Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Umm if there is enough for a restraining order then why not arrest and try?
Anything else just proves restraining orders are inherently weak and rely on an extremely low burden of proof.
Just arrest and convict. Why are you against actually solving the problem? Could it be you just don't like guns and are merely capitalizing on domestic violence?
Yup...
I think the idea behind restraining orders and protection orders is to prevent violence, and also to get someone to stop harassing an estranged intimate partner, without having to arrest them. It actually is giving the perpetrator a chance to correct their behavior without being arrested. I think that's a good thing.
The worst argument ever is the "if it saves just one life" is just feel good nonsense from the left. Civil rights are not determined by such a low bar, otherwise we would have no civil rights, because if it saves just one life it will be worth it.
I will not stand for anyone in this country to lose any civil rights without proper due process. I hope you are never on the receiving end of faulty allegation where your rights are violated without a day in court.
Just ask any family law attorney how much the system is abused.
Except it's not likely to be just one life. It could save dozens of lives every year.
Actual research findings on the relationship between gun laws and domestic violence homicide is irrelevant? FAIL.
When it comes to someone's Constitutional rights, it absolutely IS irrelevant unless you're proposing an amendment to the Constitution, which you're not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
I'm not interested in changing this into a discussion on constitutional rights. To me that's not what this topic is about.
That's EXACTLY what it is.
Since the beginning of the thread, you've been demanding that people's property be removed from them, despite the fact that they haven't even been accused of a crime, much less convicted.
I don't care what you THINK this thread is about. If you're not able to see the implications of what you're proposing, that's your problem, not anyone else's.
Which legal definition of lunatic are you using here? If it is simply the fact a threat has been made that creates that legal state I have a severe issue with your judgement. Everyone I know has uttered some type of threat of bodily injury to someone else in a fit of anger during their lifetime. I have never heard anyone suggest that insanity permeats our society at 100% before.
If you are using a different definition, how was it determined and did all of the men you are disgusted with in your links undergo that process of legal determination? If not, why are you applying it to them without proof?
Do you also not care about the rights of women or children who threaten men? I have personal knowledge of cases where no legal recourse was available to the men involved. The police determined they were able to defend themselves in the event of the threat being carried out and suggested they call back once the attack had been attempted to have the perp arrested. Care to take up that standard? The use of a gun was threatened in one of those cases. (She didn't own one, but did have access to his.)
I think threats of violence should be treated seriously by the law no matter who makes them, whether it's a disgruntled employee, school child, husband, wife. I don't think anyone is using a one-time statement said in anger, as in "I could just kill you for doing that," as grounds for a protective order.
Usually we're talking about a situation in which a husband or ex-boyfriend has made repeated threats against a woman's life, her children, even her other family members. And usually there has been a history of physical violence, and previous arrests. Most domestic violence homicide is the culmination of years of abuse and violence.
I think the idea behind restraining orders and protection orders is to prevent violence, and also to get someone to stop harassing an estranged intimate partner, without having to arrest them. It actually is giving the perpetrator a chance to correct their behavior without being arrested. I think that's a good thing.
No conviction no criminal penalties.
Property seizure is a criminal penalty.
Unconstitutional and illegal.
Would be better just to end the situation by arresting the threatener, male or female, and put them through the system with the normal burden of proof.
This way lying women, and there are some, suffer criminal sanctions and women that are indeed in danger get more help than a useless paper.
And if there is no evidence then too bad. This isn't China...
As soon as the person is arrested and placed in the system then gun confiscation is irrelevant no?
If they make bail, confiscate the weapons. If they are not guilty or charges are dropped or its a false accusation return weapons and expunge arrest.
Except it's not likely to be just one life. It could save dozens of lives every year.
Freedom is not measured in lives.
If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom. Eisenhower
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.â€
Benjamin Franklin
“Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.†Abraham Lincoln
“In case of dissension, never dare to judge till you've heard the other side.†Euripides
The Fifth Amendment is an old friend and a good friend. It is one of the great landmarks in man’s struggle to be free of tyranny, to be decent and civilized. It is our way of escape from the use of torture.
William O. Douglas
Would be better just to end the situation by arresting the threatener, male or female, and put them through the system with the normal burden of proof.
This way lying women, and there are some, suffer criminal sanctions and women that are indeed in danger get more help than a useless paper.
And if there is no evidence then too bad. This isn't China...
As soon as the person is arrested and placed in the system then gun confiscation is irrelevant no?
If they make bail, confiscate the weapons. If they are not guilty or charges are dropped or its a false accusation return weapons and expunge arrest.
I think that certain people posting in this thread are a lost cause. I'm not going to bother any more, and I suggest you stop wasting your time, too.
Nobody wants to see anyone hurt or in a dangerous situation, but certain people just can't grasp that you don't punish people based on nothing. It's very sad that there are people out there who are so simple minded that they can't grasp such basic concepts as due process and being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Thankfully, those people are the exception, not the rule, but I fear that as the population gets dumbed down and so willingly accepts any feel-good propaganda that they're given, the scales could tip.
I think that certain people posting in this thread are a lost cause. I'm not going to bother any more, and I suggest you stop wasting your time, too.
Nobody wants to see anyone hurt or in a dangerous situation, but certain people just can't grasp that you don't punish people based on nothing. It's very sad that there are people out there who are so simple minded that they can't grasp such basic concepts as due process and being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Thankfully, those people are the exception, not the rule, but I fear that as the population gets dumbed down and so willingly accepts any feel-good propaganda that they're given, the scales could tip.
And you are right, I don't care about the gun rights of men who threaten women and children with harm. If you go around threatening to kill people, I think it's a good idea for your guns to be confiscated. Period. And I would say the same for school shooters or anyone else who is making these threats. If you don't want your guns confiscated, don't go around threatening to kill people. If you do, you lose your rights to your guns.
Do you care about the rights of the innocent? Do you care about the FACT that our legal system is based on the principle of "INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty"??
Of course you think it's a good idea to confiscate guns... you're one of those people who would love to confiscate everyone's guns! You don't care about individual constitutional rights! You only care about your own crazy paranoia of guns and the people who own them.
Yes, I would want to take away the right to bear arms from some lunatic who is threatening the life of his wife or girlfriend. Yes! Her right to live trumps his right to bear arms and kill her, in my eyes.
You are right, I do not care about the rights of men who threaten women and children with death.
What about the rights of men who DON"T threaten women and children with death? Do you care about THEIR rights?? At all? Or do you just hate men and guns so much that you can't possibly see how more innocent men (and women) will be harmed by this type of thing, than women and children will be protected?
You are totally blinded by your fear and hate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
