Where was Gary shot? Side back ?
Closed investigation? That’s why I said that. Anything else ? You really don’t like my posts
Red Flag info mtg Edgewater AAPD
- Thread starter John from MD
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Where was Gary shot? Side back ?
Closed investigation? That’s why I said that. Anything else ? You really don’t like my posts
So, it's just family members and people living in your house that can initiate one of these?
This is not me blowing off the details or being alarmist. I'm genuinely curious: what happens if the investigation is and can only be limited to the neighbor's one-person testimony about the perceived threat? Does the reportedly threatening gun owner get a heads up (via being dragged into the investigation) that he's likely to be red flagged? Doesn't including the supposed threatening gun owner in the investigation defeat the objective of the red flag mechanism (which is the surprise, no-advance-notice, no-due-process-until-later deliberate design of the law, which is intended to deal with genuinely scary, dangerous people who might snap at any moment)?
I get it: no ERPO without an investigation. But in the case of a truly clever (or just careful) sociopath of a threatening neighbor, the investigation may never be able to get past the testimony of the one threatened person. The red flag law has to accommodate that exact scenario (because we all know it's not uncommon for a not-right person to be able to limit their outward manner to fool all but the person they're threatening/stalking/etc). And it's that very real-life scenario that necessarily leaves the mechanism open to abuse, and becomes all about the quality of the acting on the part of the phony complainant.
Edit for clarity: this isn't me playing guessing games. I've personally spoken to a county detective who said he had no idea how to answer my question, and the actual law of course doesn't speak to the issue I'm raising.
Having trouble finding that log out button?
https://mdcourts.gov/district/ERPO#petitioner
Who can file an Extreme Risk Protective Order?
The person requesting an ERPO is the petitioner. A petition may be filed by a:
spouse
cohabitant
relative by blood, marriage, or adoption
person with child(ren) in common
current dating or intimate partner
current or former legal guardian
law enforcement officer
Medical professional who has examined the respondent (this includes a physician, psychologist, clinical social worker, licensed clinical professional counselor, clinical nurse specialist in psychiatric and mental health nursing, psychiatric nurse practitioner, licensed clinical marriage or family therapist, or health officer or designee of a health officer who has examined the individual).
Dan ain’t going anywhere.
Why have we always had erpos and now a need for red flag laws.
Why have we always had erpos and now a need for red flag laws.
"Petitioner" means an individual who files a petition for an extreme risk protective order under this subtitle.
(2) "Petitioner" includes:
(i) a physician, psychologist, clinical social worker, licensed clinical professional counselor, clinical nurse specialist in psychiatric and mental health nursing, psychiatric nurse practitioner, licensed clinical marriage or family therapist, or health officer or designee of a health officer who has examined the individual;
(ii) a law enforcement officer;
(iii) the spouse of the respondent;
(iv) a cohabitant of the respondent;
(v) a person related to the respondent by blood, marriage, or adoption;
(vi) an individual who has a child in common with the respondent;
(vii) a current dating or intimate partner of the respondent; or
(viii) a current or former legal guardian of the respondent.
What if he does?
Please show me word for word where that is the objective of the red flag mechanism?
OK
So what?
Why does it have to accomodate that exact scenario, and please show me in the law, word for word, where it is meant to.
And the quality of the investigation by the police.
But you are still playing "what if?" and by not having any answers to your game of what if, you are in essance fear mongering even though you may not mean to. You want the law to accomadate your issues above, go to your elected officials in Annapolis and have them amend the law to do so. (I really don't think you want that to happen though)
The red flag law is firearm specific, whereas EPOs have not been, and there in lies the major issue. As the police if they will issue an ERPO (red flag) if there are no firearms involved...The answer will be no, but I wonder if they will offer an EPO instead? Bet they won't.
I'm very much aware of where it is, post up when you have talked to your local law enforcement about how they would serve an ERPO, instead of guessing.
