Father of teen suspect in Georgia school shooting charged with 2nd-degree murder

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
A Red Flag law wouldn't have helped, in Crooks case, even if Pennsylvania had one in place. And JD Vance extended his "invitation" to would be psycho school shooters much later.

I presume it wouldn't have applied because, unlike Gray, Crooks didn't advertise his intentions and therefore no flags were raised red or otherwise. Am I understanding the Red Flag Law principle correctly?

Right. Someone has to alert the proper authorities, to trigger the red flag law, that someone appears to maybe be a threat to themselves or someone else. Then their 2nd Amendment right can be temporarily suspended until the case is judicated in court.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Which would be violating Constitutional rights.

....but you already know that.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: KrustyKrab

It’s amazing how you lefty’s twist # around to fit in your lil box of hate.

Just think what same disgruntled psychos will do with JD's invitation!

Look Crabby, no matter how triggered you are by other people's opinions, you're not changing any minds with your full threated approval of JD's words.

Still on that proven out of context BS are you? Why?

Your general attitudes are actually part of the problem, not part of any solutions!! 😀

Do you realize some of your comments and wildly off base (and dangerous) assumptions could actually be part of a future authoritarian targeting system? You need to be concerned.

a reply to: xuenchen

"Mockingbird."

However likely unpaid.

How unfortunate.

a reply to: bluemooone44

Did I read that correctly?

All he texted was: “I’m sorry, mom.”, and that made her call in a severe warning to the school?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
A Red Flag law wouldn't have helped, in Crooks case, even if Pennsylvania had one in place. And JD Vance extended his "invitation" to would be psycho school shooters much later.

I presume it wouldn't have applied because, unlike Gray, Crooks didn't advertise his intentions and therefore no flags were raised red or otherwise. Am I understanding the Red Flag Law principle correctly?

Right. Someone has to alert the proper authorities, to trigger the red flag law, that someone appears to maybe be a threat to themselves or someone else. Then their 2nd Amendment right can be temporarily suspended until the case is judicated in court.

So any phony accusation "alert" could trigger an arrest and court proceeding??

How would probable cause (and warrant justifications) be determined any better than what the system can already do??

How would a temporary "2nd Amendment right" suspension be enforced without violating rights of 2nd and 3rd innocent parties??

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: KrustyKrab

It’s amazing how you lefty’s twist # around to fit in your lil box of hate.

Just think what same disgruntled psychos will do with JD's invitation!

According to liberal logic if you keep repeating it the hive mind will actually start to believe it’s true. Make sure you let us know when someone takes him up on his “invitation”🤣

Which would be violating Constitutional rights.

....but you already know that.

Do you think that Colt Gray had a constitutional right to possess an AR style weapon? If so, do you also support his father being charged with murder?

Do you think known psychos and violent criminals should have access to firearms too? Should inmates have access to firearms too?

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
A Red Flag law wouldn't have helped, in Crooks case, even if Pennsylvania had one in place. And JD Vance extended his "invitation" to would be psycho school shooters much later.

I presume it wouldn't have applied because, unlike Gray, Crooks didn't advertise his intentions and therefore no flags were raised red or otherwise. Am I understanding the Red Flag Law principle correctly?

Right. Someone has to alert the proper authorities, to trigger the red flag law, that someone appears to maybe be a threat to themselves or someone else. Then their 2nd Amendment right can be temporarily suspended until the case is judicated in court.

So any phony accusation "alert" could trigger an arrest and court proceeding??

How would probable cause (and warrant justifications) be determined any better than what the system can already do??

How would a temporary "2nd Amendment right" suspension be enforced without violating rights of 2nd and 3rd innocent parties??

It's pretty much the same process as a restraining order.

Red flag law

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Your feeble attempts to try and gin up an appeal to emotion fails with the admitted assertion of removing rights before a trial.

Sorry that pragmatic thinking continues to escape you.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Right. Someone has to alert the proper authorities, to trigger the red flag law, that someone appears to maybe be a threat to themselves or someone else. Then their 2nd Amendment right can be temporarily suspended until the case is judicated in court.

