They stole my Guns.

[Eugene66]

I enjoy my guns - I shoot recreationally and find it cathartic.

You have to remember that in SA - and quite contrary to the US - gun ownership is a privilege and not a right. If you're not going to be a responsible owner rather hand it in to be destroyed (give it a few licks first with a sledge hammer).

I have one concealed safe for the guns and one much more obvious one for valuables. I also dont carry the licenses unless I'm carrying the weapon so losing my wallet isnt going to get the thieves thinking.

Very wise Bwana. Good idea to carry the liscence with the gun instead of in your wallet.

On the other hand if they stole the liscence with the gun then I would not have been able to give the details of it to the cops.

One thing that was peculiar. It did not seem like they have any record of our guns. They were so dependent on our own info. I had to call My sister to get the details for the officer and she was not sure where to read what's on her liscence for me. When I asked the Officer if they cannot get it from their system he evaded te question.

 

[Koos Custodiet]

What happened is inexcusable
*snip*
There is no excuse for what happened to your guns no matter how you try and justify it

I'm deeply pissed and trying to put this in such a nice manner as I can. You made and honest mistake, but should not have had guns to begin with

Not quite sure what you mean by the smileys, but... in the end, this fellow was a victim of crime. They broke into his house and stole his stuff.

We've been brainwashed to think that if your *gun* gets stolen it's your fault.

Should he not have a TV either? Or a microwave? Or whatever else they stole?

This is too late to help the OP, but there's an article in Magnum a few months back on what to do if your gun gets stolen. Co-operating with the cops is not really on the list.

Don't confess to anything. Make them prove that you were negligent.

We, the good guys, get nailed while criminals who know how to buck the system, walk. Making the system more fair works from two sides, firstly improving the system so it can't be gippoed, and secondly knowing the system so that you have the same "rights" as the criminals.

I found this http://www.gunownerssa.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=50 a while ago and bookmarked it -- it's something one should read every now and then...

(And BTW, no, I don't advocate leaving guns lying around where criminals or kids or anything can find them. The question is whether the OP behaved in a *reasonable* manner).

 

[Koos Custodiet]

how do I hand that one in?

Carefully. Or maybe even, not at all.

You might just end up with an over-zealous cop wanting to add one more conviction to his list.

And you *are* in illegal possession.

PM me, 'cos you turned your PM off. Thanks.

 

[Koos Custodiet]

Alternatively, take it to a gun smith to weld it shut and remove the working parts.

That's illegal. See the FCA 2000.

My dad has a certified AK47 that was disabled and welded shut. They give you a certificate rendering it useless. Then you can use it as a door stop if you want

You *first* need permission from the cops to do this, and no 'smith would touch it without.

Justification : I shoot someone, walk to the workshop, weld my gun up. Police can't do ballistics, so they can't prove it was that gun.

Hollywood? Yes. But it's in the Act.

 

[Frankie]

That's illegal. See the FCA 2000.



You *first* need permission from the cops to do this, and no 'smith would touch it without.

Justification : I shoot someone, walk to the workshop, weld my gun up. Police can't do ballistics, so they can't prove it was that gun.

Hollywood? Yes. But it's in the Act.

That sure is another take on having the satisfaction of destroying the weapon yourself, but I'd still opt for the self destruction and the assurance that it's not going to be in the hands of a "comrade" within a couple of days from me handing it over to our trustworthy cops.

 

[Pitbull]

Not quite sure what you mean by the smileys, but... in the end, this fellow was a victim of crime. They broke into his house and stole his stuff.

We've been brainwashed to think that if your *gun* gets stolen it's your fault.

Should he not have a TV either? Or a microwave? Or whatever else they stole?

This is too late to help the OP, but there's an article in Magnum a few months back on what to do if your gun gets stolen. Co-operating with the cops is not really on the list.

Don't confess to anything. Make them prove that you were negligent.

We, the good guys, get nailed while criminals who know how to buck the system, walk. Making the system more fair works from two sides, firstly improving the system so it can't be gippoed, and secondly knowing the system so that you have the same "rights" as the criminals.

I found this http://www.gunownerssa.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=50 a while ago and bookmarked it -- it's something one should read every now and then...

(And BTW, no, I don't advocate leaving guns lying around where criminals or kids or anything can find them. The question is whether the OP behaved in a *reasonable* manner).

Are you serious ?

