Molon Labe: BANG!

[2A_Tom]

Yep that's me.

 

[2A_Tom]

I apologize, I did not realize that when you are taken into custody you are cutoff from your lawyer.

Am I to understand that when you are red flagged that they confiscate your guns that they leave you at liberty?

 

[Libertarian01]

I apologize, I did not realize that when you are taken into custody you are cutoff from your lawyer.

Am I to understand that when you are red flagged that they confiscate your guns that they leave you at liberty?

I am presuming that once taken into custody you do not have free access to communications and freedom of movement at any time you wish. This is a guess on my part.

Even if you do have access it probably isn't when and how you want at your whim, unlike at home. I do believe you could eventually see your lawyer, but it wouldn't be at a convenient time for either one of you. It would be during the institutions hours and at their discretion.

Regards,

Doug

PS - I would love to hear from someone who is familiar with being institutionalized.

 

[2A_Tom]

Why would it not be like any other time as soon as you invoke your rights they have to allow you access to your lawyer?

What makes you think that if you are red flagged, you will remain at large and not be taken into custody?

What is the disposition of the INGO member that was red flagged?

ET FIX ?'s

 

[actaeon277]

Why would it not be like any other time as soon as you invoke your rights they have to allow you access to your lawyer.

What makes you think that if you are red flagged, you will remain at large and not be taken into custody.

What is the disposition of the INGO member that was red flagged?

I think he was under custody.

 

[Denny347]

I apologize, I did not realize that when you are taken into custody you are cutoff from your lawyer.

Am I to understand that when you are red flagged that they confiscate your guns that they leave you at liberty?

Never been to a psych ward at a hospital huh? Not even family can visit them if brought in on an ID.

 

[alabasterjar]

OK! Well, I see I misunderstood completely.

So, under one method (red flag laws) one (1) single right is oppressed, the right to keep and bear arms. That is, until such time as "danger" element has been proven false or treated with medication.

Under another method (total commitment) EVERY SINGLE RIGHT is oppressed. You don't have a RTKBA, no right to privacy, no right to eat what you want when you want, no right to call your lawyer whenever you think of something, no right to travel, no right to take medication when you want as you need, no right to enjoy regular activities, no rights at all! That is, until such time as the "danger" element has been proven false or treated with medication.

I don't know about you, but if Denny or BBI or VUPDBlue came to my house because someone accused me of being dangerous I would FAR rather have them take my guns whilst I am on the phone with my lawyer and remain free than be shoved in the back seat of one of their cars going God knows where! I would far rather be free to get on MY computer and search for help, services, prior court cases, etc on my time than being processed into a facility.

Are you SURE you've thought this through? I am NOT being mean or pushy, but I do want ya'll to take a step back for a moment and think this through. Your way oppresses ALL rights from the go, and I don't think you want rights oppressed at all. I know we all hold the 2A in high regard, but consider that it too is oppressed once in custody. Also, your way greatly reduces the accused ability to help themselves by limiting or completely negating their ability to aid in their own defense. On the inside resources are diminished, on the outside (yes, without guns) you are still free to make all the calls you need and in greater privacy. You can still post on INGO and get helpful advise or ideas.

All in all I'd rather see one right oppressed than all of them, with the goal of getting that one right restored as quickly as possible.

Regards,

Doug

From my perspective, in order to remove a single right, the burden of the state should be so great that all rights are limited.

I mean no disrespect, but it seems that you place an inordinate amount of trust in the State to make sound decisions, not based on political whim. Maybe that is currently true in Indiana (that judges and leo are currently making the right decisions on these types of situations), but that is no guarantee that this will always be the case.

A despotic government will have absolutely no issue in red flagging those that do not tow the party line. If the party line is that 'guns are evil and need to be confiscated', than that is all the State will need to come take your firearms.

 

[alabasterjar]

I can 100% guarantee that there ARE details that were not released.

I don't at all doubt this, and recognize your experience in this type of situation to have a well-informed belief in what happened. Doesn't change the validity of my question: based on what we actually know about this case, why/how is this substantially different from the conversation in the "nuke''m" thread?

 

[Libertarian01]

From my perspective, in order to remove a single right, the burden of the state should be so great that all rights are limited.

I mean no disrespect, but it seems that you place an inordinate amount of trust in the State to make sound decisions, not based on political whim. Maybe that is currently true in Indiana (that judges and leo are currently making the right decisions on these types of situations), but that is no guarantee that this will always be the case.

A despotic government will have absolutely no issue in red flagging those that do not tow the party line. If the party line is that 'guns are evil and need to be confiscated', than that is all the State will need to come take your firearms.

I most certainly do NOT place a significant amount of trust in the State! That is why my posts above this one speak consistently of placing the bar EXTREMELY HIGH to oppress a right and EXTREMELY LOW to restore it. I also fully believe in maximum due process at all phases of the oppressed persons journey through the system.

I think the last time our politicians had any degree of integrity was an era that colour TV did NOT exist. I don't believe they were honest even then, they lied and cheated, but they had some degree of integrity in putting America first.

