Maryland’s ‘Red Flag’ Law Turns Deadly: Officer Kills Man Who Refused To Turn In Gun

#51
#51
Grand Vol said:
From the article, this seems like a valid self defense shoot by the police.

I get it, the law very well may suck. The man very well could have been mentally fine. However, never a good idea to meet the cops at your door holding a pistol. And really not a good idea to rearm yourself when they try to take it.

It does sound like this guy was a danger to someone. He made stupid choices, he paid the stupid price.
Click to expand...


He did not die because of the law, he died because he resisted a lawful order with his own resort to deadly force.
 
#52
#52
0nelilreb said:
I had two place on me during a nasty divorce when she was trying to prove I was “ violent”. One in Tennessee one in Mississippi , neither required me to give up my guns , but expired from lack of evidence . It’s very easy to get one placed on you but at some point they have to prove it’s a valid reason .
Click to expand...
Some women know the system and exploit it. Breakups and divorces can get nasty and people are vindictive. Many will do anything in order to punish the other. Happens 100s of times a day.
 
#53
#53
InVOLuntary said:
Some women know the system and exploit it. Breakups and divorces can get nasty and people are vindictive. Many will do anything in order to punish the other. Happens 100s of times a day.
Click to expand...


The solution is to sue the person who is being vindictive for malicious prosecution, not resist the police just doing their job by grabbing the gun and physically fighting them.
 
#54
#54
lawgator1 said:
The solution is to sue the person who is being vindictive for malicious prosecution, not resist the police just doing their job by grabbing the gun and physically fighting them.
Click to expand...
Extremely hard to prove, typically a he said/she said. The guy was stupid to take on the system the way he did. He was never going to win that day. He paid with his life.

My problem, as I stated before, the bar is set way too low in that Maryland law to infringe on someone's constitutional rights. He should have his day in court prior to a ruling by a judge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#57
#57
n_huffhines said:
I could have been more clear, but the post I responded to gives the context

View attachment 175806
Click to expand...
OK. You lost me. Sorry I am so dense, but it still doesn't make sense, because I responded that it depends on why the cop killed the drug dealer and 'violated' his rights. (And the last time I checked, dealing drugs is not a right) Try a different angle to get your point across.
 
#58
#58
I can see some of the issues and intents on both sides of this argument. I think it's fair to say NOBODY wants a crazy/dangerous person with guns if it can be avoided. The issue is (and will always be I imagine) where does this line of intervention begin, who decides and how far does it go.

This is a very cursory overview but it gets us going down the road a little more informed.

5 things to know: Maryland’s ‘Red Flag’ gun law

First it doesn't appear throwing LEO under the bus is particularly reasonable. This has to be cleared through a judge and the legalities are such that they are taking action under lawful authority. (that's not the same thing as saying one has to agree with everything but there is an actual process in place) If this were a "The neighbor's pissed about the fence line and called in a Red Flag." it would be very different IMO.

This really looks to me to be simply a variation on an OOP with an in extremis weapons provision. The one thing I can state even at this early stage of understanding is that if we're dealing with an enumerated right I'm not so cool with any kind of "Eh, relax, we'll get to it." timetable on remedy. I don't care if you have to push back other cases or set aside specific judiciary, whatever, Red Flag disarmament cases should be heard basically as soon as the defendant feels prepared to appear.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#59
#59
InVOLuntary said:
Extremely hard to prove, typically a he said/she said. The guy was stupid to take on the system the way he did. He was never going to win that day. He paid with his life.

My problem, as I stated before, the bar is set way too low in that Maryland law to infringe on someone's constitutional rights. He should have his day in court prior to a ruling by a judge.
Click to expand...


The problem with that is that in those cases where the person is indeed mentally ill or distressed, it will certainly lead to additional confrontations like this one.


DancingOutlaw said:
Without the law the police don’t come to his house.
Click to expand...

Well that's a silly standard. Without a search warrant they don't come to a house to serve it. Without an arrest warrant they don't come to the house to serve it.

I am certain that a judge had to sign off on this. It wasn't just a form some random person in his life filled out and that's it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunerwadel
#60
#60
SpaceCoastVol said:
OK. You lost me. Sorry I am so dense, but it still doesn't make sense, because I responded that it depends on why the cop killed the drug dealer and 'violated' his rights. (And the last time I checked, dealing drugs is not a right) Try a different angle to get your point across.
Click to expand...

How is it not a right? Do you mean it's not a protected right? Just because the government is smashing your right, doesn't mean it's not a right.
 
#63
#63
n_huffhines said:
How is it not a right? Do you mean it's not a protected right? Just because the government is smashing your right, doesn't mean it's not a right.
Click to expand...
lol

But I'll play along. My original response stands then. It depends on why the cop shoots them. If homey is standing on the corner selling his fentenyl laced heroin (his right) and cop comes up and shoots him in the face, yeah the cop is wrong. It is homey's right to sell deadly substances at his leisure. If however, homey pulls a gun on said cop, the cop has the right to defend himself. Do I have that about right?


Standing by for judgment of my use of the word 'homey'.
 
#64
#64
lawgator1 said:
The problem with that is that in those cases where the person is indeed mentally ill or distressed, it will certainly lead to additional confrontations like this one.




Well that's a silly standard. Without a search warrant they don't come to a house to serve it. Without an arrest warrant they don't come to the house to serve it.

