There's no allegation of a crime.
Anticipating the next question, note criminal law isn't the only branch of law or the court system. For example, it is not illegal to be mentally ill and suicidal. There is no allegation of a crime required for a mental writ to be issued by a court for someone who is mentally ill and suicidal. A mental writ allows you to be legally detained against your will for mental health reasons. Despite there being no crime alleged, there a legal framework and due process.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Understood.
You've presented some thought provoking advocation for red flag laws here and elsewhere and I respect that and your effort.
However with this current event and your example above, my fear is that such due process will be strained to the point where a given political viewpoint will be essentially equated to a mental illness.
Now.
I can't present any evidence to substantiate what I'm about to say because it hasn't happened yet but my concern is that even if the state can't prove their case I still think this guy isn't going to get his guns back.
ETA: I also think that if you're going to remove someone's civil liberties the bar needs to be higher than preponderance of the evidence.
Last edited by Cypher; 10-20-2019 at 11:53 AM.
The state of society and technology far outpaces the state of the law. Big data, algorithmic pattern modeling and behavioral predictive systems are a competitive necessity in the private sector. It is only a matter of time before such techniques are applied to law enforcement.
I mention this because we are rapidly approaching the point where our practical ability to identify a threat to public safety may outstrip the speed of the legal system. The media doesn’t publicize the cases of mass shootings and murders prevented by an LE action based on a “red flag” law or similar statute- but they’re out there. Naturally we only hear about the failures or the folks who slip between the cracks.
Pretty soon the notion of “Dept. Of Precrime” won’t be a sci fi joke. With that comes an awful question- will due process need to evolve as well? Can it even be preserved? If a neighbor, social media post or AI trained model determines an individual is an exigent threat to society with 99% confidence in the next 12 hours- do you ignore this data on principle?
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
I have a major issue with preponderance of the evidence being the standard to deprive someone of a Constitutional Right. Basically 51% causes me to loose the ability to posses a firearm. There is, as you know, a world of difference between civil and criminal burden of proof. I’m sure as hell not OK with a civil standard being applied to deprive a Constitutional Right.
In reality, the annual chance to remove the order is essentially having to prove a negative.
Last edited by LSP552; 10-20-2019 at 01:28 PM.
Me no likey Nazi types. Me and my people have had a nasty history with them. If said hate filled shit bag has no guns I’m happy. I don’t like Antifa either but they are a side show without the numbers or motivation that the Nazis have. I’m unaware of Antifa shooting up synagogues, mosques, Hindu temples, blowing up buildings and nursery schools.
Effective red flag laws with due process are not the bullshit we all fear. It’s saved lives and will continue to do so. Screaming constitutional rights from the hills is all well and good but we need a way to stop threats earlier.
Even if that were true, that's only one prong of the various laws. You also have to be a threat, and at least in my state an imminent threat. I can be a flat earther who sings with the ghosts of dead Beatles each night and that's not grounds for a mental writ, etc.
I largely agree with the first part. While reasonable minds can differ, I would prefer "clear and convincing evidence" to be the standard for longer term removal. I'm ok with the standard for a very short term removal, as probable cause is the standard for arrest. I can't see a higher standard of proof required to take property from someone short term than to remove their liberty short term.
I don't agree with the second part, though. You aren't proving a negative. You're proving change. Hearing 1 finds against you because you're hearing voices telling you to kill the mailman and you've expressed that you intend to do so and then commit suicide. Hearing 2 you provide evidence you've undergone treatment and your doctor shows that medicine has been effective at stopping the voices in your head. That removes the major pillar that Hearing 1 used to find against you. That's not the same as proving a negative, ie Bigfoot doesn't exist.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.