Gun violence....?

    Quote from Bill Martin

    I thought I would throw this out for discussion. This new (at least its new to me) “Red Flag” movement whereby is you are more or less considered a threat LEO can seize your firearms without judicial process for adjudication at a later date using “public safety” as a reason. I know we probably all can agree that we do not want a firearm in the hands of a nut job but who decides who is nuts and who is never gonna shoot anything other than his mouth off. Back to that old slippery slope thing....AGAIN!! I just can’t see how, with 100% accuracy, identifying who is a true threat and who you are violating their first and second amendment right. What y’all think??


    Bill we as cops have been doing this for years in Texas. No often but before we had the ability to do involuntary commitment on someone that we saw as a danger themselves or others, we would come in ask the right questions and if we got the wrong answers we took all the guns in the house and they went into the property room. They could claim them after 48 hrs, if they could convince a detective. If not he would have to go to court to get them back. I was always surprised we didn’t wind up in court but in 30+ years it never happen.



    Sent from my iPad using Polaris Slingshot Forum mobile app

    Quote from thesabrerattler

    Bill we as cops have been doing this for years in Texas. No often but before we had the ability to do involuntary commitment on someone that we saw as a danger themselves or others, we would come in ask the right questions and if we got the wrong answers we took all the guns in the house and they went into the property room. They could claim them after 48 hrs, if they could convince a detective. If not he would have to go to court to get them back. I was always surprised we didn’t wind up in court but in 30+ years it never happen.



    Sent from my iPad using Polaris Slingshot Forum mobile app

    I see this as slightly different though....in these cases, a third party (family or otherwise) can claim "He's a threat," and then the police may, or in some cases are required to seize the firearms. That's a lot differwnt to me than a seizure due to an observation made (and sworn to) by an officer.

    We it depends on what he sees, and what his level of experience is at the time. The first time I did it as a young officer I was very nervous about it. As my time went on I became more confident as to when to seize and when not to.

    OK - let’s set this up legally. John and Jane Doe are separated with emotions escalating. They both know each other possesses a firearm. John Doe and HIS family members convince LEO that Jane (who has no family) is a threat. LEO goes to Jane’s house to question her. Obviously visually upset LEO decides she should not possess a firearm and seize it. Later that night John busts down Jane’s door and unable to protect herself she is shot dead.


    Jane’s family goes to attorney Screwyahard and finds she has never had any history of mental illness or violence. IMO attorney Screwyahard would have an outstanding case to own a big chunk out of that jurisdictions income - ESPECIALLY if it was a stand your ground state. I agree we do not want firearms in the mentally deranged BUT how can that be determined in a single police visit ??? This is a very complex issue with no easy answer!!

    I might not be right but I can sure sound like it

    Well I understand what you are saying Bill. It is a scary situation, in the cases I was involved with the individual was not to the point of a commitment but we making comments that gave us concerned. To the best of my memory none were female. None turned into a lawsuit.



    Sent from my iPhone using Polaris Slingshot Info

    Quote from Bill Martin

    OK - let’s set this up legally.

    :00008359: I thought you were an attorney? OK, not enough info to take weapons. Threats made? Does the defendant feel his live is in danger? They are separated,.. living apart, correct? Past DV orders? Get a restraining order, she may be charged with DV and lodged, then take the weapons. We don't get it correct all the time, but with that setup, I could not take weapons. How come people can't show emotions today without getting into trouble? Next? :00000441:

    If there ever was a lawsuit like the example case I outlined I am not aware of it. However, with this type of police action gaining traction I’m sure it won’t be long before there is. With no set of hard guidelines to follow my first question to the officer who made the decision to confiscate the firearm would be “Officer please inform the court as to where you got your degree in psychology and if not all training you have received to make you qualified to make that decision. I’m thinkin those officers that could answer that question adequately would be almost nil. Jim - I know you were very experienced, good at what you did and how to read people - I would never question you - BUT how would you answer that question on the stand if I didn’t know you?

