Stolen gun returned to owner with warning note

[Seldom Seen #16162]

I hope Jackknife is just enjoying yanking chains here.

 

I mean if he isn't and is truly serious well...

[Blastmaster]

Two wrongs do not make a right!

 

It was not stated if the firearm was hidden or not in the unlocked car. Firearm should still be secured but 'if' firearm was out of sight, then that does shed a different light and judgement on this case.

[Jacknife]

I hope Jackknife is just enjoying yanking chains here.

 

I mean if he isn't and is truly serious well...

 

Just for the record SS, I am not yanking chains, and am serious as a heart attack. I'll just let it go at that for the time being.

[Big Jake1001]

Two wrongs do not make a right!

 

 

You are right about that. I know that 3 Lefts make a right.

 

Jake

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

So if I leave a claw hammer in the bed of my pickup and some one uses it to bash someone elses head in, It is my fault? And "guilty of some form of reckless endangerment, or something similar?" Let's get real here.

 

Exactly my point. Remember this is law not common sense.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

So if I leave a claw hammer in the bed of my pickup and some one uses it to bash someone elses head in, It is my fault? And "guilty of some form of reckless endangerment, or something similar?" Let's get real here.

 

SOOoooooooooo, in you 'mind', a hammer laying in the back of a truck, and a gun INSIDE the car are the same

Don't think ANY jury will "buy" that

LG

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

Yes, it's called illegal entry, burglary and grand theft.

 

 

Perhaps.

But doesn't grand theft ordinarily require the item to be removed from the premises.

And isn't burglary normally associated with entering a house or building?

This event allegedly took place outside.

 

I would think it would be trespass. Yet the land rights in many states permits people to cross over other folks property without trespassing.

Check your law in ALL 50 states. And isn't trespass in some states premised upon it being POSTED not just presumed.

 

If it weren't for the note about it being an unlocked car one could argue that the knife and gun were on the ground.

I think they call that an attractive nuisance. So blame once again goes to the gun owner.

[Utah Bob #35998]

I can't imagine any gun owner on this forum not realizing that with ownership comes a responsibility to ensure that firearms are either in his possession or well secured. Seems like a no brainer to me.

This is not 1850 or even 1950.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

GT in Ca. depends on the value.

ANY firearm theft is GT in Ca.

LG

[Korupt Karl]

I can't imagine any gun owner on this forum not realizing that with ownership comes a responsibility to ensure that firearms are either in his possession or well secured. Seems like a no brainer to me.

This is not 1850 or even 1950.

 

UB; You always just cut through the crap to make my point. It's your gift....Thanks....KK

[Blastmaster]

You are right about that. I know that 3 Lefts make a right.

 

Jake

 

Only if the sum of the 3 lefts equals 360 minus the right

[Blastmaster]

I can't imagine any gun owner on this forum not realizing that with ownership comes a responsibility to ensure that firearms are either in his possession or well secured. Seems like a no brainer to me.

This is not 1850 or even 1950.

 

Example of your not on person but 'well secured' methods? For this discussion, away from home.

 

Whole locked cars/truck with contents in trunk have been taken from motel parking lots.

 

Everyone on this forum goes to matches with an arm load of firearms and ammo, then stops on the way to shop or go into a restraunt. Of course, lock the doors. and keep out of sight but that really isn't well secured if the perp knows what you have.

 

Transporting firearms in a PU with camper shell is at best concealment of firearms in vehicle. One could get one of those steel PU bed sliding gun vaults that fit in the bed of the trunk .

[Blastmaster]

Perhaps.

But doesn't grand theft ordinarily require the item to be removed from the premises.

 

I believe a person would be charged with burglary if he had all the items (TV,jewlry, guns, money, computer, gold, silver) laying in the middle of a sheet in the living room of the home, and was caught before exiting home. Some will have to define 'grand theft' to me.

 

And isn't burglary normally associated with entering a house or building?

