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.
Difficult grounds. If the DA says he will not prosecute, then the police cannot arrest. To do so is harassment at least and probably grounds for a lawsuit.
I've been there. Had a government theft case inside a research facility. We had the evidence but the DA told us he would not go to court unless he had an eye witness.
I was absolutely furious, I wanted to do something to let that guy know we were over him.....but I was told hands off, if the DA says no, there is nothing you can do.
Admittedly in the years afterwards, I see it slightly different now. To arrest someone that you know the DA is not going to prosecute, to take their photo, their fingerprints, to create a record of them in the system......is wrong in a free country.
In my opinion, people like him should be treated as somebody who are suicidal.
The current approach is this, one said, "I want to kill myself." You call 911 and report such a person to the police officers immediately. Right now, California, Washington, Oregon, Indiana and Connecticut have statutes that can be used to temporarily take guns away from people a judge deems a threat to themselves or others.
California at least does this right.
You have to give up some freedom in order to live with other civilized people. You make a threat, then you need to give up your gun. I don't think most people should have a problem with that, should they?
The police cannot arrest when there is no complainant. The DA cannot press charges when no one will file. It is super easy to point fingers at the police for responding to call but in the source provided from another poster no one would press charges.
Police and others in a position to know should be able to flag background checks without waiting for a court case when someone has a history of making threats even if they have not been convicted. That person should have the ability to prove that they are not actually a danger to the community but after threatening to kill people, you should no longer have the privilege of owning a gun without a mental health check.
Well, there we go.
That is removing a person's rights without due process. That is wrong in this country.
That is what politicians have been trying to do when they try an end run around the Constitution such as by saying if you are on the no fly list, you should not be able to buy guns.
It comes down to this. In order to remove the rights of an individual, you charge them, you haul them into court, and you prove the charge. Once done, then you can remove the rights
Anything easier and you better believe there will be those in the government who will remove everyone's rights in as quick as it takes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
.....You make a threat, then you need to give up your gun. I don't think most people should have a problem with that, should they?
But what is a threat?
Do you know what can constitute assault against a police office in Texas? As little as giving them the finger.
We have people that sensitive....or that spiteful these days.
That is removing a person's rights without due process. That is wrong in this country.
That is what politicians have been trying to do when they try an end run around the Constitution such as by saying if you are on the no fly list, you should not be able to buy guns.
It comes down to this. In order to remove the rights of an individual, you charge them, you haul them into court, and you prove the charge. Once done, then you can remove the rights
Anything easier and you better believe there will be those in the government who will remove everyone's rights in as quick as it takes.
Pretending that due process is cut and dried is just that, pretending. As a society we can actually take someone's liberty from them temporarily without due process for suicide and psychiatric holds. Are you against that as well?
We have already acknowledged as a society that we are allowed to regulate access to guns, making it harder for someone who has made threats to get a gun is not removing their due process any more than the dozens of other examples we already have in our society.
Do you believe felons should own guns? Or those who have been found to be mental unstable or a threat to the community? Because the only thing I have suggested is a delay in owning a gun not a removal of the right to own one.
In my opinion, people like him should be treated as somebody who are suicidal.
The current approach is this, one said, "I want to kill myself." You call 911 and report such a person to the police officers immediately. Right now, California, Washington, Oregon, Indiana and Connecticut have statutes that can be used to temporarily take guns away from people a judge deems a threat to themselves or others.
California at least does this right.
You have to give up some freedom in order to live with other civilized people. You make a threat, then you need to give up your gun. I don't think most people should have a problem with that, should they?
I think a law such as the one you mention above would have been of great use in Florida. The police could have gotten an order to confiscate Cruz's guns a long time ago which may have spurred him to get the mental health help he so desperately needed and repeatedly refused. Might have saved 18 instead of just 17 lives.
Do you know what can constitute assault against a police office in Texas? As little as giving them the finger.
We have people that sensitive....or that spiteful these days.
So what is a threat?
