Post by: changemyoil66 on February 21, 2020, 06:59:53 AM
Student is an eagle scout. And was in college studying law enforcement as a major. PD came to his dorm and searched his room and car. Rifle was stored in schools security safe office as per school rules. He had a baton that was in his room which was issued by his class, it was confiscated along with rifle.
His RA felt threatened by post below. They had prior political disagreements and he blocked the RA from his social media.
According to the school, he posed an immediate danger. Yet no alerts to any students or anything were given.
I wonder if he is still pursuing law enforcement?
He posted a pic of his new AR saying "it would make snowflakes melt, as in snow".
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: oldfart on February 21, 2020, 08:02:59 AM
Is there a link to a news story?
Post by: oldfart on February 21, 2020, 08:10:05 AM
https://www.wxyz.com/news/lawmakers-defend-michigan-student-charged-over-gun-photo
Post by: groveler on February 21, 2020, 08:23:26 AM
Student was arrested and held in jail without bail for 83 days. Then released and confined to his parents home. No contact with internet or social media as terms of his house arrest.Standard procedure for Cops to "process you through the system"
Student is an eagle scout. And was in college studying law enforcement as a major. PD came to his dorm and searched his room and car. Rifle was stored in schools security safe office as per school rules. He had a baton that was in his room which was issued by his class, it was confiscated along with rifle.
His RA felt threatened by post below. They had prior political disagreements and he blocked the RA from his social media.
According to the school, he posed an immediate danger. Yet no alerts to any students or anything were given.
I wonder if he is still pursuing law enforcement?
He posted a pic of his new AR saying "it would make snowflakes melt, as in snow".
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
even if you did nothing wrong. It costs you time and money.
They just want to make a point, they can EFF with you as they see fit
and there is nothing legally you can do about it.
Cops are a necessary evil and I don't have to like or trust them,
but everybody I know has stories, very few are good.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 21, 2020, 08:49:39 AM
What is RA?
Is there a link to a news story?
Resident Advisor. Another student who is in charge of the dorms. They enforce rules and stuff like that.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 21, 2020, 08:52:22 AM
I'm sure the person who complained will not face any financial losses. This student worked hard his entire life and is going to have to go down a different path. Becoming an Eagle Scout is no easy task either.
Post by: oldfart on February 21, 2020, 10:14:20 AM
Post by: mrgaf on February 21, 2020, 11:24:02 AM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 21, 2020, 12:09:44 PM
Ahhhhhhh yes! Another example of pigs being pigs..... :wtf:
More like, another example of "we have to be overly strict and arrest anyone who gets reported to ANY authority. if they are innocent, they will have the opportunity AFTER THEIR LIVES ARE TURNED UPSIDE DOWN to defend themselves."
Due process?
This is not a process. It's punishment based on allegations alone. The Cops are doing what the law allows. If that means arresting and holding a student who did nothing illegal, but who "someone" believes (or pretends) is a "threat to the public", then by all means, treat them as if they actually did the things "someone" said they are afraid MIGHT happen.
I think most politicians (i.e. all Democrats and most GOP) are about to take bribes, sexually harass a staffer and/or commit campaign finance law violations. Let's arrest them all and do a thorough background check AND a mental health evaluation before allowing them anywhere near our government.
Post by: mrgaf on February 21, 2020, 07:36:25 PM
More like, another example of "we have to be overly strict and arrest anyone who gets reported to ANY authority. if they are innocent, they will have the opportunity AFTER THEIR LIVES ARE TURNED UPSIDE DOWN to defend themselves."
Due process?
This is not a process. It's punishment based on allegations alone. The Cops are doing what the law allows. If that means arresting and holding a student who did nothing illegal, but who "someone" believes (or pretends) is a "threat to the public", then by all means, treat them as if they actually did the things "someone" said they are afraid MIGHT happen.
I think most politicians (i.e. all Democrats and most GOP) are about to take bribes, sexually harass a staffer and/or commit campaign finance law violations. Let's arrest them all and do a thorough background check AND a mental health evaluation before allowing them anywhere near our government.
:thumbsup:
Post by: robtmc on February 21, 2020, 07:55:30 PM
Resident Advisor. Another student who is in charge of the dorms. They enforce rules and stuff like that.An older version of a hall monitor, with enhanced power fantasies, perhaps?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 22, 2020, 09:52:07 AM
Ahhhhhhh yes! Another example of pigs being pigs..... :wtf:
Very judgmental considering that you don't know many of the facts of the story.
Post by: mrgaf on February 22, 2020, 06:14:21 PM
Very judgmental considering that you don't know many of the facts of the story.
