|
Post by kemmer on Mar 5, 2018 2:02:33 GMT -5
Let them just try to pry them from your hands! As far as your assertion that one in five are mentally ill. At one point when my loved one was in the throws of his mental illness, he said, "Take a look at what is going on in the world right now. How can they say I'm the crazy one!" I couldn't disagree with him. I think the whole collective world is suffering from mental illness. Hey! I didn't say 20% of the population is mentally ill. That's a number given by "mental health professional"-- usually when they're seeking additional taxpayer funding for all the "sick" folks not currently beating a path to their doors, seeking treatment with their wallets open. Think of it as you do the FORTY TO FIFTY percent of college girls said to be sexually attacked on campus... often in their own dorm rooms. (Really, who would send a daughter to college knowing those odds?) We really have to fight back about this profligate use of false numbers to make a lobbying point. As for "what's going on in the world right now", I'd say it's not all that different from what was going on when the Yorks and the Lancasters were deciding who would rule England, or when witches were being burned at the stake (and the men a couple of towns in Germany murdered every woman-- all their wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, spinster aunts...) or when the Chinese built a wall to keep out marauding Mongols, or when Rome was sacked, or when Ugoohs and the Ukuuks first climbed down from the trees and began making war upon each other. The human condition "is what it is." It always has been. In fact, our current condition is far LESS violent than it was in the past, not just in warfare, but in the likelihood of ordinary folks meeting a violent end at the hands of one's fellows. And this with an exponentially larger number of people on the planet, and much MUCH larger cities. Imagine that! (But I still don't want anyone prying my guns from my hands... I have a cat to protect, and I've heard there's something called "coy-dogs" hanging about. Might be just an internet rumor, but one cannot be too careful.)
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 5, 2018 9:39:53 GMT -5
Agreed that law enforcement / mental health professionals/ et al failed in the Cruz case. I base this on the calls (I believe there were two) made to the FBI tip line that were never passed on. (Somewhat like concerns about wannabe pilots with no interest in how to LAND a plane, no?) However, "to err is human," so we can never expect perfection on that front. Mistakes will be made. The whole "danger to self or others" sounds clear enough, but is it, really? I can state from experience that one can be a "danger to self" one day, and not the next, nor on any day thereafter. A permanent blot on one's record for a temporary aberration seems a mite harsh. Remember, I've been fingerprinted three times, for background checks, so I have an interest in this topic. What happens when psychiatrists, psychologists, various "counselors" (the credentials for the last vary widely from state to state) become overly cautious, lest they land themselves in the headlines? Our criminal justice system is based on the concept that it is better to let the guilty walk free than unjustly imprison an innocent. Should those not yet accused of, nor tried for, any crime not receive the same consideration? I think if you're unbalanced enough to occasionally be a threat to yourself and others, that's a PLENTY acceptable reason to find yourself on the NICS database. In fact, most of the Steve Ellam's of the world are pretty normal most of the time. Due process does have to be a part of this. Sadly, law enforcement failures have created this scenario where there are people like Cruz, where it seems everyone around him knew he was a threat, and law enforcement let Stoneman Douglass happen. There needs to be a way for people to get something done about the Nik Cruzes of the world without relying on a broken police department.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 5, 2018 9:50:49 GMT -5
Ummm... you're conflating the excesses of government bureaucrats (who are, naturally, thinking of their own pocketbooks regarding pay raises and obscene benefits) with your dislike of President Obama's administration. This reduces the effect of your argument and draws attention away from your point. Yes, the USSR did use "mental health diagnoses" as an excuse to lock away dissenters. We have seen, in America, the invention of the pseudo-psychological term "homophobia" to describe anyone who thinks marriage should be confined to a couple comprising one man and one woman-- with the ostensible purpose of producing children who will legally inherit the assets of the parents. (Yes, legal marriage is all about inheritance, always has been. That's why the man's by-blows are called "illegitimate" heirs, whilst the woman's by-blows are the "legitimate" heirs of the husband who is not their father. Yes, DNA testing puts all that in the past, but the fact remains that "religious" marriage is a very different thing from "legal" marriage.) But I digress... the whole "people who disagree with me are nut-cases" is currently abroad only in Academia (and on the internet, of course.) I agree we must be cautious about this eagerness to diagnose dissidents. The price of freedom remains eternal vigilance... and given the ease of maintaining databases (AKA "dossiers") on everybody and his pet cat, I find the whole situation... disquieting. Oh, and let us, please, remember that it was NIXON who actually went after someone's psychiatric records-- not Obama. And yet, it was the Federal government, under The Puppet, that was spying on private American citizens, for the purpose of silencing their opposition. It was the bureaucrats in The Puppet's regime that was using government files on various people and organizations that were denying Constitutional rights of association, and campaigning for their preferred candidates. It was also The Puppet's regime, under Puppettax, that decided that all records of medical care should be digitized, opening them up to hacking, and should be held by the Federal government. As for it only being in academia that 'insanity' is being applied to political disagreement, just watch the news a bit. More and more people are being "diagnosed" by quacks on the air as "insane" simply because the individual in question isn't "progressive", or "progressive" enough.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 5, 2018 9:57:27 GMT -5