This event allegedly took place outside.

 

Look up burglary. Generally you are correct, needs to occur at dwelling where people sleep. One definition I just read includes out buildings and yards of the dwelling in which people occupy or sleep in. For a homeless person that lives in their car, I suppose the would be their dwelling.

 

'Breaking' and 'Entry': "Breaking" in to dwelling is anything other than walking/crawling through an existing open door/window. Opening an unlocked door consitutes breaking in. If Perp kicks door open and his foot momentaryly enters the dwelling, then he has qualified for the entry portion of the term.

 

For this discussion, it appears to me, by definitions I just found, the perp burglarized( breaking and entering dwelling) the owners property (opened unlocked car door in yard of dwelling used for sleeping is 'breaking in' and any part of his body 'entered' into the vehicle, which was in the yard of the dwelling.

 

I would think it would be trespass. Yet the land rights in many states permits people to cross over other folks property without trespassing.

Check your law in ALL 50 states. And isn't trespass in some states premised upon it being POSTED not just presumed.

 

Look up definiton of trespassing, I didn't see your point of view in the defintion I read.

 

If it weren't for the note about it being an unlocked car one could argue that the knife and gun were on the ground.

I think they call that an attractive nuisance. So blame once again goes to the gun owner.

 

Disagree, The only crime was committed by the person breaking&entering vechile in yard of owner. It was poor judgement for owner to leave valuable with easy access. The valuable item could as easly been a cell phone/purse/wallet/briefcase or bag of groceries.

 

 

Edit:

 

Grand theft or grand larceny is a category used to rank the severity of crime associated with theft.

 

Generally, in the United States it is defined as intentional taking property of others in an amount exceeding the state statutory amount.[1]

 

 

Florida"In general, any property taken that carries a value of more than $300 can be considered grand theft in certain circumstances..."[4]

I would think a S&W M&P or Glock pistols value would exceed $300 in this case.

[Rooster Ron Wayne]

Some people take care of things them self

 

Some people sue and make greedy lawyers more money

 

Some people dial 911

 

Some people dial 357

 

The main issue is dont leave a gun in a unlocked car.

 

The other issue is dont touch shit that dont belong to you

 

The other issue is most armed citizens dont dial 911

[Blastmaster]

locked car + brick or rock = unlocked car

 

 

Just saying.

[Jacknife]

locked car + brick or rock = unlocked car

 

 

Just saying.

 

Yep, once watched a 14 year old car thief get into a locked Monte Carlo and have the engine turning over to start in 18 seconds from the time he touched the car. Armed with nothing but a screwdriver. I had the keys in my pocket. Locks don't mean a thing to a thief.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

I can't imagine any gun owner on this forum not realizing that with ownership comes a responsibility to ensure that firearms are either in his possession or well secured. Seems like a no brainer to me.

This is not 1850 or even 1950.

 

Yup

 

GG

[Hawkshaw Fred SASS #36811]

Yes, TEXAS Law does state a firearm must not be left where children may gain access to it (legally phrased) BUT It ALSO provides as exception if the firearm was gained in an unlawful manner (Does the term BURGLARY of a VEHICLE mean anything to anyone here---and NO it does not have to be locked to be burglary). No different than leaving a gun on your bedside table and your back door unlocked and someone entering your house and taking it. TEXAS Law also provides that you can use deadly force to prevent burglary or criminal mischief during the nighttime (such as someone entering your car). I don't recommend or condone leaving a gun in a vehicle locked or not but the BURGLAR (neighbor) is the one who is at fault here. As a Captain I worked under for many years often said we can "What If" a situation to death but what WE deal with are facts. The fact is the neighbor committed a criminal act.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Yes, TEXAS Law does state a firearm must not be left where children may gain access to it (legally phrased) BUT It ALSO provides as exception if the firearm was gained in an unlawful manner (Does the term BURGLARY of a VEHICLE mean anything to anyone here---and NO it does not have to be locked to be burglary). No different than leaving a gun on your bedside table and your back door unlocked and someone entering your house and taking it. TEXAS Law also provides that you can use deadly force to prevent burglary or criminal mischief during the nighttime (such as someone entering your car). I don't recommend or condone leaving a gun in a vehicle locked or not but the BURGLAR (neighbor) is the one who is at fault here. As a Captain I worked under for many years often said we can "What If" a situation to death but what WE deal with are facts. The fact is the neighbor committed a criminal act.

