Kyle Rittenhouse wants his rifle back so he can destroy it, allegedly.

burroughs85

I don't think I would want my rifle back in order to destroy it if it were me. If my rifle were returned in good condition, I believe I'd rather just keep it.

https://www.wisn.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-wants-his-gun-back/38833838

Anti-gunners in Wisconsin want long guns in the hands of minors to be restricted to going hunting. I have no problem with teenagers armed with guns on the streets (in the absence of police security) with good intentions as Kyle Rittenhouse had. 

https://www.wisn.com/article/change-law-that-allowed-rittenhouse-to-carry-weapon/38404698

Hopefully, Dominick Black will beat the felony gun charge rap. I see no crime here. Minors in Wisconsin can legally get a long gun. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dominick-black-charged-buying-kyle-rittenhouse-gun-used-kenosha-shooti-rcna11574

Wambli Ska

Dominick Black agreed to plead no contest to contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a non-criminal citation.  The original Felony charges amounted to 12 years.  Instead they fined him $2,000 for a non-criminal offense.   His lawyer took it out of expediency.  He could have fought this since Kyle was ruled innocent there was no “delinquency” but hey might as well take it and run.

Rather interesting article:
https://www.wisn.com/article/man-who-bought-gun-for-kyle-rittenhouse-to-pay-dollar2000-in-deal/38703903

CHIRO1989

I'll give him 200$ to let me "dispose" of it....

burroughs85

I still disagree with restricting minors with guns to hunting. The gun in the hands of 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse was put to good use in a certain Wisconsin community. We need more armed minors like Kyle Rittenhouse. 

Varmintmist

Its his rifle, he can do whatever he wants with it.

burroughs85

Varmintmist said:

Its his rifle, he can do whatever he wants with it.

Of course, his rifle shouldn't be for whatever the police want to do with it. The point is, any gun used lawfully in the death of one or more humans doesn't make the gun "evil" somehow. I could be wrong, but I don't think it's standard practice for police to discard their duty firearms after use in fatal police shootings. Dirty Harry threw is badge in the river after killing Scorpio, not his Model 29. 

Wambli Ska

Guns that are part of a criminal investigation are seldom returned even if no charges are filed or if the owner is exonerated.  They normally linger in evidence lockers buried in paperwork and bureaucracy until the police have one of their gun shredding extravaganzas for public consumption.

rberglof

Had a friend that got his gun back after his son-in-law stole it and used it to kill his wife (Randy's daughter) As Randy said it was the scum bag that killed her the gun was just the object he used.

Jayhawker

And the guns you do get back are often in really bad shape after languishing in the property room...an acquaintance of mine got his original 1873 Colt back after it was mistakenly confiscated by the PD...it was completely destroyed due to the humid conditions in which it was stored...

burroughs85

Jayhawker said:

And the guns you do get back are often in really bad shape after languishing in the property room...an acquaintance of mine got his original 1873 Colt back after it was mistakenly confiscated by the PD...it was completely destroyed due to the humid conditions in which it was stored...

Was this person properly compensated by the PD for damages to the Colt? 

Wambli Ska

Jayhawker said:

And the guns you do get back are often in really bad shape after languishing in the property room...an acquaintance of mine got his original 1873 Colt back after it was mistakenly confiscated by the PD...it was completely destroyed due to the humid conditions in which it was stored...

Yep.  I remember seeing pics of the guns the confiscated during Katrina in New Orleans.  Damned shame what they did to those.

Jayhawker

burroughs85 said:

Jayhawker said:

And the guns you do get back are often in really bad shape after languishing in the property room...an acquaintance of mine got his original 1873 Colt back after it was mistakenly confiscated by the PD...it was completely destroyed due to the humid conditions in which it was stored...

Was this person properly compensated by the PD for damages to the Colt? 

No....He was informed that they were not responsible for maintaining seized firearms...

CHIRO1989

Jayhawker said:

burroughs85 said:

Jayhawker said:

And the guns you do get back are often in really bad shape after languishing in the property room...an acquaintance of mine got his original 1873 Colt back after it was mistakenly confiscated by the PD...it was completely destroyed due to the humid conditions in which it was stored...