And you do? :rofl: Your crystal ball must be working well, grasshopper! :worship:
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 22, 2020, 06:44:53 PM
Very judgmental considering that you don't know many of the facts of the story.The article was posted. And info posted by mr. There isn't more to the story.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: hvybarrels on February 23, 2020, 12:16:14 AM
Very judgmental considering that you don't know many of the facts of the story.
Only a cop would say something like that.
We get it. Rights and freedoms make your job much more difficult than if you could lock up people whenever you want just for disagreeing with you. Cry me a river.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 23, 2020, 12:42:28 AM
Very judgmental considering that you don't know many of the facts of the story.
And you do? :rofl: Your crystal ball must be working well, grasshopper! :worship:
The irony of being JUDGED as "very judgmental".
You can't get any more hypocritical than that. :rofl:
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 27, 2020, 08:22:20 PM
And you do?
No, I don't. But I am also not making any judgements or determinations like you are.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 27, 2020, 08:23:04 PM
Only a cop would say something like that.
Because only cops are objective?
Because I want to know both sides of the story and don't automatically believe someone telling a story that fits a political narrative I must be a cop?
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 27, 2020, 08:26:23 PM
The article was posted. And info posted by mr. There isn't more to the story.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
It is only part of what really happened, it is only one side of the story. I want to know more before I judge
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 27, 2020, 09:08:54 PM
It is only part of what really happened, it is only one side of the story. I want to know more before I judgeFeel free to look, but you wont find anything
So just for giggles, assume thats all there is, was this red flag justified in your opinion?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: hvybarrels on February 27, 2020, 09:28:09 PM
Because only cops are objective?
Because I want to know both sides of the story and don't automatically believe someone telling a story that fits a political narrative I must be a cop?
Cops have a tendency to stick together even when their fellow officers are committing criminal acts. They are psychologically screened for personality types who follow orders and do not ask too many questions. I would not be surprised if at some point you say something like "We should be more objective. What if urinals taste good?"
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 27, 2020, 09:58:56 PM
Cops have a tendency to stick together even when their fellow officers are committing criminal acts. They are psychologically screened for personality types who follow orders and do not ask too many questions. I would not be surprised if at some point you say something like "We should be more objective. What if urinals taste good?"I have never licked a urinal. So i can neither confirm or deny that statement. Schrodengers cat.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 27, 2020, 10:12:44 PM
I have never licked a urinal. So i can neither confirm or deny that statement. Schrodengers cat.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
So, you've never given a girl oral pleasure?
Think about it.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 27, 2020, 10:15:39 PM
So, you've never given a girl oral pleasure?Girls dont use urinals...not the ones i date anyways.
Think about it.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: drck1000 on February 27, 2020, 10:20:58 PM
Girls dont use urinals...not the ones i date anyways.:facepalm:
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 27, 2020, 10:26:59 PM
:facepalm:
He didn't think about it ... at all. :wacko:
Post by: drck1000 on February 27, 2020, 10:52:59 PM
He didn't think about it ... at all. :wacko:
:rofl:
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 28, 2020, 08:23:50 PM
Feel free to look, but you wont find anything
So just for giggles, assume thats all there is, was this red flag justified in your opinion?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
If that is all the information there is then I would say it is impossible to form a supported conclusion.
I know that if someone is planning on suing they and their lawyer are going to present the best version of events to fit their complaint and that usually leaves out a anything that isn't in their favor.
Does this kid have a strong case against officers or someone else? Very possible, but also very possible that there were other significant factors that justified everything that happened. Since we only have one side of the story it is impossible to conclude whether the government was right in their actions or not.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 28, 2020, 08:25:08 PM
Cops have a tendency to stick together even when their fellow officers are committing criminal acts. They are psychologically screened for personality types who follow orders and do not ask too many questions. I would not be surprised if at some point you say something like "We should be more objective. What if urinals taste good?"
So cops stick together.... therefore anyone who claims they did something wrong must automatically be right?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on February 28, 2020, 08:58:41 PM
So cops stick together.... therefore anyone who claims they did something wrong must automatically be right?
Strawman in action.
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 29, 2020, 09:49:01 AM
If that is all the information there is then I would say it is impossible to form a supported conclusion.There are both sides told. Its public info, especially when the police made a statement. You just have to know how to look for it.
I know that if someone is planning on suing they and their lawyer are going to present the best version of events to fit their complaint and that usually leaves out a anything that isn't in their favor.
Does this kid have a strong case against officers or someone else? Very possible, but also very possible that there were other significant factors that justified everything that happened. Since we only have one side of the story it is impossible to conclude whether the government was right in their actions or not.
