Florida Woman Arrested After Breaking Into Estranged Husband’s Home to Turn In His Guns

Courtesy Polk County Sheriff’s Department

Today’s tale of unusual Floridian citizen/law enforcement interface involves the troubled marriage of Courtney and Joseph Irby of Lakeland. The two are reportedly estranged and involved in acrimonious divorce proceedings.

Joseph was arrested recently for allegedly trying to run Courtney off the road with his car subsequent to an argument that started outside the county courthouse after a divorce hearing.

As clickorlando.com reports,

Records show Joseph Irby screamed and yelled at his wife while he rammed the rear end of her vehicle and tried to run her off the road as she was on the phone with police.

Officers said Courtney Irby was hysterically crying when they interviewed her and she was in fear for her life.

Courtney reportedly had a previous restraining order issued against Joseph. When he was arrested for the current alleged vehicular assault and domestic violence charges, she was granted another TRO, but was concerned that he wouldn’t turn in his firearms as the judge ordered.

Her solution: break into his apartment, steal his guns, and turn them into police herself. While handing over the firearms at the Lakeland Police Department, she told an officer what she had done.

From theledger.com . . .

According to Courtney Irby’s arrest affidavit, she told police her husband had been taken to jail for trying to run over her with a car. Irby said she went to Joseph Irby’s apartment on Village Center Drive in Lakeland and searched for the guns she knew he had.

When she told a Lakeland police officer she had the guns with her to turn them in, he replied, “So are you telling me that you committed an armed burglary?” and Irby answered, “Yes, I am, but he wasn’t going to turn them in, so I am doing it,” according to reports.

Police then got in touch with Joseph…who was still in the county jail. He told them that he wanted to press charges against his wife. They then arrested Courtney and charged her with armed burglary of a dwelling and grand theft of a firearm.

Both Irbys have since bailed out of the county jail and Courtney’s arrest has sparked outrage on the part of some politicians and gun controllers.

comments

  1. avatar strych9 says:

    In the race for craziest, Florida Woman is making up some ground in the backstretch.

    Florida Man better step up his game or he’s gonna lose out on that Triple Crown.

    1. avatar billy-bob says:

      Winner gets a free bag of meth?

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        PCP makes more sense in this context.

        “Word to mother, I’m dangerous. Crazier than a bag of fuckin’ angel dust” would seem to fit both of these scholars.

        1. avatar Yeet Cannon for President 2020 says:

          +1 for the Biggie reference. They don’t look fucked enough for it to be PCP. I’d guess good o’l fashioned blow and hookers were involved on the part of this particular Florida Man. For the woman, maybe a bad trip on shrooms? The best part about this is they’re both a meme now. Or at least the latest evolution of the Florida Man/Woman meme.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          LOL. I wasn’t suggesting that they actually use PCP it just fit that song which kinda fit what these two idiots are doing.

    2. avatar MB says:

      Sounds like they are auditioning for the Jerry Springer show.

      1. avatar Red Pill says:

        Feminism is the reason behind the decline of the West (and the U.S.). The latest poll shows yet another example of its destructiveness;

        https://www.axios.com/axios-hbo-poll-55-percent-women-prefer-socialism-f70bf87e-34fd-4b63-b1f6-2f2b6900f634.html

        It is unfortunate that women will, given leeway, destroy civilizations.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Fascinating.

          But having all of the wars been started by men? Wasn’t it man who used to poison gas for the first time in World War I? And then later the British and Italians use poison gas in Africa, wasn’t that also ordered by men?

          And that whole Nazi death camp thing, 10 million people killed, wasn’t that ordered by men as well?

          And remind us again who it was it ordered the use of nuclear weapons that incinerated hundreds of thousands of people instantly, wasn’t that a man as well?

        2. avatar doesky2 says:

          @Miner49er ….And women are the driving force behind modern-era intfanticide and the deaths of something like 50M U.S. babies in the womb.

        3. avatar Red Pill says:

          @Miner 49er

          Yes it is fascinating, and YOU AGREE, since you offered up no rebuttal to that statement…Feminism is the reason behind the decline of the West (and the U.S.). Unless you consider your childish …well…well…well…men(!)… a rebuttal. Besides, don’t women say, behind every great man is a women?

          However, a few FYI’s; The deployment of the two nuclear bombs, SAVED LIVES, and put an end to a war that would have continued far after. In a strange twist of fate, while researching ways to combat mustard gas, American scientists discovered chemotherapy, used to fight cancers today.

          Finally, you mention the concentration camps (which the half-wit Cortez {i know an insult to half-wits} thinks the world of) and 10 million people killed, realize that in 2018 women aborted between 42 and 50 million babies! That makes abortion the leading cause of death in the world, far surpassing the next five causes; cancer, Aids, smoking, drinking, and traffic accidents, which account for a combined 20 million deaths. 50 million babies…GONE!

          Couple that with the declining birth rates (remember well over 90% of those 42 to 50 million abortions are elective) as a reason to bring in hoards of migrants who are culturally opposites, and you have, WOW, come full circle…Feminism is the reason behind the decline of the West (and the U.S.).

        4. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          “However, a few FYI’s; The deployment of the two nuclear bombs, SAVED LIVES”

          Japan offered to surrender unconditionally 3 months before the atom bombs were ever developed and the U.S. admitted to that since 1945. Its obvious your not product of higher education or any education for that matter.

