Haven't you heard?
We are fundamentally transforming America.
Welcome to the Obamanation!
Posted on 08/06/2010 10:12:47 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Connecticut police say they arrested a man at a management company after he mentioned the shooting rampage across the state that killed nine people and said he understood the killer's mindset.
Fifty-eight-year-old Francis Laskowski of Derby was charged with breach of peace Wednesday after making the comments while working at Fusco Management Co. in New Haven.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
In most states these days it is considered an act of VIOLENCE if a guy yells at his wife (or vice versa) -— even if one shouts out “Damn it - why don’t feed the children - Why do you let them go hungry?”.
The wife can call the cops and press for Domestic Violence charges and likely get arrested on the spot... with no proof - just a claim of what happened... she said - he said.... utter craziness. Family Law codes have run amok ... yelling, shouting, screaming are acts of VIOLENCE.
Was the only guy on the elevator when some 'people of color' got on with a little guy. I asked him if he wanted to 'push the button' because my son used to love to do that. The little guy and his 'family' totally ignored me. Teaching them to 'hate whitey' real young, they are.
Welcome to the Obamanation...
I think I understand your mindset.....oooops
...he mentioned the shooting rampage across the state that killed nine people and said he understood the killer's mindset. Fifty-eight-year-old Francis Laskowski of Derby was charged with breach of peace Wednesday after making the comments while working at Fusco Management Co. in New Haven.I understand the police officers' mindset.
>>...understanding is now a crime. [!?]
>
>Well, what do we do about those who understood the 911 attackers. You know, the libs consider the 911 attack to be a crime.
They only *claim* to understand the attackers.
The ones who REALLY understand them would be the fiction-authors {and, to some extent, intelligence people} who predicted the “audacious attack.”
I understand your mindset for making the 1984 connection.
>do we even Have a CONSTITUTION anymore?????
Exactly my question:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2560780/posts?page=93#93
Thanks, sod. I appreciate it.
Point of clarification: the story does not reveal that his BEHAVIOR caused his arrest. But that is the only plausible explanation so I posed a scenario in which this could have been an almost routine arrest, based on my security experience.
Behavior can begin with or include speech, in a business setting which this was. It was inside a working business, and if it kept the place from functioning or violated company rules they could say to him, stop or leave the property. Legally have that right...
If he keeps on and on, police can be properly called.
I have seen it done in front of my own eyes and ears. I am told when it happens but not in front of me.
The breach of peace charge suggests a case like prof. Gates in Cambridge which included wild behavior after cops tried to calm him down, but was disturbing the neighborhood from his front porch.
My cites are at mall businesses and this was at a business office. had to start between him and the business escalating to a police call, then between him and police.
The Mall of America in MN bans people all the time for different reasons. They call the police anytime that person shows up (which they do). But this is an extreme to the example the mall is so large and has probably a bottomless legal expense account. You just never hear of anyone taking them to civil.
GUN SEIZURE WARRANT APPLICATIONS AND USE
|
|
||
|
By: Veronica Rose, Principal Analyst Adam Wolkoff, Legislative Fellow |
You asked for general information on the 1999 gun seizure law, including the number of departments that sought warrants to seize guns, the number they sought and received, the source of the complaints triggering applications, and the number of guns seized. This report covers the period October 1, 1999 through May 1, 2006.
SUMMARY
Since 1999, at least 47 local police departments and the State Police have applied for gun seizure warrants to seize guns from people considered at risk of harming themselves or others. They applied for at least 155 warrants—13 in 1999; 21 in 2000, 2001, and 2002; 16 in 2003; 28 in 2004; 33 in 2005; and 2 between January 1 and May 1, 2006.
The police received all but two of the warrants they requested and seized guns in all but 13 of the cases. In all, they seized more than 1,200 guns, plus ammunition and accessories. The State Police and West Hartford Police Department applied for the most warrants, almost 26% of the total.
The data show (1) a relative as the most likely source of complaints underlying a warrant application; (2) murder and suicide threats as the most likely behaviors to trigger an application; and (3) a wife or girlfriend as the most likely target of a threat. In 146 of the 155 cases, the target of the warrant was a male.
This report discusses (1) the departments that applied for warrants, (2) the number of warrants they requested and received, (3) the target of the warrants, (4) the allegations underlying applications and the people who made them, (4) the number of guns seized, and (5) case outcomes.
GUN SEIZURE LAW
The gun seizure law took effect on October 1, 1999. It (1) allows police, under limited circumstances and following specified procedures, to get warrants and seize guns from anyone posing an imminent risk of harming himself or someone else and (2) requires a judge to hold a hearing within 14 days after the seizure to decide whether to return the guns or order them held for up to one year (CGS § 29-38c).
Police can seek the warrant only after (1) conducting an independent investigation to establish probable cause and (2) determining that no reasonable alternative exists to avert the risk of harm. The law does not define “independent investigation” or outline “reasonable alternatives. ” But the floor debate on the bill that became law suggests that legislators believed that (1) as part of the investigation, police should talk to witnesses and corroborate allegations made against defendants and (2) civil commitment and arrest were reasonable alternatives to a search warrant. And a Superior Court ruling that reversed a seizure under this law identified consensual search as the most obvious alternative to seizure (State of Connecticut v. David Avery, No. CV11-9168A, 1999 WL 1207153 (Conn. Super. Nov. 30, 1999)).
