I'm in mortal combat with
Mama Liberty!
:)
She sent me this.
Short story: a guy shot a bad guy in defense. The police took his gun.
I wasn't overly concerned, and replied:
It's the gun used in the shooting so forensics can run tests and ballistics can corroborate or challenge his statements. If they took all his guns, that would be one thing. In this case, it's pretty routine practice, plus they do it to "Only One" service weapons as well.
She ain't havin' none of that, and shot back:
Dear David,
Right, and if it is his only gun, he's sol until they give it back unless he can afford to buy another one - provided they LET him buy another one. Police often hold such guns for YEARS, since they are "evidence."
I don't buy it. There is no need for ballistics or any other tests on the gun since he acknowledges that he shot the criminal. There is nothing to prove that way. The autopsy would be the only way to tell the trajectory or path of the bullet in the body to verify his account of the shooting. The gun itself has nothing to do with it.
I understand forensics, evidence gathering and the autopsy process very well. Confiscation of his gun is BS. Sorry. :)
I just thought you might like to see a girl beat me up.