    I might not be right but I can sure sound like it

    Quote from Shatneyman

    :00008359: I thought you were an attorney? OK, not enough info to take weapons. Threats made? Does the defendant feel his live is in danger? They are separated,.. living apart, correct? Past DV orders? Get a restraining order, she may be charged with DV and lodged, then take the weapons. We don't get it correct all the time, but with that setup, I could not take weapons. How come people can't show emotions today without getting into trouble? Next? :00000441:

    I know I was very broad with the case facts. There are many facts that could shift the pendulum either way. My point is you have been in law enforcement a long time - would you be willing to stake your reputation on every deputy that worked for you or you worked with was experienced and qualified enough to make the consiscation call. There are probably 1000’s out there that would make the right call 99 out of 100 times - what if Jane was your sister and the 1 ?? You know as well as anyone - the right thing and the law are many times two completely different animals!!

    I might not be right but I can sure sound like it

    “MY” answer would be “Your honor I have a 4 year degree in criminal justice which includes over 12 college credits in abnormal psychology. I have 30 years of experience as a law enforcement officer with more than 120 hours of training in psychological evaluation of mentally challenged individual in determining if someone is a danger to themselves or others. In this case this individual was of concern to me about him hurting himself. He is not in the past been a cutter so in my professional opinion if I removed the firearms from his control, he would be reasonably safe for the the night till he can see his doctor tomorrow.



    Sent from my iPhone using Polaris Slingshot Info

    Quote from thesabrerattler

    “MY” answer would be “Your honor I have a 4 year degree in criminal justice which includes over 12 college credits in abnormal psychology. I have 30 years of experience as a law enforcement officer with more than 120 hours of training in psychological evaluation of mentally challenged individual in determining if someone is a danger to themselves or others



    Sent from my iPhone using Polaris Slingshot Info
    ANNND .....how many (not retired) street cops could testify to having your qualifications - I wouldn’t have asked you that question if we weren’t in mock court - NEVER ask a question you don’t know the answer to :00008172::00008172: I see where some departments are accepting applicants with only a high school education because more qualified applicants just don’t apply. Do we really want someone with limited education and experience out testing the 2nd Amendment ??

    I might not be right but I can sure sound like it

    Quote from Bill Martin


    Most departments don’t require a college degree anymore, most never did. Quite a few would have similar qualifications as far as training and experience. Mental Health officers spend a lot of time training for these evaluations. And I will add one thing that should scare the HELL out of you, in Texas, ( I don’t know about other jurisdictions but I bet most states are the same), ANY peace officer can commit ANYONE to a mental facility for a 48 hr evaluation. All he has to do is fill out a form and drop you off at a psyc ward!



    Sent from my iPad using Polaris Slingshot Forum mobile app

    Quote from Shatneyman

    I have let people go,...so I don't have your backing now? but what does this have to do with the case councilor?

    We are just kinda sorta on different sides of the law. I have no problem at all if a LEO deems someone to be a threat psychologically and detain them for evaluation for 48 hours as I think most officers have enough training to make that call. By the same token I do not believe that violating someone’s 2nd Amendment is the way to go - if they are that hell bent on killing someone with a gun they will get another one or find another way. Can we agree in a liberal jurisdiction (unlike yours from what I can tell) it would be a mechanism to systematically removing firearms from the public. I know I been mad enough to bite nails in half but would never shoot someone except in self defense or defense of innocents but MIGHT :D have shot my mouth off and said things I didn’t mean - should LEO confiscate my weapon?? If I knew every officer going on a call had you and @thesabrerattler s poise and experience I would have no issues at all. Unfortunately, I know some that are not up for it - you know I luv ya @Shatneyman and lemme know bout that 2020 thing - IM IN :00008359:

    I might not be right but I can sure sound like it

    Quote from Shatneyman

    Sooo,....you're an outlaw? 8| I thought we dealt with facts,.. both attorneys and cops, I leave my opinion out of law. Luv ya too bud, as far as 2020 thing,.. my vision sucks and I need glass to read now! ;(

    Negatory — ATTORNEY = SPIN DOCTOR —-


    Facts ain’t facts until they have been properly litigated - “if the glove don’t fit you must acquit” :00008172:
    On a side note we just had a local case where the defendant claimed the deceased raped his wife. He walked into the church on a Sunday morning and shotgunned him to death in front of 50 witnesses and he was just acquitted. Apparently I just thought the OJ prosecution was the worst in history.....until we coonasses managed to top it. Now you know why I’m a RETIRED attorney and just armchair quarterback :00008359:

    I might not be right but I can sure sound like it