There is no "reasonable" when it comes to guns. It's either right or wrong. I'm sorry but whatever you just said flew by my head. Yes he was a victim of crime, but also guilty of murder on the other hand. It's not about being brain washed. What if your wife is shot with that exact same gun ?

Seriously, you have a clogged view about this

 

[Eugene66]

Thank you Koos.
I had a look at those links and they were quite educational. Our cop was all smiley and nicey nicey. I mean in our eyes he was the dude handling the case of housebreaking. NOT a criminal case against us, untill we entered the holding cell and he dissapeared like a big needle.

Up untill this point his whole attitude was "Just a formality". I havent seen him since I entered that holding cell. I would like to corner him and ask him a few questions.

I wonder what would happen if I get the local newspaper in on this story?

 

[Frankie]

Thank you Koos.
I had a look at those links and they were quite educational. Our cop was all smiley and nicey nicey. I mean in our eyes he was the dude handling the case of hosebreaking. NOT a criminal case against us, untill we entered the holding cell and he dissapeared like a big needle.

Up untill this point his whole attitude was "Just a formality". I havent seen him since I entered that holding cell. I would like to corner him and ask him a few questions.

I wonder what would happen if I get the local newspaper in on this story?

You might not like the exposure the press would give - they may support you being made an example of "irresponsible gun ownership".

 

[xrapidx]

Dont know if this has been asked - and I don't want to read the whole thread - did they put your sister in the same cell as men?

 

[EtienneK]

Why are we debating this? Get yourself a lawyer!

 

[Koos Custodiet]

There is no "reasonable" when it comes to guns.

Our whole legal system is based on "reasonable". When it comes to anything.

but also guilty of murder on the other hand

Don't quite see how you can state that so definitively.

We have 20 thousand murders a year, and an estimated five to eight million "illegal" firearms. If we assume that all murders are firearm related (they're not, by far) this makes him, at the most, 0.4% guilty of maybe being an accomplice in murder each year.

But what you're saying is that if someone steals your car and then hits a pedestrian and kills him, you are guilty of murder?

What if your wife is shot with that exact same gun ?

What if my wife is hit by a meteorite? Run the maths, it's more likely, hey.

 

[Pitbull]

Your signature is a little ironic in this case isn't it ?

Sorry but I don't agree with your point of view what so ever. The fact that there are 2 more guns out there is inexcusable. And the fact that it was in the hands of a licensed gun owner makes it even worse. That is the facts of this here thread. The rest has no bearing on anything no matter how we try and candy coat it

If you think the odds of your wife being shot by a gun, any gun is less than being hit by a meteorite then it just shows how laid back you are in this here current SA we live in.
Yes, the odds of being shot with that gun is minuet. But the odds of the gun that shoots her was stolen from somewhere is 99.99% unless you shoot her with your licensed firearm

No pro-gun forum in the world can undo what has happened in this case. The writing is on the wall and Eugene needs to face the music. That is clear cut and to the point.

 

[Koos Custodiet]

If you think the odds of your wife being shot by a gun,

... is zero. Being shot by *someone* *with* a gun, now that is a very real possibility in South Africa.

BTW I hear that GFSA is having to close offices due to lack of funding... maybe you should volunteer to work for them for free, you're using the right kind of language.

But the odds of the gun that shoots her was stolen from somewhere is 99.99% unless you shoot her with your licensed firearm

Give me the logical steps that lead from someone being shot using a random stolen gun to the OP being guilty of murder for having two specific guns stolen from him, please.

Sheesh does that mean that because I had six beers and a bottle of wine last night, I'm responsible for all the accidents caused by drunken drivers this year? Oh, woe is me.

 

[Pitbull]

You are the real problem with the Gun owners in SA.

Like I said before if you took time to read it, i'm Pro-Gun ownership It's people like you that try and stick a gun in everyones hand that is the problem. Having a gun must be a personal choice and every person has the right to fight for them owning a gun. You have nothing to do with me owning a gun or me wanting to hand in a gun. If me handing in my gun makes me any less of a man than you are I'd rather be the lesser man

I'm all for you wanting to own a gun if you are a responsible person.

Fact is, guns used in violent crimes are stolen guns. Licensed users don't use their guns for that purpose unless they are really stupid, and if they do they should not have owned on to begin with.

Stop trying to justify your personal point of view on this. It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Again, I say this and maybe read and understand it this time.