I am certain that a judge had to sign off on this. It wasn't just a form some random person in his life filled out and that's it.
Click to expand...
I disagree. You're looking at the worst case scenario. With a court hearing, maybe the judge doesn't rule that the man posed a threat to justify removing his firearms. Maybe the judge explains to the man that we're going to remove your firearms temporarily and you'll have the opportunity to get them back. The bar should be high imo to take away a constitutional right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#65
#65
InVOLuntary said:
I disagree. You're looking at the worst case scenario. With a court hearing, maybe the judge doesn't rule that the man posed a threat to justify removing his firearms. Maybe the judge explains to the man that we're going to remove your firearms temporarily and you'll have the opportunity to get them back. The bar should be high imo to take away a constitutional right.
Click to expand...


What about the constitutional rights of the 12 people that guy in California killed?

I'd be fine with the courts out there having taken away his guns after the April episode, saving those 12 people.
 
#66
#66
Rasputin_Vol said:
"against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"

A domestic enemy would easily be able to slip through unConstitutional laws. Anyone that does that should be treated as such... a domestic enemy. Unfortunately, cops don't arrest lawmakers. They would rather harass civilians with exercising their 2A rights or someone with a bag of reefer in their glove box.
Click to expand...
what you are asking for is exactly what you are afraid of. Get a right leaning cop and they might not press the 2A thing, but may press voter suppression or whatever else fear mongering topic is in vogue at the moment. Get a left leaning cop and he might take away your gun but let you continue to rape children but pedophilia is a condition.

either way you are asking cops to make a subjective stance with no consistency, even to that individual. no way that ends better than where we are.
 
#67
#67
lawgator1 said:
What about the constitutional rights of the 12 people that guy in California killed?

I'd be fine with the courts out there having taken away his guns after the April episode, saving those 12 people.
Click to expand...

Didn’t they do a mental welfare check on him and said he was good ? It’s really easy to do a hind sight is 2020 now that we know what he did but when they checked him out he hadn’t done it so you can’t just take things from someone because they “ might some time down the road “ do something to someone .
 
#68
#68
0nelilreb said:
Didn’t they do a mental welfare check on him and said he was good ? It’s really easy to do a hind sight is 2020 now that we know what he did but when they checked him out he hadn’t done it so you can’t just take things from someone because they “ might some time down the road “ do something to someone .
Click to expand...


If the police are called and feel that there is a need for a crisis intervention person to come out to talk to him to see if they need to take him into involuntary commitment, my default would be that they should take his guns, temporarily.

I honestly just think its common sense.
 
#69
#69
lawgator1 said:
If the police are called and feel that there is a need for a crisis intervention person to come out to talk to him to see if they need to take him into involuntary commitment, my default would be that they should take his guns, temporarily.

I honestly just think its common sense.
Click to expand...

You can’t do that to people when the people called out clears him . I would think as a “ lawyer “ you would have studied that at some point during your education .
 
#70
#70
lawgator1 said:
The problem with that is that in those cases where the person is indeed mentally ill or distressed, it will certainly lead to additional confrontations like this one.




Well that's a silly standard. Without a search warrant they don't come to a house to serve it. Without an arrest warrant they don't come to the house to serve it.

I am certain that a judge had to sign off on this. It wasn't just a form some random person in his life filled out and that's it.
Click to expand...
You could apply that “silly standard” to a lot of things. A lot of people wouldn’t be dead from officer involved shootings if we didn’t have dumb drug laws that increased the number of officer citizen interactions. They are the law, but that doesn’t mean they are useful laws or even necessary.
 
#71
#71
lawgator1 said:
What about the constitutional rights of the 12 people that guy in California killed?

I'd be fine with the courts out there having taken away his guns after the April episode, saving those 12 people.
Click to expand...
So you take away the rights of people because of a turd in California? Be careful for what you are asking for. Bad things are going to happen to good people. There are bad people all over the place willing to do bad things to good people. You don't deprive someone of their constitutional rights because of this. It's a dangerous road to travel down. Also, all I've said is the bar should be high. Are you saying your rights should be removed on the whim of someone that doesn't like you? Someone that has a vendetta against you. What happened to due process in this country? Should we now presume guilt and force the accused to prove innocence?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and 0nelilreb
#72
#72
lawgator1 said:
If the police are called and feel that there is a need for a crisis intervention person to come out to talk to him to see if they need to take him into involuntary commitment, my default would be that they should take his guns, temporarily.

I honestly just think its common sense.
Click to expand...
they called in an expert and the expert cleared him. What standard are you setting? From what I am reading you are saying even after being cleared by an expert you still have your rights removed? so what is the point of a trial or anything else if you are ignoring the expert? this continues down the line of being a gun grab, damn what the expert on hand said.

would you be fine with them taking away his right to vote? Driver's license and anything else government mandated and protected? This is why we stand at the 2A and say no more, because you are clearly ready to throw away his right to trial already. whats next for you?
 
#73
#73
0nelilreb said:
You can’t do that to people when the people called out clears him . I would think as a “ lawyer “ you would have studied that at some point during your education .
Click to expand...
LouderVol said:
they called in an expert and the expert cleared him. What standard are you setting? From what I am reading you are saying even after being cleared by an expert you still have your rights removed? so what is the point of a trial or anything else if you are ignoring the expert? this continues down the line of being a gun grab, damn what the expert on hand said.

would you be fine with them taking away his right to vote? Driver's license and anything else government mandated and protected? This is why we stand at the 2A and say no more, because you are clearly ready to throw away his right to trial already. whats next for you?
Click to expand...


The expert "cleared him" to not be placed into involuntary commitment. That doesn't mean the expert is endorsing him having a firearm. Or would even just be "ok" with it, if asked.

Big difference between being distressed to the point they are going to take you into custody right there and then versus genuine concern that things could escalate rapidly and you have access to a firearm.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top