beebee233
-
Posts
178 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1 -
Feedback
0%
Content Type
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Posts posted by beebee233
-
-
On 8/16/2019 at 8:43 AM, E4 No More said:
Why is it incumbent on him to prove what he says and you don't have to prove your position?
That I'm not buyin'?????????????????
-
11 minutes ago, DaveTN said:
I absolutely support Due Process. It’s one of the very few things that protect you from the system.
If the person threatened someone with a chain saw. I would arrest them, seize it and tag it into evidence. If the wife said her husband threatened her with a chainsaw and he was headed off for commitment in the local mental hospital; I would seize the chainsaw if she didn’t want it in the house. Same with knives, baseball bats, or yes….even guns.
So you would seize whatever the threatened person wants you to and only that/those items?
-
2 minutes ago, DaveTN said:
No.
Really??
Yes, really. The whole topic here as I see it is about a person being deemed a threat to someone else and that being cause to seize guns. Not knives, not chainsaws, not baseball bats, just guns. And then allow this person back into society.
That's right up there with a no firearms sticker on a door.
-
15 minutes ago, E4 No More said:
Dave said that he supports due process in any Red Flag law; not the law itself.
I think that's where legislators go off the rail and wreck. Support of language in legislation is support of the legislation.
-
5 minutes ago, DaveTN said:
If you threaten someone with violence the cops can seize you guns without violating your Constitutional Rights.
To violate your rights the word “unreasonable” would need to be removed from the 4th amendment. Its in there for a reason.
I'm at the beach having a beer and a drunk puts his hands on my wife and I tell him if he touches her again I will kick his ass and because I threatened the guy the cops go to my house and seize my guns.
Is that what you're saying is Constitutional?
-
3 minutes ago, DaveTN said:
I don’t want a Red Flag Law. All I have done is point out that it may give you specifics on due process you don’t have now. The cops are going to take your guns if they want to; they don’t need Red Flag laws to do that. If they are seized as evidence in a criminal case, it is clearly defined when you will get them back; when the court says you can have them back. It a mental health case it isn’t as clear cut.
I just keep seeing all the drama and people scared that the cops will be able to seize their guns if these Red Flag laws pass. They can do that right now.
These Red Flag laws and enhanced background checks (doing away with private sales without a background check) are just some legislators way of doing “something” without impacting law abiding voters.
Let me repeat….I don’t want Red Flag laws, I would like to see due process even though it will have zero impact on me. Legislation specifying how and when these things will happen is the only way to have due process.
If you want to keep things the way they are now; that’s fine, tell your legislators that. They will be happy to hear it.
Thanks for clarifying.
When bersa said he didn't have a problem with red flag laws and you responded in agreement, I came to the wrong conclusion.
For the record, I don't want to keep things the way they are now. I want to follow the Constitution as it was written and intended.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, E4 No More said:
I'm sorry, but just where did Dave say that he wanted Red Flag laws?
-
2 hours ago, dawgdoc said:
First link goes to cdc study. Didn't see proof that the adult perps were normal, stable people.
Second link broke.
Again, show proof that people who leave precious cargo in hot cars to die are normal.
-
12 hours ago, DaveTN said:
That sounds illogical to me also. I’m not suggesting taking anyone’s guns and setting them free.
Taking guns wouldn’t be important to me. Saving someone’s life who has asked me for help would be.
If taking guns is not important, what do you want red flag laws for?
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, DaveTN said:
In this state I don't know. And no one "in the know" has answered that yet. I suspect, yes, they can take your guns. I also suspect there is not documented due process addressing getting them back. But that's just a WAG.
You said:
When LE has identified someone as a credible threat for violence to themselves or others, do you think the cops should have to wait until they start shooting to take their guns?
What I mean by my statement is that, under your stated scenario above, LE has identified a credible threat for violence to themselves or another, at that point, LE has the authority and responsibility to eliminate the threat.
I'm assuming your scenario involves the person brandishing a gun. Otherwise, why would LE take it/them?
My solution for neutralizing the threat would be to take the person into custody, not take his guns and let him go free. What if he kills his wife with a knife 5 minutes after LE leaves?
What you are saying is illogical to me.
Why is LE taking the person's guns so important?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, dawgdoc said:
a shockingly large number are normal, stable people you would never think it would happen to
Ain't buyin'...
Got proof?
-
2 hours ago, TomInMN said:
Incomprehensible? Really? Look at the switch, where's the indicator pointing? Better yet, if it's not bright out, look out the front of your car and see if there are any bright spots. Most people will be able to comprehend how those processes are easier than remembering to turn and look behind them at what they think it's an empty back seat.