 

Yup - and usually criminals don't care if they break the law.....negligence on the owner - criminal act on the neighbor.

 

GG ~

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

Question I have for you guys is this;

If you were on the jury and this case came to you and the charge was burglary of a motor vehicle would you convict?

 

 

There are more important things than the letter of the law.

One is right and wrong.

Leaving a loaded firearm accessible by anybody other than the owner ie in an unlocked car is plain wrong and stupid.

There may not be a law against it but it is still WRONG!

 

While removing the loaded firearm from the vehicle may not have been bright, it was an attempt to fix what could have become a very bad situation.

So in that sense it was a good act. After all the gun was not purloined. It was left on the owners doorstep. No real proof it ever left the owners land.

[Alpo]

Would I vote to convict?

 

In a heartbeat.

 

Most likely the only one that would NOT vote for conviction, of someone that OPENED AND ENTERED A VEHICLE NOT THEIR OWN, AND REMOVED PROPERTY FROM IT, on a charge of Burglary of a Vehicle, is someone that has never had anything stolen.

 

Hopefully he will be found and convicted, and will spend the next ten years thinking about how stupid he was.

 

10-20-Life. Felony with a firearm. 10 years mandatory, no possibility of parole.

[Seldom Seen #16162]

Good idea. Let's teach him a lesson.

 

Of course since we are trying up a bed in prison I guess we'll have to let the rapist go.

[Utah Bob #35998]

Example of your not on person but 'well secured' methods? For this discussion, away from home.

 

Whole locked cars/truck with contents in trunk have been taken from motel parking lots.

 

Everyone on this forum goes to matches with an arm load of firearms and ammo, then stops on the way to shop or go into a restraunt. Of course, lock the doors. and keep out of sight but that really isn't well secured if the perp knows what you have.

 

Transporting firearms in a PU with camper shell is at best concealment of firearms in vehicle. One could get one of those steel PU bed sliding gun vaults that fit in the bed of the trunk .

 

By well secured I meant out of sight in a locked vehicle. Obviously no method is perfect. Yes vehicles can be stolen. Even safes have been stolen from homes. I try not to eat at places that don't have a view of the parking lot and my vehicle. I've done a lot of drive-thru dining while traveling so I did not have to leave my guns.

I think that's being responsibly responsible.

The courts look at liability using the "reasonable man" (I guess it's reasonable Person these days) construct. Was I acting as a reasonable man when I left my guns locked out of sight in my vehicle and they, or the vehicle, were stolen and used in a murder? Different state laws may also come into play as to required storing of firearms.

 

Leaving guns in sight in an unlocked car is neither responsible, reasonable, nor smart if you ask me. I believe most juries in a negligence case would vote the same way.

 

One could be ultra responsible and buy a surplus Brinks truck I suppose, but the fuel costs might be prohibitive.

[Captain Bill Burt]

Question I have for you guys is this;

If you were on the jury and this case came to you and the charge was burglary of a motor vehicle would you convict?

 

 

There are more important things than the letter of the law.

One is right and wrong.

Leaving a loaded firearm accessible by anybody other than the owner ie in an unlocked car is plain wrong and stupid.

There may not be a law against it but it is still WRONG!

 

While removing the loaded firearm from the vehicle may not have been bright, it was an attempt to fix what could have become a very bad situation.

