Thief wounded, released by cops: victim's guns confiscated!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Preacherman

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2002
Messages
13,306
Location
Louisiana, USA
From the St. Petersburg Times (link):

Robber hit by victim's shots in dark

STEVE THOMPSON

Dec 25, 2004

In the predawn mist, John Quicke couldn't see the man who had just robbed him of a can full of quarters. So he fired his revolver into the dark at the sound of the jangling coins.

"Ouch!" the man yelled. But he kept running.

It was the end of 30 minutes of terror.

Quicke, 51, had been drinking a cup of coffee in his bedroom at 5 a.m. Thursday when the robber came in through the back door of his home on Galveston Street.

"I had the door open in the back because it was so muggy," Quicke said.

The man was dressed all in black, including a mask. He waved a chrome-plated handgun and demanded money and jewelry. He told Quicke to lie face down on the bed.

"He tore my bedroom apart digging through everything," Quicke said.

The robber found a safe in the closet and demanded Quicke get on his knees to open it.

"He was yelling at me, pointing the gun against my temple. He says, 'You've got a count of 10 to open that safe.' "

The safe had nothing but old papers in it. Quicke hadn't been in it for months.

"I was so scared, I couldn't open that thing to save my life. I couldn't even think of the combination."

As he worked the knobs, Quicke didn't pray. Nor did he see his life flash before him, he said.

"I was thinking about some way I could get to my gun, and hoping he didn't find it."

The man already had found Quicke's double-barrelled shotgun, but his .20-caliber nine-shot revolver was in another room.

At the count of nine, Quicke still had not opened the safe. He fell away from the robber, but the man didn't fire.

Soon afterward, the robber ran out of the room and down a wooden staircase with Quicke's shotgun, his cash, his medicine and his 3- pound Planter's peanut can full of change.

When the robber got to the bottom of the staircase, Quicke heard him stumble and spill quarters all over the floor. As he heard the man picking some of them up, Quicke got his gun from the other room.

Quicke ran out to his second story deck, and that's when he heard the change jangling in the dark. He fired twice, and knew his aim had been good when he heard the man scream out. The man dropped Quicke's shotgun in the front yard, but kept going. Quicke called 911.

When sheriff's deputies showed up, it didn't take them long to find a suspect: They simply followed a trail of coins to a home down the road.

There, a woman told them their suspect was at Spring Hill Regional Hospital. The man had been shot in the buttocks.

Sheriff's officials would not release information about the man, whom they had not arrested as of Friday afternoon.

"The suspect was treated (at the hospital) and released," sheriff's spokesman Doug Tobin said. "Of course, given the continuing investigation, we are withholding his name."

Quicke said he knows who the robber was, though not his name.

"He lives down the road, maybe half a mile down from me. Now they've turned him loose."

Quicke said deputies told him that the man, with a wound in his buttocks and in his wrist, claimed he was shot during a drive-by shooting that morning, but that he didn't wish to press charges against whoever shot him.

Said Quicke: "He's still got the bullets in him, from what I was told."

Quicke said detectives told him that they hadn't arrested the man yet because they were still gathering evidence. Quicke said he fears that before they do, the robber will show up at his house again.

"He's going to be back, and the damn cops took my guns."
 
Well golly gee whiz.......I'll play.

The handgun was taken because of the shooting. Anyone's gun.....including a LEO's gun will be taken for ballistic testing.

The shotgun was taken because the robber had run out the door with it. It's called evidence. Plus his fingerprints may be on it, further proof that he was in possession of it.


I guess the title "Firearms gathered as evidence" wouldn't gather as much attention as "guns confiscated by police" :rolleyes:
 
Still, don't you think there's something wrong about leaving the guy defenseless? Legally, he should not have fired since he had no way to see his target and what was behind it. It's done now though and a pissed off bad guy is probably going to be paying him a visit. Not good.
 
He could easily claim that he knows the area around his house well.
Also, didn't he fire down towards the BG?
 
