Red Flagged for online posts

[Sniper 6,372]

22 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Why is it ok to throw all that away just because it involves firearms?

or verbal words.

Don't we still have a 1st amendment in this country?

[wreckless 34]

52 minutes ago, Greenday said:

So a guy constantly rants about needing to kill all the Jews, doesn't hide his behavior. But preventing him from shooting up innocent people is disturbing? Wow...

It never said his rants were public, it said that he made them on a bigoted member web board. That is a big difference. People say things on what they think is anonymous web boards that they never intend to do. For the justice system to insert their hand in things it should need an overt act and not a mere ugly opinion voiced anonymously.  I hope that you could understand the difference and what a slippery slope we are taking to civil rights these days.

[voyager9 3,433]

45 minutes ago, Sniper said:

or verbal words.

Don't we still have a 1st amendment in this country?

It’s not like they come and take your books because of what you post online or what your neighbors think.  Or take your diesel fuel, fertilizer,  or automobiles.  Red flag laws only target firearms. 

[Underdog 1,593]

And, they don't fix the potential problem.   If that person is screwed up, then he was just pushed a little further, taking his shit, etc. AND, he can get a gun if he wants to, black market, steal, etc. or he can find some other means to exact his rage.   It cracks me up what AVB said.... You think socialist statists with agenda will just work things out?  By the way, the intentions of the law have nothing to do with what they are suppose to do.  Red Flag laws will not fix the problem, just put an undo strain on the lawful that have done nothing wrong.  Again, this is not meant to address the real problem, but to continue with the progressive, Marxist agenda.  

You cannot fix stupid and its capacity for accepting tyranny.   How many public figures, and specifically Democraps are professed racists and jew haters, and these are the clowns that are elected to make policy.  

 

[Underdog 1,593]

On 11/7/2019 at 5:37 PM, wreckless said:

N.J. seized this man’s gun because he glorified violence against Jews, cops say

By Joe Atmonavage | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

Police had been watching David Greco for months, carefully monitoring his online activity.

They noted that he often “threatened, advocated and celebrated the killing of Jewish people."

He also was in communication with the man accused of walking into a Pittsburgh synagogue last year and killing 11 people, they alleged. (Greco has denied this.)

On Aug. 5, after months of observation, law enforcement officers paid a visit to Greco’s Camden County home.

At first, Greco, 51, refused to answer the door. He only spoke with officers after his parents came home and allowed them in the modest home.

As police questioned him about comments he made on a far-right social media platform, Greco was “extremely agitated and angry,” authorities said, but he did not talk about acting out on his disdain for Jewish people. However, they also noted that he said he “believes that Jews are raping our woman and children” and that “force or violence is necessary to realign society.

On Sept. 6, police once again visited Greco’s home, descending without warning, to seize his gun and ammunition.

Unknown to Greco, a Camden County Superior Court Judge Edward McBride had issued a temporary extreme risk protection order earlier that day based on an affidavit regarding Greco’s behavior. The order allowed police to execute a no-knock search warrant of his home and seize one semi-automatic rifle, ammunition and his firearms purchaser ID card.

Under a law that went into effect Sept.1, called the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, a law enforcement officer, family or household member can now petition a state Superior Court judge to take away the guns of a person who they believe “poses an immediate and present danger” to themselves or others. Even if they have not committed a crime.

Two months after going into effect, the constitutionality of the law is being challenged in a proposed class action lawsuit that was filed in New Jersey federal court last month. Greco’s case is at the forefront of the suit. It is the latest lawsuit challenging strict gun control measures Gov. Phil Murphy has signed into law over the last year.

The lawsuit challenges whether there is legal authority to execute a search warrant after a temporary extreme risk protection order is issued.

The law deprives Greco, and other gun owners in New Jersey, of their due process rights, as they are not given a chance to be heard in court before a temporary order is issued and police take firearms, says Albert J. Rescinio, Greco’s attorney. And can a gun owner have their “constitutional rights abrogated” for things said “that the government or anyone else might not like?” the attorney asked.

https://www.nj.com/news/2019/11/nj-man-glorified-extreme-violence-against-jews-cops-say-so-they-seized-his-gun.html

Sounds like Greco might have been listening too much to NPR.  

[Underdog 1,593]

1 hour ago, Gus said:

You know perfectly well what everyone is saying. You know you would be shitting yourself if your due process rights were taken away. You just choose to be inflammatory because you aren't getting enough attention at home

And, for everyone else, I know perfectly well what happened to this country. It was a rhetorical question.

Due process must be protected!    

Greco should be accountable for and responsible, but unless he has in fact broken a law what has been against him is unlawful.  Perhaps those bleading hearts should chip in to get him some counciling before doing unlawful things to him.  

I am sure that there are many Leftists that wish harm to come to Trump, and they have certainly written lots of inflamatory language.  I guess red flags are not needed 'cause they don't own guns?

[Sniper 6,372]

18 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

It’s not like they come and take your books because of what you post online or what your neighbors think.  Or take your diesel fuel, fertilizer,  or automobiles.  Red flag laws only target firearms. 

It gets even worse....

