Deanimator
Member
When I'm looking for guidance on human rights and the rule of law, I sure know the first place I go is South Africa...
Cops confiscate firearms anticipating guy might go postal.
- Thread starter harmonic
- Start date
- Status
hankdatank1362
Member
If anyone bothered to notice, beatcop posted a typical state statute allowing for just such a case, sort of an involuntary psych-eval, under a very limited set of circumstances.
More than likely...no, actually, without a doubt, local law enforcement on the scene had a better idea of what's going on with this guy than ANY OF YOU DO.
I'm all for RKBA just as much as the next guy, and would die to defend it, however... at what point do you pull your head from your self-righeous bum and say "hmmm... disgruntled public employee, fired two days ago, purchasing expensive weaponry (HK) like he doesn't plan to need the money to last him to another job.... let's at least check him out and take it from there."
If I got fired, I wouldn't go out and buy several guns the next day, even if I felt I would find a job soon and the money wouldn't matter. That part alone strikes me as kinda fishy. But who cares? Its not up to what we think of the guy; it's up to the first responders.
I know someone here is waiting for anyone to say it, so I will: BETTER THAT THEY ARRESTED THIS GUY AND PUT HIM THROUGH A RELATIVELY MINOR INCONVENIENCE THAN THEY WERE WRONG AND HE GOES ON A SHOOTING SPREE. And no matter how you cloud the issue with your blanket hatred for law enforcement and strawman arguements about civil liberties, you know that IN THIS SCENARIO it is the right thing to do.
More than likely...no, actually, without a doubt, local law enforcement on the scene had a better idea of what's going on with this guy than ANY OF YOU DO.
I'm all for RKBA just as much as the next guy, and would die to defend it, however... at what point do you pull your head from your self-righeous bum and say "hmmm... disgruntled public employee, fired two days ago, purchasing expensive weaponry (HK) like he doesn't plan to need the money to last him to another job.... let's at least check him out and take it from there."
If I got fired, I wouldn't go out and buy several guns the next day, even if I felt I would find a job soon and the money wouldn't matter. That part alone strikes me as kinda fishy. But who cares? Its not up to what we think of the guy; it's up to the first responders.
I know someone here is waiting for anyone to say it, so I will: BETTER THAT THEY ARRESTED THIS GUY AND PUT HIM THROUGH A RELATIVELY MINOR INCONVENIENCE THAN THEY WERE WRONG AND HE GOES ON A SHOOTING SPREE. And no matter how you cloud the issue with your blanket hatred for law enforcement and strawman arguements about civil liberties, you know that IN THIS SCENARIO it is the right thing to do.
Deanimator
Member
Clearly, some people have a "blanket hatred" for civil liberties.
NinjaFeint
Member
MariusDP51:
Tell me, where were the police and SWAT when Cain killed Able?!
Geno
What? I don't know what fairy tales have to due with this article. Also, is troll what we are supposed to call anyone who disagree's with us?
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
I once lost my job and I bought a boat with my severance check. I wasn't living paycheck to paycheck and I had a plan, so I wanted to spend some time on the water.
According to this logic the Coast Guard should have confiscated the boat because I might try to run over someone with it.
It's simply part of being a free nation that there are times you have to let potentially wacky people be potentially wacky until proven otherwise.
It's also why people should be responsible for their OWN safety rather than depending on the dot gov to do it for them.
Yes, they should probably arrest everyone who buys a gun really, just to be safe.
I mean, you never know right?
We'd all sleep better at night I'm sure.
MariusDP51
Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 80
Explain the term "trolldom" to me, Geno. Educate me.
I don't know about OR, but there is a (somewhat controversial) law in Connecticut that allows police to confiscate guns from someone who they think is likely to harm himself or others. (Not sure of the exact wording.) The law has provisions for hearings, and whatever.
If two people had been involved, then there would be a conspiracy charge. In the case of one person, I bet there is some sort of clause about actions taken in contemplation of a crime, sort of a conspiracy of one.
