Red flag law used against police officer in Colorado

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Phase2

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 9, 2011
    7,014
    27
    This is early, but if Ammoland's info here is correct, this is a clearly abusive use of the Red Flag law in Colorado that took effect 1/1/20.

    Summary:
    -Officer is forced to shoot a suicidal man in 2017 (death by cop)
    -Mother files a red flag order against him using a twisted interpretation of the form
    -Officer must now defend himself in court (likely will succeed, but must prove innocence)
    -Even if everything works out for the best, any repercussions against her must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The video also goes on to talk about the situation in Virginia, etc.

    Relevant content starts at 1:08-
    [video=youtube;i340roJQbU8]https://youtu.be/i340roJQbU8?t=68[/video]
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,053
    77
    Southside Indy
    This is early, but if Ammoland's info here is correct, this is a clearly abusive use of the Red Flag law in Colorado that took effect 1/1/20.

    Summary:
    -Officer is forced to shoot a suicidal man in 2017 (death by cop)
    -Mother files a red flag order against him using a twisted interpretation of the form
    -Officer must now defend himself in court (likely will succeed, but must prove innocence)
    -Even if everything works out for the best, any repercussions against her must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The video also goes on to talk about the situation in Virginia, etc.

    iu
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,582
    113
    Mitchell
    I know there’s a bill proposed here that would provide or enhance repercussions for those that intentionally try to use our red flag laws against someone. From what I’ve read, this case is clearly an act of malicious revenge. I have to wonder how the proposed law would provide any relief or remedy or whatever if it were in effect.
     

    bwframe

    Loneranger
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    93   0   0
    Feb 11, 2008
    38,170
    113
    Btown Rural
    I think that our friends law enforcement need to be very concerned about the red flag law trend. Especially those in Indiana that believe because our law was named after a fallen officer it is good.

    Article from Law Enforcement Today...

    Red Flag Laws Are Going To Be Used Against Those With PTSD

    ...I can’t tell you how many cops we’ve had on our show Behind the Uniforms that have all agreed on one thing – PTS is rampant, and yet nobody can suffer from it. It can’t possibly exist.

    Huh? How can post-traumatic stress run rampant… but nobody suffer from it?

    It’s simple. Officers keep it bottled up because the alternative, for so many of them, isn’t an option.

    The alternative is kissing your career goodbye. Your ability to provide for your family. Your ability to protect your family...



    .
     

    DadSmith

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 21, 2018
    22,191
    113
    Ripley County
    The government has been trying to figure out how to disarm our combat veterans for years. PTSD is looking like their excuse. Any veteran that owns firearms and wants to keep them doesn't tell them he has PTSD or he will lose them for good. So they now have a choice report get help get treatment and treated like a felon. Or deal with it themselves and keep their Constitutional rights. Horrible choice.

    https://www.military.com/daily-news...would-restrict-vets-2nd-amendment-rights.html
    Be always vigilant brothers.
     
    Last edited:

    JettaKnight

    Я з Україною
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Oct 13, 2010
    26,517
    113
    Fort Wayne
    The government has been trying to figure out how to disarm our combat veterans for years. PTSD is looking like their excuse. Any veteran that owns firearms and wants to keep them doesn't tell them he has PTSD or he will lose them for good. So they now have a choice report get help get treatment and treated like a felon. Or deal with it themselves and keep their Constitutional rights. Horrible choice.

    https://www.military.com/daily-news...would-restrict-vets-2nd-amendment-rights.html
    Be always vigilant brothers.

    As wikipedia would say, "citation needed".



    We seem to have hit an impasse - after some mass shooting incident, people (including a lot of gun owners) cry, "we should keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill!", but then when a law comes around to do just that, it's portrayed as a backdoor confiscation scheme or a secret plot to disarm a particular group.


    I don't know exactly what the answer is.
     

    Trigger Time

    Air guitar master
    Rating - 98.6%
    204   3   0
    Aug 26, 2011
    40,112
    113
    SOUTH of Zombie city
    As wikipedia would say, "citation needed".



    We seem to have hit an impasse - after some mass shooting incident, people (including a lot of gun owners) cry, "we should keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill!", but then when a law comes around to do just that, it's portrayed as a backdoor confiscation scheme or a secret plot to disarm a particular group.


