Connecticut Gun Theft Victim Gets Rest Of His Guns Taken By Police

[Wingnut]

One thing lawmakers should consider when they pass a law isn’t just how it will be enforced but also how that enforcement will sway people’s behavior. For example, the idea behind the death penalty is, in part, that executing people will dissuade others from committing such heinous crimes. That’s the goal.

However, sometimes the enforcement may actually push people into behaving very differently than originally intended.

A case last week in Connecticut is just such an example.

Sgt. Jennifer Pinto said police were called to Reynolds Avenue at about 8:30 a.m. Tuesday on a report of a car burglary that involved a stolen gun. The owner of the car, Christopher Jerome, 26, parked his car at about 8:20 p.m. Monday and, thinking that he was going to get back into the car a short time later, did not lock the doors.

When he got up the next morning, Jerome saw that his driver’s side door was open and his gun had been taken out of the unlocked glove box, Pinto said. Jerome presented his pistol permit to officers and told them that he had more firearms in his home.

So Jerome was the victim of a crime. Yes, he made a big mistake in not securing the firearm, but he did the responsible thing in owning up to the mistake.

As a result, he was charged with reckless endangerment.

Way to reinforce responsible behavior, folks. That wasn’t all, either.

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2019/10/08/connecticut-gun-theft-victim-gets-rest-of-his-guns-taken-by-police/?fbclid=IwAR3OyxlILAk0Yah9C8RZnsdsEOhxufzYhU-t32DAng98Nw1sFFxKjB2_A90

[Smokin Joe]

Robbed by the robber, then robbed by the police. Lovely.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I don't actually see this as unreasonable? You want to own a gun, keep it securely. A lot of murders are committed with stolen guns.

No sympathy here.

[thackney]

I don't actually see this as unreasonable? You want to own a gun, keep it securely. A lot of murders are committed with stolen guns.

No sympathy here.

You forget to look your car one time and you forever loose your 2nd amendment right? 

No.

That is worse than running a stop sign and having a permanent ban on your drivers license.

[Smokin Joe]

I don't actually see this as unreasonable? You want to own a gun, keep it securely. A lot of murders are committed with stolen guns.

No sympathy here.

I take it no one has ever stolen a gun from you?

A family member got one of mine, another stolen by a 'friend' (recovered fast), but one was used in a crime before I got it back. There are laws against stealing, too.

But let's make the victim of theft from his auto a criminal--and then steal the rest of his stuff from his house.

Get your head straight.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

You forget to look your car one time and you forever loose your 2nd amendment right? 

It was stolen and will probably be used by criminals in a crime, maybe even in a murder.

This is not a 2a thing.

I have no sympathy for this moron.

[Wingnut]

Gun laws rarely make us safer.  They just make law abiding people criminals by default.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Gun laws rarely make us safer.  They just make law abiding people criminals by default.

And idiots who leave their guns lying around to get stolen make us unsafer.

[Wingnut]

And idiots who leave their guns lying around to get stolen make us unsafer.

The logic on how you reached that conclusion is astounding.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The logic on how you reached that conclusion is astounding.

Lol ok? Can you elaborate?

[Smokin Joe]

And idiots who leave their guns lying around to get stolen make us unsafer.

It's not like it was sitting on a table on the patio, someone went into his vehicle and removed it from the glove box.

If you think having the glove box locked would have stopped a thief, you don't know much about thieves.

Someone entered his vehicle, stole something out of a compartment which was not in plain view. Then the police entered his house and stole some more. If you are okay with that, we are going to disagree.

If it had been money, which can be used in a crime, too, would you be all right with that?

[Wingnut]

Lol ok? Can you elaborate?

Nope.  You are to far gone.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Someone entered his vehicle, stole something out of a compartment which was not in plain view. Then the police entered his house and stole some more. If you are okay with that, we are going to disagree.

He had a weapon in his car that, as far as I can tell, was unlocked. Glove compartment was unlocked too.

I get that there are unforeseen circumstances where preventing theft is basically impossible (like someone smashing open car door and locks).

This idiot left his gun out, unsecured, and it was stolen. Now because of his stupidity someone will possibly be a victim of a crime.

