Seattle police confiscate first gun under new mental health law

[Hutch Starskey]

What's the alternative, chief? Cross fingers and hope they won't go off the deep end?

Find out if they are actually a threat, and if so mentally adjudicate them via a court.

The issue will always be people in power will abuse things like this because they feel like it.

So you agree then that the Broward County Sheriff should have had the authority to flag Cruz based on his behavior and with a judge's signature could remove weapons and have red flagged the national background system so he couldn't obtain more?

The guy actually committed crimes, multiple times. he should have been either charged with a crime and indicted, or brought before a judge to be mentally adjudicated.

At that point if you want to take his guns, due process has been followed.

So, no then?

Um, yes. The guy had interactions with police that could have warranted arrest.

Are you sure?

 

[toobfreak]

Seattle police confiscate first gun under new 'mental health' law.

The problem with liberals is that when they finally get what they thought they wanted, they find they don't want it at all, but by then, it is too late and we are ALL stuck with their mistakes.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

 

[martybegan]

Find out if they are actually a threat, and if so mentally adjudicate them via a court.

The issue will always be people in power will abuse things like this because they feel like it.

So you agree then that the Broward County Sheriff should have had the authority to flag Cruz based on his behavior and with a judge's signature could remove weapons and have red flagged the national background system so he couldn't obtain more?

The guy actually committed crimes, multiple times. he should have been either charged with a crime and indicted, or brought before a judge to be mentally adjudicated.

At that point if you want to take his guns, due process has been followed.

So, no then?

Um, yes. The guy had interactions with police that could have warranted arrest.

Are you sure?

When a person is arrested and indicted, they can get a court order to remove their firearms.

It's all about due process.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No, Marty, your concept of government that you call 'libertarianism' is not how we govern.

How is due process applied when the government can just sit on a ban for year, and renew it ad nauseum?

This is constitutionality.

Unless the government can prove the guy is a criminal or mentally unfit he should get his guns back.

Either that or charge him with something or commit him.

Why do idiots like you get on your knees and suck government dick anytime you get the chance?

And nice try going with not quoting and hoping i would miss it, fucktard.

Do you imagine a well regulated militia should include mental incompetents or emotional timebombs?

If the guy was intimidating people charge him with it. If he is mentally incompetent, commit him.

Have government do its actual fucking job, not look for back door fixes.

A person doesn't have to be either insane or guilty of a crime to be emotionally disturbed enough to commit violence. Just by the statistics alone police should be able to act in certain situations..

NCADV | National Coalition Against Domestic Violence

• The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%.

Then why don't we give the government the power just to make them disappear?

Nacht und Nebel - Wikipedia

Or less absurd, lets just suspend the 4th amendment too because it will make the government's job easier....

A guy who beats his wife and kids is a bad guy. That isn't, (or shouldn't), be in question.

The question then is, why do you want a bad guy to retain his guns in a situation where murder is 5x more likely to occur?

Do they actually have to die before you're satisfied that he was indeed a bad guy?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So you agree then that the Broward County Sheriff should have had the authority to flag Cruz based on his behavior and with a judge's signature could remove weapons and have red flagged the national background system so he couldn't obtain more?

The guy actually committed crimes, multiple times. he should have been either charged with a crime and indicted, or brought before a judge to be mentally adjudicated.

At that point if you want to take his guns, due process has been followed.

So, no then?

Um, yes. The guy had interactions with police that could have warranted arrest.

Are you sure?

When a person is arrested and indicted, they can get a court order to remove their firearms.

It's all about due process.

What if they're just a nuisance as Cruz was?

 

[martybegan]

How is due process applied when the government can just sit on a ban for year, and renew it ad nauseum?

This is constitutionality.

Unless the government can prove the guy is a criminal or mentally unfit he should get his guns back.

Either that or charge him with something or commit him.

Why do idiots like you get on your knees and suck government dick anytime you get the chance?

And nice try going with not quoting and hoping i would miss it, fucktard.

Do you imagine a well regulated militia should include mental incompetents or emotional timebombs?

If the guy was intimidating people charge him with it. If he is mentally incompetent, commit him.

Have government do its actual fucking job, not look for back door fixes.

A person doesn't have to be either insane or guilty of a crime to be emotionally disturbed enough to commit violence. Just by the statistics alone police should be able to act in certain situations..

NCADV | National Coalition Against Domestic Violence

• The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%.

Then why don't we give the government the power just to make them disappear?

Nacht und Nebel - Wikipedia

Or less absurd, lets just suspend the 4th amendment too because it will make the government's job easier....

A guy who beats his wife and kids is a bad guy. That isn't, (or shouldn't), be in question.

The question then is, why do you want a bad guy to retain his guns in a situation where murder is 5x more likely to occur?

Do they actually have to die before you're satisfied that he was indeed a bad guy?

No, I want the police to do their job, arrest the asshole, prosecute, convict and imprison. Losing his gun rights is part of that package.

The police have to follow the rules, things like this break the rules to make their job easier, and of course give cocksuckers like you another way to use the law to fuck with people you don't like

Fuck off farkey.

 

[martybegan]

The guy actually committed crimes, multiple times. he should have been either charged with a crime and indicted, or brought before a judge to be mentally adjudicated.

At that point if you want to take his guns, due process has been followed.

So, no then?

Um, yes. The guy had interactions with police that could have warranted arrest.

Are you sure?

When a person is arrested and indicted, they can get a court order to remove their firearms.

It's all about due process.

What if they're just a nuisance as Cruz was?

Cruz was not just a nuisance. He did things that should have gotten his ass arrested, but somehow he didn't get arrested.

 

[Hellbilly]

LOL Seattle is chock full of mentally unstable left loons....disarm them!!!! Oh wait, they wet themselves at the thought of firearms

98% of Seattle citizens are mentally retarded and loony

LOL Yeah it's moon bat central....went once no desire to go back

My band played in Seattle a few years ago.
I like Seattle.
We also played in Portland Oregon. Now THAT is a Looney tune place. I'll never go back.

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Do you imagine a well regulated militia should include mental incompetents or emotional timebombs?

If the guy was intimidating people charge him with it. If he is mentally incompetent, commit him.

Have government do its actual fucking job, not look for back door fixes.

A person doesn't have to be either insane or guilty of a crime to be emotionally disturbed enough to commit violence. Just by the statistics alone police should be able to act in certain situations..

NCADV | National Coalition Against Domestic Violence

• The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%.

Then why don't we give the government the power just to make them disappear?

Nacht und Nebel - Wikipedia

Or less absurd, lets just suspend the 4th amendment too because it will make the government's job easier....

A guy who beats his wife and kids is a bad guy. That isn't, (or shouldn't), be in question.

The question then is, why do you want a bad guy to retain his guns in a situation where murder is 5x more likely to occur?

Do they actually have to die before you're satisfied that he was indeed a bad guy?

No, I want the police to do their job, arrest the asshole, prosecute, convict and imprison. Losing his gun rights is part of that package.

The police have to follow the rules, things like this break the rules to make their job easier, and of course give cocksuckers like you another way to use the law to fuck with people you don't like

Fuck off farkey.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So, no then?

Um, yes. The guy had interactions with police that could have warranted arrest.

Are you sure?

When a person is arrested and indicted, they can get a court order to remove their firearms.

It's all about due process.

What if they're just a nuisance as Cruz was?

Cruz was not just a nuisance. He did things that should have gotten his ass arrested, but somehow he didn't get arrested.

Such as?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

"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

• Sexual assault protection orders under Washington Rev. Code 7.90.090;
• Anti-stalking protection orders under chapter 7.92 of the Washington Rev. Code, including ex parte orders;
• No-contact orders issued after a conviction for harassment under Washington Rev. Code § 9A.46.080;
• Anti-harassment protective order, including ex parte orders, under Washington Rev. Code § 10.14.080;
• No-contact orders issued when a domestic violence defendant is released on bail or personal recognizance, under Washington Rev. Code § 10.99.040;
• No-contact orders issued after a charge of domestic violence has been made under Washington Rev. Code § 10.99.045;
• Restraining orders issued upon filing of a complaint for dissolution of marriage, including ex parte orders, under Washington Rev. Code Ann. §§ 26.09.050 and 26.09.060;
• Restraining orders issued in cases where parental rights and child support issues are adjudicated, including ex parte orders, under Washington Rev. Code Ann. § 26.10.040, 26.10.115, 26.26.130, and 26.26.590;
• Domestic violence protective order under Washington Rev. Code Ann. § 26.50.060; and
• Ex parte domestic violence protective orders under Washington Rev. Code Ann. § 26.50.070.
  
  Domestic Violence & Firearms in Washington | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do you imagine a well regulated militia should include mental incompetents or emotional timebombs?

If the guy was intimidating people charge him with it. If he is mentally incompetent, commit him.

Have government do its actual fucking job, not look for back door fixes.

A person doesn't have to be either insane or guilty of a crime to be emotionally disturbed enough to commit violence. Just by the statistics alone police should be able to act in certain situations..

NCADV | National Coalition Against Domestic Violence

• The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%.

Then why don't we give the government the power just to make them disappear?

Nacht und Nebel - Wikipedia

Or less absurd, lets just suspend the 4th amendment too because it will make the government's job easier....

A guy who beats his wife and kids is a bad guy. That isn't, (or shouldn't), be in question.

The question then is, why do you want a bad guy to retain his guns in a situation where murder is 5x more likely to occur?

Do they actually have to die before you're satisfied that he was indeed a bad guy?

No, I want the police to do their job, arrest the asshole, prosecute, convict and imprison. Losing his gun rights is part of that package.

The police have to follow the rules, things like this break the rules to make their job easier, and of course give cocksuckers like you another way to use the law to fuck with people you don't like

Fuck off farkey.

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.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

"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".

 

[martybegan]

Um, yes. The guy had interactions with police that could have warranted arrest.

Are you sure?

When a person is arrested and indicted, they can get a court order to remove their firearms.

It's all about due process.

What if they're just a nuisance as Cruz was?

Cruz was not just a nuisance. He did things that should have gotten his ass arrested, but somehow he didn't get arrested.

Such as?

https://nypost.com/2018/02/16/deputies-called-to-suspected-shooters-home-39-times-over-seven-years/

 

[Hutch Starskey]

"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

• Sexual assault protection orders under Washington Rev. Code 7.90.090;
• Anti-stalking protection orders under chapter 7.92 of the Washington Rev. Code, including ex parte orders;
• No-contact orders issued after a conviction for harassment under Washington Rev. Code § 9A.46.080;
• Anti-harassment protective order, including ex parte orders, under Washington Rev. Code § 10.14.080;
• No-contact orders issued when a domestic violence defendant is released on bail or personal recognizance, under Washington Rev. Code § 10.99.040;
• No-contact orders issued after a charge of domestic violence has been made under Washington Rev. Code § 10.99.045;
• Restraining orders issued upon filing of a complaint for dissolution of marriage, including ex parte orders, under Washington Rev. Code Ann. §§ 26.09.050 and 26.09.060;
• Restraining orders issued in cases where parental rights and child support issues are adjudicated, including ex parte orders, under Washington Rev. Code Ann. § 26.10.040, 26.10.115, 26.26.130, and 26.26.590;
• Domestic violence protective order under Washington Rev. Code Ann. § 26.50.060; and
• Ex parte domestic violence protective orders under Washington Rev. Code Ann. § 26.50.070.
  
  Domestic Violence & Firearms in Washington | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

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.

 

[martybegan]

If the guy was intimidating people charge him with it. If he is mentally incompetent, commit him.

Have government do its actual fucking job, not look for back door fixes.

A person doesn't have to be either insane or guilty of a crime to be emotionally disturbed enough to commit violence. Just by the statistics alone police should be able to act in certain situations..

NCADV | National Coalition Against Domestic Violence

• The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%.

Then why don't we give the government the power just to make them disappear?

Nacht und Nebel - Wikipedia

Or less absurd, lets just suspend the 4th amendment too because it will make the government's job easier....

A guy who beats his wife and kids is a bad guy. That isn't, (or shouldn't), be in question.

The question then is, why do you want a bad guy to retain his guns in a situation where murder is 5x more likely to occur?

Do they actually have to die before you're satisfied that he was indeed a bad guy?

No, I want the police to do their job, arrest the asshole, prosecute, convict and imprison. Losing his gun rights is part of that package.

The police have to follow the rules, things like this break the rules to make their job easier, and of course give cocksuckers like you another way to use the law to fuck with people you don't like

Fuck off farkey.

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.

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.

 

[featherlite]

1. A judge signs off on the ERPO order to remove your gun(s), based on a petition signed by a family member or law enforcement that indicates the individual may be a threat to themselves or others.

2. It's temporary only for 14 days. If the order expires or the judge rules it isn't necessary then the person gets their guns back. But the person has to pass a background check first.

3. If the judge rules the ERPO order is valid then it's go for 1 year and has to be extended or denied at that time.

4. It ain't like they're talking guns away by the thousands, my understanding is this is the 1st case they've done sine the law's inception. Which I think was last June.

5. So, all in all maybe it ain't the panacea we'd hoped for but maybe also it saves a few lives here and there. I'm not seeing it as that much of an infringement.

Save a few lives are you kidding? Guns are being taken from law abiding citizens, since when do criminals wait for a mental check or background check.

So the Fla law enforcement and the FBI didn't screw up with Cruz then? It seems that you would have a problem if they had confiscated his weapons.

Lets see what you say when your neighbor says you are doing something weird and you are put into the county jail until they deem you as mentally fit to be in the public eye........... but wait you know your are normal.

LOL Seattle is chock full of mentally unstable left loons....disarm them!!!! Oh wait, they wet themselves at the thought of firearms

If all the Leftist American States get disarmed, then that means only the Conservative American States will be armed....only Right-Wingers will be armed

Looks good:

Looks good:

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.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

"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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A person doesn't have to be either insane or guilty of a crime to be emotionally disturbed enough to commit violence. Just by the statistics alone police should be able to act in certain situations..

NCADV | National Coalition Against Domestic Violence

• The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%.

Then why don't we give the government the power just to make them disappear?

Nacht und Nebel - Wikipedia

Or less absurd, lets just suspend the 4th amendment too because it will make the government's job easier....

A guy who beats his wife and kids is a bad guy. That isn't, (or shouldn't), be in question.

The question then is, why do you want a bad guy to retain his guns in a situation where murder is 5x more likely to occur?

Do they actually have to die before you're satisfied that he was indeed a bad guy?

No, I want the police to do their job, arrest the asshole, prosecute, convict and imprison. Losing his gun rights is part of that package.

The police have to follow the rules, things like this break the rules to make their job easier, and of course give cocksuckers like you another way to use the law to fuck with people you don't like

Fuck off farkey.

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.

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.

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."