Not a good time to be rich in France either. People flaunting their shiny stuff on social media are getting home invaded.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/she-thought-she-was-going-die-french-stars-and-wealthy-terrorized-wave-violent-home

https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2024/03/15/causes-death-murdered-family-are-revealed-grieving-relatives-search-path-forward/

The Hawaii chiropractor who fatally stabbed his wife and three children before taking his own life was in severe “financial distress,” had tried to get a firearm and told relatives earlier this month he planned to murder his family and burn the house down, HPD said.

Too bad there are no red flag laws that would have prevented this.

Oh, wait!  The people who heard what he said would have had to report him with or without those laws in place.  Nothing would have been different, especially since he didn't even use a firearm.

if he's too dangerous to have a gun, then he's too dangerous to let roam free.  Maybe better attention to the real causes of violence would actually make a difference instead of pushing for taking away everyone's rights.

Red flag law for all knives.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

He gave plenty of warning about his intention but nobody acted. I'm wondering if someone filed a report on him but it was ignored.

He gave plenty of warning about his intention but nobody acted. I'm wondering if someone filed a report on him but it was ignored.

What crime did he commit before he killed his family? From what I read he mentioned committing the act to his wife but she didnt act on it.

Maybe better attention to the real causes of violene would actually make a difference instead of pushing for taking away everyone's rights.

Easier to take away your rights by passing useless laws than actually doing something.

What crime did he commit before he killed his family? From what I read he mentioned committing the act to his wife but she didnt act on it.

He told a few people, and making a credible threat is enough to trigger an investigation. The irony is that police get these kinds of warnings all the time yet often completely ignore them. Afterwards they shamelessly use each tragedy as an excuse to expand their power and limit the rights of citizens.

He told a few people, and making a credible threat is enough to trigger an investigation. The irony is that police get these kinds of warnings all the time yet often completely ignore them. Afterwards they shamelessly use each tragedy as an excuse to expand their power and limit the rights of citizens.

And blame inanimate objects as the cause for crime and violence.

so far no calls of "we gotta do more..."

Too bad there are no red flag laws that would have prevented this.

Oh, wait!  The people who heard what he said would have had to report him with or without those laws in place.  Nothing would have been different, especially since he didn't even use a firearm.

if he's too dangerous to have a gun, then he's too dangerous to let roam free.  Maybe better attention to the real causes of violence would actually make a difference instead of pushing for taking away everyone's rights.

Would you support locking him up based on a family member's statement that he mentioned murdering his family?

What crime did he commit before he killed his family? From what I read he mentioned committing the act to his wife but she didnt act on it.

Impossible to say from the article because we have no idea exactly what he said. What he mentioned to a family member could have constituted the crime of threatening someone, it could have justified a mandatory mental health evaluation, or it could have just been mentioning a feeling he had.

If someone had called the police maybe this could have been averted but reporting a family member to the police is a very uncomfortable thing to do. I am sure the family wishes they had now.

Would you support locking him up based on a family member's statement that he mentioned murdering his family?

Mentioned?

Can you be more specific, as in the ontext, actual/literal statement he made, and other relevant facts?

His comment alone may or may not be sufficient IMO to warrant arrest.  Given all the other factors such as SEVERE financial problems, the fact he told SEVERAL family members his plan, he TRIED to buy a gun (not sure what happened there), and he included in his plan murdering the family AND burning down the house.

All of that indicates a possible (likely?) mental health crisis.  So, yes, he should be "locked up" for mental eval and not let out unless he is deemed by competent mental health professionals to not be a danger to himself or others.  That's the tricky part, but it takes the focus off trying to keep guns away from him and on the real issue -- his state of mind and the problems he's having difficulty managing.

Mentioned?

Can you be more specific, as in the ontext, actual/literal statement he made, and other relevant facts?

His comment alone may or may not be sufficient IMO to warrant arrest.  Given all the other factors such as SEVERE financial problems, the fact he told SEVERAL family members his plan, he TRIED to buy a gun (not sure what happened there), and he included in his plan murdering the family AND burning down the house.

All of that indicates a possible (likely?) mental health crisis.  So, yes, he should be "locked up" for mental eval and not let out unless he is deemed by competent mental health professionals to not be a danger to himself or others.  That's the tricky part, but it takes the focus off trying to keep guns away from him and on the real issue -- his state of mind and the problems he's having difficulty managing.

I fully agree with you.

The reason I asked the question is because I think doing this would give some people pause for concern because someone is being seized and locked up by the government before having committed any crime. Numerous rights get taken away for a period of time based on a suspicion (articulated) that the person is dangerous, often without a judge looking at the case first. It would have similar potential for abuse as TROs, red flag laws, etc.