DATA COLLECTION
The report is based on (1) a written OLR survey of all local police departments and the State Police conducted in 2000 and (2) gun seizure warrants submitted to the Judicial Department by court clerks in subsequent years. The law does not require gun seizure reports, and departments typically do not compile gun seizure data in any readily retrievable format. Rather, they appear to maintain the data as part of larger files based on the nature of the case that triggered the warrant application, such as domestic dispute or disturbance, traffic incident, attempted murder, or assault, rather than in separate, individually retrievable files. The report potentially understates the number of warrant applications because some departments may have failed to report and others may have reported incomplete data.
WARRANT APPLICATIONS
Table 1 shows that, as of May 1, 2006, at least 47 local police departments and the State Police had applied for a total of 155 gun seizure warrants under CGS § 29-38c. The number of applications ranged from one to 24. Slightly less than half of the departments (23) applied for one warrant. The State Police applied for the most warrants (24) followed by West Hartford (17). Together they applied for almost 26% of all the warrants.
People are also banned from the mall in my area. However, they are ALSO banned from individual businesses in that mall.
The businesses are sometimes mom and pop types...not always big nationwide chains.
If you either work at or patronize a business and you act in a way that repeatedly and after being warned interferes with its ability to do business at that location, you can be banned. If necessary, the police can be called in order to enforce that. If a person becomes out of control in the presence of police and ignores their attempts to calm them down, and the police are in pursuant of their lawful duties, then it becomes a matter also between them and police, after starting between them and the business.
The idea that a business has no recourse and must allow anyone at anytime to behave in a way destructive to their business because of fear of lawsuits is mistaken.
Sure, any fool can file a lawsuit.
Point is, the law is on the side of the business being able to conduct commerce at their location. Period. The law is on their side if the facts of the situation bear them out!
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0330.htm
RESULT OF APPLICATIONS
The courts granted all but two of the 155 warrant requests. They denied (1) one Wolcott Police Department warrant for lack of probable cause and (2) one West Hartford Police Department warrant on the grounds that a search under a previous warrant involving the same subject had yielded all the guns to which the subject had access. (The intended target of a Seymour Police Department warrant surrendered his guns voluntarily before the warrant was executed. )
NATURE OF ALLEGATIONS
In 101 cases, warrant applications were based on a murder or suicide allegation, or both. Suicide threats accounted for 61 (39%) applications, murder for 26 (17%), and murder-suicide for 14 (9%) (see Figure 1). Other factors that triggered an application included violent threats or behavior, mentally unstable behavior, and domestic abuse.
SOURCE OF ALLEGATIONS
A relative was the most likely person to initiate a complaint triggering a warrant application. A relative made the complaint in 45 (29%) of the cases. Police officers were the next most likely source of a complaint. Other sources in descending order were clinicians, neighbors, employers, school officials, and friends (see Figure 2). In one case, the subject of the warrant called police himself after he allegedly attempted suicide by stabbing himself in the abdomen.
TARGET OF THREATS
The potential targets of the threats underlying the warrant applications included relatives, friends, neighbors, school officials, and coworkers. The person most frequently targeted was a relative, usually a wife or ex-wife. There were also several nonspecific threats.
SEARCH OUTCOME
Police seized guns in 140 (92%) of the 153 cases in which they got warrants. In 13 cases, they found no guns, including one in which they found only a flare launcher, and in one case, the subject of the warrant surrendered his guns voluntarily before police served the warrant. In all, police seized more than 1,200 guns. The State Police seized the most, more than 430, including 231 in one case.
GUN HEARING OUTCOME
The law requires the court to hold hearings to determine the disposition of guns seized pursuant to the gun seizure law. Of the 140 cases in which the police seized guns, we were able to get definitive disposition information in 114 cases. Table 2 shows that the court
upheld the vast majority of the seizures, ordering the police to hold the guns in 63 cases and ordering that the guns be destroyed or transferred to a third party in 29 cases.
The court ordered the police to return the guns in 19 cases. In one of the earliest State Police cases, the court pointed out that the police had not exhausted the law's reasonable alternative standards. In another case, the court ordered the Rocky Hill Police Department to return the guns on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
Check out post #33 for a real-life, clearcut case that resulted in a mall business banning someone, and in this case it didn’t even have anything to do with potential violence. All it had to do with is keeping business from properly conducting its activities.
It is such a simple case, anyone from young to old and from all walks of life can see it.
I saw this case myself. I had discussions with the manager of the location that was being impeded in its commercial functions by the behavior of someone who kept returning to the business after refusing to stop the behavior that was impeding its ability to function.
I turn this around on any doubters...if your business can’t function at the location you own or rent because of someone’s behavior, are you going to stand by and watch the behavior continue on and on and on because you fear the person will sue you if you make them stop??
Of course not. You have no choice at some point - and only the person in charge can judge that point - you have to take proper action to stop that situation from going on and on and on.
The good news is, if the facts bear out your complaint against the person, the law is with you.
Whatever happened to: sorry mam, he hasn’t committed a crime yet, there is nothing we can do?
Haven't you heard?
We are fundamentally transforming America.
Welcome to the Obamanation!
It depends on the context.If he said “I’m gonna go beer distributorship on ya” that could certainly be seen as a threat...which is a crime.
The kicker is they allowed him to post bail.
hmmmmmm........the Department of Pre-Crime is here!
From this moment forward, let's be clear...
0 Tolerance means No Tolerance.
O Tolerance means Obama and the Left will overlook it, unless it pertains to a conservative...
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.