City police confiscates man's 41 gun collection three years ago and man has to sue

[Cal Sibley]

This should have no bearing on the incident, but when Glendenning won election as Marylands governor he only carried 3 of the states 21 counties, Montgomery, Pr. Georges and Baltimore Co., plus Baltimore City, but as I recall from living there at the time that was enough to secure the victory. These areas comprise most of Marylands urban population and are overwhelmingly Democratic. Gaithersburg is in Montgomery Co. and very representative of that county. It's a rarity to hear of the type of behavior mentioned in this topic occurring elsewhere in the state than the areas mentioned. It's part of the Democratic bulwark, and definitely not popular with the less urbanized parts of the state. Maryland will always act in the interests of the people in these areas and sacrifice the remainder. It's good strategy for maintaining power, and that's what it's all about. I like to think of Maryland as the California of the east. This is the state that gave you Gov. Spiro Agnew, Gov. Marvin Mandell, and a host of other crooks, mainly State Legislators. It's also the part of the state with the vast majority of crime. Sorry to rant, but I never felt comfortable in this little state. Best wishes.

Cal - Montreal

[fabsroman]

Cal,

You are completely right, but you left off a pretty important point. Montgomery County is one of the richest counties in the country, and property values in this county are close to those in California. Also, Howard County and Anne Aundel County are also becoming highly populated now because there is almost no place left to build in Montgomery County. Prince George's County still has a ton of farm land.


TBO,

I understand that guns are taken when somebody says they are suicidal. My point was that if somebody is suicidal, they have plenty of other means to accomplish their death. So, why are guns taken, but nothing else? I think I might know the answer, but I want to see what your response is.

[TheeBadOne]

Originally posted by fabsroman
TBO,

I understand that guns are taken when somebody says they are suicidal. My point was that if somebody is suicidal, they have plenty of other means to accomplish their death. So, why are guns taken, but nothing else? I think I might know the answer, but I want to see what your response is.

I have already answered you.

When dealing with a suicide threat several things are accessed.

1- Threat

2- Method

3- Access


ie: Someone ways they want to die. When asked how they intend to, they say "I don't know, I just don't want to live anymore".

In that scenario, they have said they don't want to live, or even that they intend to kill themselves, but are missing a articulable/realistic method.

Same as if they said "I won't eat for a month", or "I"ll walk barefoot to the gas station (wintertime) and freeze to death".
Again, no real plan, and no immediacy.

Someone says they want to die, and plan on using a gun. When asked if they have a gun they say no. When asked how they'd get one they say "I don't know (doesn't own guns, doesn't know anyone who does that would lend one)"- lesser threat due to no access/immediacy.

Now, someone who says "I want to die RIGHT now! I have XYX to do it with (and they do 'access'), now that raises the threat to an entire level.

Firearm suicide threats- the medical field tells us to take these very seriously if they have made that threat and have access to it. This is from experiance. If a person pops pills, guess what, they are going down for an eval and all their pills are taken away.

So, that being said, if a party has threatened to kill them-self with a firearm and they have access to it, and the threat is credible, they are going to have the firearm separated from them (safekeeping) as well as being brought in for an eval.

Fabs, what training/experience do you have in this area. What suicide studies are you referencing? I'd be happy to delve deeper into this, but for the purpose of this thread I think I've covered what you've asked.

TBO

[Hawkeye6]

So, TBO, what's the justification for Keystone Krew to still be holding this citizen's collection of firearms? Three years and he has to sue?

The operative assumptions that you should make are that he legally owms the firearms and is no longer suicidal (Not that I concede that to be a valid basis for the Kops actions in the first pace, though.)

[TheeBadOne]

Originally posted by Hawkeye6
So, TBO, what's the justification for Keystone Krew to still be holding this citizen's collection of firearms? (Don't have enough information to speculate)

The operative assumptions that you should make (are you the thought Police?) are that he legally owms the firearms and is no longer suicidal (basis of this?) (Not that I concede that to be a valid basis for the Kops ( ) actions in the first pace, though.)

[fabsroman]

TBO,

You answered my question pretty well, but I guess there just isn't any evidence from what is in the article that this guy ever told the Police he was thinking about suicide and he was planning on doing it with a gun.

What I got from the article is that the police got a tip from somebody (i.e., no psych eval), they went to see this guy, and they took his guns while they were detaining him. Maybe I am reading it wrong

If somebody is suicidal, why don't they commit the person instead of letting him go.

My other peev is that a suicidal person has plenty of means to commit suicide.

1. 2 foot length of rope from a hardware store.

2. Taking the car as fast as it will go and just cranking the wheel in traffic.

3. Jumping from a high rise.

4. Jumping in front of a train.

5. Jumping in front of a bus.

6. Leaving the gas stove on and either lighting that last cigarette or dying of afixiation (sp.).

I could make the list a mile long, but I think you get my point. There are a million ways for a person to commit suicide. Based on the facts we do have, even assuming that there might have been a psych eval, this guy's guns have been confiscated for three years and he is still breathing. Why don't they just give them back.

