At this point you are speculating as the articles really don't give much detail to go off of. Police get tips all the time and use those tips to solve crimes, including tips from unknown individuals. Sometimes the tip is truly anonymous, sometimes it comes from someone who meets the cop but doesn't give their name, and sometimes it is someone giving a detailed statement. Ultimately the court will end up judging how much weight to give the tip in terms of justifying what the officers did next.

And according to the articles I have read on the story, it did not start with the meme or the red flag law. We can speculate and assume it was a fake anonymous tip, an illegal search, a falsified police report, and fear over a meme but there is no evidence to support any of that at this point.

Not speculating. Youre just getting bad intel.

So in CO, a 16 year old went shooting with his mom. No threats, but posted vid of himself shooting. School suspended him pending investigation if hes a threat or not. They showed PD the vid to clear up any misunderstanding.   PD saw the vid and deemed no threat, but school board not happy with their assessment.

No laws broken by school board. They are within the law to do what theyre doing. Hearing date is set. So not a red flag, but same same. Someone can just report u went to the range and boom, suspension.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Not speculating. Youre just getting bad intel.

So in CO, a 16 year old went shooting with his mom. No threats, but posted vid of himself shooting. School suspended him pending investigation if hes a threat or not. They showed PD the vid to clear up any misunderstanding.   PD saw the vid and deemed no threat, but school board not happy with their assessment.

No laws broken by school board. They are within the law to do what theyre doing. Hearing date is set. So not a red flag, but same same. Someone can just report u went to the range and boom, suspension.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Come on man! You know damn well that anyone who is interested in guns, and has access to guns is "a danger to themselves or others"... at least in the sense of an "accident" waiting to happen, if not outright homicidal mania. THEREFORE, the only commonsense gun safety solution to the epidemic of gun violence and potential gun violence is to ban all guns from possession by anyone other than agents of the government. That settles that, you  racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic irredeemable deplorable ©*.

* Copyright Hillary Clinton 2016.

At this point you are speculating as the articles really don't give much detail to go off of. Police get tips all the time and use those tips to solve crimes, including tips from unknown individuals. Sometimes the tip is truly anonymous, sometimes it comes from someone who meets the cop but doesn't give their name, and sometimes it is someone giving a detailed statement. Ultimately the court will end up judging how much weight to give the tip in terms of justifying what the officers did next.

And according to the articles I have read on the story, it did not start with the meme or the red flag law. We can speculate and assume it was a fake anonymous tip, an illegal search, a falsified police report, and fear over a meme but there is no evidence to support any of that at this point.

Hey, genius.

Tips are NOT EVIDENCE.  They are "clues".  It's up to LE to INVESTIGATE the validity of the tip within the bounds of the Constitution.  Investigating does not include executing a warrant and searching the personal dwelling of the subject.  That's not investigating.  That's using a "tip" as probable cause in ABSENCE of actual EVIDENCE.

Nothing wrong with viewing the social media posts and other public info on the subject.  They could also get a subpoena for phone and charge card records.  It's how they gather information that leads them to corroboration of the tip.

Jumping from a tip (particularly anonymous) to a search warrant is unconstitutional.  Unfortunately, the Cops and judges that justify their abuses of the system by saying they are stoping criminals aren't the examples you should be promoting.

If someone wanted to harass you or see if they can get you in legal trouble, they might make an anonymous call to the Cops saying you're dealing drugs.  At 3AM, when your door is broken down, you & your wife are thrown to the floor with rifles in your backs, and they find firearms and other items they need to check for registration, you're transported to jail until after they investigate.

Welcome to your version of "due process".

If someone wanted to harass you or see if they can get you in legal trouble, they might make an anonymous call to the Cops saying you're dealing drugs.  At 3AM, when your door is broken down, you & your wife are thrown to the floor with rifles in your backs, and they find firearms and other items they need to check for registration, you're transported to jail until after they investigate.

Welcome to your version of "due process".

^^See "SWATing" that came arise from gamers.

Also the dangers of no knock warrants at 3am.  Many situations where they got the wrong home and the homeowner opened and sometimes shot/killed.  And it all stemmed from a custody battle, so the woman said her ex is a drug dealer.  Not in HI, well that I know of, but on the mainland.

^^See "SWATing" that came arise from gamers.

Also the dangers of no knock warrants at 3am.  Many situations where they got the wrong home and the homeowner opened and sometimes shot/killed.  And it all stemmed from a custody battle, so the woman said her ex is a drug dealer.  Not in HI, well that I know of, but on the mainland.

Why is mainland even a factor?  Unless the story falls inline with a Socialist/Democrat narrative against firearms, it's doubtful we'd ever hear of it.

