I'm not a lawyer, and don't play one on TV, but there's absolutely no reason for a DA to drag anyone before a grand jury unless the DA is trying to obtain an indictment. In a clear cut case of home defense, there's no reason for the homeowner to appear before any grand jury. Obviously, the DA is holding the gun simply because he thinks that we common folk should not be armed.
And no, the police are not responsible for the protection of any individual. At least, that's how the courts usually rule. If granny gets raped and stabbed because the cops have confiscated her gun, it'll be her problem.
It's not only a good idea to have more than one gun, it's a good idea to store extra guns away from your house. If you shoot a burglar, then the cops will probably confiscate all the guns in your house and leave you in the same situation as granny. Don't delude yourself that the cops are on your side.
Susan Buxton wants her gun back
Moderator: carlson1
I wholeheartedly agree. I've seen cases where that happened.MikeJ wrote:It's not only a good idea to have more than one gun, it's a good idea to store extra guns away from your house. If you shoot a burglar, then the cops will probably confiscate all the guns in your house and leave you in the same situation as granny.
Almost as good is having family/good-friends who can loan you what you need.
JOIN NRA TODAY!, NRA Benefactor Life, TSRA Defender Life, Gun Owners of America Life, SAF, VCDL Member
LTC/SSC Instructor, NRA Certified Instructor, CRSO
The last hope of human liberty in this world rests on us. -Thomas Jefferson
LTC/SSC Instructor, NRA Certified Instructor, CRSO
The last hope of human liberty in this world rests on us. -Thomas Jefferson
-
txinvestigator
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4331
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
- Location: DFW area
- Contact:
You are wrong. In the case of using deadly force, it is Defense to Prosecution. That is a legal term and has meaning. It has also been covered well here. The case will AUTOMATICALLY go before the Grand Jury. Even if the DA believes the DF was justified, it will go to the grand jury, and the DA will recommend a No Bill.MikeJ wrote:I'm not a lawyer, and don't play one on TV, but there's absolutely no reason for a DA to drag anyone before a grand jury unless the DA is trying to obtain an indictment. In a clear cut case of home defense, there's no reason for the homeowner to appear before any grand jury. Obviously, the DA is holding the gun simply because he thinks that we common folk should not be armed.
And no, the police are not responsible for the protection of any individual. At least, that's how the courts usually rule. If granny gets raped and stabbed because the cops have confiscated her gun, it'll be her problem.
It's not only a good idea to have more than one gun, it's a good idea to store extra guns away from your house. If you shoot a burglar, then the cops will probably confiscate all the guns in your house and leave you in the same situation as granny. Don't delude yourself that the cops are on your side.
I see several cases of using deadly force a year. In the last 3 months, I have had 2 renewal students who have killed a person in self defense. In both cases, there weas video of the shootings. In both cases, the Grand Jury heard the cases, and the DA recommended a No Bill. But when you kill a person it IS A HOMICIDE. The question of justification is a matter of fact a jury, in some cases a grand jury, will decide. Justification is not automatic.
*CHL Instructor*
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
Um... If you're not being prosecuted, why do you need a defense to prosecution? Does the Code of Criminal Procedure require that all homicide cases be heard by a grand jury? If it does, I can't find the requirement. I suspect that presenting all homicide cases to a grand jury is just a matter of policy on the part of the DA. If the DA has no intention of prosecuting a case, isn't this a waste of everybody's time and the taxpayers' money?txinvestigator wrote:You are wrong. In the case of using deadly force, it is Defense to Prosecution. That is a legal term and has meaning. It has also been covered well here. The case will AUTOMATICALLY go before the Grand Jury. Even if the DA believes the DF was justified, it will go to the grand jury, and the DA will recommend a No Bill.
"Never send a man where you can send a bullet." - Winston Churchill in A Roving Commission
Well, Granny got her gun back! You might recognize the reporter's byline... Jill is definitely gun friendly.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/13626329.htm
Posted on Sun, Jan. 15, 2006
Back in the holster again
By J.R. Labbe
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
Granny's got her gun back.
