Red flag law turned fatal less than a month into passing

w0lfpack91

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,899
Role
Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Little
So while not a new story by any means, the fact that it has had almost zero coverage is troubling.

As many know Maryland voters passed a new "Red Flag" gun confiscation bill into law. It allows family, law enforcement and medical persons to request another person's rights be revoked with zero evidence needed. Recently in Baltimore police officers were dispatched to a mans home with a red flag confiscation order and ended up killing him in the process. At the time of this shooting the law was less than a month old, the man was cooperating until the order was presented, in which he responded in a very predictable manner. Truth be told I would also react the same way, I dont know a single person who that wouldn't. A lot of gun owners have stated that if such a law was ever passed the only enforcement would be from their "cold dead hands". Details on who filed the order and the reasons behind it have not been disclosed, furthermore the fact that the man was cooperating and non-hostile before the order was served proves he was not a danger to others. Where does the line get drawn? An innocent man is dead because politicians passed a law without allowing for due process which is protected under the constitution. As more "Red Flag" laws pass I expect the body count to start rising, fast.

https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2018/11/05/fatal-officer-involved-shooting-in-anne-arundel-county/

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

tiny

Est. Contributor
Messages
4,894
Role
Little
Not only was he hostile and a danger to the public, he was a danger to the police who quite rightly shot him when he threatened them with a deadly weapon. It's a good job the police got him before he tried to shoot anyone else who turned up on his doorstep.

It's sad for his family, but at least the police have prevented him from killing anyone. And maybe his death will be a lesson to others who think a gun makes you bulletproof.
 

anned

Est. Contributor
Messages
554
Role
Diaper Lover, Incontinent
I know this guy did not have to be shot.

The cops screwed up big time by not waiting till the guy was away from home and grabbing his gun while he was not able to get to them.
 

w0lfpack91

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,899
Role
Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Little
Not only was he hostile and a danger to the public, he was a danger to the police who quite rightly shot him when he threatened them with a deadly weapon. It's a good job the police got him before he tried to shoot anyone else who turned up on his doorstep.

It's sad for his family, but at least the police have prevented him from killing anyone. And maybe his death will be a lesson to others who think a gun makes you bulletproof.
The only threat was the police and the law. He did not threaten them, he defended his rights under the constitution.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,237
Role
Diaper Lover
I know where this thread is gonna end up, so I'm gonna say my piece and leave.

Like every other gun control debate it is not so one sided as to say one side is 100% right.

While these Red Flag laws are bad, so is the law Florida has ( "Stand Your Ground" )which is kind of the opposite as it allows people to assess a potential threat, claim someone is acting suspiciously and use that as reason to shoot that person dead.

Both of these laws have flaws.

"Red Flag" has that it allows for the police to take away someone's guns due to any anonymous intelligence source saying "This Man is Dangerous, Take His Guns Away" ; which could easily be someone complaining just because they don't believe in the second amendment, or maybe they have something against the man personally.

And you cant say some people wouldn't be that petty, because some people really do think their opinion is the only one that matter; and I think Gun Owners have a right to their Guns, the same as people have a right to not get shot by a crazy person - which unfortunately just happens way too often; but it still only represents a small section of gun owners; the vast majority are not thinking of killing people "just because" ; they would have to feel threatened or you would have to break and enter into their house or physically assault them.

Which brings me to Florida gun law, I think what is tricky about Stand Your Ground is, what exactly constitutes suspicious enough behavior for deadly force?

As I have said before, most of the pro gun side (maybe not Gun Company CEOs, but certainly your average gun owner) cares that innocent people are dying as much as the anti-gun side; there are sensible people on both sides, and there are extremists on both sides.

The gun control debate should be all about trying to find some kind of a balance so both sides can feel satisfied; and this is where you can find out if someone is sensible or if they are an extremist; a Pro-Gun Extremist would argue we should have the right to all kinds of military firepower, including Tanks, Auto-Cannons (usually on old school Battleships when Naval Warfare was a much bigger thing), real machine guns (much more of a threat than an AR15) , Rocket Launchers, Grenade Launchers, etc.