        5. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          “Couple that with the declining birth rates (remember well over 90% of those 42 to 50 million abortions are elective) as a reason to bring in hoards of migrants who are culturally opposites, and you have, WOW, come full circle”

          Again more complete ignorance. History has proven immigrants enrich and advance a society. You can study U.S. History ( of which you obviously flunked out) or go back as far as the Roman Empire.

        6. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          “50 million babies…GONE!”

          Your what most Right Wingers are , complete hypocrites. I do not see people like you offering to adopt Black or Latino babies.

        7. avatar Roger J says:

          If you were to check a chart where the parameters are year(s), federal spending, and the date women were granted the right to vote you find spending soars and never takes a breather.

        8. avatar Red Pill says:

          Vlad says;
          Your what most Right Wingers are , complete hypocrites. I do not see people like you offering to adopt Black or Latino babies.

          Vlad, TTAG’s propaganda Troll, I mention babies and you retort “Black or Latino”, I guess you can’t help being racist. No skin color was used (it was about babies being killed), but to leftist (like you) that is all you see, skin color. It is just fundamental to being leftist, that and hate. Leftist, like you, hated blacks during Jim Crow era, now you hate whites, sadly race is all you see.

          Also to your “offering to adopt” perhaps you missed the key word (hint, it is in all caps), yes….GONE!

          There is NO BABY to adopt, Enabled by leftist like you, women abort 42 to 50 million a year!

        9. avatar Red Pill says:

          Vlad says;
          “History has proven immigrants enrich and advance a society. You can study U.S. History ( of which you obviously flunked out) or go back as far as the Roman Empire.”

          Stated was “hoards of migrants who are culturally opposites” not immigrants, who in U.S. history are taken in a limited number and allowed to assimilate. (Dam you are a Troll)

          The hoards of migrants who are cultural opposites is the reason Sweden is the rape capital of Europe, and there are “no go” zones in France. Among many other deeply troubling problems.

          Further, the “enrich and advance a society” is only true in limited cases. Most of the time, it does not end well.

          And since you mentioned the Romans, check out their favorite “hoards of migrants” the Visigoths.

        10. avatar Red Pill says:

          vlad says;

          “Its obvious your not product of higher education or any education for that matter.”

          Really??? OK, let me of no education, help you, an obvious master linguist.

          It IS obvious you ARE not A product of higher education, or for that matter, any education.

          There, fixed that for you…but you are seriously messed up..Just want you to know that.

    3. avatar Geoff “Guns. Lots of guns.” PR says:

      Check out the comment section in the ‘Ledger’ article.

      A typical Ledger article usually gets a handful comments. This one has blown up the comment section with over 70 comments and counting :

      https://www.theledger.com/news/20190620/lpd-woman-arrested-for-turning-in-husbands-firearms-to-lakeland-police

  2. avatar Barn Animal says:

    That’s a whole mess of stupid right there.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Speaking of stupid…

      Went to my local Walmart again to buy yet another several hundred rounds as our July 1 ammo registration mess approaches. Fortunately, I’ve been stacking for years just in case (which turned out to be a good thing, because California), but they were cleared out of all the 9mm JHP, so I asked the clerk for target ball 9mm and some .300 BLK. Two younger guys (late 20s?) asked me for my opinion about the BLK, and as we’re talking I learn that recently bought guns (here in CA) and are happy they’re in the state’s AFS system, so they’ll be able to pass the quickie background checks and pay only $1 instead of the more intensive $19 one. I reminded them that CADOJ will be requiring (per the amended CA Penal Code) retailers to document and submit all your information, including the caliber and quantity of ammo you buy.

      The two guys shrugged it off and basically said it’s not a problem, because **they’re happy they’ll be granted permission from the state to continue buying**. After all, everything’s sliding toward registration and permission anyhow, so what’s the big deal if you have nothing to hide?

      I thanked them for the conversation and mumbled to myself as I walked away. This younger generation might be interested in guns, but they’re complete morons when it comes to what’s lawful/unlawful, natural rights, liberty, etc.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Eh, I had a similar conversation in the ammo aisle at a local store a month or so ago. I’m 34 this guy was over 60.

        Neither stupidity nor ignorance is confined to an age group. You can see that in all the old dudes over on Breitbart who call people grammar nazis but then complain that kids can’t write properly. Which is doubly ironic when the same old people can’t tell the difference between there, their and they’re or two, too and to.

        1. avatar Geoff “Guns. Lots of guns.” PR says:

          …and when confronted with a word that ends in an ‘s’, just goes ahead and adds an apostrophe “just to be safe”.

          The surreal part for me is, I fucking hated English in school, and I distinctly remember being utterly baffled at the time on the rules for it, and yet today, using the possessive form instead plural drives me up the fucking walls.

          My writing skills suck donkey dicks. I’m a lot better today (but still suck) but I’m light-years better than I was at the time just because I didn’t want to look like an utter fuckwit when expressing thoughts.

          As one can easily tell, I still suck at writing…

        2. avatar Fuck Geese says:

          Strych is right. I’m 24, from the suburban hellhole known as NoVA. The guys I shoot with in my age group are vehemently opposed to any and all gun control. The chicks we’ve introduced to the world of projectile autism still mostly hold the belief that there is such a thing as “ReASoNaBle rEsTRiCtiOns” on enumerated constitutional rights until we call them out for being pro-choice while being anti-gun or Fudd Sluts. I’d argue that gender is the underlying factor, rather than age when it comes to views on guns.

      2. avatar D Y says:

        ” This younger generation might be interested in guns, but they’re complete morons when it comes to what’s lawful/unlawful, natural rights, liberty, etc.”