It is not an easy line to draw.

Impossible to say from the article because we have no idea exactly what he said. What he mentioned to a family member could have constituted the crime of threatening someone, it could have justified a mandatory mental health evaluation, or it could have just been mentioning a feeling he had.

If someone had called the police maybe this could have been averted but reporting a family member to the police is a very uncomfortable thing to do. I am sure the family wishes they had now.

the main problem in you comment is you assume the police are the only people one can call to report these matters.  Most counties have a department of health.  There are crisis counselors and suicide hotlines who can put you in touch with people who can advise and recommend proper agencies to contact.

if there's a stated threat to someone's safety, even doctors, psychiatrists, and clergy have a duty to report the person to authorities.  As in the case in CA with the guy who went on a shooting spree, the cops may come, talk to him, and leave thinking there's nothing they can do until he says or does something that creates reasonable suspicion he's about to commit a crime.  But, at least he's now on their radar.

What this story highlights is how stupid red flag laws are.  They will never work as advertised because they rely on the people close to the individual to report them AND for the authorities to "do something" to intervene before violence happens.  However the design of red flag laws have only one purpose -- to confiscate firearms.  As this even demonstrates, such a law and confiscation would have stopped nothing from happening.

the main problem in you comment is you assume the police are the only people one can call to report these matters.  Most counties have a department of health.  There are crisis counselors and suicide hotlines who can put you in touch with people who can advise and recommend proper agencies to contact.

if there's a stated threat to someone's safety, even doctors, psychiatrists, and clergy have a duty to report the person to authorities.  As in the case in CA with the guy who went on a shooting spree, the cops may come, talk to him, and leave thinking there's nothing they can do until he says or does something that creates reasonable suspicion he's about to commit a crime.  But, at least he's now on their radar.

I don't assume that, it's just that police are frequently the ones initiating these mandatory mental health evaluations. A mental health professional can seek an order from a judge to bring in a person for a mandatory mental health evaluation but that can be too slow for an accute case.

What this story highlights is how stupid red flag laws are.  They will never work as advertised because they rely on the people close to the individual to report them AND for the authorities to "do something" to intervene before violence happens.  However the design of red flag laws have only one purpose -- to confiscate firearms.  As this even demonstrates, such a law and confiscation would have stopped nothing from happening.

I fully agree.

I fully agree with you.

The reason I asked the question is because I think doing this would give some people pause for concern because someone is being seized and locked up by the government before having committed any crime. Numerous rights get taken away for a period of time based on a suspicion (articulated) that the person is dangerous, often without a judge looking at the case first. It would have similar potential for abuse as TROs, red flag laws, etc.

It is not an easy line to draw.

How is that any different than someone being seized and locked up by the government based solely on a suspicion that they may have committed or are about to commit a crime?

You see a man at 2AM unloading several containers of gasoline from a van parked next to an abandoned building in an area known for arson as a way to collect insurance money.  Has he committed a crime?  If not, then your description of the person being "locked up" for threatening to kill his family is not much different.  The guy with the gas cans can be detained until they figure out whether he had a legitimate reason to be in that spot with that fuel at that time of night.

You don't have to wait for a murder to be committed if you believe you can prevent the murder from happening -- assuming you have a reasonable basis to believe the murder may in fact be likely to occur.

What did they say at various press conferences:  " If you see something, say something"

How is that any different than someone being seized and locked up by the government based solely on a suspicion that they may have committed or are about to commit a crime?

There are a couple issues here. Locking someone up for a mental health evaluation serves a different purpose and has a different standard of proof than for prosecution of a crime. A mandatory mental health evaluation is a civil process, its purpose is to help someone with a serious mental health issue.

The point I was trying to make is that if someone had filed a TRO against him or a red flag order against him, it would not be much different than a system where a person could request he be taken into custody for a mental health issue. So for example, if an angry woman claims her ex threatens her the judge gives a TRO. If an angry woman claims her ex is suicidal then do we put in place a system that makes him go to a mental hospital?

This is the type of situation that laws can't prevent.
It isn't a legal problem, it's a cultural one. And by "cultural" I am referring to Western culture, if not human culture as a whole.

If a family member decides they're going to kill their family and has time and will to plan it out, no law is going to prevent that. No law is going to prevent somebody from spreading an accelerant around their house in the middle of the night and lighting it on fire, or prevent somebody from putting poison in their water or walking bedroom-to-bedroom with an axe.

This type of tragedy has always been around. It isn't a failure of government when it happens. It might be a failure of community, but really it's a failure of humanity.