Nearly 200 people have had their guns seized in N.J. under new ‘red flag’ law

[DBT]

Due process refers to checking the nature or truth of a report or claim before acting upon it in a way that punishes innocent people, which is a presumption of guilt not innocence, the very opposite of justice.
A judge perusing a report without basic investigation is not due process....the basic investigation should be carried out by the police before the papers are put before the judge...that is due process of the law. Which appears not to have been done in the cited cases, and probably many more.

Then by that same argument no judge should be able or would be able to issue a PFA, a restraining order. It would all have to be first investigated by the police. Is that what you are advocating? Or are you saying there is something special about guns?

Adequatly assessed before going before a judge.

Restraining orders should not be applied without due process for the same reasons. The system shouldn't just charge ahead and act without a proper check, due process/due diligence ....the partner filing for a restraining order may be vindictive, not thinking straight and seeking to punish. It happens.

It's not about dropping restraining orders, but due process, diligence, before they are placed before the judge in order to prevent false accusations punishing an innocent party....a presumption of innocence, not guilt before action is taken.

Isn't that how the law is supposed to work?

Or are we now to accept a lesser standard?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Here's a couple of examples of red flag laws gone wrong in the very way that some are concerned about

What you didn’t note is that, in Stephen Nichols’ case he was never actually terminated—merely suspended while being investigated—and it was almost immediately determined that the waitress who heard Nichols wanted to “shoot up a school” mistook what he said and Nichols was then cleared and reinstated in his crossing guard duties. His guns were not “confiscated” so much as they were given to his grandson.

As for Susan Holmes, not only was her petition rejected by the court, an arrest warrant was issued for perjury in making a false claim and she fled the state.

Which still caused unnecessary problems for the person being wrongly or falsely accused.

False accusations generally have that effect.

Had proper due process been followed, it should have prevented the claims from being acted upon before things went as far as they did.

You mean in regard to Stephen Nichols, as that does not apply to Susan Holmes.

That is the point of concern for some people because they see that due process, presumption of innocence, has failed in these instances

It did not "fail" in either instance you sited. Quite the contrary, both instances were examples of due process in action. That's the "process" part. In Nichols' case, a report was filed with the local police department that he was allegedly planning on shooting up the school he worked for. That, of course, is a VERY serious accusation given by someone--in this case a waitress--who had zero motive to lie and, in fact, did not lie, she just heard what he said incorrectly.

Regardless, the very first step the police did (and should) was to seek a search warrant, which they evidently did, which in turn led to finding the weapons. Police do NOT operate under "innocent until proven guilty," the courts do. Police operate under the rule of "is there sufficient evidence to act/get a warrant." In this case, a worker in a restaurant--having no motive or relationship with the accused--evidently overheard what she thought was someone planning on killing children.

She reported what she heard to the police. The police decided she was a credible witness and evidently got a search warrant whereupon they discovered numerous guns in his home. What type of guns, we don't know. I can't find the police report online anywhere and numerous sources (almost all biased, right wing/pro-gun sites no less) affirm that the local police have not released the report.

So, for all we know, the guns they took and gave to his grandson were ones he wasn't allowed to own to begin with--perhaps having something to do with the fact that he's 84--but, regardless, finding the weapons corroborated in part what the waitress claimed.

Not to mention the effect it has on the person being falsely accused, who may have just made a casual comment in a cafe or to a co-worker. Which is far too flimsy a reason to act upon.

Not necessarily for the police. Again, from their perspective, they had a reliable complaint from a disinterested party in regard to an old crossing guard threatening to shoot school children under his care. Whatever steps they took next led them to discover the crossing guard had numerous weapons in his possession, thus corroborating--in a big way--that Nichols could, in fact, have been planning to murder children.

They took cautionary steps accordingly; gave the weapons they found to his grandson evidently while the investigation continued (but possibly after); discovered that the waitress was not lying, but simply misheard what Nichols had said; and in short order Nichols was reinstated in his job. As to the fate of his weapons, that's still not clear, nor is the exact reason why they were given to his grandson to sell (other than the fact that he is evidently a licensed arms dealer).

I think you are mistaking what standards/procedures police act upon and what the court system acts upon. When you get to the stage of prosecution and trial, you are presumed innocent until the State can prove that you are guilty in a court of law. You are NOT presumed innocent in the same manner during a police investigation.

Cops think you did the crime and they try to find evidence that would prove it. When they collect what they believe to be enough evidence, they then approach a D.A. with it and then the D.A. decides whether or not there is enough to issue an arrest warrant.
Typically.

What police don't do, however, is just dismiss every complaint with, "Well, it doesn't matter what you claim he did, he's presumed innocent so....want a donut?"