Two months and two days after Arlington police confiscated the .38-caliber revolver that Susan Gaylord Buxton used to defend herself and her granddaughter from an intruder in her Arlington home, the firearm was returned.
It took a local attorney jawing with Tarrant County District Attorney Tim Curry, references to case law provided by the legal counsel for the National Rifle Association and a court order, but it happened Wednesday.
"We have all won this battle," an elated Buxton e-mailed last week. "That battle is to NOT treat us -- the individual, law-abiding citizen -- as if we were part of the local criminal element. Gee, especially when we're helping the law enforcement authorities to catch these jerks!"
The "jerk" whom Buxton helped the police catch, Christopher Lessner, remained in the Tarrant County Jail last week, where he's been since Nov. 9, unable to make the $15,750 bail that stems from charges of criminal mischief, criminal trespass and evading arrest, and a theft case unrelated to Buxton's.
Lessner, 22, lunged at the 66-year-old Buxton after she discovered him hiding in her hall closet. According to police, he took refuge there after fleeing from Arlington officers during a traffic stop. It earned him a gunshot wound in the leg.
Buxton never could cotton on to why police seized her gun in the first place. She understood that it had to be secured while they investigated the 911 call. But she didn't know why they kept it, given she hadn't done anything wrong. If it was needed in court, she would have been more than happy to produce it at trial.
"The Arlington Police Department had the gun and was told by the DA to hang onto it," Arlington attorney Albert Ross, who helped Buxton, said Thursday. "My discussions with the DA's office were most understanding and cooperative. Actually, I did not have to file a motion. Tim Curry saw fit to have one of his assistants look at the issue and then ask the judge for an order releasing the gun."
That assistant was Eric Nickols; the judge was Mike Thomas of Criminal District Court 4. According to Nickols, Thomas signed a court order on Dec. 22 asking for the gun's return.
It may have helped that, during his chats with Curry, Ross was armed with a letter from Stefan Tahmassebi, deputy general counsel to the NRA, that cited four cases involving the seizure of a firearm.
Tahmassebi wrote that the state has a right to seize weapons that are used to commit a crime. (This wasn't the case with Buxton.) Police and the prosecutor still have a right to use seized property as evidence in a criminal proceeding if it is necessary to prove said crime. (Also not the case with Buxton.)
"However, if these circumstances are not present, the state has no right to seize or to refuse to return seized property. In fact, a refusal to return such property may violate constitutional due process guarantees," Tahmassebi wrote.
Very persuasive stuff.
Buxton was miffed about her experience Wednesday in retrieving the firearm. She and Ross had to cool their heels while the police ran both the firearm and Buxton through federal databases to ensure that neither were wanted in connection with any crime, even though Ross had contacted the department on Tuesday to let officials know they were coming.
As much as the records check irritated Buxton, Ross acknowledged that it was standard departmental procedure.
"If there was an issue to raise about it, it was that the police should have run those checks right after they picked up the gun, not while we were waiting in the lobby," Ross said.
Buxton also was floored that the gun, which was in a brown paper bag secured by red tape and marked "evidence," was returned separately from the three bullets that were in it at the time the gun was seized.
"They wouldn't release my three remaining rounds (Hydra-Shock hollow points) at the same time they gave me the gun," Buxton e-mailed.
This is where Buxton crosses the line to unreasonable. It's completely understandable that the gun was returned unloaded, with the bullets in a separate container. Buxton may be the most law-abiding person on the face of God's earth, but it only takes one person acting a fool to result in a dead officer.
Police can never be too cautious when it comes to being around other people handling guns. Sadly, that's a fact of life. It was not a statement about Buxton as an individual -- it is a policy that is meant to keep everyone alive.
"Everyone has rules and procedures to follow," Ross said. "I certainly understand the hoops we had to go through in order for Susan to take physical possession of the gun.
"All in all, everything worked just wonderful."
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/13626329.htm
Posted on Sun, Jan. 15, 2006
Back in the holster again
By J.R. Labbe
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
Granny's got her gun back.