Last but not least, the media in this county, Montgomery County, is so liberal it is pathetic. Just as Cal Sibley said above. So, if there were any justification for the police to keep these firearms, I am pretty sure they would have printed it. I was actually shocked to see this article in the paper, but the paper might just be trying to startle the locals because of the 41 gun collection.

At the end of the day, I try to put myself in the other person's shoes. I would be pissed if somebody called the police department, said I was suicidal, and the police would come over here and take all my guns for 3 years. I would be pissed as hell if they put a single scratch in any of them, but as we all know, the police department isn't liable for negligence, just gross negligence which is very tough to prove. So, I would have to eat the scratches and wouldn't get reimbursed for them by the police department.

It just burns me up that all somebody has to do is make an anonymous phone call and my guns could be gone for 3 years. Then again, I don't think I would wait three years to file a law suit.

[TheeBadOne]

Originally posted by fabsroman
TBO,

You answered my question pretty well, but I guess there just isn't any evidence from what is in the article that this guy ever told the Police he was thinking about suicide and he was planning on doing it with a gun.

If you want to be fair, there isn't any evidence he didn't. It's just a newspaper article, there isn't much there, period. If you want more, and no somebody who lives nearby, have them drive in and get a copy of the report.

[fabsroman]

TBO,

Are you talking about the police report? I guess I could go and pick up a copy, but around here they don't just release those things to any Tom, Dick, or Harry. The only way I can get traffic accident reports is because I am the attorney representing my client, and believe me they ask.

Now, if you are talking about the Complaint, there won't be anything in it supporting the police department, and even if the police department files an Answer, the Answer is usually just a general denial to almost everything. Stuff doesn't start to come out until Discovery is performed and even then, Discovery is not filed with the Court so I cannot get a copy, unless it is filed as part of a Motion. About the only thing that becomes public is the trial record, any motions filed, and any testimony for hearings.

[skeet]

Evidently this guy is still working as a firefighter and was never charged with a crime. This shouldn't have gone gown the way it was stated. If there were real answers to all this they wouldn't be telling him to answer the questions on the form. Evidently he has the right to have the firearms so it all comes down to giving them back without all the bureaucratic mumbo jumbo...or saying he is still a threat to himself or others. Even TBO knows if they considered him a threat to anyone he wouldn't be where he is now(after 3 yrs)... And they also wouldn't even consider giving the guns back to him. Something of the same nature happened locally(in the good part of Maryland) and the guns were given back within a week after the guy was evaluated. Turned out an ex wife called the suicide threat in(getting even??)
Hey TBO...have you ever seen anyone try to get even with someone else by doing something like this to someone they perceive as an enemy? If you are a cop(as I assume you are) I'm sure you have. Heck after working with the police for all those years I made an observation that they aren't any more honest or dishonest than the average person. I have also observed that the average cop seems to use less common sense than the average citizen. All the rules tend to squelch practical thinking...but that isn't the patrol cops fault. I wonder why you always seem to support the police...whether they seem to be right or wrong. I've seen cops do things they shouldn't do...and so have you...Give it a break and do some original posts for once in your life...on something other than a police or law issue.

[fabsroman]

Skeet,

I know I live in the bad part of Maryland, but I am at least trying to save some money to buy some land in the good part of Maryland.

"Heck after working with the police for all those years I made an observation that they aren't any more honest or dishonest than the average person."

I like that statement and I agree with it completely. LEO's are human and they make mistakes. In this case here, I think the police department is making a policy mistake.

As far as people getting even, I know plenty of people that have called the IRS on their enemies. Not to mention the Department of Labor Licensing and Regulation, OSHA, etc. It especially happens in the business industry when a small competitor starts to get too big.

I can definitely see it happening after a divorce or relationship break up.

Why can't we all just get along?

[skeet]

Well, Fabs,... I think the original problem occurred when the patrolmen used such force without using a bit of common sense. The guy was packing for a camping trip and they went to his door with drawn weapons?? What they should have done is checked him out first to see if he was a threat to any one. I am sure they knocked on the door and stated they were the police...Did he open the door or did they break in?? I also feel the police department in the jusisdiction is stridently anti firearm(I know the area well). The departments over there are in the pockets of the liberal anti anything people and you know that.

Not too long ago my granddaughter was playing with a cell phone which was no longer in service. They still work for 911 for some reason??.. She inadvertently dialed 911. Well the state police showed up at my door and asked if they could come in...I said sure...what's the problem?? He told me they had received a cell phone call from a child at the 911 center. I told him I would call my daughter on her cell phone and did so. He talked to her and she assured him it was a mistake. The guy actually started to search through my house when I told him to leave. He said you have to understand"this is a child". I told him.."you have to understand..this is my home and you have no warrant" and stated I wanted him to leave now. He reluctantly did so. It was apparent he didn't like being told to do something by an avearage citizen as they are taught to always be in charge of a situation. I not so reluctantly called his supervisor and stated my objections to having an armed intruder in my house. The supervisor(who I know) told me he would speak to his trooper..which he did as the trooper called to apologize. It would have been better if he had apologized in person...but better than nothing I guess. Sometimes the police are somewhat too insistent for their own good...which also adds to the distrust of the police by average citizens.

