State to keep 51 guns seized from man obsessed with Spierer case

[MCgrease08]

Police may keep 51 firearms seized from a suspected mentally ill man, who claimed to have premonitions about the disappearance of IU coed Lauren Spierer, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today in a split decision.

Robert Redington presents a danger and Bloomington Police had the right under Indiana law to seize and keep the weapons confiscated in 2012, Justices Elaine Brown and Cale Bradford ruled in upholding a Monroe Circuit Judge's decision.

Lauren Spierer-obsessed man will not get 51 seized guns back

He was represented by Guy Relford, who says he expects to appeal to state Supreme Court.

 

[223 Gunner]

I wonder who deemed him "Mentally Ill" and on what basis?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The COA decision is here: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/08061302ebb.pdf

I hope this goes up, this standard needs to be defined.

Aside: I watched the oral arguments on my iPad. I thought Guy had a very strong chance that Brown would rule in his client's favor just from her questions.

 

[jbombelli]

The COA decision is here: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/08061302ebb.pdf

I hope this goes up, this standard needs to be defined.

Aside: I watched the oral arguments on my iPad. I thought Guy had a very strong chance that Brown would rule in his client's favor just from her questions.

But Kirk, if they actually define the standards they use they can't be applied willy nilly whenever and however they want.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

There's too much Man and too little Law in this statute.

 

[jbombelli]

There's too much Man and too little Law in this statute.

Just how The Man likes it.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Redington's clearly coocoo for CoCoPuffs, and I agree with the ICA's refusal to return his firearms at this time based on what I just read in Kirk's link, but the mental illness definition in the Code clearly needs to be revised to prevent people with mere neuroses from ever falling victim to IC 35-47-14-1 et seq.

 

[the1kidd03]

So, if I'm reading into this correctly....... the judge ultimately makes the call on what's "mentally unstable" with no actual diagnosis of the person's "issue" at hand and little to no evidence to support a claim.

Am I interpreting things correctly in this???

 

[CathyInBlue]

Pretty much. Just have a battle of duelling experts and let the courts believe whichever side they choose, no innate expertise required.

 

[the1kidd03]

Pretty much. Just have a battle of duelling experts and let the courts believe whichever side they choose, no innate expertise required.

So essentially, if we were to assume him to be otherwise stable, this would be a relatively easy means of usurping someone's rights? If a judge just so happened to have a biased/ill-informed opinion on gun owners they would have to prove little to no evidence to effectively strip them of their ownership?

When debating on the limitation of one's rights, shouldn't it be prudent to effectively prove a legitimate diagnosis by qualified persons (ie two or more psychiatrists' opinions, both providing similar recommendations to the court?)

 

[CathyInBlue]

"Judge, by the defendant's own admission, his agoraphobia causes him to stay at home, within the confines of his own house, to the extent that he foregoes dating and employment opportunities as a matter of course. Manifestly, he has a psychiatric disorder that substantially disturbs his thinking, feeling, or behavior, and impairs his ability to function in society. He's also not taking his medication to treat this agoraphobia, the fact that none is available or prescribed to him notwithstanding. Since that meets the definition of untreated mental illness under IC 12-7-2-130, the defendant should not have his Art. 1, § 32 rights to keep and bear arms, just because he has severe agoraphobia." — Soon to be heard in arguments before the bar

 

[Movealongmovealong]

I wonder who deemed him "Mentally Ill" and on what basis?

Better link: RTV6 - Court rules police OK to retain Bloomington man's guns - Local Story

He was diagnosed with schizotypal personality disorder by a psychiatrist at the IU-Bloomington Hospital.

 

[the1kidd03]

"Judge, by the defendant's own admission, his agoraphobia causes him to stay at home, within the confines of his own house, to the extent that he foregoes dating and employment opportunities as a matter of course. Manifestly, he has a psychiatric disorder that substantially disturbs his thinking, feeling, or behavior, and impairs his ability to function in society. He's also not taking his medication to treat this agoraphobia, the fact that none is available or prescribed to him notwithstanding. Since that meets the definition of untreated mental illness under IC 12-7-2-130, the defendant should not have his Art. 1, § 32 rights to keep and bear arms, just because he has severe agoraphobia." — Soon to be heard in arguments before the bar

I agree they need to more adequately define what mental disorders warrant such "punishment" and those that do not. An anxiety disorder is not one which inherently makes a person prone to violence, but according to the definitions now, could be cited as reason to remove one's arms.

 

[kalrez]

So if this man is unable to ultimately have his property returned to him, right or wrong, will the government reimburse him for the fair market value of his guns?
A collection of 51 firearms is worth at least $15, 000, assuming $300 per gun.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I would presume that after 5 years of petitions every 180 days (10 petitions in all), the firearms will be "disposed" of, and that will be that.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I would presume that after 5 years of petitions every 180 days (10 petitions in all), the firearms will be "disposed" of, and that will be that.

That would be a crime!

I wonder what they will do though. He should be compensated for his property.

 

[bwframe]

This is a perfect example of whether you are crazy or not, you shouldn't act that way. If you want to keep your rights and property anyway.

 

[remauto1187]

Does INDIANA destroy firearms seized/stolen/confiscated/etc. or do they get sold? If they get sold, does the public have the option to buy or is it dealers only frenzy?

 

[bingley]

Ah, this guy. There was a thread about him, and we decided most of his guns were not of good quality.

Aside from the gun confiscation, does he know what happened to Lauren Spierer?

 

[Redhorse]

So if this man is unable to ultimately have his property returned to him, right or wrong, will the government reimburse him for the fair market value of his guns?
A collection of 51 firearms is worth at least $15, 000, assuming $300 per gun.

Off topic but your aviator is awesome