Law-abiding gun Owner Killed During Red Flag Confiscation Raid

TROs hearings are done ex parte from my understanding.

So, no you do not get a chance to prove your competency prior to them knocking on your door to take your stuff.


My thing is that it's a bs gun grab. If they are really concerned about a person hurting themselves or others, just taking his guns away really doesn't resolve that issue.

There is a process in place to make someone,who is believed to be a danger, be examined and if needed held for observation.

The Red Flag Orders side step that process to just get the guns. They leave the person who they think is dangerous to his own devices. My guess is that if he was going to hurt someone, taking his guns wouldn't stop him. Originally Posted by grean

This ^^^^^ is a decent social and political discussion of the so called "red flag" laws regarding guns ... and the basis for the laws as well as their application ...

... the sad part about this discussion is:

The "taking" has been ongoing for decades .... it's just now getting around to "guns" ... before it was one's personal freedom (30 and 90 day incarcerations in mental health institutions with only a cursory hearing to meet minimum "due process" rights of a Judge review the behavior that initiated the process while an "evaluation is being completed) ...

plus Child Protective Services ("SNATCHING OFFSPRING FROM THEIR PARENTS ARMS!) for decades invading people's homes and tearing their families apart ..... while putting underaged family members in FOSTER HOMES for months-years until a judicial determination of some vague standard of how to raise your kids is met.

The last two sections of our jurisprudence are the darling of the Liberals who actually believe they know better than the rest of society.

Now they are applying those "standards" to firearm confiscation.

And keep in mind, please: Judge Kavanaugh's "hearing" before these LIBERALS!

Now who wants "due process"? The LIBERALS OBVIOUSLY DON'T! Who created the "red flag" laws?

This ^^^^^ is a decent social and political discussion of the so called "red flag" laws regarding guns ... and the basis for the laws as well as their application ...

... the sad part about this discussion is:

The "taking" has been ongoing for decades .... it's just now getting around to "guns" ... before it was one's personal freedom (30 and 90 day incarcerations in mental health institutions with only a cursory hearing to meet minimum "due process" rights of a Judge review the behavior that initiated the process while an "evaluation is being completed) ...

plus Child Protective Services ("SNATCHING OFFSPRING FROM THEIR PARENTS ARMS!) for decades invading people's homes and tearing their families apart ..... while putting underaged family members in FOSTER HOMES for months-years until a judicial determination of some vague standard of how to raise your kids is met.

The last two sections of our jurisprudence are the darling of the Liberals who actually believe they know better than the rest of society.

Now they are applying those "standards" to firearm confiscation.

And keep in mind, please: Judge Kavanaugh's "hearing" before these LIBERALS!

Now who wants "due process"? The LIBERALS OBVIOUSLY DON'T! Who created the "red flag" laws? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Are we in complete agreement on this? Lol

The problem is the Liberals don't want or understand the "due process " parts of the law and they are using the lack of due process to get around laws. ( back to do as I say not due)

The last two sections of our jurisprudence are the darling of the Liberals who actually believe they know better than the rest of society.

Now they are applying those "standards" to firearm confiscation.

And keep in mind, please: Judge Kavanaugh's "hearing" before these LIBERALS!

Now who wants "due process"? The LIBERALS OBVIOUSLY DON'T! Who created the "red flag" laws? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Which is exactly why i an incennsed about this. WE'VE seen plenty of judicial overreach, and liberals screwing over due process.. But it sounds like some say we should just let it happen'??

Which is exactly why i an incennsed about this. WE'VE seen plenty of judicial overreach, and liberals screwing over due process.. But it sounds like some say we should just let it happen'?? Originally Posted by garhkal

I believe the property seizure outside of any conviction, and where this stems from, if I'm not mistaken, is something conservative judges have consistently upheld as constitutional.

Which is exactly why i an incennsed about this. WE'VE seen plenty of judicial overreach, and liberals screwing over due process.. But it sounds like some say we should just let it happen'?? Originally Posted by garhkal

I'm not sure who has been saying "just let it happen," except those who believe it is the appropriate thing to do. Successful resistance in this country is not based on lawlessness, although it does sound "good" on paper and in a loud screeching voice through a megaphone. As a social/political instrument and tool for change violence as a response to offensive laws is not a healthy choice for either the person committing the violence or the group the person is pretending to represent.

It's rather difficult for one group to justify violence to assert an alleged 2nd amendment right while aggressively opposing violence that is perpetrated to support a denial of 1st amendment rights.

If one does not like a law then vote on people who will repeal the law one doesn't like and quit whining about "the way" someone tweets or chooses the women with whom he spends time!

