• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

jaeger19 said:
"Obey the state or die"

We got it. According to you. police have no responsibility to act intelligently so that civilians are not put at risk, to de escalate situations.. rather than escalate them... .. and the government doesn;t have any responsibility to follow due process before taking away your property.

We get that you support authoritarianism.
Click to expand...

Tigerace thinks that the government and their agents are always right, and whenever there is altercation between these agents and the common folk, it's always the latter's fault.
 
jaeger19 said:
Only when they have been adjudicated with due process...

Again.. only when adjudicated under due process.. and have the ability to know the charges against them and who brought them and to defend themselves in court.

Yep..

AND I would submit that the police need to act in a manner that is safe and responsible and does not endanger themselves or the public, including the person.

Look.. you are reasonable.. IF you were a police officer.. do you think the smart thing to do would be to go to a fellows house.. who "might" be dangerous.. or mentally unhinged.. etc.. and confront them and demand they hand over their weapons? What do you think would happen if someone was having paranoid delusions regarding the government..

OR if you were a police officer.. you would have warrant to search for said firearms, or contact family who brought the complaint.. (if that's what happened).. and wait until the person had left the house and then go in and confiscate the firearms.

OR maybe you just arrive at their door and come up with some bs story to get them out of the house.. and over to the car.. do a quick pat when you ask them if they are armed..

and you then have your buddies go in and confiscate any firearms. Gee.. everyone goes home safe.
Click to expand...

There is a process/quidelines for serving warrants, etc. It doesnt seem like they deviated from anything normal. I guess I'd like to know this one way or another.

The man acted wholly on his own accord. Only an idiot pulls a gun on cops.

As for due process...it seems like it has been described in most of these laws (the couple that have been posted here.). If there is truly a concern over immediate danger, it doesnt seem any different than the guidelines for bypassing probable cause...for instance, smell gas, hear baby crying, hear yelling, etc.
 
Wan said:
Tigerace thinks that the government and their agents are always right, and whenever there is altercation between these agents and the common folk, it's always the latter's fault.
Click to expand...

That's the authoritarianism that I spoke of.
 
HonestJoe said:
I think that was the argument I addressed from the OP. His opening gambits were all about blaming the individual officers for the death. It’s all about evil government with guns making people do things they don’t want to, none of which is specific to or mentioned the constitution.

I addressed his throw-away constitutional tangent too though; Even if the court order had been constitutional, exactly the same sequence of events, and the unfortunate death, could have occurred in the same way. That’d be a challenge to level at the law and the courts regardless of any consequences. If you have a strong enough argument about constitutionality, you shouldn’t need to support it on the back of an appeal to emotion.
Click to expand...

Isn't that how the gun grabbers do it though? Their pretty sure they can't do it constitutionality so they have no qualms about appealing to emotions (AKA HEART STRINGS).
 
Lursa said:
There is a process/quidelines for serving warrants, etc. It doesnt seem like they deviated from anything normal. I guess I'd like to know this one way or another.
Click to expand...

Well.. it sounds like the man put his firearm down.. and then they decided to serve the warrant. It would be much smarter if they had asked him to step away and come over and talk to them.. rather than confront the fellow in reach of the firearm.

THEN he apparently put his hand on it.. and an officer then "tried to take it from him".. when the gun fired.

The man acted wholly on his own accord. Only an idiot pulls a gun on cops.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. I have questions about how this went down. It sounds like what could have happened is that the fellow put down his firearm.. then he heard their was this bs call about him being dangerous or whatever and the police were going to take his property..

And he said or though.. BS.. and put his hand on the gun.. so they could not take it. And then the other officer try to wrestle the gun away causing the gun to discharge.. and then the other officer shot and killed the man.

I question whether there was really intent to kill the cops. If that was so... why not blast away the minute you opened the door?

I do think that this law is beyond stupid and puts police in a potentially dangerous spot needlessly.

If there is truly a concern over immediate danger, it doesnt seem any different than the guidelines for bypassing probable cause...for instance, smell gas, hear baby crying, hear yelling, etc.
Click to expand...

actually it does.... nobody is say removing a child from the mother.. because someone says "well I heard the baby cry".
 
jaeger19 said:
the fellow put down his firearm.. then he heard their was this bs call about him being dangerous or whatever and the police were going to take his property..

