Four killed at FedEx building in Indianapolis

[KG1]

SO EXACTLY WHAT *IS* YOUR OFFICE DOING, SIR?!!?!

Deflecting.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I understand that, I just figured that once they decided to keep it without a proper hearing that it would become an illegal act.

That is something that needs to be fixed in the process. A time limit on either a hearing, or return of property.

Fixed? It is already present, 14 days.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Fixed? It is already present, 14 days.

Apparently that's not long enough for Mears.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Apparently that's not long enough for Mears.

Mears's "the dog ate my homework" excuse making is maddening to those of us who have been directly involved in DPP proceedings.

In non-legal terms, it is complete horses**t.

 

[Tyler-The-Piker]

I don't care how much people want to normalize the whole brony thing, it's super creepy and weird and I'm going to make fun of you relentlessly

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

SO EXACTLY WHAT *IS* YOUR OFFICE DOING, SIR?!!?!

Focusing on prosecuting cops.

 

[rooster]

God forbid you take a case in front of a judge without a predetermined outcome.

It’s that attitude and perversion of the justice system that frustrates many layman.

Prosecutors need oversight. His failures deprived someone of their constitutional rights and then subsequently contributed to the deaths of 8 people. How many more cases like this are there caught in limbo.

 

[chipbennett]

Sikh Community Pushes Gun Control After FedEx Attack

Members of the Sikh community gathered with Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett (D) Saturday and called for more gun control after...

www.breitbart.com

Anyone who knows anything about Sikh culture and history knows that this stance is a complete repudiation of both Sikh culture and history.

Also, this is a rhetorical question, but: why are they pushing for universal UBC, when the shooter passed a BGC to purchase his firearms?

 

[spencer rifle]

Also, this is a rhetorical question, but: why are they pushing for universal UBC, when the shooter passed a BGC to purchase his firearms?

Because they have to DO SOMETHING!
Engage emotions, disconnect brain.

Keeps us from thinking "If they can't manage the tools they have now, why would we give them more power and tools to mismanage?"

 

[chipbennett]

1. No.

2. The voters of Marion County.

Not sure if already addressed in subsequent comments, but: how can the state just confiscate a firearm that is otherwise legal, and possessed by someone otherwise in lawful possession of said firearm? How can that possibly be a legal taking of property?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Not sure if already addressed in subsequent comments, but: how can the state just confiscate a firearm that is otherwise legal, and possessed by someone otherwise in lawful possession of said firearm? How can that possibly be a legal taking of property?

Warrants. Pursuant to the DPP statute, they can grab it and ascertain probable cause later.

 

[chipbennett]

"Short-sighted"? How is bothering to consider the consequences for the terms of your employment "short-sighted"?

Employer offers terms for your service. You accept. That means you accept the consequences of working there.

I work in a dis-armed location. I CHOOSE to work there. And I bother to think and plan for mass shootings in the workplace beyond the moronic "sheltering in place".

Maybe you should accept responsibility for your choices. Or find a better place to work.

Most gainful employment requires some, non-trival commitment of both training/experience time and financial investment. You are basically saying, "learn to code". It is short-sighted. Most people can't just pick up and change their careers quite so cavalierly.

 

[chipbennett]

Warrants. Pursuant to the DPP statute, they can grab it and ascertain probable cause later.

I get the confiscation part based on a warrant. I'm really asking how they can keep it, and not return it, if they fail to proceed with the due process means provided (such as Laird's Law, etc.)?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I get the confiscation part based on a warrant. I'm really asking how they can keep it, and not return it, if they fail to proceed with the due process means provided (such as Laird's Law, etc.)?

Works like this:

1. police officer makes seizure.

2. police officer types up, or investigator from MCPA types up, affidavit and submits to judge.

3. Judge approves fair probability to seize shotgun.

4. MCPA has 14 days to file DPP. Never does because he might lose.

5. Murderer (I don't like to use his name) never motioned court to return it, thus it stays where it was.

 

[chipbennett]

Works like this:

1. police officer makes seizure.

2. police officer types up, or investigator from MCPA types up, affidavit and submits to judge.

3. Judge approves fair probability to seize shotgun.

4. MCPA has 14 days to file DPP. Never does because he might lose.

5. Murderer (I don't like to use his name) never motioned court to return it, thus it stays where it was.

I'm with you on your point #5 parenthetical.

So, if the owner of the seized property had motioned the court, his property would have been returned? But if he doesn't, the state just gets to hold on to the property indefinitely? Interesting.

 

[chipbennett]

Because they have to DO SOMETHING!
Engage emotions, disconnect brain.

Keeps us from thinking "If they can't manage the tools they have now, why would we give them more power and tools to mismanage?"

My universal response to anyone advocating for more gun control (or gun "safety") laws - that somehow never gets a response - is: please explain how your proposal will result in fewer incidents of violent harm; further, please explain how your proposal would have prevented this incident of violent harm.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'm with you on your point #5 parenthetical.

So, if the owner of the seized property had motioned the court, his property would have been returned? But if he doesn't, the state just gets to hold on to the property indefinitely? Interesting.

Yes, believe it or not it is common that DPPs do not get filed and, yes, I motion the court to return it, or them.

Yes, the court is unlikely to run self-audits, especially not in a monstrous court system like Marion County. Maybe like Carroll or Benton County could. But have never done a DPP in 04 or 08 so cannot speak from experience.

It is just not feasible for Marion County to do that. Thus unless someone files a replevin or DPP, it will sit there.

Sometimes guys will do it themselves with a letter to the court that the judge will treat as a motion (have seen that). Sometimes people think, "well, it is a $100 single shot .22lr, not worth a lawyer, so write it off". Sometimes it is an impressive collection and IT IS worth the lawyer. It depends, like always.

 

[DadSmith]

The Indianapolis Shooting Highlights the Shortcomings of 'Red Flag' Laws

Supporters of "red flag" laws, which allow judges to suspend people's Second Amendment rights when they are deemed a threat…

reason.com

No use having a law that is supposed to prevent these kinds of shootings if the law fails to do so. I'm 100% behind getting rid of it since it doesn't work!

 

[gregr]

Anyone who knows anything about Sikh culture and history knows that this stance is a complete repudiation of both Sikh culture and history.

Also, this is a rhetorical question, but: why are they pushing for universal UBC, when the shooter passed a BGC to purchase his firearms?

If you look at the history of gun control, there are plenty of cases in which the gun control they seek would have done NOTHING to stop the crime committed. This is an extreme example, but remember when Hussein obama removed the right to own firearms from any Social Security recipient that needed help managing their finances? How many Social Security recipients have you read about committing mass shootings? Gun control is entirely about one thing only: control, and the things they do don`t have to make sense, they aim to disarm you. Period.

 

[Tombs]

The Indianapolis Shooting Highlights the Shortcomings of 'Red Flag' Laws

Supporters of "red flag" laws, which allow judges to suspend people's Second Amendment rights when they are deemed a threat…

reason.com

No use having a law that is supposed to prevent these kinds of shootings if the law fails to do so. I'm 100% behind getting rid of it since it doesn't work!

The baffling thing to me is... If we're going with this kind of nonsense law, why not just take the person into custody?
What's the point of confiscating someone's guns when they could be on a bad side of town later and pick up another firearm? If they're a danger to society, then they need taken off the street.