So i ask again, for giggles, assume the story is true and no "other side" to the story. Is this red flag ok with you?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 29, 2020, 10:14:40 PM
Strawman in action.
It follows the logic of his reasoning. He is free to explain further if he likes.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on February 29, 2020, 10:19:51 PM
There are both sides told. Its public info, especially when the police made a statement. You just have to know how to look for it.
So i ask again, for giggles, assume the story is true and no "other side" to the story. Is this red flag ok with you?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I suppose you are probably correct, I could try to go and find the court records and request a copy of the police report, etc. but that's not real high on my list of things to get done at the moment. I am also not proclaiming anyone guilty or innocent either.
So if there was no other side and all the evidence that existed was that one social media post then I would say it is not ok. I don't think the content of the post could, by itself, constitute an actual threat or reasonable be perceived as a threat.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 01, 2020, 02:05:43 AM
ItMy obvious attempt at using a straw argument follows the logic of his reasoning as I have defined it to fit my own argument.
He is free to explain further if he likes, even though he never actually said, "...therefore anyone who claims they did something wrong must automatically be right" .
FIFY.
Quote
A straw man (or strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument,
while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.
One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
Post by: Rocky on March 01, 2020, 06:54:19 AM
therefore anyone who claims they did something wrong must automatically be right?So automatically being right (correct) in their claim that they did something wrong = guilty ? :wacko:
Based on that statement, anyone who claims they did something wrong (incorrect ) must automatically be wrong = guilty ? :wtf:
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 01, 2020, 09:27:20 AM
I suppose you are probably correct, I could try to go and find the court records and request a copy of the police report, etc. but that's not real high on my list of things to get done at the moment. I am also not proclaiming anyone guilty or innocent either.I dont look up all red flag cases, but the ones that make the headlines that i read. This way i can see what the justifications are.
So if there was no other side and all the evidence that existed was that one social media post then I would say it is not ok. I don't think the content of the post could, by itself, constitute an actual threat or reasonable be perceived as a threat.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: hvybarrels on March 01, 2020, 09:51:46 AM
I suppose you are probably correct, I could try to go and find the court records and request a copy of the police report, etc. but that's not real high on my list of things to get done at the moment. I am also not proclaiming anyone guilty or innocent either.
So if there was no other side and all the evidence that existed was that one social media post then I would say it is not ok. I don't think the content of the post could, by itself, constitute an actual threat or reasonable be perceived as a threat.
It was clearly protected speech. Maybe #coplogic has it that constitutional rights should be taken away based on thought crimes, but the issue should not be decided by the kind of people who make their money off asset forfeiture.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 01, 2020, 08:48:19 PM
So automatically being right (correct) in their claim that they did something wrong = guilty ? :wacko:
Based on that statement, anyone who claims they did something wrong (incorrect ) must automatically be wrong = guilty ? :wtf:
Guilty? No where did I make any sort of statement on guilt. My statement was to not rush to judgement since we only had one part of the story.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 01, 2020, 08:52:25 PM
It was clearly protected speech. Maybe #coplogic has it that constitutional rights should be taken away based on thought crimes, but the issue should not be decided by the kind of people who make their money off asset forfeiture.
I agree that the post he made does not qualify as a threat and would be protected speech. However, how do you know that is all there is to the case? Was that the only contentious post he made or was that just the one that he and his lawyers are telling us so he gets our backing? That is one of the necessary questions to get answered to figure out whether the cops and prosecutors were justified or whether they violated his 1st amendment rights.
To fairly judge we need to know more than just the claims of the accused.
Post by: hvybarrels on March 01, 2020, 11:38:19 PM
To fairly judge we need to know more than just the claims of the accused.
Guilty until proven innocent. And you wonder why people call you guys pigs.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 02, 2020, 12:17:17 AM
I agree that the post he made does not qualify as a threat and would be protected speech. However, how do you know that is all there is to the case? Was that the only contentious post he made or was that just the one that he and his lawyers are telling us so he gets our backing? That is one of the necessary questions to get answered to figure out whether the cops and prosecutors were justified or whether they violated his 1st amendment rights.
To fairly judge we need to know more than just the claims of the accused.
That's funny, since red flag laws are designed to specifically treat someone as guilty (call them a risk or threat if you like) without having done one thing wrong or illegal.
How can ANYONE defend themselves against an accusation that they might -- may be -- could be -- is possibly planning to commit a crime? Since the crime has not been committed, the prosecution can't charge you with a crime, so they make you prove you are innocent of an accusation that they can't prove.
For someone who pretends to know what "innocent until proven guilty" means, you sure do have a hard time reconciling that with your support of red flagging people.