    I don't know exactly what the answer is.
    We need to start locking up clearly mentally ill dangerous people. Lots of people have mental "illness" that are no threat to anyone.
    But many are big threats to other people. Why are they free? They need committed and getting care. We waste trillions of dollars on foreign wars that do nothing and wars on drugs which are not only domestic but span internationaly, while here at home we have lunatics walking the streets committing acts of violence. I believe a majority of these could be prevented if we build and start committing the violently mentally ill of this country in facilities. This should be a top priority of any administration.
     

    JettaKnight

    Я з Україною
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Oct 13, 2010
    26,517
    113
    Fort Wayne
    We need to start locking up clearly mentally ill dangerous people. Lots of people have mental "illness" that are no threat to anyone.
    But many are big threats to other people. Why are they free? They need committed and getting care. We waste trillions of dollars on foreign wars that do nothing and wars on drugs which are not only domestic but span internationaly, while here at home we have lunatics walking the streets committing acts of violence. I believe a majority of these could be prevented if we build and start committing the violently mentally ill of this country in facilities. This should be a top priority of any administration.
    You say, "clearly dangerous people" as if there's some easy to use test to pick them out.

    There's a local tweaker here downtown. For the most part, he's harmless. Weird, and occasionally wears a skirt and high heels, or argues with parking meters, but I gotta imagine he's suppose to be on meds.

    From the outside, I'm not sure he should be locked up - he seems to not cause any serious problems - and I, as a taxpayer, don't want to to foot his housing bill in an institution.



    But there ain't no way I want him having a gun.



    Likewise, there's plenty of mentally handicapped people without the ability to grasp the concept of the capabilities of a firearm and the consequences of their use. They aren't a threat; there's no dangerous intent, but I don't want them having a firearm.


    Gramps is starting to have dementia, and occasionally "looses it". He's under supervision at home, but...

    There's countless situations where deprivation of the RKBA is more appropriate then incarceration or involuntary committing.




    Whatever is done, it must be done to absolutely minimize abuse, and protect the liberty of the sane. I think Indiana's law does this. To this day, no one has shown me otherwise.
     

    DadSmith

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 21, 2018
    22,191
    113
    Ripley County
    How about shall not be infringed.

    As a free society we have to live with these risks or we become a police state.

    The risks I'm talking about is mass shootings, and everyday crime committed by bad people with firearms.
     
    Last edited:

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,582
    113
    Mitchell
    It seems to me, like often times happens, we talk past one another. There’s a difference between, after due process, removing guns (and other dangerous objects) from a person who’s not mentally fit, someone that is objectively a danger to themselves or others. There’s quite another (that I think is where we’re moving to) by making general or broad definitions of classifications of “mentally ill” people and policies and then lumping people into them so that they can have their guns confiscated...with minimal or some abridged level of due process.
     

    bobzilla

    Mod in training (in my own mind)
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 1, 2010
    8,944
    113
    Brownswhitanon.
    Wait everyone. I have the answer. Everyone at birth is issued an M4, 10 mags and a 1000rds. Every year on their date of birth they receive more ammo. This way everyone has a firearm. No questions asked and we as a free society lives with the risks. Do something bad. Go to jail. Do something heinous visit ol sparky. Don’t want it? You are free to sell it.
     

    JettaKnight

    Я з Україною
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Oct 13, 2010
    26,517
    113
    Fort Wayne
    It seems to me, like often times happens, we talk past one another. There’s a difference between, after due process, removing guns (and other dangerous objects) from a person who’s not mentally fit, someone that is objectively a danger to themselves or others. There’s quite another (that I think is where we’re moving to) by making general or broad definitions of classifications of “mentally ill” people and policies and then lumping people into them so that they can have their guns confiscated...with minimal or some abridged level of due process.

    True.


    There's so many variables - we can't even agree on what's defined by "mentally ill".
     

    bwframe

    Loneranger
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    93   0   0
    Feb 11, 2008
    38,170
    113
    Btown Rural
    Professionals picked by the citizens need to be determining mental illness. Judges and doctors need to be making these decisions, knowing their every action will be supervised and reviewed.

    These positions need to be renewed (or not) annually.
     
    Last edited:

    JettaKnight

    Я з Україною
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Oct 13, 2010
    26,517
    113
    Fort Wayne
    Professionals picked by the citizens need to be determining mental illness. Judges and doctors need to be making these decisions, knowing their every action will be supervised and reviewed.

    These positions need to be renewed (or not) annually.

    "picked by citizens"? Like voted into office?

    :rolleyes:
     
    Top Bottom