        Have to partially disagree. As already mentioned, it’s EVERY age.

        People have been raised for decades to see America as the cause of the worlds ailments. Just reading an article about travel today, in which the woman said “America is just another country”.

        There is no cause for alarm as freedom is eroded, when you don’t know, or believe, you are living in the greatest Country on the planet.

        1. avatar Big Bill says:

          Contrary to what the news media tells us, being proud of the country you live in is far from unique to Americans.

      3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Based upon the comments above, I’ll clarify my original statement.

        All the clueless gun owners I’ve encountered are under 35. Might be my area here in SoCal, but that’s been my experience. Your sphere of influence might be different, but that’s what we’ve got here.

  3. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    Once again I am so glad I am married to my wife. If I ever piss her off badly enough to divorce me she will just kill me and we will avoid all of this drama.

    1. avatar possum " they can take your badzooka, I hunt with landmynes" Fudd says:

      LOL, yup. But hey, don’t give em anymore ideas. My X checked her firing pins to much

    2. avatar Arc says:

      Dogs don’t divorce.

      1. avatar BeoBear says:

        True but it’s illegal and let’s face it…disturbing.

        1. avatar RMS1911 says:

          (✷‿✷)

      2. avatar Rattlerjake says:

        They don’t lie, they don’t accuse you of fake assaults, they don’t empty your bank account, they don’t bitch and moan incessantly, they are ALWAYS happy to see you, and a really good one will attack the ex if she tries to steal your guns!

        Considering that these two are in an “acrimonious” divorce, and considering that this witch claims she fears for he life yet will burglarize her ex’s apartment, I’d say everything against him is BS! Put this crazy beatch behind bars for a LOOOOOOONNNNG time!

        1. avatar MB says:

          I would agree because the crazy bitches run the divorce 101 play book based on their friends suggestions and lawyer blessings. My ex tried that but failed because I was ready for the shit storm of lies. I got the kids, the house, and freedom. She just got money and spent it all in a couple of years.

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          Well, he did try to kill her, and he was in jail when she took the guns, so I would say she’s justified in her fears, and there was no chance of meeting him when she took his guns.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          On June 14, Courtney Irby was in court with her husband for a divorce hearing. According to an arrest affidavit, Joseph Irby followed his wife as she left the courthouse and began ramming his car into the back of her vehicle, ultimately driving her off the road. She called police “uncontrollably crying and advised that she was in fear for her life,” the affidavit reads. She also disclosed that she’d had a number of protective orders against her husband in the past.
          Police arrested Joseph Irby and charged him with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. Courtney Irby applied for a temporary injunction for protection.
          The next morning, she testified at her husband’s hearing over the phone. A judge granted Joseph Irby pretrial release with the condition that he not own, possess or carry firearms. Hearing this, Courtney Irby went to her husband’s residence and located his two guns ― an assault rifle and a handgun ― and took them to Lakeland Police Department.
          According to court documents, she told the police officer on duty that her husband had been arrested the day before, and that she wanted to hand in his guns because she didn’t believe he would turn them in.
          The police officer asked if she had taken her husband’s firearms without his permission. When she replied yes, he told her that she was confessing to a crime. Police arrested her and she was charged with armed burglary of a dwelling and grand theft of a firearm.

      3. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        Most of the time, dogs are better company.

        30 minutes late getting home? Your dog is happier to see you than if you’d been on time. Share some of your dinner with your dog? They’re ecstatic – almost regardless of what you’re eating, and they could not care whether it was from a four-star restaurant or the local redneck deli. They’re up to go hiking in any kind of weather, they’re happy to sit in a duck blind with you while you’re both freezing your asses off – and your dog won’t complain about it one little bit. If you’re working in the shop, they’re content to just lay on the concrete and keep you company.

        1. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

          Hope you won’t mind if I copy your words…print them on parchment paper (in an appropriate font) and hang them on my wall….damn fine tribute to dogs.

          You’ll get full credit as author.

      4. avatar LazrBeam says:

        I love my dogs and my dogs love me. Agape love is the best.

    3. avatar jwm says:

      Yep. My biggest fear is she’ll bypass the shotgun and go for the knife. She likes razor sharp knives. The shotgun would be quicker.

  4. avatar The Pontificator says:

    Your move, Ohio.

  5. avatar Rheopectic says:

    It has been said many times here:

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

  6. avatar Brian says:

    There’s a legal way, a process to remove firearms from an individual. She failed to use or even attempt to follow that protocol. SHE CHOSE to violate the law and making exceptions for what may sound like a great reason does not excuse her breaking in, entering and theft of those firearms. I choose to live where the laws are applied equally. Any other way creates chaos.

    1. avatar will says:

      ain’t no women in the world worth losing your right to bear firearms. When my ex showed signs she was a liability I had her removed from my property and then served the divorce papers. All the locks were changed that day. I would not even speak to her without a witness. I told her all calls are recorded. Gender bias is still rampant here in Florida

      1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

        It was my wife that filed for divorce, but I DID bug my phones so I knew everything she was thinking (this was in the 90s when very few people had portable/”cell” phones). I couldn’t use the recordings in court, but I could use the information to my advantage and stay one more often ten steps ahead!

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Unfortunately, your logic to justify wiretapping sounds very much like her logic for theft.

    2. avatar A. C. says:

      That’s what it looked like to me, too when I read a shortened version of the events on another news site. But there was a restraining order against him. Unanswered in the accounts so far, had the police gone to his apartment to get his guns? Had he hidden them or lied to them about his guns? Is it felony gun possession in Florida to not turn over every single gun when there is a court order to do so?