Post by: 6716J on March 02, 2020, 07:10:09 AM
That's funny, since red flag laws are designed to specifically treat someone as guilty (call them a risk or threat if you like) without having done one thing wrong or illegal.
How can ANYONE defend themselves against an accusation that they might -- may be -- could be -- is possibly planning to commit a crime? Since the crime has not been committed, the prosecution can't charge you with a crime, so they make you prove you are innocent of an accusation that they can't prove.
For someone who pretends to know what "innocent until proven guilty" means, you sure do have a hard time reconciling that with your support of red flagging people.
"Mind Crime"
"Thought Police"
"Minority Report"
Da comrade. I see you have been perusing the local market for apples. You must be making a bomb
Post by: Rocky on March 02, 2020, 07:25:11 AM
Guilty? No where did I make any sort of statement on guilt. My statement was to not rush to judgement since we only had one part of the story.
Posted by: eyeeatingfish
« on: February 28, 2020, 08:23:50 PM
Since we only have one side of the story it is impossible to conclude whether the government was right in their actions or not
My point responding to your comment
"So cops stick together.... therefore anyone who claims they did something wrong must automatically be right?"
was like a red flag law ? :wacko:
Post by: drck1000 on March 02, 2020, 07:49:35 AM
SNIPUh huh. Don't think that's what you said when the subject was Trump impeachment. . .
To fairly judge we need to know more than just the claims of the accused.
Post by: hvybarrels on March 02, 2020, 06:59:37 PM
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 03, 2020, 09:13:11 PM
Guilty until proven innocent. And you wonder why people call you guys pigs.
Who said guilty until proven innocent?
Seriously though, how can you be against someone reserving judgement until enough information is known to get a more complete picture? You are literally criticizing me for trying to be objective.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 03, 2020, 09:14:42 PM
Uh huh. Don't think that's what you said when the subject was Trump impeachment. . .
Sure it was, I wanted to hear evidence against Trump, not just Trump saying he was falsely accused.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 03, 2020, 09:28:10 PM
That's funny, since red flag laws are designed to specifically treat someone as guilty (call them a risk or threat if you like) without having done one thing wrong or illegal.
How can ANYONE defend themselves against an accusation that they might -- may be -- could be -- is possibly planning to commit a crime? Since the crime has not been committed, the prosecution can't charge you with a crime, so they make you prove you are innocent of an accusation that they can't prove.
For someone who pretends to know what "innocent until proven guilty" means, you sure do have a hard time reconciling that with your support of red flagging people.
You keep focusing on the issue of crime when a red flag law is a little different than being accused of a crime. It really is a different type of issue than simply whether someone committed a crime or not and for you to continue to frame it only as a crime issue is either dishonest or you don't understand the issue.
Take the issue of medical quarantine as an example. There are laws stating how it is to operate when a government is going to take away a citizens right and quarantine them in some way yet they haven't been convicted of a crime. In a pandemic situation the government may choose to force quarantine upon an individual who shows symptoms of the disease even though they haven't been tested (like a conviction) positive for the disease. And they have to because if they take no action but to wait for a test and/or had no ability to require the person to submit to a test then the potentially sick individual risks infecting many more people.
Bottom line is that the rad flag law is addressing a very complex issue that involves potential crimes but also medical issues.
Now back to the original issue, it was said that this story was an example of pigs being pigs when there was insufficient evidence to show cops did anything wrong. You just had the claim of the accused and the father that cops did the wrong thing. I know you hate the red flag laws so much that you are ready to believe any claim against them but try to maintain some objectivity when looking at each case. We both know cops sometimes do the wrong thing but we both know people make false claims about cops as well, so when you hear just one side accusing the cops of wrongdoing, think to yourself "I wonder if he is telling the truth/the whole truth or if he was leaving something out? Its that easy. Then when more info comes out make a judgement or amend the judgement as necessary.
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 03, 2020, 10:27:00 PM
Yet judges used the smallest reason to sign the confiscation order.
This will only increase as time goes on and judges will become even looser with their pens.
What is surprising is that there are no lawsuits yet from people who were red flagged.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 04, 2020, 01:04:32 PM
You keep focusing on the issue of crime when a red flag law is a little different than being accused of a crime. It really is a different type of issue than simply whether someone committed a crime or not and for you to continue to frame it only as a crime issue is either dishonest or you don't understand the issue.
Take the issue of medical quarantine as an example. There are laws stating how it is to operate when a government is going to take away a citizens right and quarantine them in some way yet they haven't been convicted of a crime. In a pandemic situation the government may choose to force quarantine upon an individual who shows symptoms of the disease even though they haven't been tested (like a conviction) positive for the disease. And they have to because if they take no action but to wait for a test and/or had no ability to require the person to submit to a test then the potentially sick individual risks infecting many more people.
