Maryland "red flag" law claims a victim.

[SlowSpyder]

So now it is ok to take away someone's constitutionally protected rights over he said she said? Disgusting.

 

[Indus]

Hell yes.. 1 less psycho that is gonna shoot up our kids in schools.

*dances a jig*

Good job police!

 

[Sunburn74]

Story seems perfectly appropriate. Cops say hey put the gun down, he grabs the gun, wrestles with the officers and fires a shot, and then he gets shot.
If this happened at a traffic stop, this wouldn't even make the news.
Even more so, just ask what would have happened had he managed to wrestle the gun away? Do you think he'd have served them milk and cookies and offered they stay for dinner or watch Frasier on netflix with him? No. He'd probably have shot them as he tried to do during the alleged wrestling. So yes, the law works.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Hell yes.. 1 less psycho that is gonna shoot up our kids in schools.

*dances a jig*

Good job police!

You think it is good for police to shoot people before they even commit a crime. Just in case? Interesting way of looking at life. Let me guess... you vote Democrat?

 

[Greenman]

That was about as crappy an outcome as could be imagined.

I assume the red flag law hasn't been tested in court? It seems to me that you can't deny a persons rights without due process.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Story seems perfectly appropriate. Cops say hey put the gun down, he grabs the gun, wrestles with the officers and fires a shot, and then he gets shot.
If this happened at a traffic stop, this wouldn't even make the news.
Even more so, just ask what would have happened had he managed to wrestle the gun away? Do you think he'd have served them milk and cookies and offered they stay for dinner or watch Frasier on netflix with him? No. He'd probably have shot them as he tried to do during the alleged wrestling. So yes, the law works.

The police should have never been there to take away his firearm.

This is more "sensible" gun control from the left.

 

[Sunburn74]

You think it is good for police to shoot people before they even commit a crime. Just in case? Interesting way of looking at life. Let me guess... you vote Democrat?

The crime is resisting arrest, assaulting an officer, and firing rounds at a police officer.

The police should have never been there to take away his firearm.

This is more "sensible" gun control from the left.

He should never had had a firearm

 

[SlowSpyder]

The crime is resisting arrest, assaulting an officer, and firing rounds at a police officer.


He should never had had a firearm

You're thinking too late in the process. The police should have never been sent to his house to create the situation. Gun laws work about as good as drug laws.

 

[Jaskalas]

You think it is good for police to shoot people before they even commit a crime. Just in case? Interesting way of looking at life. Let me guess... you vote Democrat?

The guy picked up his weapon. Good shoot.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

You think it is good for police to shoot people before they even commit a crime. Just in case? Interesting way of looking at life. Let me guess... you vote Democrat?

He stopped being a law abiding citizen when he ignored the lawful order of sworn officers executing a legal seizure and decided to get irate and pick up the gun.

 

[Sunburn74]

You're thinking too late in the process. The police should have never been sent to his house to create the situation. Gun laws work about as good as drug laws.

The dead person created the situation; a police officer says we are legally entitled to get your guns, you give them the guns and talk to them like a rational person. A rational person would give them the guns and get a badge number and a case number and take it from there.

There is no object in my home right now that I would wrestle an armed police officer over, legal seizure or not. The fact that he did is proof he was not quite right in the head.

 

[Indus]

You think it is good for police to shoot people before they even commit a crime. Just in case? Interesting way of looking at life. Let me guess... you vote Democrat?

Guess what, you voted for Republicans who give cops that power.

It's not shocking at all. It's what has been happening for years and will continue to happen for years until you vote Democrat to change it.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The dead person created the situation; a police officer says we are legally entitled to get your guns, you give them the guns and talk to them like a rational person. A rational person would give them the guns and get a badge number and a case number and take it from there.

There is no object in my home right now that I would wrestle an armed police officer over, legal seizure or not. The fact that he did is proof he was not quite right in the head.

Some people care about their rights more than you, but you seem like the type that's been programmed... an NPC.

 

[Sunburn74]

Some people care about their rights more than you, but you seem like the type that's been programmed... an NPC.

All rights have limitations.
A police officer coming to your home with a legally supported public interest is not a violation of rights.
Neither is their asking for your guns.
Neither is shooting you when you shoot at them first.
True violations of civil rights by police officers do exist. This is not one of them.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Seems like he should've cooperated.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Of course slow ignores the fact that the law required someone to file a petition and convince a judge "THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT THE RESPONDENT POSES AN IMMEDIATE AND PRESENT DANGER OF CAUSING PERSONAL INJURY TO THE RESPONDENT, THE PETITIONER, OR ANOTHER BY POSSESSING A FIREARM." in order for the order to be issued AND he immediately demonstrated that he was, in fact, a danger by owning a firearm.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Of course slow ignores the fact that the law required someone to file a petition and convince a judge "THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT THE RESPONDENT POSES AN IMMEDIATE AND PRESENT DANGER OF CAUSING PERSONAL INJURY TO THE RESPONDENT, THE PETITIONER, OR ANOTHER BY POSSESSING A FIREARM." in order for the order to be issued AND he immediately demonstrated that he was, in fact, a danger by owning a firearm.

Of course he does. That's like, words and stuff.

 

[nickqt]

Some people care about their rights more than you, but you seem like the type that's been programmed... an NPC.

Keep spitting out those talking points your handlers have trained you to spit out, loser.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The victim unecessarily escalated the situation and put the lives of the officers at risk. That seems to be the common trend in a lot of officer involved shootings.

 

[Thebobo]

We have the coolest flag.

 

[Genx87]

So what is the process to get your guns back?

The chief said while he is “cautiously optimistic” the rate of protective orders won’t increase too rapidly, the department is building a storage facility specifically to accommodate the increase in seized firearms.

Or is this going to turn into another civil forfeiture situation?

 

[ElFenix]

Some people care about their rights more than you, but you seem like the type that's been programmed... an NPC.

And what you do is let them take your gun and then file a section 1983 action. You don't go for your gun you 4chan regurgitation bot.

 

[Jhhnn]

And what you do is let them take your gun and then file a section 1983 action. You don't go for your gun you 4chan regurgitation bot.

No shit. Looks like a case of suicide by cop from here.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Didn't anyone think to give the guy a cigar?

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Yeah I don't know what to think about this...

1) What's the standard of proof to argue a case to have someone's property removed from them (guns or not).

2) How does this pass constitutional muster? Can I go before a judge and show that someone is saying inciteful things so they should lose their right to speech (I understand these things are not perfectly correlates, but run with me here).

3) There has to be a better way to execute the law than confronting an armed man in his home. That's going to cause problems.