Red Flagged for online posts

[Greenday 204]

15 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.

Ok, so let's say he is assigned a court date. How far away is that? Months? Screw it, if he knows in advance he's screwed, what's to stop him from just moving forward with shooting up a synagogue in the mean time?

[wreckless 22]

40 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.

Then it is up to the local prosecutor to file with the court for an order to revoke that individual's FID card. There will be service on the individual and he/she may obtain legal representation to respond in a court of law. It is all above board and up front. If there is a strong enough case and the prosecutor has done their homework then the FID gets revoked and the judge order's the defendant to surrender their weapons. The defendant may appeal and let things play out. This is the correct way and the right response under the law. However, the system is lazy and choose not to take this course of action. They love the Red Flag Law because the defendant gets blindsided with a very low level of proof required. The defendant starts from a negative position immediately. And, if the search finds other evidence of legal transgression they is now much more leverage against the defendant built in. Its wrong, it's lazy, and it is intellectually dishonest to rely upon a bad law to do your job.

[Gus 31]

I am Greek. For hundreds of years the Turks enslaved and then tried to exterminate my people. Yes, that's right, genocide.

They did this by first disarming us (confiscation) then telling us we no longer had rights under their laws (red flag), and then proceeding to murder as many of us as possible (genocide). They did this with us, then with the Armenians, and now with Syria.

Want to guess how we stopped this? We picked up rifles and we fought back. We won back our freedom with a gun.

I will never condone taking anyone's rights away without due process. If the person is a true danger, then you should be able to prosecute them in a court of law.

Why can't the liberals find a way to curb all this danger without violating law abiding citizen's rights? Because that's not what the red flag laws are about.

[wreckless 22]

1 minute ago, Greenday said:

Ok, so let's say he is assigned a court date. How far away is that? Months? Screw it, if he knows in advance he's screwed, what's to stop him from just moving forward with shooting up a synagogue in the mean time?

The prosecutor may request an emergent court hearing based upon exigent circumstances. It is already an option.

[JC_68Westy 270]

1 hour 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.

I seem to recall you stating several times that you would like to punch Nazi's in the face for being Nazi's.  That is a threat (at the very least avocating) using violence against people you don't agree with. What happens when it is people that you are aligned with that that become the target of red flag laws? You haven't been around the block enough times to see how cyclical things are.  The pendulum will swing and you will be on the losing side one day. That is the way it is.

[JackDaWack 1,227]

2 hours 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.

Keep moving those goals posts....

If we put everyone on a list who ever advocated for violence... almost everyone on the Left would be banned from owning firearms. 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Zeke said:

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 

 

It's not a conundrum, its a slippery slope. 

Either people represent a threat by actually threatening violence, or they don't. Since we have laws that cover that... there was clearly a way to take people's guns who actually committed crimes. 

 

This was merely a way to lower the bar, and take Due process and turn it on its fucking head. If a court wants to take your guns... it should be by jury... 

 

If a court believes you are a threat to the public, you belong in an institution. Which makes all of this MOOT.

[JackDaWack 1,227]

1 hour ago, JC_68Westy said:

I seem to recall you stating several times that you would like to punch Nazi's in the face for being Nazi's.  That is a threat (at the very least avocating) using violence against people you don't agree with. What happens when it is people that you are aligned with that that become the target of red flag laws? You haven't been around the block enough times to see how cyclical things are.  The pendulum will swing and you will be on the losing side one day. That is the way it is.

I think we need to report him to the state police... He HAS threatened to harm people on this forum... maybe its time he lost his guns just incase he decides to shoot one. 

 

On 7/4/2019 at 9:29 AM, Greenday said:

Punching nazi's in the face is about as American as it gets.

[Zeke 4,402]

4 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

Keep moving those goals posts....

If we put everyone on a list who ever advocated for violence... almost everyone on the Left would be banned from owning firearms. 

 

 

 

It's not a conundrum, its a slippery slope. 

Either people represent a threat by actually threatening violence, or they don't. Since we have laws that cover that... there was clearly a way to take people's guns who actually committed crimes. 

 

This was merely a way to lower the bar, and take Due process and turn it on its fucking head. If a court wants to take your guns... it should be by jury... 

 

If a court believes you are a threat to the public, you belong in an institution. Which makes all of this MOOT.

Well I agree. Let’s use sniper as the perfect example. He’s 90 pounds wet. Obviously disgruntled. And has made many boisterous posts about shooting up the town. If he acts on it, how would you feel?

[Sniper 3,091]

12 hours ago, Zeke said:

Let’s use sniper as the perfect example. He’s 90 pounds wet. Obviously disgruntled. And has made many boisterous posts about shooting up the town. If he acts on it, how would you feel?

Instead of constantly posting your bullshit and lies, why don't you PROVE it, by quoting where I said that. Go ahead, big man, PROVE it.

I guarantee you won't!

[DirtyDigz 832]

Here's a new NJ Red Flag law case:

https://www.nj.com/mercer/2019/11/princeton-man-posted-about-bringing-his-ar-15-rifle-to-walmart-so-cops-seized-his-all-his-guns.html

...

A tipster who saw Williams’ posts alerted Trenton Detective Sgt. Anthony Manzo, who noticed posts appearing to threaten customers at the Walmart in Hamilton, according to court documents.

“Walmart count ya days tonight,” he wrote in one of the posts, quoted in an affidavit of probable cause filed in Superior Court of Mercer County. “If anybody got sumn slick to sa, say it to me now. I’m about to shut the whole Nottingham Walmart down wassup!"

The Walmart store in Hamilton is on Nottingham Way.

The police turned to the state Extreme Risk Protective Order Act, which went into effect Sept. 1.

...

Williams posted a “homemade” video of someone firing an AR-style rifle and handgun out of a car, and had other posts mentioning an AR rifle and using guns while drunk, court documents say.

His cover photo on Facebook is an advertisement for the Glock Gen5, a line of pistols from the gun manufacturer. Williams regularly posted videos from a shooting range, including one where he mentioned letting a man at the range test out his shotgun.

Other posts threatened someone who stole his car, and mentioned bringing his gun into a Popeye’s restaurant.

“Who ever from North Trenton that stole my car [I’ kill you & your mom b---h,” he wrote in one post.

...

[Underdog 493]

Do you really think Red Flag laws are going to stop the threat?  Slow it down, maybe.  But stop it?  NO.  IF  And, if you unjustly take someone's stuff away without due process you are pushing that much further.   Not only that, but where are the due process factors in Red Flag?  How does an individual get to react to this non-due process (absurd and unConstitutional in itself)?  Why is the financial burden of proof of innocence put on the individual?  How is the individual's legal property protected for damage and theft when collected and stored?   Where is the just and balanced approach?  Instead it is just tyranny and conditioning.

Again, we find ourself focusing on the  inanimate objects and not the individual.  And, besides all that, these laws are not meant to solve our criminal and mental health problems, they are meant to give the State MORE power over the citizen individual which can be used and employed with little oversight or thought to the detriment of that individual and his or her freedoms, again tyranny and conditioning.  There are doubtless countless examples of governmental abuse of power, but specifically look how the last president and how the current Democrats are turning the instrumentalities of the government against individuals.  The balance should be in protecting the rights of millions of good people over a few scraps of presumed safety concerns.  

No common sense with over-emotional reactions, and brought forth by those with an ulterior motive.  

[Underdog 493]

On 11/7/2019 at 6:49 PM, Zeke said:

Yep 

Fuddesquely answered with deep thougths and conviction!

[Underdog 493]

On 11/10/2019 at 10:31 AM, Sniper said:

or verbal words.

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

No, we have a living and breathing undead progressive virus unleashed on the populace, bunch of fast-moving walkers aimlessly wandering about listening to NPR, MSNBC, CNN, etc. and wondering where they will get their next free shit meal and not too worried about their rights to congregate.  Their idea is to destroy all logic and they are not concerned about due process on their victims such as eating the cerebrum before the medulla oblongata.  

[carl_g 377]

2 hours ago, DirtyDigz said:

Here's a new NJ Red Flag law case:

https://www.nj.com/mercer/2019/11/princeton-man-posted-about-bringing-his-ar-15-rifle-to-walmart-so-cops-seized-his-all-his-guns.html

 

 

Seems justified to me. This guy has issues. Can we all agree that someone who makes public threats online to commit mass murder is probably not of sound mind and is not a good candidate for firearm ownership?

[PK90 3,106]

6 minutes ago, carl_g said:

Seems justified to me. This guy has issues. Can we all agree that someone who makes public threats online to commit mass murder is probably not of sound mind and is not a good candidate for firearm ownership?