2 more guns are in the hands of the wrong people. This was due to pure neglect from the OP. Nothing more nothing less. Do you understand it now ?

 

[garyb01]

Thank you Koos.
I had a look at those links and they were quite educational. Our cop was all smiley and nicey nicey. I mean in our eyes he was the dude handling the case of housebreaking. NOT a criminal case against us, untill we entered the holding cell and he dissapeared like a big needle.

Up untill this point his whole attitude was "Just a formality". I havent seen him since I entered that holding cell. I would like to corner him and ask him a few questions.

I wonder what would happen if I get the local newspaper in on this story?

The alleged negligence regarding the firearms is a seperate issue, and based upon my experience and on the facts that you have highlighted, I think that you have a good case here but be that as it may, I have been involved in cases such as these a few times and I would like to clarify something if I may:

Was a case docket opened against you regarding the alleged negligence?

If so, were you ever approached for a "warning statement" for the investigating officer? Did you give any kind of a statement in writing and prior to this did he in fact warn you that the statement could be used against you in court?

Were you ever formally placed under "arrest" by the police official touching any part of you body and informing you that you are under arrest and advising you of your rights?

If so, was this done prior to your detention in the holding cells at the court?

If I understand your story correctly, you were placed in these holding cells after having attended and having appeared at court on your own steam?

If so, how did you know to get to court, did you receive a written warning to appear, or a summons, or were you simply informed by the investigating officer that you had to be in court on that date.

From your story and the facts that you have written here, which I think really need clarification as per the points I listed above, it would seem that YOU would have a very good case against the state for unlawful detention at the very least, when bearing in mind that the whole reason for arrest and detention is to secure the presence of any accused in court and for no other reason. If you were at the court already and made no attempt to evade the matter and not be in the court, then they had no reason to hold you at all!

Looking forward to your reply on this aspect E66, because to my mind there are several aspects that could be addressed by your legal rep.

 

[Koos Custodiet]

You are the real problem with the Gun owners in SA.

Hmmm, this is rapidly turning personal...

Like I said before if you took time to read it, i'm Pro-Gun ownership

Yea, Obama says that a lot too

It's people like you that try and stick a gun in everyones hand that is the problem.

I don't recall doing that.

Having a gun must be a personal choice and every person has the right to fight for them owning a gun. You have nothing to do with me owning a gun or me wanting to hand in a gun. If me handing in my gun makes me any less of a man than you are I'd rather be the lesser man

I don't recall saying or implying that.

Stop trying to justify your personal point of view on this.

I don't recall doing that.

2 more guns are in the hands of the wrong people. This was due to pure neglect from the OP. Nothing more nothing less. Do you understand it now ?

I may be persuaded to admit that it might have been negligence. It would be up to the legal process to determine that. I don't see how you can look at the facts as presented by one person and do the whole judge jury and executioner thing leading to you proclaiming that he's guilty of murder. That's the bit that I don't get.

Koos, who is hoping that the OP got something out of all of this (Psst, if you need more help, PM is probably a better place to be)

 

[Pitbull]

You just gave me allot of work so pls give me time to quote everything and respond to it

Hmmm, this is rapidly turning personal...


Yea, Obama says that a lot too


I don't recall doing that.



I don't recall saying or implying that.



I don't recall doing that.



I may be persuaded to admit that it might have been negligence. It would be up to the legal process to determine that. I don't see how you can look at the facts as presented by one person and do the whole judge jury and executioner thing leading to you proclaiming that he's guilty of murder. That's the bit that I don't get.

Koos, who is hoping that the OP got something out of all of this (Psst, if you need more help, PM is probably a better place to be)

Pls review these highlighted posts below:

Not quite sure what you mean by the smileys, but... in the end, this fellow was a victim of crime. They broke into his house and stole his stuff.

We've been brainwashed to think that if your *gun* gets stolen it's your fault.

Ok so where do I start ?

1. Yes he was a victim of crime, but at the very same time commited a crime. To leave a firearm in a "Strong Box" not safely secured to the ground/wall is neglect. This means his guns was stolen due to his own neglect which is a criminal offence.

2. So if you have a gun and your gun is not kept in line with the agreed requirements and it's stolen it's not your fault You agreed to it the day you did the application for the license.

Our whole legal system is based on "reasonable". When it comes to anything.


But what you're saying is that if someone steals your car and then hits a pedestrian and kills him, you are guilty of murder?

