Yes I know all the obvious problems with this, but does anyone not wish they had seized that crazy kid’s guns? Seems to me that should not have violated due process. Insane and death threats to shoot up a school should equal arrest and take his guns.
[Yes I know all the obvious problems with this, but does anyone not wish they had seized that crazy kid’s guns? Seems to me that should not have violated due process. Insane and death threats to shoot up a school should equal arrest and take his guns.]
Yes and our idiot incompetents in government failed up and down the line. And it wouldn’t have required suspension of due process rights. 2 credible tips to the FBI should have done it. Check backwards though NICS and they would have found out he bought a rifle after making the threats. Again without the suspension of due process rights.
I do wish they had. With all the threats they had, though, they should have been able to do it legally.
If they had paid attention, and if the school had done its job, there would have been grounds for due process.
If judicial action is required, who thinks with the social media threat documented that a judge would not have granted a seizure order or in the least a temporary restraining order that would have grabbed his guns ? They blew it with obamas 'no disciplining minorities in school' screed. A police officer can get a search warrant in minutes while others secure the target to search, there is nothing that would stop getting a gun confiscation order even thru a TRO. Did anybody try ? NOPE!!
“Yes I know all the obvious problems with this, but does anyone not wish they had seized that crazy kid’s guns?”
They have a law in Florida they could have used to seize his firearms temporarily until they could determine he was indeed a fruitcake.
This is perfect example of bad Leftist policy, which led to no due process being initiated against this nut case.
If people were in charge who actually had public safety in mind, this kid would have been dealt with a dozen times over—and very probably he would not have become a mass murderer.
Wherever Democrats are in control, this sort of routine, intentional dereliction will lead to crimes like this happening again and again. And then they have the gall to come after our guns—the law-abiding and non-violent?
Arrest or commitment. Which would entail hearings. Presuming either law enforcement, school administrators or mental health practitioners raised the issue. That's due process, which the President thinks should be postponed. That's why we have laws. The problem here is that no one availed themselves of the law for the protection of the community. "Taking the guns first", who does the taking is unclear, is tyrany.
It takes almost no time to get a warrant if you have probable cause. His history of killing animals, violence, and the calls telling the cops he was making threats were enough to get a warrant. Given his history with the cops the assault on his former girlfriend’s boyfriend was enough to jail him and take his guns.
This case is not a reason to violate due process. All that does is make everyone vulnerable to having their rights violated.
Nobody “seized” them because he was never put in the No-Buy list and got through a legal background check.
Had MULTIPLE people done their jobs - INCLUDING the asshat Broward sheriff, he never would would have gotten the rifle in the first place.
Let a family member store them or a trusted neighbor.
Better yet, perhaps the government shouldn't give money to schools that team up with police to not arrest little thugs.
Well,...........let's start with CNN.
Trump is not known for nuance and as such it is easy to interpret the specifics of what he says may mean in many ways.
In my opinion, the removal of weapons from those who are unfit to possess them because they are a threat to themselves and or others is a many tiered issue.
For subjectively determined potential threats: removing someones God-given right to own a firearm and as such putting them on a list to prevent purchasing and subsequently even confiscating their weapons requires Due Process.
For subjectively determined immediate threats: temporarily removing someones firearms is not the panacea some claim because the threat is the person, NOT the specific gun they may have today. The threat could use weapons other than a gun and if really determined simply get another gun In my opinion, the threat should be detained with guaranteed DUE Process to follow. Due Process should determines whether or not an individual loses a God-given right.
“Yes I know all the obvious problems with this, but does anyone not wish they had seized that crazy kid’s guns? Seems to me that should not have violated due process. Insane and death threats to shoot up a school should equal arrest and take his guns.”
True.
Don’t worry about Trump. He’s jumps ahead of the Libtards.
Actually they had plenty of opportunity to actually ENGAGE DUE PROCESS and get the punk off the street and seize his weapons. They ignored all of the probable cause that would have provided for due process to work.
It’s called probable cause. Cops use it all the time to arrest people, search cars, search their person. There are rules to safeguard due process, and consequences for violating the fourth amendment. All long in place. Nothing strange or wrong with Trump’s statement, just how he phrased it. Had the cops bothered to create a record of Cruz’s crazy behavior that would have shown up on a background check, he would never have gotten a gun. But they were too hot for grant money to bother with such niceties. Was that ‘due process’? He was a clear and present danger, and there was more than probable cause to believe that.