My concern with Blue Falcons argument is one of degrees. Neither one of us wants rights oppressed, the difference being the degree of oppression that will occur when the decision is made by the State that a person may(?) be dangerous. Remember, we are not talking about a person who has been deemed dangerous, only that an allegation has been made. This presumes an allegation of extreme credibility such that in due process a judge has agreed to oppress a persons right(s). My position, I believe, goes from 0 oppression to about 5MPH, where only the RTKBA is oppressed. My interpretation of his argument is one that goes from 0 to 100MPH instantly, where ALL rights are oppressed. In both circumstances each of us wants the accused persons rights restored ASAP!

My push of him is that I don't think he has thought through what being temporarily committed to a psych ward truly means. I understand his meaning, and respect that a truly dangerous person should be removed from society, for their safety and ours until such time as they are no longer dangerous. However, I do not support the idea of an alleged dangerous person necessarily being removed from society with most all rights lost. When the allegation occurs I want to see almost all rights remain intact.

Let us not forget that under my position the person may still wind up in the psych ward for a very long time. I concede this, but only after a massive legal struggle ensues where the accused has the maximum chance of victory. But if the person is first placed within a psych ward their chances of winning greatly diminish as they are severely limited in helping their own case. They may become "severely agitated" whilst incarcerated, and thus placed on medication "for their own good." A doped up person won't be at their best to help their attorney, let alone beat the massive struggle with despair and depression that would naturally occur.

I believe that Blue Falcon (and others) have allowed their defense of the RTKBA to be so strong it has clouded their judgement as to how minimal losing that right is when compared to losing that right anyway along with all others.

Now, if we want to argue that even if a person is absolutely known to be dangerous (however we do that) we won't allow the State to do anything unless and until they actually commit a crime, we can go there. We can say you are free to plan the murder of hundreds and acquire all the tools and ammo necessary for the job and we won't stop you UNTIL you actually fire the first shot. But we already live with laws that say a person can be arrested if they cross the bright line of an overt act/substantial act. So we already have a precedent for overt/substantial acts, what about overt state of mind? I don't think it is 100% unreasonable, but that's me.

Regards,

Doug

PS - I would still love to know exactly what was reported to send the LE officers to this gentleman's home in the first place!

 

[dudley0]

I don't know about you, but if Denny or BBI or VUPDBlue came to my house because someone accused me of being dangerous I would FAR rather have them take my guns whilst I am on the phone with my lawyer and remain free than be shoved in the back seat of one of their cars going God knows where!

I would have a hard time fitting in the back of BBI's car.

 

[Denny347]

I don't know about you, but if Denny or BBI or VUPDBlue came to my house because someone accused me of being dangerous I would FAR rather have them take my guns whilst I am on the phone with my lawyer and remain free than be shoved in the back seat of one of their cars going God knows where! I would far rather be free to get on MY computer and search for help, services, prior court cases, etc on my time than being processed into a facility.

Ok, we would take you to the hospital under an ID and only in certain rare circumstances take your guns. Usually if you threatened to kill yourself and are armed, at the scene, we might take the gun you threatened to use, if we have legal access to it without a warrant. Usually we take guns from those suffering from mental illness and using the gun to threaten someone specific. Rather than arrest, we ID them and take the gun. Arresting them won't address the mental illness.

 

[Tanfodude]

Ok, we would take you to the hospital under an ID and only in certain rare circumstances take your guns. Usually if you threatened to kill yourself and are armed, at the scene, we might take the gun you threatened to use, if we have legal access to it without a warrant. Usually we take guns from those suffering from mental illness and using the gun to threaten someone specific. Rather than arrest, we ID them and take the gun. Arresting them won't address the mental illness.

To your knowledge, what level of difficulty or how easy is it to red flag someone? What are the ways to know that someone is falsely red flagging? Once proven, any consequences to the false flagger? I'm sure not very many would like to go through this process if falsely flagged.

 

[2A_Tom]

Indiana hasn't done it much to my knowledge.

Florida passed theirs this year and I heard that they have had a couple hundred already.

 

[Denny347]

To your knowledge, what level of difficulty or how easy is it to red flag someone? What are the ways to know that someone is falsely red flagging? Once proven, any consequences to the false flagger? I'm sure not very many would like to go through this process if falsely flagged.

We ID people all the time. Typically, we either need multiple witnesses, single witnesses who are mental health professionals, statements made by the affected person, or officer's personal observations. A single uncorroborated statement is generally not enough. We do see ex-wives/husbands, ex-boyfriends/girlfriends who call in saying this or that to get us to show up to the other's house for an ID. Likely to use in child custody proceedings. We talk to the affected person and it usually is quickly obvious there isn't anything for us to do. Unless we can PROVE they lied and not just misunderstood a conversation or statement, there is nothing we can do for calling 911 on them. It is rare that it involves firearms and even more rare the firearm gets taken. Criminal Court 10 is one of 4 or 5 Indy courts that handles only misdemeanor offenses. Once a week (I think) they reserve the morning session to hear a handful of these "Jake Laird" gun cases.

