Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

MD PD kill man who refuses to give up his guns


Red Cent

Recommended Posts

This should be moved to the Team Sass forum if you want a discussion on it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy,

What is to discuss???????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

leave it here, 

I rarely read Team, I don't know why...not lately.

Murder is murder.

Best

CR

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

How sad, that a person was presumed guilty without due process and is dead. Sad, that the state of Maryland allows such a law to exist. Sad, that this type of law will probably creep into other states. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.thetrace.org/2018/03/red-flag-laws-pending-bills-tracker-nra/

 

What happened to due process? Where are his twelve peers? 

 

A cop can pull you over and confiscate your cash totally on suspicion. A  disgruntled neighbor or relative can have your guns confiscated without any "day in court". 

 

Remember the Salem witch trials? Teenagers condemned them to death with lies. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2018 at 5:55 AM, Henry T Harrison said:

What a biased article 

 

What bias?  The man was killed by officers who were put in a terrible position by an unconstitutional law invoked by an irresponsible jurist acting on bad information given by a spiteful individual who lied to set this series of events in motion.

 

The person who made the complaint should be prosecuted for their actions. The judge should be dismissed and disbarred. The law should be repealed and the immediate family should be awarded massive damages to be paid by the complaintant, the judge and the state!!

 

 In a perfect world, every legislator who voted FOR this unconstitutional piece of garbage legislation should be voted out of office and asked to leave the country!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

 

What bias?  The man was killed by officers who were put in a terrible position by an unconstitutional law invoked by an irresponsible jurist acting on bad information given by a spiteful individual who lied to set this series of events in motion.

 

The person who made the complaint should be prosecuted for their actions. The judge should be dismissed and disbarred. The law should be repealed and the immediate family should be awarded massive damages to be paid by the complaintant, the judge and the state!!

 

 In a perfect world, every legislator who voted FOR this unconstitutional piece of garbage legislation should be voted out of office and asked to leave the country!!

 

 

…… and asked to leave the country!!

 

 ………. but, but, but what if they come here ………. :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its hard to believe that the GOP would vote for anti 2A legislation.

 

Due process under the law is under attack. From the Kavanaugh hearings to “red flag laws”. 

 

It should never be tolerated in a free society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Wallaby Jack, SASS #44062 said:

 

 

…… and asked to leave the country!!

 

 ………. but, but, but what if they come here ………. :huh:

Would anybody notice? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

an irresponsible jurist acting on bad information given by a spiteful individual who lied to set this series of events in motion.

Do we know this to be true?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Nasty Newt # 7365 said:

Do we know this to be true?

 

Actually, YES!!  In a separate news article, members of the family told investigators that the complaintant was another member of the family who had argued with the victim and filed the complaint out of spite!!

 

The lack of due process and due diligence by the judge and the rush to action without investigation spawned by this dangerous and unconstitutional circumvention of civil rights will result in more tragedies like this!!

 

Scum like those who shoved this legislation through the Maryland congress are just like Michael Bloomingidiot!!  They only claim a political affiliation so long as it benefits them to do so!!  They will change sides in an instant if it suits their purpose!!  I’m certain that they have no loyalty to our nation as well!!  They would sell out the whole country for “thirty pieces of silver” if it profited them!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a couple of thoughts, in no particular order:

 

In most states with "red flag" statutes, the threshold for proof is very low; for instance, here is an excerpt from the MA statute:

 

"If after the hearing pursuant to subsection (a) or subsection (b), the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses a risk of causing bodily injury to self or others by having in the respondent’s control, ownership or possession a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, weapon or ammunition, the court shall grant the petition."

 

In my opinion, in the real world, no judge is going to deny such a petition unless the complaining party is an obvious liar.  And given that the complaining party need only show that there is a risk (not a "substantial risk" - just any risk) of harm, and even then the showing need only be by a preponderance of the evidence - which means 51% certainty - just a tip of the scales - most of these petitions will succeed.  Add to this the reluctance of a judge to be wrong - why risk any harm to a complainant when no one (except the gun owners - an unpopular and politically powerless group in my state) will be harmed by granting the order, even if, in reality, there is no likelihood of actual harm to the complainant.  Close calls will obviously fall in favor the complainant. 

 

Can you imagine such a process regarding any other Constitutional right?  Seizure of a car from a driver with a drunk driving conviction because a citizen is concerned that there is a "risk" of harm to others if the owner drinks and drives again?  Imprisonment of a husband who beat his wife, not for a term related to the crime but as a preventative measure because of a risk that he will repeat, even after he serves his sentence?  We do not preemptively incarcerate individuals based upon a perceived risk of future harm; neither should we seize their property and compromise their 2nd Amendment rights based upon something less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a clear and real threat of serious harm.