6 minutes ago, Underdog said:

The order allowed police to execute a no-knock search warrant of his home and seize one semi-automatic rifle, ammunition and his firearms purchaser ID card.

So, they took one semi auto rifle, but I bet they left these mass killing items on his kitchen counter:

Don't the LEOs access the FBI homicide data to see these items above kill WAY more people than semi auto rifles...

It's a conspiracy.... right zeke ?  Just compare rifles to knives in this chart:

 

[W2MC 1,699]

3 hours ago, Greenday said:

So a guy constantly rants about needing to kill all the Jews, doesn't hide his behavior. But preventing him from shooting up innocent people is disturbing? Wow...

And what if one of your liberal "buddies" felt 'triggered' because you like to go and shoot, and ratted YOU out?

How would you feel THEN?

 

 

THIS is what 'due process' means, Greenday.

 

[Greenday 323]

2 minutes ago, W2MC said:

And what if one of your liberal "buddies" felt 'triggered' because you like to go and shoot, and ratted YOU out?

How would you feel THEN?

THIS is what 'due process' means, Greenday.

When I start saying we should commit genocide, they'll have a right to complain.

This isn't some story about getting revenge on someone and abusing the rules. This is some psycho that should not be able to own lethal weapons.

[W2MC 1,699]

7 minutes ago, Greenday said:

When I start saying we should commit genocide, they'll have a right to complain.

This isn't some story about getting revenge on someone and abusing the rules. This is some psycho that should not be able to own lethal weapons.

BUT THAT'S WHAT A "RED-FLAG" LAW ****IS****,Greenday!

IT WILL BE USED for getting revenge, retribution, or as a negotiating 'tool' during messy divorces.  Count on it!

 

[Underdog 1,593]

2 hours ago, Sniper said:

It gets even worse....

So, they took one semi auto rifle, but I bet they left these mass killing items on his kitchen counter:

Don't the LEOs access the FBI homicide data to see these items above kill WAY more people than semi auto rifles...

It's a conspiracy.... right zeke ?  Just compare rifles to knives in this chart:

 

High Capacity knife block, or as they say in Virgina large capacity?

[Underdog 1,593]

What if his parents' dog has his password and has been using his pc?  Could be  a setup.

[voyager9 3,433]

46 minutes ago, Greenday said:

When I start saying we should commit genocide, they'll have a right to complain.

This isn't some story about getting revenge on someone and abusing the rules. This is some psycho that should not be able to own lethal weapons.

There are certainly some cases where Red Flag laws should obviously be applied. The problem is they use these cases to justify applying them to some much more gray areas. Neighbor sees you cleaning your firearms on the back porch and  remembers complaining about high taxes at a block party. Makes a call. no-knock-raid.  Veteran crossing guard complains about nepotism and the school resource officer:  fired and firearm confiscated. 
 

In theory the judge is supposed to filter out the frivolous applications. What’s happened is that they’re not and will rubber stamp every request “to err on the side of caution”

[Sniper 6,372]

2 hours ago, Greenday said:

When I start saying we should commit genocide, they'll have a right to complain.

How about your constant bitching that Trump should be removed. That can be considered terrorists threats on the sitting President. Should your firearms be removed without due process?

Not to mention the proof of you watching CNN constantly. Jeff Zucker has said repeatedly he wants Trump removed, by force, if necessary. You, by default watching that network, makes you guilty too..

Should your 2A rights be infringed based on your association?

Then, we have all your posts on D.U......

[Greenday 323]

4 hours ago, Sniper said:

How about your constant bitching that Trump should be removed. That can be considered terrorists threats on the sitting President. Should your firearms be removed without due process?

Not to mention the proof of you watching CNN constantly. Jeff Zucker has said repeatedly he wants Trump removed, by force, if necessary. You, by default watching that network, makes you guilty too..

Should your 2A rights be infringed based on your association?

Then, we have all your posts on D.U......

Saying Trump should be impeached isn't a threat. Saying you'll start a civil war if your president who committed immoral acts is impeached now, THAT could be considered a threat. 

And I don't watch CNN. I listen/read a number of news sources, generally CNN, BBC, Fox, etc. to see what's being reported on, then I read from multiple sources to get a broader view.

[Sniper 6,372]

1 hour ago, Greenday said:

And I don't watch CNN. I listen/read a number of news sources, generally CNN

Oh, so "listening/reading" is not the same as "watching" when digesting lies and false reports?

Interesting.... 

[W2MC 1,699]

"And I don't watch CNN. I listen/read a number of news sources, generally CNN"

 

 

[Greenday 323]

10 minutes ago, W2MC said:

"And I don't watch CNN. I listen/read a number of news sources, generally CNN"

 

 

He's trying to imply it's my sole news source. I get my news from a variety of sources. Just not insane extremist not actually news, actually pure speculation just to get clicks from people who don't want to believe the actual story. You know, sites like InfoWars, American Thinker, Conservative Review, Democracy Now, Think Progress. Those are shitty sites that write stories (not news) based on what their viewer base wants to hear. Nothing about actual facts.

