Oregon town pays $4,000 for gun seized in school shooting.

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Reuters

Oregon town pays $4,000 for gun seized in school shooting.
Reuters
By Courtney Sherwood
3 hours ago

PORTLAND, Ore. (Reuters) - Officials in Troutdale, Oregon, have paid $3,950 to purchase a rifle and ammunition seized after a fatal 2014 high school shooting rather than return the weapon to the teenage gunman's older brother, the community’s mayor said on Wednesday.

City officials proposed buying the AR-15 assault-style rifle after a state judge ruled in favor of Lucas Padgett, 25, who sued to reclaim the gun his younger sibling used to kill a Reynolds High School classmate and wound a teacher before committing suicide with the weapon.

The deal was negotiated between lawyers for the town, a middle-class suburb of Portland, and Padgett, a U.S. Army reservist, who accepted the offer, according to Mayor Doug Daoust.

“The police were not ready to release the evidence, and from the input I got from citizens in Troutdale, many people were not comfortable with the gun returning to the community,” Daoust told Reuters.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-town-pays-4-000-gun-seized-school-024833058.html

[Comrade Grumpy]

1. Any gun used in a crime should be turned into scrap metal.

After it is no longer needed for evidentiary purposes.

[happyslug]

13. And any Vehicle stolen and used in a crime should also be forfeit?

Read the the Article, it is clear the AR-15 was STOLEN. The 15 year old shooter was NOT permitted to use the weapon, he just stole it. This is like if the 15 year old had stolen his brother brand new car and killed someone with the car, should the car be forfeited? Should the innocent brother be force to pay

It is the same law whether the weapon was a rifle or an automobile, unless you can show the owner of the property did something wrong that lead to the criminal getting hold of the killing device, the innocent owner gets his property back. The law permits Police to retain evidence if it is needed for trial, but it is clear that they will be no CRIMINAL trial in this case, the shooter killed himself.

Please note a pistol was also involved, that is still in police custody the brother made no effort to recover the pistol.

From other articles, it appears this weapon, magazines and body armor were NOT needed for evidence. In September the Judge gave the Police 45 days to return the AR-15 and other items OR SHOW THEY WERE NEEDED AS EVIDENCE:

http://koin.com/2015/09/16/lucas-padgett-i-want-my-gun-ammunition-back/

Now, some laws do permit forfeiture of items used in crime, but in such cases the terms of the law must be followed. Oregon appears to have no law in regards to violate crimes except when it comes to drugs (a popular forfeiture at the present time), or conviction of a crime (no conviction in this case, the shooter committed suicide). The US Supreme Court have upheld such forfeiture laws in case where a man used his wife's car to pick up a prostitute in Ohio. He was arrested and the car for claimed as forfeited property as being used in a criminal act (paying for sex). The case went all the way up to the US Supreme Court and was upheld. thus a forfeiture law is constitutional, but you still have to have one on the books AND it must fit the situation. It appears Oregon had no such law that applied to this weapon, and thus relied on the concept that it is evidence in a criminal case. In September the Judge ruled show me how it is evidence or turn it over to the innocent owner of the AR-15. The City decided to buy the weapon instead and the brother agreed to sell it instead of demanding the City obey the Judge's order.

Forfeiture laws can be nasty, and thus unpopular except with police. The right of the Police to hold onto evidence is almost as bad, but the Police have to show WHY it is evidence, the Police just can not say something is evidence and keep it away from its owner.

Please remember the above Ohio case and the wife's car, the same law the would permit the AR-15 to be forfeited would also permit an automobile to be forfeited in similar circumstances.

[patsimp]

28. When people start to pay extra for a car used in a crime due to its sick shock value

I think we would confiscate it also.

[davidpdx]

2. I wonder what the older brother was going to do with the gun

Was he going to auction the weapon off?

No one or their family should make money off a weapon used in the commission of a crime.

[Travis_0004]

3. So now the brother can go out and buy 5 AR-15's?

[Locrian]

4. yeah - what am I missing here?

Why reward him with $$ he can now use to buy 5+ guns?

[Darb]

5. Better question, why is he not in jail?

That useless assmunch somehow allowed his disturbed, at best, little brother get his gun and use it to kill a bunch of folks and he has the right to sue to get it back? WHAT THE FUCK?

That prick should be in jail.

[happyslug]

14. So if someone stole your car and kills someone, you should go to Jail???

That the theft was his brother is NOT a factor in the law. The brother did NOT permit the shooter to have the weapon, just like in my hypothetical, you did not permit the thieves who stole your car to take your car. The law basically only holds you liable for actions you did, NOT the actions of someone who happens to steal your property and does something illegal with it.

Now, the owner of something (be it a vehicle or a rifle) can be held to be liable for misuse of his property, i.e. owners of stolen cars have been held liable for parking tickets put on their car AFTER it had been reported stolen, but those are only fines not jail times.

