Molon Labe: BANG!

[HoughMade]

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.

This lawyer is siting in Boston, away from his normal resources.

...and there’s that whole Socratic Method thing.

 

[2A_Tom]

Socratic Method. Is that a thing like the Hippocratic Oath, where you swear to the gods that you will pay tribute to your teachers and not give any advice to us peons for free.

 

[Denny347]

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

View attachment 71845 View attachment 71846 View attachment 71847

 

[Denny347]

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

Yes, there is a formal hearing where the gun owner has a chance to put on a defense. For instance, I place a person under an immediate detention and seize his/her guns as a part of that. I then have to prepare a probable cause that gets presented to the judge at the owner's hearing and the judge determines the firearm's fate.

 

[2A_Tom]

The all powerful...

 

[drillsgt]

Yes, there is a formal hearing where the gun owner has a chance to put on a defense. For instance, I place a person under an immediate detention and seize his/her guns as a part of that. I then have to prepare a probable cause that gets presented to the judge at the owner's hearing and the judge determines the firearm's fate.

If you can just get them to the IMPD property room then even if the Judge decides in their favor they'll be out of luck for a year or two!?

 

[bwframe]

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

Yes, there is a formal hearing where the gun owner has a chance to put on a defense. For instance, I place a person under an immediate detention and seize his/her guns as a part of that. I then have to prepare a probable cause that gets presented to the judge at the owner's hearing and the judge determines the firearm's fate.

Oh, wait, wait, wait.

Officers confiscate the guns first???

Then the judge is required to attempt to get the owner their firearms back from the police property room?




.

 

[alabasterjar]

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.

My statement was not anti law enforcement. Frankly, I think you have the $#!+ Sandwich here. Regardless if I like the law or not, it appears the officers were responding to a lawful order. That said, without knowing the whole story (as I believe houghmade has eluded to), I'm not convinced this shooting is justified.

 

[Ark]

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

I think the more important question is "What is the judge more afraid of, the consequences of approving every order or the consequences of an electoral opponent discovering that he rejected an order and the subject went on to harm someone?". Protesters don't show up outside the courthouse because a "dangerous" person's guns were confiscated. There is no incentive for a judge to ever be skeptical about issuing a confiscation order. That's what makes these laws so insidious and dangerous.

 

[Denny347]

Oh, wait, wait, wait.

Officers confiscate the guns first???

Yes, if I have PC to believe the person is "dangerous" as defined in the code.

 

[Denny347]

I'm not convinced this shooting is justified.

It might very well not be. I just don't have the details to know one way or another.

 

[2A_Tom]

Oh, wait, wait, wait.

Officers confiscate the guns first???

Then the judge is required to attempt to get the owner their firearms back from the police property room?

.

Yes, if I have PC to believe the person is "dangerous" as defined in the code.

IC 35-47-14-1 Gives you the authority to confiscate his gunS (all of them) without a court order?

That code refers to mental illness of an individual that has been under some sort of care. I am not saying that you can not arrest someone on the street where you have RAS OR PC for ANY reason and secure any weapon or weapons they have in their possession they have on their person, Bit the dangerous IC is for courts and Medical personnel to decide.

In this case there was a court order.

He had no Idea that they intended to relieve him of his property until they arrived and served him.

He had been given no opportunity to defend himself in front of a judge as you seem to say here.

Yes, there is a formal hearing where the gun owner has a chance to put on a defense. For instance, I place a person under an immediate detention and seize his/her guns as a part of that. I then have to prepare a probable cause that gets presented to the judge at the owner's hearing and the judge determines the firearm's fate.

It is one thing to arrest a person for committing a crime or even conspiring to commit a crime (with solid evidence). It is a whole other thing to put a person through this kind of hassle on what seems to be able to be backed up with nothing more than an accusation and no investigation.

This is a case of Pre-court, being convicted of a Pre-crime, and executed by Pre-cop DREDD.

 

[hoosierdoc]

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.

an article said this alla all stemmed from a family argument a few days prior

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, it was dumb to go for the gun after reading that. What assumption did I make? The statement said he put the gun down, read the paper, and then picked it up again.

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.

[/quote]

oh, it was definitely his move of picking up the gun again that got him dead. But lots of things led to that which I believe should not have happened the way they did

 

[2A_Tom]

Just to put out a question, IC 35-45-2-1 Threatening can be a class 6 felony. Does the accused get due process?

Are all of his guns confiscated before he is convicted?

Are his heirs that are not felons entitled to his possessions?

Or is threatening someone to get out of your house or you will shoot them now a red flag?

"Shut up or I'll slap you." and you get committed and your possessions confiscated.

Uncle Bill is unhinged, he voted for Trump and thinks the tariffs and tax cuts are great. We need to turn him in before he shoots Hillary Clinton.

 

[Hop]

I can see the pre-crime minority report division now...

Denny's credit card report shows he bought a bottle of Jack. Better go confiscate his car before he drives and hurts someone. It's OK because he can hire a lawyer then convince the judge later that he would never hurt anyone. Meanwhile, the car sits in IMPD posession for 6 months (don't even get me started there).

This pre-crime stuff needs to end.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[Denny347]

IC 35-47-14-1 Gives you the authority to confiscate his gunS (all of them) without a court order?

That code refers to mental illness of an individual that has been under some sort of care. I am not saying that you can not arrest someone on the street where you have RAS OR PC for ANY reason and secure any weapon or weapons they have in their possession they have on their person, Bit the dangerous IC is for courts and Medical personnel to decide.

In this case there was a court order.

He had no Idea that they intended to relieve him of his property until they arrived and served him.

He had been given no opportunity to defend himself in front of a judge as you seem to say here.



It is one thing to arrest a person for committing a crime or even conspiring to commit a crime (with solid evidence). It is a whole other thing to put a person through this kind of hassle on what seems to be able to be backed up with nothing more than an accusation and no investigation.

This is a case of Pre-court, being convicted of a Pre-crime, and executed by Pre-cop DREDD.

https://www.in.gov/isp/files/Jake_Laird_Law_Summary.pdf

Read the summary. In the middle I will quote it here:


WITHOUT A WARRANT (35-47-14-3)
- If weapons are seized during the normal course of law enforcement duties
- If person is believed to be dangerous (as defined above), submit a written statement to the court of jurisdiction describing basis for belief
- Court reviews statement and may order firearms retained or released
AFTER FIREARMS ARE SEIZED
- Court holds a hearing within 14 days. (IC 35-47-14-5)
- Notification to individual from whom the firearm was seized and prosecutor
- Court determines by clear and convincing evidence if person is dangerous and firearms should be retained (IC 35-47-14-6)
- If retained, law enforcement agency keeps firearm until further order of the court.
- Court shall also order License to carry handgun suspended. (IC 35-47-14-6(b))
Notify ISP Firearms to insure this is completed
RETURN OF FIREARMS (IC 35-47-14-8)
- Person may petition for return after at least 180 days
- If denied at that hearing, must wait at least another 180 days
- If five years have passed, hearing may be held to destroy or permanently dispose of firearms (IC 35-47-14-9)

The red highlighted portion is what allows me to do that. I can seize them and submit the PC for the hearing and they decide to keep the firearms or release them.

 

[2A_Tom]

So,

You can enter a persons house and secure all of his weapons on PC alone?

 

[actaeon277]

So,

You can enter a persons house and secure all of his weapons on PC alone?

No.
The officer has a warrant.
The warrant authorizes it. If the officer has a warrant to search, he is authorized to search. If the officer has a warrant to take a gun (Laird's Law) then he has authorization to take the gun.
It is not that the officer thinks he has Probable Cause.
It is that the Court has issued a warrant.

 

[hoosierdoc]

No.
The officer has a warrant.
The warrant authorizes it. If the officer has a warrant to search, he is authorized to search. If the officer has a warrant to take a gun (Laird's Law) then he has authorization to take the gun.
It is not that the officer thinks he has Probable Cause.
It is that the Court has issued a warrant.

a warrant to take something potentially based purely on the statement of one person.

If I see someone in the ER who a neighbor tells me is suicidal and the patient shows no sign of it or unstable mental health, I can't hold that person against their will.

I don't see why so much authority is granted on the same statement by a third party.

 

[Denny347]

So,

You can enter a persons house and secure all of his weapons on PC alone?

No. If I'm in the house for a legitimate LE reason, an Immediate Detention for example, and the person I'm taking to the hospital meets the definition of "dangerous" and I have reason to believe he/she has access to firearms, I can seize them per this law. I cannot enter a house without consent, warrant, exigent circumstances.