Battered Woman Turns In Husband's Weapons After He Is Jailed For DV, And SHE is Arrested

[FunGramps]

Husband goes to jail for domestic violence during divorce dispute. Woman fears for her and her children's safety, so she takes her husband's weapons to the local police department. She is arrested for stealing his weapons. I can't find any logic to this whatsoever. I don't know about all police department protocols, but it is normally a common as well as a prudent procedure to take firearms away from a DV household, for the safety of everyone in the home. The husband would come home after bail, and the mother was well within her right to remove the potential threat. Must be Florida...Mayberry. RFD.

https://www.mail.com/news/politics/...ands-guns-to-police.html#.23140-stage-hero1-1

 

[mehavey]

1. They were divorced.
2. She broke into a home/dwelling/not her own, and took property not her own.
3. While in the process, she stole weapons not her own.

While I agree that she had every right to fear for her safety, her proceeding outside multiple laws in this process made this "very sticky"

4. The husband -- though jailed -- preferred charges.

This meant the DA must go through his process.


That said, I can foresee [the husband's complaint/]charges being dropped as the DA now also considers quid pro quo in not pursing additional charges against the husband.

Classic "deal" in the interest of "justice"

.

 

[raimius]

While she may have had legitimate concerns, breaking into his house and stealing his guns is NOT the proper way to do things.
... admitting to a robbery while presenting the stolen goods to the cops is also not the recommended technique!

Sounds like both parties had a case of the stupids here.

 

[44 AMP]

1. They were divorced.

Not according to the article I read (in the headlines this morning, gone from the headlines tonight), they are in the process of divorce.

They were "estranged" meaning they did NOT live together. She did get a restraining order against her husband, but while it did prohibit him from acquiring or using firearms, it did not include any order to seize what he had.

She, took matters into her own hands, and broke a few laws doing so. The proper process would have to petition the court to have his firearms seized (which with the red flag laws they probably would have done). But she didn't do that. She broke into his house, and stole them, and ADMITTED that to the police. Apparently she thought her turning them in to the police was enough to justify her criminal acts. It's not, and so she got arrested.

I believe in this case, the arrest for B&E and theft was entirely proper.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

They were "estranged" meaning they did NOT live together. She did get a restraining order against her husband, but while it did prohibit him from acquiring or using firearms, it did not include any order to seize what he had.

The article I read said that the order required him to turn in his firearms. I can't imagine any restraining order NOT including that requirement.

 

[44 AMP]

The article I read said that the order required him to turn in his firearms. I can't imagine any restraining order NOT including that requirement.

You may very well be correct, and I agree its very likely such a requirement would be included.

However, in this case, if it is "surrender your firearms" that's not exactly the same as seize them,. Seize them is what gets done if you don't surrender them. Tough to surrender firearms stored in your home when your butt is in jail. Surrendering them after you get released would be the expected thing, and if you didn't then the would be ordered to be seized.

Which I think pretty much became a moot point when his future ex stole them.
I can't see him being charged with failure to comply with the order to surrender, while in jail, or after the guns were stolen, but I suppose anything is possible....

It's an old dodge, stashing property (sometimes with a friend) to "hide it" so the future ex doesn't get it, and claiming it was stolen, but in this case the wife told the cops she took them, so while there will be (perhaps a lot) of public outcry about prosecuting her (she does have a degree of sympathy with many) there's no question she did it, she admitted it. So I'd say the arrest itself, is proper.

 

[jmr40]

I think the controversy is over the fact that her husband assaulted her with a vehicle and served one day in jail. While he was in jail she entered his apartment, took the guns and turned them over to the police. She served 6 days in jail.

While I understand WHY she took the guns I can't agree with it. I do think that 6 days in jail vs 1 based on the crimes is disproportionate.

I also believe that when this all shakes out she will not be prosecuted. They will never find a jury that would convict her anyway.

 

[krimmie]

A guy down the street drives drunk all the time(hypothetically) . I worry he will drive off the road and hit either my wife or myself while we’re doing yard work.

Perhaps I should steal his car to prevent this!

 

[zukiphile]

Sounds like both parties had a case of the stupids here.

Welcome to the trenches of family law. People rarely divorce because they are happy, smart, good communicators with excellent foresight.

I do think that 6 days in jail vs 1 based on the crimes is disproportionate.

I'm guessing from the news account, but I don't believe those were sentences for the crimes involved, but the number of days they spent in lock up before they were arraigned and released. The sentences for battery or armed entry are unlikely to be just a few days.

 

[ammo.crafter]

mine

New Jersey?

 

[SIGSHR]

B&E, theft-why shouldn't she be prosecuted ?

 

[Dufus]

A simple search indicates all this occurred in Polk County, Florida.

 

[Doyle]

A simple search indicates all this occurred in Polk County, Florida.

Home of the infamous Sheriff Grady Judd where the most dangerous place in the county is to get between him and a TV camera. I lived in the next county down for over 2 decades and saw him on TV at least once a week in some highly publicized arrest.

 

[JohnKSa]

The husband would come home after bail, and the mother was well within her right to remove the potential threat.

Absolutely incorrect. They were not living together--she broke into his residence and stole his property.

There's a lot of hype and drama and misleading statements being made about this incident in the news--I'm not going to address them all, other than to say that it is important to take the time to get the details correct.

