Local news reports
When they sped to a quiet neighborhood of well-trimmed lawns on a recent Friday morning after a 911 call, Saddle Brook police figured they were about to confront an angry wife who had reportedly stabbed her husband.
What the police encountered now appears to have evolved into a constitutional debate over privacy and gun rights.
Sometimes small local disputes can touch on deep, divisive national debates. That seems to be the legacy of a husband-wife quarrel between Robert and Eileen Lintner at their home on Washington Street in Saddle Brook.
Police say that just after 9 a.m. on Aug. 8, they received a report that Eileen, 64, had stabbed her 65-year-old husband in the neck. Robert Lintner’s wound was not fatal — he was treated at Hackensack University Medical Center and released.
Eileen Lintner was charged with second-degree aggravated assault and illegal possession of a weapon — a knife. But as they typically do in domestic disputes, police separated the husband and wife for questioning. Then, in what police say is also standard procedure in such cases, they asked the Lintners, “Do you have any firearms in the house?”
Robert Lintner had almost 200 guns, most of them locked in steel vaults, police said. And he refused their request to enter the house and examine the weapons, for which the police say he had proper owner’s permits.
So he's a collector of guns, they are properly registered and securely stored to even Mike's standards. Then his wife assaults him with a knife and they take his guns away?
ReplyDeleteLooking at the photo in the article I can see only one rifle that some might consider to be a big bad assault weapon, and one maybe. And seeing the way they're transporting the arms, one can surmise that the way they're transported and likely stored, its guaranteed that the value of the collection will go down.
The homes of domestic abusers need to be free of guns. What could be simpler?
DeleteThe negative consequences are that some people will think twice about calling the cops, especially after a story like this. Is that what you want?
DeleteMikeB: “The homes of domestic abusers need to be free of guns. What could be simpler?”
Even the wife didn’t know the combination of the safes. And they removed the wife from the house with her arrest and was released on the condition of no contact. Why did they have to still destroy all his safes (maybe 10K+ in damages to safes alone) and confiscate his guns? What could be simpler is removing the abuser from the home and allowing the victims to still protect themselves.
You know, when I first read this story I thought you would actually come down with the gun owner on this one. Silly of me, I know.
No, that wasn't so silly of you. I actually have some sympathy for the stubborn gun owner/victim of domestic violence. Wouldn't cooperating with the authorities have been better? They wouldn't have destroyed the safes and he'd always have a good case to get his guns back especially if the wife is out of the picture.
DeleteThe man lied to police.
ReplyDeleteThe man had an illegal amount of gunpowder.
The man was improperly storing ammunition causing a possible danger.
The man seems physically unable to care for his collection.
The police were following normal procedure removing the guns from the home.
The police had a court order to remove the guns from the home.
Now it's up to the courts and lets see how far this guys uncooperative attitude gets him with the judge.
"The man lied to police."
DeleteHe doesn't seem to be charged with that.
"The man had an illegal amount of gunpowder."
You are correct. But what exactly does that have to do with his legally owned firearms?
"The man was improperly storing ammunition causing a possible danger."
He doesn't seem to be charged with that either. Which would suggest that no laws were broken. If the guns are locked up, the ammo is of little use.
"The man seems physically unable to care for his collection."
They seemed quite well taken care of until those big strong police officers threw them into garbage cans most likely causing damage to them. The police actions didn't seem to show much care. It was fairly obvious that they were stored very securely.
"The police were following normal procedure removing the guns from the home."
The police were showing a profound lack of common sense. While an argument could be made as to the efficacy of keeping firearms from someone committing violence, they got so wrapped up in procedure that they took firearms from the victim. The assailant was going to jail for a violent felony, and ended up having to live elsewhere as a condition of her pretrial release.
"The police had a court order to remove the guns from the home."
Yes, they did. Still makes it stupid and a waste of money and manpower. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court. So far, the only charge is one involving placing his neighbors at risk by owning too much black powder. Which means that the state will prove that risk beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm honestly not knowledgeable regarding the dangers of black powder. I'm better with standard ammunition and high explosives. He seems to have retained the same attorney as Shaneen Allen and has pled not guilty.
This is looking like another PR winner for the state of New Jersey.
He doesn't have to charged with lying, but it's part of the information police use to determine cooperation and truthfulness of other statements. If he lied once, that's enough for further investigation. Lying to the police is breaking the law. You say yes then go on to voice your opinion, but the cops have to follow procedure. Why should they ignore procedure? Because it is a gun issue?
DeleteTS above, and ss on this comment thread, are both conveniently overlooking all those points. Another part of the story is that in most domestic fights that result in a lethal attack it takes two to tango. I don't think hubby was calmly doing the dishes to help out his over-burdened wife when she stabbed him in the neck for nothing. Now, before any of you start screaming "blaming the victim," just save your breath. The wife was arrested and charged, as was right, but usually these events entail two raging people screaming at each other when one of them goes too far. That's all.
DeleteThat's why removing guns from homes which experience domestic violence is a good move.
"Another part of the story is that in most domestic fights that result in a lethal attack it takes two to tango."
DeleteMike, if someone had been arguing one pulled out a gun and shot the other, you would rightfully said that arguing and yelling is no reason to use deadly force. While you are correct that domestic assaults are normally the result of an escalation of an argument, when a person initiates physical force, they own their actions.
Anon in an earlier comment tried to suggest that the victim was too physically feeble to properly care for his collection, yet you want him to own some responsibility for a felony assault. In fact, the wife has already pled guilty to both charges. Though it might be hard to attempt to justify an assault on someone who needs a walker to get around.