 

[2A_Tom]

Den, you have used the abbreviation (why is that word so long?) ID several times and from context I know about what you are saying, but would you please let me know what it is?

 

[Denny347]

Indiana hasn't done it much to my knowledge.

Florida passed theirs this year and I heard that they have had a couple hundred already.

Well, it is Florida.

 

[Libertarian01]

Ok, we would take you to the hospital under an ID and only in certain rare circumstances take your guns. Usually if you threatened to kill yourself and are armed, at the scene, we might take the gun you threatened to use, if we have legal access to it without a warrant. Usually we take guns from those suffering from mental illness and using the gun to threaten someone specific. Rather than arrest, we ID them and take the gun. Arresting them won't address the mental illness.

That is good to know. Thank you.

I was responding to the idea that "...if someone is accused of being dangerous it is better to confine them and evaluate them rather than having their guns taken..." (paraphrasing here.)

My only point was that if LE was contacted because I was alleged to be dangerous my preference would be to have the guns taken and remain free rather than be taken to the psych ward and have my guns remain in my home.

Here is a good video on talking about "warning signs" in the context of mass shootings. The experts basically agree that shootings by "dangerous people" are impossible to predict.

[video=youtube;bs8my6oPpEI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs8my6oPpEI[/video]

Regards,

Doug

 

[Denny347]

Den, you have used the abbreviation (why is that word so long?) ID several times and from context I know about what you are saying, but would you please let me know what it is?

Immediate detention. IC 12-26-4-1

 

[2A_Tom]

Thanks.



Tom

 

[alabasterjar]

I most certainly do NOT place a significant amount of trust in the State! That is why my posts above this one speak consistently of placing the bar EXTREMELY HIGH to oppress a right and EXTREMELY LOW to restore it. I also fully believe in maximum due process at all phases of the oppressed persons journey through the system.

I think the last time our politicians had any degree of integrity was an era that colour TV did NOT exist. I don't believe they were honest even then, they lied and cheated, but they had some degree of integrity in putting America first.

My concern with Blue Falcons argument is one of degrees. Neither one of us wants rights oppressed, the difference being the degree of oppression that will occur when the decision is made by the State that a person may(?) be dangerous. Remember, we are not talking about a person who has been deemed dangerous, only that an allegation has been made. This presumes an allegation of extreme credibility such that in due process a judge has agreed to oppress a persons right(s). My position, I believe, goes from 0 oppression to about 5MPH, where only the RTKBA is oppressed. My interpretation of his argument is one that goes from 0 to 100MPH instantly, where ALL rights are oppressed. In both circumstances each of us wants the accused persons rights restored ASAP!

My push of him is that I don't think he has thought through what being temporarily committed to a psych ward truly means. I understand his meaning, and respect that a truly dangerous person should be removed from society, for their safety and ours until such time as they are no longer dangerous. However, I do not support the idea of an alleged dangerous person necessarily being removed from society with most all rights lost. When the allegation occurs I want to see almost all rights remain intact.

Let us not forget that under my position the person may still wind up in the psych ward for a very long time. I concede this, but only after a massive legal struggle ensues where the accused has the maximum chance of victory. But if the person is first placed within a psych ward their chances of winning greatly diminish as they are severely limited in helping their own case. They may become "severely agitated" whilst incarcerated, and thus placed on medication "for their own good." A doped up person won't be at their best to help their attorney, let alone beat the massive struggle with despair and depression that would naturally occur.

I believe that Blue Falcon (and others) have allowed their defense of the RTKBA to be so strong it has clouded their judgement as to how minimal losing that right is when compared to losing that right anyway along with all others.

Now, if we want to argue that even if a person is absolutely known to be dangerous (however we do that) we won't allow the State to do anything unless and until they actually commit a crime, we can go there. We can say you are free to plan the murder of hundreds and acquire all the tools and ammo necessary for the job and we won't stop you UNTIL you actually fire the first shot. But we already live with laws that say a person can be arrested if they cross the bright line of an overt act/substantial act. So we already have a precedent for overt/substantial acts, what about overt state of mind? I don't think it is 100% unreasonable, but that's me.

Regards,

Doug

PS - I would still love to know exactly what was reported to send the LE officers to this gentleman's home in the first place!

This is an extremely difficult topic, and from what I read, I think that we are actually close to the same position, but coming at it from opposite angles. My position is that confiscation should be so rare, so difficult, that it comes only at the point that we find the person to be demonstrably such a danger that the only option that is available is to put them in protective custody; i.e. the issues isn't the firearms, but the demonstrable fact that they post a legitimate risk of harm to themselves or others. Based on what Denny has provided, I am comforted that Indiana,, at least in the scope of what he sees, seems to be at or reasonably near this level of protection. This isn't solely about the RTKBA, in my mind, it is about the sovereignty of the individual over the state.