It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Officers fatally shoot armed man while serving protective order to remove guns

page: 7
41
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: WUNK22

Um... Lol. I don't know if you knew but Hitler was definitely not a leftist.


Wow.




posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Too true. In this case, fatally so, nor is there any reasonable excuse for it. This law is inexcusable.



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

But, but, but!...They are just "following orders".
You are absolutely right. It's inexcusable.



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: murphy22

That's at least something vaguely like an excuse. Not a good one, mind you, but they at least have one, no matter how bad...they were "defending" themselves.

What's the chiefs excuse for saying what he said, which to me sounded remarkably like "Oops, gotta break a few eggs for an omelet."

Or the voters who approved this travesty. I wonder, do they have "blood on their hands", just like gun owners have on their hands, according to some, after one of those horrific school shooting events??
edit on 11/17/2018 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

if the reports of the complainant being an aunt are true, I wonder how she's feeling about the police and their shiny new law right about now?

Seems like maybe she's busy in the bathroom trying desperately to wash the blood off her hands.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

She probably didn't like the man and see this outcome as proof of his so called issues.



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Indeed. I almost feel sorry for her, because this was never her intent. She may have thought it was a good idea...I doubt she does now.

From that angle, this is nothing but tragic.

From the rest of the angles--WTF were people thinking? I'd really like to know. There was every chance, 100 percent as it turns out, that this law would have results like this. People tend to react badly when their property is seized for no good reason.



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I'm conservative and just want to add my opinion so that it's known that some of us support SOME things like this. I'm completely for the right to bear arms and I don't say that with hunting in my mind, that right is to defend yourself against a tyrannical government not to duck hunting, so I believe we should be allowed BIG guns with LOTS of ammo.
That being said, this law is kind of a good compromise is it not? I agree, it could be abused, just like many of our laws. I've been held against my will by a hospital when my blood sugar dropped, I was acting very erratic, not violent but crazy... And after it was over in a couple hours they let me go because I was clearly fine and better. No one was trying to give me any trouble or find symptoms that weren't there, I was extremely impressed with how it all worked. I would hope that this law is similar with a similar process. Yes I think the people holding me were reasonable good people and if they weren't it would have been easy for them to keep me longer and give me a really bad bad time with all of that, but I see it as a good thing they did what they did and I was thankful for how the process worked.
We conservatives should think about this very critically. Soon you may hear of a mass shooting everyday, it's already like it went from every couple of months to weekly i don't have statistics on that but it's how it seems. If we don't want a majority of people pushing to do away with guns then we should make them feel safer. We should have no problem with the ability to check someone out because it should be easy to prove if you are okay or not. The country is divided on this and many things, and we should start making small compromises to show that we ONLY will accept having our guns in the hands of good sane people. If we do not, then it could go south easier in my opinion because if non gun people feel threatened they will go over the top to help their side.
I just wonder if maybe it should be easier to get in trouble if you can prove someone did this just to harm you. But as it is this is already how it works reporting someone for bad parenting or sexual abuse right? People can accuse without any fear of reprocussion ? I don't know if anyone ever gets in trouble from the law of they call child services in someone because they want to hurt that person not to protect children, such as blowing something way out of proportion that they know wasn't endangering a child.
Anyone have ideas on how we could monitor a law like this to ensure that reports made are made in earnest and not like this metoo movement that gives anyone free reign to use it as a weaoon? It's a tough issue to be sure, but it needs to be addressed and I do think we should give some laws like this a trial run and see how it goes. See if it actually prevents anything from happening or if it ends up being completely useless and a burden to our rights (think TSA...If you didn't know how worthless they are look it up, they've never stopped anything and get we have given rights away to them)
Just my opinion but I wanted it counted. thanks



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Enigma Publius

I edited to add that this particular case is awful. I'm not saying this was a good outcome, but I'm saying that it's something that we should still look at and brainstorm on. There must be ways to make it easier to determine if someone is a danger, yet at the same time holding someone accountable for trying to weaponize the law to hurt someone they know isn't a danger but thought this was a good way to get at somebody. Does anyone else after or feel similar? I'm very interested to see if any other conservatives feel we should give an inch on this so they don't take a mile. My views on this topic weren't just "Givens" either, I've thought long and hard, many many days I've considered both sides of this issue and it just seems clear that something is broken, and it needs some band aids.