Which is clearly wrong as most of those things a civilian has no legitimate need to have those weapons.

An Extremist on the Anti-Gun side is gonna Express the point that the 2nd amendment in itself is a danger to their life and that nobody should own a firearm no matter what; which is Flawed Logic as the body count would be so much higher if all gun owners wanted to kill someone like they believe.

the law allows for self defense; so a lot of so called "Gun Violence" statistics are kinda useless if they only account for how many people died due to guns and not saying why; a "Murder" isnt Murder if it is self defense; which I also know some people dont believe in these days.

You also have Hunting (both for food and sport) and sport shooting where the only things getting shot are targets.

As for the guy that got killed, I see why they thought killing him was necessary, but I think there needs to be some kind of a review of people being reported by these laws before they act on someone that is reporting someone for a petty reason (such as what I listed above), if they can get people in the community to give legitimate reasons as to why they should take the persons guns away, then it makes sense.

I mean all it would take is asking people about the character of the person in mind, is the person nice, mean, etc; do they act bitter towards people and make threats often?

It would be pretty clear whether or not the person in mind is such a huge threat or not.

I don't think they should just be able to show up on your doorstep and request to take your guns away; just like that, without some middle step to find out if reports about the person in question are true.
 

WoodlandWanderer

Est. Contributor
Messages
757
Role
Adult Baby, Little
Let's break this down a bit shall we? According to the news report:
News Article said:
  • Officials said Willis answered the door while holding a handgun.
  • Willis then placed the gun next to the door.
  • When officers began to serve him the order, Willis became irate and grabbed his gun.
  • One of the officers tried to take the gun from Willis, but instead Willis fired the gun.
  • The second officer fired a gun, striking Willis. He died at the scene.
Meanwhile, you say:
the man was cooperating until the order was presented, in which he responded in a very predictable manner. Truth be told I would also react the same way, I dont know a single person who that wouldn't. A lot of gun owners have stated that if such a law was ever passed the only enforcement would be from their "cold dead hands".
So you are telling me that firing your gun, when the police have just served you with a valid order for confiscating your weapon on safety grounds, is an expected (and in your view appropriate?) response?

The man was not shot because he resisted, he was shot because he fired his weapon in a struggle. Please tell me how you expect the police not to fear for their own safety and fire back in that situation. Even in the UK, where the specialist armed police try pretty hard to avoid shooting people, if you start firing your own weapon in a struggle, you're going to be shot.

[...] furthermore, the fact that the man was cooperating and non-hostile before the order was served proves he was not a danger to others. Where does the line get drawn?
The fact he was non-hostile before the order was served proves absolutely nothing. People who have anger problems or are mentally unstable aren't constantly agressive to every person at every moment, they have triggers. I would argue that the very fact he answered the door with his handgun and that his first response when angered (he wasn't threatened) was to grab the gun and then fire, indicates he may be unstable enough for his family to have reported concerns. I will presume the police had been given the reasons for the red notice so they were warned. That makes their response even more understandable, but I think it was appropriate even if they hadn't known.
 

w0lfpack91

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,899
Role
Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Little
Let's break this down a bit shall we? According to the news report:

Meanwhile, you say:


So you are telling me that firing your gun, when the police have just served you with a valid order for confiscating your weapon on safety grounds, is an expected (and in your view appropriate?) response?

The man was not shot because he resisted, he was shot because he fired his weapon in a struggle. Please tell me how you expect the police not to fear for their own safety and fire back in that situation. Even in the UK, where the specialist armed police try pretty hard to avoid shooting people, if you start firing your own weapon in a struggle, you're going to be shot.