 

[DBT]

Which still caused unnecessary problems for the person being wrongly or falsely accused.

False accusations generally have that effect.

Had proper due process been followed, it should have prevented the claims from being acted upon before things went as far as they did.

You mean in regard to Stephen Nichols, as that does not apply to Susan Holmes.

That is the point of concern for some people because they see that due process, presumption of innocence, has failed in these instances

It did not "fail" in either instance you sited. Quite the contrary, both instances were examples of due process in action. That's the "process" part. In Nichols' case, a report was filed with the local police department that he was allegedly planning on shooting up the school he worked for. That, of course, is a VERY serious accusation given by someone--in this case a waitress--who had zero motive to lie and, in fact, did not lie, she just heard what he said incorrectly.

Regardless, the very first step the police did and should take is to arrest him and confiscate his weapons. Police do NOT operate under "innocent until proven guilty," the courts do. Police operate under the rule of "is there sufficient evidence to act/get a warrant." In this case, a worker in a restaurant--having no motive or relationship with the accused--evidently overheard what she thought was someone planning on killing children.

She reported what she heard to the police. The police decided she was a credible witness and evidently got a search warrant whereupon they discovered numerous guns in his home. What type of guns, we don't know. I can't find the police report online anywhere and numerous sources (almost all biased, right wing/pro-gun sites no less) affirm that the local police have not released the report.

So, for all we know, the guns they took and gave to his grandson were ones he wasn't allowed to own to begin with, perhaps having something to do with the fact that he's 84.

Not to mention the effect it has on the person being falsely accused, who may have just made a casual comment in a cafe or to a co-worker. Which is far too flimsy a reason to act upon.

Not necessarily for the police. Again, from their perspective, they had a reliable complaint from a disinterested party in regard to an old crossing guard threatening to shoot school children under his care. Whatever steps they took next led them to discover the crossing guard had numerous weapons in his possession, thus corroborating--in a big way--that Nichols could, in fact, have been planning to murder children.

They took cautionary steps accordingly, gave the weapons they found to his grandson while the investigation continued; discovered that the waitress was not lying, but simply misheard what Nichols had said and in short order Nichols was reinstated in his job. As to the fate of his weapons, that's still not clear, nor is the exact reason why they were given to his grandson to sell (other than the fact that he is evidently a licensed arms dealer).

I think you are mistaking what standards/procedures police act upon and what the court system acts upon. When you get to the stage of prosecution and trial, you are presumed innocent until the State can prove that you are guilty in a court of law. You are NOT presumed innocent in the same manner during a police investigation. Cops think you did the crime and they try to find evidence that would prove it. They don't just dismiss every complaint with, "Well, it doesn't matter what you claim he did, he's presumed innocent so....want a donut?"

I'm not mistaking anything. I am pointing to the concerns that some people have and what can go wrong if due process/dilligence is not applied.

Due process/diligence clearly did fail in the given cases because the action that was taken was unjust and had to be rectified.

So it's not only what can go wrong, but what has already gone wrong.

It does not matter that these may be corrected over time, or that some have been corrected (never mind what the falsely accused went through), but they were preventable in the first place, sparing the victim from dealing with false, mistaken or malicious reports and the time, effort and grief of sorting out the mess.

It shouldn't be hard to make a few phone calls before the papers are presented to a judge who approves it based on the information he has before him, perhaps incomplete and misleading.

Now, this is not according to me, but the fact that it has happened in several known cases and probably many that have not made the news.

 

[laughing dog]

It seems to me that inconveniencing gun owners and protecting them from any sort of overzealous law enforcement is more important to people like DBT than reducing the number of victims from dangerous gun owners.

It's more than a matter of inconvenience, it comes down to due process of the law, diligence and freedom from harassment. The police coming to your door to confiscate property because someone, a waitress or a collegue, overheard a casual comment, perhaps a joke, is not justice. Which is the point you miss.

I understand to you it is more important that the minor inconvenience due to overzealous policing that was expeditiously corrected is avoided than reducing the number of dangerous gun owners. You response confirms my understanding.

 

[Elixir]

I'm not mistaking anything. I am pointing to the concerns that some people have and what can go wrong if due process/dilligence is not applied.

This sounds an awful lot like the arguments against seat belts. There were even arguments about seat belts after their deployment saved tens of thousands of lives. Critics, often sponsored by car companies, sometimes cited the few cases where people drowned or burned because they were unable to get out of their seat belts, as justification for not requiring them.

 

[DBT]

It seems to me that inconveniencing gun owners and protecting them from any sort of overzealous law enforcement is more important to people like DBT than reducing the number of victims from dangerous gun owners.