Agreed that law enforcement / mental health professionals/ et al failed in the Cruz case. I base this on the calls (I believe there were two) made to the FBI tip line that were never passed on. (Somewhat like concerns about wannabe pilots with no interest in how to LAND a plane, no?) However, "to err is human," so we can never expect perfection on that front. Mistakes will be made. The whole "danger to self or others" sounds clear enough, but is it, really? I can state from experience that one can be a "danger to self" one day, and not the next, nor on any day thereafter. A permanent blot on one's record for a temporary aberration seems a mite harsh. Remember, I've been fingerprinted three times, for background checks, so I have an interest in this topic. What happens when psychiatrists, psychologists, various "counselors" (the credentials for the last vary widely from state to state) become overly cautious, lest they land themselves in the headlines? Our criminal justice system is based on the concept that it is better to let the guilty walk free than unjustly imprison an innocent. Should those not yet accused of, nor tried for, any crime not receive the same consideration? I think if you're unbalanced enough to occasionally be a threat to yourself and others, that's a PLENTY acceptable reason to find yourself on the NICS database. In fact, most of the Steve Ellam's of the world are pretty normal most of the time. Due process does have to be a part of this. Sadly, law enforcement failures have created this scenario where there are people like Cruz, where it seems everyone around him knew he was a threat, and law enforcement let Stoneman Douglass happen. There needs to be a way for people to get something done about the Nik Cruzes of the world without relying on a broken police department. What you imply now is vigilantism, which, if the LEO community continues to show it's incompetence is inevitable, but that is not a truly viable solution. Down that road lies the mob, who's cumulative IQ is that of the lowest member. What needs to happen is, charging those responsible for the incompetence with the crime they had the opportunity to stop, but didn't. In this case, charge the FBI agent that didn't send the calls up the chain with accessory to murder. Charge the police that did nothing after nearly 50 calls to his house as well. Until there is real, inescapable pain for the people that are tasked with pubic safety that don't do their jobs, there is only vigilantism, and that's anarchy.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 5, 2018 10:37:49 GMT -5
I think if you're unbalanced enough to occasionally be a threat to yourself and others, that's a PLENTY acceptable reason to find yourself on the NICS database. In fact, most of the Steve Ellam's of the world are pretty normal most of the time. Due process does have to be a part of this. Sadly, law enforcement failures have created this scenario where there are people like Cruz, where it seems everyone around him knew he was a threat, and law enforcement let Stoneman Douglass happen. There needs to be a way for people to get something done about the Nik Cruzes of the world without relying on a broken police department. What you imply now is vigilantism, which, if the LEO community continues to show it's incompetence is inevitable, but that is not a truly viable solution. Down that road lies the mob, who's cumulative IQ is that of the lowest member. What needs to happen is, charging those responsible for the incompetence with the crime they had the opportunity to stop, but didn't. In this case, charge the FBI agent that didn't send the calls up the chain with accessory to murder. Charge the police that did nothing after nearly 50 calls to his house as well. Until there is real, inescapable pain for the people that are tasked with pubic safety that don't do their jobs, there is only vigilantism, and that's anarchy. Not necessarily. There is a proposal involving gun violence restraining orders that have the potential to at least partially address this problem. People would go to a judge, who would have the ability to issue a temporary order (which could become permanent after a court hearing). It's fair enough to say the Broward County Sherriff is a disgrace who should be removed if he doesn't resign. The FBI agents who failed to act should also face discipline, however I'd there's any lesson to be learned here, its that we can't rely on Washington to do local law enforcement to do it's job. The thing is, we're going to be seeing more Sherriff Israel's. This is Democrat law enforcement in action.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 5, 2018 12:23:43 GMT -5
What you imply now is vigilantism, which, if the LEO community continues to show it's incompetence is inevitable, but that is not a truly viable solution. Down that road lies the mob, who's cumulative IQ is that of the lowest member. What needs to happen is, charging those responsible for the incompetence with the crime they had the opportunity to stop, but didn't. In this case, charge the FBI agent that didn't send the calls up the chain with accessory to murder. Charge the police that did nothing after nearly 50 calls to his house as well. Until there is real, inescapable pain for the people that are tasked with pubic safety that don't do their jobs, there is only vigilantism, and that's anarchy. Not necessarily. There is a proposal involving gun violence restraining orders that have the potential to at least partially address this problem. People would go to a judge, who would have the ability to issue a temporary order (which could become permanent after a court hearing). It's fair enough to say the Broward County Sherriff is a disgrace who should be removed if he doesn't resign. The FBI agents who failed to act should also face discipline, however I'd there's any lesson to be learned here, its that we can't rely on Washington to do local law enforcement to do it's job. The thing is, we're going to be seeing more Sherriff Israel's. This is Democrat law enforcement in action. The problem with the TRO's is that, first, there is no due process before rights are violated. In CA, which has what you propose, the accused doesn't even get notified before some judge decides he's "dangerous". The police just show up and confiscate his firearms. Second, a TRO is just paper. You confiscate one's firearms, so he goes to the black market and buys another. Or he uses a knife. Or his car. If he/she is that dangerous, arrest him/her, and give him/her their day in court. Otherwise, we are back to star chambers, or "me too", where mere accusations, with no proof, or even evidence, can ruin someone's life. As for discipline for the bureaucrats, if death or injury results from their incompetence or PC, they should face prosecution as an accessory before the fact. Like the FL case, 17 people died because of buroeaucratic incompetence. Getting fired is a slap on the wrist for that kind of stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 5, 2018 12:46:49 GMT -5
Not necessarily. There is a proposal involving gun violence restraining orders that have the potential to at least partially address this problem. People would go to a judge, who would have the ability to issue a temporary order (which could become permanent after a court hearing). It's fair enough to say the Broward County Sherriff is a disgrace who should be removed if he doesn't resign. The FBI agents who failed to act should also face discipline, however I'd there's any lesson to be learned here, its that we can't rely on Washington to do local law enforcement to do it's job. The thing is, we're going to be seeing more Sherriff Israel's. This is Democrat law enforcement in action. The problem with the TRO's is that, first, there is no due process before rights are violated. In CA, which has what you propose, the accused doesn't even get notified before some judge decides he's "dangerous". The police just show up and confiscate his firearms. Second, a TRO is just paper. You confiscate one's firearms, so he goes to the black market and buys another. Or he uses a knife. Or his car. If he/she is that dangerous, arrest him/her, and give him/her their day in court. Otherwise, we are back to star chambers, or "me too", where mere accusations, with no proof, or even evidence, can ruin someone's life. As for discipline for the bureaucrats, if death or injury results from their incompetence or PC, they should face prosecution as an accessory before the fact. Like the FL case, 17 people died because of buroeaucratic incompetence. Getting fired is a slap on the wrist for that kind of stupidity. Going to a judge to get a restraining order IS due process. Just like going and obtaining an arrest warrant. Both will generate a court date, where you'll have the opportunity to make your case. An arrest warrant could see you in jail for some time before your day in court. The restraining order would also put you in the NICS database and prevent you from legally purchasing a gun. It's true enough that criminals will just go to the black market. Maybe that will be enough to make a difference. Maybe it won't. But it's a reasonable effort to make, especially if it stops another Nik Cruz. But your point is well taken. The whole "gun free school zone" thing is just an exercise in telling these nuts where people are defenseless.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 6, 2018 9:56:04 GMT -5
The problem with the TRO's is that, first, there is no due process before rights are violated. In CA, which has what you propose, the accused doesn't even get notified before some judge decides he's "dangerous". The police just show up and confiscate his firearms. Second, a TRO is just paper. You confiscate one's firearms, so he goes to the black market and buys another. Or he uses a knife. Or his car. If he/she is that dangerous, arrest him/her, and give him/her their day in court. Otherwise, we are back to star chambers, or "me too", where mere accusations, with no proof, or even evidence, can ruin someone's life. As for discipline for the bureaucrats, if death or injury results from their incompetence or PC, they should face prosecution as an accessory before the fact. Like the FL case, 17 people died because of buroeaucratic incompetence. Getting fired is a slap on the wrist for that kind of stupidity. Going to a judge to get a restraining order IS due process. Just like going and obtaining an arrest warrant. Both will generate a court date, where you'll have the opportunity to make your case. An arrest warrant could see you in jail for some time before your day in court. The restraining order would also put you in the NICS database and prevent you from legally purchasing a gun. It's true enough that criminals will just go to the black market. Maybe that will be enough to make a difference. Maybe it won't. But it's a reasonable effort to make, especially if it stops another Nik Cruz. But your point is well taken. The whole "gun free school zone" thing is just an exercise in telling these nuts where people are defenseless. It is, and it isn't. Unless the burden of proof for a TRO is raised considerably, it's really nothing more than innuendo, which the judge uses to decide, absent the subject, whether the petitioner is honest. As for it adding one to NICS, again, that's denying one their