I remember a case where some idiot author thought he would rob a couple banks in order create some material for a first-person book. He put on a mask in the parking lot of his first target and got shot to death before he got inside (as I best I remember). At that point, he really had not done anything illegal.
NinjaFeint
Member
Wow, these are awesome arguments... Using a personal experience and then some general exaggeration to prove your point is weak. Neither of which applies to the article because we don't have all the information.
Guns and more
member
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,929
Will they do that for everyone? Including women who get a restraining order on ex's?
Wink, wink, nod, nod. "Whatever happened to those nice guns we took from that crazy guy?"
Maybe they did the right thing, but it sure is a slippery slope that the police should not be going down.
Can I have a police car watch my house when I'm gone because someone might break in? I'd like that.
Gouranga
Member
I would say the whole strength in this action lies in the information NOT contained in the article. I mean WHAT did he say? What actions did he take that brought on enough suspicion for the state to take his weapons and hold him for evaluation?
He may very well have given them more than just cause for the action. He may have just farted in their direction and told them to take the job and shove it. The point is we do not know.
If I accepted the information in the article as the FULL set of evidence with nothing else, I would definitely feel the police overstepped authority and stomped this mans rights. However, (I may be completely naive in this belief) I have to believe that he gave them reasonable suspicion with the items not reported in the article. Exactly what he said, his mannerism, other actions, etc. Cause if they did not, and they moved on such flimsy material as is in this article, well they may have done him a favor cause he will have grounds to sue them into bankruptcy and he won't have to work again for a long time.
He may very well have given them more than just cause for the action. He may have just farted in their direction and told them to take the job and shove it. The point is we do not know.
If I accepted the information in the article as the FULL set of evidence with nothing else, I would definitely feel the police overstepped authority and stomped this mans rights. However, (I may be completely naive in this belief) I have to believe that he gave them reasonable suspicion with the items not reported in the article. Exactly what he said, his mannerism, other actions, etc. Cause if they did not, and they moved on such flimsy material as is in this article, well they may have done him a favor cause he will have grounds to sue them into bankruptcy and he won't have to work again for a long time.
Officers'Wife
Member
Yes, the boiler plate 'mental hygiene' statutes cover a multitude of sins. I'm reminded of the old Soviet Union where dissidents where routinely put into mental hospitals as they had to be mentally ill to find fault in the workers' paradise.
Officers'Wife
Member
Which tells us PD's must operate in secrecy, perhaps they should rename themselves the 'secrecy police' to better describe their function.
Deanimator
Member
I find it interesting (but not surprising) that there are those who say that it shouldn't be assumed that the police were in the wrong with "insufficient information"... while assuming that they were 100% in the right with... the same "insufficient information".
But remember, don't bring up "strawmen" about civil liberties...
But remember, don't bring up "strawmen" about civil liberties...
Deanimator
Member
It's also SOP for PDs when they know they've committed an intentional tort and are trying to avoid incriminating admissions... kind of interesting when you consider how often citizens are told that if they have "nothing to hide" they have no need to "lawyer up".
Some animals are more equal than the others...
NinjaFeint
Member
I'm only assuming we don't have all the information. Nice try.
Deanimator
Member
Some are assuming that we don't NEED all the information.
MachIVshooter
Member
You'd be singing a very different tune if it were you. I agree that there's probably alot about this incident that we aren't privy to, but based on the information we do have, there is a clear violation of constitutional and civil rights. The entire premise behind our bill of rights and justice system in this "free" republic is that men cannot be prosecuted for crimes they might commit.
If it turns out the guy told people he was gonna go buy weapons then come back and kill everyone, then the police acted in the right. But given that the guy has no history of violence or mental illness that precluded his purchasing of firearms, short of an explicit threat of violence, I see no excuse for the actions of the LEA, and he should rightfully sue for every penny he can. I would.
If you've never been the victim of a false accusation that could have or did cost you your gun rights, you cannot possibly understand how scary this precident is.
You've accused folks of forming an opinion without all the facts and in the next breath make an assumption.
