Suicide at my local range

[Frank Ettin]

Guy shoots himself in the chest. Body goes down, gun goes down.

Is it more likely to look like he shot himself, or that someone else did?...

Beats me. I wasn't there, and neither were you. You have no idea what the situation was nor what was apparent or not. You're just guessing.

And it is necessary to always follow proper investigation procedure. First impressions can be deceiving. If someone takes shortcuts because he thinks he knows what happened, and is wrong, the opportunity to discover the truth can be forever lost.

 

[Skans]

Chances are good everyone's eyes were downrange when he fired the shot that killed himself and no one actually saw it happen. This is just good police work. It removes any possibility of someone later saying that it was murder, or an accidental shooting by someone else in the range. If there is ever ANY doubt about what happened there will be lawsuits later. Personally I'd want them to take my guns and do a ballistic test to elminate me as a possible suspect later. It also protects the owners of the range from liability claims.

I respectfully disagree. Some guy kills himself, and the police think they have the right to deprive EVERYONE near him at a gun range of their personal property - WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, and WITHOUT REASONABLE SUSPICION of any wrong doing on those deprived of their firearms. This isn't "good police work". This is 100% wrong!

BTW, the first line of the news article reads: "No foul play is suspected in the death of a man found with a gunshot wound at a shooting range in Swisher on Sunday evening, Johnson County investigators announced Monday morning."

 

[Frank Ettin]

I respectfully disagree. Some guy kills himself, and the police think they have the right to deprive EVERYONE near him at a gun range of their personal property - WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, and WITHOUT REASONABLE SUSPICION of any wrong doing on those deprived of their firearms. This isn't "good police work". This is 100% wrong!

You can disagree, but do you have any evidence to support your opinion?

 

[BarryLee]

While the idea of confiscating guns during an investigation sounds reasonable to me the concern is getting your guns back.

Several years ago an Uncle found a dead body on his hunting property. After the Police arrived and assured the person was indeed dead they took the hunting party’s weapons as part of the investigation. Well, the Coroner ruled the cause of death as natural causes within a week. However, it took them a couple of months to get their firearms back. If I remember right it was more bureaucratic incompetence than an intentionally punitive act, but never the less they were deprived of their personal property for no reason.

 

[zukiphile]

While the idea of confiscating guns during an investigation sounds reasonable to me the concern is getting your guns back.

At a practical level, you are correct.

How and why all the arms on a range might be taken seem like reasonable questions. Presumably, the fourth amendment applies on ranges as well. In the absence of a warrant or some kind of articulable reasonable basis for a blanket seizure, taking a fellow's firearms simply because he was in the vicinity of a crime does not appear to be consistent with the protection described in the fourth amendment.

Criminal law is not my area, so I have no idea whether there is case law describing an exception under which this circumstance might fall.

 

[Skans]

You can disagree, but do you have any evidence to support your opinion?

Evidence to support an opinion? Are you kidding? This is the internet - not a court of law. Also, evidence has to do with the presentation of facts, and has nothing to do with offering opinions. No one has any evidence to support opinions aired on the internet.

In any event, I bet the cops didn't take even one of the Range Owner's guns. I bet they didn't take away rental guns. I bet there were lots of guns the cops decided not to take that were within the walls of the gun range/store. No, they arbitrarily took away guns from people doing nothing more than lawfully shooting them, with no evidence, reasonable suspicion, court order, or anything else that would justify this.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Evidence to support an opinion? Are you kidding? This is the internet - not a court of law. Also, evidence has to do with the presentation of facts, and has nothing to do with offering opinions. No one has any evidence to support opinions aired on the internet.

It depends. If the opinion is "I think women should have to wear headscarves," then of course there's no evidence to "prove" such an opinion. It is, however, reasonable for someone to ask why you think that; in other words, to provide evidence, or arguments, to support your opinion. It's also reasonable for someone else to argue that you're wrong and to show why they support that position.

You asserted (which may be a better word) that police were "100% wrong" to remove patrons' guns from the scene. When you're asked for evidence to support your assertion, that might include laws governing what police can and can't do at crime scenes, cases in which such behavior has been successfully challenged, etc. Police do in fact seize items found at a crime scene all the time, so to support your assertion, you need evidence of what legal limits there are on such seizure. A blanket reference to the 4th Amendment doesn't cut it.

As you point out, this is the internet: sources of such factual information are abundant.

Re: to your "bet" about which guns they did or didn't take, you're probably right: there would have been no reason for them to take guns that were unloaded and locked up at the time of the shooting.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Evidence to support an opinion? Are you kidding? This is the internet - not a court of law. Also, evidence has to do with the presentation of facts, and has nothing to do with offering opinions. No one has any evidence to support opinions aired on the internet....

Yes, evidence to support an opinion. An opinion that can't be supported is just hot air and worth nothing. The support one can provide for an opinion is a useful gauge as to how useful an opinion might be or how much attention an opinion warrants.

An opinion supported by appropriate expertise, training, experience, evidence or some combination is one thing. An opinion plucked out of thin air is something else entirely. All opinions aren't equal.

...Criminal law is not my area, so I have no idea whether there is case law describing an exception under which this circumstance might fall.

Nor is it mine, although I've been professionally involved in a number of investigations and prosecutions of criminal matters. I've also taken a number of Continuing Education courses.

I found this and this to be interesting.

No doubt there can be some Fourth Amendment issues, but I suspect that procedures would lean toward securing anything obvious that could be evidence and sorting out the Fourth Amendment issues later in court if need be.

 

[Gaerek]

In any event, I bet the cops didn't take even one of the Range Owner's guns. I bet they didn't take away rental guns. I bet there were lots of guns the cops decided not to take that were within the walls of the gun range/store.

