IMHO, the request for the gun return and the family living in the home without repairing it goes to the idea that assets of this man can be the subject of civil lawsuits filed by the families of those he killed. Any monies put back into the rehabbing of the home will not be recouped if there is a judgment against him and his properties. Additionally, regaining the guns means that they can be sold and used for income for the family rather than remaining part of his assets in any litigation that comes. An attorney working with the family would caution against spending any of the family money on that house. Additionally, if the guns are returned to the home, the family can do whatever they would like with them if he agrees to let them sell them. There are tons of folks out there who will pay nicely for the opportunity to have a serial killers autograph so I wonder what they would pay for a serial killer's gun. Again, JMHO.
IMO, this case is not special. There should not be special handling of the defendant's assets.
LE routinely searches properties and vehicles, and leaves some destruction behind, especially walls and floors if there is reason to believe there is evidence that seeped into them, around them. Vehicles and furniture often get destroyed.
Routinely, bystanders such as room mates, landlords, family members, car rental companies and the like are negatively impacted.
this is one reason that the search has to be approved by the judge.
In addition, you are right that property owned by the defendant, if found liable for damages, could go to the victims of the crime.
If my husband was dealing drugs out of my house and i did not know it, and i was unaware that they used my phone when their battery was allegedly charging to make some connections. A young mom dies of an OD on my husband's product. LE legally searched my house, including looking behind newly painted walls, etc., took all of my electronics and incarcerated my husband.
I'd just have to accept that, as long as the search were warranted, etc. Frankly, if I believed the charges and that someone died, I think it was a small price to pay for having narcotics rules enforced.
thats normal
in that situation, my broken walls would never come before compensating the kid whose mom OD because of my Husband. Do you think I could say, shucks, you know that my husband's valuable coin collection you seized because it looked like cash had nothing to do with his crimes, couldn't I sell that and fix my walls? The authorities would wait until the charges are dismissed or my husband was convicted for good, no more appeals. Then, maybe, they'd hold that coin collection in case the family of the mom who OD sues.
This case is not different from other lawful search cases where other people live with/drive with/rent to the accused. Drain traps dont come before the kids whose moms were allegedly raped, tortured, killed by Rex.
It is unfortunate, so much so that AE is unique in that she received many generous donations. These were gifts that are not at all typical, but Im glad for her because I'm sure they made this search much less painful to her than average.
Asa shouldn't have to compensate murdered victims if she is not at all involved in the crimes. But the person involved in the crimes can't just transfer away his property to someone whose family member he didn't murder just to avoid civil justice.
MOO
www.nydailynews.com
nymag.com