As to CRIMINAL LIABILITY, the Courts will NOT convict you of a crime because something you own is used in a crime. You may forfeit that property, but not held liable and when it comes for forfeiture, any such law must be followed to its letter.

[Darb]

17. Cars are not guns. Don't conflate the two.

Either you secure your gun or you should be held to account. If it is stolen, then you better report it stolen straight away. If you do not report it stolen, you should be held to account.

[patsimp]

27. Good question.

[Nihil]

6. That's probably how much he could have got on eBay after selling it to other fetishists.

Apparently there is no law that says the family of criminals cannot profit
from the crime so the town decided to go for the lesser of the two evils.

Rather than allowing the brother to make money from selling the obscene
"trophy" to even more unbalanced (albeit richer) gun-nuts, the town went
for the (still distateful but legal) option of giving the brother the money
so that they will retain (or even destroy) the gun.

[Paladin]

7. +1. That gun used by the killer would fetch big bucks in the sick-and-twisted market. (nt)

[LanternWaste]

26. I doubt the five new ones will have quite the trophy-like sentimentality to him.

I doubt the five new ones will have quite the trophy-like sentimentality to him.

[packman]

8. What the hell !

I thought a criminal could not profit from a crime. Naïve me. For a few moments I forgot about his family's "rights" and the 1%.

[dbackjon]

9. But a vehicle that has a quarter ounce of pot can be seized

With no compensation

This truly shows how screwed up our legal system is

[happyslug]

15. Correct, since that is permitted under Federal and State Forfeiture laws.

The problem is, those laws, at present, deal mostly with drugs and other similar illegal activities (including gun running) but NOT the use of STOLEN property in violent criminal act.

[NutmegYankee]

24. The argument in Civil Forfeiture is that the property was gained by unlawful means.

I.E., the money was made from the sale of drugs and property and therefore the property ownership is "corrupted". Even then, though wildly abused, the courts still have to weight in to provide due process per the 5th Amendment.

[Blue_Tires]

10. I don't get it -- Why is the price so high?

Cut him a check for the base price of the rifle, minus depreciation and fees, and tell him to GTFO...

[happyslug]

16. The property included more then the AR-15

Among the items demanded to be returned were the following:

One (1) Daniel Defense Armament DDM4 Carbine Rifle Serial No. (Redacted);
Eight (8) 30 Rounds Magpul Magazines;
Several hundred rounds of ammunition;
One (1) ‘plate carrier’ vest;
One (1) United States Army issued ‘laundry bag.”

http://koin.com/2015/09/16/lucas-padgett-i-want-my-gun-ammunition-back/

[Darb]

18. That kook should be in jail.

He didn't secure any of his humper shit and his brother used them to kill multiple people. He needs therapy, not his guns back. Therapy from a cell that is.

[Xithras]

19. Oregon law doesn't require that guns be secured.

In fact, Massachusetts is the ONLY state in the country that requires all firearms to be secured at all times.

Five states have laws requiring that some firearms be locked up at least some of the time, but those regulations mostly cover handguns, or homes with small children or felons residing in them.

Eleven states have laws requiring that locking devices be included with all firearms sales, but have no requirements that the owners actually USE them.

Oregon isn't on any of those lists.

[Darb]

20. They should require it and hold them to account if your gun

is involved in a crime, or even an accident. I fully understand that the law today is not adequate. Smart, normal people need to advance their gun control plan. It should include being responsible if your gun is used in a crime. If it is stolen, report it stolen straight away and pay your fine for being careless with your toy.

[oneshooter]

21. And the same standards applied to any

"Dangerous or potentially dangerous items in your household"

After all if one item can cause harm if stolen and/or misused ALL such items can/should be held to the same standard.

[NutmegYankee]

22. Having it stolen isn't necessarily a sign of carelessness.

Most safes have strong doors but can be cut open on the sides or top fairly easily. In fact, no safe is really safe if the thief has time on their hands, like in an empty house.

We don't punish victims of theft because we as a society consider it a continuing victimization of the victim and are naturally abhorrent to such ideas.

[Blue_Tires]

25. I still don't see four grand there

Give him $600 for the rifle and keep the rest...

[Lurks Often]

11. Why would he even want it back?

I might, just might understand wanting it back if it was something rare or a family heirloom, but I don't understand wanting it back in this case.

[NCjack]

12. It appears that rifle and ammo have "sentimental" value, which dissipates upon

payment of $3,950. The judge made a pro-gunner ruling. That stuff should have been destroyed and no compensation given to the brother.

[NutmegYankee]

23. They couldn't do that.

The fifth amendment requires compensation for the taking of legally obtained property. It wasn't a pro-gunner ruling, it was the only legal option.