Gun Confiscation Killing in Maryland

[Benjamin]

Useless hyperbole.

Actually there were legitimate questions to expose your lack of sound reasoning to consider that it may necessarily to uphold the constitution while also having and enforcing laws that govern things like dealing with mentally disturbed people that may be a danger to others.

If you don't like the constitution, go live somewhere else.

We don't need any help upholding the constitution from irrational people that pervert the right of having it and if you don't like me giving my opinions which expose your foolish thinking, you go live somewhere else.

 

[carpro]

Actually there were legitimate questions to expose your lack of sound reasoning to consider that it may necessarily to uphold the constitution while also having and enforcing laws that govern things like dealing with mentally disturbed people that may be a danger to others.

No, there aren't.

This is simple. Follow the constitution.

Instead, the state of Maryland passed a piece of unconstitutional legislation in order to do an end run around the 4th Amendment with dead of night court orders based on the standard of "reasonable cause" rather than "probable cause" and before dawn confiscations to deliberately deny due process and/or legal representation to the defendant.

This is the United States of America, not Nazi Germany.

The result: A law abiding citizen who had committed no crime is dead. Shameful. And shame on anyone who condones it.

 

[Use of Time]

I’m trying to remember all those stories where Carpro justified “good shootings” in the past all the time while using the words, “if only so and so hadn’t resisted.”

An odd stance to take now that a guy gets killed by police and it’s a national tragedy all of a sudden? Curious.

 

[777]

Sheesh Louise, what a mess. Maryland's red flag law is VERY poorly written and unconstitutional IMO:

Extreme Risk Protective Orders | Maryland Courts

It's been the law there for less than six weeks and already this. No videocam of the shooting but it sound like a good shoot, wave loaded guns around cops, pay the price.

But this is some incremetialism, not just in Maryland, but in some other states now. Need a good SCOTUS ruling, this guy went molon labe on 'em.

 

[carpro]

Sheesh Louise, what a mess. Maryland's red flag law is VERY poorly written and unconstitutional IMO:

It's been the law there for less than six weeks and already this. No videocam of the shooting but it sound like a good shoot, wave loaded guns around cops, pay the price.

"Maryland’s red flag law is broader than every other state’s, in terms of who can petition for an order. The change is so significant, Anne Arundel County police decided to expand their storage space, in part, because of the number of weapons they anticipate taking in and temporarily storing as a result of the new law, said county Chief Timothy Altomare."

Whether or not the shooting was a "good shoot" or not is not the issue and never has bee, Not to me. The officers shouldn't have been there in the first place. They especially shouldn't have been there at 5 AM. The whole process is underhanded and unconstitutional. Because it's a bad law, there will be more.

 

[carpro]

"The point of the Fourth Amendment (“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”) is to protect private citizens such as Gary Willis from living in a police state where police can be “nimble” and arrive unannounced at 5:17 in the morning with a piece of paper that says they have the right to take his guns.


The point of the “red flag” laws, however, is to do an end run around that Fourth Amendment.

“The ‘red flag’ provisions do not allow the person charged to defend himself or even to know who his accuser might be. Further, he must prove his innocence in order to get his confiscated firearms returned to him. He is “guilty until he proves himself innocent.”


ERPOs lower the standard in the Fourth Amendment — probable cause — to “reasonable cause.” They allow judges to act quickly (in Gary Willis’ case, overnight) before the victim gets wind of what’s coming and can secure legal counsel to defend himself or make other arrangements to protect himself and his property.


...every citizen legally possessing a firearm in “red flag” states is in danger of having a relative, an acquaintance with whom he has had a disagreement, a disaffected or offended neighbor or co-worker, a mental health “professional,” or as is sometimes the case, the police themselves, petition a judge and obtain an ERPO that enables local police to remove the offending weapons from his possession, by force if necessary."

 

[canadyjd]

"The point of the Fourth Amendment (“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”) is to protect private citizens such as Gary Willis from living in a police state where police can be “nimble” and arrive unannounced at 5:17 in the morning with a piece of paper that says they have the right to take his guns.


The point of the “red flag” laws, however, is to do an end run around that Fourth Amendment.

“The ‘red flag’ provisions do not allow the person charged to defend himself or even to know who his accuser might be. Further, he must prove his innocence in order to get his confiscated firearms returned to him. He is “guilty until he proves himself innocent.”