I don't know, man, I wasn't there, but from the description given, I wouldn't have fired. There could have been some people near him. Not likely at that time of morning, but you never know. Nice shot though, I guess...
 
Hindsight is always 20/20, but if I were the victim (knowing that guy lived down the street, and would likely come back), my quote to the newspaper would have been "He's going to be back, and the damn cops took some of my guns." No way I'd be admitting I'm defenseless.
 
Can I play?

What are the odds a man left a trail of coins to his residence, witness said he was shot and then went to the hospital just before police arrived and WASN'T a suspect with enough circimstantial evidence to hold him?
I thought Barney Fife was only a TV character?
In Texas since the theif was known to be armed it would have been a good shoot. The only thing questionable was he couldn't see the perp in the dark but depending on angle, size of yard distance to neighbors (if any) etc. and fear of getting shot I think I could have easily felt the rattling sound was a reoad happening and worth a thanks from the investigating LEOs.
But then again I live in a part of the country that still believes in self defense and justice.
CT
 
Used in a legal manner or not, any guns used in any type of shooting circumstance is very likely to be taken. I think the "victim" was pretty foolish for just shooting towards a sound with being certain of the target before him. Shows a great deal of irresponsibility to me.
As far as the cop bashing, while not one myself, I'd love to see all those that are so willing to bash them to be in thier shoes. All these "experts" would surely NOT being able put up with all the guys behind the badge do. Funny too how just after 9/11 cops and firemen were great heros, now, once again, they're portrayed as the enemy.

start the bashing :neener:
 
[rant]Just my .02, but I think that if police take your weapons they should have to give you a loner. Now I know this sounds completely off the wall, but If they are removing your means of self defense (especially if your not being charged) whether for evidence or whatever, they either need to defend you untill it's return. (Black and White in the Driveway) or give you the means to defend yourself, until you get your guns back. :mad: :cuss:

Btw, why is it that it is O.K. to publish the citizens name but not the robbers?? :confused:

You got shot in the ass while stealing a jar of quarters from your neighbor I think your other neighbors would like to know about it.

[/rant]
 
"Another example of why no one respects law enforcement officers anymore."

With material like that, you should be on Leno. :rolleyes:
 
Amazing how quick some here will jump to cop bashing mode, I would bet you a paycheck those same folks would be the very ones bitch screaming into the phone via 911 when the fecal matter hits the Westinghouse around their place.

To some among us, no matter what the situation it’s always the cop’s fault; somehow someway it’s got to be the cop’s fault.


:cuss:
 
I'm not saying it's the cop's fault for taking the firearm . All I'm saying is that if the state deprives a citizen of the means of self defense it becomes(or should become) the states responsibility to provide for the same. Especially if said citezen just got done shooting someone who had them at gunpoint and is not (for whatever reason) in custody. Because there it would be a fair assumption that Hop-a-long may seek retribution for his discomfort.
 
Quicke had two guns-- a ".20-caliber nine-shot revolver" (either an air gun or a misprinted .22) and a shotgun. The shotgun was stolen and dropped in the yard-- that's evidence in the burglarly. The pistol was used in shooting the suspect-- that's also evidence in the burglary.

Somebody needs to loan Mr. Quicke a gun! (Wish he was here-- I'd loan him one of mine.)

--Matt G
 
Is it just me, or was it not very smart of the homeowner to actually say that he couldn't see the threat when he started shooting? I don't know what the political climate is in his locale, but it seems that this could be twisted and used against him by a rabidly anti-gun DA (like the one in Austin, TX) or a bottomfeeding shyster in a civil action later on.

Talking to the press and admitting the cops took all your guns isn't very smart, either.

I hope it all works out OK for the homeowner, but this seems to be another case of it being wise to keep your mouth shut until you lawyer up.
 
