Gun Confiscation Killing in Maryland

[canadyjd]

Yes. Due process. sounds like you have no idea what it is. It's Violation of his 4th amendment rights against unlawful seizure without a hearing.

Now to the question you avoided.

When was his hearing to determine if he was dangerous before taking away his constitutional right to own firearms?

I don't really expect you to answer. Constitutionally, you have taken an untenable stance.

First of all, the police don't need a hearing to seize a gun, they need probable cause. That is what the constitution requires. I'm surprised you don't understand that.

A judge issued an order of protection. The judge needs probable cause to issue the order of protection. He must of had it. The police followed the law. If the judge was wrong, you make your case in court. That is the "due process".

The "due process" was followed by the judge and the police. The man didn't follow "due process" or the law.

Instead, the man attacked the officer and began trying to wrestle the gun away, causing the gun to discharge, at which point the police justifiably used deadly force.

I do support the 2nd ammendment, despite what you say. If 2nd amendment supporters try to use this case, it will hurt their argument.

I will make the battle at the ballot box. If the liberals win the day and the sheriff comes for the guns, I'm not shooting anyone over it.

Quite frankly, I can't understand how any professing Christian could justify a shootout with law enforcement over this issue. It is totally opposite everything taught to us by scripture.

 

[Benjamin]

I’m seeing both sides of this and not exactly where I stand on this issue considering the circumstances. The fact he became irate and resisted the way he did gives some merit to him being “red flagged” as a danger, his behavior in this matter shouldn’t be overlooked. Where do you draw the line when trying to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people? I think it is agreed upon that there is a need to keep guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed people but such a move creates the challenge of determining when this action is necessary.

Then there is the question, did the sister report this knowing this would extremely antagonize him after him already having a strong emotional investment in his disagreement with the sister?

Tough call...

I’m certainly willing and able to stand up for 2nd amendment rights but not so sure standing the ground under these circumstances is the best place to engage in that battle.

 

[carpro]

First of all, the police don't need a hearing to seize a gun, they need probable cause.

.

Man, you are way out there. You really ought to just put it away. You haven't said anything yet that is either right or made any sense.

 

[carpro]

Where do you draw the line when trying to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people? .

Simple. You follow the Constitution. A complaint was filed. A hearing is scheduled to see if the defendant is, in fact a danger to himself or others. If it is determined he is, his firearms can be confiscated.

He has a Constitutional right to own firearms. That right may not legally be taken away without due process. Just the fact that some anonymous person made an unspecified complaint because they didn't like the guy, his 2nd Amendment rights cannot be taken away.

If they can do that, then you can be locked up for speaking in pubic if anybody objects at all to what you say. No proof or hearing required. You go to jail. Your 1st amendment right to free speech is therefore removed.

Likewise, if someone objects to the way you worship God or doesn't like the way you pray. Off to jail you go. Your right to worship in the manner you please has just been removed.

 

[carpro]

Instead, the man attacked the officer and began trying to wrestle the gun away, causing the gun to discharge, at which point the police justifiably used deadly force.

.

That is a false statement. I let it go the first time, but I'm calling you out this time.

 

[Benjamin]

Simple. You follow the Constitution. A complaint was filed. A hearing is scheduled to see if the defendant is, in fact a danger to himself or others. If it is determined he is, his firearms can be confiscated.

He has a Constitutional right to own firearms. That right may not legally be taken away without due process. Just the fact that some anonymous person made an unspecified complaint because they didn't like the guy, his 2nd Amendment rights cannot be taken away.

If they can do that, then you can be locked up for speaking in pubic if anybody objects at all to what you say. No proof or hearing required. You go to jail. Your 1st amendment right to free speech is therefore removed.

Likewise, if someone objects to the way you worship God or doesn't like the way you pray. Off to jail you go. Your right to worship in the manner you please has just been removed.

You and some others have made some good arguments, but there is still the logical matter that 2 wrongs doesn't make a right. He should have taken it to court instead of ALSO breaking the law like some kind of vigilante and putting officer's lives in danger IOWs the officers were doing their job and had the right to protect themselves.

 

[carpro]

You and some others have made some good arguments, but there is still the logical matter that 2 wrongs doesn't make a right. He should have taken it to court instead of ALSO breaking the law like some kind of vigilante and putting officer's lives in danger IOWs the officers were doing their job and had the right to protect themselves.

The officers shouldn't have been there. That's the whole point. He shouldn't have to go to court to have his constitutional right restored when it shouldn't have been taken away without a hearing FIRST.

Now a man who committed no crime to bring them to his door is dead.

 

[canadyjd]

Man, you are way out there. You really ought to just put it away. You haven't said anything yet that is either right or made any sense.