      Did the police ever search his living place for guns after the TRO was issued?

      Finally, if he had guns contrary to a restraining order, even though they were “stolen” and turned into the police by his ex, isn’t that reason to either dramatically increase bail or revoke it altogether?

      1. avatar CazRaX says:

        He would not get in trouble because he was in jail when the gun order went in and she stole them while he was still in there. Can’t say he didn’t follow the order when he was never given the chance.

    3. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      Came to the comments section to say something along these lines. All craziness aside (people going through what this couple are going through don’t tend to think clearly, and I’d probably be inclined to cut the wife some slack in sentencing), the gun control advocates coming out to say the wife shouldn’t be arrested for B&E or theft are showing their true thoughts: Laws are for others to obey; we don’t need to obey the law because we know what’s Right and our cause is Just.

      If people like that are allowed to govern, bad things tend to happen.

  7. avatar Imayeti says:

    Sounds like they are perfect for each other!

    1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

      You assume that he did what she claimed! Considering her instability and vengefulness, she likely backed into the front of his car. Nothing said whether there was video.

    2. avatar Ranger Rick says:

      Hopefully they have not reproduced.

  8. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

    She been offered a job at the DNC yet?

    1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      Hahahaha that’s good. Wasserman -Schitts is getting her phone number now.

  9. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    More and more, we see a certain type of modern women who possess an utterly insufferable solipsism, and are astonished (and dissolve into histrionics) when other people, especially men, won’t join them in their delusions of how these women think the universe is supposed to work.

    What is more alarming is that several of these women have made their way into political office.

    1. avatar Yuri says:

      Well said,,,, BRAVO,
      most men don’t’ realize that, but the truth won’t get you layed.

    2. avatar Rattlerjake says:

      You must be an etymologist or maybe a lexicographer.

    3. avatar Cliff H says:

      At this point in the conversation I can only think of one thing, but it would probably be above the intellect of the persons involved:

      If you’re going to break in to his apartment, do it on the down-low. Find a nice pistol and some ammunition and take THAT. Leave the rest and call the police with a tip that he has others and provide an inventory (without explaining how you came by it).

      If loving ex comes around to visit after all that you at least have a fine weapon with which to protect yourself rather than a felony record and a life-long prohibition from owning ANY firearm in case he wants to come calling when you are both out of prison again.

      SO long as you do not do anything stupid (as if) or illegal with the confiscated pistol any dispute over how or when you got it is a he said-she said unless he has a bill of sale dated after your separation.

      Unlike your choice of “significant others”, choose wisely.

      1. avatar PATRON49IFT says:

        Wonder where she falls on the “crazy/hot matrix”? Wonder if he thinks all that crazy, hot sex was worth it now?

        Wonder if she thinks any man worth having will be interested in her after all this plays out?

        I did plenty of stuuuuuuupid things in my yoot but I lived to tell about it. Never did anything this stupid. They should be sentenced to live together in the same house for ten years.

    4. avatar ll says:

      in this case he tried to kill her with a car

      And you choose that act to go on a rant about how bad modern women are?

    5. avatar Dave G. says:

      From the American Heritage College Dictionary:
      sol-ip-sism: n. Philos. The theory that the self is the only thing that has reality or can be known and verified.

      It’s amazing what one can learn by reading these comments. My only comment is that I feel sorry for some of you guys. I’ve been married to the same (one and only) gal for 52 years and have never had any of the kinds of trouble I’ve read about here. Just lucky, I guess. And yes, I’m bragging about it.

  10. avatar jackie says:

    Eh, No one cares about the B&E and Firearm theft? Helloooo? idiots..

    1. avatar CharlieKing1 says:

      This is what is just appalling to me. You’ve got the leftists idiots and the likes of Shannon Watts always screaming about the ‘rule of law’, but conveniently forget about it when it suits their agenda to take away firearms. There’s the right way and there’s the wrong way and this idiot Courtney Irby thought she’d be doing the world a favor by burglarizing her estranged husband’s apartment to turn in his firearms. You just can’t make this BS up, just outrageous…

      1. avatar PATRON49IFT says:

        Maybe those folks are……….hypocrites? Always fun to use some else’s rules and apply to them.

        1. avatar Hush says:

          A hypocrite by any other name, well could be one of these:

          artificial, backhanded, counterfeit, double, double-dealing, double-faced, fake, feigned, insincere, Janus-faced, jive [slang], left-handed, lip, mealy, mealymouthed, Pecksniffian, phony (also phoney), phony-baloney (or phoney-baloney), pretended, two-faced, unctuous

    2. avatar doesky2 says:

      Hey don’t you know that there’s a different relaxed set of laws for women….all because of the puzzzzy.

      Where’s all this F’n male privledge I’ve been hearing about?

  11. avatar OBOB says:

    She’ll be getting a FULL TIME job with Shannon Watts and Mom’s Whine for action…as a full time victim!

  12. avatar george burns says:

    You want to bet these two will make up, and get back together. They are made for each other. When someone tells me that girl is married to a real asshole, I always say, you are not getting the whole picture, stupid people don’t stay married to smart well mannered ones. They are always both idiots, some are just better at hiding it than others.

  13. avatar User1 says:

    The government says they are going to protect her by taking his guns but they don’t take them when his is in jail. Did they plan to raid his house when he gets out and is more pissed than before? Did they plan to wait until the wife was attacked before they come to the rescue?

