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.

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

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 ? 

SNIP

To fairly judge we need to know more than just the claims of the accused.

Uh huh.  Don't think that's what you said when the subject was Trump impeachment. . .

For the record I support the institution of law enforcement, but it is vitally important that we carefully measure how much power they are given especially so soon after unacceptable abuses of that power were brought to light. By erasing constitutional protections the legislature is turning them from peace officers into an occupying force, which not only makes things more dangerous for the general public but also the officers who actually have to work the streets while the brass kicks back in a safe cozy office playing their political games.

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.

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.

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.

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

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".

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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?

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