'Spoils of war'

T

Twycross

New member
I have a question I've been pondering, and I thought I'd see what you guys think about this.

Through military history, the losers in a fight usually get stripped of their gear. Maybe not so much through the last few centuries, but for most of human history. So here's a scenario: you have been assaulted by a thug in an alley. Because of your superior fighting skills, or just plain luck, you are victorious. The thug is either dead or unconscious, but no one else has showed up yet. Then, you notice that the guy had a Glock tucked in his jacket pocket, which, for some unknown reason, he did not pull. Or maybe he did pull it, but was unable to use it. Or used it ineffectivly. Whatever. Does this weapon now become 'spoils of war', forfeited to you, the victor? Or in other words, would you take it? Any thoughts?
 
Now YOU have the pistol that he stole from Joe Citizen.

or it was legally his. you stole it. stole. a gun. With a serial number.


very very bad idea. now you, too, are a felon.
 
You stole Joe Citizens Glock. And, you're standing over his dead/mauled body. That doesn't look too good for when the authorities actually do show up. Unless there were no witnesses and you don't call the po-po, which again, would be a giant mistake.
 
Even worse, it could be Joe Criminal's Glock he stole from Joe Citizen a few months ago and which he's used to rob several convenience stores, including one where he plugged the clerk with that very pistol which you are now carrying around...
 
If I had just gunned down Mr. BadGuy and saw his Glock tucked in his pants and for some reason he didn't pull it. Personally, I'd pull his weapon and make sure it was in his hand before the police arrive.
 
if it were a real war, i don't see why not. bringing home a pallet of guns or grenades, that's pushing it, but our dads and granddads brought home lugers from germany, so i don't see why our guys shouldn't be able to grab an AK in the gulf.

but on the civilian front, we've pretty much covered the legal ramifications... you now possess a gun which can possibly through ballistics be tied to a crime, not to mention someone else may lay claim to it and then it looks stolen, and the ATF just wouldn't consider that a legitimate transfer of something they want to know about...
but all that aside, i don't want a gun i don't know the history of. not even for legality reasons, but for safety. unless i happen to be an armorer for the particular model of weapon i've come across, i just wouldn't feel safe with a gun that's likely changed hands a few times, been beaten up and poorly maintained. i'm sure i'm overly paranoid, but i'd prefer to avoid kabooms at all costs, even if it means buying all my guns new :P
 
Since you're talking about a civilian crime, I believe that would be called "tampering with a crime scene" or some other such legal term. (Putting the gun in the BG's hand would also be.) I think that's a crime most anywhere.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't touch the thing. Wouldn't want my prints on it b/c cops may think I planted it on him to justify my shooting or something. Now, In regards to soldiers taking equipment from enemy soldiers; I think it's not a bad idea and in a way a souvinere (wish I could spell) of where they've been and what there enemy was.
 
Wow...not sure if this has already been covered or not, but you have no idea where that gun came from, if it was used in a homocide or some aggravated crime...now if you pick up the weapon and then you get caught with it, then you are now Suspect #1 for anything that gun has been through. Not a very good idea...besides, its just a friggin gun.
 
My first thought was to lock this down tighter than a bull's rear end at fly time as we do NOT condone criminal behavior here at TFL. Thanks to all the members who pointed out that the idea of theft and tampering with a crime scene is a very bad idea.

Denny
 
Glock?

I have no idea what would come over one's mind to take the time to steal such a pistol? So why is it one would consider stealing a hot Glock? Heck, I don't like Glock's enough to buy one and own anyhow. This is a interesting post :confused: ?
 
I'm not sure which troubles me more, whether or not to remove an item from a crime scene, or tampering with evidence in a crime scene.
I simply don't know what to say, so I will not say anymore.
 
Yes. Take the gun and any jewelry he is wearing. Make sure to check for a wallet. If you have enoiugh time you could open his mouth and check if he has any gold fillings you could pry out. :rolleyes:
 
TWYcross,

In many years of TFL participation, I must say this is one of the more foolish ideas ever raised. I debated whether to comment at all -- I probably should not -- and/or whether to be so blunt, and I finally decided that this post warrants a very straightforward and forthright response.

Please consider the following scenario: You feloniously steal the robber’s Glock. However, unbeknownst to you, he (after all, a criminal) used it to kill seven nuns two weeks before. For whatever reasons, the Glock is later seized by the police and the ballistic matches (projectile and cartridge case) tie the firearm -- and, therefore, you -- to the horrific “nun massacre”. What do you say to the police, “I’m innocent, and I only stole the gun?” That is certain to be a successful defense.

I do not intend to offend or to be disrespectful, but that is a VERY BAD idea. And, by the way, it is illegal to bring small arms -- no less grenades -- home from an overseas battlefield. I served for two decades as a Naval officer (eventually commanding hundreds of people) and I can tell you this is sometimes treated as a serious Courts Martial offense, not to mention the local police and ATF reactions to a private citizen with grenades in his home!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top