Cops confiscate firearms anticipating guy might go postal.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Marius it looks like you are just trying to pit yourself against all of us for no good reason (on your 12th post :rolleyes:). If you are sincere (which I doubt), and you are some sort of government agent, you are making your fellow government agents look very very bad by supporting a communist China style kidnapping of a citizen.

Hey now, nothing wrong with being new. We were all new here once.

The police have admitted they have him, and I've seen nothing to suggest that he'll be denied due process. Do you care to submit evidence to that effect?
 
I would say he was denied "due process" by being arrested for the POSSIBILITY of doing something illegal. I would say he was denied "due process" by having legally owned property seized, which was not used in any illegal activity.

It is possible that I could speed tomorrow. Do they have a right to confiscate my car now?
 
I have called the police a few times in my life with some concerns. They ALWAYS tell me, "sir, we can't do anything unless there has been a law broken."

Anyone ever get a spanking for what they were thinking? :D
 
#1 is not possible because it has already been admitted that the firearms were purchased legally.

#2 is highly unlikely because making explicit threats doesn't get you sent for a mere mental evaluation.

I would probably like to contribute to a fund for #3 once we figure out who this guy is.
I suspect you are (rightly) concerned about your own rights more than you are with the facts of this particular case/incident.

I stated my opinion, and in doing so did not attack anyone else's. Yet, it seems to be acceptable on this forum for people like yourself to launch personal attacks.

Incidents of acts of terror with firearms in the US (whether in schools or otherwise) are regularly reported in our media in SA. The next time something like that happens, you can go and explain your version of proper preventative measures to the families of the victims.
 
Last edited:
MariusDP51,
Look man. Unless he made threats (which we are not privy to as it was not stated in the article), or, he has no history of violence or mental "defect" (which the article also did not state). Then what they did is illegal, plain and simple. You can claim all you want that this was done to prevent some crime. That is not what this country is about; arresting people because they MIGHT do something. Now I say this based on the letter of the article. If there is additional information that was not in the article that justifies their actions, well, then this would be a different case wouldn't it?
Based on your statement. You could be a forum contributor here when you are at work, most likely the IT department knows where you frequent online. Now you quit your job. They see where you go online and make a comment to law enforcement because they know you are a shooter and that "freaks them out". A couple hours later some guys show up to take all your stuff because they got a call. You think that is fair? You think that can't happen the way things are written?
That said, if you are indeed an LEO and you truly believe it's cool to deny someone their rights because they MIGHT do something, then you have absolutely no place being one. And it makes me sleep a little less soundly.
 
Do not criticize the comrade police, they were acting in the best interests of the state. People are notorious for over reaching the use of the privileges granted to them by a benevolent government and often must be refrained for their own good.

After re-education this person may rejoin the glorious society and will be kept under constant supervision to prevent his falling back into habits detrimental to the state. The comrade police should be praised for their brave and compassionate act.
 
Marius it looks like you are just trying to pit yourself against all of us for no good reason (on your 12th post ). If you are sincere (which I doubt), and you are some sort of government agent, you are making your fellow government agents look very very bad by supporting a communist China style kidnapping of a citizen.

ironically from the guy here 2 weeks who has the gall to speak for ALL OF US.
 
Leave the man be, he made a comment, got it rebutted and there it should lie, moving past that gets us into Troll land, adds no value others than to ratchet up the noise to signal level.
 
Rattle, I understand the concerns voiced here about the apparent infringment of rights. I don't disagree with the principle.

But surely it is easy enough to understand that all the facts are not reported in this article, and therefore taking such an extremely critical standpoint might not be the best approach.

Please, don't lose any sleep over my comments.
 
Officer's Wife, sounds like you've read "1984!" Nice one.

Based on the poorly written news article alone I do not see how this could be legal. However, I have a hard time believing that's all there is to it.
 
I agree. All that can be construed is that it's "Apparent". I'm merely stating that, commenting on the article "As it's written", those would be my opinions. Now, if it comes out that he was exhibiting threatening behavior and had darn good proof, then maybe they did the right thing. So long as the law was followed in doing what they did. I have to remember to be a bit less POINTY when my caffeine levels are low.
 
Could have been a good prevention or an over zealous prevention. Who knows ? Could happen to anyone for what ever reason though...
 
Example of a State statute covering this "type" of situation.