And he said or though.. BS.. and put his hand on the gun.. so they could not take it. And then the other officer try to wrestle the gun away causing the gun to discharge.. and then the other officer shot and killed the man.

I question whether there was really intent to kill the cops. If that was so... why not blast away the minute you opened the door?
Click to expand...

I think that the police officers involved were partially at fault for this man's death. Sounds to me like they did not do everything they could to de-escalate the whole situation. They even showed up at his door at 5 AM (what the h*ll?).
 
jaeger19 said:
Well.. it sounds like the man put his firearm down.. and then they decided to serve the warrant. It would be much smarter if they had asked him to step away and come over and talk to them.. rather than confront the fellow in reach of the firearm.

THEN he apparently put his hand on it.. and an officer then "tried to take it from him".. when the gun fired.
.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Perhaps a misjudgement on their part...definitely one on the dead guys part.
 
jaeger19 said:
actually it does.... nobody is say removing a child from the mother.. because someone says "well I heard the baby cry".
Click to expand...

Yes, theycan do that, temporarily. If there is a question, the child is taken into custody. The legal aspects are examined later, after the child is 'definitely' safe.

It may only last while the kid sits in the car and the people in the home are questioned. It may involve more and the complete removal, at least until answers are found. The child's safety is the primary focus.
 
=Tigerace117;1069273696]So again you are trying to absolve the would be cop killer by whining about the police. Noted.
Click to expand...
What jaeger is saying there are different ways to handle things. Rather than I'll huff and I'll puff and kick your door down(though that didn't happen).
But hey, I get it. You are upset your fellow obesssive got killed and wasn't able to murder any police officers in the process.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you wish it had gone the other way so there would be blood to dance in while calling for more gun laws.
 
=RaleBulgarian;1069273032]And you can’t say he wasn’t.
Click to expand...
He apparently put his handgun down when he opened the door for them.
What conflict of interest? Ultimately, a judge decides.
Click to expand...
So then this judge moonlights as a mental health expert? Or just goes on what he's told and hopes for the best.
Removing any rights temporarily, even under the most compelling reasons, has a potential to lead to further deprivation of rights. However, when a persons safety and/or the safety of others is reasonabley considered in danger, no action could be worse.
Click to expand...
AH yes there's the however. If a person wants to off h/herself removing a gun won't help much. Yeah I know statistics show that but the thing is if someone wants to do themselves they could careless about statistics. As far as others it worked out. They shot him.
What gives you the impression that Willis did not intend to injure/kill the cops?
Click to expand...
Not saying it went down this way, but maybe he reached to get his gun to hand it to them and they mistook it as a threat (not saying I wouldn't see it that way) and tussled with it and his finger was on the trigger. Not everyone is JOE KNOWS HOW TO HANDLE A FIREARM.
Again, how do know what Willis’ intent was?
Click to expand...
Let's say I'm not a court of law nor can I see the future unlike some.
 
jaeger19 said:
Only when they have been adjudicated with due process...

Again.. only when adjudicated under due process.. and have the ability to know the charges against them and who brought them and to defend themselves in court.

Yep..

AND I would submit that the police need to act in a manner that is safe and responsible and does not endanger themselves or the public, including the person.

Look.. you are reasonable.. IF you were a police officer.. do you think the smart thing to do would be to go to a fellows house.. who "might" be dangerous.. or mentally unhinged.. etc.. and confront them and demand they hand over their weapons? What do you think would happen if someone was having paranoid delusions regarding the government..

OR if you were a police officer.. you would have warrant to search for said firearms, or contact family who brought the complaint.. (if that's what happened).. and wait until the person had left the house and then go in and confiscate the firearms.

OR maybe you just arrive at their door and come up with some bs story to get them out of the house.. and over to the car.. do a quick pat when you ask them if they are armed..

and you then have your buddies go in and confiscate any firearms. Gee.. everyone goes home safe.
Click to expand...
Well the problem is no one gets shot. No one gets shot that means no leading story on the 6:00 news about the gun nut that was taken down. After all no bleed no lead.
 
