Seattle police confiscate first gun under new mental health law

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MindWars, Mar 7, 2018.

  1. Hutch Starskey
    Offline

    Hutch Starskey Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2015
    Messages:
    14,899
    Thanks Received:
    2,068
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +6,919
    Such as?
     
  2. NewsVine_Mariyam
    Online

    NewsVine_Mariyam Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Messages:
    684
    Thanks Received:
    166
    Trophy Points:
    45
    Location:
    The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
    Ratings:
    +591
    "If a guy is violent toward his wife and or children, any guns he posses should be removed and the ability to purchase more suspended for the safety of the family."

    But that was the law prior to the passage of this new "Extreme Risk Protection Order".

    "The court may order the temporary surrender of a firearm or other dangerous weapon without notice to the other party if it finds that irreparable injury could result if an order is not issued until the time for a response has elapsed.11 These requirements may be for a period of time less than the duration of the order.12 The court may require the party to surrender any firearm or dangerous weapon in his or her immediate possession or control or subject to his or her immediate possession or control to local law enforcement, his or her counsel, or to any person designated by the court.13 These provisions apply to:14

     
  3. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    161,903
    Thanks Received:
    14,535
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +47,770
    Oh, you are grump this AM, are you not, snowflake.

    The police have the right to remove the gun in Seattle based on the guy's behavior, then the onus is on the guy to get the gun back.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. NewsVine_Mariyam
    Online

    NewsVine_Mariyam Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Messages:
    684
    Thanks Received:
    166
    Trophy Points:
    45
    Location:
    The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
    Ratings:
    +591
    "Sorry, I'm still getting used to your system. Regarding your comment below:

    NCADV | National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
    • The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%.
    How & why does the 500% increase occur?

    Is it really difficult to imagine why that would be?"

    If that figure is being used to deprive anyone of their ability to acquire a firearm to defend themselves from a on-going criminal threat then I'd just like to know how they arrived at that percentage.

    I suspect they're tallying this solely from the actions of the involved criminals, oh sorry "domestic partners".
     
  5. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    41,253
    Thanks Received:
    5,697
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +20,881
    https://nypost.com/2018/02/16/deputies-called-to-suspected-shooters-home-39-times-over-seven-years/
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Hutch Starskey
    Offline

    Hutch Starskey Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2015
    Messages:
    14,899
    Thanks Received:
    2,068
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +6,919
    I'm talking the ERPO as a model for federal law and for all people who are in a situation where gun violence is statistically more probable. Domestic violence was just one example. Like Cruz in Florida or others that the police identify as at risk like chronic drug users who may not necessarily commit crimes but are none the less a danger.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    41,253
    Thanks Received:
    5,697
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +20,881
    Bullshit. that is unconstitutional. The onus should always be on the government to prove its case.

    It's the same bullshit concept that allows crap like civil asset forfeiture.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. featherlite
    Offline

    featherlite Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,180
    Thanks Received:
    1,748
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Location:
    WA
    Ratings:
    +2,514



    Seattle police are confiscating citizens guns without any charges, warrants or laws broken after a report that a man had his firearm taken by authorities without pressing any charges.

    Has tyranny has finally landed in America?

    The man's arrest set a dark precedent that the government can now "forcefully take guns away" without any sort of crime being committed or warrant being issued - a complete violation of the 2nd amendment.
    ( jaws music playing)


    Washington has always been a divided state and there are many gun owners living here.
    Instead of running around nilly willy screaming tyranny...the above is only one way to control some gun loons. Seattle also has a huge distrust of police..ifs it wrong for the average citizen...this city will make some noise. Gov works for us.

    What’s the truth?

    A Seattle man did have his pistol confiscated by police this month through an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), which the article from Neon Nettle cites.


    The order, however, is a warrant. As Seattle police Detective Patrick Michaud reported, “The Seattle Police Department became the first law enforcement agency in Washington State to serve an Extreme Risk Protection Order warrant on Thursday when officers from SPD’s Crisis Response Squad seized a handgun from a man in downtown Seattle.” The warrant was issued after the individual failed to attend his court hearing.

    Contrary to Neon Nettle’s reporting, the man was also arrested “for violating a previous order to turn over his firearms,” Detective Michaud reported.

    Neon Nettle also used an image of several guns in the article that were not a part of the ERPO confiscation, but were from a 2017 arrest of a drug dealer in Seattle. In fact, none of the images used in the article are related to the story.

    The blog post incorrectly states that no warrant was issued, ignores that the man was previously ordered to turn over his weapons, and uses several unrelated and misleading images in the piece.


     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. NewsVine_Mariyam
    Online

    NewsVine_Mariyam Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Messages:
    684
    Thanks Received:
    166
    Trophy Points:
    45
    Location:
    The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
    Ratings:
    +591
    "The blog post incorrectly states that no warrant was issued, ignores that the man was previously ordered to turn over his weapons, and uses several unrelated and misleading images in the piece."

    Thank you so much for clarifying this.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    161,903
    Thanks Received:
    14,535
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +47,770
    When the evidence for police action was clear, then the onus goes on the perp.

    "The blog post incorrectly states that no warrant was issued, ignores that the man was previously ordered to turn over his weapons, and uses several unrelated and misleading images in the piece."
     

Share This Page