Defensive Carry banner

21 - 38 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
497 Posts
This is a horrible story to read. Of course, they will bend over backward to prove people guilty but when someone is innocent.....oh well.




Back in college, one evening my car was towed. It was pouring down raining and I parked in what I thought was the the last parallel space on a street to run into the library. Meter spaces were free after hours.

When towed, the deal was you hitched or cabbed down to the tow lot, and paid the tow truck company x amount and they would give your car back. But in this case, somehow, somewhere, I got down there, it had showed up as stolen so they wouldn't give it to me. No cell phones back then either, so I had to go to the college police station. Turns out something with the DMV systems of my home state my car was registered in, and the state I was attending college didn't coincide. The officer on duty even asked me how could I prove it was my car. I was so pissed off I answered "I have the keys don't I?" and held them up. This wasn't acceptable proof though. Then I remembered I had my auto insurance card in my wallet and showed them that. That was enough proof. But by the time i was done with all that, the tow business' lot was closed and I had to wait until the next day to pick it up.

The way it ended though, and the way the tow company explained it, is that it was never going to be towed to begin with. They told me I got ripped off cause I wasn't all the way in the space and the car in front of mine was actually taking up some of the space I was in. When the officer saw I wasn't completely inside the parallel parking spot, he/she went to write the ticket, but when they called in the plate or whatever, that's when it showed up or they interpreted it as "stolen". So they had it towed/impounded.

The parking ticket was noting but the tow was $80, which was a lot of money for some college freshman to have back then. This was also my real first experience feeling like I had been screwed over. It wouldn't be the last but it's a terrible feeling.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,219 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,701 Posts
@Nifty The most difficult part of my experience with law enforcement was not the officers, but the career bureaucrats. To this day I believe the ONLY criteria for hiring people for such positions was that they be terminally incompetent. Oh...and it helped if they had a Napoleon complex.

The majority of our department's civilian employees were excellent and generally on-board with the mission. Some of the agencies we worked with...not so much. These lazy incompetents unfortunately give law enforcement a bad name.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
I had a job for years that required a lot of air travel (60-80 a year). After 911, I was not allowed to use advanced check-in or curbside luggage check. I always had to stand in line and present 2 types of ID to get a boarding pass. For years nobody could tell me why. I finally found out that someone on the No-Fly List had (at some point) used my name as an alias. I couldn't get too upset because, after all, it was just an inconvenience.

Red Flag Laws are rife with opportunities for abuse. Upset with your neighbor/boss/significant other? Red Flag them. That will teach them a lesson!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,639 Posts
@Nifty The most difficult part of my experience with law enforcement was not the officers, but the career bureaucrats. To this day I believe the ONLY criteria for hiring people for such positions was that they be terminally incompetent. Oh...and it helped if they had a Napoleon complex.

The majority of our department's civilian employees were excellent and generally on-board with the mission. Some of the agencies we worked with...not so much. These lazy incompetents unfortunately give law enforcement a bad name.
There's a lot of truth in that post sir.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
719 Posts
the key person for "responsibility" in these ex-parte court proceedings is the Judge....The judge decides if there is enough evidence to make a "emergency" order...and the requesting party (police) is responsible for the accuracy of the filings...clearly in this instance there is something to talk to the Judge about...hard to imagine a TRO that didn't have some form of police paper-work of some kind...especially if the requesting party IS the police...hope the juy has the stones to ***** loudly to their faces...big time
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,642 Posts
I'm surprised it took this long.

If only there were some way to let the suspect face their accuser. If only there were some way to hear their side before stripping natural rights to self defense. If only we had a mechanism for someone to oversee these orders and ensure all information was accurate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,701 Posts
the key person for "responsibility" in these ex-parte court proceedings is the Judge....The judge decides if there is enough evidence to make a "emergency" order...and the requesting party (police) is responsible for the accuracy of the filings...clearly in this instance there is something to talk to the Judge about...hard to imagine a TRO that didn't have some form of police paper-work of some kind...especially if the requesting party IS the police...hope the juy has the stones to ***** loudly to their faces...big time
Does anyone know for sure if red flag hearings require a jury? I would expect they don't as they have no defense counsel, therefore no voir dire. The whole focus seems to be speed, as in, " Let's get this travesty of justice done so we can hurry up and whitewash ourselves of any blame!"

I cannot imagine ANY serious legal objections being raised.

I also see now that the word "juy" might be "guy" and not "jury" as I first thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
793 Posts
And sadly it won't stop 1 darn tragedy:icon_neutral:.

You have to love it when they talk of dealing with the justice system as if it's just going to the local 5 and dime?

Yet those same people who scream for the RFL also scream how horrible the justice system is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,305 Posts
@Nifty The most difficult part of my experience with law enforcement was not the officers, but the career bureaucrats. To this day I believe the ONLY criteria for hiring people for such positions was that they be terminally incompetent. Oh...and it helped if they had a Napoleon complex.

The majority of our department's civilian employees were excellent and generally on-board with the mission. Some of the agencies we worked with...not so much. These lazy incompetents unfortunately give law enforcement a bad name.
If they're hiring I think I know someone who could apply!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Does anyone know for sure if red flag hearings require a jury? I would expect they don't as they have no defense counsel, therefore no voir dire. The whole focus seems to be speed, as in, " Let's get this travesty of justice done so we can hurry up and whitewash ourselves of any blame!"

I cannot imagine ANY serious legal objections being raised.

I also see now that the word "juy" might be "guy" and not "jury" as I first thought.
RFL varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, all I have read a judge is all that is needed to secure the warrant . Some require the complaint to come from only law enforcement but others will allow family, teachers, co-workers and the little girl that I dipped her pigs tails in the inkwell in the second grade to bring the complaint to the judge. All boils down to abuse of our rights.