    Either enforce your gun laws or get rid of them. You claim to be law enforcement. You claim to be protecting and serving. Why does the victim have to be the enforcer while you sit there? I thought government is supposed to be the ones to enforce the law — if anyone tries to do it themselves they get arrested for a crime.

    What should happen is the government getting rid of infringements and empowering women to deal with their attacker with deadly force when appropriate. So a woman doesn’t have to be attacked, then have to take proactive action for her safety, which empowers the state to arrest her for playing cop. Like many gun owners say, “I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.”

    If the ex husband was trying to attack her with deadly force after a court hearing, she should have been able to shoot him dead right there. She wouldn’t be in the trouble she is now or maybe they would have charged her with murder.

    I wouldn’t feel the need to find her guilty. However, other people will say, “But it’s the law!” Convicting her would give the leftists and her ex husband a victory.

    1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

      Interesting how YOU immediately assume that HE is guilty! He was arrested and charged because she made the complaint, that doesn’t mean he actually did anything wrong. This vindictive beatch is probably trying to him appear the crazy one so she will win in the divorce (if there’s anything to win).

      What we do know is that SHE IS guilty, because the idiot did it and admitted to it! And it’s sad how several commenters think that the cops should have ignored her criminal activity!

    2. avatar BoFA says:

      Hi, I’m amazed by everyone’s lack of logic. If you get arrested, they don’t give you time to go back to your house and gather your firearms to turn them in. The dude was in jail, guilty or not and saying something like this is legal is saying that any time you are arrested for most crimes outside of the home that they can just come and search and seize your home if you feel like it.
      Also if you fear for your life and the dude is in jail, you hide, not piss the dude off more by forcing him to step his game up. More domestic assaults happen with kitchen knives than firearms.

      1. avatar Guest says:

        And yet there’s a much higher chance the firearm use will end in a death.

        1. avatar Geoff “Guns. Lots of guns.” PR says:

          There’s a much higher chance of dying in a car crash if you own and use a car…

    3. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      There’s more to the story. You know that the media always spins it the way they want. The neighbors probably have the most accurate story.

    4. avatar rosignol says:

      The government says they are going to protect her by taking his guns but they don’t take them when his is in jail.

      If he’s in jail, 1) he doesn’t have access to his firearms, and 2) he’s being physically prevented from turning them in by the state.

      1. avatar User1 says:

        You don’t give a violent man, who was told to stay away from his wife yet attacks her with his car, a chance to turn in his weapons as ordered. Do you think he will go home (after getting out of his cage) and turn in his guns peacefully? The guy already shown he won’t listen to a judge’s orders. He has already shown he is violent.

        It’s very stupid to tell an enraged man to turn in his guns to the police after he gets out of jail. The smart thing to do is to go to his home and take them when there is no one there to shoot back. That way no police are shot and the man isn’t killed in a raid. That way the woman doesn’t have to worry as much when he gets out.

  14. avatar possum " they can take your badzooka,I hunt with landmynes" Fudd says:

    I missed the part where she committed Armed Robbery. Is that when she took possession of the gunms? I can’t see her busting in the door of an empty house with a gunm in her hand. Also missing is the “Breaking in ” part. If she had a key, or the door was unlocked I think that goes, “excerpting property of another” , you’ll be charged with breaking and entering but reduced down, anyway used to be in this State. Now we get into who’s gunms are they? Divorce proceedings going on, they just might be hers in the end. Thought she did the right thing by “stealing the gunms” , out of fear, turned them into the cops, , , , Burn The Witch, yah just don’t take a man’s gunms ! !

    1. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

      In Florida, if you commit a burglary and happen to steal a firearm, you are then committing “armed burglary”. Because you just armed yourself with stolen gun.

    2. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

      Possum, it was armed burglary, not armed robbery. In Florida if you arm yourself in the commission of a burglary it becomes armed burglary. In about ’86 I lost about half a dozen handguns in a burglary. Only got one back. The shitheads were charged with armed burglary, among other things, even though they were unarmed at the time of entry.

    3. avatar Hydguy says:

      You are an idiot.
      She was not lawfully present in his apartment. Doesn’t matter if the door was unlocked, or she broke in through a window (she admitted she broke in, so your attempt at white knighting is pointless). Then she stole multiple firearms during the commission of a crime, which bumps the charges up.
      Hope she gets the max, but some liberal judge will likely drop the charges.

    4. avatar Big Bill says:

      Florida isn’t a community property state.
      During divorce proceedings, a judge makes the decision of who own what. (A simplification; there’s non-marital property involved.) Any guns he had before the wedding are his; any acquired after the wedding require the judge to decide.

  15. avatar Alan says:

    When one attempts to make one’s own law, as it appears this woman has done, problems follow. Her arrest and jailing is entirely proper. Who died, leaving her boss seems a worthwhile question.

  16. avatar Mikial says:

    All I can say is that I hope they never did or never will have any kids. Next generation of freaking losers, anyone?

  17. avatar Ralph says:

    In the rest of America, these two would be considered morons. In Florida, they’re eligible for MENSA.

    1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      Hahahah another good comment. Love it! One of these 2 should go for the Darwin Award. I see a movie/book contract here.

    2. avatar MikeJH121 says:

      My ex bro in law could be a member of Mensa, my 2 Nieces are oldest Private Nurse to a billionaire, younger soon to be lawyer. Yet he could not common sense his way out of a wet paper bag. IQ does not = ability or logical thought. And the oldest figured out at 16 she no longer wanted his kinda illogical reason she wanted the new step dad to adopt. He did on her 18th Bday because “dad” was fighting it. She has nothing to do with him. Took the younger one longer but she came around. Yet My younger sis was born in FL. Spent 10 years growing up there. I actually attended Coconut Creek Elementary, in the early 70’s. And Broward Sheriffs were just as bad then.

