• 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

zsu2357 said:
He set the gun down to read the order, he didn't just open fire.

How about if you know someone your pissed at and want a little bit of get even. In OR. I call it the get even law.

You do realize everyone in that household loses their guns if they are the target of the order or not?
Click to expand...

And yet, he still tried to murder police officers.

When compared to that I think crying about people losing their guns temporarily is rather irrelevant.
 
HonestJoe said:
I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea of “secret witnesses” from. I don’t see anything to suggest witnesses presented to support the petition would be secret and no reason to expect that an unsupported allegation from a single person is going to be sufficient to get the court order anyway. The process seems to be very much like that for a restraining order which it’s apparently based on.
Click to expand...

But the real question is why they were sent to take away Mr. Willis’ weapons in the first place. We don’t know and we may never know. That’s because this very dubious “red flag law” makes all requests for Extreme Risk Protective Orders confidential and they can be submitted anonymously. Perhaps the order was submitted by a mental health professional who was treating Willis and they had justifiable reasons. Perhaps Willis had been discharging the weapon inside the home or threatening a family member.

But it’s also possible that somebody was just angry with Willis or is really opposed to firearm ownership and decided to call in a claim. Let’s not pretend that something like that can’t or won’t happen. But as I said, we don’t know because the law was crafted in a way to keep us from finding out. …
Click to expand...

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/11...aw-claims-first-victim-police-kill-gun-owner/
 
RaleBulgarian said:
“When officers began to serve him the order, Willis became irate and grabbed his gun.

One of the officers tried to take the gun from Willis, but instead Willis fired the gun.

The second officer fired a gun, striking Willis. He died at the scene.”

Faulting the people concerned about Willis’ well being for his death is reprehensible. Thankfully not all of us gun owners believe like you. If I know someone who I believe is unstable and poses a real danger to him/herself and others, I want any firearms owned by that person to be removed until the threat is resolved. Doesn’t matter if family, friends, or police remove the firearms. Way too many tragic stories already.
Click to expand...

So your theory is that its best that the police create a situation in which deadly force might be necessary and escalate the situation to the point where they need to kill people.. got it.
 
Tigerace117 said:
And yet, he still tried to murder police officers.

When compared to that I think crying about people losing their guns temporarily is rather irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I have a question..

If I tried to take away a police officers firearm... would they be justified in killing me. If they did.. would it be murder?

As we understand.. the fellow had committed no crime.. and was confronted with an officer trying to take away his firearm.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Do you think he should have been allowed to kill some folks before taking his firearms?? Of course you do because protecting Willis’ 2nd Amendment rights is more important to you than saving lives.
Click to expand...

So you think we should take away someones property and freedom without due process?
 
jaeger19 said:
I have a question..

If I tried to take away a police officers firearm... would they be justified in killing me. If they did.. would it be murder?

As we understand.. the fellow had committed no crime.. and was confronted with an officer trying to take away his firearm.
Click to expand...

So in your opinion police officers are equivalent to volatile civilians who clearly are willing to start shooting at a moment’s notice?

There is no threat to your life from a police officer taking your gun. There is a clear threat to a police officer’s life if a civilian tries to take their firearm, especially one as volatile as this individual.

And so his response is to try to commit murder. Hmm.....sounds like the kind of upstanding citizen everyone would want heavily armed :roll:
 
jaeger19 said:
So you think we should take away someones property and freedom without due process?
Click to expand...


So you think he should have been allowed to commit murder and gotten off scot-free?

Millions of people don’t have guns yet are “free”. Temporarily taking anyway someone’s firearm does not make them “not free”.
 
HonestJoe said:
No. See post #9 for some useful details.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
Attention to detail is my friend.
Either way, Maryland is notorious for being anti-gun.
I would head south as soon as i could, if i was a gun owner in MD.
 
Praxas said:
Please post where I’m “happy” abouit it or expressed “joy” over it instead of just posting idiotic dishonest comments.



That the guy was obviously unstable enough to draw on cops and if he can do that then he can also draw on others. Now stop with the dishonest comments.
Click to expand...

The man paid with his life for a crime he MIGHT commit.
There was even a syfi movie about such a police state.
Now it is real and in Maryland.

The land that brought us the Star Spangled banner and crab cakes now will bring you death for a crime you MIGHT commit.
 
