Ron C. #8

[Whisperer]

They would HAVE to confiscate the gun since RC threatened harm. If the parent is to distraught he can't help them concerning his daughter yet he is able to verbalize a threat to shoot out the window of a police car....believe me...they better take the gun or they are in serious trouble.

No one sits there with a psych evaluation, saying, "Oh, the poor guy probably didn't mean that!" Imagine if he harmed someone or shot the car, the trouble the Sheriff's office would be in....
Lets get serious here. They would want to see the gun and they would take it.

 

[Whisperer]

Maybe this is how the cousin and the gun story evolved. Misty may have told them her cousin took the gun.

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

They cannot legally walk into his house and take his gun. He did not have it in his possession as it was in the house. The so-called threats were made under dire circumstances as he had just learned his child was missing. This would not be unusual for LE to hear from a victim's family.

I would think threatening to shoot out the back of a police cruiser would be unusual. JMO

 

[SeriouslySearching]

We don't know whether or not Ron legally owned the gun.

I don't know, but I would hope, that LE has cause to remove lethal weapons if an extremely emotional individual has threatened to use them. I doubt LE has the right to keep the weapons, but to remove them in an emergency situation, I hope they have that right. Maybe a legal person will chime in and clear this up for us.

Hmmmm...so we are here trying to figure out if:

A) LE confiscated the gun and later returned it.

B) LE never took the gun.

OK...it would appear to me that Ronald legally owned the gun either way.

If Ronald were waving the gun around, of course they could take it away from him. Obviously, that did not happen.

 

[Whisperer]

How did you arrive at "legally owned" a gun based on those points?

A. LE took the gun and returned it
B. LE never took the gun

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I would think threatening to shoot out the back of a police cruiser would be unusual. JMO

No, it probably wouldn't since the threat was against the perp who he felt abducted his child. It wasn't a threat against the police. It was a threat against some unknown person.

If someone kidnapped my child, I would be threatening bodily harm to the person, too! I am quite certain they have heard it in lesser situations than a child going missing! When a person is distraught, they say things they do not mean and would not carry out under any real circumstances.

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

Anytime LE enters a residence, if the person tells them there is a weapon in the home...they want to know exactly where it is located for their protection. I would say it is a DAYUM good reason to want to verify it!

And, if they find it, they leave the weapon there ? Maybe they did so in this case because as I said, Ron was taken to the police station for questioning and, IIRC, the mh was sealed off as a crime scene. He would have no access to that gun for a month or so, IIRC. And/or, maybe the gun was taken in for testing, when other evidence was gathered. I guess we'll know if we ever see the evidence list.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

How did you arrive at legally owned based on those points?

If Ronald did not own the gun legally...they would have stated in the first report that they confiscated the gun. There would be no question about it here.

Either way, the gun ended up in Ronald's possession. They would not have returned an illegal weapon to the owner.

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

Hmmmm...so we are here trying to figure out if:

A) LE confiscated the gun and later returned it.

B) LE never took the gun.

OK...it would appear to me that Ronald legally owned the gun either way.

If Ronald were waving the gun around, of course they could take it away from him. Obviously, that did not happen.

BBM - how so ?

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

No, it probably wouldn't since the threat was against the perp who he felt abducted his child. It wasn't a threat against the police. It was a threat against some unknown person.

If someone kidnapped my child, I would be threatening bodily harm to the person, too! I am quite certain they have heard it in lesser situations than a child going missing! When a person is distraught, they say things they do not mean and would not carry out under any real circumstances.

It's your opinion that a threat to shoot out the back of a patrol car is not unusual. It's my opinion that such a threat is unusual. I see no reason to debate this, unless we have some sort of authoritative analysis as to what distraught parents typically say/don't say when confronted with a missing child. I don't have any such analysis. Maybe some one else will.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

And, if they find it, they leave the weapon there ? Maybe they did so in this case because as I said, Ron was taken to the police station for questioning and, IIRC, the mh was sealed off as a crime scene. He would have no access to that gun for a month or so, IIRC. Or, maybe the gun was taken in for testing, when other evidence was gathered. I guess we'll know if we ever see the evidence list.

What reason did they have to take it? Was there a bullet hole in her pillow? The wall? Were there signs of a person being shot inside the mh? Why run a ballistics test on a gun when there is nothing to show the gun was used during this crime?

 

[SeriouslySearching]

BBM - how so ?

I just answered that question.

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

If Ronald did not own the gun legally...they would have stated in the first report that they confiscated the gun. There would be no question about it here.

Either way, the gun ended up in Ronald's possession. They would not have returned an illegal weapon to the owner.

How do we know that LE returned a 9mmm Beretta to Ron ?