  18. avatar Will Drider says:

    A Florida Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) is not the same as a extreme Risk Protection Order (RPO) which mandates surrender of firearms, ammo, CWFL, and restricts possesion and future purchases of same.

    Angry vindictive woman should have petitioned for a RPO if she could justify it, not try to deprive “hubby” of property and 2A Rights via her criminal conduct. Courts will have to determin if there was hubby criminality on the Road incident, violation of the TRO. Hell, maybe she pulled in front of him a jammed on the brakes! Crazy thing love, all the way till the end. Lol

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      Yea having an ex that I went through all this with, that honestly sounds more likely.

      Women play that “didnt do nuffin” role very well.

    2. avatar Anymouse says:

      From what I read elsewhere, there was an order for him to surrender his guns. Of course, he couldn’t act upon it from behind bars. She took the vigilante action of breaking into his apartment, searching for his guns, and stealing them because she felt he wouldn’t follow the order.

      1. avatar User1 says:

        Would you turn in your guns if you got red flagged? If you were a violent man who was arrested and got a second order from the court, would you turn them in?

    3. avatar Big Bill says:

      A TRO (even a Florida one) based on domestic violence makes you a prohibited person (if only temporarily), which means you must get rid of your guns.
      Whether the state will operate on that fact is, I suppose, up to the state.

  19. avatar former water walker says:

    Golly I thought MY ex was psychotic(she is). I’m a mite neutral on this one what with the assault by vehicle thing…I’m quite happy with my honey of 30years😏

  20. avatar CNS says:

    Wow, gun control fanatics support armed burglary. Sadly I’m not surprised

    That being said, I still don’t have any sympathy for a guy who tries to run his wife off the road. Sounds like they both deserve each other. They should do their time at the same prison.

    1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      It’s Florida, dude. Right there, you know you’re dealing with the finest in weirdness.

  21. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    So the next person will break into someone’s house to get his guns because he is afraid of him but hasn’t gotten any order? Would that be okay with the hypocritical gun controllers? Condoning crime to prevent a maybe? Yeah, they would!

  22. avatar Truckman says:

    people need to read and know the laws he was issued a restraining order before he was arrested for the attack and at the time the restraining ordered he lost his right temporary to have any guns and was supposed to have turned them in or the law was supposed to pick them up thats the law in Fl.

    1. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

      So one goes to the police and has them go into the house and seize the weapons. Do not play vigilanty and get yourself into trouble.

      1. avatar User1 says:

        That’s easy for you to say when you’re not the one that was attacked by a man that wanted to force your car to crash, threatened your well being and is now very angry he is in a cage because of you. Such men are likely to commit violence on their ex wife. They are probably getting divorced because he beats her.

        I have seen many men shoot their ex wife/girlfriend dead under the same scenario presented here. The police just tell him to stay away from her. Then he comes back with a weapon and kills her because he doesn’t want any other man to have her. Heck, even cops have done that.

        The government told him he can’t have his guns because he was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon after violating an order to stay away from his ex wife. That sounds like a very angry man. That sounds like an escalation. If that kept escalating we know what the outcome would have been. She knew what the outcome was going to be; she was probably told by him what was going to happen to her.

        The government should have done their jobs and removed the weapons from his home while he was in jail. That would have been the safest and easiest thing to do. Instead they told him to turn them in. What kind of stupid shit is that?

        Then leftists are going to blame guns when she is shot dead? Then gun owners are going to blame her for not buying a gun and using it?

        She broke into his home and took the things he was ordered to give up. She gave them to the people that he was supposed to give them to. What is the difference? If she had a badge it would be okay to take his property and his right to own firearms but his wife that is trying to peacefully save her life can’t do the same? It’s one thing if she did that before she was attacked, she did it after he attempted to cause grievous bodily harm. She didn’t steal, she trespassed/broke into his home. Sue her for any damage she did and move on.

        Instead the government will won’t to turn them both into felons and take their rights forever. That’s not justice. That’s just making the whole situation worse for the benefit of the government.

        Don’t forget that citizens have powers of arrest, they can bring charges through a grand jury and they can dismiss charges through nullification if they so choose. Police are not the sole authority in this country. The police are usually the ones that behave like vigilantes.

        Maybe she should have called the cops… Don’t want her playing vigilante.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I’m not all the way through the video but so far they don’t seem too eager to shoot another piggie. Surprise, surprise.

          “Hey Phil. Please drop the gun, Phil.”

  23. avatar enuf says:

    Ramming your ife’s car with your own, trying to force her off the road is attempted murder. He should have been behind bars and denied bail for such behavior.

    Her burglary is bad too, but he’s the one who did the violence.

    So far that is.

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      So, two wrongs make a right…???

      1. avatar enuf says:

        So, no, that’s not in what I said at all. Not remotely.

  24. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Ahhh, the proverbial marriage made in heaven…

  25. avatar anaxis says:

    Florida Man must’ve forgotten about the Hot –> Crazy scale, and thought he was swinging way above his average.

    Huh, I thought it was in Common Core; could’ve sworn I’d seen that particular graph in there somewhere.

  26. avatar TheTruthBurns says:

    The Most Offensive part of this story is the photo of that Hideously Ugly Iranian State Rep with the Largest Nose you’ve Ever seen.