So in that sense it was a good act. After all the gun was not purloined. It was left on the owners doorstep. No real proof it ever left the owners land.

 

Yes I would convict. He stepped onto another person's property, he then entered that person's car where he took their property and tampered with it. If all he was concerned with was safety he could have simply locked the car door. Why was he on the property in the first place? The story doesn't lead me to believe he was trying to fix a bad situation, it looks more like he was trying to teach a lesson, therefore he should in turn learn one himself: don't trespass and tamper with other people's property or you go to jail.

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

If the ones that responded so far to my question of convict or not are any indication of the potential jury pool in this country.

It is no wonder that our justice system is failing in a major way.

Teach a person who was trying to correct a bad situation a lesson.

Where was the CRIMINAL INTENT? Nowhere to be found.

Where is justice? The wrong doer here is really the owner of the gun who failed to keep it secure.

 

What would I do? I would NOT vote to convict.

There are higher principles involved here.

 

If the note was not written there would be no evidence of anykind.

 

By the by, is it possible the note was written by the gun owner to cover up his losing his firearm.

Was there a REAL witness who saw the gun being removed from its alleged location?

Not according to the article associated with the OP.

According to the article there is no indication that;

The gun was actually in the car, the owner said so no evidence.

There is no evidence that the gun was loaded, the owner said so.

There is no evidence that the gun was actually moved. The owner said it was.

 

If this is not a work of fiction, I hope the cops never find the one that removed the gun. If it was really in the car.

 

Remember that the owner of the gun said himself that he learned a lesson from all this.

Perhaps that should be the end of it. As far as I am concerned short of a persons confession it probably will be.

[The Shoer 27979]

If the ones that responded so far to my question of convict or not are any indication of the potential jury pool in this country.

It is no wonder that our justice system is failing in a major way.

Teach a person who was trying to correct a bad situation a lesson.

Where was the CRIMINAL INTENT? Nowhere to be found.

Where is justice? The wrong doer here is really the owner of the gun who failed to keep it secure.

 

What would I do? I would NOT vote to convict.

There are higher principles involved here.

 

If the note was not written there would be no evidence of anykind.

 

By the by, is it possible the note was written by the gun owner to cover up his losing his firearm.

Was there a REAL witness who saw the gun being removed from its alleged location?

Not according to the article associated with the OP.

According to the article there is no indication that;

The gun was actually in the car, the owner said so no evidence.

There is no evidence that the gun was loaded, the owner said so.

There is no evidence that the gun was actually moved. The owner said it was.

 

If this is not a work of fiction, I hope the cops never find the one that removed the gun. If it was really in the car.

 

Remember that the owner of the gun said himself that he learned a lesson from all this.

Perhaps that should be the end of it. As far as I am concerned short of a persons confession it probably will be.

 

I would convict for 3 reason Hacker.

The Teacher had 3 choices before he entered and took the gun out of the car, he could have gone to the door and told the owner to secure his gun, the Teacher could have covered the gun (if it was in sight) and lock the door, or called the cops and reported an unsecured gun. All 3 of those would have been better then taking a gun out of someones car

[Alpo]

What does "intent" have to do with anything?

 

"Your Honor, my intent was to celebrate the 4th of July by firing my gun into the air. I did not intend to kill that little girl".

 

Oh, well in that case, go on home. Sorry for arresting you?

 

 

That the way it's supposed to work?

[Korupt Karl]

This is my last post on this subject. I think, with a few exceptions, that we all agree leaving a gun in plain site in an unattended, unlocked car is irresponsible and in my eyes just plain stupid. Regardless of how things should be in a perfect world....in today's world there are too many people that were not raised with the same standards as most of us.

 

If you think that this is responsible, go ahead and do it. Should something happen involving this gun, outside your hands, then you have to ask "would a jury of 12 agree with what I did?" As for me, I've already answered that question and as always, my guns are either properly secured or they are on my person.

