If I had to shoot someone who invaded my home...

[randomoutburst]

A friend (who, granted, isn't extraordinarily knowledgeable about firearms) made a comment to the effect of, "You know if you shoot someone in your home they take all of your guns until they prove you weren't in the wrong."

I am almost certain he is incorrect - if you had to shoot a home invader the police only take the firearm you used when you shot the intruder (to run ballistics and all that), yes? Anyone know the laws on this? My friend's comment ruffled my feathers a bit and just want a bit of clarification. :)

[nitrogen]

In essence the cops can do whatever they want to until a court tells them they were wrong.

normally they might take the one you shot with for evidence, but that should be it.

[KD5NRH]

A friend (who, granted, isn't extraordinarily knowledgeable about firearms) made a comment to the effect of, "You know if you shoot someone in your home they take all of your guns until they prove you weren't in the wrong."

Considering the alternative is to let the person in your home take all your guns and do whatever they want, I'll take my chances with the cops.

[seamusTX]

In some of the northeasterrn states (Rhode Island, New Jersey, etc.), that might be true. I have not heard of any such thing happening in Texas.

A lot of this kind of talk is loosely based on the current or obsolete laws of other states. My favorite is "every bullet will cost you $20,000," or whatever amount. Many defenders never hired a lawyer, never saw the inside of a courtroom, and were no-billed.

I have heard that some people keep a weapon or two and their ammunition in places that would be very difficult to find. I wouldn't know anything about that.

- Jim

[Oldgringo]

I'd still try to do it in the kitchen or bathrooms where there are hard tile floors instead of carpet. We just had to replace a water heater and that's mess enough.

[MoJo]

There is so much misinformation about what will happen if you ____________________ fill in the blank. That I have quit listening to most people including so called "experts" Do what you have to do and worry about the consequences later. It's better to be alive and unharmed than to be dead or injured because you were afraid of losing your guns, being sued, having seven years bad luck, or a bad hair day.

"It's better to be judged by 12 of your peers than carried by six of your friends."

[ELB]

I have read accounts of it going both ways-- only taking the gun that the homeowner used, sometimes taking every gun that can be found.

I think it will depend on what the investigator thinks is necessary to complete his investigation. (And I think it is just human nature that cops in jurisdictions who think citizens shouldn't be armed are going to be more suspicious of homeowners who have guns and are more likely to grab everything for testing). To the homeowner, everything is obvious, but to someone arriving on the scene afterward, it may take some time to figure it out, and he doesn't want evidence to be disturbed or go missing because he didn't pick it up the first time, especially if he finds out something later that might confict with the homeowner's original story. Obviously one of the key questions is "who shot who, using which gun?" From an investigator's standpoint, he doesn't necessarily KNOW for sure that the gun the homeowner proffers is actually the (only) one that was used, until it is examined, the autopsy is done and any bullets found compared, and maybe the homeowner is checked for gunshot residue. Would be embarrasing for the investigator find out the gun he took for evidence was a .38, but the bullets in the body were .45 (or .45 and .38...)...and now when he goes back there's no .45 on the premises...

In any case, the investigator will take and/or document and photograph whatever he thinks is required to do the investigation, and that could include all the guns he can find.

As a general rule, probably a good idea not to stash all your guns in one place where they can be found at one go.

[randomoutburst]

Haha sounds like it's probably a lot of bunk then, depending on the jurisdiction and officer discretion. And don't worry, I would certainly not hesitate to shoot an intruder even in the face of having my guns taken. I agree, oldgringo...carpet + blood makes for a huge mess.

My hubby and I were talking about it and he said, "They can have my Ruger but if they try to take my S&W 19 we have a problem." He loves that thing.

Unfortunately we don't have a way to stash our guns in any place but one - our gun safe. We just moved to a rental property so no making of secret compartments either. ;) Hopefully the questions surrounding shooting an intruder will never be important for us because we hope it never happens.

I think my hubby's and my main concern is that many of our guns are in excellent condition and could be considered collector's items and we would be most upset if they were taken and then returned in any condition other than the condition they left our house.

[gigag04]

Be wary of people who offer up one response to a given situation. There are many possible outcomes from an investigation and to speculate to say "if this happens then the police automatically will do this" doesn't tell the whole story.

I would expect at a minimum the firearm to be held until Grand Jury. But maybe not even then. Who knows.

[HankB]

. . . "You know if you shoot someone in your home they take all of your guns until they prove you weren't in the wrong."

Well, first off they'd have to break into the safe . . . which would probably require more probably cause than just "I felt like it on the spur of the moment" from the responding LEO.

But going beyond that, here's a hypothetical question . . .

Mr. Homeowner's house is invaded by a bona-fide bad guy. Mr. Homeowner shoots him with Gun A - and only Gun A - and the bad guy is DRT.

Before the police arrive, his wife, Mrs. Homeowner, leaves the premesis. She was not involved in the shooting. She also takes several other guns which also were not used in the shooting.

Police arrive, Mr. Homeowner tells them the BG invaded his home, he was in fear of his life, Gun A is right there. Says nothing else until lawyered up.

Now . . . what action do police take? Is there a law against a witness fleeing the scene? (Plausible reason - leaving in case more bad guys come. This could apply in an incident that happens outside the home, too.) I figure it would be tampering with evidence if the bad guy was moved, the gun used was hidden, etc., but is there any law against removing uninvolved nearby items such as guns which did NOT figure into the shooting in any way, shape, or form?

Any legal-eagles here who can comment?

[seamusTX]

I don't know if it is specifically illegal for a witness to leave a crime scene, but I think it would look bad.

You also have to consider that when someone calls the police in a medium-to-large city to report a shooting, the police arrive real fast and in force. There may not be time to do anything after the shooting.

- Jim

[wgoforth]

Masaad Ayoob gives some good advice on what to do after a shooting in this video http://link.brightcove.com/services/pla ... 7812241001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[randomoutburst]

I don't know if it is specifically illegal for a witness to leave a crime scene, but I think it would look bad.

You also have to consider that when someone calls the police in a medium-to-large city to report a shooting, the police arrive real fast and in force. There may not be time to do anything after the shooting.

- Jim

Luckily I live in a relatively small city, in the outskirts on the edge of three different city lines which usually causes a delay in response time while they figure out which city should respond.
My in-laws live next door. If I were to happen to feel safer at their home in case, say...more BGs arrive, and I just happen to take uninvolved firearms over there with me and leave them there before talking to police...
Would that look bad for me to go next door to family after a break-in, of course assuming police are unaware of moved firearms?

[boomerang]

My in-laws live next door. If I were to happen to feel safer at their home in case, say...more BGs arrive, and I just happen to take uninvolved firearms over there with me and leave them there before talking to police...
Would that look bad for me to go next door to family after a break-in, of course assuming police are unaware of moved firearms?

It's a traumatic experience. Nobody except a big jerk would object to you being comforted by family members who live next door. Maybe better to wait on the porch so they have no reason to enter your inlaws' home.

But if you have family (or very close friends) nearby, there are many good reasons to keep a spare at their house as SOP. And not just an extra firearm, but copies of wills, etc.

[seamusTX]

My in-laws live next door. If I were to happen to feel safer at their home in case, say...more BGs arrive, and I just happen to take uninvolved firearms over there with me and leave them there before talking to police...
Would that look bad for me to go next door to family after a break-in, of course assuming police are unaware of moved firearms?

Sorry, but I'm not qualified to give specific advice.

If I were worried about legal involvement, the least of my concerns would be replaceable merchandise.

Besides, I don't own any fancy weapons -- just plain old serviceable ones.

- Jim