  27. “FLORIDA Police marriage, and significant other counseling services…?”

  28. avatar Philip says:

    I’m curious even about the “rear ended while trying to run her off the road”. Someone who tries to run you off the road tends to be alongside, not behind.

    What if the guy was tailgating her and she slammed on her brakes? Or they were on the parking and she reversed into his car? Both already angry due to the previous argument?

    A story can be told in so many ways…

    Here you can have an out-of control guy, who attacked a woman with a vehicle in a fit of rage, and a lady in justifiable fear for her life taking excessive/wrong action after a sleepless night.

    Or you can have a guy who got screwed up in divorce court (that wouldn’t be news, I guess?), then got screwed up again by her banging into his car and accusing him. After which, the lady thought good to add oil on the fire by grabbing his beloved guns and taking them to the cops, why stop a good run of dices?

    Can’t really count on the media to shed untainted light on the events, unfortunately.

    Maybe the cop who filed the burglary charges knew something that was missed in the headline?

    Just shower thoughts…

  29. avatar RMS1911 says:

    Her solution: break into his apartment, steal his guns, and turn them into police herself.
    Translation psycho bitch being spiteful.
    Karma is a bitchy bitch.(or a stripper)

  30. avatar GS650G says:

    The outrage of the legislature wench is particularly rich. So [email protected] is just fine as long as guns are being taken and turned over to cops. I bet hearing his bitch was arrested and Sir, Do You Wish To Press Charges was the highlight of his day.

  31. avatar James W Crawford says:

    What I can not understand is why the judge didn’t respond to this vehicular assault by requireing Mr Irby to turn in his car rather than his guns? Obviously; what is needed here iscarcontrol rather than gun control.

    1. avatar TraumaControl says:

      If I hit you with a baseball bat, car, shovel, etc with the purpose of causing you bodily harm…I am committing a violent crime. If you are charged with committing a violent crime and there is a a concern you may commit further violent crime…you will be asked to turn in any firearms. Don’t understand what is hard to understand about that.

  32. avatar James W Crawford says:

    I could not resist the temptation to email Rep Eskimsnni.

    This is what I wrote.

    I am curious about your reaction to the Irby case.

    While it would appear that Mr Irby is a domestic abuser who assaulted his wife with a deadly weapon, why are you making this a gun control issue. The weapon that Mr Irby attacked his wife with was an automobile, not a gun. Why didn’t the Judge require him to turn in his car? Why not enact safe storage laws that require car owners to keep their vehicles unfueled and in a locked garage?

    1. avatar TraumaControl says:

      You, and people like you, do more harm to gun owners and those fighting for the second amendment than ridiculous gun control bills. You turn non gun control issues into gun control issues and alienate a large portion of the population that are moderates and create conflict with representatives that could be won over. Especially over domestic violence. What the hell do you think women who are victims or survivors of domestic violence will support when it comes to gun control? The groups that show support and help toward them or those that ridicule or feel guns are more important than their lives. How about keep gun control out of a domestic violence issue and help introduce women that may fear for their lives safe firearm use and self defense? Thus far those that support the second amendment and gun ownership have treated the ownership of guns no matter the situation as a priority…even when his guns were ordered to be turn in.

  33. avatar TraumaControl says:

    This story is interesting from a internet troll point of view, as I knew this woman throughout undergrad. She is a classically trained musician and vocal performer. She isn’t a meth head. They have two children and she is a pretty loving mother. The husband I don’t know well but in hind sight has done the typical isolate their spouse from friends and family over time that most domestic abusers do. She has had multiple protective orders against him. It was only after this event, when the court ordered that his firearms be turned over that she choose to get them as she knew he would not. This decision may not have been the wisest but was likely more due to a naive understanding of the consequences. In her mind after multiple protective orders and recent escalation of him running her off the road, the court order to turn in his guns would likely be further escalated. Purely speculation but to be wrong puts her and her children at risk of being murdered by someone who has shown that he is already willing to cause her harm as he already tried running her off the road.

    This is NOT a GUN control issue.

    This is NOT a crazy woman trying to stick it to her ex to be vindictive. This is a domestic violence victim that sought protection multiple times through the proper channels and the violence escalated. Hearing the order to turn in the guns made her think “oh shit, He isn’t going to get rid of those…I know where they are so I may as well get them before he kills…himself…the cops going to get them…or me and my kids.” All of you saying “this bitch is stupid for stealing his guns” are a part of the problem. Its not about the damn guns.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      It is not a gun control issue. It’s a criminal issue. 2 criminals, one man, one woman went to jail for their actions.

      What she should have done was legally arm herself and used whatever force was needed to protect herself while she was getting herself and her kids to a safe place.

      1. avatar TraumaControl says:

        I absolutely agree. However, instead of helping domestic violence victims or working to introduce women looking to protect herself or their family to safe firearm use and self defense…The majority(as evidenced by the comments in this thread) want to treat them as “vindictive bitches” or “dumb cows”.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          I won’t judge the ‘majority’ based on this comment section. What I will say is that if a person, male or female doesn’t matter, has cause to get a restraining order then the court should have a program to arm that person for the duration of the order.

          Send that person to the local LEO shop and have them check out a loaner gun and be given some instructions by the cops.

      2. avatar User1 says:

        Try doing that in California.

        I don’t think this woman has a gun or knows how to use one. You want her to buy a gun, learn to use it and get a permit to carry it within days?

