Officers fatally shoot armed man while serving protective order to remove guns

Just so we're clear: I am completely okay with removing someone's right to own a gun once due process has been satisfied

Examples:

The offender has been duly convicted of a crime of domestic violence where physical injury occurred, a trial by a jury of their peers took place, and all appeals have been exhausted.

The offender has been deemed mentally ill or incapacitated by a legitimate medical authority and the courts have certified the findings, and any appeals have been exhausted.

The offender is a convicted violent felon by a jury of their peers and has exhausted all appeals.

This law doesn't even come close to meeting the burden of due process.

a reply to: highvein

What was the scenario that lead to the Family member calling?

No one knows except the police and the judge who ordered it. According to the law, those records are sealed and can only be unsealed by court order.

Another "red flag" in the red flag.

TheRedneck

a reply to: cynicalheathen

Just so I am clear... I disagree. This is clear and convincing evidence that removing weapons by force is not able to be conducted by the law in a responsible manner. All confiscation laws need to be wiped from the books.

All of them.

I'll take my chances with armed assailants rather than a gang wearing colors and backed by a corrupt government any day.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck


Hmmm. I could see how that could be used in the political arena.


Are there any reasons you could think of for this being okay to do?

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: cynicalheathen

Let's not pretend like this hasn't been in the making for years. People need to realize that our rights are inalienable. No judge, senator, president, king, or emperor can take that away. Ever. Where's the outrage? This is craziness.

a reply to: Woodcarver

This isn't the mudpit, show some decorum.

a reply to: fightzone58

This.

When did you become a mod?

This is going to continue until an alarming number of gun owners are killed. Then the tables are going to turn and you will start seeing the confiscator’s being killed.
Hopefully these people given the task of confiscating will make a stand and refuse to do the bidding of the p-kitty’s sitting in a comfy government seat trying to rewrite the constitution.
That’s my hope and the way I see it going down.

a reply to: highvein

Are there any reasons you could think of for this being okay to do?

Not sure I understand... okay to confiscate guns or okay to kill the man?

To be honest, my blood is boiling right now and I want to make sure I understand the question thoroughly before I answer.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I am not for active confiscation. I am for the laws concerning felons in possession being enforced.

Have penalties for them being in possession upon conviction, but only confiscate weapons they are caught with.

They are not coming for your guns

They are not coming for your guns

They are not coming for your guns

a reply to: cynicalheathen

That I can go along with... but never... NEVER... going to a home to disarm someone not actively committing another serious crime.

This needs to be struck down in no uncertain terms by the Supreme Court and the families should own those officers and the Police Chief... all the way down to their grandchildren! There is no excuse for this in America.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: JinMI

They are not coming for your guns

They are not coming for your guns

They are not coming for your guns

Leftists really believe that if they repeat that mantra enough times, people will believe it.

THAT should be enough to convince ANYONE just how big the lie is.

They've been coming for them, in increments, for decades.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

The “red flag” protective orders are officially known as emergency risk protection orders, and may be sought by family members, police or others to temporarily prohibit people’s access to firearms when they show signs that they are a danger to themselves or others. The law took effect Oct. 1...

 She attributed that visit by police to “family being family” but declined to elaborate

...... .

Leftist 'probing/test' legislation.

Happens in California every fkn year.

They pass some asinine law or policy in CLEAR violation of the Constitution and place the burden of recourse and remedy on the citizenry.

Meanwhile, said fkd up law or policy is still in effect violating and ripping apart people's rights and lives until it is heard and hopefully overturned.

California's Democrat legislators LOVE to use the health and safety clause of the states constitution to push their garbage through...

Every fkn year...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: cynicalheathen

Just so I am clear... I disagree. This is clear and convincing evidence that removing weapons by force is not able to be conducted by the law in a responsible manner. All confiscation laws need to be wiped from the books.

All of them.

I'll take my chances with armed assailants rather than a gang wearing colors and backed by a corrupt government any day.

