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 ...
I don't doubt the man is a hero. He should be rewarded.
Evidence: The gun links the shooter (hero) to the scene and corroborates his testimony in the trial. He states, "It's my gun. I was there. This is what I saw." Fingerprints on the gun, some ballistics test and gunpowder residue prove forensically that whatever he says is credible.
Wisconsin Concealed Carry Aldi ping
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
Recognizing the need to preserve evidence for a criminal trial while paying heed to the constitutional prohibition of unlawful taking of property the government should pay the replacement costs of a comparable gun.
So do the brown-stained pants of the cashier...were they confiscated and locked up, too?
There is "evidence"; and there is "reasonable evidence"; then there is this kind of "reasoning": the gun has to be used to prove that this guy was there as a witness, or his testimony is no good.
Where is the similar "evidence" similarly linking ALL THE OTHER WITNESSES? Where does it end?
I don't know what other evidence they have or need. And neither do you. What is the judge's history on what he accepts as evidence? What is the local Defense Attorney's tendency and record to defend these cases?
I answered the common question you asked and the common response that seems to be legally acceptable. It's a chain of evidence that makes all evidence stronger. If we assume that a jury is logical and can make reasonable inferences about the legitimacy of evidence and testimony....you get the point.
It's not that uncommon for the prosecution to hold useless evidence because they are afraid of what they might need unexpectedly later.
I am not supposing it's right or necessarily wrong. I don't know all the information. Oddly, this is at least the 4th time the police have confiscated his weapon as evidence. That pistol has apparently put a lot of bad guys in jail. Maybe it's good luck for the LEO to hold on to it. They should name this man's weapons Rabbit Foot.
Yet another reason to own more than one gun.
Until a case is adjudicated, ALL evidence has to remain locked up. Once the chain of evidence is broken, the entire case against the defendants will be thrown out. Not can, will.
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.
***********
No so. It is really a stretch to call the gun “evidence.” There is no dispute that the robbery victim shot the perp and that he was shot with that gun. The D.A. would need the gun a evidence only if there was a dispute over what the robbery victim did. The owner should be able to get the gun back by stipulating that the gun was used to shoot the robber.
Yes
You don’t like it, change the rules of evidence.
Prosecutor (to perp): In February of 2012 did you brandish a shotgun at a cashier in an Aldi store in Milwaukee?
Perp: No sir.
Prosecutor (to perp): Is this the gun that Nazir Al-Mujaahid used to shoot you?
Perp: Yes sir.
Prosecutor: I rest my case.
Here is a link to a previous article. It has a little more information.
Many urban police departments have a policy of confiscating all weapons that they come across, then refusing to return them unless they get a court order.
Milwaukee even has a special court to handle such actions, which is a plus. I recall reading an article that showed a number of people had to go to court more than once to have firearms returned to them.
http://www.red-alerts.com/un-american-activities/milwaukee-cops-stealing-citizens-guns/
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.