Thank you for clarifying that for me, very much appreciated.

a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis

Then honest question time, what do they do?

Also

empower LE to be able to address domestic terrorists in a pre-emptive way without limiting the right to free speech?

Pretty sure threats of violence have already been covered in a court of law and free speech doesnt cover it, also if the mother is being honest and she did call the school before the shooting occurred and the school was slow to take her seriously part of the problem is with the school as well.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Then honest question time, what do they do?

That's what I was basically asking you - you said the FBI had him on their radar but did nothing - I was responding to that really wondering if it was due to a lack of power to enforce.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Pretty sure threats of violence have already been covered in a court of law and free speech doesnt cover it, also if the mother is being honest and she did call the school before the shooting occurred and the school was slow to take her seriously part of the problem is with the school as well.

As I have understood it, the school got two students with similar names mixed up but that Gray wasn't where he should be anyway and that the shooting occured "moments" after they had ascertained that. I don't think the mother said he is a risk to others, which is perhaps is what needed to be said to lock the school down, I don't know that though, just guessing.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

🤣🤣🤣Dodging the questions and going off on wild tangents and deflections again. As stated, your thinking is part of the problem. You have no clue what any solutions to this are or would even be.

If a restraining order works, why didn't the FBI get one for this kid if they thought he was a threat??

originally posted by: xuenchen
If a restraining order works, why didn't the FBI get one for this kid if they thought he was a threat??

In Sookie's defense, though they don't need me to make one, they did say it was pretty much the same process not the same process. So I guess that'd be why.

Gray was picked up previously and questioned, but his father vouched for him hence I presume why they have charged him.

A regular restraining order would not have been an option in that case, I presume, without the legal guardians consent?

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis

originally posted by: xuenchen
If a restraining order works, why didn't the FBI get one for this kid if they thought he was a threat??

In Sookie's defense, though they don't need me to make one, they did say it was pretty much the same process not the same process. So I guess that'd be why.

Gray was picked up previously and questioned, but his father vouched for him hence I presume why they have charged him.

A regular restraining order would not have been an option in that case, I presume, without the legal guardians consent?

Ahh yes, then it's NOT like a restraining order. Maybe because a restraining order usually requires an act of violence?

originally posted by: xuenchen
Ahh yes, then it's NOT like a restraining order. Maybe because a restraining order usually requires an act of violence?

They compared the process they didn't say it was "like" a restraining order. I took that to mean that it was applied for in the same way (process) and required a judge to review and grant it. The key difference to that process would be that it would be LE making the application not members of the public, I think? And the grounds on which the judge is able to consider the application I suppose? In those states that have adopted the Red Flag Law that is.

a reply to: xuenchen

If a restraining order works, why didn't the FBI get one for this kid if they thought he was a threat??

I never said a restraining would have worked in this case, that it would have prevented Colt Gray from possessing a gun. I said, a red flag law would have done that.

I did say, in response to your question about someone maliciously making accusations, that red flags laws work pretty much the same way restraining orders work. In fact, in many states, a restraining automatically comes with a weapons removal order.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
In fact, in many states, a restraining automatically comes with a weapons removal order.

Seems sensible.

Would the Red Flag have enabled LE to over-ride the word of the father though?

Could it be used to remove the father's weapons while they investigated?

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
In fact, in many states, a restraining automatically comes with a weapons removal order.

Seems sensible.

Would the Red Flag have enabled LE to over-ride the word of the father though?

Could it be used to remove the father's weapons while they investigated?

The FBI was there in May and the father gave Colt the gun as a Christmas present in December. So, the law would have prevented his dad from giving him the gift, especially since he was the kid's guardian. I don't think it would have necessarily removed guns from the house, I guess it depends on how the law is written. In the least, I think it would instruct the dad to keep guns out of his kid's reach, for sure.

a reply to: xuenchen

If you’re about to do something that you KNOW your mom would disapprove of, then you should probably not do it…