"What’s it like to have to get examined by psychiatrists and psychologists to essentially prove that he’s not a danger to himself or others?"
Said Peter H. Tilem, a lawyer who's had "red flag" clients , quoted in "How a New York County Used the State’s ‘Red Flag’ Law to Seize 160 Guns/Suffolk County on Long Island aggressively uses the law to take guns from people in crisis in an effort to prevent shootings and suicides. Its experience could inform a national debate" (NYT).
There are people accused of threatening a girlfriend, a housemate or an aunt; people who said they were planning a “suicide by cop” and those in the throes of delusion: a man screaming that he was the messiah and that he needed to cut his grandmother out of the side of his body; another with a shotgun under his bed who ranted that U.F.O.s, aliens and the government wanted to shoot him with lasers.
At least 11 red flag orders involved school threats, including a pair issued Thursday and Friday to two 15-year-olds, one of whom walked into a classroom and shouted “I’m gonna shoot up the school.” The other boy posted on Instagram that he hoped he got locked up so that he and the other boy could “BEAT THE CASE SO THEN BOTH US CAN BOOM THE SCHOOL.”...
पोस्ट्स
४६ टिप्पण्या:
Ask the people who the Progressives have locked away in their DC gulag for trespassing in the Capitol with NO weapons.
Key word is “accused”. That is sufficient in NY to take a person’s property.
I don't see why anyone needs to have their door kicked in just to serve one of these orders. I can see where a thorough search may be justified, but absent specific facts necessitating a dynamic entry, why not just knock on the door? This is a particularly good idea when it turns out you have the wrong house or person.
Such laws allowing temporary deprivation of firearms when someone is in crisis seem generally salutary. It's when the authorities try to bootstrap themselves into permanently depriving someone of a constitutional right that things turn wrong. And it is in the nature of authorities to abuse and expand their power (see, e.g., COVID).
Red flag laws are an absolute scam. The goals of the Commie-Pinko left are unchanging and they will get there any way possible. Disarm!
Anyone breaking down the doors of gangbangers in Chicago and Philly to take their (illegal guns away?
Actions have consequences. Saying dumb stuff is an action.
I see they give a sympathetic portrayal of these orders, with the only caveats being that they may be sometimes too eagerly, if likely validly, enforced or not enforced even if they are necessary due to lack of substantiation.
No mention of abuse of these orders to punish an otherwise not at risk person, or the difficulties in the return of their property after expiration. Having an ERPO during a contested divorce - initiated by the estranged spouse - can have an effect on the outcome of the divorce, especially on child custody, visitation and support. For example.
Accusation is guilt, until you prove your innocence. How many times can this be repeated against the same target without repercussion?
I remember seeing reports that Suffolk County Police were harassing people for video recording in public places. This is a more recent example that looks like an abuse of power:
LI Man Claims He Was Arrested For Videotaping Violent Police Encounter
"Demint's 8-minute-long video shows two sons cursing, appearing to resist arrest and their mother also tangling with police.
Then, Demint said police tasered the mother by mistake. Later, it appears officers pull down one of the sons who was in handcuffs. The 80 pound mother raises her arm and she gets knocked to the ground, Gusoff reported.
"I'm videotaping this. I'm just videotaping," Demint says in the video.
After the video ends, Demint claims police handcuffed and arrested him.
"I was tackled to the ground. They told me to stop resisting and I was like 'I'm not resisting, I'm not resisting,'" he said. "The other police officer came over and took my phone, tried to delete the last video."
So what does your house look like if you don't have a gun?
Is this going to be another avenue of fun for the HOA nazis?
It's pretty clear NY doesn't like guns. They'd prefer you push people in front of subway trains.
How much does anyone really know about mental illness? Some famous mass killers did not give away any "red flags"; some people talk about killing other people pretty regularly without "meaning" it. Twitter may have increased this phenomenon. We don't want to violate the rights of a lot of people who are thought to be "strange," but are innocent of any crime, especially if this effort doesn't really reduce crime.
Arsenic and Old Lace: the uncle who thinks he's Teddy Roosevelt, and charges up and down stairs yelling "Charge!," as if waving a sword, is actually harmless. The little old lady aunts are the killers. Of course they kill humanely and/or they have a theory which gives them a good reason for the killings.
Or post a Tweet with the wrong political message.