The 4th amendment to the constitution doesn't require a "hearing" for law enforcement to confiscate a gun. It requires probable cause. That is a crucial concept to understand. If you don't believe me, ask the NRA help desk.

 

[canadyjd]

That is a false statement. I let it go the first time, but I'm calling you out this time.

No need to call me out. I read the article.

The man met the police at the door with a loaded handgun. He put the gun down, no doubt because the police told him to. The police officer took possession of the handgun. The man attempted to get the loaded handgun back. A struggle broke out, the handgun discharged. The other officer shot and killed the man.

Do you see anything false in that statement. If so, please show me how I misunderstood.

 

[carpro]

The 4th amendment to the constitution doesn't require a "hearing" for law enforcement to confiscate a gun. It requires probable cause. That is a crucial concept to understand. If you don't believe me, ask the NRA help desk.

You're so off base that it's probably useless to ask you what crime he might have committed that gave them probable cause to be at his door. I remind you that owning a gun is not against the law.

Thsi ought to be fun. Especially since you haven't bothered to correct the false statements you made earlier.

So, pray tell us, what is their probable cause?

 

[carpro]

No need to call me out. I read the article.

The man met the police at the door with a loaded handgun. He put the gun down, no doubt because the police told him to. The police officer took possession of the handgun. The man attempted to get the loaded handgun back. A struggle broke out, the handgun discharged. The other officer shot and killed the man.

Do you see anything false in that statement. If so, please show me how I misunderstood.

Then you obviously can't read. Your statement is still false. Almost nothing about it is true.

 

[canadyjd]

The officers shouldn't have been there. That's the whole point. He shouldn't have to go to court to have his constitutional right restored when it shouldn't have been taken away without a hearing FIRST.

Now a man who committed no crime to bring them to his door is dead.

Police serve orders of protection every day. They were legally justified, without question, to be there.

You do not know whether or not he committed a crime which justified the order of protection. You haven't heard the evidence. A judge heard the evidence, presented by a prosecutor, and the judge decided it was appropriate. That is, literally, how "due process" works.

 

[Benjamin]

The officers shouldn't have been there. That's the whole point.

I would agree with you here for the most part, but to the point there is still the matter of how does the law deal with the need of keeping guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed people – which again, there seems to be merit to this guy’s being ‘red-flagged” considering his actions.

He shouldn't have to go to court to have his constitutional right restored when it shouldn't have been taken away without a hearing FIRST.

We are a nation of laws, my point still stands that 2 wrongs doesn’t make a right. Whoever was wrong FIRST doesn't change this.

Now a man who committed no crime to bring them to his door is dead.

False, he did commit a crime in resisting the officers. It is a tragedy that he lost his life, up until the point of resisting he very well may have been in the right, and I empathize with the frustration he might have been feeling, but the argument from pity doesn’t carry any logical weight either to offset the bottom line that he ALSO broke the law and that was wrong.

 

[canadyjd]

Then you obviously can't read. Your statement is still false. Almost nothing about it is true.

Why the personal attack? I can obviously read. Instead of saying "almost nothing you said is true", just point out one specific thing I got wrong.

 

[carpro]

{quote]Now a man who committed no crime to bring them to his door is dead.

False, he did commit a crime in resisting the officers. .[/QUOTE]

So resisting arrest brought them to his door? Really?

In addition to that, they weren't there to arrest him.

Some critical reading skills seem to missing here.

 

[carpro]

Why the personal attack? I can obviously read. Instead of saying "almost nothing you said is true", just point out one specific thing I got wrong.

I'm not going to do your homework for you. All you have to do is read the article. You've got it wrong on almost every point.

 

[carpro]

We are a nation of laws, my point still stands that 2 wrongs doesn’t make a right. Whoever was wrong FIRST doesn't change this.
.

But it should, since the one who was first wronged is dead. Who do we see about that one?

 

[canadyjd]

You are just wrong. The police were lawfully at the home to serve an order of protection. The police lawfully took possession of the loaded handgun.

The man broke the law, and became an immediate deadly threat to the officers when he attempted to, by force, re-take possession of the loaded handgun.

You can disagree with the law all you want. You have several, lawful, ways to show your disagreement. Peacefully protest. Support candidates that agree with you so you can change the law.

You can't fight with police over a handgun, whether you think you are in the right or not.

 

[canadyjd]

But it should, since the one who was first wronged is dead. Who do we see about that one?

The "first wronged" would be the person who filed the order of protection.

 

[carpro]

That is, literally, how "due process" works.

No. It isn't.

Was the defendant at the hearing? Did he have a chance to answer the complaint before having his constitutional rights taken away?

That's how due process works.