For example, She may have been "battered" but there is no evidence in any of the articles I have read to suggest that is true. Nor is it true that her estranged husband tried to "run her over" as has been said in some articles. He was arrested for ramming the rear of her car while she was driving it, not for battering her or for trying to run her over.

I am absolutely not justifying what her husband did or saying that she deserved it, I'm just saying that making things up or trying to "spin" them to make things sound more dramatic isn't good journalism but I have seen a lot of articles which are doing their best to mislead casual readers.

All that aside, this situation comes down to one very simple truth.

You don't get carte blanche to commit crimes against someone just because they have committed crimes against you in the past.

She would have been well within her rights to notify the police that he had firearms. She was not within her rights to break into his apartment, steal his possessions and turn them over to the police herself. That is a crime and people who commit crimes and admit them to the police and present evidence of their crimes to the authorities are going to be prosecuted.

Maybe her motives were pure, maybe they weren't, but none of that makes what she did legal.

And how she is being treated has nothing to do where this occurred. Breaking in to someone's residence and stealing from them is a crime anywhere.

Don't get the idea that you can act as the police, or in place of the authorities. If you try to take the law into your own hands, the odds are you will be committing a criminal act. Know the laws and follow them or you will end up a criminal.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

You don't get carte blanche to commit crimes against someone just because they have committed crimes against you in the past.

She would have been well within her rights to notify the police that he had firearms. She was not within her rights to break into his apartment, steal his possessions and turn them over to the police herself. That is a crime and people who commit crimes and admit them to the police and present evidence of their crimes to the authorities are going to be prosecuted.

Maybe her motives were pure, maybe they weren't, but none of that makes what she did legal.

I have to agree with the above. Either we are a nation of laws, or we aren't. How often to we complain when we read about someone who committed a crime and wasn't charged, or was let off with a slap on the wrist? When I was growing up, I was taught that the ideal is for justice to be blind. That doesn't mean stupid -- it means that Lady Justice doesn't see the age, the gender, the color, or the religion of the person standing before her for judgement. Decisions should be based on the facts, not on sympathy (or lack thereof).

She had a restraining order. Assuming the order said her husband could not possess firearms, she or her lawyer could have informed the police that he had firearms in the home, and the cops could have gone there with him when he was released to seize the guns legally. Her actions constituted a crime (actually, several different crimes). I think we can be sympathetic to her fears while still not condoning or excusing her criminal acts.

 

[Wyosmith]

Be VERY careful what you vote for and what you believe should be allowed. This things are not to effect only "someone else". Prepunishing a crime that has not yet happened is the excuse EVERY tyrant just loves to have installed into the workings of government.

"You Might do thus and such-- so we have to take your liberties first" is exactly what those that believe this kind of policy or law is ok are asking for, and when you give such power to government keep in mind all such policies will just be a stepping stone to expand powers. Every George Washington warned all future Americans that government by it's very nature, being comprised of men who are attempting to gain power will ALWAYS try to expand and grow in power.

Authorize a power to punish someone and you do so to yourself. For punishment of actual crimes most of us feel it;'s OK because most of us don't commit crimes. But the idea that "you might commit it, so you have to be curtailed and punished first" is the essence of political and national suicide.

In the eyes of the Dem/Comms all of you reading my words right now "might" use your guns to murder, or "might" be careless enough to loose your guns to someone that might murder, so ALL of you need to be disarmed now!

It's that policy seems unjust, criminal, tyrannical and just plane stupid it's only because it is.

People that are just plane stupid can be duped into supporting such laws. Allowing the libs to take over so-called "education" in out country is what is producing the masses of the "just plane stupid" and many of those folks do support taking your guns, and punishing you for many crimes you never committed. (like "reparations" for just one of many examples)

 

[Double Naught Spy]

So she took the, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" route. She knew she was breaking the law. She picked what she assumed was the lesser of the evils and voluntarily confessed to the crime. No travesty of justice here.

I do think that 6 days in jail vs 1 based on the crimes is disproportionate.

6 days in jail versus 1 day in jail not fair? That isn't the punishment. That is just the administrative process and bail. The husband just handled his affairs better than the wife. His bail was $10K. Hers was $7K. She would still be in jail today if she didn't make bail. That has absolutely nothing to do with how long the husband was in jail.

 

[P5 Guy]

An estranged wife broke into her spouses home and stole his firearms to turn over to the police? How is that not a criminal act?
Sounds like the woman committed grand theft. Then turned herself in.

 

[44 AMP]

Since they were not fully divorced, there MAY be a community property matter, and PERHAPS half the guns "stolen" will eventually be declared hers.

However, this will be an after the fact decision if it happens, and does nothing to exonerate her from illegal breaking and entering or the theft of the half of the guns that aren't (later, possibly) declared "hers".

fear for your life and safety? Fine. Already working the system? Yes. (restraining order, etc.)

Taking matters into your own hands, breaking a few laws in the process? Yes. Prosecutable offense(s)?

Sure looks that way to me!

 

[Spats McGee]

At a minimum, it's a B&E. There is probably a restraining order out there, maybe a no-contact order. None of those would or could authorize her to enter his apartment. The only way I see that (the entry into the apartment) not being criminal is if she was still on the lease.

As to the (probable) restraining or no-contact orders, I've never seen one that directed the respondent to turn guns in, only prohibited him or her from possessing them.