Our press doesn't report on every police call.  If they cared, they'd pick up on more stories that mattered.  instead, they seem to only "investigate" stories that already have public visibility.  Bunch of lazy journalists, to say the least.

.

So in CO, a 16 year old went shooting with his mom. No threats, but posted vid of himself shooting. School suspended him pending investigation if hes a threat or not. They showed PD the vid to clear up any misunderstanding.   PD saw the vid and deemed no threat, but school board not happy with their assessment.

No laws broken by school board. They are within the law to do what theyre doing. Hearing date is set. So not a red flag, but same same. Someone can just report u went to the range and boom, suspension.

Update on Colorado absurdity. Recommend people read the article for the details... just a couple of quotes.

School Backpedals After CO Teen Was Banned From Classes For Shooting Guns With Mother

https://www.rallyforourrights.com/school-backpedals-colorado-teen-banned-shooting-guns-mother/

After this story broke fellow parents, community members, and even elected officials contacted school admin and district board members to express their disapproval of this blatant violation of the student’s civil liberties, as well as the complete disregard for parental rights.  And it undoubtedly had an effect.

The threat assessment hearing took place this morning and Nate has been cleared to return to class.

The SRO who was present agreed that the Safe 2 Tell system is sometimes used inappropriately by students wishing to anonymously seek revenge on another student.

On January 1, 2020 Colorado’s “Red Flag” Emergency Risk Protection Orders ERPO law will go into effect.  I’ve long said ERPO’s will be Safe2Tell for adults, and students have dubbed Safe 2 Tell as “Safe 2 Swat”, referencing the act of “swatting“, a criminal harassment tactic of deceiving an emergency service into sending a police and emergency service response team to another person’s address.  Had this same scenario taken place while the ERPO law is in effect, Justine [the student's mother] likely would have lost her firearms.

Not speculating. Youre just getting bad intel.

So in CO, a 16 year old went shooting with his mom. No threats, but posted vid of himself shooting. School suspended him pending investigation if hes a threat or not. They showed PD the vid to clear up any misunderstanding.   PD saw the vid and deemed no threat, but school board not happy with their assessment.

No laws broken by school board. They are within the law to do what theyre doing. Hearing date is set. So not a red flag, but same same. Someone can just report u went to the range and boom, suspension.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Bad intel? I checked about 6 different articles looking for more information. If there is a newer article with more information, then by all means present it.


Someone could report you for anything and the school could choose suspension. This is of course ridiculous and I hope the person making the call is disciplined.


My daughter is of age to go to the range now. I wonder what will happen if she brings in the target for show and tell. She could take in the brass but I think that might be playing with fire.


In high school I did get scolded for bringing a gun magazine to school, (the type you read) but nothing came of it.


What you said about Swatting is true though and illustrates that the issue is not just about red flag laws but false reporting in general. The guy that called in a swatting that got an innocent person killed by an officer in Wichita is now facing murder charges.

Hey, genius.

Tips are NOT EVIDENCE.  They are "clues".  It's up to LE to INVESTIGATE the validity of the tip within the bounds of the Constitution.  Investigating does not include executing a warrant and searching the personal dwelling of the subject.  That's not investigating.  That's using a "tip" as probable cause in ABSENCE of actual EVIDENCE.

Nothing wrong with viewing the social media posts and other public info on the subject.  They could also get a subpoena for phone and charge card records.  It's how they gather information that leads them to corroboration of the tip.

Jumping from a tip (particularly anonymous) to a search warrant is unconstitutional.  Unfortunately, the Cops and judges that justify their abuses of the system by saying they are stoping criminals aren't the examples you should be promoting.

If someone wanted to harass you or see if they can get you in legal trouble, they might make an anonymous call to the Cops saying you're dealing drugs.  At 3AM, when your door is broken down, you & your wife are thrown to the floor with rifles in your backs, and they find firearms and other items they need to check for registration, you're transported to jail until after they investigate.

Welcome to your version of "due process".

Hey genius,
Stop making false dichotomies. Evidence can be clues and clues can be evidence and tips can be both.

Tips are just a part of a case. No one said all you need is a small tip and you can go into anyones house without anything else. You are making the mistake in assuming that cops went straight from a tip to a search warrant. How about you stick to the facts.

You are pretty clearly misrepresenting what I have talked about in due process and you are trying to discount the importance of tips when they don't fit the narrative you want. Do you even understand that a tip can be from a known reliable source just as easily as it could be a completely unknown source? A tip is just a piece of information, stop thinking that by calling it a "tip" that you can somehow discern whether it is reliable or unreliable information.

Bad intel? I checked about 6 different articles looking for more information. If there is a newer article with more information, then by all means present it.

The correct intel was given shortly after his arrest.  6 different articles don't mean much if the same people/orgs own each of the 6 companies or they all share the same bad intel.  Remember how FISA was started for the fake Russia collusion story?

