Search found 1 match

by Kythas
Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:33 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Illegal removal?
Replies: 31
Views: 3385

Re: Illegal removal?

bronco78 wrote:
gigag04 wrote:They took them for safe keeping, and it was not any type of forfeiture - it falls under the community policing function of law enforcement and it is legal. The call most likely came out as an overdose, and as such, there is a possibility that the subject is suicidal. If the guns aren't taken for safekeeping, then the dept can get sued for gross negligence. It is a double edged sword. As much as we might think it silly, it is justifiable in the courts, and it is ultimately for safety - and a little bit of a CYA for the local depts from sue happy families of successful suicides. It will be a pain, and it was unlucky, but just go get a medical (physical and mental) clearance, and go pick them up.
So assuming for a sec, it was not a suicide attempt but the officers properly took the weapons as a departmental CYA deal, just because of the way the call came out (overdose).

The victim here, did not ask to be saved from them self's, did not need to be safeguard from there legally owned weapons, and the weapons were taken without permission from that victims home.. And the Official response is,, The victim now has to go though the embarrassing and financial hassle, assuming the burden of proving they are sane and physical cleared (what ever that means,, since when is there a law requiring a physical health minimum to own or posses a weapon?)


Again assuming the officers took the weapons with best (if not misguided) intentions, why should the financial , emotional and physical burden fall on the victim in this case?

This concerns me, almost as much as the "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" unless of course your a LEO, DA or Judge. :headscratch
Giga is right and it's not the fault of the department or the officers. You can blame this one on lawyers.

Imagine for a minute this was a legitimate overdose. In this case it wasn't, but the cops didn't know that, though they've seen dozens of calls similar to this one that were. The subject of the OD is taken to the hospital and survives, gets released from the hospital, and goes home where he has his guns. He then decides to properly complete the suicide attempt using his firearm that the cops didn't remove from the house in the initial call.

The distraught family is contacted by an attorney with the ethics of John Edwards (that's how he made his millions, after all) and convinces them that their child's suicide is the fault of the police department who didn't properly protect and safeguard their loved one by removing the firearms during the initial overdose call. The family then sues the police department and city for negligence in the death of their loved one. They likely wouldn't win in court, but the city will typically settle to avoid cost of litigation - a settlement is cheaper than fighting and winning in court.

If you think this hasn't happened, think again. Scenarios like this play out all the time so most departments will have a policy of searching for and removing firearms from homes where the call is a possible suicide attempt. The medical clearance comes, again, from the department protecting itself against a lawsuit - after all, turning firearms over to a person who is still suicidal would put the department in the same position as not removing the guns in the first place. A doctor's release simply removes liability from the department when they release the guns back to the person.

It's a pain, I know, but it's standard procedure in our litigious society for people and entities to legally cover themselves against liability.

Return to “Illegal removal?”