This is why I love the internet...all the clairvoyants that know what happened, even though they weren't there.

Or maybe you're making an assumption, based on your plethora of "I bets."

No, they arbitrarily took away guns from people doing nothing more than lawfully shooting them, with no evidence, reasonable suspicion, court order, or anything else that would justify this.

Oh, here's the clairvoyant part. You obviously know exactly what happened, since you're making an assertion. If this is correct, then I think these legal shooters would have a case for a lawsuit against the Police Department.

I'm not saying the cops did or did not have a right to seize any guns, other than the one the person allegedly used to end their life. You see, I wasn't there. I don't know what happened.

What I do know is, if there was any question of foul play whatsoever, and I was there, I would want to be removed as a possible suspect.

 

[tulsamal]

It's been many years since I was actually shooting on a public range.

But when I lived in Norman, I used to belong to Tri-City Gun Club and shoot at their range. Since I didn't go very often, I took a whole lot of guns when I went. Sometimes I ended up not even shooting half of them but it was easier to be prepared.

So in this instance... yeah, I can see getting irritated if the LEO's showed up and wanted _every gun_ collected. So my bolt action .350 Remington Magnum that is still zipped in the case gets picked up by the police? I know, the police are collecting evidence and they have to be sure to get it all. But when there is a fatal traffic accident and evidence that it was manslaughter, they don't "confiscate" every car that happened to be within 100 yards.

Same with my carry gun at a range. It's on my body, its loaded, but it also hasn't been fired in a month or two. You expect me to remove it and hand it over for some undetermined period just because some yahoo picked the gun range to off himself?

I'm not actually saying the police "are 100% wrong" or anything like that. But I think that the police on the ground, at the scene, should be capable of some independent thought. They should be able to make some reasonable choices. If I've got 15 guns with me and half of them are still unfired and they want to take them all away.... it's going to get really tense. Because my assumption is that we have some cops here that just can't resist going on a fishing expedition. That want a chance to make sure all these guns are legal. They want to run all the serial numbers and see if any are stolen. Etc.

Sometimes something really is technically "legal" but it still isn't how things should actually be done. The whole "Protect and Serve" gets forgotten. The fact that you are actually my employee gets forgotten. Treating people like they are innocent until proven guilty gets forgotten. And then you get the Nurenberg Defense, "I'm just going my job. This is our policy." Or my favorite, "It's for officer safety."

Gregg

 

[Skans]

The very first sentence of the article says: "No foul play is suspected in the death of a man found with a gunshot wound at a shooting range in Swisher on Sunday evening, Johnson County investigators announced Monday morning."

What more do you want -the investigators said there was no foul play suspected - this means no probable cause to confiscate other peoples' private property.

 

[lcpiper]

reasonable for someone to ask why you think that; in other words, to provide evidence, or arguments, to support your opinion.

Nope, Skans can have all the opinions he wants and he ain't gota give you squat. He is entitled to his opinion.

 

[2ndsojourn]

Skans, after they sorted out all the information, the next day, they were able to determine there was no foul play. Not immediately that day at the scene.

 

[Gaerek]

The very first sentence of the article says: "No foul play is suspected in the death of a man found with a gunshot wound at a shooting range in Swisher on Sunday evening, Johnson County investigators announced Monday morning."

I suppose that article was written at the exact moment the police arrived?

No foul play was suspected, after an investigation was done.

Nope, Skans can have all the opinions he wants and he ain't gota give you squat. He is entitled to his opinion.

You are exactly right. But without support for that opinion, I'll take it for what it's worth...nothing.

 

[lcpiper]

Skans opinion has no value to you then. Perhaps it has sentimental value for him. Perhaps not everyone in this discussion is interested in hounding people for why they have an opinion on whatever happens to be the topic at the moment.

I've decided...... I value Skans' opinion as well.

I have also decided I don't think so much of the forum lawyers that want to jump on everyone the moment they post "unsupported opinions".

That's my opinion by the way.

 

[AH.74]

Originally Posted by AH.74
Guy shoots himself in the chest. Body goes down, gun goes down.

Is it more likely to look like he shot himself, or that someone else did?

Beats me. I wasn't there, and neither were you. You have no idea what the situation was nor what was apparent or not. You're just guessing.

What am I guessing at? Guy shoots and kills himself, his body drops to the floor. The gun has to go down with him, and end up somewhere.

Then I asked a question. So what am I guessing at?

 

[AH.74]

I have also decided I don't think so much of the forum lawyers that want to jump on everyone the moment they post "unsupported opinions".

Thank you, I agree. The derisive tone does get old.

 

[zincwarrior]

This occurred some time past at an indoor range nearby. The range closed up for a bit. Initially they thought it was an accident but determined it had to be suicide. I don't understand the impulse to do this. It can't be a cry for help because, like, they actually do it.

Why?
Why in public?
Why at a gun range?

Now I've seen a share of some more interesting characters. However, I used to compete in glorified strategy games, and the weird factor was off the charts in comparison. The wife works at a church, and they run into very itneresting characters about once a week or two, including homeless, people who just start shouting at the priest (that was really wierd) etc. In comparison, people at the range, have been pretty normal.

 

[JRH6856]

Nope, Skans can have all the opinions he wants and he ain't gota give you squat. He is entitled to his opinion.

And your point is what, exactly? Anyone can have an opinion, and anyone elese can choose to consider it or ignore it on whatever basis they choose.

 

[hardworker]

Let's say for a second that it wasn't suicide. Some guy planted the gun to make it look that way. Police show up, assume it's a suicide, let everyone walk out with their stuff.

They just let their evidence walk out the door.

It sucks, but it's the way things are done. Impartial application of the law is what everyone wants right?