As long as we're assuming (does that make us all a$$es?), maybe the guy is wealthy and, when fired, decided to retire and take up target shooting.
I agree, we don't know all the facts. Guy sounds suspicious, but I've long passed the point where I take the .gov "at their word." I look forward to hearing the rest of the story. I hope there was probable cause.
Deanimator
Member
Funny story:
I used to be active on the "Fullbore" mailing list where people from around the world discuss long range (600 yards and beyond) rifle shooting.
There was a retired Canadian cop who anticipated AHSA by a good fifteen years. He was gungho gun control all the way, to the point of wanting to ban "sniper rifles"... which he couldn't coherently differentiate from a 1,000 yard target rifle. Furthermore, he was so blindly submissive to authority that he actually said that you had a DUTY to go into a concentration camp if the government ordered you there, and had NO right to forcibly resist, since you could always take it to court. He couldn't explain why Anne Frank didn't follow the latter course.
Then he got into a dispute with a couple of Canadian cops and the Canadian firearms registration bureaucracy. Apparently the "Feds" were sharing his private emails with the cops who were yanking his chain, HARD.
Suddenly, Dudley Do Right went from Koolaid drinking true believer to a hero of the revolution. In reply I posted:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social Democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social Democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
He responded, "What's that supposed to mean?"
Your point is well taken.
Omaha-BeenGlockin
Member
On the face of it with info here:
He won't be needing to find a job because he'll be getting a huge payday at taxpayer expense. You still actually have to do something wrong first in this country before the power of the state can come down on you---pre crime doesn't exist.
He won't be needing to find a job because he'll be getting a huge payday at taxpayer expense. You still actually have to do something wrong first in this country before the power of the state can come down on you---pre crime doesn't exist.
MariusDP51 asked:
Gladly. We see some new folks stop here at THR from time to time, who speak in nice enough words, but who always find a way to rationalize progressively deteriorating our Constitutional rights. The rationalization typically takes the form of, it's for the safety of the individual, or it's for the safety of the children, or it's for the safety of some other individual or group. In any case, it is to the potential. Problem is, our Constitutional rights are not to be taken away but per adjudicated process.
Tell me, just how much of the Constitution are we willing to shave off before we have none remaining? And if it's proactive security, let's arrest all the poultry farmers, whose chickens lay the deadly eggs that cause heart attacks and strokes. The Constitution is, what the Constitution is. I am more than willing to have folks disagree with me. That too is your right, but I don't have to agree, or keep my mouth shut about it. That is my right. In the end folks agree to disagree.
Geno
Gladly. We see some new folks stop here at THR from time to time, who speak in nice enough words, but who always find a way to rationalize progressively deteriorating our Constitutional rights. The rationalization typically takes the form of, it's for the safety of the individual, or it's for the safety of the children, or it's for the safety of some other individual or group. In any case, it is to the potential. Problem is, our Constitutional rights are not to be taken away but per adjudicated process.
Tell me, just how much of the Constitution are we willing to shave off before we have none remaining? And if it's proactive security, let's arrest all the poultry farmers, whose chickens lay the deadly eggs that cause heart attacks and strokes. The Constitution is, what the Constitution is. I am more than willing to have folks disagree with me. That too is your right, but I don't have to agree, or keep my mouth shut about it. That is my right. In the end folks agree to disagree.
Geno
LaEscopeta
Member
I have not read everything above, so here I go leaping without looking...
On the face of it with the info here, we don't know. It is possible there is no more info then in the original article, in which case there IS a miss-carriage of justice and there should be a law suit coming.
It is also possible there is additional info we don't know. Additional info could show the authorities had probable cause, plus they are (correctly) not talking about the subject’s personal info to the press. Or maybe the additional info shows a conspiracy by the authorities to lie about what the subject did and said, just to (wrongly) justify detaining the subject and seizing his property.
Speculation about what additional info there may or may not does not tell us anything about the reality of the situation. Not that that is going to stop anyone.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