 

Just my too scents....

 

KK

[Jacknife]

---- and told the owner to secure his gun, the Teacher could have covered the gun (if it was in sight) and lock the door, or called the cops and reported an unsecured gun.

 

Or just stay the hell out of MY driveway at MY house and leave MY car alone. This is MY property and YOU do NOT belong here. I can just imagine the cops telling the owner to cover or remove the gun in this instance. None of their business.

[Blastmaster]

By well secured I meant out of sight in a locked vehicle. Obviously no method is perfect. Yes vehicles can be stolen. Even safes have been stolen from homes. I try not to eat at places that don't have a view of the parking lot and my vehicle. I've done a lot of drive-thru dining while traveling so I did not have to leave my guns.

I think that's being responsibly responsible.

The courts look at liability using the "reasonable man" (I guess it's reasonable Person these days) construct. Was I acting as a reasonable man when I left my guns locked out of sight in my vehicle and they, or the vehicle, were stolen and used in a murder? Different state laws may also come into play as to required storing of firearms.

 

Leaving guns in sight in an unlocked car is neither responsible, reasonable, nor smart if you ask me. I believe most juries in a negligence case would vote the same way.

 

One could be ultra responsible and buy a surplus Brinks truck I suppose, but the fuel costs might be prohibitive.

 

Good enough definition of 'well secured' of a firearm in a vehicle. I can most definitely agree with that. I have also eaten at places where I could see the car. Goodness, there is always a situation where you just can not do that, and I try not to be to long in the store, or choose my parking place as wisely as possible.

 

I have really wrestled with securing a boat load of main match and backup firearms while attending an away SASS event. Most interesting situation was four of us wheeling a luggage cart chuck full of cased firearms through the lobby of a Vegas Hotel to our rooms. That raised eyebrows. We didn't leave our rooms after getting there either.

[Blastmaster]

This is my last post on this subject. I think, with a few exceptions, that we all agree leaving a gun in plain site in an unattended, unlocked car is irresponsible and in my eyes just plain stupid.

 

I totallly agree, but how about gun out of sight and for whatever reason, a door didn't get locked? The Perp had no right to pillage through another persons car/house. I had a truck with electric locks and the passanger door lock was broken for who knows how long before I, the only person using the truck, discovered the lock broken. Yes, I keep my firearm out of sight if I have to leave the vechile, but there was a case where gun was out of sight but entry into truck was there.

 

 

Regardless of how things should be in a perfect world....in today's world there are too many people that were not raised with the same standards as most of us.

 

If you think that this is responsible, go ahead and do it. Should something happen involving this gun, outside your hands, then you have to ask "would a jury of 12 agree with what I did?" As for me, I've already answered that question and as always, my guns are either properly secured or they are on my person.

 

Just my too scents....

 

KK

[Utah Bob #35998]

Question I have for you guys is this;

If you were on the jury and this case came to you and the charge was burglary of a motor vehicle would you convict?

 

 

There are more important things than the letter of the law.

One is right and wrong.

Leaving a loaded firearm accessible by anybody other than the owner ie in an unlocked car is plain wrong and stupid.

There may not be a law against it but it is still WRONG!

 

While removing the loaded firearm from the vehicle may not have been bright, it was an attempt to fix what could have become a very bad situation.

So in that sense it was a good act. After all the gun was not purloined. It was left on the owners doorstep. No real proof it ever left the owners land.

 

Totally hypothetical. No prosecutor in his right mind would go to court on this if there was no damage, injuries or criminal intent.

Intent is a necessary element in a criminal trial.

You don't have to prove intent in a traffic citation but you do in a crime.

Without that element, there is no conviction.

[Gateway Kid SASS# 70038 Life]

Yes I would convict. He stepped onto another person's property, he then entered that person's car where he took their property and tampered with it. If all he was concerned with was safety he could have simply locked the car door. Why was he on the property in the first place? The story doesn't lead me to believe he was trying to fix a bad situation, it looks more like he was trying to teach a lesson, therefore he should in turn learn one himself: don't trespass and tamper with other people's property or you go to jail.