 

[SeriouslySearching]

It's your opinion that a threat to shoot out the back of a patrol car is not unusual. It's my opinion that such a threat is unusual. I see no reason to debate this, unless we have some sort of authoritative analysis as to what distraught parents typically say/don't say when confronted with a missing child. I don't have any such analysis. Maybe some one else will.

Maybe you could just ask the next five cops you see if they have ever heard someone threaten bodily harm to the perp after someone stole their child, motorcycle, big screen tv, or car. I bet five out of five would answer, "Definitely!".

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

What reason did they have to take it? Was there a bullet hole in her pillow? The wall? Were there signs of a person being shot inside the mh? Why run a ballistics test on a gun when there is nothing to show the gun was used during this crime?

We don't know what evidence was found in the mh. We also don't know that the mh is the only crime scene.

 

[Whisperer]

I have a premonition this is going to go around and around again. I have been spun a little too much with the Ron and Misty thread.We have discussed many theories and reasons for them. We have driven the facts into a deep hole. Yet, here we sit....nothing.

RC's behavior is suspect since he decided to support his young GF. They were living together since November 1st when they moved into the MH on Green. Ron has just started this job and now this has happened. Coincidence?

RC has made bad choices but didn't deserve this. His stance on matters and behavior is wrong, IMO. His judgement is off. They both are supporting each other and according to what I have seen and heard, something is very wrong with the picture they are painting.

I have made my position very clear. Misty is not telling what she knows. Ron is supporting her. RC says he supports her...so be it. Most people would not support the person who was watching and lost a child while doing so, despite any innocence....not because their mean or callous, but because the heart and the hurt doesn't see any logic on why it happened. It is human nature to question and it is very hard to forgive the person who was the last to see your child alvie. He never questioned and he accepted whatever she said, despite the fact she changed her story and doesn't know why. In the best of circumstances, it is difficult for a couple to remain together when one was around when the child vanished. These two have no deep ties or a foundation for their blending, yet chose to be together. Extremely rare behavior here!

There are drugs, guns, and reckless behavior. There are people involved in this case, that should be scary to most reading here. Some continue to say it is okay and all will work out. To me, it doesn't seem to be a very rosey picture at all.

To all who have hope, I applaud you and envy you for your outlook. I have been around too many criminals for too long and look through different kinds of glasses than you do....I really should take a break from this.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

How do we know that LE returned a 9mmm Beretta to Ron ?

LOL We haven't found anything that says they took the gun yet. We only know that LE was well aware of it being in the house and it was not listed as being taken during that 6 hours of Investigative Time on the first report.

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

Maybe you could just ask the next five cops you see if they have ever heard someone threaten bodily harm to the perp after someone stole their child, motorcycle, big screen tv, or car. I bet five out of five would answer, "Definitely!".

That could be - but that sample would be useless. I'd need to ask at least 35 LEOs and I'd need to ask them how often someone had threatened to shoot out a patrol car window.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I have a premonition this is going to go around and around again. I have been spun a little too much with the Ron and Misty thread.We have discussed many theories and reasons for them. We have driven the facts into a deep hole. Yet, here we sit....nothing.

RC's behavior is suspect since he decided to support his young GF. They were living together since November 1st when they moved into the MH on Green. Ron has just started this job and now this has happened. Coincidence?

RC has made bad choices but didn't deserve this. His stance on matters and behavior is wrong, IMO. His judgement is off. They both are supporting each other and according to what I have seen and heard, something is very wrong with the picture they are painting.

I have made my position very clear. Misty is not telling what she knows. Ron is supporting her. RC says he supports her...so be it. Most people would not support the person who was watching and lost a child while doing so, despite any innocence....not because their mean or callous, but because the heart and the hurt doesn't see any logic on why it happened. It is human nature to question and it is very hard to forgive the person who was the last to see your child alvie. He never questioned and he accepted whatever she said, despite the fact she changed her story and doesn't know why. In the best of circumstances, it is difficult for a couple to remain together when one was around when the child vanished. These two have no deep ties or a foundation for their blending, yet chose to be together. Extremely rare behavior here!

There are drugs, guns, and reckless behavior. There are people involved in this case, that should be scary to most reading here. Some continue to say it is okay and all will work out. To me, it doesn't seem to be a very rosey picture at all.

To all who have hope, I applaud you and envy you for your outlook. I have been around too many criminals for too long and look through different kinds of glasses than you do....I really should take a break from this.

So when Jessica Lunsford was kidnapped, Mark should have blamed his parents for her disappearance? They were babysitting her at the time. It happened while he was at work and on their watch. I don't think so!

ETA: I got the names of my dad's mixed up. Sorry.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

That could be - but that sample would be useless. I'd need to ask at least 35 LEOs and I'd need to ask them how often someone had threatened to shoot out a patrol car window.

GMAB. It wasn't about the patrol car...it was about the perp in the back seat.

And this is a ridiculous argument.