inalienable rights without their day in court. Just like inclusion on the "no fly list", which some in Congress are pushing. Because the criteria for inclusion in the no fly list is classified, one doesn't even know they have been included unless, or until they try to buy a firearm, and there is no mechanism for the average citizen to even contest their inclusion. I agree that we have to do a better job of keeping firearms out of the hands of the truly evil, or even the mentally ill. But arbitrarily removing rights, simply on the word of someone else is not the way. As in FL, the signs were there, but those charged with investigating, and taking action if needed, failed to do so. Arrest means there is enough evidence that the individual is dangerous that a court date needs to be set. A TRO does not, necessarily. In addition, arrest takes the subject off the streets, preventing him/her from using other means to carry out mayhem.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 6, 2018 11:15:04 GMT -5
Going to a judge to get a restraining order IS due process. Just like going and obtaining an arrest warrant. Both will generate a court date, where you'll have the opportunity to make your case. An arrest warrant could see you in jail for some time before your day in court. The restraining order would also put you in the NICS database and prevent you from legally purchasing a gun. It's true enough that criminals will just go to the black market. Maybe that will be enough to make a difference. Maybe it won't. But it's a reasonable effort to make, especially if it stops another Nik Cruz. But your point is well taken. The whole "gun free school zone" thing is just an exercise in telling these nuts where people are defenseless. It is, and it isn't. Unless the burden of proof for a TRO is raised considerably, it's really nothing more than innuendo, which the judge uses to decide, absent the subject, whether the petitioner is honest. As for it adding one to NICS, again, that's denying one their inalienable rights without their day in court. Just like inclusion on the "no fly list", which some in Congress are pushing. Because the criteria for inclusion in the no fly list is classified, one doesn't even know they have been included unless, or until they try to buy a firearm, and there is no mechanism for the average citizen to even contest their inclusion. I agree that we have to do a better job of keeping firearms out of the hands of the truly evil, or even the mentally ill. But arbitrarily removing rights, simply on the word of someone else is not the way. As in FL, the signs were there, but those charged with investigating, and taking action if needed, failed to do so. Arrest means there is enough evidence that the individual is dangerous that a court date needs to be set. A TRO does not, necessarily. In addition, arrest takes the subject off the streets, preventing him/her from using other means to carry out mayhem. Innuendo? It's a sworn affidavit. Lying on it could and should result in criminal penalties.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 6, 2018 20:13:56 GMT -5
It is, and it isn't. Unless the burden of proof for a TRO is raised considerably, it's really nothing more than innuendo, which the judge uses to decide, absent the subject, whether the petitioner is honest. As for it adding one to NICS, again, that's denying one their inalienable rights without their day in court. Just like inclusion on the "no fly list", which some in Congress are pushing. Because the criteria for inclusion in the no fly list is classified, one doesn't even know they have been included unless, or until they try to buy a firearm, and there is no mechanism for the average citizen to even contest their inclusion. I agree that we have to do a better job of keeping firearms out of the hands of the truly evil, or even the mentally ill. But arbitrarily removing rights, simply on the word of someone else is not the way. As in FL, the signs were there, but those charged with investigating, and taking action if needed, failed to do so. Arrest means there is enough evidence that the individual is dangerous that a court date needs to be set. A TRO does not, necessarily. In addition, arrest takes the subject off the streets, preventing him/her from using other means to carry out mayhem. Innuendo? It's a sworn affidavit. Lying on it could and should result in criminal penalties. Yes, it's a sworn statement, but it's rarely followed up to verify the particulars, at least in my local jurisdictions. It's almost always accidental when the police catch a plaintiff in a lie on a TRO. After all, it's not a cross examination, and hearsay is often acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 7, 2018 12:21:58 GMT -5
Innuendo? It's a sworn affidavit. Lying on it could and should result in criminal penalties. Yes, it's a sworn statement, but it's rarely followed up to verify the particulars, at least in my local jurisdictions. It's almost always accidental when the police catch a plaintiff in a lie on a TRO. After all, it's not a cross examination, and hearsay is often acceptable. That's why it would be followed up with a hearing. Then the court can sort out who, if anyone, is lying and apply appropriate penalties.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Mar 7, 2018 20:16:40 GMT -5
Yes, it's a sworn statement, but it's rarely followed up to verify the particulars, at least in my local jurisdictions. It's almost always accidental when the police catch a plaintiff in a lie on a TRO. After all, it's not a cross examination, and hearsay is often acceptable. That's why it would be followed up with a hearing. Then the court can sort out who, if anyone, is lying and apply appropriate penalties. I agree, if that's what happens. All to often, there is no hearing. Either the target of the TRO is "unable to be found", or the judge simply issues the order, and expects the target to either accept it, or hire a lawyer and fight it.
|
|