From the article:
“One man who was already under a red flag order was hit with a second one for having a friend buy a gun for him. “
Regardless of the merits of the ‘red flag’ law(s) are there any prosecutions because of this? This is a hefty crime, with serious penalties. My gut feeling is that this is seen as ‘no big deal’ by a lot of people, is rarely followed up by law enforcement, and a big contributor to illegal guns resulting in crimes (see ‘fast and furious’) and murders.
Getting involved with government and the court system is an emotional and depressing task in and of itself. The full force of the authorities are against you, and there is literally no-one on your side. This will multiply any other problems you have - which may be manageable - to the point where you end up without any hope, or real ability to cope.
Maybe a good idea, in theory. But it gives a significant weapon to anti gunners who have shown that they are likely to abuse any power they are provided with. Esp scary are those suggesting that anyone who wants guns in their homes is, Ipsy facto, mentally deranged enough that they shouldn’t be allowed to own guns. When you give this sort of power to unscrupulous people, you shouldn’t be surprised when they use it unscrupulously.
Do you want to boost gun control? Try bringing back stop, question, and frisk. We need it in Chicago, where street crime has gone through the roof since the Chicago Police Department entered that consent decree with the Obama DOJ.
The examples certainly don't share a lot of common ground with the tone of the lawyer's comment, do they? I suppose I'll need to go look at the text of the law to see whether a bare accusation is enough to warrant (a word I'm using advisedly here) search and seizure, or whether the person has to incriminate (again, using advisedly) herself or the accusation has to be supported by evidence from at least one other source.
Not that I support such a law in any case - we don't live in a Minority Report world. But how it's written might provide some insight into its intent. Basically were the lawmakers fools or knaves?
Ok, the pro-gun ownership crowd is going to have to do a better job with their arguments to sustain our current freedoms, and I am on that side.
When there is a mass shooting by some nut, the lefties cry that the guns themselves were to blame, and need to be confiscated. "Not so!" cry the second amendment defenders. "We have to keep guns out of the hands of nutters like that shooter!".
OK - how do we actually do what you are suggesting? If a person makes a public threat against someone or some institution, directly stating they plan to do harm (especially if firearms are mentioned), then seizing that person's weapons and having them evaluated before allowing them to repossess those firearms seems to be what you asked for. By now turning around and saying that trying to do that is just an excuse to get rid of guns, you just disarmed your own argument of what should be done.
I am for gun rights. I also believe there are people out there who should never own guns due to mental incompetency. What practical methods are there for enforcing these two views? Waiting for the nutter to kill a bunch of people and then saying it's time to take his guns away is a non-starter. You've got to have a convincing argument about how to draw the line.
There may be cases in which red flag laws could theoretically do some good, but there's no way these laws will be used in good faith. It's just a license for vindictive Karens to harass lawful gun-owners.
Also, is the plan is to break down doors to get a person's guns?? If so, this looks like a legal way to SWAT people in the hope of getting them killed.
Don't trust lawyers... EVER! Or even your doctor. Now days the Drs. ask you if you have guns... and they ask if you feel depressed or whatever.. a whole bunch of questions. Yes YOUR DOCTOR.
THEY WILL RAT OUT ON YOU!!
Just one word that can be taken out of context and they have their 'red flag'..
Don't trust them!! Like the IRS, they are not there to 'help you'.
Lucien
There are no such thing as temporary laws. "Red Flag" laws are implemented to disarm the general population. That is all they are for. As an example . Remember when we were all assured that mail in voting is completely fraud free? remember that?
I thought you guys liked our Constitution.
Amadeus 48
In Chicago. What is needed is a Republican mayor and a police chief that isn't a political hack. The streets of Chicago are rife with crime because they are allowed to be rife with crime. Look to the neighborhoods where there isn't a lot of crime. What are they doing? Do more of that. I remember when Ukrainian Village was six blocks square. Nobody pulled any crap because everybody knew if you started any sh*t those old babushkas that seemed to be growing from the front stoeps would pull a gun on you.
Wow. Great way to destigmatize seeking mental health. I'm sure if I ever have feelings of depression, anxiety, PTSD, or suicidal ideation I'll get right on that.
Fucking idiots.
Jersey Fled makes the right point:
"Anyone breaking down the doors of gangbangers in Chicago and Philly to take their (illegal guns away?"