 

Another over-reaction by the hystericals.

 

All that being said, the reaction to this incident bothers me.  If the statute in this case was close to the MA version, the officers were proceeding lawfully; the place to contest the order was in the courtroom, not in the living room with a gun in your hand.  Once the homeowner picked up his gun again, and then struggled with the police and discharged a round, the outcome was pretty much inevitable.  The law may be unconstitutional,  but if it is, there is a forum and a process to attack it.  Shooting it out with the police, even "accidentally", will not end well.

 

Lord, these are sad times.

 

LL

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 said:

Can you imagine such a process regarding any other Constitutional right?  Seizure of a car from a driver with a drunk driving conviction because a citizen is concerned that there is a "risk" of harm to others if the owner drinks and drives again?  Imprisonment of a husband who beat his wife, not for a term related to the crime but as a preventative measure because of a risk that he will repeat, even after he serves his sentence?  We do not preemptively incarcerate individuals based upon a perceived risk of future harm; neither should we seize their property and compromise their 2nd Amendment rights based upon something less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a clear and real threat of serious harm.

 

Yet we have long had similar laws allowing the removal of children from parents which function almost identically. In Ohio, an ex parte order can be granted for up to 72 hours, based upon "reasonable grounds," with a hearing for an emergency order following. At that hearing,  only probable cause is required to maintain removal. Then the matter is set for a full hearing. So, if these states have similar laws, firearms rights are better protected than parental rights.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 said:

there is a forum and a process to attack it.  Shooting it out with the police, even "accidentally", will not end well.

 

Did the guy even know the vindictive relative was seeking the order?  My experience with TROs is that the victim doesn't know it's happening and does not get a chance to defend themselves.  Sure they get a chance to go to court eventually.  Years later after the plaintiff delays and delays until they're both out of money. 

 

I'm assuming these orders work the same way.  If not, educate me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ladies and Gentlemen, we live under tyranny. This is no longer “the land of the free”. 

 

In in the beginning of this country the states banded together to fight tyranny. Today the leaders of states see what they can get away with in regards to unscrupulous laws and when they pass the subsidized lobbyists that helped get the laws passed go to another “likely” state to help them get the ball rolling. It’s been going on for decades. The anti’s use state hopping against us.

 

Welcome to the United States of Boiled Frogs!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Loophole LaRue I agree, the lawmakers need the talking to, not the police with a binding order.  

 

Can you answer this?  If the citizen complies and turns over everything to the police under protest but not violence.  The police damage the firearms stacking them in the back of a cruiser without cases.  Say a chipped $300 laminate target stock or a $1,000 scope.  Then the citizen is proven innocent and safe.  Who eats the monetary loss in value? Or worse, who assigns the value of the loss? Furthermore, the police will log all the arms.  Does this list become uncensored public record?  Making a shopping list for robbers like a public registration.  What if the citizen has already turned over possession or control to a 3rd party?

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, sassnetguy50 said:

Loophole LaRue I agree, the lawmakers need the talking to, not the police with a binding order.  

 

Can you answer this?  If the citizen complies and turns over everything to the police under protest but not violence.  The police damage the firearms stacking them in the back of a cruiser without cases.  Say a chipped $300 laminate target stock or a $1,000 scope.  Then the citizen is proven innocent and safe.  Who eats the monetary loss in value? Or worse, who assigns the value of the loss? Furthermore, the police will log all the arms.  Does this list become uncensored public record?  Making a shopping list for robbers like a public registration.  What if the citizen has already turned over possession or control to a 3rd party?

 

 

Lots of different issues there.  Please keep in mind that every state's laws can be different.

 

Our red flag law is very new - earlier this year.  I haven't seen any cases on damage to the guns while in custody.  My general sense is that you would need to look at the tort liability statutes in your jurisdiction.  In MA, municipalities, if you can prove negligent handling, would probably be responsible for the damage.  However, there are exceptions, and there is also a fairly demanding set of pre-conditions (short time period to bring suit, written notice required before commencement of suit, etc.)   Unless you have a knack for the details, you probably need a lawyer to guide you through the minefield.

 

As for valuing the damages, that would be an issue for proof of damages.  In MA, an owner can testify to the value of his own property; otherwise, you may need an expert to testify (and proof that the guns were in better condition before they were seized - like photos)

 

Some states have statutes explicitly exempting firearms records from the public record rules; again, you'll need to look at those statutes in your jurisdiction.  