And yes TBO...people sometimes don't trust the police because the police do things that are wrong ..can you imagine the police doing something wrong??

[Classicvette63]

Now everyone knows why I got so hostile and wouldn't give up my rifle to that bunnycop a couple years ago. Once they have it, they never want to give it back. Had this problem when I wrecked the corvette. The cops secured the pistol and derringer I had in the glovebox. No problem. When I called to see when I could pick them up the cop said " I'm not sure when were you can get them back." Bullsh!t. I went right down and started to make a scene when a cop I know came out. He went right back and got them for me. What the police and the authorities can't sem to get through their thick skulls is that the guns are MINE, not theirs. If I'm committing a crime, sure take it away, If not, keep yor jerkskinners off. I don't take to kindly to thieves.

[fabsroman]

Skeet,

I know exactly how LEO's are taught to always be in charge of a situation. One of my friends went to the academy several years ago and graduated about the time I got out of law school.

I arrived a little late to a "friendly" football game and ended up getting burned for a touchdown when the other guy pushed off of me in the end zone. Mind you, I don't take well to losing and I especially don't like getting burned for a touchdown when I am usually the fastest guy on the field.

Anyway, I complained about it (i.e., called the foul) and this guy started yelling at me that they had already agreed that it was okay before I got there and that was that, even though I didn't know about the rule, and the play would stand. So, I asked him if there were any other rules that I should know about, and he said that was it. I might have taken it a little better if he wasn't screaming at me. I knew this guy for 10 years and this was the first time he acted like this to me.

So, on the ensuing kickoff, which I am usually the deep man for, my brother caught the ball a little ahead of me. I ran past him at full speed and knocked the first guy I ran into on his butt. Needless to say, that guy wasn't too happy at that point and he got up swinging. He missed by a mile and I ended up tackling him to the ground because, even though I was mad, my beef wasn't with him. The new LEO came up to me and started screaming again. The only thing I said to him at this point was that he never said it was illegal to block the hell out of somebody, and that I only wished it was him that I ran into. At that point, the game was over.

Everybody on the field told the LEO that he shouldn't have done what he did because my brothers over head it. I also apologized to the guy I blocked the hell out of.

Funny thing is that both of these guys are now my clients and we get along pretty well. The "new" LEO has never acted like that again in my presence.

I also embarrased another "new" LEO at a Christmas Eve dinner because he was bashing on me about being a pig attorney. He started off about how a defense attorney had gotten a criminal off that he had to testify against. I listened and listened to him bash the hell out of attorneys and continue saying that he knew the guy was guilty. I asked him one question that shut him up. Did you actually see the guy commit the crime? If not, you cannot be sure of anything.

My dad and I had just been charged with discharging a firearm within 150 yards of a dwelling and we were both acquitted because out of the 6 guys hunting, 4 of which were charged, he and I were innocent, and I was pretty pissed off with the officer making us both miss a day of work/school. The State's Attorney wanted us to do 40 hours of community service and agree never to hunt on this farm again for a Nolle Prosequi (i.e., dropping the charges) for something we didn't do. I actually thought about it because it would have really looked bad on my bar application to have a guilty finding on that charge. I rolled the dice and plead guilty and the LEO couldn't prove his case, which I knew he would have a hard time doing, but I digress.

Anyway, my next question to him was whether he thought everybody charged with an offense was guilty. He stopped for a real long time to think and that is when I hit him with the above story and said the officer in that case thought my dad and I were guilty too. My dad and I are both thought of as extremely honest by him and his family so he really shut up then.

As far as allowing an officer into my house, that will never happen unless they are a friend or they have a search warrant.

While I realize the job that LEO's do is extremely tought and I thank them for it, I have also had my fair share of run ins with the Know It Alls and Liars and it leaves me a little gun shy. I can live with buying cheap products or services from a person like that, but what I cannot afford is being charged with something and then having to prove my innocence in Court. I have been to criminal Court enough for my clients recently to know that the State's Attorney is not always interested in innocence and guilt.

What is sad is that if I wasn't in law school at the time I was charged with discharging a firearm within 150 yards of a dwelling, both my dad and I would have been cooked or we would have had to pay a lot of money to an attorney to represent us. Even then, I can now think of some things that I could have done better during that trial, but alls well that ends well.

What really ticks me off is that this incident could have had some serious effects on my practicing law, not to mention I missed class that day and my dad missed work because an officer "thought" he was right. On top of that, the LEO probably got paid overtime for coming to Court. All because he did not want to listen to my dad when he was charging us.

[TheeBadOne]

&

[fabsroman]

TBO,

Where do you get those little icons? I need to find me some because they are hilarious.