- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
RI's use of Red Flag and what the future for you will look like.. SECRET COURT baby!
Posted on 8/7/19 at 7:05 pm
Posted on 8/7/19 at 7:05 pm
I'm going to start with the words of LEO:
SO once it's used, it gets easier and we can go after it.
It's been 1 year as a law, and they have used it 21 times!
And EVERY DAMN TIME, YOU ARE GUILTY until you prove your innocence!
Secret court?
YEP!!!!!
Your arse ain't even allowed to go defend yourself.
So the odds of a judge saying no, is slim. Why would he? It's in secret! No harm, the judge gets to think he's helping the community.
Next up...
You have NOT COMMITTED A CRIME!!!!!! and they are breaking your door down to get your guns!
Wait... so they have to present a clear and convincing case AFTER they took your guns? not at the first trial!
LINK
quote:
“It’s like anything else — once you do it and get comfortable with it you understand what needs to be done,” Ciullo told Target 12 during an interview at the police department. “We want to make sure that the community is safe, that the individual is safe, and we have this tool to use.”
SO once it's used, it gets easier and we can go after it.
It's been 1 year as a law, and they have used it 21 times!
And EVERY DAMN TIME, YOU ARE GUILTY until you prove your innocence!
quote:
The law allows a police department to ask a Superior Court judge to block someone’s access to guns — either by removing firearms from their possession or blocking their ability to purchase weapons — if they are deemed a danger to themselves or the community. Red flag hearings are civil proceedings, not criminal ones. The hearings are closed to the public, and the individuals’ identities are not disclosed.
Secret court?
YEP!!!!!
Your arse ain't even allowed to go defend yourself.
quote:
When police petition the courts for an Extreme Risk Protection Order, there is an initial hearing, usually that day, at which a judge decides if there is probable cause to think someone is risk. If so, the judge can issue a 14-day order to remove the person’s firearms. The initial court proceeding is “ex parte,” which means the individual is not notified or present.
So the odds of a judge saying no, is slim. Why would he? It's in secret! No harm, the judge gets to think he's helping the community.
Next up...
quote:
If a judge agrees to issue the 14-day order, police are authorized to search the individual’s home and confiscate any firearms found there.
You have NOT COMMITTED A CRIME!!!!!! and they are breaking your door down to get your guns!
quote:
A second hearing is then scheduled where police have to present “clear and convincing” evidence that the person is a potential threat to themselves or the community.
Wait... so they have to present a clear and convincing case AFTER they took your guns? not at the first trial!
quote:
After the second hearing, a judge can issue an order blocking the individual’s access to guns for up to a year. Violating the order constitutes felony contempt of court, carrying a punishment of up to 10 years in prison. The person has the right to petition for termination of the order once every 12 months.
LINK
10
Posted on 8/7/19 at 7:09 pm to Jjdoc
Melt
GVROs are sensible, conservative, non-invasive laws that show voters we care about the issue
Trump will win voters over it, especially suburban voters
GVROs are sensible, conservative, non-invasive laws that show voters we care about the issue
Trump will win voters over it, especially suburban voters
This post was edited on 8/7/19 at 7:11 pm
Posted on 8/7/19 at 7:17 pm to Jjdoc
You got a better plan?
Posted on 8/7/19 at 7:33 pm to Jjdoc
There will be many patriotic American lives taken by our Rulers over these Red Flag laws.
Posted on 8/7/19 at 7:35 pm to Jjdoc
Any person who is legitimately dangerous enough to be subjected to this shouldn’t be free at all. I’m not advocating locking up people just pointing out how illogical all this is..
First there is the obvious violation of our most basic principle of innocent til proven guilty, the right to bear arms and against illegal search and seizure.
Second this puts what the cops think could be a dangerous person in an almost certain to be heated confrontation with police, despite them not having committed a crime. That’s dangerous for all involved or even near by.
Third if we are gonna say someone is so dangerous their rights don’t matter and we are willing to risk injury to them or others to take their guns, how can we allow them access to a car, a knife, gasoline, harsh chemicals, heavy objects, animals or other humans? Just doesn’t make sense.
First there is the obvious violation of our most basic principle of innocent til proven guilty, the right to bear arms and against illegal search and seizure.
Second this puts what the cops think could be a dangerous person in an almost certain to be heated confrontation with police, despite them not having committed a crime. That’s dangerous for all involved or even near by.