The fact he was non-hostile before the order was served proves absolutely nothing. People who have anger problems or are mentally unstable aren't constantly agressive to every person at every moment, they have triggers. I would argue that the very fact he answered the door with his handgun and that his first response when angered (he wasn't threatened) was to grab the gun and then fire, indicates he may be unstable enough for his family to have reported concerns. I will presume the police had been given the reasons for the red notice so they were warned. That makes their response even more understandable, but I think it was appropriate even if they hadn't known.
Yes Firing a weapon at a government official attempting to disarm him Is a very predictable outcome. As it's been stated multiple times ever since Obama took office many feared the Clinton regime assault weapons ban might get resintated, many vocalized that should the day come when government officials show up to confiscate weapons that the first and only response would be to open fire and hold their ground.

Also the law was less than a month old meaning there was zero attempt at an investigation to determine whether the victim was in fact dangerous before hand or if the report was filed with ill intent from a rival. There was no time to conduct a court hearing or even a chance for the victim to counter act the order. That in itself is another violation of constitutional rights regarding Due process and right to a triat of peers. Plain and simple the red flag law is constitutionally illegal, and a constitutionality illegal law cost a man his life where otherwise there would have been no issue.

TO PUT IT IN PLAIN ENGLISH COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS JUST MURDERED A PERSON LESS THAN A MONTH INTO PASSING AS A LAW.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,237
Role
Diaper Lover
@w0lfpack91: precisely, they should have to investigate because people make false claims all the time; and if they were paranoid enough to fear for their life based on a belief that everyone with a gun is violent and looking for a reason to shoot somebody.
 

RubberJin

Est. Contributor
Messages
258
Role
Diaper Lover
Sounds like he was exactly the sort of person who should have his guns taken away - at best he was a damn moron for going for a weapon in the presence of police.

Also, why assume they didn't investigate? For all we know he could've been well known to the police for years.
 

w0lfpack91

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,899
Role
Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Little
Sounds like he was exactly the sort of person who should have his guns taken away - at best he was a damn moron for going for a weapon in the presence of police.

Also, why assume they didn't investigate? For all we know he could've been well known to the police for years.
That's just it. The report is done anonymously. Meaning there is no evidence that he was a threat. The law was less than a month old meaning no investigation was conducted, even still there was no trial where it went before a judge. This was an execution.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

dogboy

Est. Contributor
Messages
18,964
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
I think there are laws on the books in most if not all states, allowing the police to confiscate a weapon if a person is judged to be not in control, presenting a harm to either themselves or others. My therapist has already had this conversation me, though I can't remember if I told him I own a gun. We did discuss my past from when I was in high school and college when I tried to commit suicide.

So there are good reasons for collecting weapons if someone is no longer in control of their life, wanting a healthy and long living outcome. There is even more concern if a gun owner has threatened others. Every time there's a mass shooting/killing in the U. S., everyone shouts and cries that the criminally insane shouldn't be allowed to have a weapon, yet here we are.
 

IzzyFox

Est. Contributor
Messages
566
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur
The problem with these "Red Flag" laws is the lack of due process. There are people out there that shouldn't be trusted with a firearm, but the burden of proof for firearm seizure should be on the state. Was it a good idea for that guy to pick up his gun again when he was served with that order (even if it was, hypothetically speaking, predicated on false accusations)? Obviously not. It would have been an uphill battle, but he would have been better off trying to regain his firearms an court and suing the accuser for defamation (again, this is assuming that the claims were false) and attorney's fees. These laws should be modified to put the burden of proof on the state, and they should also include severe penalties for those who file false claims, but I seriously doubt that such modifications will happen. Gun ban politicians know that they won't be repealing the Second Amendment anytime soon (they may eventually succeed in banning "assault weapons" and magazines holding more than 10 rounds, but they won't be getting a blanket ban on civilian gun ownership), so they are working to make it as difficult as possible for people to legally own guns.
 

foxkits

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,038
Role
Adult Baby, Babyfur
This kind of reminds me of the I was raped but I can't remember where the place was or who the person was but I'm going to blame this person.
The big thing is unsubstantiated claims ruining a person's life or in this case taking a person's life.
The Constitution states that we have right to bear arms and a lot of people take that right very very seriously.
Also there's a right to face your accuser which is in the Constitution.
So if they want to take your guns it should be done in court not because somebody just said you were crazy or violent.
There should be a hearing in front of a judge and then the Court decides.
 