Our government law enforcers could save more lives by doing the above than they will save by scouring social media trying to identify and taking the guns from possible school and workplace shooters. Even better, you don't have to look very hard for the locations, identities and probable cause- the police already know who they are.
I fully support intervening when there has been a public threat been made- it is the proper role of the government here, but I already know red-flag laws won't wait for actual threats- the raids and confiscation will be initiated by simple accusations by strangers, and they will be biased in doing so.
Enforce the laws we already have on the books about guns- I will support no new ones.
Rusty--A lot has changed here in the last few years. We used to have a lot of cops--now the CPD is 2,000 short of full strength. We used to have ethnic neighborhoods--fifty years ago. Now we have three: white, black, and hispanic. And to no one's surprise, since the cops backed off after the Laquon McDonald shooting and the Obama DOJ consent decree, street crime has invaded the white neighborhoods. Look at CWBChicago.com to get a flavor for what it is like in the "safe" neighborhoods. There have been 9 muggings of women within four blocks of my Lincoln Park building within the past week, apparently committed by a crew of black teenagers cruising the streets in stolen cars.
It is only a matter of time until someone gets badly hurt--and it won't be the cops that do it.
"Such laws allowing temporary deprivation of firearms when someone is in crisis seem generally salutary."
Do you think the professora would be in favor of red flag laws for abortions?
Based on any anonymous report that someone was considering an abortion for convenience, or against the will of the father, or as a result of an unstable mental condition, or any reason other than rape, incest or legitimate serious health concerns, authorities should have the right to imprison the woman unless and until either she gives birth or proves the accusation is false.
It's just a safety precaution and she'll get her life back once the concern proves unnecessary.
Lucien said...
I don't see why anyone needs to have their door kicked in just to serve one of these orders. I can see where a thorough search may be justified, but absent specific facts necessitating a dynamic entry, why not just knock on the door?
Because the kind of people who gravitate to that sort of work are thugs who get their rocks off by kicking in doors.
It's why sane people do their best to avoid creating situations where door kicking happens: the more it happens, the more it draws in people who want to kick in doors, and then the door kicking happens even more
"Better than nothing" is a High Standard.
This Red Flag Law seems like it is not better than nothing.
The Florida law (passed in 2018 after the Parkland shooting) requires law enforcement request and judicial approval, has a 14 day limit followed by a hearing process which can extend it for 12 months with one extension allowed. It's been used about 8,700 times since 2018 or about 2,050 times a year out of population of 20 to 22 million.
The major objection is that the subject isn't entitled to representation since it's considered a civil matter. The subject can petition for return of their weapons any time during the 12 months. The only complaint I've seen is that subjects can't get free legal representation because it's a civil matter.
Fairness of enforcement is a problem with every law. The legislature that passed this law and the governor who signed it (Rick Scott) are strong supporters of gun rights.
"I don't see why anyone needs to have their door kicked in just to serve one of these orders. I can see where a thorough search may be justified, but absent specific facts necessitating a dynamic entry, why not just knock on the door? This is a particularly good idea when it turns out you have the wrong house or person."
This is how the police roll. They have become militarized and they see all citizens as (potentially) dangerous enemies. These unannounced violent entries into homes--known blandly as "No Knock Warrants"--have become rampant nationwide, with many people and pets injured or killed by amped-up trigger-happy police, often in the first seconds of their invasions.
This is what decades of "Tough on crime" campaigns and policies by people seeking election and in office has wrought, amplified by all the surplus military weaponry the federal government has given and is still giving to local police departments across the nation.
I had my annual check-up a couple of days ago and wasn't asked anything about guns-- several inane useless questions about 'feelings' but none about guns-- so I wonder if the 'must ask about guns at doctors' visits' is a real thing or hearsay?
Minority Report.
Do you think the professora would be in favor of red flag laws for abortions?
For sex, which is the first choice to either "our Posterity" or planned parenthood.
Now days the Drs. ask you if you have guns... and they ask if you feel depressed or whatever.. a whole bunch of questions. Yes YOUR DOCTOR.
THEY WILL RAT OUT ON YOU!!
My brother-in-law was riding on a hospital elevator to be treated for bladder cancer when a nurse asked him if he ever thought of suicide. He's had a pretty rough time and he said "Once in a while." Next he was rushed to the psych ward for evaluation that took two days. My sister was not even allowed to see him. Then they let him go.
