They have a saying "it's better to let the guilty go free than to incarcerate an innocent person".

Your example speaks for itself.  Lack of evidence says it all.  The reason is irrelevant. 

I hope you don't arrest people based on someone's word and a lack of evidence.  Good way to get sued and cost tax payers dollars and to cause distrust of the police.


We have seen another state issue a red flag based on "flapp looks dangerous".  The homeowner was inside his home holstering his gun and his neighbor saw him thru the homeowners window and said "he looked at them funny".  Then red flag was implemented and guns taken away.  IIRC this was in WA or OR.  I posted about this in the red flag thread a while ago and the specifics.

You asked me to admit it was possible which implies I had suggested it was impossible, otherwise your question wouldn't make much since. Hence I pointed out I never said it was impossible.


So we are in agreement, red flag laws should be tested in the courts    Just for context, other restraining orders involving firearms have gone to court and were upheld.  In the Rahimi case the court held 8-1 that the restraining order preventing the respondent from having a firearm was legal. Not an exact match to red flag laws but along similar lines enough to be relevant.

Hawaii's red flag law has due process. You can keep giving your opinion claiming otherwise if you want, but your opinion is hardly evidence of me being wrong and refusing to admit it. Glad we could clear that up 

I didn't say they only apply to criminal law. You brought up probable cause and made it a big part of your argument, I just pointed out that probable cause has to do with criminal law, not civil law.

-- and you would be wrong when the state is the filing party. 

(1) the right applies to both civil and criminal cases brought about by government.  you even stated "I didn't say they only apply to criminal law" telling me you concede this point;

(2) certain constitutional rights are incorporated with the states, and among them is due process.  Due process requires that the government obtain a warrant before depriving you of property.  The warrant requires a crime or civil complaint alleging some unlawful act -- such as you cashing Social Security checks made out to your dead grandmother.  They can't stop payment without criminal charges or a civil lawsuit.  All of this is contained within the concept of due process.

When you go to civil court, is it your belief the judge makes up how they will rule  based 100% on the testimony and evidence? Or do they have civil law books that prescribe what's legal and what is not?  Because, if there's a civil law that says the state can take your guns without a warrant, allegation of criminal conduct, etc., then it's unconstitutional.

I agree.


Not true, as I pointed out, probable cause is a test for criminal cases, not civil cases. Civil cases generally involve "preponderance of the evidence." (There may be some exceptions but I find this standard mentioned in a variety of civil cases as the standard).

There is data showing that suicide attempts are far more effective than most other methods which means we can reasonably infer that if the number of suicide attempts remained the same, taking away firearms would result in some decrease in successful attempts. Many other common methods give people a chance to change their mind whereas firearms not so much.

A statement by a witness or a victim is a piece of evidence FYI.

Statement of WHAT?  He said a bad word?  He wore a MAGA hat in the seat next to me?  What was the CRIME?

People get arrested all the time based on someone's word, how do you think police operate? At a domestic violence case one partner hits the other, not witnesses, no visible injuries, yet someone gets arrested based on a statement. If you were walking down a dark street and someone robbed you and the cops catch the suspect a few blocks away they will still arrest him based on your statement even if they don't find video of the incident or your wallet on his person. You are mistaken on what requirements need to be met to establish probable cause for an arrest.


As per your example, assuming it was an accurate summary of the whole case, this sounds like it was a bad case that the judge should toss out/refuse to sign the order. Hard to evaluate though without more specifics.

A statement by a witness or a victim is a piece of evidence FYI.

People get arrested all the time based on someone's word, how do you think police operate? At a domestic violence case one partner hits the other, not witnesses, no visible injuries, yet someone gets arrested based on a statement. If you were walking down a dark street and someone robbed you and the cops catch the suspect a few blocks away they will still arrest him based on your statement even if they don't find video of the incident or your wallet on his person. You are mistaken on what requirements need to be met to establish probable cause for an arrest.