TheRedneck

That's cold TR. While I've no doubt you're big enough and ugly enough to look after yourself I'm fairly sure these Red Flag confiscation aren't there to protect little old you. People be crazy, for various reasons, some people just like being weird but whatever the reason, some people shouldn't have guns, as witnessed by the frequency of mass shootings that blight your great(ish) nation (being from the UK mine is just as full of itself).

What would you suggest?

At the end of the day law enforcement, especially in the US, and more especially LA (I'm recalling a joke about LA.P.D from the 90's) are famously trigger happy. I propose the problem isn't the law but the manner it was enforced. Perhaps a certain officer shouldn't have been there.

My heart goes out to the poor victim's family.

I genuinely believe confiscation on an individual level is the only solution to your mass shooting epidemic that allows you to keep your guns. Nobody has a problem with your gun ownership (apart from your gov), it's the fact innocent people keep dying en mass at the end of their barrels.

a reply to: djz3ro

It's been discussed to death on these forums, any attempt at confiscation would be futile.

Per capita, where is the evidence of a "mass shooting epidemic" beyond constant media coverage? Actual numbers and stats please.

I speak with police in my area on a regular basis. Most of the shooting "victims" around here are far from innocent. They are usually criminals shot during the commission of some sort of crime.

a reply to: djz3ro

That's cold TR.

Yes, it is. But nowhere near as cold as the poor guy lying dead because he was doing everything right.

The thing is, you reinforce my opinion. As long as we have the problem with trigger-happy cops in the US, these laws can never see the light of day. As for someone weaker than me, what would the difference be if the guy who kills them is wearing blue or is just some idiot out to kill? It doesn't matter. Dead is dead.

Here's the thing: if someone comes knocking on my door at 5:00 in the morning, I will open it holding a gun. If it's a cop, my instinct is to put the gun down; cops are supposed to be the good guys. But no good guy is going to come to my house in the early morning hours and decide to take what's mine. Ain't gonna happen without bloodshed. Sorry. So Maryland just passed a law that says if I live there, I can be legally killed.

Sure, it's not in Alabama yet... but if this stands, it'll happen.

No. Every single law that allows a cop to come to anyone's house for the purpose of gun confiscation needs to be repealed and every politician who voted it in needs to be convicted as a traitor to the Constitution and executed. This is unacceptable.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: EternalShadow
Leftist 'probing/test' legislation.

Happens in California every fkn year.

They pass some asinine law or policy in CLEAR violation of the Constitution and place the burden of recourse and remedy on the citizenry.

Meanwhile, said fkd up law or policy is still in effect violating and ripping apart people's rights and lives until it is heard and hopefully overturned.

California's Democrat legislators LOVE to use the health and safety clause of the states constitution to push their garbage through...

Every fkn year...

Civil forfeiture is another completely unconstitutional sack of sh*t that has been slowly implemented all over the country, that just goes hand in hand with crap like this.

I generally defend cops. 99% of them are just regular people, trying to do a difficult job. Unfortunately there are a few a$$holes on a power trip that have a tendency to d*ck things up for everybody.

It's a situation that has inched itself forward over the last 30 years or so, and when 9/11 happened, the entire country just lost their ever-loving mind. "Patriot Act" my shiny white buttocks! And trust me, I have ADORABLE buttocks.

So here we are, with old guy getting shot, or the crap stomped out of them, because some power-obsessed a$$holes at city hall think it's for the "common good".

There is a reason the Founding Fathers used the term "Inalienable Rights". They can't legally be taken away, but they can damn-sure be given up voluntarily.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: djz3ro

It's been discussed to death on these forums, any attempt at confiscation would be futile.

Per capita, where is the evidence of a "mass shooting epidemic" beyond constant media coverage? Actual numbers and stats please.

Numbers and stats, seriously? Columbine alone was one school shooting too many, open your eyes!!!

DP