Was this person properly compensated by the PD for damages to the Colt? 

No....He was informed that they were not responsible for maintaining seized firearms...

How is this not "destroying evidence"?

Wambli Ska

The police in Miami had my pristine Walther PPS for 6 weeks.  I finally got it back and it looked like it was stored in a cement mixer and tumbled with other guns and some rocks for good measure.  I think it’s done on purpose because they know you have no recourse.  No “before” pictures…

burroughs85

Wambli Ska said:

The police in Miami had my pristine Walther PPS for 6 weeks.  I finally got it back and it looked like it was stored in a cement mixer and tumbled with other guns and some rocks for good measure.  I think it’s done on purpose because they know you have no recourse.  No “before” pictures…

There ought to be reform for law enforcement to be held economically accountable for damage property. Constitutionality should better protect private property. 

Varmintmist

CHIRO1989 said:

Jayhawker said:

burroughs85 said:

Jayhawker said:

And the guns you do get back are often in really bad shape after languishing in the property room...an acquaintance of mine got his original 1873 Colt back after it was mistakenly confiscated by the PD...it was completely destroyed due to the humid conditions in which it was stored...

Was this person properly compensated by the PD for damages to the Colt? 

No....He was informed that they were not responsible for maintaining seized firearms...

How is this not "destroying evidence"?

It would be an unlawful taking.

Some_Mook

burroughs85 said:

Wambli Ska said:

The police in Miami had my pristine Walther PPS for 6 weeks.  I finally got it back and it looked like it was stored in a cement mixer and tumbled with other guns and some rocks for good measure.  I think it’s done on purpose because they know you have no recourse.  No “before” pictures…

There ought to be reform for law enforcement to be held economically accountable for damage property. Constitutionality should better protect private property. 

"Law Enforcement" won't be the ones paying for your suggestion if it came to fruition.  The taxpayers will be the ones " Held Economically Accountable" if 'reform' such as you suggest were to be enacted.  If legislation were to be put into effect stating that any personal property held in evidence requires the lawful owner to be financially compensated if said evidence was damaged between initial confiscation and  ultimate return to owner, it would not change how such evidence was treated one iota. 

If you did decide to pursue this in a more meaningful fashion aside from making inane statements on an internet forum, and are able to find a legislator willing to introduce a bill to address this, see if they will also include a stipulation that the sanitary workers need to make sure they do not damage my garbage cans or allow the lids to blow away down the street instead of putting them properly back onto the cans when they are done emptying them.  While we are at it, how about making it easier to get compensated for the damage done to my car each winter because the road commission insists on using salt as a de-icing agent?   

Varmintmist

If the garbage guys are tearing up your cans, you can call and get them to stop and reimburse you if they keep doing it. I rode the back of a truck. The only cans that got damaged were ones that had 300lb of magazines in them. Those got bent ... by accident... over the lip of the hopper to reduce future volume.

You can sue the state for road maint. Happens all the time. If a turn is improperly built and is found to be the cause of an accident it costs a whole  lot more than to return private property that they shouldnt have. As to salt, it was used sparingly or not at all. That stopped when people stopped being responsible drivers or car owners and using real snow tires and skill. They used to use coal ash, fly ash, and grit. Left snow on the roads to and the roads lasted longer. People have choices, most of the people where you live have chosen to make the roads bare no matter the consequences.

Either way the analogy's are flawed, because no one is pouring salt on your car. You choose to drive and maintain it in the conditions available. It is a known environmental occurrence where you live. You choose the type of can you put out, and the amount you fill it, and you have access to get recompense.

 

Some_Mook

Varmintmist said:

Either way the analogy's are flawed

 

The analogies were completely in line with the point being made about posting inane comments, as in: the analogies themselves were intentionally inane also.

Varmintmist

No, the point is that no one can legally destroy property because they are lazy.

If the $ came out of the depts budget, you bet the handling of property would change.