So yes, we are going to disagree.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Nope.  You are to far gone.

 

[Smokin Joe]

He had a weapon in his car that, as far as I can tell, was unlocked. Glove compartment was unlocked too.

I get that there are unforeseen circumstances where preventing theft is basically impossible (like someone smashing open car door and locks).

This idiot left his gun out, unsecured, and it was stolen. Now because of his stupidity someone will possibly be a victim of a crime.

So yes, we are going to disagree.

Not in plain sight? Not "left out".

Someone robbed him and the police batted cleanup and hit him again, only his house this time.
Robbed twice.
Yeah, I'm going to disagree with you.

You didn't answer my question about money, either.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Not in plain sight? Not "left out".

Someone robbed him and the police batted cleanup and hit him again, only his house this time.
Robbed twice.
Yeah, I'm going to disagree with you.

You didn't answer my question about money, either.

Comparing money to a gun is ridiculous, so no, I wouldn't be in favor of it there either.

[Smokin Joe]

Comparing money to a gun is ridiculous, so no, I wouldn't be in favor of it there either.

Why ridiculous? Money can be used to purchase drugs, guns, illicit sexual favors, etc. etc. It is obviously involved in criminal activity, especially considering so much of it is seized every year.

So, if the guy had $500 in his glove box, and someone stole that, would you be okay with police stealing any money he had in the house?

If they'd stolen a sheath knife from his glove box, would the police steal his kitchen knives, too?

The issue here is that his property was taken from a closed compartment in his vehicle.
That should not give the police license to take more property from the victim of the original crime, so long as his property is something not illegal to possess.

[Sighlass]

And idiots who leave their guns lying around to get stolen make us unsafer.

Didn't exactly leave it lying around... It was in his personal space out of sight in what most of us know is a private area (glove compartment). It wasn't placed in the middle of a sidewalk on purpose. Or do you think one's car is a community place to be rifled through? Even the police have to have a search warrant (or probable cause) to search it. Just plain common sense, the person didn't want the item stolen.

Your argument is the basis of stupid laws like having to surround one's pool on your property from "tempting" kids to swim/drown anytime they want. Distorting a thief's "covet" to "tempting" as a crime.

Slippery slope, next one will have to have an active security system alarmed with guns locked in a certain gauge of steel separate compartments with the bullets in an another area a few feet from each other. By the time you get to them while in your car, baddies will have stabbed you 14 times. Homes will have to have cameras constantly live to police departments for your security. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Why ridiculous? Money can be used to purchase drugs, guns, illicit sexual favors, etc. etc. It is obviously involved in criminal activity, especially considering so much of it is seized every year.

A gun can be directly used to commit a crime. Money at least has to go through some other motion to. You can't hurt someone directly with money (unless it's a bag of nickels and you beat someone with it). Plus, if you are carrying a gun you have to know that certain responsibility comes with it, if it's shown you cannot do that responsibly then I have no problem with the police taking all your guns.

I have $5 in my wallet right now, are you saying I should be as careful as if I had a gun in my pocket?

It's a ridiculous, absurd comparison. You've twisted logic so badly you got a pretzel.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Didn't exactly leave it lying around... It was in his personal space out of sight in what most of us know is a private area (glove compartment). It wasn't placed in the middle of a sidewalk on purpose. Or do you think one's car is a community place to be rifled through? Even the police have to have a search warrant (or probable cause) to search it. Just plain common sense, the person didn't want the item stolen.

If you want to keep a gun on your person or in your vehicle, at least lock the goddamned door. It's common sense.

No sympathy.

[Smokin Joe]

A gun can be directly used to commit a crime. Money at least has to go through some other motion to. You can't hurt someone directly with money (unless it's a bag of nickels and you beat someone with it). Plus, if you are carrying a gun you have to know that certain responsibility comes with it, if it's shown you cannot do that responsibly then I have no problem with the police taking all your guns.

I have $5 in my wallet right now, are you saying I should be as careful as if I had a gun in my pocket?

It's a ridiculous, absurd comparison. You've twisted logic so badly you got a pretzel.