Pawlf

Est. Contributor
Messages
700
Role
Diaper Lover, Babyfur
As a gun owner myself, I find these "red flag" laws to be a rather slippery slope.

Sure there are plenty of people in the world who shouldn't own a firearm but they do anyway.

Who is to say who can and can't possess a gun? The state?

Take guns first and ask questions later?

Many gun control advocates call for "reasonable" or otherwise "common sense" gun laws but these red flag regulations are a road to full on firearms confiscation.

"We don't want to take your guns!" they say...
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,237
Role
Diaper Lover
Some of the anti-gun side believes the only people that should have guns are Active Duty Military and Police Officers, no hunting, no self defense, no shooting sports, they feel threatened by the very idea of someone having guns that lives near them, like it automatically makes somebody into a violent person looking for an excuse to shoot somebody.
 

Mickeymic

Mickey wears diapers and panties
Est. Contributor
Messages
154
Role
Diaper Lover
Florida's law is commonly referred to "Baker Act." Has nothing to do with "Stand Your Ground." Baker act means a responsible adult close friend, family member, or public person (I.E. Teacher, Public Safety Officer, or others) Can request a law enforcement officer to detain without charges someone that appears to be mentally ill. This may arouse from the Marchman act that's done by medical professionals for those that are intoxicated by drugs or alcohol and acting irrationally. In those cases subjects may be detained in a medical facility for 72 hours or until they pose no threat to themselves or others. Any records obtained at the time or not admissible in criminal court except in certain circumstances. Also. none have been denied rights or detained for longer than law allowed. This can be very confusing and misunderstood. I suggest consulting a local lawyer about this because I may be wrong.
On the other hand, Florida "Stand Your Ground Laws" are simple. One is allowed to defend one's self or others from harm. I do not like to see others harmed; however, when considering sources I think of the motivation for the source. Is it to sell tickets or advertisements, boost one's ego' or agenda, or politics. I scribe to no political party, religious group, or any other cliche' generated by society.
I am just me. I am wrong a lot of times But, sometimes I hope to be just OK.
 

tiny

Est. Contributor
Messages
4,894
Role
Little
The Constitution states that we have right to bear arms and a lot of people take that right very very seriously.
But that's not how the Constitution is interpreted. There is no blanket right to own arms in America. According to the articles below, convicted felons can't legally own guns; nor can the mentally ill, marijuana users, domestic abusers, non-US citizens, etc.

https://www.axios.com/people-who-cant-buy-guns-1513306738-1d730331-2090-474a-a929-30914fe234fc.html

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/categories-of-prohibited-people/

If someone is mentally ill (as was the suggestion with the guy that tried to shoot the police), then they lose the right to bear arms. It's how the law works.

The problem with these "Red Flag" laws is the lack of due process.
There should be a hearing in front of a judge and then the Court decides.
There WAS a hearing. The court decided that revoking gun ownership rights was appropriate and legal in this case, and asked the police to execute the court order.

He was a risk to himself or others, and the police did their job.

Are gun-nuts really so adamant that it's a good idea to arm the mentally ill?!?!

- - - Updated - - -

Some of the anti-gun side believes the only people that should have guns are Active Duty Military and Police Officers, no hunting, no self defense, no shooting sports, they feel threatened by the very idea of someone having guns that lives near them, like it automatically makes somebody into a violent person looking for an excuse to shoot somebody.
Over here most people believe that the police shouldn't be routinely armed -- including the police themselves.

To be fair, it is a bit odd to want to own guns. It's a warning sign that there might be something "not quite right" with that person. So, it's no wonder that people feel threatened by the possibility. You never know what they might decide to do... And you've got to wonder why they have such a fascination with murder weapons.
 