Vote for the people who will shit can these ineffective laws that offend basic rights and vote for the people who will select judges who will toss the laws that cannot be repealed ... instead of worrying about the color of someone's hair or how much money he made kicking ass as a developer.
Liberals don't think too far down the road. Just in election cycles: 2 ... 4 ... 6 ... years!

Remember the open mic moment: Wait until after the election and I can be more flexible?????

The says temporarily. If you want to know how then research it.

And it's not "anybody"


https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/l...w/65-598387522

No, he should have simply told the officers "You are not coming in, till i have my lawyer present, to validate and if necessary challenge this unlawful court order".





And exactly what IS that process??
So far all i've seen is that these 'red-flag' laws, ALLOW Almost anyone to make a 'claim' you are a danger, and BAM your guns get taken. I've yet to see anything on them, where it says you can challnge it.. Originally Posted by garhkal

I can see why you changed your handle. You won't last long.

5 WORDS!!!

Originally Posted by iffy

well i'm gonna agree with Munchman here. the law's constitutionality is in flux but at the time of the incident it was in force. how that plays out remains to be seen. The man saw this as a "guilt before even being convicted" egregious violation. i get that. however his better call would have been not to lose his cool and provoke a response.
It's not in flux. It has yet to have been challenged in court in Maryland.
you aren't going to win this type of confrontation once it escalates. the cops aren't clocking out at 5pm. well they will but the night shift will take over. he would have been better served by using the law to fight the law, not fighting the police. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

So ll, what is your experience with the practice of law? Where does your information come from? The same place your lack of understanding of what constitutes the burden of proof in case law? I guess as long as it's understood you have no legal training and everything you say is opinion, no one will get in trouble by believing you.

With a court order to enter the premises and take possession of the items stated in the court order the citizen HAS NO RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF THE WARRANT. That's TV BS.

The officers armed with the warrant: (1) knock (2) explain their purpose and authority showing a copy to the person answering the door (3) the person answering the door allows them to enter to execute the warrant .... if

(4) no answer ... the officers open the door.
(5) if the person refuses ... they arrest the person for interference with a lawful search and enter the premises to execute the warrant. [If the person uses any force to resist the arrest then additional charges of assault on a police officer will be added to the resisting search charge. If the person brandishes a deadly weapon and/or assaults the officers with a deadly weapon they have the RIGHT to defend themselves with deadly force.]

He gets a lawyer when he gets to jail or his family gets one while an autopsy is being performed by the medical examiner.

If one critically examines "resisting arrest" statutes and the case law explaining them ... a later conclusion that the arrest was "unlawful" doesn't provide the citizen with a defense to assault on the police officer. One litigates the validity of the arrest in court not on the street. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Michael Brown was legitimately shot by the officer he was assaulting and from whom he was attempting to take a deadly weapon. The DEAD clown in this thread did what Brown didn't do: pulled his own weapon on the officers.
Originally Posted by LexusLover

Like I said, nothing but opinion.

St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch was defeated in a Democratic primary on Tuesday by a young African American reformer who ran a campaign fueled by a coalition of local and national organizers. As they say in Ferguson, Mo., where McCulloch, most notably, oversaw the farcical investigation of police officer Darren Wilson following the fatal shooting of Michael Brown: #ByeBob.

This is a sign of hope and change. The process should now come full circle. The next prosecutor — presumably Wesley Bell, the Democratic nominee — should reopen the Brown case.

Since 1991, McCulloch presided over a thinly disguised system of plunder. The 2015 Ferguson report revealed that, for years, the police targeted communities of color for heightened traffic enforcement to fill their coffers. This racket, at the expense of Ferguson’s most marginalized communities, combined with McCulloch’s preternatural hesitance to bring charges against police for killing unarmed black people, created a powder keg that exploded after the killing of Brown in August 2014.


McCulloch, though, is best known for his investigation of Wilson. Lawyers, scholars and commentators around the country, including a Harvard law professor and a former Supreme Court law clerk, have raised serious questions about how he handled the case, particularly in regard to a protracted grand-jury process that served to deflect responsibility for the outcome. His office “mistakenly” gave the grand jurors the wrong law to consider for the majority of the process, and McCulloch himself admitted shortly thereafter that he knowingly allowed a witness to give false testimony that helped Wilson’s defense.

Still, the “good ol’ boy” network in St. Louis protected McCulloch with a wink and a nod. An effort to challenge his ethical fitness was denied. A few months later, a local judge scornfully dispatched a lawsuit arguing that McCulloch failed in his duty to faithfully enforce the law.

