Joined
·
1,077 Posts
I hope he gets his day in court.
Herald Palladium > Archives > Local News > Walgreens fires armed worker
Herald Palladium > Archives > Local News > Walgreens fires armed worker
Agreed. Only thing court would do is cost him money.AwPhuch said:If Michigan is a right to work state...oops...too bad so sad
Unfortunately...if he signed a Code of Business Conduct that said no weapons..he gave up his right for employment the instant he violated the signing of said contract, and the COBC is a valid contract!
Sucks..but I can't carry my piece where I work..however now I can leave it in my car in the parkinglot...(way to go Texas!)
Any time a firearm has been discharged wether it be SD or criminal act, the police seize said weapon for investigative purposes. Once it is ruled that the man used the weapon lawfully they will return said firearm to its owner. However fully expect the firearm to have been man-handled and fired atleast once. Theres some ignorant people who work in law enforcement who just don't care about other people's property, seen it myself in action. Its a damn shame.What the hell does the police need to hold on to the gun for?
Evidence in a homicide investigation. He should get it back after he's been formally cleared.What the hell does the police need to hold on to the gun for?
Yeah, I get the "official" reason, but why do they NEED it? Evidence? Look here's the gun, write down the make/model/caliber/SN and you're done. It doesn't need to sit in a safe at a police precinct. Having the actual gun does not make any difference.Evidence in a homicide investigation. He should get it back after he's been formally cleared.
Actually, they'd need the gun if they're doing ballistics testing, and if any other questions came up about the weapon, they'd be able to do whatever testing is required with the chain of custody having been preserved. And chain of custody is hugely important in investigations. If they gave the weapon back right away and then needed it back, how could they establish that it was in the same condition as it was during the incident? They wouldn't. And that leaves the evidence vulnerable to being thrown out.Yeah, I get the "official" reason, but why do they NEED it? Evidence? Look here's the gun, write down the make/model/caliber/SN and you're done. It doesn't need to sit in a safe at a police precinct. Having the actual gun does not make any difference.
It all depends on the situation, and not all of them are the same. I have read more than a few reports of SD and HD shoots where the shooter was let go home after on the scene questioning, no seizure, no arrest, no charges.Actually, they'd need the gun if they're doing ballistics testing, and if any other questions came up about the weapon, they'd be able to do whatever testing is required with the chain of custody having been preserved. And chain of custody is hugely important in investigations. If they gave the weapon back right away and then needed it back, how could they establish that it was in the same condition as it was during the incident? They wouldn't. And that leaves the evidence vulnerable to being thrown out.
I remember a forensics show that featured a case where a guy was out hunting with his wife and she was fatally shot. The question was whether the rifle had an accidental discharge, as he claimed, or if he had intentionally killed his wife. As is standard procedure, they took and kept the weapon and performed various tests. They eventually established that there were worn parts somewhere in the mechanism that would cause the gun to fire if it were dropped upside down. He normally carried his rifle slung barrel up, so when it slipped off his shoulder, it landed upside down and went off. This was further confirmed by wound analysis, which showed that the shot came angling up from very low off the ground.
Now if they'd given the weapon back right away, then gotten it back to test the accidental discharge hypothesis, any results they got would be subject to doubt. Did he modify the rifle after the fact to create the conditions for the accidental discharge? Is the weapon in the same condition in all respects that it was when it was involved in the incident? This guy might not have been cleared if the chain of custody had been broken and the exonerating evidence had been thrown out.