Posted on 04/16/2012 8:05:30 AM PDT by marktwain
An Aldi customer in Milwaukee who shot and wounded an armed robber is suing police for the return of his gun.
Nazir Al-Mujaahid had a concealed weapons permit to carry the gun, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel blog Proof & Hearsay. In February, prosecutors said Al-Mujaahid was within his legal rights when he shot the man who pointed a shotgun at a cashier and then at Al-Mujaahid, according to a prior Journal Sentinel story.
But police are keeping Al-Mujaahid’s gun as evidence in the case against two men accused in the robbery. Wisconsin Carry Inc., a gun rights group, is helping Al-Mujaahid in his quest for return of the gun. The suit filed last week claims a violation of Al-Mujaahid’s due process rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at abajournal.com ...
As obtaining a court order often costs many times the cost of the gun, the practice becomes equivilant to legalized theft.
Could one refuse to hand over the gun at the scene to the officers? I’m not sure thats the wisest thing to do but i’m just wondering. Would they have to get a warrant to take it then?
....Sound of screeching tires and record scratch here.....
Everyone needs to read the rest of the article. There is an eyebrow to be raised. Nothing necessarily illegal here but either this guy has a very good reason for having and often using his concealed carry permit or is the luckiest/unluckiest "good citizen" I've ever heard of.
Three incidents in a year? He is a one man crime stopper and citizen hero or something.
Shouldn't O'Moslem sent the media to his defense immediately? And maybe some "my people" Eric Holder "peacekeepers" ?
Just write a reg that says if the officer who is responsible for returning the gun does not do so after x amount of days faces a charge for theft and has to pay a fine to the court plus a garnishment their paycheck which goes to pay the victim for the theft.
Now how fast do you think those firearms would return to their rightful owners?
This makes the 4th incident. I am speechless.
This is the problem here in Florida. Use a gun in self defense, and you don’t even have to shoot someone, the POPO
takes the gun and good luck getting it back.
Allowing emotions and stating ignorant comments only serve to inflame the situation and make things worse for everybody. These comments are no different than the ones used against Zimmerman and the La Crosse athletes.
I fully agree, but if an individual’s firearm is kept after the case is adjudicated that is a problem!
I don't understand how a good guy's gun is evidence in a crime. Do police have their guns confiscated?
I am not sure if the three incidents are all in one year. The process usually takes quite a bit of time.
More likely, the police do not want him to be able to carry a gun and have been harrassing him.
In what possible way can the gun used by the Customer to stop the robbers, be evidence for or against the robbers?
Ditto.
Where does it say the previous incidents happened in one year?
In any case, it certainly seems that Nazir was the hero in ending the Aldi’s holdup. He “shot and wounded a man who was waving a gun at cashiers and customers.” He should get a reward.
I don't understand how a good guy's gun is evidence in a crime. Do police have their guns confiscated?Right. I would love to read an official explanation and an answer to your question.
Evidence of WHAT?!?
This isn't the perp's gun; and it can be PROVED that the perp was at the scene and in possession of the shotgun; and was attempting armed robbery totally in absence of this "piece of evidence"; it makes as much sense as confiscating the brown stained pants the cashier was wearing, to prove he crapped them in order to show 'he feared for his life' during the robbery.
Are all COPS' guns confiscated (let's think SWAT teams here) and put into the evidence locker every time they are pulled, let alone fired; and kept until any resulting case is adjudicated?
Is the gun being kept as evidence in case that Nazir is ever prosecuted for shooting the perp...a "case" that has never been filed?
How much IRRELEVANT "evidence" do cops need, for the DA to prove that these perps were at the scene; were armed; and demanded money?
Let's just close down the business, and put the whole damned thing into the evidence locker, while they're at it.
No, you cannot refuse to hand over the gun. It is evidence. However, once ballistics are conducted and confirmed to have been the weapon that shot the bad guy, I see no reason why it cannot be returned. There is a legal perspective that says the best evidence rule means it has to be retained by the police. If it is needed by the courts in the future, I would think the owner could produce it as necessary.
In 1979 I had a pistol stolen from a house burglary. It was recovered the next week in a raid. I was a reserve deputy at the time. It took almost 15 months to get the weapon and it was a DUTY weapon but it was personaly owned.
I'm a 2A supporter. I don't think I need creds here for that. I am also objective.
More likely, the police do not want him to be able to carry a gun and have been harassing him.
I don't know what constitutes harassment. Your statement is as speculative as mine. And that's fair. But if I were the detective, I might have some additional questions for the honorable citizen considering this is the 4th time he has saved the day (again presumably). Like, "Al-XYZ, what were you doing at Aldi's?". "Did you know the perp?" "Do you play the lottery?" "Do you have any Children?" "Have you ever applied to an LEO academy?" "What do you think of the job our local LEO's do protecting our neighborhood?"
If we give Al-xyz the benefit of the doubt and suggest he turned 18 in 1995, he has been involved in 4 incidents in which his gun was (presumably) confiscated as evidence. He has a juvenile record of armed robbery.
The article doesn't suggest he is under investigation or that he has broken any laws. There is a little innuendo at the end of the short story that could point to some bias by a liberal reporter. But objectively, the man's history with criminal involvement is cause for pause and consideration.
If his firearm is legitimate evidence, I do not see where he has been treated unfairly. He shot a perp that was in the process of committing a felony. The gun links the witness to the scene and corroborates his testimony to put the scumbag in jail.
As I said, I presume he should be nominated for Crime Stopping Citizen of the decade if not year. Otherwise, he should move to a safer neighborhood. He could very well be just a very lucky (or unlucky) citizen. So I give him and local LEO the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.