Robert Cook said...This is how the police roll. They have become militarized and they see all citizens as (potentially) dangerous enemies. These unannounced violent entries into homes--known blandly as "No Knock Warrants"--have become rampant nationwide, with many people and pets injured or killed by amped-up trigger-happy police, often in the first seconds of their invasions.
Just like the Deep State FBI and DOJ. They have become politicized and now work for the Progressive party. Open your eyes.
All these nickel-dime gun laws are designed with the goal of making it illegal to be a gun-owner. Not illegal to own guns. Illegal to be a gun-owner. Also called a "kulak".
You want to know what all this shit is about?
Here is what all this shit is about.
"What’s it like to have to get examined by psychiatrists and psychologists to essentially prove that he’s not a danger to himself or others?"
It might be like the same experts determining the mental health risks from carrying a child to term.
"Marc said...
I had my annual check-up a couple of days ago and wasn't asked anything about guns-- several inane useless questions about 'feelings' but none about guns-- so I wonder if the 'must ask about guns at doctors' visits' is a real thing or hearsay?"
Our doctor in Wisconsin asked the gun question and the depression question (same doc for MadTownGal and me). Our doctor here in PA asked how each of us were feeling but didn't ask about guns. Of course, it's possible that info was in the data that Epic forwarded to our current doctor, but maybe that's venturing too close to a conspiracy theory.
Michael K said...
[]
"My brother-in-law was riding on a hospital elevator to be treated for bladder cancer when a nurse asked him if he ever thought of suicide. He's had a pretty rough time and he said "Once in a while." Next he was rushed to the psych ward for evaluation that took two days. My sister was not even allowed to see him. Then they let him go."
Did they give him a referral to the Kevorkian Clinic?
A totalitarian regime will declare political opponents mentally unfit and will take their weapons to increase their control over them. It's happened so many times in history, it's a wonder any person could think it wouldn't happen again.
JThe college kid probably should get used to such scenes. As Dementia Joe pulls and pushes the Land of the Free further and further down the Road to Serfdom, they will, I fear, get more and more common.
"Just like the Deep State FBI and DOJ. They have become politicized and now work for the Progressive party. Open your eyes."
You are deeply blind if you think the police are a tool of "progressives." They are a tool of the wealthy and powerful entities who effectively own and control this country. There is little or no material difference between the parties in terms of their tolerance of, if not outright support for, current police practices. The problem is not "either" or "or," it is both.
As little as I like guns, progressives regularly give me reasons to like their governing habits even less.
Robert Cook said...
"Just like the Deep State FBI and DOJ. They have become politicized and now work for the Progressive party. Open your eyes."
You are deeply blind if you think the police are a tool of "progressives." They are a tool of the wealthy and powerful entities who effectively own and control this country.
That's what the "Progressives" ARE, Cookie!
Rich people with "luxury views" that screw up the lives of everyone not-rich who has those views.
Thus eliminating potential competition
They are going to eventually do this to the wrong person, and it will result in a bloodbath.
There really aren't any "right" answers to the issue of mass killings. If you think that "taking guns" will fix anything, you're sadly mistaken. The most deadly "school attack" was the Kehoe bombing at Bath, Maine--Which he perpetrated without anything other than easily available farm and construction explosives.
The real problem resides in the minds of mankind, and you can't do anything at all about that. If someone decides to kill, they will kill. Period. Lack of a suitable weapon just means they'll improvise something, which will often be more horrific than if they'd used a gun. How many mass killings have there been where it was just gasoline and a match?
People are the problem, not the tools. To go after the tools, you'd eventually end up with a world covered in soft padding, and then someone would use that padding to asphyxiate their victims.
The idiot class thinks that by getting rid of guns, they'll stop the madness. The guns aren't causing the madness, people are. And, once they've stripped the normal citizens of the ability to effectively defend themselves, what do you suppose the result will be? The cops aren't required to defend you, at all, so you're on your own against the no-doubt well-armed criminal class. If they aren't, well there's always the fact that might makes right, and they'll cheerfully beat you to death for what they want from you.
Presence or absence of weapons won't fix the things causing this crap. What will? Oh, I dunno... Maybe actually setting an example with the criminal, such that they know they'll suffer and die when they step out of line this far? What's the dissuasive effect of all the notoriety and fame we lavish on these creeps, do you think?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा