Posted in the Bethel Forum
#1 Mar 26, 2014
9 on ( THEIR ) side reported another story tonight about the boy charged with murdering his girlfriend. 9 reported the BCSO released his guns to him a few days prior to the alleged offense, and as a result of a judges order ? 9 stated the guns were removed from the boy as a result of him being intoxicated and the SO deemed it necessary to remove them. The one item of interest to the story for me was, what judge ordered his guns returned to him and what if anything was reviewed before authorizing the release. 9 on ( their ) side neglected to say which judge authorized this , nor did they offer any more information. Curious what procedures are used in determining the releasing of weapons to an offender ?
#2 Mar 26, 2014
I didn't see the news but the article online doesn't mention anything about a judge. It just says that Schadle said Somosky had a right to get his guns back after he received a 30 day suspended sentence. I guess the judge was responsible for giving him a suspended sentence but it's not like the judge ordered them to give them back. What is the law on getting guns back?
#3 Mar 26, 2014
Strangely I watched the same newscast. He was not charged with nor previously convicted of a felony. Ergo, since he could prove ownership, the law was on his side. Why nobody involved in that arrest tried to pull the "psych card", we can only speculate. A psych hold would have also triggered a property hold.
#4 Mar 27, 2014
I could be wrong , however I thought I heard the comment " the judge ordered them returned to the owner ".
I am not sure, it is illegal to remove weapons from someone if they are impaired, regardless of being arrested. Similar to weapons under a disability statute without making a formal arrest ? It for sure would be the " right thing " to do however. Something that appeared to be foreign in previous responses by the SO. Interesting to me, why any different now ? Oh, I forgot the Coroner wasn't called out for this one.
It was once said, if your going to do things improperly, BE VERY CONSISTENT with it ? Any Legal Eagles on here want to go there ?
#5 Mar 27, 2014
Legally, everything was proper. The "disability statute(s)" were not applicable because he had never been convicted of a felony or adjudged mentally ill. The SO probably should have returned the guns when the case was settled.
Add your comments below
|Karen Kirschner||23 hr||Curious in Cincin...||5|
|hey pud..||Wed||Curious in Cincin...||1|
|Had to go overseas last week||Wed||Curious in Cincin...||5|
|S**t went down at the bar last night||Wed||Swooning||3|
|nikki gries (Apr '12)||Jun 27||nikki||14|
|Madre68||Jun 24||Midnight Rider||3|
Find what you want!
Search Bethel Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC