Molon Labe: BANG!

[Libertarian01]

If you are going to someoneÂ’s house who you feel is mentally unstable and has going to be armed and unstable, why would you go at 5:15 in the morning and pound on his door?

He put down the weapon when he realized it was the police. He grabbed his possession again when they said they were going to take it.

Go during daylight hours and I bet the guy answered the door without a gun in his hand. Then we would have him alive and to officers not on administrative leave pending an investigation. Simply a guess, but probably correct.

Again, I put most the blame here on the legislature.

While you have a good point and it may(?) have made a difference, would it have really? So instead of picking the gun up off the table right there, he could turn and run to the closet and get the gun and...BOOM! Same ending, although slightly altered timeline.

I full support our rights 100% but when someone is talking about the voices telling them to do things, this is a warning sign that can be acted upon. While certainly not all warning signs will be so obvious this is why there are laws in place to investigate, have due process, and seek a final outcome that protects our rights and our citizens with a minimum of oppression from the State.

Does a car have to swerve across the entire road for a LE to pull them over for an OWI check, or can the LE observe some minor swerving and still have reasonable cause to check him out? This is the question on these kinds of laws. Obviously we don't require driving down the wrong side of the road for over half a mile to justify a stop, but how little swerving will allow for one?

I don't know what this guy did or did not do for his sister to call on him. Was he swerving across the entire road or just crossing the yellow line an inch? Or was he not swerving at all and she just didn't like the way he drove?

I still go back to the simple idea that if the police show up to arrest you, take your guns, put your children in protective custody, whatever... cooperate, demand your lawyer, then shut the hell up until he or she can meet with you. The very best outcome for you IF you fight the LE is a temporary victory at best. Even if you neutralize them you will be a hunted fugitive for not long and spend the rest of your life in prison or a short life on death row, if you live through the next encounter. Either way, you lose. Cooperate and shut up until lawyer arrives. Then sue the hell out of everyone! A lot better ending than one like this.

You could be right and timing might have been better, but in my experience stupid doesn't have a schedule. Stupid is 24/7/365.

Regards,

Doug

PS - I DO wish this would have ended better for him, I really do.

 

[Ark]

If you are going to someone’s house who you feel is mentally unstable and has going to be armed and unstable, why would you go at 5:15 in the morning and pound on his door?

Drug war tactics. Right out the gate, they were pursuing these preemptive "protection" orders the same way you apprehend a known violent felon or drug dealer.

 

[Denny347]

Is there a “standard” process in Indiana for how to approach this situation? I assume that it varies by department, but are there any legal guidelines?

Indiana has had a law like this since 2005. https://statecodesfiles.justia.com/indiana/2014/title-35/article-47/chapter-14/chapter-14.pdf

 

[Cameramonkey]

If you are going to someone’s house who you feel is mentally unstable and has going to be armed and unstable, why would you go at 5:15 in the morning and pound on his door?

He put down the weapon when he realized it was the police. He grabbed his possession again when they said they were going to take it.

Go during daylight hours and I bet the guy answered the door without a gun in his hand. Then we would have him alive and to officers not on administrative leave pending an investigation. Simply a guess, but probably correct.

Again, I put most the blame here on the legislature.

Indiana has had a law like this since 2005. https://statecodesfiles.justia.com/indiana/2014/title-35/article-47/chapter-14/chapter-14.pdf

Yep. And our LEOs are smart about it and do it carefully. Like hiding and waiting for the subject to leave and then executing a traffic stop to take them into custody safely. a 5am door pounding isnt going to end well. (obviously)

 

[Hop]

If you are going to someone’s house who you feel is mentally unstable and has going to be armed and unstable, why would you go at 5:15 in the morning and pound on his door?

He put down the weapon when he realized it was the police. He grabbed his possession again when they said they were going to take it.

Go during daylight hours and I bet the guy answered the door without a gun in his hand. Then we would have him alive and to officers not on administrative leave pending an investigation. Simply a guess, but probably correct.

Again, I put most the blame here on the legislature.

I'm surprised they didn't no knock & enter the house then kill him in his bed (and his dog if he had one). Either way, the State gets what it wants. A dead, non-compliant, evil gun owner. This will get all too common before the king's peasants decide it needs to stop.
I

 

[2A_Tom]

Indiana has had a law like this since 2005. https://statecodesfiles.justia.com/indiana/2014/title-35/article-47/chapter-14/chapter-14.pdf

Yes I know about the law.

The point is EXECUTION.

Waco, Ruby Ridge, Gurena, Willis...

Thought needs to be put into execution, for officer as well as the accused's safety.

 

[Denny347]

Soooo..... In the eyes of the state, if I get red flagged, officers attempt to serve the order and I resist, the state gets to beat it's chest and claim it was right, I was a threat?

Sure, if you decide to pick up a gun while I'm serving a lawfully issued order signed by a judge, I'm going to protect myself when engaged in those lawful duties. You may think otherwise, argue otherwise, but armed resistance typically ends badly.

 

[JettaKnight]

Here's a good compromise: The police come into the home, ensures all the guns are in safe(s), then puts one of those "Tamper Seal: Do Not Break" stickers over the door.

 

[Denny347]

I believe his wife's aunt called and got the order following a "family argument".

