Quantcast

ERPOs in action, WA - no details, no charges ...

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Old Dog, Nov 11, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,051
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    https://www.king5.com/article/news/...unty/281-400146c7-5c81-4c8d-80d6-78f877977340

    “We actually, I firmly believe, prevented a massacre,” said Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, whose office was involved in the investigation.

    Interesting the group is centered in another community and another county altogether, yet the Seattle City Attorney's office "was involved in the investigation."

    " ... the FBI convinced a judge that “Kaleb Cole poses a serious threat to public safety by having access and possession to firearms and a concealed pistol license.

    Yet, no charges, no crimes, no details at all really. Just a toxic affiliation to an ugly hate group and presumably legal possession of a few firearms.

    This is the kicker: King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg said the order to surrender guns is the right tool when law enforcement does not have enough evidence to file a criminal charge.

    This would seem to be a new way of using ERPOs. It would appear to be confirmation that the concept of due process is out the window. Where does it go from here?
     
    Merle1, jjadurbin, clutch and 6 others like this.
  2. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,132
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    i don't have any problem with the seizure of firearms from this lobotomized idiot. Atomwaffen members have murdered at least five folks in the USA.
     
  3. jak67429

    jak67429 Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Messages:
    332
    If he really did want to plan an attack all they did was make him more angry and determined. He will just get his guns from the black market and hide them better.
     
  4. MechAg94

    MechAg94 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    4,783
    They still had no evidence this guy was doing anything and still don't. They just don't like him.

    I am sure these people could come up with a reason to take my guns or your guns if they decided they wanted to.
     
    Tom-R2, jjadurbin, HPCadm17 and 11 others like this.
  5. MechAg94

    MechAg94 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    4,783
    That just means the law didn't go far enough. They need to seize all his bank accounts and money. That way he can't buy any more guns. ;)
     
    BSA1 likes this.
  6. theotherwaldo

    theotherwaldo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,431
    Location:
    In the Wild Horse Desert of Texas
    -Then his cars, so he can't go get more guns. Then block him from the internet so he can't buy guns online. Then take his house, so he can't hide guns there.

    Then we'll all be safe... from him.

    Who's next to be de-personned?
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2019
  7. Iggy

    Iggy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,388
    Location:
    Wyoming
    How many of you have bitter ex-wives?:what::(
     
    taliv, Merle1, FL-NC and 11 others like this.
  8. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,794
    Location:
    Garrettsville, Oh.
    I have no sympathy for him and agree that disarming him is likely the most prudent option. But this was not the way to do it. If you support sidestepping someone's rights, remember that the same tactic will be used against you eventually. Gather evidence, get a warrant, normal procedures. Otherwise, we are inviting abuse.
     
  9. TomJ
    • Contributing Member

    TomJ Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,922
    Location:
    Illinois
    The question to me, and I don't know the answer to this based on the news story, is what credible evidence did they have that he poses a threat. As much as I despise Nazis (I lost quite a few members of my family to them during WW2 in Poland) being an idiot, and he is an idiot, is still allowed. If they had credible evidence then I'm all for taking his guns. If not they had no right to do so.
     
  10. theotherwaldo

    theotherwaldo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,431
    Location:
    In the Wild Horse Desert of Texas
    -You don't stop fascists by being a bigger fascist.
     
  11. edwardware

    edwardware Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,791
    At first they came for the neo-nazis. . .

    "Gun owners have murdered at least five (thousand) folks in the USA."

    Best reply yet. Due process of law is about all that separates us from the savages.
     
    taliv, <*(((><, HPCadm17 and 11 others like this.
  12. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,132
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    The FBI asked local authorities to obtain an ERPO, that's good enough for me. Go ahead and shill for the "rights" of a Hitler loving Nazi who advocates the murder of Jews
     
  13. Rule3

    Rule3 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,954
    Location:
    Florida
    He could probably file that it was a "hate crime" against him
    No I don't like Nazis I hate Neos Nazis but as it said he committed no crime.

    Seems this Country you are allowed your beliefs (even if warped)and unless it offends someone.

    Some guy was charged with a Hate Crime for tearing down and burning a Gay Pride Flag, (Ok it's not right to destroy someones property) But what happens to someone if they burn the American Flag (in protest not because it is old) Nothing! Why is that not a hate crime??

    https://www.newstarget.com/2019-06-20-man-charged-with-hate-crime-for-burning-pride-flag.html
     
    Bfh_auto likes this.
  14. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,051
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    We all have rights, or none of us have rights.

