Do you really think a police involved shooting is not investigated?
Where was Gary shot? Side back ?
Closed investigation? That’s why I said that. Anything else ? You really don’t like my posts
Do you really think a police involved shooting is not investigated?
So, it's just family members and people living in your house that can initiate one of these?Having asked those questions to LE leaders here in PG County as well as the PG SA, the answer to the above is no. LE in PG is not permitted to initiate an ERPO on a neighbors say so without first investigating the allegations. Again, people need to stop with the what if and actually ask questions to get answers instead of playing these damned guessing games.
LE in PG is not permitted to initiate an ERPO on a neighbors say so without first investigating the allegations.
Glad to see you are in the camp of not asking questions and just going on "what ifs"...Noted.
So, it's just family members and people living in your house that can initiate one of these?
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.
Dan ain’t going anywhere.
Why have we always had erpos and now a need for red flag laws.
Having trouble finding that log out button?
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.
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.
What if he does?
Why does it have to accomodate that exact scenario?
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'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
If someone weren't a threat BEFORE confiscation, it's hard to imagine that they'd be less of a risk AFTERWARDS. And if a PERSON is that much of a threat, shouldn't the PERSON be locked up, instead of his stuff? Questions in that vein, probably would have gotten me thrown out and put on yet another list.
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?