Several interesting updates on my "STOLEN HANDGUN: BOLO Please" thread...

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

■■■ UPDATE 4/29/11 ■■■ (Original post is quoted below for those who missed it)

I just recently found (on Facebook) and got in touch with the friend who I originally met this guy through years ago... Went ahead and got the confirmation on his full name.

Braden Townsend is the name, so I did the logical thing and went to BR City Court Warrant lookup... Check out what came up:

What a coincidence



I called District 2, spoke with an officer (who was very helpful... MUCH more pleasant than the desk officer who took the "report" originally) and relayed this information... Asked for the Detective assigned to the case, and he asked me to recount the incident so that he could refer me to the correct department to call and ask. Upon his determination, Armed Robbery would be the ones to speak with.

Called Armed Robbery literally 15 minutes ago, and spoke with an extremely nice Sergeant about the case... He, again, got me to recount the incident and actually shocked me with the news that the original officer (the extremely rude / accusatory one) who took the report filed this as a simple theft case. He didn't even mention in the report that there was a struggle for the weapon, that I was assaulted, etc! No wonder there has been no follow up! The Sergeant cited the armed robbery statute word for word from memory, and told me that while this case was not the norm, it was most definitely armed robbery, not simple theft. He also seemed bewildered that this was filed as a theft case and not an armed robbery.

The aforementioned Sergeant in Armed Robbery told me to call and speak with him personally tomorrow and that he will have this report re-written as an armed robbery and either assign it to someone else or himself ASAP. Gave me his phone number, name, E-Mail... Everything. This guy was great and seemed to genuinely want to help me.

These two officers renewed my faith in BRPD in a matter of minutes (and if you guys are reading this by any chance, I know I thanked you several times already... but thank you again).

Will there be any type of inquiry into the desk officer's inadequacy? Who knows... I'm just glad that this is in competent hands now and is being treated as it should.



Regarding the LSU officer who basically told me to put myself in harms way to retain the weapon, and who would not investigate literally 2-3 minutes after this happened 0.6mi away (thanks Google maps!)...
I E-Mailed LSUPD a while back, merely asking if the area where the robbery occurred was indeed off-campus, and if this was handled procedurally by LSUPD.

Got a very prompt and very detailed / inquisitive response from an LSUPD officer who was amazingly helpful (again, if you are reading this, thank you very much)... He basically told me that, unfortunately, it happened just off campus, but that the situation should have been handled differently by the LSUPD officer(s). My intent wasn't to make a complaint, but this LSUPD officer I spoke with asked me for a description of the officers who failed to take action... I gave him their descriptions, their location, the time, and some mroe identifying information. Even made sure to state that I didn't believe the officer(s) acted with malice or intentional disregard...

Got an E-Mail back the next day saying that the officers had been identified and that he greatly appreciated the information, that several more options should have been available on the LSU Officers' parts, and that "Major ______, the Uniform Patrol Commander will follow-up for corrective action(s)."

I'm hoping they got a stern lecturing, because what they displayed was blatant disregard for the safety of the entire area...



So, maybe they will actually catch this guy now... And now he'll be facing a hell of a felony.






Original post from 04/03/11

I'll probably catch flak for the story attached to this, but so be it...

First, the info:


Stolen in Baton Rouge, just north of campus on Nicholson

S&W Sigma .40 (cheap car gun)
S/N: RAZ0694
Description: Black with flat silver slide; taken in an Uncle Mikes Cordura holster w/ spare mag (doubt it will still be with the gun)
Stock Photo: http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/smith_sw40ve.jpg


Edit: First name and description of the guy

Braden
White male (Possibly [mixed] Mexican; speaks Spanish fluently), slightly tan complexion
5'10"-5'11", ~180lbs
Black hair, "fade" style, falls forward
Dark brown eyes
Known to be around the Nicholson / E. Roosevelt area and the Burbank / E. Boyd area




Well, I just had a situation that could have easily been life or death, and thankfully resulted only in the loss of a handgun...

Long story short, I knew a guy REALLY well ~8 years ago, and lost contact when I moved. APPARENTLY he changed extremely since then... I recently literally just ran into him out of the blue a week or so ago, and he recognized me. He seemed to be in a bad situation, no car or phone, so I helped him out with a couple of rides.

He asked for a ride at ~5:45 this evening, so I picked him up somewhere to take him to his "house" (guess that was a lie, maybe he was just stupid). Again, long story short; he had seen my handgun under my seat one day and knew where it was. We pulled up where he wanted to be dropped off, he made a dash for the handgun, was able to snatch it and we had a brief struggle over it...

It was holstered, and I was trying to gain control of the weapon and de-holster it and fire while he was trying to pull it from me. I've always lived by the ideology that if someone is trying to take your weapon from your person, it is a clear and immediate threat to you...