[Sniper 6,372]

8 minutes ago, Greenday said:

Those are shitty sites that write stories (not news) based on what their viewer base wants to hear. Nothing about actual facts.

You just described CNN, you know that, right?

...." In an undercover audio released Wednesday to Project Veritas, Mr. Zucker can be heard exhorting staffers on the daily “rundown call” to be “fully committed” to the impeachment story, calling it “unbelievably important and unbelievably significant,” and that, “I don’t want to be afraid to say that.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/16/jeff-zucker-tells-cnn-staff-be-fully-committed-tru/

Oh, and the majority of the time, when you post a link to a story, it's a  CNN link.... Oops... 

[JackDaWack 2,895]

2 hours ago, Greenday said:

Saying Trump should be impeached isn't a threat. Saying you'll start a civil war if your president who committed immoral acts is impeached now, THAT could be considered a threat. 

And I don't watch CNN. I listen/read a number of news sources, generally CNN, BBC, Fox, etc. to see what's being reported on, then I read from multiple sources to get a broader view.

So what if I just say there SHOULD be a civil war if he is impeached, is that ok?

 

I didn't see the cops release any statements that the guy said he would do anything... 

Althougj He said a lot about what he though should happen... and that he placed a lot o blame on certain people.... but you just said that was OK?

 

Help us out here and apply your logic... since the cops released his most offensive statements... highlight where he said he was going to do anything.

[raz-0 1,259]

On 11/7/2019 at 5:59 PM, njJoniGuy said:

As much as I hate what Greco is alleged to have said, this is the United States of America, not the Soviet Union or Communist China.

I hope the Red Flag laws here and in other states that have passed them are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Trying to ignore the shitshow of personality conflicts this thread rapidly became, I'm pretty much with you here. 

A paranoid 51 year old anti-semite living with mom and dad isn't really who I want ot be the poster boy for this, but the law is messed up. 

There's really only two ways to have a legitimate search warrant under the constitution. 1) have a judge sign a warrant based on probably cause.  2) a search without a warrant under exigent circumstances, also with probable cause.  (the above assumes, rightly, that one's dwelling is a place you have a reasonable expectation of privacy)

NJ's red flag law goes out of its way, in its attempts to avoid giving the victims of said law due process or a right to a court appointed defense, to reassure us it is NOT a criminal proceeding, but civil. I'd like to see the tortured reasoning that permits a warrant to seize property based on probable cause for an INCOMPLETE civil hearing. 

 

[W2MC 1,699]

35 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

I'd like to see the tortured reasoning that permits a warrant to seize property based on probable cause for an INCOMPLETE civil hearing.

The Thought Police ...

[Zeke 5,504]

Let’s sidestep the shenanigans for a minute. There’s a moral question that comes with this. How would you feel if, you saw something posted online that didn’t quite feel right. And then it turns out the dude/ dudette wasn’t right and went full retard?

Let’s take away my innate ability to screw with keyboard commando’s and get free rent.

See something say something? Would you feel guilty if the worst case scenario happened?

It’s a moral conundrum. But I agree The  red flag laws are unconstitutional. We are in an age where the fringe and freaks have become emboldened. Social media is not a helper.

Deep thoughts with Zeke 

 

[Zeke 5,504]

Addendum

 

those of you that are smert know exactly what I’m doing.

long live pasta

[PK90 3,570]

See Something, Say Something, Do Something ..... Investigate, Not Confiscate.

[Zeke 5,504]

2 minutes ago, PK90 said:

See Something, Say Something, Do Something ..... Investigate, Not Confiscate.

I concur with this.

 

This is where 45 lost me at” take them first “

but let’s face it, LE is 99% retroactive. 1% preventative, or actually interference 

[Gus 33]

14 minutes ago, PK90 said:

See Something, Say Something, Do Something ..... Investigate, Not Confiscate.

100% agree. 

[Greenday 323]

I get it, I don't think LE should just take someone's guns based on nothing. But someone clearly mentally unstable who advocates violence and genocide? That's a huge difference from someone just trying to get revenge but has no actual proof of threats or violence.

[Gus 33]

22 minutes ago, Greenday said:

I get it, I don't think LE should just take someone's guns based on nothing. But someone clearly mentally unstable who advocates violence and genocide? That's a huge difference from someone just trying to get revenge but has no actual proof of threats or violence.

You keep pushing the violence and genocide thing to advocate violating someone's rights. In my opinion genocide and rights violations are equally wrong, (and even the same thing if you think about it).

Why not give the guy his day in court? The answer is that red flag laws were not made for removing a danger to society or eliminating a threat. They were constructed to disarm us, the law abiding citizens, and the liberals hid this behind the lie that they are concerned with violence.

 

[Zeke 5,504]

7 minutes ago, Gus said:

You keep pushing the violence and genocide thing to advocate violating someone's rights. In my opinion genocide and rights violations are equally wrong, (and even the same thing if you think about it).

Why not give the guy his day in court? The answer is that red flag laws were not made for removing a danger to society or eliminating a threat. They were constructed to disarm us, the law abiding citizens, and the liberals hid this behind the lie that they are concerned with violence.

 

Some truth to this