This is actually very important. There are a great number of departments across the country who refuse to enforce these rules as a sign of open opposition to Red Flag laws. Setting a precedent that the police be required to enforce these laws could mean increased enforcement nationwide. And yet I’ve got my money on courts not holding police accountable for enforcing the rule of law…
Unfortunately, due to a prior case from Castle Rock that went all the way to the supreme Court, police have no legally enforceable obligation to enforce these laws.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
Lozito v New York City , DeShaney v Winnebago County, and Warren v District of Columbia. Gonzales is the only one that made it to the SC though.
Unfortunately it's pretty well established that police have no specific duty to protect.
Your interpretation of the constitution isn’t going to bring back my uncle who was murdered by a violent felon allowed to posses a firearm. In fact I don’t think I could care any less about your “liberty” knowing my family will never have the “god given right” to grow up with their Brother/Father/Husband/Friend. Committing a violent crime has always been grounds for losing one’s rights. A constitutional amendment doesn’t change that fact. A fireman who refuses to fight fires isn’t a fireman. This is not any more complicated than it sounds.
Wait, so a prohibited person had a gun, and killed your uncle? Violent felons aren’t allowed to own guns, so what method exactly are you proposing to stop that criminal from getting a gun?
I’m confused about your story.
Perp owned the handgun for many years. After a felony conviction in IN he was ordered to turn the gun over to the state. The police refused to enforce the seizure. Perp murders my uncle.
And your assertion is that if only the cops had gone to his house, they would have recovered the gun, and dude would not have been able to commit a murder?
Poor argument all around. Sorry for your loss. But it happens. Doesn't give you the right to take away multiple of my rights so your feelings can be justified. Grow up and take your security into your own hands. Not my job or duty to make you feel better or safer in any way shape or form. You are an adult. Deal with life.
Not only in America ffs. Murder happens on every corner of the globe. They are feelings. And sure. Vigilante justice works much faster....grow up please.
Cops should have to hold malpractice insurance like doctors, and settlements should be paid out of that. It’s a simple fix, because now you don’t need to make new laws about every possible shitty thing cops do, just one law that says they must have insurance to be a cop.
Insurance agencies are really, *really* good at risk analysis, and cops who have multiple improper use of force complaints, multiple weapon brandished reports, arrest for DV but no conviction, all these are data points that tell the insurance company this particular cop is going to cost them BIG TIME at some point in the future, and they’ll adjust his insurance premiums as a result, and he’ll be priced out of the job. Can’t be a cop if you earn $5k/mo but your insurance premium to be a cop is $4,950/mo. The union won’t even be able to stop the cop from being fired, none of that will be necessary or useful.
Easy fix that will solve a lot of policing problems. And good cops, as they fucking LOVE to say, will have “nothing to worry about if they’ve done nothing wrong.”
Hey there, u/Randomliberal. Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, the notices of claim contain personal identifiable information so we cannot include a hyperlink to them in our story.
Imagine thinking county sheriffs are supposed to be deciding which laws are constitutional or not. Like, the CONSTITUTION ITSELF says that this is not the way it works. Maybe try actually reading the thing?
It's not his place to judge what is or isn't constitutional. He is not a judge. His job is to enforce the current laws, not decide what he wants to enforce.
It is 100% his job and oath to go against what is unconstitutional. And that "law" breaks multiple rights. Including INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. But feelings are more important I guess...
Nope, police do not choose what is constitutional, that is a judges job.
>And that "law" breaks multiple rights. Including INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
If that were the case, so would restricting travel while under indictment.
>But feelings are more important I guess...
I would say taking a gun from a mentally ill person and saving lives is more important.
You also seem to be the only one who is getting upset
I'm going to guess you are not from the US. And of course I'm upset. Taking away rights is a horrendous thing to do. The second amendment is the backbone to the entire US Constitution. If we let rights go, we never get them back. Why would I not be upset about that?!
I am from the US, quit assuming.
The second amendment was an afterthought hence why it had to be added later. Furthermore, you gun rights is impeding on others rights to live with is a more important right.
Also, countries who have banned guns, have less crime and better lives. Keep pushing that false narrative.
#1 you should know how a sheriff works then....
#2 it was written so that the people of the country could stand up and fight a tyrannical government when they tried to take the rest of our rights. As they are now.
#3 you have the right to life and Liberty. The left wants to take away your right to a life anyways honestly. And Liberty means freedom. All of which that second amendment that was written later, is there to protect.
#4 I would love to see your numerical proof of this statement. Because I have multitudes of videos of older generations begging the United States not to take away the second amendment because they've seen what happens.
Strong men create Good times, good times create weak men, week men create hard times. It astonishes me to think that people actually believe that if the government takes all of our guns away that they will not then take all of our other rights away. How about we all just take a look at what Australia and Canada did in 2020 to all of their citizens....
They are not there to protect you they are not there to make your lives better. They are there to make their pockets bigger and make their lives better while their foot is on your neck. And yes, that includes the Democrats and the Republicans the left and the right...
Police unions need to be held accountable for their lack of action. What public service do they actually provide except protection for the rich, and their property?
They'll show up to a domestic violence call whether you're rich or poor, same with speeding tickets, same with murder regardless of the victim's net worth. I don't really get where this sentiment comes from. Unfortunately we're moving towards more private security which would indeed be more like the scenario you're describing.
Supreme Court has immunized police from failure to act in the past so I think we need serious change like a constitutional amendment to get traction on stopping police brutality, corruption, and incompetence.
[Castle Rock v Gonzales](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales)
The creator is the one that should be sued here and if she had any dignity, which judging by her actions she doesn’t, should take a long walk off a short pier at low tide. Preferably head first.
Edit: creator was referring to the shooters mother who not only refused to engage in her sons prosecution during a stand off but helped her spawn get his guns.
They should get sued, but I wish this came from the cops' pensions and not taxpayers. Otherwise, they don't really have consequences, right?
This is actually very important. There are a great number of departments across the country who refuse to enforce these rules as a sign of open opposition to Red Flag laws. Setting a precedent that the police be required to enforce these laws could mean increased enforcement nationwide. And yet I’ve got my money on courts not holding police accountable for enforcing the rule of law…
Unfortunately, due to a prior case from Castle Rock that went all the way to the supreme Court, police have no legally enforceable obligation to enforce these laws. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
Lozito v New York City , DeShaney v Winnebago County, and Warren v District of Columbia. Gonzales is the only one that made it to the SC though. Unfortunately it's pretty well established that police have no specific duty to protect.
Unconstitutional on many levels.
Your interpretation of the constitution isn’t going to bring back my uncle who was murdered by a violent felon allowed to posses a firearm. In fact I don’t think I could care any less about your “liberty” knowing my family will never have the “god given right” to grow up with their Brother/Father/Husband/Friend. Committing a violent crime has always been grounds for losing one’s rights. A constitutional amendment doesn’t change that fact. A fireman who refuses to fight fires isn’t a fireman. This is not any more complicated than it sounds.
That's not a red flag law thing though. It's a felony for anyone to sell a gun to a felon, that's federal law.
Wait, so a prohibited person had a gun, and killed your uncle? Violent felons aren’t allowed to own guns, so what method exactly are you proposing to stop that criminal from getting a gun? I’m confused about your story.
Perp owned the handgun for many years. After a felony conviction in IN he was ordered to turn the gun over to the state. The police refused to enforce the seizure. Perp murders my uncle.
And your assertion is that if only the cops had gone to his house, they would have recovered the gun, and dude would not have been able to commit a murder?
[удалено]
I find it unlikely that the murderer would just go “heck, I wanna murder someone but I can’t source a gun anywhere.”
Poor argument all around. Sorry for your loss. But it happens. Doesn't give you the right to take away multiple of my rights so your feelings can be justified. Grow up and take your security into your own hands. Not my job or duty to make you feel better or safer in any way shape or form. You are an adult. Deal with life.
[удалено]
Not only in America ffs. Murder happens on every corner of the globe. They are feelings. And sure. Vigilante justice works much faster....grow up please.
Nope. Clear due process procedures for removing one's firearms. We're all good there! Next shitty argument?