It's more than a matter of inconvenience, it comes down to due process of the law, diligence and freedom from harassment. The police coming to your door to confiscate property because someone, a waitress or a collegue, overheard a casual comment, perhaps a joke, is not justice. Which is the point you miss.

I understand to you it is more important that the minor inconvenience due to overzealous policing that was expeditiously corrected is avoided than reducing the number of dangerous gun owners. You response confirms my understanding.

It's has nothing to do with 'minor inconvenience' - if I haven't said it enough times by now, this issue is about justice and due diligence. This means checks and balances, it means not charging into someones home seizing property because someone heard something said.

Safety is one thing, but that is not justice.

Is this hard to understand?

 

[DBT]

I'm not mistaking anything. I am pointing to the concerns that some people have and what can go wrong if due process/dilligence is not applied.

This sounds an awful lot like the arguments against seat belts. There were even arguments about seat belts after their deployment saved tens of thousands of lives. Critics, often sponsored by car companies, sometimes cited the few cases where people drowned or burned because they were unable to get out of their seat belts, as justification for not requiring them.

No comparison. Sorry.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Due process refers to checking the nature or truth of a report or claim before acting upon it in a way that punishes innocent people, which is a presumption of guilt not innocence, the very opposite of justice.
A judge perusing a report without basic investigation is not due process....the basic investigation should be carried out by the police before the papers are put before the judge...that is due process of the law. Which appears not to have been done in the cited cases, and probably many more.

Then by that same argument no judge should be able or would be able to issue a PFA, a restraining order. It would all have to be first investigated by the police. Is that what you are advocating? Or are you saying there is something special about guns?

Adequatly assessed before going before a judge.

Restraining orders should not be applied without due process for the same reasons. The system shouldn't just charge ahead and act without a proper check, due process/due diligence ....the partner filing for a restraining order may be vindictive, not thinking straight and seeking to punish. It happens.

It's not about dropping restraining orders, but due process, diligence, before they are placed before the judge in order to prevent false accusations punishing an innocent party....a presumption of innocence, not guilt before action is taken.

Isn't that how the law is supposed to work?

Or are we now to accept a lesser standard?

Have you ever felt threatened enough to obtain a restraining order? It's not an easy thing to do, not nearly as easy and automatic as you apparently think it is. Maybe that's why judges take such testimony seriously and make decisions based upon the testimony they receive.

Are you at all acquainted and familiar with the process, do you have any direct experience with it? I would think that if you had ever been down that road you would certainly understand a person's fear. This is what the judge must consider. Why would you think it is not a part of due process?

I don't know why you would consider such a process some kind of lesser standard. Do you not think judges have the same questions on their mind that you are expressing? Do you not think they are making the same observations? They are simply trying to apply the law and I don't think you will find a one who considers his or her courtroom lacking in due process or fairness or justice.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'm not mistaking anything.

Clearly that is not the case as you go on to demonstrate once again in the rest of your post.

I am pointing to the concerns that some people have and what can go wrong if due process/dilligence is not applied.

By providing two examples where due process was applied?

Due process/diligence clearly did fail in the given cases because the action that was taken was unjust and had to be rectified.

That sentence proves you do not understand what constitutes due process.

It does not matter that these may be corrected over time

It absolutely does. That is the "process" part of "due process."

but they were preventable in the first place

How? Again, credible witness hears someone planning to shoot up a school, something that happens with alarming frequency here in the US and, regardless, MUST be treated as dire no matter what.

Holmes' case is not applicable as there was nothing about that situation that was preventable.

It shouldn't be hard to make a few phone calls before the papers are presented to a judge who approves it based on the information he has before him, perhaps incomplete and misleading.

"Perhaps" being the operative term, but of course, you have no idea what actually transpired between the police, the DA and the Judge.

 

[laughing dog]

I understand to you it is more important that the minor inconvenience due to overzealous policing that was expeditiously corrected is avoided than reducing the number of dangerous gun owners. You response confirms my understanding.

It's has nothing to do with 'minor inconvenience' - if I haven't said it enough times by now, this issue is about justice and due diligence. This means checks and balances, it means not charging into someones home seizing property because someone heard something said.

Suppose they had walked in based someone heard something, seized the guns and the person was going to shoot up a store?

As it is, the crossing guard suffered a minor inconvenience, yet you persist in prattling about injustice.

Safety is one thing, but that is not justice.

Is this hard to understand?

No. It is harder to understand the concern for property over himsn life.

 

[Elixir]

I'm not mistaking anything. I am pointing to the concerns that some people have and what can go wrong if due process/dilligence is not applied.