Last edited:

w0lfpack91

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,899
Role
Diaper Lover, Babyfur, Diaperfur, Little
To be fair, it is a bit odd to want to own guns. It's a warning sign that there might be something "not quite right" with that person. So, it's no wonder that people feel threatened by the possibility. You never know what they might decide to do... And you've got to wonder why they have such a fascination with murder weapons.
Maybe because we have 11 states that on their own are anywhere from 1.2 times larger to as much as 7 times larger than the land mass of your entire country. In the UK I'm sure you can't go anywhere without an emergency response time under 5 minutes. There's some inhabited areas in the US where extreme emergency response time by air travel can be up to 6-7 hours, that's air lift med-evac which is the fastest response we got some areas police response can take between 24-48 hours (if you dont have a gun you are dead) other areas up in the far north can take 6 months to respond depending on the season. Also to really put into perspective London England square milage is roughly equivilant to 607mi where as the square milage of the greater Los Angeles's metropolitan areas is roughly 4850 square miles as reported by the US Census bureau. That's just under 8x larger land mass on just one city.

Unarmed population works in the UK because your entire country is the same size as the average landmass of 1 US state out of 50. Simply put you can't even comprehend the issues that some states face with security, some people's drive to the grocery store would be the equivalent of going 5-6 towns over for you.

We do not have the infrastructure to secure 100% of our citizens at all times under big brothers watchful eye.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,237
Role
Diaper Lover
Well, it's a bit crazy to simply label firearms as "Murder Weapons" when they have many legally recognized uses AND are backed by the constitution; yes the law recognizes that Felons and the Mentally ill shouldn't have guns, but for anyone that passes the background check they have the right to bear arms in the United States; but it varies so much, and some places are basically "Murder Central" even WITH strict gun control laws; take a look at Chicago, which some call Chiraq because murder and gun violence are rampant, I believe it was 75 people or so that died by getting shot on just 1 weekend, think about how "safe" they really are?

If I were in a remote wilderness area if the US I would want someone close by armed in case of being charged by wild animals; maybe PETA wants to get mauled by a bear, but most of us don't.

Thankfully I'm not the kind of person to live in those areas for any length of time so it isn't a concern.

I just don't get why the 2 sides cant get together and agree on common sense measures, too many people on both sides are asking for extremes which is silly on both sides; gun enthusiasts don't need extreme firepower (stuff WAY past AR15s), nor does a gun ban really do any good; and of course what works in some areas isn't suitable for others.

But this is just wasted breath; these kinds of topics are just gonna keep going around in circles with both sides unable to see sense in any part of the other sides argument.
 

tiny

Est. Contributor
Messages
4,894
Role
Little
Maybe because we have 11 states that on their own are anywhere from 1.2 times larger to as much as 7 times larger than the land mass of your entire country. In the UK I'm sure you can't go anywhere without an emergency response time under 5 minutes.
The EU is around the same size as the US. The size of the land mass isn't really relevant.

And even if the police could arrive in five minutes, why don't American take that five minutes to get away from the situation? An attacker doesn't come up to you and say, "I'm going to shoot you dead in six minutes."

There's some inhabited areas in the US where extreme emergency response time by air travel can be up to 6-7 hours, that's air lift med-evac which is the fastest response we got some areas police response can take between 24-48 hours (if you dont have a gun you are dead) other areas up in the far north can take 6 months to respond depending on the season.
Why would you need a gun in the case of an emergency evacuation? You're more likely to need food and water if you're going to have to wait six months!

Also to really put into perspective London England square milage is roughly equivilant to 607mi where as the square milage of the greater Los Angeles's metropolitan areas is roughly 4850 square miles as reported by the US Census bureau. That's just under 8x larger land mass on just one city.
So... how is that a problem? It's just London on a bigger scale.