My wife and I have two little guys right now. I agree that having kids should (and I'd say for most people it generally does) fundamentally change your world view. I'd also say that, on a day-to-day or hour-to-hour basis, my mind is probably not operating at 100% of its potential. Also, I'm human, and self aware enough to know that I'm not perfect.
There's a chance I'll forget something at some point, and I hope to god that my children aren't harmed as a result. If an alarm could possibly help, I'm glad to have it.
The kids of the people I'm assuming you're addressing with your "put down the phone, focus beyond yourself" statement may not be helped by that alarm, and the people who make a conscious decision to leave their kids in the car certainly won't. But a "check the back seat" alarm might help one kid not die, and I think that's pretty good. In the same vein, I'm a careful driver, but wear my seatbelt anyway.
You're gonna' need another one of these...
-
On 8/13/2019 at 11:07 AM, DaveTN said:
When LE has identified someone as a credible threat for violence to themselves or others, do you think the cops should have to wait until they start shooting to take their guns?
Doesn't current law cover this already?
-
14 hours ago, TomInMN said:
Why? We have reminders for headlights and seatbelts. Those are both pretty dang obvious, much more so than a little person asleep in the back seat.
I think it's a good idea, and I'm glad some companies are offering the feature.
If you need a reminder that your child is in the back seat of your car your child should be taken from you for their safety's sake.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, bersaguy said:
I think the auto industry should begin working on ways that would remind a person that their child is in the back seat
This is SO sad....
-
2
-
-
No reason to expect cops to have any more sense than the society they are products of.
-
1
-
-
Opera for two years now
-
I am always puzzled by load calculations regarding safes/aquariums etc. When it is presented as (for example) 500 lbs in a 4'x4' footprint, I immediately imagine two 250 lb guys standing in the middle of the room back to back and wondering whether or not the floor is going to cave in.
I keep coming up with no.
But what do I know?
I'm not a structural engineer with a degree and a computer.
-
3 hours ago, DaveTN said:
Some of you seem to think that the safety of the family or the safety of the public are somehow secondary to the rights of a criminal thug threatening a violent act. Nothing could be farther from the truth and is not required by the United States Constitution or by Criminal Law.
I'm in this part of the thread late but, in regards to the "rights of a criminal thug threatening a violent act", when exactly does this person become a criminal, when does he become a thug?
-
40 minutes ago, DaveTN said:
That would work.
Keep them in jail until trial. Great idea!
Would you give them the option of being able to bond out if they voluntarily surrender their firearms? Because that’s what they are going to want to do.
If the threat is real, it doesn't matter if you remove the guns or not if you keep the knives, cars, bats, sticks, nail guns, screwdrivers, blowtorches, hammers, shovels, rakes, axes, etc. around.
-
3
-
-
21 minutes ago, DaveTN said:
You think it’s an unreasonable seizure to take firearms from someone threatening homicide or suicide?
If the threat is that real then the person should be removed from the firearms, not the other way around.
-
3
-
-
21 minutes ago, DaveTN said:
Against what? Against what they will do? Against what the procedure you now have is? What are you against?
And what would GlockSpock do as a Police Officer when a woman has told you her husband threatened to kill her, there are guns in the house, she does not want them there, and she is in fear for her life and the lives of her children. Go…
Second scenario. An elderly woman has told you her elderly husband has been depressed and has threatened to kill himself. There are firearms in the house and she believes he will kill both her and himself. Go…
I don’t believe in violent convicted felons owning guns, and I don’t believe in second changes for some violent offenses. I don’t have a problem with restoring the rights of a convicted felon as long as it goes before a Judge, preferable the Judge that heard the case if possible, and as long as the victim is notified and allowed to be heard.
Some crimes don’t deserve a second chance; actions have consequences. Some people have trouble understanding that.
I'd like to jump in and say, in scenario 1, I would tell the lady she better get the h$// out of dodge. Find an attorney and a judge, and don't go near him until the courts have determined he is fit/unfit.
Same for 2. Get the h$\\ out.
That's if I was a cop.
If it were my sister/mother, I'd tell them to get the h$\\ out NOW.
-
5 minutes ago, btq96r said:
I think we blame mental illness in the absence of true mental illness.
A lot of these shooters are perfectly sound of mind when they open fire, that mind is just demented in a way that isn't a clinical issue
I'm lost.......
Again.....
-
1
-
-
I spent 10 years in Chicago in 1983...
-
1
-
Keep them in jail until trial. Great idea!
Last night on LIVE PD…
in General Chat
Posted
"Live" doesn't necessarily mean "real"...