I will just give you an example
Neighbors interviewed by multiple outlets remember him as a menace to the neighborhood, telling reporters that Cruz had been caught shooting at a neighbor’s chickens, siccing his dogs on a neighbor’s pigs, stealing mail, vandalizing property, peeking in a neighbor’s windows, and trying to steal a neighbor’s bike.
CBS reported, citing an anonymous law enforcement source, that in February 2016 the Broward County Sheriff's Office was notified that Cruz had posted a picture of himself holding guns on Instagram with a caption indicating that he was going to shoot his school.
Pretending that due process is cut and dried is just that, pretending. As a society we can actually take someone's liberty from them temporarily without due process for suicide and psychiatric holds. Are you against that as well?
We have already acknowledged as a society that we are allowed to regulate access to guns, making it harder for someone who has made threats to get a gun is not removing their due process any more than the dozens of other examples we already have in our society.
Do you believe felons should own guns? Or those who have been found to be mental unstable or a threat to the community? Because the only thing I have suggested is a delay in owning a gun not a removal of the right to own one.
Essentially, A and B......and C.
A: Keep to the subject at hand.
B: Recognize the slippery slope that as it applies to one thing, so it could apply to another.
And C: If we decide that so it applies to one thing, so it can apply to another, for those questions you ask, how do they apply to the other items in the Bill of Rights? If they can apply to the 2nd Amendment, then should they not apply to the rest of the Bill of Rights?
I think a law such as the one you mention above would have been of great use in Florida. The police could have gotten an order to confiscate Cruz's guns a long time ago which may have spurred him to get the mental health help he so desperately needed and repeatedly refused. Might have saved 18 instead of just 17 lives.
Yep.
I lost several loved ones to suicide. Once somebody told me, "Life is not worth living, I want to kill myself." I am sorry, I 'd report such a person to the police officers or I will call 911.
In my opinion, such a person should not be allowed to own a gun. Law should be updated and followed through. This is at the very least the first step. If you made a threat, then you cannot own a gun. It is much better than taking AR15 away from everybody. You simply cannot shift the blame from people to gun which is nothing but a tool.
Neighbors interviewed by multiple outlets remember him as a menace to the neighborhood, telling reporters that Cruz had been caught shooting at a neighbor’s chickens, siccing his dogs on a neighbor’s pigs, stealing mail, vandalizing property, peeking in a neighbor’s windows, and trying to steal a neighbor’s bike.
CBS reported, citing an anonymous law enforcement source, that in February 2016 the Broward County Sheriff's Office was notified that Cruz had posted a picture of himself holding guns on Instagram with a caption indicating that he was going to shoot his school.
well, he shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. If this is debatable, then there is nothing else I can say.
We have the problem here that we must act under the Constitution.
This is why there is a difference between being an adult film actor and being a prostitute. Both are about selling sex but........
........one is a right under the Constitution and the other is not.
So once again, we come back to it that unless he is charged and brought into court, what he has done does not affect his rights.
I had this similar argument constantly with my boss during the Obama administration about "treasonous" acts.
Unless he is brought before a court, effectively it has not happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
Yep.
I lost several loved ones to suicide. Once somebody told me, "Life is not worth living, I want to kill myself." I am sorry, I 'd report such a person to the police officers or I will call 911.
In my opinion, such a person should not be allowed to own a gun. Law should be updated and followed through. This is at the very least the first step. If you made a threat, then you cannot own a gun. It is much better than taking AR15 away from everybody. You simply cannot shift the blame from people to gun which is nothing but a tool.
Well, this reminds me of the flick, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064621/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 (I don't have it, haven't seen it in decades) where the French policeman is trying to explain to the young man why suicide is against the law.
When we consider abortion, when we consider prostitution, where does the government apply in what a person does to their body? As I said above, not the topic for this thread......but with the liberal education I have had since being in the service, it is an interesting consideration.
Now, would I try to talk someone out of it? Of course. If not because that is my profession then because of my beliefs in Stewardship.
This is why there is a difference between being an adult film actor and being a prostitute. Both are about selling sex but........
........one is a right under the Constitution and the other is not.
just making an comment, no argument at all
I dont remember the constitution saying anything about prostitue, legal or not
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.