Four years after riots in Ferguson, Mo., this part of the city is still reeling
This is what’s happened to the part of Ferguson, Mo., rocked by protests, vandalism and flames four years ago. Along West Florissant Avenue, the scars remain. (Video: Lee Powell/Photo: Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post/The Washington Post)

Young people across the country caught a glimpse behind the veil, witnessing in real time how process dictates product in law enforcement. They saw prosecutors indicting black and brown people every day in an orgy of mass incarceration, while too often reserving their power of discretion to help law enforcement evade accountability.


McCulloch’s cynical performance was one of the sparks that would alter the course of protest history. Notwithstanding the gut punch that was the murder of Trayvon Martin, the Black Lives Matter movement barely existed until Brown was killed. Significantly, it was the non-indictment — the complete failure of the law to provide redress — that, three months after the shooting, catapulted the “moment” into a “movement.” Without McCulloch’s cartoonish defiance, there likely would not have been a Black Lives Matter movement as we know it.

Bell’s platform, which articulates a desire to end mass incarceration and reform cash-bail practices, promises a level of systemic change for the people of St. Louis County that goes beyond the appointment of a special prosecutor in cases involving police violence. If Bell can implement the reforms he has promised, that will be perhaps the broadest impact created by this election.

But Brown’s killing remains a gaping wound in the nation’s psyche.


Even in defeat, McCulloch continued to defend his handling of the case, arguing that the federal investigation into the Brown incident, which found no violation of federal statutes, vindicates him. The problem with this reasoning is that the federal investigation only determined that there were no grounds for federal charges. Even former attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr. has argued that the federal civil rights standard of proof is “too high,” making it ineffective as a backstop for local prosecutors’ failures. The fact that the evidence gathered did not satisfy a heightened federal standard for a federal civil rights case doesn’t clear Wilson of all wrongdoing, especially after new troubling facts emerged with the release of the film “Stranger Fruit.” And Wilson was never charged with a crime, so reopening the investigation would not raise any issue of double jeopardy. It’s the right thing to do.

While it is true that charging and possibly even convicting Wilson would not end mass incarceration or create the broad structural change we need, it would have significance. The same desire that motivates the proposed Emmett Till Act, which encourages the Justice Department to investigate unsolved cases of racial violence during the civil rights movement, also motivates this call to finally have an honest consideration of Brown’s killing in a courtroom.

We need community healing, and we need to believe that this nation is still capable of pursuing justice.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.35888a71cd7c

But Brown’s killing remains a gaping wound in the nation’s psyche.

[/COLOR] Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

... a slight modification to your statement and I would agree ...



..Brown’s killing remains a gaping wound in the nation’s psychOS!

Anybody who wishes to challenge "the system" of policing in the U.S. (or any other country for that matter) should reach through the open window of a police unit and start trying to grab the duty weapon of the officer inside the unit.

In fact: If they are that stupid then I beg them to do it.

As George Carlin would have said: "Let them eat marbles."

Darwinian Human Selection.

Unfortunately Brown was coddled and tolerated in the community to the point that he had the defective notion that he could run amuck and abuse whomever he wished with impunity. We don't need people like that roaming the streets in any town.

Ridding our communities with that kind of infestation/infection will begin the "healing"!

=Munchmasterman;1061057832]So ll, what is your experience with the practice of law?

So as to avoid getting assessed unnecessary points, let me say:

With all due respect, more than yours.

... a slight modification to your statement and I would agree ...



..Brown’s killing remains a gaping wound in the nation’s psychOS!

Anybody who wishes to challenge "the system" of policing in the U.S. (or any other country for that matter) should reach through the open window of a police unit and start trying to grab the duty weapon of the officer inside the unit.

In fact: If they are that stupid then I beg them to do it.

As George Carlin would have said: "Let them eat marbles."

Darwinian Human Selection.

Unfortunately Brown was coddled and tolerated in the community to the point that he had the defective notion that he could run amuck and abuse whomever he wished with impunity. We don't need people like that roaming the streets in any town.

Ridding our communities with that kind of infestation/infection will begin the "healing"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Brown committed robbery and deserved to be punished. Had he been willing to comply with the laws of society, he would still be here.

His supporters need to move to other countries and see how they are treated.

Brown and other similar incidents, while tragic, don't have anything to do with Red Flag Laws.

Brown and other similar incidents, while tragic, don't have anything to do with Red Flag Laws. Originally Posted by grean

That's correct ... but they are relevant to ...


... citizens attacking/assaulting the police and ...

... ignorant Liberals voicing sympathy for them!

That's correct ... but they are relevant to ...


... citizens attacking/assaulting the police and ...

... ignorant Liberals voicing sympathy for them! Originally Posted by LexusLover

So make a new thread about them, then. Neither of those concern red flag laws.