Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Homeowner apprehends burglar with fiream and then HE gets arrested

I know here in Pa (at least in my county) any arrest involving a gun you have to give up your firearms, Also an arrest for Dui you have to give up your firearms.... before trial. One of my best friends had to turn in all his guns after being arrested for DUI, the case was thrown out at the magisterial level. But because the charges were dropped "with prejudice". He could not get them back. He can still buy new guns, just can't have the ones he turned in

The system would function a lot worse, and more injustice would occur, in a zero tolerance world. If you start out with the supposition that the law is designed to discourage bad behavior, rather than merely to punish, the goal frequently can be accomplished without the need for enforcement action. Once an officer makes a decision to act or not act, s/he owns the decision, so it behooves the officer to examine the issue in good faith and have a really good rationale either way.

I think we could have and must ask for common sense to prevail. The arresting officer "jumped his gun" in being so quick to arrest the victim. Had he used better judgement, the victim would have never gone through what was foisted upon him, and he would not have an arrest record to contend with.

On the outside, looking in...it appears that LEO takes no interest in the long term ramifications of these quick arrests and the harm they might cause an innocent person who plays by the rules all his life and causes no harm, ever.

This isn't a condemnation of LEO painted with a broad brush, but...dammit...LEO works for us who abide by the law, and they need to remember that sometimes, while doing the most difficult job imaginable...to protect us all.

I can guarantee, that this wasn't some, "shake & bake" hurry up make an arrest situation.

I can again guarantee you that the arresting LEO wasn't the only officer on the scene, I can also guarantee you that he probably wasn't the highest ranking either. I can also guarantee you that a patrol unit front-hood "Pow Wow" was held, as to where to go with this case.

He should of got an Atty. and sat down with the DA & Judge and got an order releasing the guns back to him. The guns went somewhere? There should be a log of where they were logged into evidence and logged out.

The state police have been investigating the local sheriff's office for years, on their records. As of right now they have suppeona the dept. for all records, the sheriff has refused to produce them, and is in Jail on contempt charges. This all came to light when a man ( not my buddie) was charged and aquitted ( of what I don't remember) went to retrieve his firearms and was told there was no record of them. He was a class 3? ( fully auto) license holder, and one of the thompson's that he turned over ended up at a gunshop in the county. The bill of sale said the county sold it to the gunshop for 575.00 ( I've never been in the market for one, but that sounds like a bargain). He turned over two thompsons, thats the one that was found. Welcome to Luzerne Co.

The Judge or DA has the authority to call the State Police to investigate the agency who seized the guns, at least they do in this state anyway.

We don't have a State Police per say, we have TBI (TN. Bureau of Invest.) I've seen them investigate many an agency and make arrests of LEO's to include elected Sheriff's.

Only in a very few instances does the law actually require the taking of enforcement action.

Here's the problem...and I'm speculating this was the case here. There are two things officers, and/or their agencies do. Officers often are trained to believe that courts "sort things out". That could have been the case here.

The other is departmental policies that say probable cause = automatic arrest. I'm betting this is the more likely scenario.

In either event, it's passing the buck, and it's passing it to an entity that is NOT charged with investigating, and "sorting things out"...the DA is charged with prosecuting crimes, and the courts with maintaining procedural safeguards. Cases brought to him should have been "sorted out" by the investigating officer(s). That's what an investigation does, sorts out facts, and circumstances.

What's a cop to do though? If he doesn't uphold the letter of the law, his neck is on the block. If he does, his neck is on the block.

Jim brought something to light for me. There had to have been an investigation on the scene. This means it had to be the investigators decision to arrest, not the actual arresting officer.

It's a murky process all around. There has to be a better way to protect the public and enforce the laws....

We don't know if an investigator or a patrol supervisor wasn't involved. The decision may of been made and the arresting officer, was just the one who placed him under arrest. When i worked in patrol, i've been to many crime scenes where I was told to place the suspect under arrest and transport and book the suspect. My name was on the booking card and Mittimus as the arresting officer, yet I wasn't the one who made the decision to place the suspect under arrest. You know this happens and have seen it yourself.

Not picking, but you have no experience in this area, do you?? How many crime scenes involving shootings, use of deadly force, etc. have you been to?? I can guarantee, that this wasn't some, "shake & bake" hurry up make an arrest situation.

I can again guarantee you that the arresting LEO wasn't the only officer on the scene, I can also guarantee you that he probably wasn't the highest ranking either. I can also guarantee you that a patrol unit front-hood "Pow Wow" was held, as to where to go with this case.

I've speculated it both ways. Yes it happens. It shouldn't have here. I've also seen a patrol officer tell a supervisor, "If you want him arrested, then you do it".

Do you have criminal investigators within your DA's office?? The majority of Judicial Districts in this state do. It's paid out of the DA's budget. They can do follow up work on cases for the DA or they can strike out in areas that the DA wants to look at.

I've seen that abused first hand. A DA with that kind of power and support can be a dangerous thing to the public.

He or she is an elected official, in this state for eight years. If the citizens don't like the results, they don't have to be reelected, voters choice.

If you poll the majority of people on the street about crime and LE's response. What they'll tell you is to stick it to every criminal who walks the street, that is aslong as it isn't them or their family.

Popularity and abuse aren't always mutually exclusive....

He or she is an elected official, in this state for eight years. If the citizens don't like the results, they don't have to be reelected, voters choice.

DA's in this state have a lot of pull, if they don't have their own investigators, they can use TBI, that's why TBI has an investigator in every county or assigned to every county. If the DA wants to look into something, he just has to show reason to the TBI, if he wants to go around local LE.

If you poll the majority of people on the street about crime and LE's response. What they'll tell you is to stick it to every criminal who walks the street, that is aslong as it isn't them or their family.

Do they have term limits?

All I'm saying is that I know first hand of how a system like that has been abused.

I also know better than to go into details online. I'll be happy to share with you via PM though how such a system was horrifically abused.

I understand that it's important for a DA to have the ability to conduct investigations. It's a needed evil in our system. Just keep in mind though, that absolute power, corrupts absolutely. That kind of power needs to have a check. Term limits are a place to start....