Florida woman arrested after turning in estranged husband's gun a day after he tried to run her over

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aim1

member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
2,310
From the article:

A Florida woman was reportedly arrested after taking firearms from her estranged husband’s home to turn in to police, a day after he allegedly tried to run over her.

Courtney Irby, 32, was arrested last Saturday and charged with one count of armed burglary after an arrest affidavit said she showed up to the Lakeland Police Department station with guns belonging to her husband, Joseph Irby, just one day after he was arrested on a domestic battery charge, WKMG reported.


While what she did was wrong, breaking into his house and taking his guns hopefully the prosecution drops the charges. If this is true.

You could see someone claiming such a crime happened when it didn't, breaking into their ex's place and taking their weapons to the police.



F37F941C-10D0-464A-81DA-83B5A6EEFC8D.jpeg


https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-...-a-day-after-he-tried-to-run-her-over-reports
 
She took something of value from someone else's home. Sounds like a burglary to me.

What does that have to do with trusting the police? You want to not trust someone? Don't trust the news, who went from a headline "tried to run her over" to "he rear ended her car".
 
Ok, after rereading the story, she committed burglery.
He was locked up and did not have access to those guns.
What she should have done is make sure the Police knew he had them, because, with a charge of domestic violence, the judge would have ordered their seizure, and they would have been able to take them before he was able to get out.
 
1. The headline is incorrect. He did not try to "run her over", he rear-ended the car she was driving. While that is a crime, the common meaning of "running someone over" implies a car vs. pedestrian encounter which is not what happened at all.

2. Being the victim of a crime (as this woman alleges she was) does not entitle a person to retaliate, or to commit crimes against the criminal. This is a very important lesson, because it is, apparently, very common for people to believe that once they are wronged, they gain all sorts of rights, including the right to break various laws. While people have the right to defend themselves during or immediately before a violent attack, the idea that they have carte blanche to break any law they think might benefit them is incorrect, especially not well after the fact. The fact that someone tries to kill you on Thursday doesn't give you the right to take their guns on Friday. It doesn't even give you the right to scratch the paint on their car on Friday. Country songs, movie plots, and gun store legal advice notwithstanding, committing a crime against someone is still illegal even if they have committed crimes against you in the past.

3. While, in limited circumstances, the authorities may be able to take legal action against someone in the interest of preventing crimes (protective orders, firearm confiscation, etc.) it is important to understand that just because it might be legal for the authorities to do it, doesn't mean that we would be able to do it legally.

4. While a person is entitled, by law, to protect themselves from violent attack, that right is limited to the timeframe of the violent attack, not to retaliating after the attack is clearly over, and not to pre-emptive strikes based on the possibility of future attacks. You don't get to take someone's guns because they attacked you in the past, or because they might again in the future. The law doesn't work that way.

Be smart, folks. Know the laws and follow them or you'll end up a criminal.
 
P5 Guy said:
Take items you stole to the police?
Click to expand...


Probably the “better be judged my 12 than carried by 6” mentality that a lot of folks on here go by.

If she didn’t do it and was later shot by him with said guns then it would have seemed like a pretty smart move in hindsight.
 
Aim1 said:
Probably the “better be judged my 12 than carried by 6” mentality that a lot of folks on here go by.

If she didn’t do it and was later shot by him with said guns then it would have seemed like a pretty smart move in hindsight.
Click to expand...
No, it seems like she didn't think and to borrow from Andy Griffith "got her britches caught on her own pitchfork." If he was in jail, there was no immediate threat. I'd be surprised if the charges aren't dropped, but NOBODY will report that if and when they are.

You don't get to make up laws if you don't like the ones on the books, or ignore them if they don't make sense to you.
 
Shanghai McCoy said:
Since it was the husbands home that she went into and took the guns from wouldn't it be up to him to decide if the charges get dropped? o_O
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, we've had our local DA do it when deals were made, or it was clear that the case wasn't going to go anywhere. (Overcharges, wrong charges, no probable cause...)

Its never happened to one of my cases, but I tend to be very careful about such things...
 
rb288 said:
Ok, after rereading the story, she committed burglery.
He was locked up and did not have access to those guns.
What she should have done is make sure the Police knew he had them, because, with a charge of domestic violence, the judge would have ordered their seizure, and they would have been able to take them before he was able to get out.
Click to expand...

Ha, ha, ha.

Can we get serious here?

How many Courts and Police/Sheriff Departments act so quickly that they get a search warrant and seize any guns that are in the home before he is released from jail?

Is he even required to surrender his guns before his day in Court and being found guilty?

Consider the inconvenient fact that the Police have NO legal requirement to protect her or even respond to her call for help.

Let’s consider the possibility she is not knowledgeable about the law but she is very fearful of him attacking her again. Statistics prove that she is likely to be attack by him again.

Her best chance of staying alive may be not posting bail and remaining in jail. That way she will be safe while the domestic violence (sounds like more like Aggravated Battery) slowly works it way through the Courts.