Bottom line is that the rad flag law is addressing a very complex issue that involves potential crimes but also medical issues.
Now back to the original issue, it was said that this story was an example of pigs being pigs when there was insufficient evidence to show cops did anything wrong. You just had the claim of the accused and the father that cops did the wrong thing. I know you hate the red flag laws so much that you are ready to believe any claim against them but try to maintain some objectivity when looking at each case. We both know cops sometimes do the wrong thing but we both know people make false claims about cops as well, so when you hear just one side accusing the cops of wrongdoing, think to yourself "I wonder if he is telling the truth/the whole truth or if he was leaving something out? Its that easy. Then when more info comes out make a judgement or amend the judgement as necessary.
So, you're saying a LAW that LEGALLY ALLOWS someone to report another person to authorities that would likely result in the confiscation of firearms and an after-the-fact hearing with a potential for a psych eval is not treating someone as if they broke the law?
You're so ignorant or obtuse, it's difficult to fathom.
You just admitted the targeted individual is not being accused of a crime. "...a red flag law is a little different than being accused of a crime." You're right. They are being accused of breaking NO LAW. They are being accused of possibly planning to commit a crime.
In any measurement of justice, that's just wrong. We already have laws to deal with people against whom there is real evidence of conspiracy or intent to commit a crime. Red flag laws go a giant step beyond that. The authorities want legal permission to disarm people based on no real evidence other than a non-LE's or non-medical professional's "feelings".
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 04, 2020, 09:24:57 PM
There are many stories of people being red flagged for no reason. They did not make any threats of violence. Which is what anti 2a people say the purpose of the law is for.
Yet judges used the smallest reason to sign the confiscation order.
This will only increase as time goes on and judges will become even looser with their pens.
What is surprising is that there are no lawsuits yet from people who were red flagged.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Indeed there have been, though realistically this is nothing new. TROs have done this for years and the accused actually have fewer protections in TRO situations than they do red flag laws. (of course this depends on how the red flag law is written since not all jurisdictions necessarily share the same exact system.)
It is really difficult to make blanket statements about red flag laws since they are a concept and do not all work in exactly the same way. On top of that, it is hard to blame the law if the judge grants the order when there wasn't cause. If the law says there needs to be evidence of a threat (for example) but there isn't and the judge grants it anyway then the judge needs to be held accountable.
As for you last comment, suing someone who reports you is difficult because the burden is to prove the person who made the report lied, not just that the information was incorrect. This is tough to do in any case, not just red flag laws. Imagine you were playing twister with your wife and making a lot of noise and then your neighbor who hates you claims he saw you holding her down and fighting. In such a case, in order to arrest or prosecute, cops would have to prove the neighbor knew it was just twister and didn't believe it might have been an actual fight. Where people get caught is when they are dumb and make clearly provable false claims like the lady who claimed to have a child with the police officer who had shot and killed her real son.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 04, 2020, 09:34:03 PM
So, you're saying a LAW that LEGALLY ALLOWS someone to report another person to authorities that would likely result in the confiscation of firearms and an after-the-fact hearing with a potential for a psych eval is not treating someone as if they broke the law?
You're so ignorant or obtuse, it's difficult to fathom.
You just admitted the targeted individual is not being accused of a crime. "...a red flag law is a little different than being accused of a crime." You're right. They are being accused of breaking NO LAW. They are being accused of possibly planning to commit a crime.
In any measurement of justice, that's just wrong. We already have laws to deal with people against whom there is real evidence of conspiracy or intent to commit a crime. Red flag laws go a giant step beyond that. The authorities want legal permission to disarm people based on no real evidence other than a non-LE's or non-medical professional's "feelings".
Notice I referenced crime. Not all legal violations are criminal in nature.
You want to fit this into a narrow box of criminality because then you can more easily attack it and confirm what you believe. You can't see the issue for what it really is and insist on pretending it must fall neatly into an issue of criminality.
Suicide isn't illegal in Hawaii yet the law allows cops and certain health care workers to take away a person's civil rights in order to prevent them from committing suicide.
You are also intentionally or ignorantly insisting that the law allows the government to take away guns based on some person's feelings. The law specifically mandates a level of proof necessary to temporarily take away a persons firearms as well as a higher level of proof in order to keep a person's firearms. I have pointed this out to you before so I know it isn't ignorance. We may find some common ground in thinking the level of proof should be higher but presenting it as just based on some "feelings" is simply dishonest.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 04, 2020, 09:38:34 PM
Notice I referenced crime. Not all legal violations are criminal in nature.
You want to fit this into a narrow box of criminality because then you can more easily attack it and confirm what you believe. You can't see the issue for what it really is and insist on pretending it must fall neatly into an issue of criminality.
Suicide isn't illegal in Hawaii yet the law allows cops and certain health care workers to take away a person's civil rights in order to prevent them from committing suicide.
You are also intentionally or ignorantly insisting that the law allows the government to take away guns based on some person's feelings. The law specifically mandates a level of proof necessary to temporarily take away a persons firearms as well as a higher level of proof in order to keep a person's firearms. I have pointed this out to you before so I know it isn't ignorance. We may find some common ground in thinking the level of proof should be higher but presenting it as just based on some "feelings" is simply dishonest.
You're splitting hairs. Obviously you see how your position is not defensible.
You're just wanting to argue about semantics.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 04, 2020, 09:44:27 PM
You're splitting hairs. Obviously you see how your position is not defensible.
You're just wanting to argue about semantics.
The difference between a law and crime are pretty significant hairs. I know you don't want to split them because it exposes the flaws in your arguments. So be it, I can't force you to see the light.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 04, 2020, 09:55:41 PM
The difference between a law and crime are pretty significant hairs. I know you don't want to split them because it exposes the flaws in your arguments. So be it, I can't force you to see the light.
If it's the same light that blinds you to how red flag laws violate individual liberties, then no thanks.
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 05, 2020, 01:50:42 PM
As for you last comment, suing someone who reports you is difficult because the burden is to prove the person who made the report lied, not just that the information was incorrect. This is tough to do in any case, not just red flag laws. Imagine you were playing twister with your wife and making a lot of noise and then your neighbor who hates you claims he saw you holding her down and fighting. In such a case, in order to arrest or prosecute, cops would have to prove the neighbor knew it was just twister and didn't believe it might have been an actual fight. Where people get caught is when they are dumb and make clearly provable false claims like the lady who claimed to have a child with the police officer who had shot and killed her real son.
I meant suing the cops/judges/state. Interpreting if someone felt threatened is hard to do. But cops enforcing unconstitutional confiscations are another thing.
Post by: robtmc on March 05, 2020, 04:32:46 PM
You're just wanting to argue about semantics.Does that HPD troll do anything but argue, from the police/authoritarian/liberal point of view, as I recall?
I refuse to unblock him and see the endless yammering like some 16 yr old girl.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 06, 2020, 09:37:39 PM
I meant suing the cops/judges/state. Interpreting if someone felt threatened is hard to do. But cops enforcing unconstitutional confiscations are another thing.
That isn't easy either. Have to pay money to a lawyer and sue up to the food chain hoping you can win and afford to win. Judges and lawmakers get a certain amount of immunity in passing and ruling on unconstitutional laws. Cops aren't legal scholars and have some protections but not the same level as legislators and judges.
Post by: Brystont1 on March 07, 2020, 09:47:46 AM
That isn't easy either. Have to pay money to a lawyer and sue up to the food chain hoping you can win and afford to win. Judges and lawmakers get a certain amount of immunity in passing and ruling on unconstitutional laws. Cops aren't legal scholars and have some protections but not the same level as legislators and judges.
But didn’t you say that if a judge makes a bad call in light of little evidence that the judge should be held accountable? How are they to be held accountable if what you just said is true? Isn’t that why we have a constitution?
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 07, 2020, 08:40:21 PM
Lets see how it plays out, or are dems still immune from consequences?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 08, 2020, 09:47:12 PM
But didn’t you say that if a judge makes a bad call in light of little evidence that the judge should be held accountable? How are they to be held accountable if what you just said is true? Isn’t that why we have a constitution?
There are a few ways in which a judge can be removed or disciplined.
They can be a impeached, voted out (not in Hawaii), or a complaint could be filed with the judicial conduct commission.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 08, 2020, 09:48:14 PM
Schummer has a red flag complaint after his comments to the scotus by GOA. People have been flagged for less.
Lets see how it plays out, or are dems still immune from consequences?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I am guessing the judge will throw that out before it goes everywhere but it would be very interesting if he had to show up to court.
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 09, 2020, 10:04:18 AM
I am guessing the judge will throw that out before it goes everywhere but it would be very interesting if he had to show up to court.
That's not how red flags work. Schummer would not know he is under suspicion until SSD shows up at his door. But thanks to the internet and info released by FPC, he knows. So consider himself lucky.
