Posted on 01/09/2016 1:59:11 AM PST by This_far
The owner of the gun used to kill Pamela Smart's husband Gregg in 1990 is appealing a judge's ruling last month to not return the firearm.
The Portsmouth Herald reported that Vance Lattime Sr. recently filed the appeal in Rockingham Superior Court, asking Judge Andrew Schulman to reconsider returning his Charter Arms .38 caliber revolver - a key piece of evidence in the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at concordmonitor.com ...
His son took the gun so that he and his friend could murder the husband of the teacher they were having sex with. I will admit that I have little sympathy for the father. The victim’s estate should have sued him.
So you wouldn’t want your stolen property returned to you.
“So you wouldn’t want your stolen property returned to you.”
It’s not a rare gun, or antique or anything, right?
If my son participated in a murder, stole my gun to do it, I think the last thing I’d be thinking about it having the gun returned to me by the state.
I think this man’s priorities are really screwed up. Maybe that serves as a partial explanation for his kid’s felonious behavior.
No not that or any thing like that.
But the government shouldn’t be allowed steal ones property also.
If my son participated in a murder, stole my gun to do it, I think the last thing I’d be thinking about it having the gun returned to me by the state.
___________________________________________________
Would your response be the same if they stole the father’s car to get to the murder scene? Does he get his car back?
From old memories of the case, I recall one of the kids’ fathers provided an alibi for his son and his son’s friend when the police investigated, but was never prosecuted. I wonder if this was that father.
I suppose he has his rights and is free to do whatever the law allows. I cannot help feeling that if I were in his position, I would never want to see that gun again, and even if I did, consideration for the feelings of Greg Smart’s family members would keep me from suing to get it back.
He’s has his rights, after all. But rights can be tempered by a modicum of decency.
The son was 15 years old at the time of the murder. Parents have a responsibility to supervise the behavior of their minor children.
If I was the parent of a child who committed such an act, I would spend the rest of my life contemplating how I could have been a better parent, not obsessing about getting my property back.
The gun was not stolen from the father’s home by a random thief. It should have been under the father’s control, but was used by the minor son in the commission of a murder. If a car or a knife was the murder weapon, I would have no problem with the government permanently retaining that evidence either.
Liberty entails responsibility.
It's probably worth more than the average old revolver. I think it's sick, but people do collect this stuff.
How valuable is a Iver Johnson .32 like the one that was used in the McKinley assassination and one that killed Bobby Kennedy? It’s a black-powder revolver.
Asking for a friend!
This is silly, isn’t it? This murder was how many years ago? And he’s managed without the gun for all this time.
If they had stolen his car and run the man down with it I’d advise him to plan to get another car.
He’s has his rights, after all. But rights can be tempered by a modicum of decency.
..........................................................
Lonesome, you and so many others on this forum, you have let the soup brained sniveling leftists affect your thinking until it is no longer rational. The father evidently did not break any law. The revolver is his and should be returned. There is nothing indecent about exercizing your rights as rights fade away and are lost for want of exercize. At this distance, one can not say with certainty what the father did, but as the police did not charge him, I must presume he met the legal requirements regarding the revolver so the court damn well should give it back.
According to the story 4 high school kids organized and carried out the murder of the husband of a school employee that one of the kids was involved with. All 4 of the kids are out on parole while the woman is doing life without parole. Why does that seem to not add up?
Not rare but well made, dependable.
All 3 men were sentenced to life in prison and are already out on parole.
The father of the participant in the murder was the person who suspected it was used in the crime and turned it over to the authorities.
“During the investigation, J.R. Lattime’s father brought a .38 caliber pistol he had found in his house to the police, believing it might have been the murder weapon.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Smart
You raise an interesting point, 4 men served time, including one who just waited in the car (presumably one of the four was the getaway driver).
Was the car confiscated? Waiting with the car was sufficient for conviction.
If after 25 years he were seeking the return of a stolen car used to run over someone, a stolen baseball bat used to bludgeon someone, a stolen necklace used to strangle someone. You get the point. It might be considered a little insensitive, but unless you are drinking the guns are bad kool-aid there is no story here.
The state should give it back to him if he wants it....but why would you want it? I wouldn’t want it back just on principle.
So few people are going to care. I know I don’t. Argue whatever false equivalency you want. Call me whatever name you want. I simply don’t care and would rather the gun be melted down then turned into a macabre collectors Item. Perhaps the State should just compensate him with perhaps another or monetarily.
This is truly evil. What allows us to exist as a civilized society is the rule of law. You make a vague claim that this man’s property should not be returned for emotional reasons. That is a direct attack on the rule of law.
Property is necessary for life. The only reason this property is not being returned is because it is a gun. The precedent here is for a judge to say that guns are not legitimate property, and thus do not need to be returned.
From the article:
“In an objection filed Monday, Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Strelzin said the state is fine with returning the ammunition and holster, but not the gun.”
When a judge attacks the rule of law for political purposes, it hurts my feelings.
If there is a legal reason to not return this property, let us hear it.
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.