Wan said:
I think that the police officers involved were partially at fault for this man's death. Sounds to me like they did not do everything they could to de-escalate the whole situation. They even showed up at his door at 5 AM (what the h*ll?).
Click to expand...

and I agree. And their procedure? Why escalate the situation with a firearm at hand. why not ask the guy if he will step out of his house to.. whatever, and then you have separated him from the firearm.. before telling him that they are taking it.

Lots of issues here. Personally I think that the fellow said "hell no.. you aint taking it.. and put his hands on it to keep them from taking it.. and then the other officer tried to grab it caused it to go off in the struggle. I think that seems a likely scenario.
 
Lursa said:
Yes, theycan do that, temporarily. If there is a question, the child is taken into custody. .
Click to expand...

Only if there is probably cause to believe the child is in imminent danger.

They police were going to confiscate his firearm.. based on what exactly? Someone saying.." I think"?

If he had committed a crime.. threatening,, etc.. they would have been there to arrest him.


that's a far and away a different scenario than the police doing a safety check and seeing that the child is in imminent danger.

The police are not going to be taking the child simply on someones say so without due process.
 
jaeger19 said:
Only if there is probably cause to believe the child is in imminent danger.

They police were going to confiscate his firearm.. based on what exactly? Someone saying.." I think"?

If he had committed a crime.. threatening,, etc.. they would have been there to arrest him.
Click to expand...

Uh, and they had to have a foundation that the child was in imminent danger. I wrote all this.

And how do you know that's all that confiscation was based on...the laws that were posted here in detail listed criteria...beyond simple words.

And they were there specifically TO confiscate his firearms....legally under that Red Flag law for which there was due process in order to get that confiscation order.

We've been thru all this already. The request met the law's criteria which is more than just someone's word. If the court determines a threat is imminent, then they act on the side of safety, as I just wrote using your child example. That doesnt mean the law doesnt support it.
 
Lursa said:
Uh, and they had to have a foundation that the child was in imminent danger. I wrote all this.
Click to expand...

Yep.. but in the case of the firearm. . the police were already there to confiscate the firearm.. the decisions was already made.

Unlike where the police either go to confiscate the child because of due process.. or they are going to simply check.. and then only when there is imminent danger to the child.. can they remove them.

And how do you know that's all that confiscation was based on...the laws that were posted here in detail listed criteria...beyond simple words.
Click to expand...

nope.. not beyond simple words. Was there a hearing? A chance for the person do defend themselves against the charge?

And they were there specifically TO confiscate his firearms....legally under that Red Flag law for which there was due process in order to get that confiscation order.
Click to expand...

Oh.. I am sorry.. so there was a hearing so that the person could contest what was being done before the decision to confiscate his property? Please show where that occurred.

The request met the law's criteria which is more than just someone's word
Click to expand...
No its does not.

But you show me wear it requires more than a spouse's or family member.. or a person they a datings word.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yep.. but in the case of the firearm. . the police were already there to confiscate the firearm.. the decisions was already made.

Unlike where the police either go to confiscate the child because of due process.. or they are going to simply check.. and then only when there is imminent danger to the child.. can they remove them.



nope.. not beyond simple words. Was there a hearing? A chance for the person do defend themselves against the charge?



Oh.. I am sorry.. so there was a hearing so that the person could contest what was being done before the decision to confiscate his property? Please show where that occurred.

No its does not.

But you show me wear it requires more than a spouse's or family member.. or a person they a datings word.
Click to expand...

It met the legal guidelines to confiscate the weapon. I've seen no one dispute there was not adequate reasons that met the legal guidelines. So I'm not going to waste anymore time repeating myself.

As for taking people's 'word,' there has to be corroboration to meet the legal standard: previous arrests, bruises, neighbor complaints, other's statements. It would be unusual to meet the legal standard with just 'he said/she said.' Where are you seeing any such thing? Are you just assuming it because of the way it's written? Their 'word' is required to bring the request to the courts...but corroboration is needed to actually have a judge sign the warrant.
 