As per your example, assuming it was an accurate summary of the whole case, this sounds like it was a bad case that the judge should toss out/refuse to sign the order. Hard to evaluate though without more specifics.

Yes, I know that people get arrested based on a witness statement. HPD showed up to my friends house cause his baby mama said he hit her.  Guess what...he was and has been in Vegas when the cop showed up and when the baby mama stated he hit her.  His mom had to call him when she opened the door for the police looking for him.  They left and he was never arrested or looked for again.  He still lost custody of his child.

For your example, what if the person being arrested has evidence that he wasn't the robber?  Would you still drive him to jail?  Detaining someone is allowed if RAS has been met.  My neighbors wife was robbed by a haole guy on a moped carrying an ukulele in  a backpack. Guess what, they found someone who matches that down to having the ukulele.  When they brought him to her, she said that wasn't the guy.  He was then driven back to where he was picked up, about 1.5 miles away from the incident.  So had the cops just arrested the guy and taken him to jail, then they would have an innocent man in jail.  See, I can play this game too and provide real examples.  BTW, the guy had an ukulele cause he just left a xmas party and was playing it.

This is why were trying to fight against red flag laws from passing.

He's not going to care about what you or I post unless he can see a small opening to post the same untrue arguments he's been posting already.

There's nothing new.  Just more "you're wrong no matter how many sources support you!" from EEF.

I don't think this pig wants to sing, and we've tried so hard to teach him!

5 pages. Welcome back EEF.

You are free to stop responding to me if you are concerned about the number of pages

Wow, even more imagination about "possible".

Since red flag laws are already on the books and HI won't delete it, the only course left is for the courts to test it.  Why do you continue to bring things up that aren't relevant.  No one here is talking about a restraining order.  The topic at hand is red flag law. BRB, mag laws are unconstitutional too. I just felt like bringing that up.

Just because you keep repeating "HI red fla law ahs due process" doesn't make it true Jean.

Right. Because 'number of pages" is what he's commenting on.

SWOOSH!!

Guess you still didn't look up the definition of the word done did you?

You are free to stop responding to me if you are concerned about the number of pages

So now you are going to pretend there were no implications? 
What does it matter? You wanted me to admit something I never claimed wasn't true, is that a win to you? I might as well ask you when you will admit most pizzas have cheese then act like I bested you somehow. Stop arguing just to argue, especially when there is an actual dispute that matters.

What did I bring up that was irrelevant? I agreed with you that the law needs to be tested in court but you seem to still be trying to find something to argue about in that agreement. Red flag laws and restraining orders are very similar by their very nature with many overlapping pro and con arguments thus it is a good parallel to look at.

You can keep repeating your opinion that Hawaii's red flag law doesn't have due process but it doesn't make it true.

Apparently you want me to stop destroying your BS.

 

I'm not done until the last time i say I'm done!!        

This is what people who don't rely on facts do. They hope that factual people stop replying and the other person thinks their BS is correct cause it stopped being corrected.

Many years ago, SCOTUS ruled that hate speech is protected by the 1A.  The reasoning basically is beacuse what's hate speech to 1, may not be to another.

So in your example of communist thoughts, I don't think just because they are dumb and support this, should they have their 2a right taken away.  Same concept as hate speech reasoning.

You are free to support red flag law, but why I bring it up to EEF is because when it was passing he stated "it could be constitutional".  Then when I asked for proof, he cherry picked and posted our red flag law and left out the part that makes it unconstitutional (no due process).  He then questioned me when I stated that there are no constitutional ones and asked me if I had read every one that has passed into law for other states.  I said I have.  IIRC there were like 4 that passed at this time.

He still fails all this time later to back up his statement and not refusing to admit that he is wrong.  As you can see, this is the way he operates.  Had he just stated "i support red flag laws" then there would be little conversation after it.  But stating that they "can be constitutional" and then failing time and time again to prove that statement is why it keeps coming up.