1. Yes, if there is reasonable reason to believe a person is innocent then that is what he is. In this case, the OP clearly stated:

. His "Strong Box" was not bolted to the ground/Floor after he cleaned out his cuboard
. The keys to the "Strong Box" they found in the house also

Now is there any reasonable doubt that the above is not true ?

2. If I had to agree that I would remove my engine out of my car every time I park it before I could get a license, then yes I would be guilty of they stole my car becuase I never removed the engine.

You could have just asked if a child drowns in a pool should the parent be held liable for his death ? Yes, I say he should have covered the pool.

... is zero. Being shot by *someone* *with* a gun, now that is a very real possibility in South Africa.

Give me the logical steps that lead from someone being shot using a random stolen gun to the OP being guilty of murder for having two specific guns stolen from him, please.

Sheesh does that mean that because I had six beers and a bottle of wine last night, I'm responsible for all the accidents caused by drunken drivers this year? Oh, woe is me.

A the term "Shot by a gun" is used to indicate the weapon used. You're playing with the words like all Pro-Gun's do it, "People kill people not guns". Yes you are right, but you know what I said. Have you ever seen a gun shoot itself ? Then that is a bit far fetched to assume aint it ?

Logical steps:

They brake into Eugene66's house and steal his guns. Now from being normal house breakers they now have a gun, why do they have to carefully plan and keep watch on houses for hours ? They have a gun now, they walk into a SPar and hold up the cash register. Being the stupid new guys they are, they are edgy and will shoot for anything even the slightest scare will send them on a shotting spree.

Hey they can even Hi-Jack a car now cos they have a gun, same "New to this attitude and will shoot you if you even just fart to load because they are scared.

Wow, great job. We just turned normal house breakers into Hi-jackers/Armed robbers ..... Nice, keep on justifying it Koos




Now Koos pls understand that this is not personal. I'm 100% for guns and responsible owners. We have a farm for crying out load I know how much good guns can do. I have grown up with them.

We're talking about this specific incident that should not have happened. not today and not tomorrow. Yes, I feel deeply sorry for the sittuation Eugene66 is in. But this should be a lessen for all the people who have guns lying around on the top of their cuboard covered with clothes. Or the people who have guns lying under their bed. People who have guns on top of their fridge in the kitchen.

I'm promoting good gun keeping and you are not helping

 

[Eugene66]

The alleged negligence regarding the firearms is a seperate issue, and based upon my experience and on the facts that you have highlighted, I think that you have a good case here but be that as it may, I have been involved in cases such as these a few times and I would like to clarify something if I may:

Was a case docket opened against you regarding the alleged negligence?

Yes. Just before we went to court and he said its just standard procedure. I was under the impression that a court has to find you guilty or not guilty in a case like this so you HAVE to go to court reagardless. I dont know if this is true.

If so, were you ever approached for a "warning statement" for the investigating officer? Did you give any kind of a statement in writing and prior to this did he in fact warn you that the statement could be used against you in court?

No when we had to fill the statement part in he said. "We can do it here. But in court they are going to take your statement anyway and write it down so whats the use?" We left it blank. On my part I also saw it as an opportunity to change my statement in my mind if I needed to before I make it. So as not to incriminate myself.

He also didnt say its a warning or the words "To be used against you" has never been used.

Were you ever formally placed under "arrest" by the police official touching any part of you body and informing you that you are under arrest and advising you of your rights?

I was never advised of m rights except wehn they explaned the forms to me. Right to an interpreter, representative etc.

When we went for fingerprinting he took us into the local cell block where the fingerprinting pad was and they locked the door behind us. Then we were asked to sign some forms with regards to legal counsel etc. At this point there was no mention of any kind that anything serious is happening. It was all under the guise of "formalities" But I noticed one of the invoices was a "body invoice"

I was thinking. "Well this then implies that we were inmates in these cels and they are releasing us now. Weird." He asked us to go to our car and follow him to court because we would go home from there. I thought "Well we are probably not under arrest because we wouldn't be driving our own car."

If so, was this done prior to your detention in the holding cells at the court?

All of the above happened prior to our being put in holding cell at the courthouse.

If I understand your story correctly, you were placed in these holding cells after having attended and having appeared at court on your own steam?

Correct.

If so, how did you know to get to court, did you receive a written warning to appear, or a summons, or were you simply informed by the investigating officer that you had to be in court on that date.