zsu2357 said:
He apparently put his handgun down when he opened the door for them.
Click to expand...
And?
zsu2357 said:
So then this judge moonlights as a mental health expert? Or just goes on what he's told and hopes for the best
Click to expand...
Snark, he he. The judge accepts the testimony/affidavit and makes the decision to temporarily remove the firearms until further information is available (including psych evaluation, etc.) within 7 days.. Judges routinely issue temporary orders while waiting for further input.
zsu2357 said:
AH yes there's the however. If a person wants to off h/herself removing a gun won't help much. Yeah I know statistics show that but the thing is if someone wants to do themselves they could careless about statistics.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there is a “however”, a significant and worthwhile “however”. Taking firearms away may not stop someone intent on killing themselves, but it’ll significantly reduce the chance of them taking others with them.
zsu2357 said:
As far as others it worked out. They shot him.
Click to expand...
Crass.
zsu2357 said:
Not saying it went down this way, but maybe he reached to get his gun to hand it to them and they mistook it as a threat (not saying I wouldn't see it that way) and tussled with it and his finger was on the trigger. Not everyone is JOE KNOWS HOW TO HANDLE A FIREARM.
Click to expand...
It’s possible. Maybe OP will stay on top of the story and post any developments.
zsu2357 said:
Let's say I'm not a court of law nor can I see the future unlike some.
Click to expand...
You’re not a court of law and you can’t see the future.
 
Lursa said:
It met the legal guidelines to confiscate the weapon. I've seen no one dispute there was not adequate reasons that met the legal guidelines. So I'm not going to waste anymore time repeating myself.

As for taking people's 'word,' there has to be corroboration to meet the legal standard: previous arrests, bruises, neighbor complaints, other's statements. It would be unusual to meet the legal standard with just 'he said/she said.' Where are you seeing any such thing? Are you just assuming it because of the way it's written? Their 'word' is required to bring the request to the courts...but corroboration is needed to actually have a judge sign the warrant.
Click to expand...
Just for the record, here in OR. the above underlined has no merit, it's just a phone call or visit to the courthouse. My wife could say suicidal or she fears for her life or any other kind of menacing thing that could be dreamed up.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Jr said:
Is there any law in America that allows you to resist a police action?

Here in Ohio, you cannot use lethal force to protect property. Gun confiscation is property confiscation, so you can't use your guns to protect your gun rights even if the police are in the wrong.
Click to expand...

If someone tries to take a gun from you by force(not talking about cops) you are certainly justified in shooting them if their attempted theft is illegal since a reasonable person would construe that as the person seeking to shoot you with it
 
TurtleDude said:
If someone tries to take a gun from you by force(not talking about cops) you are certainly justified in shooting them if their attempted theft is illegal since a reasonable person would construe that as the person seeking to shoot you with it
Click to expand...
Unless you're arguing that the police were going to shoot the civilian with his own gun, I don't think your argument applies here. Cops serving a highly illegal warrant justifies a lawsuit, not lethal force.

Besides, I'de just have another gun stashed away anyway :p
 
Wayne Jr said:
Unless you're arguing that the police were going to shoot the civilian with his own gun, I don't think your argument applies here. Cops serving a highly illegal warrant justifies a lawsuit, not lethal force.

Besides, I'de just have another gun stashed away anyway :p
Click to expand...

did you read what you quoted?
 
Wayne Jr said:
Is there any law in America that allows you to resist a police action?

Here in Ohio, you cannot use lethal force to protect property. Gun confiscation is property confiscation, so you can't use your guns to protect your gun rights even if the police are in the wrong.
Click to expand...

The problem is that property confiscation requires due process of law as a basic constitutional right. When we accept that a mere allegation (even if held credible by a judge) is, in fact, due process and proceed directly to the sentancing phase (property confiscation by force) without any criminal charge, trial/hearing, ablility to face one's accuser, have legal council or to offer testimony/evidence in their own defense then we have failed to obey our constitutional obligations.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Is there any law in America that allows you to resist a police action?

Here in Ohio, you cannot use lethal force to protect property. Gun confiscation is property confiscation, so you can't use your guns to protect your gun rights even if the police are in the wrong.
Click to expand...

See Plummer v State and Bad Elk v United States.
 
zsu2357 said:
Just for the record, here in OR. the above underlined has no merit, it's just a phone call or visit to the courthouse. My wife could say suicidal or she fears for her life or any other kind of menacing thing that could be dreamed up.
Click to expand...

Can you please provide a link to the law where it states that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom