ERPOs in action, WA - no details, no charges ...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Old Dog

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2004
Messages
10,717
Location
on Puget Sound
https://www.king5.com/article/news/...unty/281-400146c7-5c81-4c8d-80d6-78f877977340

“We actually, I firmly believe, prevented a massacre,” said Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, whose office was involved in the investigation.

Interesting the group is centered in another community and another county altogether, yet the Seattle City Attorney's office "was involved in the investigation."

" ... the FBI convinced a judge that “Kaleb Cole poses a serious threat to public safety by having access and possession to firearms and a concealed pistol license.

Yet, no charges, no crimes, no details at all really. Just a toxic affiliation to an ugly hate group and presumably legal possession of a few firearms.

This is the kicker: King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg said the order to surrender guns is the right tool when law enforcement does not have enough evidence to file a criminal charge.

This would seem to be a new way of using ERPOs. It would appear to be confirmation that the concept of due process is out the window. Where does it go from here?
 
i don't have any problem with the seizure of firearms from this lobotomized idiot. Atomwaffen members have murdered at least five folks in the USA.
 
i don't have any problem with the seizure of firearms from this lobotomized idiot. Atomwaffen members have murdered at least five folks in the USA.
They still had no evidence this guy was doing anything and still don't. They just don't like him.

I am sure these people could come up with a reason to take my guns or your guns if they decided they wanted to.
 
If he really did want to plan an attack all they did was make him more angry and determined. He will just get his guns from the black market and hide them better.
That just means the law didn't go far enough. They need to seize all his bank accounts and money. That way he can't buy any more guns. ;)
 
I have no sympathy for him and agree that disarming him is likely the most prudent option. But this was not the way to do it. If you support sidestepping someone's rights, remember that the same tactic will be used against you eventually. Gather evidence, get a warrant, normal procedures. Otherwise, we are inviting abuse.
 
The question to me, and I don't know the answer to this based on the news story, is what credible evidence did they have that he poses a threat. As much as I despise Nazis (I lost quite a few members of my family to them during WW2 in Poland) being an idiot, and he is an idiot, is still allowed. If they had credible evidence then I'm all for taking his guns. If not they had no right to do so.
 
i don't have any problem with the seizure of firearms from this lobotomized idiot.
At first they came for the neo-nazis. . .

Atomwaffen members have murdered at least five folks in the USA.
"Gun owners have murdered at least five (thousand) folks in the USA."

-You don't stop fascists by being a bigger fascist.
Best reply yet. Due process of law is about all that separates us from the savages.
 
The FBI asked local authorities to obtain an ERPO, that's good enough for me. Go ahead and shill for the "rights" of a Hitler loving Nazi who advocates the murder of Jews
 
He could probably file that it was a "hate crime" against him
No I don't like Nazis I hate Neos Nazis but as it said he committed no crime.

Seems this Country you are allowed your beliefs (even if warped)and unless it offends someone.

Some guy was charged with a Hate Crime for tearing down and burning a Gay Pride Flag, (Ok it's not right to destroy someones property) But what happens to someone if they burn the American Flag (in protest not because it is old) Nothing! Why is that not a hate crime??

https://www.newstarget.com/2019-06-20-man-charged-with-hate-crime-for-burning-pride-flag.html
 
Go ahead and shill for the "rights" of a Hitler loving Nazi who advocates the murder of Jews
We all have rights, or none of us have rights.

If you want to pick and choose which portions of the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution and its amendments apply, and pick and choose to whom they apply -- you don't get it.
 
ERPOs sound great when they're used on some neo-Nazi nut who belongs to "atomwaffen" (German for "nuclear weapon") a neo Nazi organization that apparently has already murdered.
While I have no sympathy for this dingbat, I must wonder how long it will be before these redflag laws, and others like it, will be used on us, or others who are simply rightwingers, or conservatives, alt-right, or libertarians.
Remember the Reverend Martin Neimeuller, and that old famous poem associated with his experience with a previous totalitarian government.



And consider that as gun owners, we here are pretty unpopular with certain segments of society ....
 
I believe it was the San Fransico city counsel that branded the NRA as a terrorist organization. I am not, by any means equating the NRA with Nazi's. My parents didn't talk much about what happened to them in Poland during WW2, but over the years we learned enough and it was horrific. My point is that if this idiot did not threaten someone and his guns were taken away because of his beliefs, however sick they are, there's nothing stopping a left leaning administration from following in the footsteps of the San Fransisco city counsel and taking guns from NRA members. Again, if he did threaten someone or they had other credible evidence that he was a threat they did the right thing taking them.
 
In the last couple years several mass murderers, including the El Paso shooter, have announced their attentions on social media. Some are telling me the confiscation of would be mass murders firearms is unconstitutional and that law enforcement must wait until the person kills someone. :p
 
There Is no evidence that he committed a crime. Posting intentions to commit mass murders (terrorist act) is in and of itself, a crime.

Due process is one of our sacred rights as an American citizen.

Any L/E agency want to disarm anyone, charge them with a crime in which evidence of that crime exists. Put it in front of a judge/jury.

Follow the law. You don't prevent crimes by committing a crime while wearing a badge.

I'm all in support of L/E. But don't rape my constitution.
 
In the last couple years several mass murderers, including the El Paso shooter, have announced their attentions on social media. Some are telling me the confiscation of would be mass murders firearms is unconstitutional and that law enforcement must wait until the person kills someone. :p

Or until they make actionable statements. Mere 1st amendment expression is not a sufficient bar to restrict rights. Your unwillingness to imagine yourself up against the wall is exactly the kind of thinking that enables abuses. You won't feel the noose until they are gone but you will feel it all the same.

2nd is under serious attack. We all need to recognize that and advocate for our rights.

ED: And in case it's unclear, nazi speech is one of the most disgusting and vile forms of speech imaginable, and I'd like to think that most of these people are just edgy jerks and not true believers... in any case, mere belief is not in and of itself a crime.
 
Last edited:
Thought crimes. Lovely.

And they said red flag laws wouldn't be abused ...

It is not a great leap to go from despicable hate group (who still committed no crime or made any credible threat, as far as has been reported) to whatever bad think group the mob hates today.

It is amusing, in a sick way, that the same groups who quake in terror about the President's alleged or future abuses of power continually cede totalitarian power to the government.
 
The Secret Service has been arresting people for espousing far less against a president forever.

As we know, there are limitations to free speech when it can cause harm, the yelling fire in a movie theater comes to mind.

If he made credible threats to kill people, or encouraged others to kill people, I have no problem with what has happened to him. Threatening harm and then trying to hide behind the constitution, good luck.
 
If he made credible threats to kill people, or encouraged others to kill people, I have no problem with what has happened to him. Threatening harm and then trying to hide behind the constitution, good luck.

I agree, and those laws are already on the books.

But nothing in the story indicates he made any threats to anyone, just that he belonged to this reprehensible group. And shot some guns in a building.
 
The Secret Service has been arresting people for espousing far less against a president forever.
Yes, but that's not what happened here. Arrest, for reasonable suspicion, and potential charging with a crime, IS due process.

Abrogation of rights WITHOUT any apparent plans to either charge or desist the abrogation is NOT due process.

If he made credible threats to kill people, or encouraged others to kill people. . .
. . . then they would have (definitely should have) arrested and charged him. Based on the actions to date, it would seem that the state does not believe he committed a crime. This is the essence of arbitrary disenfranchisement.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top