He had better leverage on the weapon (as he had gotten the jump on me, as well as grabbed my right arm), and I was unable to put myself in a feasible position to fire safely. He got the weapon, and literally jumped out of the window of my car.


Reported the gun stolen, went through the "Honestly, what were you guys up to?" spiel repeatedly, I guess because it was stolen by someone I was re-associating with after having lost contact for 8 years, and because I am relatively young.



I'm not even upset over the loss of the weapon... I am KICKING MYSELF IN THE ASS for the fact that I was not able to gain control and neutralize the threat. I, of course, am also worried about the hands it is in now and that it is a consequence of my inability.

 

[BRBrett]

Glad to hear! Good luck!

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Oh yeah, I'm ecstatic that things are finally sorted out. Thank you for the well wishes, man.

I'm not even so much worried about the gun... I just want this shithead put behind bars.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Also, if anyone knows the contact information (preferably e-mail, but otherwise is fine) for anyone high up at both BRPD and LSUPD who would take note of a well deserved compliment and kind words pertaining to these officers, please feel free to post it or PM it.


If I complain when someone ****s something up royally, I'm the first to compliment and deliver praise when someone does something (i.e. their job) exceptionally well (as these officers seem to do / have done).

 

[03protege]

Hey that's good news. Scary that was filed as a simple theft :0

 

[Sin-ster]

Sounds like the good officers you dealt with intend to see the half-tards "sorted out" for their shortcomings. It's got to **** them off even more than it does us. While corrupt officers give all LEO a bad name, incompetent/lazy ones don't make them look very good as a whole, either.

I would say your luck was pretty short that day. 2 bad encounters with authorities... AFTER being the victim of a robbery. Ugh.

 

[JadeRaven]

Always nice to hear a story make good progress

 

[Emperor]

You have a suspect, but no witnesses(from what I recall), and no evidence?!? Other than him now having an arrest record, won't this boil down to your word agasint his?

 

[derf]

Good detective work. The best detectives are persistent.

You still need to change your screen name. "LikeTakingCandyFromABaby" is available.

 

[Emperor]

Good detective work. The best detectives are persistent.

You still need to change your screen name. "LikeTakingCandyFromABaby" is available.

 

[jimdana1942]

I like your determination in following thru with this issue. Keep at it and keep us posted.

 

[RyanW]

Glad to see you're amking progress. I only have high connections at the State Police, nothing really local though.

 

[charlie12]

Glad to see you're amking progress. I only have high connections at the State Police, nothing really local though.

Were you a LSU football player?

 

[Knave]

Sorry, but this is not an armed robbery, and I'll bet money that it will never be billed as such by the DA's office. The statute is being stretched damn thin to make your sequence of events fit the definition, when there are several elements that are suspect. Specifically, he isn't "armed" with a dangerous weapon while using force or intimidation to take that exact weapon from your immediate control. If you are in immediate control of it, he isn't armed with it. If he's armed with it, you aren't in immediate control of it.

If you were in immediate control of the firearm, simply by it being under your seat (and it can certainly be interpreted that way legally), he was not armed, and used force to take it from your immediate control, hence a simple robbery. If you were not considered to be in immediate control of the item (and it certainly could be interpreted that way legally as well), he stole it (theft), and you fought for it after the theft occurred. Once he had it under his control, hence once he was armed, he did not use it to take anything from you with force or intimidation, hence no armed robbery. At most you might say he committed a battery while armed, and you would have theft of a firearm and aggravated battery, but again that may be stretching it damn thin.

All this is to say, the armed robbery detectives care about one thing. As opposed to many of the cases they surely work, if they can get a warrant signed for this as a robbery, it is an easy clearance since the suspect is identified and known already. Whether it gets thrown out in court or not is irrelevant to them. They want the felony arrest stat. Not saying that's a bad thing, just that it's not a bunch of altruism and do-gooding on their part.

Also, and not that I'm saying your story changed at all over the weeks, but it's very silly that they would second guess initial officers who got the information relatively immediately after the crime, when they are getting it weeks later. I wouldn't count on the report being rewritten until you have a copy of a rewritten report in your hands.

 

[Renegade]

And there's no such thing as the Easter Bunny, either!!!

 

[JadeRaven]

Sorry, but this is not an armed robbery, and I'll bet money that it will never be billed as such by the DA's office. The statute is being stretched damn thin to make your sequence of events fit the definition, when there are several elements that are suspect. Specifically, he isn't "armed" with a dangerous weapon while using force or intimidation to take that exact weapon from your immediate control. If you are in immediate control of it, he isn't armed with it. If he's armed with it, you aren't in immediate control of it.