ERPOs lower the standard in the Fourth Amendment — probable cause — to “reasonable cause.” They allow judges to act quickly (in Gary Willis’ case, overnight) before the victim gets wind of what’s coming and can secure legal counsel to defend himself or make other arrangements to protect himself and his property.


...every citizen legally possessing a firearm in “red flag” states is in danger of having a relative, an acquaintance with whom he has had a disagreement, a disaffected or offended neighbor or co-worker, a mental health “professional,” or as is sometimes the case, the police themselves, petition a judge and obtain an ERPO that enables local police to remove the offending weapons from his possession, by force if necessary."

Wow! There you have it. Probable Cause is required, just like I said.

You are making an end run around the constitution by repeatedly claiming a hearing is required for law enforcement to remove a gun, when probable cause is the standard.

Please stop undermining the constitution with your unconstitutional beliefs.

 

[777]

No, NOT probable, reasonable. The MD law states that repeatedly - with reasonable belief that a person meets the requirements, issue a temporary order if he/she reasonably believes the respondent . . .

"Due process" is not issuing some notice that the cops are coming for you gun on the say so of some malcontent. Let's turn this around, what if your computer/iphone/whatever were confiscated from you in the middle of the night because some judge "reasonably believed" you were watching kiddie porn because some crazy neighbor said you could be? Would you think this notice was due process?

It'd be a violation of the !A, 4th, 5th, maybe even the 10th as well. The MD is stupid anyways, if you're that big a threat to yourself and others, better also impound your cars, seize the cutlery, take all the belts, shoelaces and rubber tubing from your house, flush all pills down the drain, break your dominant hand, and so on.

 

[carpro]

No, NOT probable, reasonable. The MD law states that repeatedly - with reasonable belief that a person meets the requirements, issue a temporary order if he/she reasonably believes the respondent . . .

.

We already know he has reading comprehension issues. I gave up earlier trying to get him to read more carefully. It's hopeless.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[canadyjd]

No, NOT probable, reasonable. The MD law states that repeatedly - with reasonable belief that a person meets the requirements, issue a temporary order if he/she reasonably believes the respondent . . .

"Due process" is not issuing some notice that the cops are coming for you gun on the say so of some malcontent. Let's turn this around, what if your computer/iphone/whatever were confiscated from you in the middle of the night because some judge "reasonably believed" you were watching kiddie porn because some crazy neighbor said you could be? Would you think this notice was due process?

It'd be a violation of the !A, 4th, 5th, maybe even the 10th as well. The MD is stupid anyways, if you're that big a threat to yourself and others, better also impound your cars, seize the cutlery, take all the belts, shoelaces and rubber tubing from your house, flush all pills down the drain, break your dominant hand, and so on.

I think it's a distinction without a difference. If I remember correctly, the definition of "probable cause" includes the the word "reasonable".

The proper way to challenge the law is in court, not to wrestle a gun from the police.

You and I don't know the circumstances surrounding the order of protection. A judge heard the evidence presented by a prosecutor. If they abuse their authority, your remedy is in the courts. You have to trust this legal process or the society falls into anarchy.

We do know that the man responded in an irrational and violent manner, attempting to re-take possession of a loaded handgun that was in possession of a law enforcement officer, causing the handgun to discharge, which led to the clearly justified use of deadly force.

Taking the "side" of an irrational and violent man will hurt the efforts to challenge this law.

 

[canadyjd]

We already know he has reading comprehension issues. I gave up earlier trying to get him to read more carefully. It's hopeless.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

For the record, you have been claiming the constitution requires a "hearing" to seize a gun. I told you the standard was "probable cause".

You accused me of not being able to read, of being way out there, against the 2nd amendment and so on.

You then posted the 4th amendment on seizures which clearly states the standard is "probable cause", just as I stated.

You then grab a fistful of gall and claim I have comprehension problems.

 

[777]

I think it's a distinction without a difference. If I remember correctly, the definition of "probable cause" includes the the word "reasonable".

"probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" are two different animals:

Probable Cause

laws like this one are very new, a grey area in the law and will be ruled unconstitutional.

and you didn't answer my question on how you would feel if your computer was seized.

;

The proper way to challenge the law is in court, not to wrestle a gun from the police.

Didn't I say it was a clean shoot? Carpro is right, the cops shouldn't have been there in the first place but they were doing their job.

You and I don't know the circumstances surrounding the order of protection. A judge heard the evidence presented by a prosecutor. If they abuse their authority, your remedy is in the courts. You have to trust this legal process or the society falls into anarchy.

