Posted on 11/06/2018 5:15:03 AM PST by deandg99
See what happens when you violate the rights of the people? This is only the beginning and I hope the family of this man sues the pants off the police and the state for their lawless behavior. A Ferndale, Maryland man was shot and killed at home when two Anne Arundel County police officers who were violating their oath and this man’s Fifth Amendment rights by attempting to steal his property (guns) under Maryland’s unconstitutional “red flag” “laws.”
The Baltimore Sun reports:
The man, whose name was not released, answered his door in the 100 block of Linwood Ave. at 5:17 a.m. with a gun in his hand, said Sgt. Jacklyn Davis, an Anne Arundel County Police spokeswoman.
(Excerpt) Read more at dcclothesline.com ...
Lacking information. Why a 5 a.m. knock on the door? Sounds more like swatting than protective step. And timing seems like intended to create escalating situation. While I think there are right time and place for these laws, they can be misused. Maybe they could have approached the guy as or after he left the house, de-escalate a confrontation? Police won’t be held accountable, but they should be.
"...Why a 5:00 am knock on the door?..."
“I would then permanently cut that person out of my life as soon as I lawfully reacquired my own property, faking civility until the legal crisis passed.”
Now, if my father had been essentially murdered on the word of a family member, even when I was a child, I wouldn’t give two cents for the value of that family member’s life X number of years down the line, and X number of years after I had to plan an appropriate response. Depending upon the behavior of the police during the incident, there would also be something of a reaction X number of years down the line. Just saying.
Police said the suspect, Gary J. Willis became irate when they tried to serve him. He opened the door to his house and grabbed the gun. When police tried to take the gun away, Willis fired his gun. A second officer fired their service weapon and hit Willis.
This is an account from WUSA channel 9 that indicates in the first sentence that they had already been given the court order to serve and were attempting to do so when Willis pulled his gun. When the officers felt threatened as Willis opened the door and after Willis had picked up the weapon, they took action based upon a person making a threat with a weapon. And it would be difficult to explain why he pulled the weapon after he knew he was being served other than to use it threateningly or discharge it if he wished. Both against the law.
Maryland sheriff’s deputies and police officers have served more than 100 of the gun seizure orders just since October 1st, when the red flag law took effect, according to Montgomery County Sheriff Darren Popkin.
They are just carrying out the orders of the court based upon a determination that the individual they are serving is questionable, or more, in having access to weapons. He can go back to court and get them back if the action against him is incorrect. And he can sue the state and locals for retribution. But attack, or threatening that looks like an attack, is foolish at best. It’s a legal action, not a lawless one.
rwood
What you would need is an Area Denial System. A quick and dirty set up would be a cargo net used to keep stuff in the bed of a truck. The anchor points would have to be anchored in wall studs surrounding the door but not in the door frame and probably using heavy duty hooks. The net in effect would hang in a vertical anchored position but set just loosely enough that removal is easy from the inside in case of fire.
Any attempts at penetration short of a vehicle battering ram or explosives would at best take the door off its hinges but it would be caught by the net and still stop entry until the net is cut through. No more surprise allowing a evac from another point or arming up to resist.
Interesting questions.
“people to make these decisions and the shooter became a danger to himself and the cops. If he had fought it in court rather than in his living room, it might have been different. He’d be alive.”
If he had not threatened the cops with a weapon when he opened the door, he wouldn’t have been shot. And according to news reports local, the first shot came from his gun when the cops were protecting themselves after being threaten by him brandishing it. No gun, no threat.
“Sometimes it is better to work with the law rather than physically resist. They weren’t there to arrest him, just relieve him of his first line opportunity to harm himself or others as determined by a court from family and/or medical pros.”
It requires a court action and order to accomplish this confiscation task. It is an act of protection of the public and not a criminal act. As I said in another post, the sheriff deputies have served over 100 of these court orders since October 1 when the law went onto effect. Until this one was turned into a gunfight according to CBS, it was nothing out of the normal.
“Somewhere along the line, he proved himself dangerous. I wouldn’t want him to own or carry a gun either. It’s one thing to get the determination changed for the legal action. It’s another to cause your death by physically resisting. That in itself raises a red flag.”
I am in my late 60’s now, and I have never answered the door to police officers with a gun in hand. Have you? This has to indicate that Willis was more than in question about the ownership and use of a firearm. No one said he broke a law. The court said he was questionable in having access to a firearm. He could have got them back if he can prove his capabilities of owning one. And he would have gotten his day in court to do so and another day to collect on the suing he would have filed against the state. Not now.
rwood
you answer a door with a gun in your hand when the police are the ones that are knocking?