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Enigma Publius


That being said, this law is kind of a good compromise is it not?

I don't think it is. The compromise seems to be "we'll let you kill us if you'll feel safer." At least that's how it worked in this case.

There's a huge difference between what the hospital did to you and what the police did to this poor gentleman. You are here to post (and it's nice to meet someone else from the Tennessee Valley area), and he will never post anything ever again. The hospital saved your life; the police took his.

In theory, it makes a little sense... I was originally cautiously optimistic about these red flag laws. But as we see here, the potential for abuse is too ripe. How much "feeling safer" is this man's life worth, especially considering that apparently a single person made a single complaint? Is their perceived safety, real or imagined, worth a life? If that is the case, we are all doomed. Somewhere, sometime, everyone will likely do something that someone else coud claim made then feel "unsafe."

If someone is driving recklessly down the highway, it makes me feel unsafe. Should he be executed for driving recklessly?

If someone scruffy-looking is walking down the country road in front of my house, I watch them because I don't feel particularly "safe." Do they deserve execution?

Where does this appeasement of those who feel "unsafe" end? With guns? No, because as has been clearly demonstrated, there was no reasonable fear of being "unsafe." Will knives be next? Will the police be allowed to kill someone for the crime of possessing a knife? Is that just for hunting knives, or do pocket knives count as well? How about box cutters? Steak knives? Butter knives? Pointy sticks?

No. There is no reason in laws like this. Our law enforcement has just clearly demonstrated that they do not possess the ability to effectively enforce it without resorting to cold-blooded murder. The Police Chief has gone so far as to clearly state he considers this tragedy as a sign that more such tragedies are needed for people to feel "safe."

Blood has been drawn. It can go no farther.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Enigma Publius


That being said, this law is kind of a good compromise is it not?

I don't think it is. The compromise seems to be "we'll let you kill us if you'll feel safer." At least that's how it worked in this case.

There's a huge difference between what the hospital did to you and what the police did to this poor gentleman. You are here to post (and it's nice to meet someone else from the Tennessee Valley area), and he will never post anything ever again. The hospital saved your life; the police took his.

In theory, it makes a little sense... I was originally cautiously optimistic about these red flag laws. But as we see here, the potential for abuse is too ripe. How much "feeling safer" is this man's life worth, especially considering that apparently a single person made a single complaint? Is their perceived safety, real or imagined, worth a life? If that is the case, we are all doomed. Somewhere, sometime, everyone will likely do something that someone else coud claim made then feel "unsafe."

If someone is driving recklessly down the highway, it makes me feel unsafe. Should he be executed for driving recklessly?

If someone scruffy-looking is walking down the country road in front of my house, I watch them because I don't feel particularly "safe." Do they deserve execution?

Where does this appeasement of those who feel "unsafe" end? With guns? No, because as has been clearly demonstrated, there was no reasonable fear of being "unsafe." Will knives be next? Will the police be allowed to kill someone for the crime of possessing a knife? Is that just for hunting knives, or do pocket knives count as well? How about box cutters? Steak knives? Butter knives? Pointy sticks?

No. There is no reason in laws like this. Our law enforcement has just clearly demonstrated that they do not possess the ability to effectively enforce it without resorting to cold-blooded murder. The Police Chief has gone so far as to clearly state he considers this tragedy as a sign that more such tragedies are needed for people to feel "safe."

Blood has been drawn. It can go no farther.

TheRedneck


I read it post twice I didn't just scan it. You're right and I won't agree any points you made. I just wish there was something that could protect our guns and also allow for the authorities to check out someone who may have issues. I wasn't already at the hospital I should have made clear, relatives called the police actually because they knew something was drastically wrong with me, and from start to finish I was walking out the hospital under my own care about five hours later, that's not bad and it worked very efficiently. As it stands right now I think the law is very easy to abuse in this issue, and at the same time I feel there should be something similar to what happened to me. Maybe if a red flag comes up, take that person to be evaluated instead of their guns. Police should never be expected to determine that, doctors should. And the people who report the red flag should have to fill out a paper saying they understand fully that they will get into trouble for a false report? Just trying to brainstorm like I said. I'm worried that as shootings increase (and it looks like they will) that worse laws than this one by far may be implemented. It's the end game I'm thinking of and I would feel so threatened by a government that took away gun rights. I don't want that to ever happen and I'm honestly willing to make some kind of compromise to ensure sane healthy people can own whatever fun they want, and as many as they want.
And a shout out to the fellow Tennessee valley resident! Such good country down here and so many decent peoole! I've lived here 25 years (moved from Lafayette Indiana at thirteen) and love it more every year. We don't lock the doors where I live, we've never regretted it either, not once. I go visit family up north and it's so strange, people are very different and I know that as much as I love my little pocket of sanity here, that there are ways I take it for granted. There a millions of people who think very very differently than I do, I believe they are kind of insane actually, but I share the country with them and I want us to be able to coexist somehow.
It actually hurts me when I see the division going on like it is. I dwell on ways to help in a daily basis.



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Enigma Publius

a reply to: Enigma Publius
No. Not just no, but HELL NO.

Not. One. More. Inch.

"We conservatives" (in quotes because I don't consider myself conservative) have already made too many compromises on gun rights. There are too many laws regarding guns in place already, and the ones that would actually make a difference are not enforced.

This "red flag" law violates the following Constitutionally protected rights:

2A - Shall not be infringed.
4A - Unreasonable search and seizure
5A - Due Process
6A - Right to a trial by jury, right to face witnesses
14A - Equal protection

How would any reasonable person say that "If we just give them this, maybe they'll go away." about all those rights? Especially when all the previous "concessions" to gun rights have done nothing to slake the tyrant's thirst to take away the right to self-defense?

Informed citizens of a free nation do not suggest that we "pass a law which violates rights just to see what it does." That's foolish.

Your trip to the hospital is not the same. You were obviously having a medical episode and they saved your life. Nobody ran to a judge, filed an affidavit that you were having a medical episode in secret, and the medics didn't show up to your house unannounced and uncalled to whisk you away as you protested that you were completely fine. You were not then required to prove a negative to be released.

The only inches I'm willing to give on this issue anymore come in .451, .224, and .308 diameter increments.



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Enigma Publius


I just wish there was something that could protect our guns and also allow for the authorities to check out someone who may have issues.

I wish there were as well. But this tells me there isn't, at least not anything the gun-grabbers would consider.

Maybe... and I stress the word maybe... if some of your ideas were implemented something could work. But the protections would have to be so severe now to get me on board that they would almost be laughable. Firstly, I would want the accuser to swear out an oath under penalty of law, as you said, and for that oath to be publicly accessible to anyone... no exceptions. Secondly, no more weird hour visits from the police... keep the police out of it completely. Instead, schedule a hearing with a mental health professional at a future date, and allow the accused to reschedule within reason to not overly interfere with his/her job. Thirdly, allow up to two more evaluations if the first one isn't accepted by the accused, the last two to be by a mental health professional chosen by the accused. Fourthly, if one of the three are negative, the case is dropped. Fifthly, the police may get involved and confiscate firearms only after notification of the accused, and lastly, all weapons are to be either turned over to family members of the accused choosing or held in secure storage for eventual return after treatment and a successful exam... without charge.

And after this incident and the words of a Police Chief... even that's a maybe.

Alabama has something similar to that... a person may swear out a warrant to have a person evaluated. The police can then take them in for an 8-hour mental health examination (they almost always will if the person complaining goes through DHS). But if they pass that examination, they are then returned and the police will likely not allow another warrant to be sworn out without compelling evidence. I checked on that when my mother's second husband started showing signs of dementia and his children refused (at first) to do anything. The thing is that even someone with dementia can often hold together under the stress of the exam for 8 hours, so it's hard to get that to stick until they are pretty far gone.

We don't lock our doors either. There's no need. The last trouble we had was something like 40 years ago when a couple of gas thieves started hitting gas tanks around here. Let's just say they were not smiling when someone caught them... more like running for their lives. I know because I was one of the ones that caught them.

What can I say? This is home... my father lived here, and his father before him, and his father before him. I drove a truck for 8 years OTR, so I have seen almost all of the country. There's no place like home.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 06:17 PM
link   


The only inches I'm willing to give on this issue anymore come in .451, .224, and .308 diameter increments.