If you were in immediate control of the firearm, simply by it being under your seat (and it can certainly be interpreted that way legally), he was not armed, and used force to take it from your immediate control, hence a simple robbery. If you were not considered to be in immediate control of the item (and it certainly could be interpreted that way legally as well), he stole it (theft), and you fought for it after the theft occurred. Once he had it under his control, hence once he was armed, he did not use it to take anything from you with force or intimidation, hence no armed robbery. At most you might say he committed a battery while armed, and you would have theft of a firearm and aggravated battery, but again that may be stretching it damn thin.

Uh, the guy grabbed the man's gun, becoming armed, and then forcibly struggled with him in order to take it away, robbery. Sounds pretty simple to me.

Battery while armed? Are you serious? By your definition, the guy would be battering him "while armed" so that he could run off with the victim's property, a gun. Yeah that's a big stretch

But what do I know, I am not a lawyer, nor am I a detective, nor am I a judge. . . .

 

[Cat]

Glad to see you're amking progress. I only have high connections at the State Police, nothing really local though.

I do too. Best connection I will ever need. My plan to kill Spec and have the evidence disappear has fallen into place perfectly.



Now I just got to convince him to lay still and hold his breath while I grab a pillow to finish the job.

 

[Knave]

Uh, the guy grabbed the man's gun, becoming armed, and then forcibly struggled with him in order to take it away, robbery. Sounds pretty simple to me.

Battery while armed? Are you serious? By your definition, the guy would be battering him "while armed" so that he could run off with the victim's property, a gun. Yeah that's a big stretch

I can't rob you with the gun I'm robbing you of. I can pick up your gun, then rob you of your wallet, or commit a simple robbery by taking your gun from your control, then commit an armed robbery by point it at you and demanding your wallet. But I can't rob you of your gun with bodily force, then point the gun at you and re-rob you of the gun I'm already armed with.

Either he tried to steal the gun and was caught in the act, a struggle ensued in which a battery took place, until the suspect gained full control over the gun and fled, thus committing a theft and battery, OR...the suspect used bodily force to take the gun from the victim's control, they struggled over it until the suspect gained full control and fled, thus committing a simple robbery.

The key is whether the victim was in immediate control of the gun prior to the suspect's attempt to take it, which could easily be argued either way in a legal setting and might depend on testimonies.

There may already be legal precedent in Louisiana for this sort of thing, whether a gun under the seat is in the driver's immediate control.

Would you still say it's a robbery if the gun was in the console? In the glove box? Under the seat, but the driver was running inside a gas station for a minute while the suspect grabs the gun, then the driver sees him in the act while running out and they fight over it? What if you grab a stick of beef jerky off a gas station counter and the clerk grabs your arm and fights you for it? Do you think you just committed robbery?

 

[JadeRaven]

I can't rob you with the gun I'm robbing you of. I can pick up your gun, then rob you of your wallet, or commit a simple robbery by taking your gun from your control, then commit an armed robbery by point it at you and demanding your wallet. But I can't rob you of your gun with bodily force, then point the gun at you and re-rob you of the gun I'm already armed with.

Either he tried to steal the gun and was caught in the act, a struggle ensued in which a battery took place, until the suspect gained full control over the gun and fled, thus committing a theft and battery, OR...the suspect used bodily force to take the gun from the victim's control, they struggled over it until the suspect gained full control and fled, thus committing a simple robbery.

The key is whether the victim was in immediate control of the gun prior to the suspect's attempt to take it, which could easily be argued either way in a legal setting and might depend on testimonies.

The statute reads as:
"§64. Armed robbery

A. Armed robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another, by use of force or intimidation, while armed with a dangerous weapon."

The statute simply states "while armed with a dangerous weapon." Not that he has to be using the weapon to intimidate, etc.

I suppose you'd have to define what the word "armed" means.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

The statute reads as:
"§64. Armed robbery

A. Armed robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another, by use of force or intimidation, while armed with a dangerous weapon."

The statute simply states "while armed with a dangerous weapon." Not that he has to be using the weapon to intimidate, etc.

I suppose you'd have to define what the word "armed" means.

This is exactly what the officer told me. He stated that since the suspect DID use force and intimidation WHILE in control and/or in partial control of the weapon, it was clear-cut armed robbery. He asked me if the firearm was pointed at me at any time during the struggle (yes) and if the suspect said anything threatening to me (no) and then told me that because the firearm WAS int he suspect's control while the suspect was initiating a threatening / forcible act, it is armed robbery... Period.

As far as the person saying the report probably won't get written up;
The officer E-Mailed me back around noon-ish saying he is currently doing a work-up on the suspect and getting everything together, then he's going to have me come into his office. He's even taking the initiative to do this ASAP, saying he could likely get me in tonight, but unfortunately tonight isn't feasible for me... So I should be meeting with him Monday or very early next week.

This guy I'm dealing with is a true professional and he's helping me out a lot here where no one else would.