No, that's NOT how it went down:

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-aa-shooting-20181105-story.html

his idiot of a sister got into an argument with him, ran to a judge and got this protective order. No prosecutor, nothing. Still trust this legal process?

 

[carpro]

"probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" are two different animals:

?

Told ya.[emoji849]




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[carpro]

We do know that the man responded in an irrational and violent manner, attempting to re-take possession of a loaded handgun that was in possession of a law enforcement officer, causing the handgun to discharge, which led to the clearly justified use of deadly force.

.

That is a false statement. That's the 3rd time you've made the same false statement.

The gun was in the possession of the gun owner and the cops were trying to take it from him.

They initiated the conflict.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[canadyjd]

"probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" are two different animals:

Probable Cause

laws like this one are very new, a grey area in the law and will be ruled unconstitutional.

and you didn't answer my question on how you would feel if your computer was seized.

;

Didn't I say it was a clean shoot? Carpro is right, the cops shouldn't have been there in the first place but they were doing their job.



No, that's NOT how it went down:

Anne Arundel police say officers fatally shot armed man while serving protective order to remove guns

his idiot of a sister got into an argument with him, ran to a judge and got this protective order. No prosecutor, nothing. Still trust this legal process?

The definition of "probable cause" that you just posted above includes the phrase "reasonable suspicion". It's a distinction without a difference.

If the cops came to seize my computer I wouldn't wrestle them for it. I would prove my case in court.

And Carpo is wrong, the police were there legally, otherwise the shooting would not be justified.

 

[canadyjd]

That is a false statement. That's the 3rd time you've made the same false statement.

The gun was in the possession of the gun owner and the cops were trying to take it from him.

They initiated the conflict.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I stand corrected.

The gun owner put the gun down after answering the door and seeing the police. When he was told they were serving the order of protection and his guns were being seized, he grabbed the loaded handgun and a police officer began wrestling (lawfully and prudently) with him for control of the gun. The gun discharged and police (justifiably) used deadly force.

So, I was wrong to say the police had already taken possession of the gun.

I am not wrong in saying the police were lawfully there.

I am not wrong in saying the man acted acted irrationally and violently by grabbing the gun, after he had laid it down, ad then wrestling with police for control of the gun.

The police did not initiate the conflict. The man initiated the conflict by grabbing the loaded handgun after being told the guns were being siezed.

 

[canadyjd]

"probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" are two different animals:

Probable Cause

laws like this one are very new, a grey area in the law and will be ruled unconstitutional.

and you didn't answer my question on how you would feel if your computer was seized.

;

Didn't I say it was a clean shoot? Carpro is right, the cops shouldn't have been there in the first place but they were doing their job.



No, that's NOT how it went down:

Anne Arundel police say officers fatally shot armed man while serving protective order to remove guns

his idiot of a sister got into an argument with him, ran to a judge and got this protective order. No prosecutor, nothing. Still trust this legal process?

That is not how it works. A person files a complaint with police, the police call the prosecutor, the prosecutor reviews the case and decides if it goes before the judge to ask for a protective order.

You are slandering his sister without any facts, based on hearsay from the niece.

You don't know the circumstances surrounding the issuing of the protective.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This a look at a Federal proposal of the same type of law.

 

[canadyjd]

This a look at a Federal proposal of the same type of law.

I tried, but couldn't get it to play.

I am not opposed to seizing weapons pending a hearing to determine the facts as long as the presumption is in favor of the gun owner, the hearing is prompt, and the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt to keep the weapons.

 

[777]

I've given up on this one understanding the terms "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause". He thinks they're interchangeable, we are doomed.

The Difference Between Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion

purple may appear in the definition of the word "colors" but that doesn't make all colors purple.

That is not how it works. A person files a complaint with police, the police call the prosecutor, the prosecutor reviews the case and decides if it goes before the judge to ask for a protective order.

You are slandering his sister without any facts, based on hearsay from the niece.

You don't know the circumstances surrounding the issuing of the protective.

Yes, I do. The prosecutor is NOT involved here, this is a civil proceeding where a prosecutor is not involved at all. The person seeking the order is the prosecutor and the only prosecutor.

As for the idea of "slandering his sister without any facts", the police there have verified that she was the one that got this thing out on her own brother.

Again: Extreme Risk Protective Orders | Maryland Courts

Step 1: Complete the petition and addendum forms
Step 2: File the petition

that's what she did and she's immune from any legal ramifications and maybe you should watch slandering the dead person, who had NO criminal background and died because he had a beef with his family.