Tigerace117 said:
So in your opinion police officers are equivalent to volatile civilians who clearly are willing to start shooting at a moment’s notice?

:
Click to expand...

No.. police officers are folks that are trained, they are agents of the government. They are given responsibility to protect the public and are given certain responsibilities to that. . Because of that.. they MUST be held to a much higher standard than the average citizen.

There is a definite threat to your life if a police officer takes my firearm. the number of folks that have been shot by police officers.. when UNARMED.. shows that.. much less those have been lawfully carrying and been shot by panicky police officers.

Officers.. have a responsibility to act in a responsible and rational manner and not escalate a situation and turn a NON VIOLENT situation into a violent one.
 
Tigerace117 said:
So you think he should have been allowed to commit murder and gotten off scot-free?

Millions of people don’t have guns yet are “free”. Temporarily taking anyway someone’s firearm does not make them “not free”.
Click to expand...

I am sorry.. did he commit murder before the police escalated the situation into a dangerous one? doesn't sound like he did.

Hmmm.. so again.. you don't have a problem with your property being taken away without due process? that's the question I asked you.

And millions of people are free.. largely because someone with firearms.. fought for that freedom at some time.
 
HonestJoe said:
The main difference is the court order, not the badges. Pretty much everything a police officer legally does in response to crimes or allegations of crimes would be illegal for a civilian – that’s why we have police officers and all of the legal structures around them. If someone threw you in a van and drove you to a remote cell where they locked you away for years they’d be considered a kidnapper. By your argument, every prison should be closed and all prisoners released.
Click to expand...

As I said, you have a superstitious belief that all that crap magically makes everything ok. It doesn't.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Yeah, the dumb cops should have just allowed Willis to murder them. :screwy
Click to expand...

No. I would like to see a law that would of required Mr. Willis to a chance to appear in court first to be judged if he was a temporary threat. If so then he surrenders weapons until a full trial can be held to determine what needs to be done.
 
jaeger19 said:
No.. police officers are folks that are trained, they are agents of the government. They are given responsibility to protect the public and are given certain responsibilities to that. . Because of that.. they MUST be held to a much higher standard than the average citizen.

There is a definite threat to your life if a police officer takes my firearm. the number of folks that have been shot by police officers.. when UNARMED.. shows that.. much less those have been lawfully carrying and been shot by panicky police officers.

Officers.. have a responsibility to act in a responsible and rational manner and not escalate a situation and turn a NON VIOLENT situation into a violent one.
Click to expand...

And they are held to a higher standard, which is why your claims equating police to this citizen is so laughable.

I get that you are grasping at straws to justify this guy's attempted murder of a police officer but the simple fact is that you do not get a free pass to shoot at police.

Conservatives really need to figure that out.
 
jaeger19 said:
I am sorry.. did he commit murder before the police escalated the situation into a dangerous one? doesn't sound like he did.

Hmmm.. so again.. you don't have a problem with your property being taken away without due process? that's the question I asked you.

And millions of people are free.. largely because someone with firearms.. fought for that freedom at some time.
Click to expand...

Yep, the police stopped him before he could commit murder......and you are whining about it.

I wouldn't try to murder police officers if my property is taken away temporarily, no.

And millions of people are actually free because the government prevented "someone with firearms" from doing whatever nutty thing crossed their mind.
 
TurtleDude said:
I can see this law leading to some massive possibilities of abuse--sort of like "Swatting" someone. Especially in heated custody battles. I can see cases where this might be justified but there has to be severe penalties for those who report others without good cause
Click to expand...

Somebody shows up at my door 0500 and I going to be annoyed too, not to mention armed.
 
Rucker61 said:
Then why does the law allow the subject to retain possession of knives, blunt tools and rope?
Click to expand...
When was the last mass stabbing, bludgeoning, or hanging in America?

jaeger19 said:
So your theory is that its best that the police create a situation in which deadly force might be necessary and escalate the situation to the point where they need to kill people.. got it.
Click to expand...
DA response. The theory of Maryland state lawmakers is to reduce the chances of an unbalanced person hurting/killing themselves and/or a bunch of other people. A noble cause IMO.

jaeger19 said:
So you think we should take away someones property and freedom without due process?
Click to expand...
Dishonest interpretation and exaggeration. Freedom and due process are not issues involved. The firearms are temporarily removed and can be gotten back within 1 week.