Post by: hvybarrels on March 09, 2020, 11:04:54 AM
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 13, 2020, 04:47:10 PM
He was killed while sleeping says his families atty.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Edit
PD says Duncan confronted the officer who shot him. Bodycam requested by family.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 14, 2020, 06:33:46 PM
That's not how red flags work. Schummer would not know he is under suspicion until SSD shows up at his door. But thanks to the internet and info released by FPC, he knows. So consider himself lucky.
That is how red flags work, at least not here, each place has their own set of rules. A judge doesn't have to grant the order just because someone makes a claim. The judge still has to find a certain amount of cause to issue the order.
When I said show up for court I was referring to the hearing after the initial seizure, the hearing where a judge makes the decision whether to restrict the firearms for a longer period.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 14, 2020, 06:37:46 PM
Duncan Lemp. Warrant has no mention of why he was red flagged. No one else in the home has a record.
He was killed while sleeping says his families atty.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Edit
PD says Duncan confronted the officer who shot him. Bodycam requested by family.
I think I saw a post about this on instagram but the narrative seemed rather hard to believe so I was questioning its accuracy. Interested to see what else comes out of this one.
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 14, 2020, 08:38:02 PM
I think I saw a post about this on instagram but the narrative seemed rather hard to believe so I was questioning its accuracy. Interested to see what else comes out of this one.Body cam footage will be key. Did PD shoot from outside the home into the bedroom of a sleeping, law abiding citizen, or not.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 14, 2020, 08:39:25 PM
That is how red flags work, at least not here, each place has their own set of rules. A judge doesn't have to grant the order just because someone makes a claim. The judge still has to find a certain amount of cause to issue the order.You mean judges have 1 very weak cause to warrant a red flag. Cause u know, better safe than sorry.
When I said show up for court I was referring to the hearing after the initial seizure, the hearing where a judge makes the decision whether to restrict the firearms for a longer period.
And workers trained to follow orders without question put to work.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 18, 2020, 10:42:35 PM
You mean judges have 1 very weak cause to warrant a red flag. Cause u know, better safe than sorry.
And workers trained to follow orders without question put to work.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
A police officer has to find probable cause to take away your rights. The judge also has to find probable cause in order to grand an initial red flaw seizure of someones firearms. You think probable cause is very weak?
On top of that, the judge has to find a higher level of proof to keep the guns away from you for a year.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 18, 2020, 10:44:38 PM
Body cam footage will be key. Did PD shoot from outside the home into the bedroom of a sleeping, law abiding citizen, or not.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
If there was any body camera footage yes it would be key.
I just find it hard to believe an officer would just shoot into the wall of a dark bedroom for no good reason. Not impossible of course though, just hard to believe.
Post by: Jl808 on March 19, 2020, 06:16:12 AM
Like this one?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FvTQySMam4
https://fox6now.com/2019/07/30/bodycam-caught-a-deputy-shooting-a-man-in-his-south-carolina-home-contradicting-initial-police-narrative/
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 19, 2020, 08:30:15 AM
A police officer has to find probable cause to take away your rights. The judge also has to find probable cause in order to grand an initial red flaw seizure of someones firearms. You think probable cause is very weak?
On top of that, the judge has to find a higher level of proof to keep the guns away from you for a year.
"probably cause"? Like the crossing guard who got red flagged? Or the father who's kids where helping clean out his home and saw his collection of weapons? Or the Marine vet who said if he is attacked, he will fight back? Or the WA man who "looked at his neighbors funny" from inside his home through his window? Like all of those? Yet drug raids need more evidence.
Post by: rpoL98 on March 19, 2020, 12:55:13 PM
Yet drug raids need more evidence.
that is so fk'd up. well, we got the ACLU to thank for that, they go to bat for drug dealers and illegals, but stand aside and give wide berth for assault on the 2nd Amendment. frickin' hypocrites. I mean, the ACLU, in concept, is well-intentioned, but in real life, off-the-rails WMD-destructive to traditional American values. they should be labeled as a terrorist organization.
JMHO.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 22, 2020, 09:03:31 PM
"probably cause"? Like the crossing guard who got red flagged? Or the father who's kids where helping clean out his home and saw his collection of weapons? Or the Marine vet who said if he is attacked, he will fight back? Or the WA man who "looked at his neighbors funny" from inside his home through his window? Like all of those? Yet drug raids need more evidence.
Probable cause.
I don't know what other states laws say, i am just telling you what is in our law.
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 23, 2020, 08:54:10 AM
Probable cause.
I don't know what other states laws say, i am just telling you what is in our law.
And I'm informing you that if many other states have all done similar things, do you really think HI will be any different? That's like voting for the same type of politicians and expect a different result.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on March 26, 2020, 12:33:37 PM
And I'm informing you that if many other states have all done similar things, do you really think HI will be any different? That's like voting for the same type of politicians and expect a different result.