"The Record (http://bit.ly/1p2fGzQ) reports that Lintner entered his plea Tuesday, the same day an attorney for his 65-year-old wife, Eileen Lintner, entered guilty pleas to an aggravated assault charge and a weapons offense."
http://www.nbc40.net/story/26261165/man-pleads-not-guilty-to-weapons-related-charge
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Mr. Lintner's attorney has commented that he hasn't seen a copy of the search warrant yet. If the police jumped the gun on that, (no pun intended) the evidence will be thrown out, charges dismissed, and the police department will be buying him five new and very expensive gun vaults along with compensation for damage to his collection.
Mike, let's look at the more common cases of domestic violence regarding your "it takes two to tango" comment. A woman who gets beat up by her partner and she calls the cops on him. The arrest him, throw him in jail, she gets a RO, etc. according to you, if she owns a gun, it should be confiscated because she probably mouthed off to her man.
Deletess, we don't know who initiated the violence. Hubby might have swung his walker at her.
DeleteTS, the problem with your "common case" description is the "she gets a RO." That does not happen in most cases. In fact most domestic violence incidents result in both parties going back to the staus quo after a day or so. That's why the law says remove the guns.
In the small percentage of cases in which it results in an injustice, that can be sorted out after.
Sorry SS it does take two to tango. If you use my point about the guy not being physically able, then you have to accept he should not have been allowed the weapons and ammunition. Oh, and the pesky facts that he lied to the police and had an illegal amount of gun powder. Those two facts alone should have ended the discussion, but you search under any rock to excuse his behavior. His wife was guilty of the attack, so he is not guilty of illegal amounts of ammunition, or lying to the police? You can't have it both ways.
Delete"If you use my point about the guy not being physically able, then you have to accept he should not have been allowed the weapons and ammunition."
DeleteSorry Anon, as has been said in many of the articles cited here, with the exception of the claim of an illegal amount of black powder, everything else is completely legal. The firearms were stored quite securely, and the health issues of Mr. Lintner have exactly no bearing on his collection.
The sole offense he is charged with will be determined in court. Or perhaps before if there is an issue with the warrant, or the amount of black powder.
"The ONLY charge against him"
DeleteI guess that's not good enough for you, you have to defend him even though he is guilty of the charges the police made against him. Typical for a gun loon to defend criminals. According to you gun loons it should not be a crime, so of course he is nothing but a a GREAT citizen. Laughable.
"I guess that's not good enough for you, you have to defend him even though he is guilty of the charges the police made against him."
DeleteWell, Anon, actually, with us being in the US, he gets due process and the presumption of innocence. A court of law is where guilt or innocence is determined.
"Eileen Lintner was released on $75,000 bail, with the option of paying only 10 percent on the condition that she have no contact with her husband.
ReplyDeleteShe selected the less costly option and is living at an undisclosed site, her lawyer and police said."
The abuser isn't living there. There was no need to confiscate the firearms. The abuser was arrested on a felony charge and there was no need to pursue the issue of firearms in the home until the hearing for pretrial release.
The removal of firearms is decided by a domestic abuse in that home. It didn't say it was limited to the one charged with the abuse. It also went on to say that was normal in these cases.
DeleteNonsense, ss, for the reasons I outlined above. Plus, what's to stop the wifey from returning to her home. Is there a restraining order? She wouldn't be the first abuser welcomed back by the abuse victim.
DeleteAs you can see in my comment, there is a no contact order from the court as a condition of her release.
DeleteWell than, he should have no trouble convincing a judge that he should get his arsenal back. Unless of course he was something more than an innocent victim of his wife's abuse.
DeleteWhat also stands out for me in this case is that they tacked on a “knife possession” charge on the wife. Possession of a knife… in your own home? Man, New Jersey is messed up. I know she stabbed someone with it, but that’s the aggravated assault charge. Why the need for possession charges? The way NJ weapons code is written, if the cops don’t deem your possession “manifestly appropriate use”, you can be charged with illegal possession for basically anything that can be used as a weapon. I always thought this was a carry law, but apparently it even applies in your own home. Imagine how many charges some cop could write up on a simple walk-through of a home if they wanted to be an A-hole?
ReplyDeleteIt's a good law as demonstrated by this case.
DeleteHow is it demonstrated by this case? They already have her on aggravated assault which is more severe, and was the real crime committed here.
DeleteI know you don't own guns, but I bet you possess knives, Mike.
Yes, and if I use one to kill my wife, I shouldn't be surprised to be charged with the use of a deadly weapon.
DeleteUse of a deadly weapon. Not just possession. You can be charged with possession even if you don't use it. That's what possession means. The killing of you wife might be a murder charge, or if she was stabbed and lived, aggravated assault (like this case). Again, there is no point in tacking on a much weaker possession charge, for an item that is otherwise legal to possess.
DeleteYou're right. Possession is silly. I wonder if that what the charge really was or if it was just reported wrong.
DeleteDid they remove all of the knives from the house as well? What about sharpened pencils or anything else with a sharp edge or point? They need to be very thorough in removing any weapons from the house.
ReplyDeleteNo, they only need to be thorough in removing all the guns. I know you don't like it, maligning your fetish item like that, but that's the law.
Deletefrom the article: "Saddle Brook Police Chief Kugler disagreed. The issue, he said, is not about the Second Amendment or state gun laws — or the debate over them. It’s about common sense. In a potentially dangerous situation, especially a dispute between a husband and a wife, police need to remove weapons."
DeleteNow she stabbed him with a knife which would seem to be a weapon. So did they remove all of the weapons per policy or not?
And they charged her with possession of a weapon (the knife). But they didn't remove her weapons from the house- they removed his. No, I wouldn't call that sense "common".
Delete