I have emailed my reps (both state and federal) and have only received two in return. One from district 5 Lance
Gooden and Cornyn. Both say they will not vote for rfl’s without due process. Time will tell......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
794 Posts
Does anyone know for sure if red flag hearings require a jury? I would expect they don't as they have no defense counsel, therefore no voir dire. The whole focus seems to be speed, as in, " Let's get this travesty of justice done so we can hurry up and whitewash ourselves of any blame!"

I cannot imagine ANY serious legal objections being raised.

I also see now that the word "juy" might be "guy" and not "jury" as I first thought.
Differences from one law to another, but the general rule is that any person claiming to have sufficient relationship to the named respondent may petition the court for a so-called Red Flag order, and that order is issued "ex parte" (no notice to the respondent, no court hearing prior to issuance or enforcement, and only a modicum of so-called "due process" allowed for the person to petition for review after the fact).

In most cases a "significant other" (wife, girlfriend, former sweetie, etc), family member, neighbor, co-worker, clergyman, landlord, or just about anyone else who claims to be sufficiently acquainted with the respondent to render an opinion may petition for the order to strip the respondent of firearms. Such petition may be made in open court, or via sworn affidavit, or via tele-conference, etc. Depending on the legislation in question there may or may not be legal consequences for false or misleading statements.

The general similarities are:

1. There is no notice to the respondent, and no opportunity to question the accuser or offer any evidence prior to the order being issued.
2. As soon as the order is issued law enforcement officers may forcibly enter the respondent's property and home and seize any and all firearms, ammunition, and other related items.
3. The respondent has a limited amount of time in which to contest the action and bring further proceedings to overturn the action, all of which must be done at respondent's time and expense.
4. There is no automatic compensation or reimbursement for the respondent in any case. Pursuit of claims against the complainant is a separate legal action, and the court and law enforcement are shielded from liability.

Essentially, an ex-parte emergency court order issued solely upon the complaint and/or testimony of anyone claiming sufficient knowledge (no requirement for professional credentials or certification), done at any hour of the day or night, immediately enforceable, with no right to due process prior to enforcement, and only very limited rights to due process after the fact (at individual expense, with no guarantee of compensation or reimbursement).

What could go wrong? Ask any cop who has ever dealt with a vindictive girlfriend or ex-wife or neighbor with an axe to grind. Ask anyone who has ever sued someone, won the case in court and received a judgement, then twiddled their thumbs for years without being able to collect a dime in damages.

So-called Red Flag laws turn the concept of due process of law upside down; guilty until proven innocent, and only if you are willing to jump through all the legal hoops for a year or two in order to clear your name and recover your property.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,701 Posts
Differences from one law to another, but the general rule is that any person claiming to have sufficient relationship to the named respondent may petition the court for a so-called Red Flag order, and that order is issued "ex parte" (no notice to the respondent, no court hearing prior to issuance or enforcement, and only a modicum of so-called "due process" allowed for the person to petition for review after the fact).

In most cases a "significant other" (wife, girlfriend, former sweetie, etc), family member, neighbor, co-worker, clergyman, landlord, or just about anyone else who claims to be sufficiently acquainted with the respondent to render an opinion may petition for the order to strip the respondent of firearms. Such petition may be made in open court, or via sworn affidavit, or via tele-conference, etc. Depending on the legislation in question there may or may not be legal consequences for false or misleading statements.

The general similarities are:

1. There is no notice to the respondent, and no opportunity to question the accuser or offer any evidence prior to the order being issued.
2. As soon as the order is issued law enforcement officers may forcibly enter the respondent's property and home and seize any and all firearms, ammunition, and other related items.
3. The respondent has a limited amount of time in which to contest the action and bring further proceedings to overturn the action, all of which must be done at respondent's time and expense.
4. There is no automatic compensation or reimbursement for the respondent in any case. Pursuit of claims against the complainant is a separate legal action, and the court and law enforcement are shielded from liability.

Essentially, an ex-parte emergency court order issued solely upon the complaint and/or testimony of anyone claiming sufficient knowledge (no requirement for professional credentials or certification), done at any hour of the day or night, immediately enforceable, with no right to due process prior to enforcement, and only very limited rights to due process after the fact (at individual expense, with no guarantee of compensation or reimbursement).

What could go wrong? Ask any cop who has ever dealt with a vindictive girlfriend or ex-wife or neighbor with an axe to grind. Ask anyone who has ever sued someone, won the case in court and received a judgement, then twiddled their thumbs for years without being able to collect a dime in damages.

So-called Red Flag laws turn the concept of due process of law upside down; guilty until proven innocent, and only if you are willing to jump through all the legal hoops for a year or two in order to clear your name and recover your property.
The more I read of these "laws", the more convinced I become that old King George III would absolutely love this little intrusion on the lives of his subjects. Vindictive girlfriend, wife, neighbor? I got sent to a lot of those calls to try and defuse the potential bomb. My thoughts and prayers go out to all the officers who will be ordered to carry out this travesty of justice and especially for those who will pay the ultimate price for it. My Chief would not allow no-knock warrant service. I can only imagine what he thinks about this.

And I have to say that it seems the ultimate goal of such a law is to take the fertilizer away from a Timothy McVeigh, but leave all the other dangerous materials AND let him roam freely to carry out whatever he has in mind. IMHO anyway.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,219 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,060 Posts
When he met his first problem with Clerk of the Courts, he should have hired a lawyer and called all the local tv stations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,885 Posts
A YouTube clip on the thread subject.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Risasi
21 - 38 of 38 Posts
Top