I have no issue with that, but the article that was quoted made no mention of mass murder, or even violence. For all we know, he could have worked there and he threatened to lock every door to "shut the whole Nottingham Walmart down".   Was this guy charged with a crime?

[carl_g 377]

1 hour ago, PK90 said:

I have no issue with that, but the article that was quoted made no mention of mass murder, or even violence. For all we know, he could have worked there and he threatened to lock every door to "shut the whole Nottingham Walmart down".   Was this guy charged with a crime?

Yes he was charged and jailed with making terroristic threats. He also said:

“Who ever from North Trenton that stole my car [I’ kill you & your mom b---h,”  

I guess you could say by him writing kill he could have meant something else but that is a stretch IMO. 

[45Doll 1,249]

I want to point out something.

If the Red Flag law was what's in play, then guns are confiscated and a court date is set where the person gets a chance to explain why he's not a threat. No one is arrested as part of this process.

This guy was arrested because he made terroristic threats while under police 'surveillance', and as a side effect his guns were confiscated. He's in jail and will have a day in court not of his choosing.

So, this is not a Red Flag law case. But of course NJ.com will tout Red Flag every chance it gets.

[PK90 3,106]

19 minutes ago, carl_g said:

Yes he was charged and jailed with making terroristic threats. He also said:

“Who ever from North Trenton that stole my car [I’ kill you & your mom b---h,”  

I guess you could say by him writing kill he could have meant something else but that is a stretch IMO. 

Two people are not a MASS

8 minutes ago, 45Doll said:

So, this is not a Red Flag law case. But of course NJ.com will tout Red Flag every chance it gets.

+1

[Mrs. Peel 4,266]

2 hours ago, carl_g said:

Seems justified to me. This guy has issues. Can we all agree that someone who makes public threats online to commit mass murder is probably not of sound mind and is not a good candidate for firearm ownership?

As others have noted (like @45Doll above), this case was more about terroristic threats (where the government has always had the ability to intervene and make an arrest).  

However, in the true "red flag" cases, it seems that more often than not, the person is NOT arrested/jailed... meaning he is quite free to go home and rig up a pipe bomb, or rent a box truck, or buy a 5-gallon container of gas w/ a book of matches. So, you must ask yourself... how dangerous were those folks really if they didn't even do anything that merited an arrest? Aside from the troubling lack of due process in these red flag laws, they don't seem to appropriately address any underlying mental health concerns, and worse yet, they don't even provide a full-fledged solution. It focuses on 1 tool... not the "criminal intent" (if it even existed within the accused in the first place). It's all a bit nonsensical.. and "thought police" for my tastes. That's why I (and others) believe it's just a convenient way for the left to chip away at firearm ownership... and due process... and any other Constitutional right they can bash at the same time. There's a bigger picture here... a slippery slope.

[BobA 1,231]

12 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

However, in the true "red flag" cases, it seems that more often than not, the person is NOT arrested/jailed... meaning he is quite free to go home and rig up a pipe bomb, or rent a box truck, or buy a 5-gallon container of gas w/ a book of matches.

Agreed.  It's another example of addressing the symptoms rather than the problem.  Taking his guns out of the house and not addressing his anger issues just leaves him with his machetes, chain saws, rat poison or whatever.  And possibly a new situation was created by further angering a nut left alone with his helpless family.  If someone is a ticking time bomb then they need to be defused not stripped of his possessions.  Not made to feel any further inferior and helpless to the institution he/she is already threatening. Why can we coddle drug attics with safe houses to shoot up in, allow people to pee and poop in the streets and allow stealing from shop owners but not address these anger problems properly?   Seems to me a couple of Xanex here and there instead of the authorities stealing one's private property might go a long way.    

[Redlines 161]

On 11/12/2019 at 1:22 PM, PK90 said:

Two people are not a MASS

+1

Depends on how fat they are.

[tomk62 212]

On 11/12/2019 at 1:48 PM, BobA said:

Why can we coddle drug attics with safe houses to shoot up in, allow people to pee and poop in the streets and allow stealing from shop owners but not address these anger problems properly?       

Because those circumstances don't support the anti-2A agenda.

[DirtyDigz 832]

One of the NJ red flag law “victims” is challenging it  in federal district court:

https://www.njtvonline.org/news/video/njs-red-flag-law-gets-challenged-in-federal-court/

 

[wreckless 22]

That is just the case.Gov wants to set precedence on, an ugly bigot as the plaintiff.