns he bought via private sale. She only took what she knew he had and where she found them. It’s impossible to know if he had more somewhere else which makes her entire operation pointless.
I live across the street from an elementary school. I am sure as hell not going to leave the area for the kids to find it. Good idea to pick it up with a cloth, though. And I’m no too worried about being accused of murder, being white and all.
Bottom line, you are fine with someone removing a gun from a dangerous place being charged .
I’m not asking if it is legally possible to be charged - just whether you think the DA should do so.
Now if I had heard shots outside and found the gun, I wouldn’t touch it. But that’s not the scenario here.
Yes, if she was worried he’d kill someone else it wouldn’t be self defense.
She was married to him, so I think she might have had some clue.
Notice I said nothing about assault weapon - I just said weapon. My scenario works fine with a pistol too.
Self defense includes defense of others. This case was not self defense.
It is entirely possible, nay, probable, that he had guns she didn’t know about or in places she didn’t look. This is her estranged husband. I’m sure she is clueless about a lot of things. If this guy is the danger she thinks he is, all she had to do was miss one and the whole thing is pointless.
I don’t know if your credo applies to everyone, but the law does. Self-defense requires an imminent threat. If your husband is in jail, he isn’t an imminent threat.
Regards,
Shodan
From what she said, the local police did not always actually follow the law and confiscate guns as they should in a case of this sort where violence had occurred and weapons should be taken. So she did it to make sure it got done and she didn’t get killed. And there is NO WAY she should have been charged with being armed when she technically burgled his apartment since she was NOT armed when she broke in. That is ridiculous.
Actually, I think this applies perfectly. She chose to go to court and be tried for a crime rather then risk being killed. Since there is no stand your ground exception to burglary she should go to jail but she can probably convince at least one to nullify either way she should be judged by 12.
I’m still confused why she didn’t steal his car or wasn’t worried about him renting a car and running her down since that was his MO.
.
No it isn’t. If a burglar is in possession of a weapon at any time during a burglary it becomes armed burglary. Repeat burglars routinely go in unarmed, get a knife or other weapon while inside, then ditch the weapon on the way out. The moment they take possession of a weapon it becomes armed burglary.
That’s the law.
Ah yes: if you can’t deal with every possible scenario, it isn’t worth doing, right? We can’t solve all poverty, so minimum wage laws make no sense, right? We’ll never eradicate every disease so vaccinations are stupid, right? This lady shouldn’t have done anything because there was no way she could possibly eliminate all the ways her husband might kill her, right? :rolleyes:
No, she shouldn’t have broken into her husband’s place and stolen the guns, because her husband was in jail and posed no imminent risk of killing her or anyone else.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s exactly my point. Had this been about someone killing a threatening person, she’d be a Second Amendment hero.
Cite?
Sounds to me like he was released on bail after one day in jail. She attended his bond hearing, knew he was being released, and then went to his house.
Right. She should have waited until he was out of jail so he could have shot her when she went to his apartment to take his guns. :rolleyes:
To use a self-defense argument, you do actually have to point to an actual, imminent threat. And again, he hit her car with his. Why didn’t she steal his car?
Regards,
Shodan
Correct. However, since nobody was killed, and there was no imminent threat, she isn’t.
Also correct.
She stole his guns while he was still in police custody. Self-defense requires an imminent threat. People who are still in police custody are not an imminent threat.
If she had proactively shot her husband with one of the guns, would you support that as a case of self-defense? After all, he might attack her. You can’t be too careful!
Regards,
Shodan
<check forum>
Shodan, would you stop being a disingenuous bad hombre, please ? It’s not funny, it’s not clever, it’s certainly not convincing, and it doesn’t trigger the libs. It causes muscle strain from all the eye-rolling at best.
Except that shooting someone is an irrevocable act. Turning their property over to the police (which the police were ordered to seize anyway) is a different matter.
We can surely agree that if she was under the threat of grave and imminent harm, she would be legally and morally justified in killing him. In your opinion, is there any circumstance under which she would be legally and morally justified in stealing his guns?
I won’t pretend to answer for Shodan but I can say for myself that I can’t think of any non-contrived situation where I think theft is moral. I mean you could put something together where he was actively shooting and dropped his weapon and she grabbed it and ran off but outside of weird scenarios like that, theft much like rape is never moral. Assault, murder or kidnapping are crimes I can come up with ways to make them moral.
Of course in thinking about the morality of theft I started thinking about Robin Hood type thefts but I think that makes a better story then reality and I think overthrowing the system (violence) is the morally correct action not theft.
Sure. If there were an imminent grave threat, she would be morally and (probably) legally justified in stealing his guns as well as shooting him. But that’s kind of the point - actions which are justifiable under imminent threat are not justifiable when there is no imminent threat.
Murder is worse than burglary, but there is no such thing as proactive self-defense. You can’t kill someone, or rob someone, or assault someone, because you believe he might possibly pose a threat to you at some time in the future. Voyager mentions that he lives near a school. Guns shouldn’t be in the hands of children - we all agree on that. But that doesn’t give anyone the right to go into houses near a school and steal the guns and turn them over to the cops because you are afraid that the homeowners might leave the gun unattended sometime and kids could get hurt.
Regards,
Shodan