You are talking about a different issue. The law has a defined level of proof needed but you are asking how a judge will apply it which is a valid question but a separate one that is not unique to red flag laws. The language of the law is different from how a judge or police officer applies the law. If a judge or an officer abuses their power that doesn't make the law bad.
Probable cause is needed for an officer to make an arrest, is that also a very weak amount of proof? A judge still can rule on whether the officer had probable cause to make the arrest. Are you suggesting probable cause is not enough to justify temporarily taking away rights at all whether under a red flag law or for any other law?
Post by: changemyoil66 on March 26, 2020, 01:01:52 PM
You are talking about a different issue. The law has a defined level of proof needed but you are asking how a judge will apply it which is a valid question but a separate one that is not unique to red flag laws. The language of the law is different from how a judge or police officer applies the law. If a judge or an officer abuses their power that doesn't make the law bad.
Probable cause is needed for an officer to make an arrest, is that also a very weak amount of proof? A judge still can rule on whether the officer had probable cause to make the arrest. Are you suggesting probable cause is not enough to justify temporarily taking away rights at all whether under a red flag law or for any other law?
I'm saying that the judges have lowered the bar when needing probable cause for red flag confiscations. Refer to all my examples of real events that have taken place. And assume that there is no more to my stories that I explained. And we are talking about legal gun owners. These are people who have never committed a felony in their life. So to lower the bar, makes no sense. Why don't they use the same minimal evidence when busting drug houses or dealers? If we applied red flags to a drug house, all it would take is someone to overhear that a home sells drugs. A judge would grant a warrant and SSD can go there and take all the drugs if found in the home. Not arrest anyone inside the drug house, but tell them to come to court later to have their trial. So drug dealers have more rights than law abiding citizens.
To address your 2nd paragraph " Are you suggesting probable cause is not enough to justify temporarily taking away rights at all whether under a red flag law or for any other law?" The answer is yes. But again, refer to above when I mention judges have also lowered the bar when needing compelling evidence to take away someones 2a right.
Another issue is that person doesn't even get a hearing to dispute the red flag, until after SSD shows up at their door and takes all their firearms and ammo. So it's like a 2 step process, which violates the 4th amendment (due process).
Post by: eyeeatingfish on April 01, 2020, 08:28:03 PM
I'm saying that the judges have lowered the bar when needing probable cause for red flag confiscations. Refer to all my examples of real events that have taken place. And assume that there is no more to my stories that I explained. And we are talking about legal gun owners. These are people who have never committed a felony in their life. So to lower the bar, makes no sense. Why don't they use the same minimal evidence when busting drug houses or dealers? If we applied red flags to a drug house, all it would take is someone to overhear that a home sells drugs. A judge would grant a warrant and SSD can go there and take all the drugs if found in the home. Not arrest anyone inside the drug house, but tell them to come to court later to have their trial. So drug dealers have more rights than law abiding citizens.
To address your 2nd paragraph " Are you suggesting probable cause is not enough to justify temporarily taking away rights at all whether under a red flag law or for any other law?" The answer is yes. But again, refer to above when I mention judges have also lowered the bar when needing compelling evidence to take away someones 2a right.
Another issue is that person doesn't even get a hearing to dispute the red flag, until after SSD shows up at their door and takes all their firearms and ammo. So it's like a 2 step process, which violates the 4th amendment (due process).
In many of the cases I have seen publicized as being overstepped by the judges I haven't seen anything that gives the whole story, just an allegation by the accused and their lawyer. I rarely see the content of the statement made by the accuser mention in the article. To be objective that just isn't enough for me to weigh in on. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying judges haven't or aren't lowering their standards, I am sure it has happened but that really is a problem with the judges, not the language of the law. We need a way to hold judges responsible though that is difficult because the system is also set up so that judges are not at the whim of a quickly changing mind of the public of politician. (double edged sword)
I am just speculating here but maybe probable cause is evaluated differently in a civil case than a criminal case. I don't see why it should be but that might explain this. Maybe we just need one higher up case where the appeals court rebukes a lower court judge about ruling when there was no probable cause.
As for the accused not being able to to attend the initial hearing, I understand the grievance but surely you must understand that this would greatly limit its effectiveness. I mean if I were planning on shooting up some place and I got a summons to show up for court next week because the government was thinking about taking my guns away what good would that do? I would just move my mass murder plot timeline up before the hearing. Can you imagine the FBI telling a terrorist planning a bombing to show up to court next week to have a hearing on whether or not to charge him with a crime? These are the types of situations where giving advanced notice and waiting are potentially disastrous.