Hey genius,
Stop making false dichotomies. Evidence can be clues and clues can be evidence and tips can be both.

Tips are just a part of a case. No one said all you need is a small tip and you can go into anyones house without anything else. You are making the mistake in assuming that cops went straight from a tip to a search warrant. How about you stick to the facts.

You are pretty clearly misrepresenting what I have talked about in due process and you are trying to discount the importance of tips when they don't fit the narrative you want. Do you even understand that a tip can be from a known reliable source just as easily as it could be a completely unknown source? A tip is just a piece of information, stop thinking that by calling it a "tip" that you can somehow discern whether it is reliable or unreliable information.

You say things that have no meaning expecting it to be some sort of fact.

EVIDENCE can be used as proof in a court of law.  A TIP is unverified, unsubstantiated, uncorroborated information that can't be used as evidence unless the tipster testifies.  Anonymous tips aren't often followed up by testimony -- by definition.

Saying "The tip lead to a search warrant that uncovered evidence that the tip was correct" is called "boot strapping".  That's not due process.  That's assuming guilt then subverting the Constitution to obtain proof of guilt.

You're pathetic.

The correct intel was given shortly after his arrest.  6 different articles don't mean much if the same people/orgs own each of the 6 companies or they all share the same bad intel.  Remember how FISA was started for the fake Russia collusion story?

Ok, so where is the correct intel? I checked multiple sources to try and do due diligence.

You say things that have no meaning expecting it to be some sort of fact.

EVIDENCE can be used as proof in a court of law.  A TIP is unverified, unsubstantiated, uncorroborated information that can't be used as evidence unless the tipster testifies.  Anonymous tips aren't often followed up by testimony -- by definition.

Saying "The tip lead to a search warrant that uncovered evidence that the tip was correct" is called "boot strapping".  That's not due process.  That's assuming guilt then subverting the Constitution to obtain proof of guilt.

You're pathetic.

A tip can be used as evidence in a court of law and your definition of a tip is inaccurate. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
Stop making crap up and then resorting to ad hom attacks to cover your ignorance.

https://www.gambonelaw.com/blog/testimony-of-confidential-informants-and-anonymous-tips.cfm

A tip can be used as evidence in a court of law and your definition of a tip is inaccurate. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
Stop making crap up and then resorting to ad hom attacks to cover your ignorance.

https://www.gambonelaw.com/blog/testimony-of-confidential-informants-and-anonymous-tips.cfm

Your link says exactly what I said.     

Pathetic.

While law enforcement are permitted to use these tactics to identify and investigate crime, the law does not permit the government to prosecute a criminal defendant without some type of corroboration from independent witness. This corroboration would need to demonstrate a sufficient level of reliability to justify law enforcement’s intrusion on the criminal suspects privacy. The fourth and fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right against an illegal search and seizure. In other words, an individual has a Constitutional right to privacy unless the police have some type of reasonable suspicion or probable cause to intrude on it.

Courts utilize a totality of the circumstances analysis if the prosecution attempts to use an anonymous tip in its case against a criminal defendant. In most situations a Court will not prohibit the use of an anonymous informant where the informant provides information regarding future movements of a suspect which actually occur. The introduction of this evidence, however, would require the prosecution to produce a witness, more than likely a police officer, to testify as to his receipt of the tip and his observations based on that tip. Even if police officers observe the activity that the anonymous individual said would occur, that activity must still indicate that a crime has occurred or was occurring at the time of the stop and arrest.

Sitting at home when the Cops show up looking for evidence is not within the realm of the above article.

Your link says exactly what I said.     

Pathetic.

Sitting at home when the Cops show up looking for evidence is not within the realm of the above article.

Maybe you should read the whole article.

"Anonymous tips and/or confidential informants often form the basis for police surveillance and search warrants."

"Courts utilize a totality of the circumstances analysis if the prosecution attempts to use an anonymous tip in its case against a criminal defendant. In most situations a Court will not prohibit the use of an anonymous informant where the informant provides information regarding future movements of a suspect which actually occur. The introduction of this evidence, however, would require the prosecution to produce a witness, more than likely a police officer, to testify as to his receipt of the tip and his observations based on that tip. "

You claiming that anonymous tips are not evidence and not admissible is factually incorrect and as I bolded above, the person who provided the tip doesn't necessarily have to testify. . As I stated earlier, the tip is often the beginning of the investigation which ultimately leads to a search warrant or arrest.

You are presenting some picture that cops get a tip and based on that tip alone get a warrant. If that were true then yes you have a problem with due process, but in this instance there is no evidence (that we know of) to show the cops had only a tip and nothing else.

I admitted where I was wrong in another post, lets see if you are mature enough to do so here.