    If you want to pick and choose which portions of the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution and its amendments apply, and pick and choose to whom they apply -- you don't get it.
     
    swoter, mdauben, taliv and 15 others like this.
  15. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    6,177
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    ERPOs sound great when they're used on some neo-Nazi nut who belongs to "atomwaffen" (German for "nuclear weapon") a neo Nazi organization that apparently has already murdered.
    While I have no sympathy for this dingbat, I must wonder how long it will be before these redflag laws, and others like it, will be used on us, or others who are simply rightwingers, or conservatives, alt-right, or libertarians.
    Remember the Reverend Martin Neimeuller, and that old famous poem associated with his experience with a previous totalitarian government.



    And consider that as gun owners, we here are pretty unpopular with certain segments of society ....
     
  16. TomJ
    • Contributing Member

    TomJ Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,922
    Location:
    Illinois
    I believe it was the San Fransico city counsel that branded the NRA as a terrorist organization. I am not, by any means equating the NRA with Nazi's. My parents didn't talk much about what happened to them in Poland during WW2, but over the years we learned enough and it was horrific. My point is that if this idiot did not threaten someone and his guns were taken away because of his beliefs, however sick they are, there's nothing stopping a left leaning administration from following in the footsteps of the San Fransisco city counsel and taking guns from NRA members. Again, if he did threaten someone or they had other credible evidence that he was a threat they did the right thing taking them.
     
  17. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,132
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    In the last couple years several mass murderers, including the El Paso shooter, have announced their attentions on social media. Some are telling me the confiscation of would be mass murders firearms is unconstitutional and that law enforcement must wait until the person kills someone. :p
     
  18. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,051
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    I'm guessing you'd think a "Department of PreCrime" is also a good idea. Let's just throw out the Bill of Rights and the entire Constitution while we're at it.
     
  19. Tinman357

    Tinman357 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    314
    Location:
    Puget Sound
    There Is no evidence that he committed a crime. Posting intentions to commit mass murders (terrorist act) is in and of itself, a crime.

    Due process is one of our sacred rights as an American citizen.

    Any L/E agency want to disarm anyone, charge them with a crime in which evidence of that crime exists. Put it in front of a judge/jury.

    Follow the law. You don't prevent crimes by committing a crime while wearing a badge.

    I'm all in support of L/E. But don't rape my constitution.
     
    luzyfuerza, 1911 guy, mdauben and 8 others like this.
  20. denton

    denton Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    1,605
    Personal freedom and firearm ownership are two fundamental protected rights. If there is not enough basis for locking someone up, there is not enough evidence for seizing their firearms.
     
  21. sequins

    sequins Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    702
    Or until they make actionable statements. Mere 1st amendment expression is not a sufficient bar to restrict rights. Your unwillingness to imagine yourself up against the wall is exactly the kind of thinking that enables abuses. You won't feel the noose until they are gone but you will feel it all the same.

    2nd is under serious attack. We all need to recognize that and advocate for our rights.

    ED: And in case it's unclear, nazi speech is one of the most disgusting and vile forms of speech imaginable, and I'd like to think that most of these people are just edgy jerks and not true believers... in any case, mere belief is not in and of itself a crime.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2019
    theotherwaldo likes this.
  22. JR24

    JR24 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    2,653
    Location:
    The center of the mitt
    Thought crimes. Lovely.

    And they said red flag laws wouldn't be abused ...

    It is not a great leap to go from despicable hate group (who still committed no crime or made any credible threat, as far as has been reported) to whatever bad think group the mob hates today.

    It is amusing, in a sick way, that the same groups who quake in terror about the President's alleged or future abuses of power continually cede totalitarian power to the government.
     
    Old Dog, jjadurbin, Darkhorse and 5 others like this.
  23. Speedo66

    Speedo66 Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,478
    Location:
    Flatlandistan
    The Secret Service has been arresting people for espousing far less against a president forever.

    As we know, there are limitations to free speech when it can cause harm, the yelling fire in a movie theater comes to mind.

    If he made credible threats to kill people, or encouraged others to kill people, I have no problem with what has happened to him. Threatening harm and then trying to hide behind the constitution, good luck.
     
    theotherwaldo and alsaqr like this.
  24. JR24

    JR24 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2011
    Messages:
    2,653
    Location:
    The center of the mitt
    I agree, and those laws are already on the books.

    But nothing in the story indicates he made any threats to anyone, just that he belonged to this reprehensible group. And shot some guns in a building.
     
    Demi-human and theotherwaldo like this.
  25. edwardware

    edwardware Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,791
    Yes, but that's not what happened here. Arrest, for reasonable suspicion, and potential charging with a crime, IS due process.

    Abrogation of rights WITHOUT any apparent plans to either charge or desist the abrogation is NOT due process.

    . . . then they would have (definitely should have) arrested and charged him. Based on the actions to date, it would seem that the state does not believe he committed a crime. This is the essence of arbitrary disenfranchisement.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2019
    Demi-human, theotherwaldo and JR24 like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice