Seattle police confiscate first gun under new mental health law

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

From the news article:
Deputies called to suspected shooter’s home 39 times over seven years

"Cruz — who posted images of himself on Instagram posing with guns and knives — has confessed to killing 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland and made an alarming online comment about a recent mass shooting.

“Man I can do so much better,” he wrote. [referencing a recent mass shooting]

The negligence in Cruz's case is absolutely inexcusable and appalling. These were not hidden or subtle indications that something might be amiss, these were flashing neon signs about not only Cruz's interests but his intentions.

 

[martybegan]

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."

Was he ordered to do so under due process or because some cop wanted it?

And innocent until proven guilty is part of any interaction with the government.

This is guilty until proven innocent.

But a fascist fuck like you is OK with that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is rules and regulations before the criminal procedure takes place. A libertarian polperv like you, Marty, just does not get it.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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.

I said maybe, when you got a gun-owning person who appears to be violent then it would seem prudent for society to remove those weapons and check the guy out before somebody get shot rather than afterwards. It's only temporary dude, and if we catch a criminal or two in the process then so much the better. You tell me, how many of our recent mass shooters have been law-abiding? Most of them, like that kid in Florida would pass a background check but maybe some would not and those people probably shouldn't be allowed to have guns. And the ones where a judge rules there's no reason to keep their guns will get them back. I don't see the big deal here, 2 effing weeks?

The big deal is that Constitutional rights are being violated without someone committing a crime or even being charged with one or being given any opportunity to defend themselves from the charge of appearing "possibly violent". News flash dude: appearing "possibly violent" is not a crime and a judge is not a psychiatrist or a mind reader nor is he qualified to make the determination without defense and expert testimony. The law is unconstitutional and a fine example of tyranny.

 

[9thIDdoc]

This is rules and regulations before the criminal procedure takes place. A libertarian polperv like you, Marty, just does not get it.

What crime is he charged with?
The confiscation was itself a major crime. The man would have had the Constitutional Right to defend himself and his property with deadly force if necessary.

 

[justinacolmena]

those who are classified as “mentally ill”

There's a special torture chamber in Western State Hospital in Steilacoom, Washington newly authorized by the state legislature after the hospital lost is federal accreditation and funding.