Nothing. We wanted the thing over and done with as quickly as possible so he said. "If we go to court now I can put you on the roll and you can finalize it today. Thats if they don't postpone it because the courts are getting Lazy for Chrismass and postponing all their cases for next year."

We were at his office before and he asked us to call him once we have my sisters liscence. We ahd to go to Pretoria to fetch it. This week I called him on tuesday saying "We have my sisters liscence now. Can we come in early tomorrow morning and finnish this?" I still wonder why they didnt just get the information off record.

I strongly suspect they don't HAVE a record.

From your story and the facts that you have written here, which I think really need clarification as per the points I listed above, it would seem that YOU would have a very good case against the state for unlawful detention at the very least, when bearing in mind that the whole reason for arrest and detention is to secure the presence of any accused in court and for no other reason. If you were at the court already and made no attempt to evade the matter and not be in the court, then they had no reason to hold you at all!

Looking forward to your reply on this aspect E66, because to my mind there are several aspects that could be addressed by your legal rep.

My sister was lucky. In her holding cell there was only one other lady who was there on some fraud charge because of administration co*kups.

 

[Pitbull]

Eugene66 this could be very good news for you. There seems to be allot of technicalities on your side here. Go get some legal advice, you might just get a slap on the wrist because of all the neglect from the Police

Good news for you in the end

 

[garyb01]

Yes. Just before we went to court ad he said its just standard procedure. I was under the impression that a court has to find you guilty or not guilty in a case like this so you HAVE to go to court reagardless. I dont know if this is true.

No when we had to fill the statement part in he said. "We can do it here. But in court they are going to take your statement anyway and write it down so whats the use?" We left it blank. On my part I also saw it as an opportunity to change my statement in my mind if I needed to before I make it. So as not to incriminate myself.


When we went for fingerprinting he took us into the local cell block where the fingerprinting pad was and they locked the door behind us. Then we were asked to sighn some forms with regards to legal counsel etc. At this point there was no mention of any kind that anything serious is ahppening. It was all under the guise of "formalities" But I noticed one of the invoices was a "body invoice"

I was thinking. "Well this then imlies that we were inmates in theses cels and they are realeasing us now. Weird." He asked us to go to our car and follow him to court because we would go home from there. I thought "Well we are probably not under arrest because we wouldn't be driving our own car."


All of the above happened prior to our being put in holding cell at the courthouse.

Correct.

Nothing. We wanted the thing over and done with as quickly as possible so he said. "If we go to court now I can put you on the roll and you can finalize it today. Thats if they dont postpone it because the courts are getting Lazy for Chrismass and postponing all their cases for next year."



My sister was lucky. In her holding cell there was only one other lady who was there on some fraud charge because of administration co*kups.

Well my friend, judging on your story alone, it seems as if you have been taken by the "quick fix detective" and I implore you to please raise every one of these issues with your legal rep and to not leave it there!

This is the procedure that should be followed, in a nutshell:

Firstly a case docket needs to be opened if the police attending to the scene feel that its justified and if negligence is suspected or apparent. (There are a few other reporting procedures that must be complied with but these are administrative on the part of the police). Going to court to be found either guilty or not guilty in cases such as these is most certainly NOT the procedure, and NOT the routine.

This docket must then be INVESTIGATED, with all the facts included, including YOUR written statement, called a warning statement, where you are informed of the charge against you, and asked if you would like to make a statement and that anything you offer may and can be used against you in court, which you may then do in the presence of, or after consultation with a lawyer.

The docket, especially in a case like this where negligence is not that obvious, is then sent to the Prosecutor for a determination as to whether or not to prosecute, i.e is there a realistic chance of a successful prosecution when taking all the facts of the case into account.

If the decision is taken to prosecute, then your presence needs to be secured in court and this is done by means of summons, written warning or arrest.

The fact that you never received any of these, were never physically placed under arrest, and never informed of any of your rights smacks of "illegal" conduct on the side of the investigating officer, which unfortunately happens all to often because most law abiding citizens, unlike the many criminals out there, do not know their rights, and they take advantage of this by saying things like, its a formality, just come with me quickly, and everything else you described.

I know many of these "detectives" and they give all the hard working and dedicated chaps out there a really bad name.

So please, once again, highlight all of this with your legal rep, because, based on what you have said here, the whole investigation can have holes blown wide open into it and in addition, your detention and finger printing etc. seems on the face of it, to be wholly unlawful under the circumstances.