Two months and two days after Arlington police confiscated the .38-caliber revolver that Susan Gaylord Buxton used to defend herself and her granddaughter from an intruder in her Arlington home, the firearm was returned.
It took a local attorney jawing with Tarrant County District Attorney Tim Curry, references to case law provided by the legal counsel for the National Rifle Association and a court order, but it happened Wednesday.
"We have all won this battle," an elated Buxton e-mailed last week. "That battle is to NOT treat us -- the individual, law-abiding citizen -- as if we were part of the local criminal element. Gee, especially when we're helping the law enforcement authorities to catch these jerks!"
The "jerk" whom Buxton helped the police catch, Christopher Lessner, remained in the Tarrant County Jail last week, where he's been since Nov. 9, unable to make the $15,750 bail that stems from charges of criminal mischief, criminal trespass and evading arrest, and a theft case unrelated to Buxton's.
Lessner, 22, lunged at the 66-year-old Buxton after she discovered him hiding in her hall closet. According to police, he took refuge there after fleeing from Arlington officers during a traffic stop. It earned him a gunshot wound in the leg.
Buxton never could cotton on to why police seized her gun in the first place. She understood that it had to be secured while they investigated the 911 call. But she didn't know why they kept it, given she hadn't done anything wrong. If it was needed in court, she would have been more than happy to produce it at trial.
"The Arlington Police Department had the gun and was told by the DA to hang onto it," Arlington attorney Albert Ross, who helped Buxton, said Thursday. "My discussions with the DA's office were most understanding and cooperative. Actually, I did not have to file a motion. Tim Curry saw fit to have one of his assistants look at the issue and then ask the judge for an order releasing the gun."
That assistant was Eric Nickols; the judge was Mike Thomas of Criminal District Court 4. According to Nickols, Thomas signed a court order on Dec. 22 asking for the gun's return.
It may have helped that, during his chats with Curry, Ross was armed with a letter from Stefan Tahmassebi, deputy general counsel to the NRA, that cited four cases involving the seizure of a firearm.
Tahmassebi wrote that the state has a right to seize weapons that are used to commit a crime. (This wasn't the case with Buxton.) Police and the prosecutor still have a right to use seized property as evidence in a criminal proceeding if it is necessary to prove said crime. (Also not the case with Buxton.)
"However, if these circumstances are not present, the state has no right to seize or to refuse to return seized property. In fact, a refusal to return such property may violate constitutional due process guarantees," Tahmassebi wrote.
Very persuasive stuff.
Buxton was miffed about her experience Wednesday in retrieving the firearm. She and Ross had to cool their heels while the police ran both the firearm and Buxton through federal databases to ensure that neither were wanted in connection with any crime, even though Ross had contacted the department on Tuesday to let officials know they were coming.
As much as the records check irritated Buxton, Ross acknowledged that it was standard departmental procedure.
"If there was an issue to raise about it, it was that the police should have run those checks right after they picked up the gun, not while we were waiting in the lobby," Ross said.
Buxton also was floored that the gun, which was in a brown paper bag secured by red tape and marked "evidence," was returned separately from the three bullets that were in it at the time the gun was seized.
"They wouldn't release my three remaining rounds (Hydra-Shock hollow points) at the same time they gave me the gun," Buxton e-mailed.
This is where Buxton crosses the line to unreasonable. It's completely understandable that the gun was returned unloaded, with the bullets in a separate container. Buxton may be the most law-abiding person on the face of God's earth, but it only takes one person acting a fool to result in a dead officer.
Police can never be too cautious when it comes to being around other people handling guns. Sadly, that's a fact of life. It was not a statement about Buxton as an individual -- it is a policy that is meant to keep everyone alive.
"Everyone has rules and procedures to follow," Ross said. "I certainly understand the hoops we had to go through in order for Susan to take physical possession of the gun.
"All in all, everything worked just wonderful."
-
HighVelocity
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3374
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:54 pm
- Location: DFW, TX
- Contact:
She wrote a great Thank You note to the folks that helped her get it back;
http://www.tsra.com/Buxton_ltr.htm
http://www.tsra.com/Buxton_ltr.htm