Confiscated rifle pointed at Seattle police results in death

The rifle held by a University of Washington senior when he was fatally shot by Seattle police Thursday is the same weapon taken from him by officers in late 2006, according to Seattle police Chief Gil Kerlikowske. On Friday, in the wake of the New Year's Day shooting of Miles Allen Murphy, police defended their actions, and witnesses described what they heard and saw before the 22-year-old man lost his life. At a news conference, Kerlikowske said the Mauser Kar 98K rifle that Murphy "pointed at officers" had been confiscated from him in November 2006 "for safekeeping." Neither police nor Murphy's parents would provide details about what prompted police to seize the weapon in 2006. Police said, however, that Murphy's father made repeated requests for return of the rifle and, ultimately, they gave it to him less than three months later. Michael Murphy, of Maple Valley, said Friday that he'd given the rifle back to his son for military "re-enactments" because it was his son's property and his son was an adult.

Link

I don't really know what to think about this. I'm a huge supporter of gun rights but not in the hands of certain people. I would really like to know why police originally seized the rifle. Was the young man acting crazy or diagnosed with a mental disorder? Had he shown a propensity for violence?

Edit to add: Why would the police give seized property back to a family member? It was not the father's property and it had to be fairly obvious he was just going to give it back to his son.

What do you guys think of all this?

[edit on 3-1-2009 by Raustin]

Well it wasnt the police that gave the gun back to the son, it was the father. The father should be questioned.

Until we know the previous history as to why the gun was taken from the son in the first place however, its all just a guessing game.

Question is..was that gun loaded when it was pointed at the police? And why did he point it at the police?



Cheers!!!!

reply to post by RFBurns

I'm going to have to edit the OP. I meant to also ask why the police would turn someone's confiscated property over to a family member. Seems rather obvious the father was just going to give it back to him. The father should be questioned no doubt. I feel sorry for the guy, if I were him I would be blaming myself for all of this.

Lots of people fire blanks into the air on New Years. Though if I were the kind of guy who was into collecting guns and firing celebratory blanks I wouldnt be living in a city. City people arent exactly bright or calm and their tendency to ignorant overreaction would terrify me.

The kid was definitely being a dumbass if he didnt immediately drop the rifle.
But he might have been expecting some other re-enactor friends and thought the cops were them.

Either way, just another example of how if your interests or hobbies are anything other than self-medicating and watching "shows" you should stay far, far away from urban areas.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Agreed, I like to keep my guns hidden until I get out of the city limits, waaaay out.

I personally have a strong opinion here. If you are going to support gun rights then you have to support gun rights for all regardless of mental capacity. It is not the place of the police to determine who should have this right. Think about what would happen if we gave them that power. It is sad what happened to that young man but the people close to him (i.e. the father) should have been monitoring the situation NOT the police.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


You don't have to support a complete nutballs rights to own a gun to be pro gun. I don't want murderers running around with guns either. I agree the father should have used better judgment though.

Most cities usually have laws that dont allow fireing off blanks within city limits anyway. But what was on this guys's mind in the first place?

Im sure that the police said drop the gun, probably more than once too. It was foolish to point it at them. The police do not know what the guy's intention was, if the gun was loaded, nothing at all except a person is standing there with a rifle in his hand and pointing it at them, they are not going to wait for him to make the first shot. In the past, too many police officers have been killed playing the "wait and see if they fire first" game, so for years now, they warn the suspect, drop it or be dropped.

And even a mentally unstable person understands plain english when the words "drop the gun" are spoken on a loudspeaker.

And more than likely, there were at least 2 units there with at least 4 officers all pointing their guns at this guy, lit up with their spotlights, overheads flashing, and telling him to drop the gun.

This will be an interesting case to follow for sure.



Cheers!!!!

reply to post by RFBurns


Living near Seattle, I must say that if this situation played out for more than one minute there would have been a TON of cops on scene. Not dropping the gun was pretty damn stupid of this guy. If the kid was in college I doubt he was all that slow.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Lots of people fire blanks into the air on New Years. Though if I were the kind of guy who was into collecting guns and firing celebratory blanks I wouldnt be living in a city. City people arent exactly bright or calm and their tendency to ignorant overreaction would terrify me.

The kid was definitely being a dumbass if he didnt immediately drop the rifle.
But he might have been expecting some other re-enactor friends and thought the cops were them.

Either way, just another example of how if your interests or hobbies are anything other than self-medicating and watching "shows" you should stay far, far away from urban areas.

If that was the case and they took the gun away couldn't they just keep it as I assume it's illegal for a civilian to fire a weapon within city limits in most area's unless it's an act of self defense. (At least every where I have lived thus far it was) If that was the case it would be logged as evidence until a trial and then, unless he was found innocent, he wouldn't get the gun back.

Of course there may be cities where it's legal I just haven't lived in one yet.

More likely a concerned family member had it taken away due to concerns about mental stability for whatever reason and asked the police to hold it for a while. In that case they would legally have to give the gun back because there was no actual law broken assuming the gun was legal in the county he lived in and he had no priors so to speak. At least that would be my guess.

Originally posted by Raustin
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

You don't have to support a complete nutballs rights to own a gun to be pro gun. I don't want murderers running around with guns either. I agree the father should have used better judgment though.

So who gets to decide if an adult is a complete nutball? The police? Your next door neighbor? The little ole lady down the street with lots of cats? Who? It doesn't say in the constitution that we have the right to bear arms if we're not complete nutballs... it say that we have the right to bear arms, period.

It's just my opinion, take it for what it's worth, although I am in pretty good company with the founding forefathers of our nation.