The law allows police, the state's attorney, and the assistant state's attorney, under limited circumstances and following specified procedures, to get warrants and seize guns from anyone posing an imminent risk of harming himself or someone else. They must file

a sworn complaint with a Superior Court judge alleging probable cause to believe that the person poses an imminent risk of harming himself or others and has a gun or guns. They may file the complaint only after conducting an independent investigation and determining that probable cause exists and that no reasonable alternative exists to avert the risk of harm.

In determining whether grounds or probable cause for a search warrant exists, the judge must consider if the person recently threatened himself or anyone else with violence or was recently cruel to any animal. In evaluating whether these threats or acts constitute probable cause to believe risk of injury is imminent, he may consider, among other things, if the person (1) recklessly used, displayed, or brandished a gun; (2) has a history of using, attempting, or threatening to use physical force against people; (3) was ever confined involuntarily to a psychiatric hospital; and (4) abused alcohol or illegally used controlled substances. If satisfied that grounds or probable cause exists, the judge must issue the warrant (1) stating the grounds or probable cause; (2) describing the person, place, or thing to be searched; and (3) directing an officer to conduct the search in a reasonable time.

The court in the geographical area where the person named in the warrant lives must hold a hearing within 14 days after its execution to determine if the state should continue to hold the guns or return them. The state must prove all material facts by clear and convincing evidence. If the court finds that the person poses an imminent risk to himself or others, it (1) may order the state to continue to hold the guns for up to one year and (2) must notify the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, which may take appropriate action allowed by laws establishing its jurisdiction over people with mental illnesses. Otherwise, the court must order the guns returned.

Anyone whose guns have been seized, or his legal representative, may transfer them, as allowed by law, to any person eligible to possess them.
 
SPOILSPORT!
Why you gotta interject facts into a perfectly good thread? how are my kids gonna go to college if my alcoa stock doesn't do well?
 
No one noticed that it took SWAT 3 hours to get there? HAHA. Good thing he wasn't a threat.


real organized setup they have there.
 
IMO the law enforcement agency acted correctly and with enough reason to do so. This type of pro-active measures prevent tragedies and saves lives. They acted in this man's best interest as well.

My 2c.
Try a different bait.
 
Amazing how people are willing to post that the guy was denied his rights etc etc without knowing the whole story.
I tend to think police have better things to do than detain honest citizens and take their possessions. I don't know what the guy did to warrant that kind of response. No one else here does either.
But, just like the Cav arms raid, I'm betting there's a lot more here than we're being told.
 
I have a interesting story that relates to this, sort of.
Abridged version: I worked at Home Depot a few years ago. People were dying(4-5)from the paint department all within a year or two. Rest of us paint employees got scared. The began testing air samples and whatnot, very official people coming in and asking questions. I wanted out of the paint and they moved me to lumber. There was talk of a law suit and they were denying the "live" paint employees any testing to see if we were being poisoned also. Fast forward couple months later. All leftover paint employees almost gone for one reason or another, how convenient. Well after that move to another department I had been late for work by a couple minutes(4-5?) a few times. After being there for 5 years and always getting good reviews and honestly being one of the best employees in the store I am "let go" because I was late a couple times. So on my way out I took off my pants and handed them to my department manager. I had been griping about having to wear pants due to a new policy of no shorts(Florida weather is not kind to pants) that took effect after I moved to the lumber dept. I walked out of there in my boxer shorts. While cleaning out my locker I was joking with a few women, who I was friends with/or so I thought, who were eating lunch. I mentioned something about going postal and coming back to get revenge. I joked a lot with co-workers and there I was laughing, they were laughing, no problem right. I was happy to be leaving as I had another full time job and thought this just made my life easier. Well a couple hours later 4 cop cars show up at my house asking questions about my plans of coming back to the store and going bonkers. I was laughing telling the cops as I was joking but, I guess having them sent to the house helped Home Depot's case against all the dying people by making me look like a looney? Maybe this guy just is going through this sort of situation.
 
MariusDP51:

You are one of the slickest trolls I have witnessed at THR. Understand that the words express only one half of intent. There are predicating assumptions to all words, and your predicating assumptions seem to express all hail big brother, He who knows best. :rolleyes: So, while your words are slick, your predicating assumptions are as-old-as trolldom itself. Tell me, where were the police and SWAT when Cain killed Able?! :scrutiny:

Geno
 
MauriusDP51 said:
Incidents of acts of terror with firearms in the US (whether in schools or otherwise) are regularly reported in our media in SA

The "Sun" regularly reports that aliens have landed in Prime Minister Brown's back yard, but that doesn't mean it's true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top