 

I assume from your last question that you are wondering if you can avoid seizure by selling/giving your guns to your brother-in-law, or some other properly licensed individual (if you have licenses/permits in your state).  Your state's red flag law may specifically address this issue.  If not, my sense is that you would need to prove a bona fide transfer before there was any threat of seizure; any transfer after a threat is made to seek seizure, or after the petition is filed but before the hearing, would be suspect, and likely to be negated by the court.  Again, "bona fide" means that you'll need paper and/or witnesses to document the legitimacy of the transfer; showing up in court and saying "Oh, I gave all my guns to cousin Jake last week!" probably isn't going to cut it.

 

There's no doubt that even beyond the basic Constitutional issues, there will be a real rat's nest of details to be worked out as these cases develop.

 

LL

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Loophole LaRue for all the answers.

 

The last question could go many ways but wasn't really thought out.   I'm not concerned about seizure of my property.  The police don't need a red flag law, just some PO'd person who didn't like my yard sign could anonymously call in a ridiculous thing I am "planning to do." Or the caller could get the address wrong and punish me instead of a neighbor.

 

Thanks again, off to read some tort liability statutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

Ladies and Gentlemen, we live under tyranny. This is no longer “the land of the free”. ...

Bit of a stretch I think.

I’ve visited several states this year. Didn't need any travel papers from the government. I can travel to other countries with just a passport and don’t need permission.

I have several firearms. I was not required to register them.

My food, fuel, and commodities are not rationed.

When one lives under tyranny, the mere statement “We live under tyranny” would be cause for the government to censor you at best, arrest you or eliminate you completely a la Adnan Khashoggi or several Russian journalists. I can be a strident critic of the administration and run for public office without fear of being stalked by assassins.

We have a number of problems but in my opinion we are far from living under tyranny.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have missed it, but was a warrant issued to search his house and seize his weapons? 

 

How does the "emergency risk protection order" bypass the requirement for a warrant to enter, search and seize property?  If he wasn't there does it authorize forced entry?

 

The "orders of protection" I've dealt with do not allow involuntary entry into a residence to search for and seize property.

 

I've got lots of questions about what looks like a really bad law.

 

Angus

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

Bit of a stretch I think.

I’ve visited several states this year. Didn't need any travel papers from the government. I can travel to other countries with just a passport and don’t need permission.

I have several firearms. I was not required to register them.

My food, fuel, and commodities are not rationed.

When one lives under tyranny, the mere statement “We live under tyranny” would be cause for the government to censor you at best, arrest you or eliminate you completely a la Adnan Khashoggi or several Russian journalists. I can be a strident critic of the administration and run for public office without fear of being stalked by assassins.

We have a number of problems but in my opinion we are far from living under tyranny.

 

Don’t worry. The camels nose under the tent use to be just a nose. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2018 at 8:53 AM, sassnetguy50 said:

Loophole LaRue I agree, the lawmakers need the talking to, not the police with a binding order.  

 

Can you answer this?  If the citizen complies and turns over everything to the police under protest but not violence.  The police damage the firearms stacking them in the back of a cruiser without cases.  Say a chipped $300 laminate target stock or a $1,000 scope.  Then the citizen is proven innocent and safe.  Who eats the monetary loss in value? Or worse, who assigns the value of the loss? Furthermore, the police will log all the arms.  Does this list become uncensored public record?  Making a shopping list for robbers like a public registration.  What if the citizen has already turned over possession or control to a 3rd party?

 

 

You're assuming the victim will ever get their guns back even after found to be innocent.  I'm not sure that's a given in in every state of the union.  They'll probably be thrown in the same room with all the property seized from suspected drug dealers. 

 

 

On 11/20/2018 at 9:43 AM, Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 said:

 

I assume from your last question that you are wondering if you can avoid seizure by selling/giving your guns to your brother-in-law, or some other properly licensed individual (if you have licenses/permits in your state).  Your state's red flag law may specifically address this issue.  If not, my sense is that you would need to prove a bona fide transfer before there was any threat of seizure; any transfer after a threat is made to seek seizure, or after the petition is filed but before the hearing, would be suspect, and likely to be negated by the court.  Again, "bona fide" means that you'll need paper and/or witnesses to document the legitimacy of the transfer; showing up in court and saying "Oh, I gave all my guns to cousin Jake last week!" probably isn't going to cut it.

 

There's no doubt that even beyond the basic Constitutional issues, there will be a real rat's nest of details to be worked out as these cases develop.

 

 

 

If the purpose of the law is to make sure someone who was flagged doesn't have access to guns, then I don't see why it wouldn't be enough to let your brother in law keep them until it's all sorted out.  The cops can come in and search and see you have no guns, then that should be that.  Otherwise you go down a rabbit hole where no one the victim even knows will be allowed to have a gun because, after all, what does it matter who's guns B-I-L has?  If he's going to give the guy one of his own guns back to cause trouble, he might also let him borrow one of his own. 

 

But you're right that you should make it a "bona fide" transfer if you find yourself in this situation. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.