Third if we are gonna say someone is so dangerous their rights don’t matter and we are willing to risk injury to them or others to take their guns, how can we allow them access to a car, a knife, gasoline, harsh chemicals, heavy objects, animals or other humans? Just doesn’t make sense.
Posted on 8/7/19 at 7:37 pm to Jjdoc
This stuff already happens in every single state; it's just under the guise of arrest warrants, etc. They do the exact same thing already.
Posted on 8/7/19 at 7:53 pm to Jjdoc
While I’m not opposed to some sort of revoking of this right with cause- I sure hate secret courts and guilt until proven innocent.
Posted on 8/7/19 at 11:10 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
So the odds of a judge saying no, is slim. Why would he? It's in secret! No harm, the judge gets to think he's helping the community.
Let me tell you something about my four years as a prosecutor...
In that time I sent many an arrest order over to a judge for signature. I never had one declined or even got a call asking what it was about.
Why? Because I was a federal prosecutor. The judge was busy, usually in the middle of something else. And he or she, because he or she knows the prosecutors, assumed I am doing my job properly.
Want to know something even better?
I never saw a request for a wiretap declined.
Only once did a judge ask to speak to me about one of my orders and that was to let a woman out of prison (she was about to die).
Posted on 8/8/19 at 7:05 am to Jjdoc
quote:
SO once it's used, it gets easier and we can go after it.
A big problem with it will be judges will be afraid to reject a case because of the (very) slim possibility the guy did end up doing something. No judge wants to be responsible for that even if it is an infinitesimally small chance the guy goes on a killing spree.
So I see judges pretty much letting all cases proceed.
Posted on 8/8/19 at 7:23 am to Jjdoc
So, the procedure for a red flag order is exactly the same as for obtaining any other TRO and then extending it to a temporary injunction, EXCEPT that the burden of proof for the State at the second hearing is FAR higher.
You get essentially these same orders already in many divorce cases now.
Sure, they are still too easy to obtain, and I would tweak the procedures somewhat.
I would require that all complaining witnesses appear at the first hearing (no Orders based upon affidavits or hearsay), so the judge can assess credibility, and I would preclude the State from presenting ANY evidence at the second hearing which was not presented at the first. “Clear and convincing” should be the evidenciary standard at the first hearing.
I would require that the second hearing take pace in 3-7 days (not 14), and I would appoint counsel for the Respondent. I would give the Respondent and counsel “open file” access to EVERYTHING in the prosecutor’s file, and require that copies be delivered along with service of the Order. (including a recording or an electronic transcript of the first ihearing). I would require the State to have all complaining witnesses present at the second hearing and mandate a ruling against the State if the prosecutor fails to do so.
I would award costs and fees to any prevailing Respondent, for which BOTH the State an complaining witness would be jointly and severally responsible. I would require regular re-hearings (e.g every 6 months), at which the burden of proof word CONTINUE to lie with the State to establish that the respondent CONTINUES to constitute a risk.
That would be a good start
You get essentially these same orders already in many divorce cases now.
Sure, they are still too easy to obtain, and I would tweak the procedures somewhat.
I would require that all complaining witnesses appear at the first hearing (no Orders based upon affidavits or hearsay), so the judge can assess credibility, and I would preclude the State from presenting ANY evidence at the second hearing which was not presented at the first. “Clear and convincing” should be the evidenciary standard at the first hearing.
I would require that the second hearing take pace in 3-7 days (not 14), and I would appoint counsel for the Respondent. I would give the Respondent and counsel “open file” access to EVERYTHING in the prosecutor’s file, and require that copies be delivered along with service of the Order. (including a recording or an electronic transcript of the first ihearing). I would require the State to have all complaining witnesses present at the second hearing and mandate a ruling against the State if the prosecutor fails to do so.
I would award costs and fees to any prevailing Respondent, for which BOTH the State an complaining witness would be jointly and severally responsible. I would require regular re-hearings (e.g every 6 months), at which the burden of proof word CONTINUE to lie with the State to establish that the respondent CONTINUES to constitute a risk.
That would be a good start
This post was edited on 8/8/19 at 7:58 am
Posted on 8/8/19 at 9:25 am to Jjdoc
I'm totally sure pigs won't abuse the ever living shite out of laws like that. Good god, these red flag laws trample all over the Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News