Husband files charges against Crazy soon to be ex who stole his guns and turned over to police

[FrankenCub]

You are correct. A false report and I Would be in a tough spot.

And that's far too common and easy.

 

[spat]

My guns were taken during a divorce, for 16 months. I know both sides.

Our system of law depends on judges. A judge can remove almost every right you have, temporarily, permanently, in whole, in part, etc. It’s always been that way.

Due process doesn’t work the way you describe above. You’re basically demanding an immediate trial before any other step. It doesn’t work that way.

If someone is so dangerous that you need to act before a conviction at trial, then you need to arrest and imprison them.

There should be no other option. If they aren't so dangerous that you can't let then walk free, then there is no point in doing anything else either.

 

[Airborneguy]

Why would they need One? The guy was in jail. I’m sure if a judge orders guns surrendered forced compliance isn’t a tough thing to attempt. Getting people to go attempt it might be another story. Utah uses no knocks 4%’of the time. Maryland uses them around 90 percent of the time. You know about obtaining warrants in one state in a big city. The number of no knocks for garbage reasons or the wrong address do show warrants are not always tough to get. It depends on the judges and location. If someone was ordered to surrender guns in the city you are telling me getting a warrant to force compliance would be tough? Define “hard to get” because I don’t think I’m on the same page here.

Its a separate step, and requires a different level of proof to acquire or else (as should be obvious) why would a separate warrant be needed?

This was all discussed above and apparently in this part of Florida is the same as where I am, so I know two places at least.

No knock warrants are irrelevant here but I knew they’d be thrown in my face so I figured I’d mention them first.

Again, judges can remove basically all of your rights through various proceedings. This guy was receiving due process exactly the way our system works for everyone. And though I don’t believe the charges will stick, she was properly charged on its face for what she admitted to doing.

The argument here seems to be ever removing any guns without a full trial. That’s no reality. Never has been, never will be and it’s not a violation of the 2nd Amendment since, as previously stated, judges can remove ALL of your rights as court proceedings wind their way through the system (as appropriate of course).

 

[Podmonkey]

My guns were taken during a divorce, for 16 months. I know both sides.

Our system of law depends on judges. A judge can remove almost every right you have, temporarily, permanently, in whole, in part, etc. It’s always been that way.

Due process doesn’t work the way you describe above. You’re basically demanding an immediate trial before any other step. It doesn’t work that way.

Then I defer to my first statement. Fortunately I am not married nor do I have any other personal entanglements, therefore this is an academic discussion to me.

 

[Airborneguy]

If someone is so dangerous that you need to act before a conviction at trial, then you need to arrest and imprison them.

There should be no other option. If they aren't so dangerous that you can't let then walk free, then there is no point in doing anything else either.

“Well that’s like, your opinion man.”

No offense, but what else is there to say? As far as I know, our legal system has ALWAYS provided for various pre-conviction/acquittal steps to ensure things such as victim safety, witness protection, return to court, etc.

Do you disagree with bail as well? Bail doesn’t seem to fit the “no compromise” jail or no jail standard you profess above.

 

[ECU Pirates]

Its a separate step, and requires a different level of proof to acquire or else (as should be obvious) why would a separate warrant be needed?

This was all discussed above and apparently in this part of Florida is the same as where I am, so I know two places at least.

No knock warrants are irrelevant here but I knew they’d be thrown in my face so I figured I’d mention them first.

Again, judges can remove basically all of your rights through various proceedings. This guy was receiving due process exactly the way our system works for everyone. And though I don’t believe the charges will stick, she was properly charged on its face for what she admitted to doing.

The argument here seems to be ever removing any guns without a full trial. That’s no reality. Never has been, never will be and it’s not a violation of the 2nd Amendment since, as previously stated, judges can remove ALL of your rights as court proceedings wind their way through the system (as appropriate of course).

I’m arguing that if a judge orders guns to be surrendered and that order is ignored, getting a warrant issued to enforce the order is not that difficult. If you ignore a judges order they won’t just say “oh well I tried”. She was wrong and was charged correctly. There is no gray area here. She won’t be prosecuted though I’m guessing.

Edit: when I asked why would a warrant be needed... that was rhetorical. If he’s in jail then he can’t hurt anyone with his guns. No reason to rush things at that time.

 

[Podmonkey]

“Well that’s like, your opinion man.”

No offense, but what else is there to say? As far as I know, our legal system has ALWAYS provided for various pre-conviction/acquittal steps to ensure things such as victim safety, witness protection, return to court, etc.

Do you disagree with bail as well? Bail doesn’t seem to fit the “no compromise” jail or no jail standard you profess above.

There isn't anything to say really. It is what it is. You either accept it or you don't, things go from there.

 

[Podmonkey]

One of the great things about the internet is that allows people to give voice to their misgivings, their dissent, vents the pressure that otherwise might build up. This by itself has a great stabilizing effect in society.

 

[ECU Pirates]

One of the great things about the internet is that allows people to give voice to their misgivings, their dissent, vents the pressure that otherwise might build up. This by itself has a great stabilizing effect in society.

Wrong.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Nah, you let them take the ones in the house.

Then you dig up the ones in the backyard and hunt down the people who took them in the middle of the night.

Never fight your enemy on their terms if you can help it.

I couldn’t of said it better myself. People need to start using their heads.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Do you disagree with bail as well? Bail doesn’t seem to fit the “no compromise” jail or no jail standard you profess above.

Our Constitution has provisions for that. Excessive bail. If a person is so dangerous that he needs to be locked up, then withholding bail isn’t excessive.

 

[GOPerfect]

Sounds like two real winners.

Glad this does not effect me.

Gives me a reason to repeat....

" I hate people"