Is this theft?

[This_person]

My point is that you all are defaulting to her having malicious intent (because bitches be evil, yo), when it's pretty clear she didn't give it much actual thought.

She gave it all the thought an entitled person believes they have to.

 

[Merlin99]

I disagree. All I know is what was in the story, and it sounds to me like she did believe that she was in danger, and she did think that taking the guns was justified. She used to be married to him, and I presume they lived together at the time, so maybe she didn't really think of it as breaking and entering or illegal. I doubt she gave it a whole lot of real thought, considering what a flawed plan it was all the way around.



As I've already said, she doesn't come across as terribly bright and I have no idea what she was thinking (neither do you all, btw). What seems reasonable is that she was in fear for her safety from this man who had beaten and threatened her in the past (that's what he was in jail for), so she broke into his home and stole his weapons, then turned them over to the police. I think in her mind she felt she was doing the right thing for her own safety. Otherwise she'd have just kept them or hidden them or something.

What I DON'T think is that she went, "Oooh! I'm so cute and I have a vagina!! I'm going to break into douchie's house and steal his stuff, then go be cutsie to the cops, who will fall in love with me and my super cute vagina!"

Did she steal anything else, or just the guns? Because if she's just a thief, why not take some money or valuables? Why take guns and then give them to the cops?

So if you believe you're in danger it justifies illegal acts? I think I already made this point.

 

[GWguy]

Hypothetical. Lets say she returned to the guys house, broke in, and stole his car. The thing that actually gave her a reason to fear for her life so he could never use it against her again. Would all this be the same, or are all argument off because it's not a gun?

And it is hypothetical because I'm pretty sure the car was in impound, where the guns should have been too, given that opportunity.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

Also, it is possible that she instigated this whole thing by brake checking him in that parking lot to cause him to rear ending her car. They are getting a divorce, and have children, and he's fighting for his money, property, and co-parenting, or visitation, rights. Most men are fully aware they have to be on their P ands Q's during a time such as this. So why would he intentionally jeopardize his chances of success? In addition, it is quoted in the article, "Joseph Irby’s pretrial release order, granted June 15 by Judge Sharon Franklin, said he could not “carry any firearms, guns, weapons, ammunition or knives.” The order was not to relinquish his firearms in his possession. It was, "Taylor Irby, [that], cited an “injunction” requiring Joseph Irby to surrender his weapons." She's playing fast and loose to game the system to her favor. It's Florida. Pretty sure she's armed as well. Even the arresting officer asked her, “So you are telling me you committed an armed burglary?” And her answer was, "Yes, I am". So she already has the means, a firearm, most likely concealed carry as well, in which to defend herself nullifying any reason to do what she did.

 

[vraiblonde]

Hypothetical. Lets say she returned to the guys house, broke in, and stole his car. The thing that actually gave her a reason to fear for her life so he could never use it against her again. Would all this be the same, or are all argument off because it's not a gun?

Why are you guys making me out to be some gun grabber? It's like you've never read any of my posts in the whole 20+ years I've been making them.

You're also painting me as some rabid militant feminazi, and that also points to you being flashy thingied and don't recall any of my numerous posts to the contrary.

Anyway, now that you all have gone over the edge - to the point that you're just making crap up to bolster your (wrong) opinion - I'ma have to bow out of this discussion. It's going nowhere and I've lost interest. Once someone starts calling me a rabid feminist and a gun grabbers, yeah, we're done here.

 

[GWguy]

Why are you guys making me out to be some gun grabber? It's like you've never read any of my posts in the whole 20+ years I've been making them.

You're also painting me as some rabid militant feminazi, and that also points to you being flashy thingied and don't recall any of my numerous posts to the contrary.

Anyway, now that you all have gone over the edge - to the point that you're just making crap up to bolster your (wrong) opinion - I'ma have to bow out of this discussion. It's going nowhere and I've lost interest. Once someone starts calling me a rabid feminist and a gun grabbers, yeah, we're done here.

That wasn't directed at you.

 

[Gilligan]

That wasn't directed at you.

You meanie.

 

[GWguy]

You meanie.

 

[black dog]

So there's no way that she was afraid for her life and trying to protect herself by getting this guy's guns away from him? It's definitely that she's a conniving bitch who made that guy miserable, then had him jailed on false charges, then stole his guns? And she did it because she thinks women are above the law based solely on their velocisnappers?

I'm not even sure how to respond to that kind of hatred toward women. I'm probably sorry for you, at least on some level.

WTF,,,,,,, and your the one to call the man a Beater before hes even been to court...

 

[black dog]

If she's such an amoral hardened criminal, why did she take them to the cops?

Answer that one question - why did she take the guns to the cops?

For 5,000 Alex, so she looks like the Sound Person in this relationship thats broken.

 

[Merlin99]

WTF,,,,,,, and your the one to call the man a Beater before hes even been to court...

Actually she called everyone who didn't agree with her a beater.

You know, there's right...and then there's dead right.

You beaters can call her a bunch of names if you want, and that speaks more about you all than it does her. Cops don't protect abused women, and our judicial system is a joke. So yes, legally she should have not taken his guns and just let him kill her, but I fully understand why she decided to try and protect herself instead.

Her mistake was taking the guns to the cops. She should have just taken them and hidden them somewhere. What's he going to do, report them stolen when he's not supposed to have them in the first place?

Her mistake was in trusting law enforcement and the "justice" system.

 

[black dog]

Actually she called everyone who didn't agree with her a beater.

WOW,,,, Thanks.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

Actually she called everyone who didn't agree with her a beater.

She's a closet man hater. Hates them, yet loves them, will use them, but does not trust them. Ergo, all men, by default, are, "beaters".

 

[Merlin99]

If I may ...


She's a closet man hater. Hates them, yet loves them, will use them, but does not trust them. Ergo, all men, by default, are, "beaters".

Yeah, I really doubt that.

 

[Merlin99]

A new update, maybe it's time to let her sink.

"The narrative that Mrs. Irby went to the apartment to get the guns to protect herself and her children is false," Haas said Wednesday.
"While some have desperately tried to make this case about guns, folks on both sides of the issues have missed the real issue in this case: This is a case of a highly contested divorce action that has escalated to the point of both the husband and the wife being charged with crimes," Haas said.

A domestic violence accuser's arrest for taking her husband's guns isn't what it might seem, prosecutor says | CNN

A Florida prosecutor has downgraded the charges facing a woman who seized her estranged husband's guns after he was accused of domestic violence. But the prosecutor denied previous narratives that she committed the burglary to protect herself from him.

www.cnn.com