Quote:
Originally Posted by jhnttrpp
Ok i know this may sound stupid but, why did they take the mans gun. What will it accomplish. What if he had used a stick to beat the dog to death. Would they have taken the stick. I doubt they need to prove he used the gun. It was not an illegal act.
I would say that it would be an illegal search and seizure. What if he had been Concealed Carry but did not use the gun. Used a stick. I'll bet they would have still taken his gun. I'm just thinking out loud
|
That's standard procedure during any investigation. When I say "Investigation" it doesn't mean the man, (the shooter) is under "investigation", it basically means that the detectives working the case will gather facts, and make a decision if anyone broke the law. In this case, it appears to be a clear cut example of justified shooting. The dog owner had a history with the animal in the past and the dog was clearly a danger to the public. He'll get his gun back in the end I'm sure on that...