        How about we start reaching out to women and empower them before they need to break into their husband’s apartment? Until then some of them are going to have to “steal” the abuser’s weapons and take out extreme risk protection orders that do nothing. Going after this woman empowers the government to pass more gun confiscation (in the remaining states that have yet to do so) as their solution.

        For her: desperate times require desperate measures. Totally understandable when one’s life is in danger.

        Some women were found not guilty for killing/murdering their extremely abusive boyfriend/husband before he got to the point of killing her. Heck, America invades other countries illegally because they might be a danger to America sometime in the future. If it works for the government…

        1. avatar jwm says:

          I live in the leftist paradise of CA. In a zip code that means my human and civil rights are permanently violated. I cannot get a permit. No legal reason to deny me except, tyranny is alive and well here. And this ‘victim’ lived in Fl. A state with no waiting period for firearms and shall issue permits.

          I carry a firearm when I feel the need. If I get caught and arrested I will face what my actions brought. Like me this woman had to know she was crossing some lines. Or she was too dumb to be unsupervised.

          Like me, she made a choice. Now she has to live with it.

        2. avatar barnbwt says:

          “Empower” is not “using state authority to have men in guns protect me so as to take the place of my own personal responsibility”

          Yer goddamn right she needs to arm herself & take responsibility for her own well being. Talk about things we should all have learned around 3rd grade… The alternative –which you saw in the last article about a pathetic woman who had taken no measures to handle herself until well into adulthood– is basically Sharia, where women aren’t allowed to go around without a (male) guardian, who does take responsibility for her safety. Handguns are pretty dang simple to use –that’s the whole point, really– and they are pretty much the best thing we have available to give women or anyone else force-parity against garden-variety threats. They pretty much just require you to actually fight back, and you stand a very solid chance of coming out on top. Much better track-record than relying on police deterrent, let alone intervention.

          “With great power comes great responsibility.” The opposite is true, and people who refuse responsibility are left powerless.

        3. avatar IheartFL says:

          You have both flunked the Turing test and passed the eunuch test.

      3. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        “It is not a gun control issue. It’s a criminal issue. 2 criminals, one man, one woman went to jail for their actions.

        What she should have done was legally arm herself and used whatever force was needed to protect herself while she was getting herself and her kids to a safe place.”

        Brilliant. Leave the nut case have all the guns he wants so he can attack and kill her when she least expects it. When you do not know when an attack is coming you can be armed to the teeth and still more than likely be shot before you even know what hit you (ask any combat veteran about that) This nut case man should have had his guns immediately confiscated and he should have been imprisoned immediately and for a long time until they could evaluate he sanity while he in the meantime rots in jail where he belongs.

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          “Sentence first, trials later!”

          I always knew you were a drama queen…but a red one?

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Once again you are proving your fascist roots, vlad. Lock him up with out trial. True nazi think.

          P.S. I am a combat vet. And you are an idiot.

        3. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

          Jim, “Vlad” is a either a bot or a well paid Democrat antagonist. Quit responding, maybe like all viruses it’ll go away.

      4. avatar barnbwt says:

        Yup; theft to feed your starving family may be physically necessary, but it remains illegal –and necessarily so, because the two conditions (starvation & theft) are not linked to each other. It’s only when the law mandates you go starving, that violating it becomes both justified and morally righteous. A difficult distinction for many to make, if they refuse to take a broader perspective when it comes to policy.

        We can’t simply have people going around robbing each other because they suspect something. We have court orders and enforcement mechanisms for this sort of thing, bound within a framework intended to protect us from each other. Short-cutting it out of convenience does nothing but endanger everyone in the end. And that is why this woman needs to be punished; I hope to hell the judge is professional enough to exclude the circumstances of the theft from consideration in the trial as irrelevant, but most likely short-sighted sympathies will win in the end, and she won’t receive a punishment suited to felony theft.

  34. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    Only in the twisted State of the U.S. would such an outrage happen. Throwing a woman in jail because after the State did not help her he did what she had to do to survive. The outrage over this among the general population (who is still sane) will I am sure result in all charges dropped. Its what a civilized nation would do and would not have had to have done if we had tough Red Flag Laws.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      A civilized nation wouldn’t tolerate these two.

      Not that you know anything, but Florida has red flag laws…yup, didn’t accomplish anything, again. As usual, locking this jackass up was more effective than anything you gun banners have ever proposed.

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        “”””””””””””””A civilized nation wouldn’t tolerate these two.

        Not that you know anything, but Florida has red flag laws…yup, didn’t accomplish anything, again. As usual, locking this jackass up was more effective than anything you gun banners have ever proposed.”””””””””””””

        Nice try at selectively editing out the other part of my post which was “also lock the guy up” which is what every red flag law should include and you agreed with me on the “lock him up part of it”.

        1. avatar Red Pill says:

          Read the replies to your Troll posts above.

          Feminism is the reason behind the decline of the West (and the U.S.).

    2. avatar IheartFL says:

      Fuck off Vlad. Murica don’t need your lame ass.

  35. avatar jonathan boats says:

    ***cue the obese marathon runner to advocate murdering your husband***

    The real crime is this man had his gun rights taken away because of a divorce. Sorry, but whatever he did- she probably deserved it.

  36. avatar Someone says:

    Was the guy convicted of the alleged assault on his wife? If not, he is still innocent. She on the other hand admitted to the armed burglary and brought the proof of it (his guns) to the police.
    As for disarming the supposedly dangerous husband to make him harmless, it doesn’t make any sense – he can use any other tool to harm his wife if he decides to do it. Like a car. Or no tool at all and just strangle her or beat her to death with his fists.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email