 

Yep. Time to get back to - don't mess with my stuff and I won't mess with yours. If I really wanted you to give me a lesson on (insert prefered subject here) I would have asked you.

 

Had a whole long rant all typed up BUT decided to shelve it.

 

Regards

 

 

Gateway Kid

[Captain Bill Burt]

Totally hypothetical. No prosecutor in his right mind would go to court on this if there was no damage, injuries or criminal intent.

Intent is a necessary element in a criminal trial.

You don't have to prove intent in a traffic citation but you do in a crime.

Without that element, there is no conviction.

I respect the heck out of you Bob, but I disagree with you on this one.

 

"Criminal law has attempted to clarify the intent requirement by creating the concepts of "specific intent" and "general intent." Specific Intent refers to a particular state of mind that seeks to accomplish the precise act that the law prohibits—for example, a specific intent to commit rape. Sometimes it means an intent to do something beyond that which is done, such as assault with intent to commit rape. The prosecution must show that the defendant purposely or knowingly committed the crime at issue.

 

General intent refers to the intent to do that which the law prohibits. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended the precise harm or the precise result that occurred. Thus, in most states, a defendant who kills a person with a gun while intoxicated, to the extent that the defendant is not aware of having a gun, will be guilty of second-degree murder. The law will infer that the defendant had a general intent to kill."

 

The law prohibits entering someone else's property with the intent to tamper with something that belongs to them, regardless of whether you intended to help them in the process.

 

This person clearly intended to trespass into a car and access something inside of it. What he planned to do afterwards is irrelevant. In some jurisdictions reaching into a car window to turn off the lights of the car is a crime. The act of reaching into the car is all that matters.

 

For example, my hypothetical gun hating neighbor enters my property with the intent of removing something he views as a danger to me (my guns perhaps). He isn't doing it to enrich himself, merely to save me from my evil gun possessing ways. Has he committed a crime? The law says yes.

 

It isn't necessarily the end result the perp is trying to achieve, it's the commission of an act that is prohibited. In that case intent might be a mitigating factor, but it doesn't render the act legal. If it did we would all be walking around free to ignore laws so long as our intentions are pure.

[Blastmaster]

If the ones that responded so far to my question of convict or not are any indication of the potential jury pool in this country.

It is no wonder that our justice system is failing in a major way.

Teach a person who was trying to correct a bad situation a lesson.

Where was the CRIMINAL INTENT? Nowhere to be found.

Where is justice? The wrong doer here is really the owner of the gun who failed to keep it secure.

 

What would I do? I would NOT vote to convict.

There are higher principles involved here.

 

If the note was not written there would be no evidence of anykind.

 

By the by, is it possible the note was written by the gun owner to cover up his losing his firearm.

Was there a REAL witness who saw the gun being removed from its alleged location?

Not according to the article associated with the OP.

According to the article there is no indication that;

The gun was actually in the car, the owner said so no evidence.

There is no evidence that the gun was loaded, the owner said so.

There is no evidence that the gun was actually moved. The owner said it was.

 

If this is not a work of fiction, I hope the cops never find the one that removed the gun. If it was really in the car.

 

Remember that the owner of the gun said himself that he learned a lesson from all this.

Perhaps that should be the end of it. As far as I am concerned short of a persons confession it probably will be.

 

Hacker,

 

So, in your mind, some burgleries (breaking into home or associated buildings/yard, entering into home or assoicated buildigs/yard, with the intent to do a small/large felony) are OK and others are not OK?

 

Give us and the police some real hard guidelines of when it is OK and not.

 

Possible that the owner did all you said. If he did, then no burglery occured but rather giving false information to the police for whatever charge that may or may not qualify for.