Unarmed population works in the UK because your entire country is the same size as the average landmass of 1 US state out of 50. Simply put you can't even comprehend the issues that some states face with security, some people's drive to the grocery store would be the equivalent of going 5-6 towns over for you.
So... why is that a security issue? Do you still have highwaymen? :p It might be a long journey, but I'm guessing people drive rather than going on foot...? In a big metal box they can lock themselves inside and move at high speed to get out of trouble...? With a mobile phone they can use to call for help...? It seems a very lame excuse to say that people need a gun because the nearest supermarket is far away! What exactly do people imagine that they might need a gun for?!

Anyway, there are plenty of relatively remote parts of the UK where it would take the police a long time to reach you. No one needs a gun there.

It sounds like many Americans only want a gun because they are living in a state of perpetual fear and vulnerability due to the lax gun laws.

We do not have the infrastructure to secure 100% of our citizens at all times under big brothers watchful eye.
It's only in the cities where Big Brother casts his omnipresent gaze. Out in the sticks you're on your own. Besides, gun controls predate the CCTV state, so that's another straw man.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, it's a bit crazy to simply label firearms as "Murder Weapons" when they have many legally recognized uses AND are backed by the constitution; yes the law recognizes that Felons and the Mentally ill shouldn't have guns, but for anyone that passes the background check they have the right to bear arms in the United States
Well... that's the point of this thread isn't it? Someone failed the background checks, had no legal or legitimate right to bear arms, and then tried to shoot at police officers whilst they were carrying out a court order.

The main reason to have a gun is so that you can threaten violence, and intimidate people by being able to murder them instantly. Admittedly, some people like causing furry animals to suffer for fun, and some like to shoot at targets. But mostly people own a gun to get an ego-trip off the idea that they can threaten violence despite being weak and cowardly.

; but it varies so much, and some places are basically "Murder Central" even WITH strict gun control laws; take a look at Chicago, which some call Chiraq because murder and gun violence are rampant, I believe it was 75 people or so that died by getting shot on just 1 weekend, think about how "safe" they really are?
That's America for you! You guys just love shooting people!

I don't know how you can think that the strict gun laws of Chicago can have much of an effect when you look at the border controls. You can march right in to the city without showing your passport or going through metal detectors! The carnage in Chicago shows how lax gun laws in America are killing people.

If I were in a remote wilderness area if the US I would want someone close by armed in case of being charged by wild animals; maybe PETA wants to get mauled by a bear, but most of us don't.
So hire a professional: someone who is both trained to handle a gun and to understand bear behaviour. They'll be able to keep both humans and bears safe without needing to fire a shot most of the time.

I just don't get why the 2 sides cant get together and agree on common sense measures, too many people on both sides are asking for extremes which is silly on both sides; gun enthusiasts don't need extreme firepower (stuff WAY past AR15s), nor does a gun ban really do any good; and of course what works in some areas isn't suitable for others.
I guess it's all the decaying corpses of innocent young people that makes it hard to see things from another perspective. All the mothers mourning the needless killing of their children. Mass shootings that rarely raise an eyebrow. Gun violence is accepted as part of American life. It's morally sickening.

"We are in a state of chaos. In the city in which I live, I hear and see examples of chaos almost every day. Little children are victims of senseless gun violence..." Two years ago, 11-year-old Milwaukee schoolgirl Sandra Parks wrote these words in an award-winning essay about the murders in her city.

On Monday night, aged 13, she was shot by a stray bullet fired into her home.

Her frantic family called 911, but Sandra died at the scene.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46314065

This was reported five days ago, yet it took me ten minutes to find it as I had to sift through all the other news reports of people being shot in America.

Gun violence in America is on another level to anything in any other developed country (and most undeveloped ones). It's become mind numbing to hear about the endless deaths.

But this is just wasted breath; these kinds of topics are just gonna keep going around in circles with both sides unable to see sense in any part of the other sides argument.
Yes. Sadly, I fear that America hasn't had enough mindless shootings that the appetite for murder weapons is still there. More wasted breath, and more deaths to come.

How bad have things got to get before people say, "Enough's enough."...?
 
Top