Law-abiding gun Owner Killed During Red Flag Confiscation Raid

Stop...get back on topic.

Maybe he could have obeyed the law. The police were following the process
He should have followed the process to get them back without[ violence. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

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.

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.

Is that what the warrant said?

At the risk of having a mob (or MOD!) dispatched to my residence I will address the extreme you have suggested above .....

... and I will ask you back a similar more germane question:

SO he should have just SHOT THE OFFICERS trying to serve the lawful court order to confiscate the firearms from him? Originally Posted by LexusLover

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".

He should have followed the process to get them back without[ violence. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

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..

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".

Originally Posted by garhkal

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.

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

exactly right.

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.

2nd amendment "rights" don't help dead people, and 2nd amendment rights DO NOT AUTHORIZE the use of deadly force against police officers. Just like 1st amendment rights DO NOT AUTHORIZE people to enter other people's property shouting obscenities, banging on doors, vandalizing property, and/or breaking doors .... or any other property.

Regardless of what Maxine Waters (or HillariousNoMore) says!

But it takes more than a kindergarten mentality to figure that out: Maxine and HillariousNoMore haven't even been promoted to kindergarten. Just hide and watch the next two years!

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. Originally Posted by LexusLover

SO you are saying a court order can be gotten against me, to search and seize stuff, ALL without me even KNOWING about it, let alone being able to defend myself against it.
Guess due process rights, just got flushed down the crapper then.

5 WORDS!!!

SO you are saying a court order can be gotten against me, to search and seize stuff, ALL without me even KNOWING about it, let alone being able to defend myself against it.
Guess due process rights, just got flushed down the crapper then. Originally Posted by garhkal

Yes, and No.

I've never heard of anyone being given "Pre-notice" of the execution of a search warrant, and there is no legal basis for it. There are two legitimate reasons: (1) "officer safety," which the SCOTUS has recognized for decades and (2) to prevent destroying and/or secreting of the items sought to be obtained by the warrant.

Your "due process" at that point is LE/Prosecutors applying to a Judge who reviews the probably cause to determine if there is sufficient to justify the intrusion.

Since you are a "strict constructionist" you can refer to the 4th amendment and see if it says a "condition" PRIOR TO THE SEARCH is for you to have an attorney present: It doesn't say that.

You are not even entitled to be present during the search: with or without an attorney. You are "entitled" to a copy of the warrant and the inventory of property seized, which will be part of the "return" to the Judge who issued the court order (aka search warrant).

5 WORDS!!!

Originally Posted by iffy

I suspect the yo-yo about whom this thread was posted didn't even have cold hands when they took his firearm. At least when he died he thought he was exercising his "constitutional right" to "bear arms" and so he must have been happy and content in those last fleeting seconds of his uninformed or ill-informed life.

Like George Carlin would have said: Let him eat marbles.

I've never heard of anyone being given "Pre-notice" of the execution of a search warrant, and there is no legal basis for it. There are two legitimate reasons: (1) "officer safety," which the SCOTUS has recognized for decades and (2) to prevent destroying and/or secreting of the items sought to be obtained by the warrant. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I am not talking about a search warrant, i am talking about a "red-order/protection order..

Your "due process" at that point is LE/Prosecutors applying to a Judge who reviews the probably cause to determine if there is sufficient to justify the intrusion. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Which makes no sense to me. How is MY 'due process' being respected, if others talk about me without my knowledge, and decide on Z?

You are not even entitled to be present during the search: with or without an attorney. You are "entitled" to a copy of the warrant and the inventory of property seized, which will be part of the "return" to the Judge who issued the court order (aka search warrant). Originally Posted by LexusLover

Which to me is even more farked up. I can in effect, have my stuff seized/searched, without being told soemone's doing so, OR being witness to it. And it sounds like i have no choice in the bloody matter..

The whole point is.......the time to litigate a legal matter IS Not when the police are in the process of serving a Warrant or are in the process of making an arrest.

SO he should have just let them confiscate all his guns?? ANd then what? Originally Posted by garhkal

If they come, YES, the best thing to do is to let them. No one is winning that battle. Otherwise you'll be dead, and they'll have your guns anyway.

SO you are saying a court order can be gotten against me, to search and seize stuff, ALL without me even KNOWING about it, let alone being able to defend myself against it.
Guess due process rights, just got flushed down the crapper then. Originally Posted by garhkal

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.

I suspect the yo-yo about whom this thread was posted didn't even have cold hands when they took his firearm. At least when he died he thought he was exercising his "constitutional right" to "bear arms" and so he must have been happy and content in those last fleeting seconds of his uninformed or ill-informed life.

Like George Carlin would have said: Let him eat marbles. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I would suspect the man was considering his rights as guaranteed by the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments more so than the 2nd.