Yup. That's all it takes to get your guns stole and/or shot by the police. A tall tale from a family member you only see twice a year. She probably went on a psychotic screed against guns and decided to show him for disagreeing. Guess she won the argument.

What are the details in the affidavit that lead you to believe that mentioning a "family argument" is all that is needed for a protective order? Lots of assumptions.

Generally there are no accidents, instead it takes a bad decision, usually more than one for a tragedy to occur.

FIRST IS SOMEONE INTRODUCING THIS STUPID LAW AND OTHER LEGISLATORS VOTING TO ENACT IT. These lawmakers should be strung up by their *******s.

Then the police show up in what is likely an aggressive manner in the early morning. Considering officer safety and knowing an armed citizen that is reportedly unstable is inside then why not arrive during daylight? Would three more hours make a difference? Perhaps contact by phone from outside before potentially escalating the situation. Someone needs to evaluate the procedures to follow for these Red Flag seizures and really think them through.

Finally the homeowner arguing with the police and then grabbing a firearm after he put it down. You fight your case in court, not with armed police officers. Right or wrong you aren't going to win that argument, particularly when there is a threat to the officers life. Comply with the police and call your lawyer.

Why should the legislators be "strung up"? They were elected to their positions and I do not hear their constituents crying foul. I bet this legislation is actually quite popular.

If you are going to someone’s house who you feel is mentally unstable and has going to be armed and unstable, why would you go at 5:15 in the morning and pound on his door?

He put down the weapon when he realized it was the police. He grabbed his possession again when they said they were going to take it.

Go during daylight hours and I bet the guy answered the door without a gun in his hand. Then we would have him alive and to officers not on administrative leave pending an investigation. Simply a guess, but probably correct.

Again, I put most the blame here on the legislature.

We have no idea what the family told the officers about him. This could be a perfectly reasonable time of the morning...depending. "He grabbed his possession again when they said they were going to take it." You are making quite an assumption based on your personal beliefs and not any facts to support it. Also, by wording it as you did, minimizing what he actually did, which was going for a GUN while angry at the police. Not just some "possession" but a deadly weapon. His ACTION caused a very predictable REACTION by the officers.

Yes I know about the law.

The point is EXECUTION.

Waco, Ruby Ridge, Gurena, Willis...

Thought needs to be put into execution, for officer as well as the accused's safety.

Does no one place the onus on the homeowner for going after his gun after becoming irate as the actual CAUSE for getting himself shot. HE caused his own demise...you know...personal responsibility that gets thrown around here all the time.

 

[2A_Tom]

Does no one place the onus on the homeowner for going after his gun after becoming irate as the actual CAUSE for getting himself shot. HE caused his own demise...you know...personal responsibility that gets thrown around here all the time.

Yes, 80+%.

 

[miguel]

"Maryland’s red flag law took effect October 1 and law enforcement predicts over 1,300 confiscation orders will be issued by the end of the year." (source: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...ment-goes-to-confiscate-guns-kills-gun-owner/)

Geez, it's like they have a list of gun owners or something...

 

[HoughMade]

Does anyone know what has to be proven for he order to be issued?

Does anyone know what he actual evidence in this case was? That would be important.

While we can quibble about what the law should require and what techniques should be used o serve it, there has to be a mechanism to impound guns when a person is a real, genuine and imminent threat based upon credible information.

 

[2A_Tom]

Is your left index finger stiff, Hough?

 

[Libertarian01]

...Does no one place the onus on the homeowner for going after his gun after becoming irate as the actual CAUSE for getting himself shot. HE caused his own demise...you know...personal responsibility that gets thrown around here all the time.

OH OH OH! Hey!!! What am I? Chopped liver...?

 

[HoughMade]

Is your left index finger stiff, Hough?

IPad keyboard is acting up.

 

[Thor]

This is what government gun confiscation looks like. Today it was one, but the ultimate goal is for all.

They write a law, and it is enforced. They give an order (Katrina) and it is followed. Eventually they will have the law or order to rule us all. That's going to be one ugly day. I think perhaps Krystalnacht in America will look much different, I believe, than it did in Germany.

 

[JettaKnight]

Does anyone know what has to be proven for he order to be issued?

Does anyone know what he actual evidence in this case was? That would be important.

While we can quibble about what the law should require and what techniques should be used o serve it, there has to be a mechanism to impound guns when a person is a real, genuine and imminent threat based upon credible information.

We're quite happy with our own imagination of what goes on behind the scenes; take your facts elsewhere, thanksnothanks.

 

[El-Cigarro]

This is what government gun confiscation looks like. Today it was one, but the ultimate goal is for all.

They write a law, and it is enforced. They give an order (Katrina) and it is followed. Eventually they will have the law or order to rule us all. That's going to be one ugly day. I think perhaps Krystalnacht in America will look much different, I believe, than it did in Germany.

Thanks to the Progressive Left.....

 

[bwframe]

Is a judge signing off on each specific case required for Indiana's red flag law?

 

[2A_Tom]

Does anyone know what has to be proven for he order to be issued?

Does anyone know what he actual evidence in this case was? That would be important.

While we can quibble about what the law should require and what techniques should be used o serve it, there has to be a mechanism to impound guns when a person is a real, genuine and imminent threat based upon credible information.

A lawyer asking these questions is funny. Is there any way to find the answers? It seems a lawyer would have the research tools needed to give us this info.