What logical solutions do you guys have to offer that can help to prevent unbalanced folks from killing a bunch of other folks?
 
RaleBulgarian said:
When was the last mass stabbing, bludgeoning, or hanging in America?
Click to expand...

Note my actual question: was he considered a danger to himself or to someone else? That doesn't mean mass killing. The red flag law isn't in place just to address mass shootings - it's to try to prevent suicides and homicides. 1500 people are killed each year with knives. 11,500 hang or suffocate themselves every year in suicides. If the law is only focused on taking guns away, it's not about the safety of the public or the dangerous person. It's just about guns.
 
Chillfolks said:
No. I would like to see a law that would of required Mr. Willis to a chance to appear in court first to be judged if he was a temporary threat. If so then he surrenders weapons until a full trial can be held to determine what needs to be done.
Click to expand...
Yes, by all means notify a person believed to be a danger to him/herself that the government is considering removing their firearms on such and such date and location, and please be on time. Brilliant idea. No way that could trigger a violent response. :screwy
 
PleasantValley said:
The man paid with his life for a crime he MIGHT commit.
There was even a syfi movie about such a police state.
Now it is real and in Maryland.

The land that brought us the Star Spangled banner and crab cakes now will bring you death for a crime you MIGHT commit.
Click to expand...

Right because the guy didn’t do anything, he was just sitting in his chair and the cops opened fire right? Along with having an idiotic comment I see you’re going for most melodramatic post as well.
 
Rucker61 said:
Note my actual question: was he considered a danger to himself or to someone else?
Click to expand...
Did you read the article OP posted?
Rucker61 said:
That doesn't mean mass killing. The red flag law isn't in place just to address mass shootings - it's to try to prevent suicides and homicides. 1500 people are killed each year with knives. 11,500 hang or suffocate themselves every year in suicides. If the law is only focused on taking guns away, it's not about the safety of the public or the dangerous person. It's just about guns.
Click to expand...
A person can only kill themselves once with any of the items you specified, but a firearm is the one tool that will most efficiently kill a bunch of people before the unbalanced person can be stopped. There are as many ways for any person intent on killing themselves as they’re capable of imagining, so there will never be a one size answer fits all circumstances. Temporarily, at least, removing firearms from a disturbed person is a reasonable idea. I very seriously doubt the authors of the 2nd Amendment would be upset over authorities temporarily “infringing” on the right of a disturbed individual.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Did you read the article OP posted?

A person can only kill themselves once with any of the items you specified, but a firearm is the one tool that will most efficiently kill a bunch of people before the unbalanced person can be stopped. There are as many ways for any person intent on killing themselves as they’re capable imagining, so there will never be a one size answer fits all circumstances. Temporarily, at least, removing firearms from a disturbed person is a reasonable idea. I very seriously doubt the authors of the 2nd Amendment would be upset over authorities temporarily “infringing” on the right of a disturbed individual.
Click to expand...

If removing a firearm from a disturbed individual for the reasons list in the law, including threatening to harm himself or harm a single other person, why isn't every method of suicide or homicide considered? This isn't just about mass shootings. It's only about gun control. If the authorities truly felt the person was a threat to himself or others, they'd do something about the person, not the gun.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Somebody shows up at my door 0500 and I going to be annoyed too, not to mention armed.
Click to expand...

And if you try and shoot a police officer, you will wind up dead.

Like this guy.
 
Rucker61 said:
If removing a firearm from a disturbed individual for the reasons list in the law, including threatening to harm himself or harm a single other person, why isn’t every method of suicide or homicide considered?
Click to expand...
I don’t know, I didn’t write the law. Maybe lawmakers considered the most obvious/common items used in suicide and homicide?
Rucker61 said:
This isn't just about mass shootings. It's only about gun control.
Click to expand...
Your opinion and you’re certainly entitled to it.
Rucker61 said:
If the authorities truly felt the person was a threat to himself or others, they'd do something about the person, not the gun.
Click to expand...
Maybe it’s easier, legally, to temporarily remove firearms than to order/mandate mental health care in Maryland?

I get your concerns about lawmakers possibly using a mental health issue to subvert 2nd Amendment rights in Maryland. It could totally be the case. It could also be that lawmakers are trying whatever they can to help stop what has become a national epidemic from manifesting itself in their state. Or both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom