Very Cool
A bit back, Sarah McKinley, who had just recently lost her husband, used a shotgun on one of two intruders to protect her and her newborn. The weapon was taken by police as part of the investigation, leaving he without a shotgun. Well, the folks at the Illinois/Indiana Gun Club raised some funds and bought her a new shotgun.
Update: It is the Champaign County Rifle Association. Sorry about that.
February 14th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Wait? The cops took her shotgun?
Soooo, ummm, how was she photographed with a double barrel that some gun bloggers had PSH over?
Did the media give her a gun to pose with and then take it back? What’s going on here? Something is not quite right.
February 14th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Interesting. I’m guessing they came back later for ballistic tests of some such?
February 14th, 2012 at 12:51 pm
God bless the Illinois/Indiana Gun Club!
February 14th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
They came back later because some local politician had a fit of PSH. I’m sure the cops had a good cover story for taking it.
February 14th, 2012 at 1:50 pm
Wait, the cops did not take it at the time of the investigation? So, the cops came back with a warrant to take it? How is that possible?
Certainly even Oklahoma requires probable cause of a crime. So, no arrest as they deemed it self-defense from the “get go” (a little Oklahoma lingo for you) and then come back and scoop up the gun because some gun bloggers and politicians wet themselves like little girls?
What does her lawyer have to say about this gun scooping? Something is not quite right here.
February 14th, 2012 at 2:11 pm
I’m guessing the local DA is getting Flack because of all the Media Coverage, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he takes Anti-Gun Campaign donations. So the local cops did what they were told by their Political Hack Bosses. But to their credit, they bent over Backwards and Facilitated the Young Lady in receiving a replacement. Good for them!
February 14th, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Lemme see . . . the lady is on record as stating she – herself – did in fact use the weapon. The police are on record as saying her actions were lawful self-defense. There is no question as to the weapon used. Therefore, why is there any need for ballistics evidence? Answer? There is not. Corollary: The taking of the weapon by police can be justified as “just following orders.”. However, as we all know, the commission of a crime while just following orders has been deemed by international law a la the Nurberg Trials as an invalid defense. Q.E.D. The cops’ actions, while perhaps excusable, are and were unlawful. Following that trail, the individual (DA? Asst DA? Mayor? Chief?) who ordered the taking has conspired the commission of a criminal act.
While she may not have any desire to sue the police, were I her, I would certainly look into the actions of the superior who ordered the police to commit the crime.
February 14th, 2012 at 3:04 pm
Meant to add: Otherwise, haveing successfully gotten away with this crime, the indivdual ( or committee? ) might be encouraged to commit additional, or worse, crimes.
Pour encourager les autres . . .
February 14th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
The accomplice has been arrested and is charged with murder (death in commission of a felony) so it may be needed as evidence for that.
Good on gunssavelife.com and good on the chief too.
February 14th, 2012 at 3:24 pm
Let’s hope they have some use for it. They won’t get much useful ballistics evidence out of a shotgun.
February 14th, 2012 at 3:37 pm
A lot of good people out there to step up and buy her a shotgun. I mean, she does know how to use it.
February 14th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Unc, it is *a* Illinois/Indiana gun club. Specifically it is the Champaign County Rifle Association aka gunssavelife.com. They deserve to get the credit.