Nope. You are justifying the theft of the man's property from his house under color of law, because someone stole a gun from his vehicle, where it was not in plain sight.
While it might not be advisable for him to leave the firearm in his vehicle glove box, it should not be criminal.
Theft, however, is a crime, which he reported.
You are the one contorting things by saying that because someone could hurt someone with the gun, it's okay to take the rest of his guns.

If he'd left a crowbar in the back of his pickup, (which can directly be used to kill someone, and as a burglary tool), would you be okay with the police seizing the rest of his tools in the garage?

It's the same principle, either way.

If something is stolen from you does that give the police the right to come in and steal more of the same? I'm saying no. Youre good with it, apparently.

The person is a victim, here, twice. Once by a thief (presumably not in uniform) and again, having his guns taken from his HOUSE under color of law. 

The auto and house aren't comparable except that they are both his property, too, and people aren't supposed to steal from either one, nor enter them without his consent. Such entry, in either place, without permission, is considered a crime, locked or not.

[XenaLee]

If you want to keep a gun on your person or in your vehicle, at least lock the goddamned door. It's common sense.

No sympathy.

I agree.

Anybody stupid enough to store their gun in an unlocked vehicle... especially overnight... is too stupid to own such weapons.   

When he got up the next morning, Jerome saw that his driver’s side door was open and his gun had been taken out of the unlocked glove box, Pinto said. Jerome presented his pistol permit to officers and told them that he had more firearms in his home.

[Smokin Joe]

I agree.

Anybody stupid enough to store their gun in an unlocked vehicle... especially overnight... is too stupid to own such weapons.

So, you're okay with the police stealing the rest of his guns out of his house?

[XenaLee]

Nope. You are justifying the theft of the man's property from his house under color of law, because someone stole a gun from his vehicle, where it was not in plain sight.
While it might not be advisable for him to leave the firearm in his vehicle glove box, it should not be criminal.
Theft, however, is a crime, which he reported.
You are the one contorting things by saying that because someone could hurt someone with the gun, it's okay to take the rest of his guns.

If he'd left a crowbar in the back of his pickup, (which can directly be used to kill someone, and as a burglary tool), would you be okay with the police seizing the rest of his tools in the garage?

It's the same principle, either way.

If something is stolen from you does that give the police the right to come in and steal more of the same? I'm saying no. Youre good with it, apparently.

The person is a victim, here, twice. Once by a thief (presumably not in uniform) and again, having his guns taken from his HOUSE under color of law. 

The auto and house aren't comparable except that they are both his property, too, and people aren't supposed to steal from either one, nor enter them without his consent. Such entry, in either place, without permission, is considered a crime, locked or not.

The person is a dumbass.   Leaving a weapon, whether loaded or not, in an unlocked vehicle is about as dumb as it gets.   One might expect this idiot to also leave his front door unlocked when he leaves, with weapons inside.   Personal responsibility is something any gun owner must be cognizant of if they want to be a gun owner.   Idiots like this  one give the rest of us a bad name/rep statistically... as they give the anti-gun ownership left more than enough ammo to justify yet more anti-gun ownership laws...

and I don't appreciate that.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Nope. You are justifying the theft of the man's property from his house under color of law, because someone stole a gun from his vehicle, where it was not in plain sight.
While it might not be advisable for him to leave the firearm in his vehicle glove box, it should not be criminal.
Theft, however, is a crime, which he reported.
You are the one contorting things by saying that because someone could hurt someone with the gun, it's okay to take the rest of his guns.

If he'd left a crowbar in the back of his pickup, (which can directly be used to kill someone, and as a burglary tool), would you be okay with the police seizing the rest of his tools in the garage?

It's the same principle, either way.

If something is stolen from you does that give the police the right to come in and steal more of the same? I'm saying no. Youre good with it, apparently.

The person is a victim, here, twice. Once by a thief (presumably not in uniform) and again, having his guns taken from his HOUSE under color of law. 

The auto and house aren't comparable except that they are both his property, too, and people aren't supposed to steal from either one, nor enter them without his consent. Such entry, in either place, without permission, is considered a crime, locked or not.

Ok well... lets play the hypothetical game here:

Someone leaves a gun out on a seat, in plain view, with the doors unlocked. The gun is stolen and used to commit a murder.

Should the original gun owner be punished? Just curious.