Did you ask to see their policy, in writing, or are you just taking them at their word? Did they say what their investigation would consist of?
- Nov 11, 2009
- 30,925
I can see no reason for the ERPO law; anything it does can already be initiated via other laws and regs.
It is narrowly focused on firearm owners, and it fails to address the source of the potential problem, to wit: the humans involved. Not the guns.
Given that it has already cost one life, which fact is being ignored by the legislature, it seems to me that the cost of this law is far too high.
Further, I can see absolutely no justification for anyone here defending or supporting this law.
It is narrowly focused on firearm owners, and it fails to address the source of the potential problem, to wit: the humans involved. Not the guns.
Given that it has already cost one life, which fact is being ignored by the legislature, it seems to me that the cost of this law is far too high.
Further, I can see absolutely no justification for anyone here defending or supporting this law.
They have tried before.
Guessing is more fun than doing work
The theory isn’t that we’re dealing with someone so dangerous that multiple people including a judge think it’s urgently necessary - without any input from the dangerous person - to show up unannounced and take away their firearms. If the cop’s investigation must include not just the person on whose behalf he’s going to petition (being in some cases by definition the only person aware of and able to testify about the dire threat) has to tip off the threatening person about what’s about to happen ... and then go away, leaving the situation as-is while starting the paper mill ... that’s why. Someone unstable and theoretically on the hairy edge of committing murder is going to get an interview about his behavior and then be left alone and armed while a judge is hunted down? No cop would risk the potential victim that way.
What good would the entire red flag construct be if it DIDN’T provide a way for (for example) a sole-witness threatened neighbor to start the ball rolling without pushing the crazy person over the edge in advance of the warrant?
It’s not fear mongering, it’s pointing out exactly the sort of 1-on-1 crap that goes on all the time, only now with a far more provocative (for some) possible immediate outcome.
The only fix is to amend it out of existence, and to instead embrace the notion that if someone is that dangerous, they - not just some of their dangerous implements - should be in custody, with from-the-get-go due process just like they’d get following a bar fight arrest or shoplifting.
whistlersmother
Peace through strength
I'd be more worried about an activist school psychologist than a pesky neighbor.
And there would be no recourse because you don't know who started the process. Nothing would happen to such a "professional" anyways.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
And there would be no recourse because you don't know who started the process. Nothing would happen to such a "professional" anyways.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Jean Reno approves
- May 5, 2010
- 6,588
Exactly. IF I was an unstable person I would just let them have my guns and then get one of my hidden ones and do who knows what.
daggo66
Ultimate Member
What if?
Apparently an emergency evaluation can be issued with the ERPO. https://mdcourts.gov/district/ERPO?...vRAknr-QSWi4s_voQoocgRYfgwB-lj-yAZk#surrender
What if this was part of the Willis ERPO? What if upon learning they were taking him in, he became agitated and pulled away from the female officer trying to cuff him. What if she panicked and thought he was going for the gun? What if the gun was accidentally disturbed during this struggle? What if Willis didn't do anything wrong as so many assume?
Apparently an emergency evaluation can be issued with the ERPO. https://mdcourts.gov/district/ERPO?...vRAknr-QSWi4s_voQoocgRYfgwB-lj-yAZk#surrender
What if this was part of the Willis ERPO? What if upon learning they were taking him in, he became agitated and pulled away from the female officer trying to cuff him. What if she panicked and thought he was going for the gun? What if the gun was accidentally disturbed during this struggle? What if Willis didn't do anything wrong as so many assume?
I have not seen the policy in writing, all four of the Commanders or assistant Commanders in three different districts, and the PG County States Attorney all said basically the same thing.
I will ask to both see the policy as well as ask the head of Detectives in District 1 what the investigation would consist of.
Again, when are you going to ask your LE the same?
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
‘Why is nothing being done?’: Concerns grow about drug use, fighting in Montgomery Co. school bathrooms (1 Viewer)
- Started by RFBfromDE
- Replies: 10
-