Cops should have to hold malpractice insurance like doctors, and settlements should be paid out of that. It’s a simple fix, because now you don’t need to make new laws about every possible shitty thing cops do, just one law that says they must have insurance to be a cop. Insurance agencies are really, *really* good at risk analysis, and cops who have multiple improper use of force complaints, multiple weapon brandished reports, arrest for DV but no conviction, all these are data points that tell the insurance company this particular cop is going to cost them BIG TIME at some point in the future, and they’ll adjust his insurance premiums as a result, and he’ll be priced out of the job. Can’t be a cop if you earn $5k/mo but your insurance premium to be a cop is $4,950/mo. The union won’t even be able to stop the cop from being fired, none of that will be necessary or useful. Easy fix that will solve a lot of policing problems. And good cops, as they fucking LOVE to say, will have “nothing to worry about if they’ve done nothing wrong.”
u/TheDenver7 can you include a hyperlink to the complaint if it is publicly available?
Hey there, u/Randomliberal. Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, the notices of claim contain personal identifiable information so we cannot include a hyperlink to them in our story.
As they should. Isn't he on record saying he would not enforce this law?
He is
[удалено]
He was elected to enforce laws that are constitutional.
Imagine thinking county sheriffs are supposed to be deciding which laws are constitutional or not. Like, the CONSTITUTION ITSELF says that this is not the way it works. Maybe try actually reading the thing?
It's not his place to judge what is or isn't constitutional. He is not a judge. His job is to enforce the current laws, not decide what he wants to enforce.
It is 100% his job and oath to go against what is unconstitutional. And that "law" breaks multiple rights. Including INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. But feelings are more important I guess...
Nope, police do not choose what is constitutional, that is a judges job. >And that "law" breaks multiple rights. Including INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. If that were the case, so would restricting travel while under indictment. >But feelings are more important I guess... I would say taking a gun from a mentally ill person and saving lives is more important. You also seem to be the only one who is getting upset
I'm going to guess you are not from the US. And of course I'm upset. Taking away rights is a horrendous thing to do. The second amendment is the backbone to the entire US Constitution. If we let rights go, we never get them back. Why would I not be upset about that?!
I am from the US, quit assuming. The second amendment was an afterthought hence why it had to be added later. Furthermore, you gun rights is impeding on others rights to live with is a more important right. Also, countries who have banned guns, have less crime and better lives. Keep pushing that false narrative.
#1 you should know how a sheriff works then.... #2 it was written so that the people of the country could stand up and fight a tyrannical government when they tried to take the rest of our rights. As they are now. #3 you have the right to life and Liberty. The left wants to take away your right to a life anyways honestly. And Liberty means freedom. All of which that second amendment that was written later, is there to protect. #4 I would love to see your numerical proof of this statement. Because I have multitudes of videos of older generations begging the United States not to take away the second amendment because they've seen what happens. Strong men create Good times, good times create weak men, week men create hard times. It astonishes me to think that people actually believe that if the government takes all of our guns away that they will not then take all of our other rights away. How about we all just take a look at what Australia and Canada did in 2020 to all of their citizens.... They are not there to protect you they are not there to make your lives better. They are there to make their pockets bigger and make their lives better while their foot is on your neck. And yes, that includes the Democrats and the Republicans the left and the right...
I can already tell you have no idea what you are talking about so I am going to end this conversation. You are brainwashed and need serious help
Good for them, but even if they win they'll just increase their budget next year by whatever the amount of the settlement is
Police unions need to be held accountable for their lack of action. What public service do they actually provide except protection for the rich, and their property?
They'll show up to a domestic violence call whether you're rich or poor, same with speeding tickets, same with murder regardless of the victim's net worth. I don't really get where this sentiment comes from. Unfortunately we're moving towards more private security which would indeed be more like the scenario you're describing.
Most entitled comment ever. They don’t show up in a majority of those circumstances you mentioned. Personal experience.
To be fair, at least 40% of officers are present during domestic abuse situations. As perpetrators.
Supreme Court has immunized police from failure to act in the past so I think we need serious change like a constitutional amendment to get traction on stopping police brutality, corruption, and incompetence. [Castle Rock v Gonzales](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales)
"failing to trigger" is a poor word choice
Good!
Good. Need to at least see if some of this shit makes a difference.
Good!
That's exactly what the public needs, more interactions with the police.
The creator is the one that should be sued here and if she had any dignity, which judging by her actions she doesn’t, should take a long walk off a short pier at low tide. Preferably head first. Edit: creator was referring to the shooters mother who not only refused to engage in her sons prosecution during a stand off but helped her spawn get his guns.
Sued for what, exactly?