.451? Wow...what is that, a Lott?

Heck, I'm even going to have to go look in my reloading book at a .224. Is that a wildcat?



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Nominal projectile sizes for .45acp, 5.56x45 Nato, and 7.62x51 Nato.

Did I mention that I reload?



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Enigma Publius

If it was a true compromise, then yes, or rather, maybe--OK, in all likelihood, no. But I'd listen.

But it's never, ever, a compromise. It's always their way. Always me giving up something--for essentially nothing. To them, I'm a paranoid, gun worshipping nut who dreams of nothing else but shooting some poor innocent burglar. All day, every day.

When the reality is something else entirely. What I am is a long haired used to be, and will be again (as soon as we sell this damned house...), country boy, who just wants to be left alone to live my life as I choose. I bother no one, so why do they feel it necessary to bother me?

No. I've bent over by not fighting the Brady Bill like I should have--as hard as humanly possible. Initiative 1639 here in Washington is a 30 page gun control how to manual, that I didn't fight hard enough against. The list is a very long one. This far, and no further.

I'm done "compromising".

Your heart is in the right place. That's to your credit. But the real issue isn't the tool, it's what makes people reach for the tool to do unspeakable things.



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: cynicalheathen

Yeah, this won't stand once it's challenged. Now there are people with standing to challenge.



posted on Nov, 17 2018 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TexasTruth

Yep, if these laws ever come to red states they're going to have citizen militia's in a community that makes sure any cop enforcing this ends up dead in the street. There's one thing gun owners will come together on, there will be no forced disarming of citizens with no due process.

They think the hood is dangerous, wait until roving bands or veterans are waiting for them.
edit on 17-11-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: Enigma Publius

a reply to: Enigma Publius
No. Not just no, but HELL NO.

Not. One. More. Inch.

"We conservatives" (in quotes because I don't consider myself conservative) have already made too many compromises on gun rights. There are too many laws regarding guns in place already, and the ones that would actually make a difference are not enforced.

This "red flag" law violates the following Constitutionally protected rights:

2A - Shall not be infringed.
4A - Unreasonable search and seizure
5A - Due Process
6A - Right to a trial by jury, right to face witnesses
14A - Equal protection

How would any reasonable person say that "If we just give them this, maybe they'll go away." about all those rights? Especially when all the previous "concessions" to gun rights have done nothing to slake the tyrant's thirst to take away the right to self-defense?

Informed citizens of a free nation do not suggest that we "pass a law which violates rights just to see what it does." That's foolish.

Your trip to the hospital is not the same. You were obviously having a medical episode and they saved your life. Nobody ran to a judge, filed an affidavit that you were having a medical episode in secret, and the medics didn't show up to your house unannounced and uncalled to whisk you away as you protested that you were completely fine. You were not then required to prove a negative to be released.

The only inches I'm willing to give on this issue anymore come in .451, .224, and .308 diameter increments.


I can't say I don't feel similar.
As for my experience, they had no clue what was wrong with me at first. It was assumed that it was drugs actually, which was proven to be wrong after tests. So in reality, medical services and police showed up unexpected. And a judge actually visited my hospital room before I was discharged. He was a great example of how you would HOPE a judge would be. Good man.



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Enigma Publius

If it was a true compromise, then yes, or rather, maybe--OK, in all likelihood, no. But I'd listen.

But it's never, ever, a compromise. It's always their way. Always me giving up something--for essentially nothing. To them, I'm a paranoid, gun worshipping nut who dreams of nothing else but shooting some poor innocent burglar. All day, every day.

When the reality is something else entirely. What I am is a long haired used to be, and will be again (as soon as we sell this damned house...), country boy, who just wants to be left alone to live my life as I choose. I bother no one, so why do they feel it necessary to bother me?

No. I've bent over by not fighting the Brady Bill like I should have--as hard as humanly possible. Initiative 1639 here in Washington is a 30 page gun control how to manual, that I didn't fight hard enough against. The list is a very long one. This far, and no further.

I'm done "compromising".

Your heart is in the right place. That's to your credit. But the real issue isn't the tool, it's what makes people reach for the tool to do unspeakable things.


I need to read that in whole. I have read a chunk of the patriot act and it is pretty messed up.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join