I will do my arm chair quaterbacking,

I say charge him for reckless endangerment. Ya, he was just robbed, but you know, the threat to his life was over, should have called 911 and went into defence mode in case the guy came back. What we have a here is a case of vigilantism plain and simple. As for being disarmed, he should be, with what we know, probably permanently.

Sorry, but chasing the BG down is not self defence. He was in an offensive mode.
 
Connect the dots

"Still, don't you think there's something wrong about leaving the guy defenseless? Legally, he should not have fired since he had no way to see his target and what was behind it."

Let's see if we - or YOU - really understand what you just said.

You ADMIT that "Legally, he should not have fired," yet want someone that stupid/irresponsible/unstable (pick one or several) to have a gun? :what:

Then there are the evidentiary issues, as several on this board have already noted. The shotgun is evidence of both burglary and, possibly, unlawful possession (the BG may be a convicted felon already); the handgun can be test-fired to prove the bullet in the BG's butt was fired by the homeowner's gun.


As for the assertion that the police somehow owe the person "a loner [sic]," see above. :rolleyes:
 
Just a thought

"Legally, he should not have fired," & that is not because he could not see the BG ...NO :banghead: ... BUT ... because the threat was no longer there??? Once the BG left and was not pointing any weapons the threat stopped and the shoot is BAD, right?? :what:
 
Fleeing the scene constitutes a retreat. Stopping to pick up stolen property that you dropped in the very house that you stole it from constitutes theft (in this case, armed robbery). The thief may or may not have been leaving, but as soon as he stopped to pick up the coins, he stopped retreating. Since he was armed, he was a threat (again). You can't commit armed robbery and retreat at the same time; pick one.

Both guns were evidence. It's a shame, and it's also the law. They go together more often than not; blame the lawmakers, not the cops. The victim in question wasn't a "gun person" so there's no reason to expect him to have duplicate copies of his defense weapons or additional weapons stored off the premises.
 
If someone points gun to your temple,it would be real hard to not at LEAST shoot him in the butt....good shoot or not,I think the guy will think twice about armed robbery again...IMO if you hold a gun on someone and say you're going to kill them...you forfeit your rights and should reap what you've sown.....
 
I guess the title "Firearms gathered as evidence" wouldn't gather as much attention as "guns confiscated by police"
Oh cry me a freakin river. :rolleyes: Regardless of the reason, they were confiscated. Period. The cops are leaving him defenseless, releasing his name to the press, withholding the name of the suspect, LEAVING THE SUSPECT ON THE STREET, and you want to whine about the semantics. Is it SOP to confiscate the weapons for evidence. Sure! Can you explain the apparent treasure trove of evidence against the suspect and him being allowed his freedom, including the freedom to take revenge against the now un-armed victim?
 
I understand the reasons for the weapons confiscation and most of the time agree with it as a normal part of the evidence chain.

They need the pistol in order to prove/disprove whether or not the victims pistol fired those bullets into his rear end. The shotgun taken as evidence, well, I would suspect the LEO's are going to attempt lifting finger prints as further evidence.

Shooting in the dark might not be the brightest thing to do-the possibility certainly exists for missing the intended target and hitting an innocent, but I can sure understand why the victim did it. There is few things in life which will get me angry like someone pointing a firearm at my head.

The fact the victim can recognise the perp and knows where he lives, well, just say that if it were me as the victim, the LEO's might want to keep that scumbag in "protective custody" for a number of reasons. This lousy piece of humanity seems to think its his right to enter an occupied home, steal property and money, not to mention threatening to blow a hole in your head. That is a dangerous person-so he did not kill the homeowner this time.....wanna try for double jeopardy where the stakes can really change?
 
Blindly shooting into dark at a retreating BG is a no no--the immediate threat had ended.

The guns were confiscated as evidence, after a robbery and unlawful shooting/attempted murder.

If you shoot somebody unlawfully you better believe your name is going to be in the paper--right or not.

Those who use their firearms irresponsibly and unlawfully are subject to immediate and potentially permanent disarmament.

These are the rules of our society. Any questions?

:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.