Flame on boys! The water is fine.
 
Last edited:
Accepting, for the sake of argument that all of that is true, the fact remains that none of it makes it legal for her to do what she did.
 
BSA1 said:
Ha, ha, ha.

Can we get serious here?

How many Courts and Police/Sheriff Departments act so quickly that they get a search warrant and seize any guns that are in the home before he is released from jail?

. . .
Flame on boys! The water is fine.
Click to expand...

No flame, but are you honestly saying that you agree with her commission of a felony in this circumstance?

And if you do think that the correct solution to her problem was to commit a felony, you actually want the cops (not the lawmakers or the prosecutors) to take it into their hands and decide that this felony isn’t really a felony this time?

Keep in mind their is an actual victim to the burglary of a home, the cops consulted the victim, and the victim wants to press charges for the felony.

Imagine you were the victim of a felony and the cops told you “I understand that you are the victim of a felony, and the suspect actually turned himself in and confessed, and that we have physical property linking the suspect to the confessed crime, but we decided that, as cops, we are no longer going to act as the executive branch and enforce the laws but we are going to expand our power into interpreting and basically rewriting the laws because we feel badly for the suspect.”

A suspect confessed to the police that they commit a felony, the cops arrest the suspect, and your first thought is “this is why people don’t trust the cops.”
 
Last edited:
waterhouse said:
No flame, but are you honestly saying that you agree with her commission of a felony in this circumstance?

Imagine you were the victim of a felony and the cops told you “I understand that you are the victim of a felony, and the suspect actually turned himself in and confessed, and that we have physical property linking the suspect to the confessed crime, but we decided that, as cops, we are no longer going to act as the executive branch and enforce the laws but we are going to expand our power into interpreting and basically rewriting the laws because we feel badly for the suspect.”
Click to expand...

We don't have to imagine here. We have a Sheriff that has done exactly that on more than one occasion. Believe me, nobody like it. The public feels like they can't trust him, those of us on the job wonder what other gems of alternative reasoning he'll come up with next, and who he'll throw under the bus next in his quest to run for Congress.
 
Charlie Horse said:
No, it seems like she didn't think and to borrow from Andy Griffith "got her britches caught on her own pitchfork." If he was in jail, there was no immediate threat. I'd be surprised if the charges aren't dropped, but NOBODY will report that if and when they are.

You don't get to make up laws if you don't like the ones on the books, or ignore them if they don't make sense to you.
Click to expand...


I’m sure going to get the guns when he was home wouldn’t have been a good idea.


How many times have perpetrators gotten out of jail and immediately attacked a victim? It happens quite often.
 
And I'm sure you don't know the law and are now trying to push a bad position. The best thing would have been to leave. Smarmy\snarky comments don't change reality.
 
In 20 replies, not one of you fine gentlemen has brought forth the idea that she maybe was afraid for her life and acted in a way that made her a little bit safer from an abusive and potentially harmful estranged partner; regardless of its legality.
Women are usually victims of violence from their former lovers far more than violence from a stranger.
Even though she broke the law, maybe she was attempting to protect herself.
Judged by 12......
 
Enfielder said:
In 20 replies, not one of you fine gentlemen has brought forth the idea that she maybe was afraid for her life and acted in a way that made her a little bit safer from an abusive and potentially harmful estranged partner; regardless of its legality.
Women are usually victims of violence from their former lovers far more than violence from a stranger.
Even though she broke the law, maybe she was attempting to protect herself.
Judged by 12......
Click to expand...
And none of that is relevant under the law. The fact that you are willing to assume that he was going to try to kill her proves that you are willing to pole vault to a conclusion. Anyone can claim that anyone else is out to do them harm. If we allow them to go and seize guns, out of a home they do not live in, we've gone past vigilantism into chaos. You do not want to go there.
 
Courtney Irby was arrested on charges of grand theft firearm and armed burglary. Joseph Irby was arrested on a charge of domestic violence - aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.
Both have since bonded out of the Polk County Jail.
Click to expand...

Neither has been convicted of anything as of yet. They have been charged but neither has a conviction against them. While I can see her point I also do not personally know the happy couple. I figure let it all play out in court and maybe then comment on any outcome(s).

Ron
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

JackBurtonJr
  • Locked
Dial 911 - get arrested. Don't dial 911 and die...
Replies
2
Views
698
Justin
Justin
M
  • Locked
Ex-Cop Acquitted in Seven-Shot Killing of Husband
Replies
18
Views
2K
HadEmAll
H
D
  • Locked
Yet Another Statistic: Abused Woman + Restraining Order - CCW = Dead Woman
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
gtmerkley
G
E
  • Locked
Minor wreck turns into deadly trauma in Florida
Replies
10
Views
943
Jeff White
J
A
  • Locked
9-year-old arrested for waving toy gun
2 3 4
Replies
81
Views
3K
C.R.Sam
C
Back
Top