Why

[THE ENGINEER]

Why do the police seize the weapon used in a legal shooting? They already know that was the weapon used, and the act was not illegal. It wouldn't make sense for them to take it to hold incase the grand jury finds the shooter guilty, because the shooter is still permitted to carry another weapon in the mean time anyway. Can anyone shed some light on this?

[jbirds1210]

Some city, county, and/or state regulations require that ballistic testing be done on a weapon known to be used in a shooting. Once the gun is gone, sold, or traded....that evidence is lost.

I think we learned today in another thread that confiscation is not always the practice.

FWIW, the gun of a LEO that I am good friends with was in a shooting some years back and Beretta mailed him another to use while his was out of service.

I personally don't think there is anything wrong with knowing whose bullet went where.

Jason

[txinvestigator]

Why do the police seize the weapon used in a legal shooting? They already know that was the weapon used, and the act was not illegal. It wouldn't make sense for them to take it to hold incase the grand jury finds the shooter guilty, because the shooter is still permitted to carry another weapon in the mean time anyway. Can anyone shed some light on this?

At least in Texas, all shootings go before the Grand Jury. I think it is prudent to at least ballistic test the weapon in case something comes up later, the shooter changes his story, etc.

[srothstein]

Let me put it another way, just to help explain why. The police do NOT know the gun was used in the shooting. They know the person claiming to be the shooter is saying it was the gun, which is not quite the same thing. Securing the gun until it is tested preserves the evidence and helps confirm whether or not it was a legal shooting, or a cover-up.