It was 5:17 in the morning. What are the police coming around to someone’s home at 5:17 am. Carrying a gun around in your home is nobody’s business. There is no reference to a current crime that would warrant the police intervention.
The NRA really doesn't comprehend "shall not be infringed".
Which are the 7 states where they are illegal?
:^}
Sorry, just could not help myself.
“Lately, the NRA has relied heavily on videos to communicate with the public and its supporters, and how it announced its position on legislation to temporarily remove guns from people thought to pose a threat.
“We need to stop dangerous people before they act,” says Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “So Congress should provide funding to states to adopt risk protection orders.”
You’ll notice the word temporary in the first paragraph. The action was never to take away weapons permanently but make sure they we in the hands of a person capable of using them correctly. And the NRA is in favor of this to the point they suggested congress fund the action.
The NRA posted a lengthy list of conditions for a process it can support on its YouTube channel. among them:
— Criminal penalties for those who bring “false or frivolous” charges.
— A determination by a judge, by “clear and convincing evidence,” that the person poses a significant risk of danger.
— A requirement that a judge determine whether the person meets the standard for involuntary commitment.
— If the order is granted, the individual should receive community-based mental health treatment.
So as you can see, the NRA is in support of trying to use a red flag Law as long as it is done in a way that has treatment coverage if determined factual, and retaliation to the accusers if they were wrong. The NRA has always been about gun safety. And putting or allowing a person that is not safe to have access to one, is not what they are about.
rwood
Was there even a court data in which this person can defend himself.
Given all the g*ddamn massacres occurring via unhinged people with guns, I actually now support such things a GVRO’s or red flags, AS LONG AS the judge approving such an order HAS TO consider exculpatory evidence provided by the defendant, and the defendant GETS A COURT DATE to confront his accuser, assuring due process.
As far as I know, with Maryland’s red flag law, while an expert is needed to testify to the state of the defendant/respondent, thus making it less likely an angry neighbor or spouse or some evil individual can just get the person’s guns confiscated, a judge HAS TO consider evidence against the defendant, but DOES NOT HAVE TO consider exculpatory evidence, and I’m not sure that the defendant gets a court date in which he can show up. Thus, the law is still not a good one.
And, per the 5th Amendment, compensating people for the weapons seized would be good, also.
I wouldn’t blame you for divorcing your wife if she made such a petition. It’s still a bad law, in spite of protections added by the Maryland Senate.
Did the Aunt get an expert, such as a psychiatrist or other behavioral professor, to validate her request for seizure, as was stipulated in a state Senate amendment, or did the authorities simply ignore that part of the law?
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
I think he should be able to have his day in court prior to the seizure.
“Did the Aunt get an expert, such as a psychiatrist or other behavioral professor, to validate her request for seizure, as was stipulated in a state Senate amendment, or did the authorities simply ignore that part of the law?”
I don’t know if that’s a rhetorical question, but I have no idea. All I know is what was in the story.
It’s not rhetorical. The complaint must be certified by a professional.
“throw away the Constitution”
I don’t look at it that way. If someone close to the situation reports a person that is performing actions that place him in question as to the safety of use of a weapon, and it can be accomplished that until it is determined if he is dangerous to someone else, his access is postponed, then I agree with it.
Not everyone should be allowed to own a gun. Nor a car, or access to pyrotechnics, or work with children in a one on one situation......the list is endless with environments that if observed, can be dangerous. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. And if it can be corrected, then all the better. And if they are wrong, and did it on purpose, they should pay for their actions. But if they are right, then a tragedy may be averted. And it isn’t permanent if they are wrong.
rwood
“day in court prior to the seizure.”
That in most cases may be okay. But what if he is one of those people that is doing horrible things involving a gun and kills someone before they get to court. Remember, they have already been to court to get the order to remove his access. It is now the job of the state to prove without a doubt that he is dangerous and his job to prove he isn’t. If he wins, he gets his weapons back and start his lawsuits with the state and the individual that lied and turned him in. If he loses, he can go into mental therapy and get the help he needs.
These are not criminal cases. The people they place the court order on are under suspicion. They are not going to be jailed or fined. They are going to have their guns removed and they will not be able to buy one. Willis hadn’t done anything wrong either until he went back to the gun thus threatening the officers. Now he would have faced a criminal trial had he lived. But that’s the choice the courts are concerned about from the people they consider for this action, the bad choice.
rwood
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.