This sounds an awful lot like the arguments against seat belts. There were even arguments about seat belts after their deployment saved tens of thousands of lives. Critics, often sponsored by car companies, sometimes cited the few cases where people drowned or burned because they were unable to get out of their seat belts, as justification for not requiring them.

No comparison. Sorry.

Yes comparison, sorry.
In both cases there is a phenomenon that is killing thousands of people and a mitigating measure that is argued against on the basis of negative effects to a relatively very few.
Again, in the absence of a controlled study such as I described early, and which would take many years to complete, the prudent thing would be to invoke the measure.

 

[DBT]

Clearly that is not the case as you go on to demonstrate once again in the rest of your post.



By providing two examples where due process was applied?

Due process/diligence clearly did fail in the given cases because the action that was taken was unjust and had to be rectified.

That sentence proves you do not understand what constitutes due process.

It does not matter that these may be corrected over time

It absolutely does. That is the "process" part of "due process."

but they were preventable in the first place

How? Again, credible witness hears someone planning to shoot up a school, something that happens with alarming frequency here in the US and, regardless, MUST be treated as dire no matter what.

Holmes' case is not applicable as there was nothing about that situation that was preventable.

It shouldn't be hard to make a few phone calls before the papers are presented to a judge who approves it based on the information he has before him, perhaps incomplete and misleading.

"Perhaps" being the operative term, but of course, you have no idea what actually transpired between the police, the DA and the Judge.

Due process to prevent frivolous, mistaken or malicious from being acted upon being the key to understanding. Due process after the event is too late to prevent a whole lot of trouble for an innocent gun owner, which may have been prevented with a couple of phone calls to determine the nature of the report.

 

[DBT]

No comparison. Sorry.

Yes comparison, sorry.
In both cases there is a phenomenon that is killing thousands of people and a mitigating measure that is argued against on the basis of negative effects to a relatively very few.
Again, in the absence of a controlled study such as I described early, and which would take many years to complete, the prudent thing would be to invoke the measure.

Your example has no real relationship to this issue. The point of contention here is to uphold principles of justice, not destroy or water them down. Nor am I against red flag laws in principle. This is just about checks and balances to prevent mistakes and misuses of the law.

The police don't charge you for not wearing your seat belt because Joe Blow reported seeing you drive without one.

It's a matter of justification to act.

A waitress overhearing a comment and filing a red flag law report may be a reason to investigate, but it is not sufficient reason to act upon by turning up at someones home, seizing their property and burdening them with the task of proving their innocence.

That is the point.


''Law enforcement officers across the country oppose these measures because they are concerned “red flags” will be abused and put officers and gun owners at risk. They fear that vengeful ex-spouses, a distant relative with a grudge, or even an angry co-worker could “red flag” someone with zero evidence. The result would be officers showing up unannounced at a person’s home and seizing their firearms.''

''The new law allows a long list of people to seek an "extreme risk protection order" that bars the respondent from possessing firearms. Potential petitioners include police officers, prosecutors, blood relatives, in-laws, current and former spouses, current and former housemates, current and former girlfriends or boyfriends, people who have produced a child with the respondent, and school administrators or their designees, such as teachers, coaches, and guidance counselors. The "school personnel" covered by the law can even report a former student if he graduated within the previous six months.

As usual, "extreme risk protection order" is a misnomer. An initial, ex parte order lasting up to six business days can be obtained based on "probable cause to believe the respondent is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to himself, herself or others." The purported threat need not be "extreme" or imminent. At this stage, the respondent has no opportunity to challenge the claims against him, and the experience of other states suggests that judges will routinely rubber-stamp initial orders.''

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Have you ever felt threatened enough to obtain a restraining order? It's not an easy thing to do, not nearly as easy and automatic as you apparently think it is. Maybe that's why judges take such testimony seriously and make decisions based upon the testimony they receive.

Are you at all acquainted and familiar with the process, do you have any direct experience with it? I would think that if you had ever been down that road you would certainly understand a person's fear. This is what the judge must consider. Why would you think it is not a part of due process?

I don't know why you would consider such a process some kind of lesser standard. Do you not think judges have the same questions on their mind that you are expressing? Do you not think they are making the same observations? They are simply trying to apply the law and I don't think you will find a one who considers his or her courtroom lacking in due process or fairness or justice.

It's only hard to obtain if you stick to the truth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No comparison. Sorry.

Yes comparison, sorry.
In both cases there is a phenomenon that is killing thousands of people and a mitigating measure that is argued against on the basis of negative effects to a relatively very few.
Again, in the absence of a controlled study such as I described early, and which would take many years to complete, the prudent thing would be to invoke the measure.

The problem is that while thousands are dying from guns only a tiny percentage of those deaths would be affected by red flag laws. The vast majority of the ten thousand murders/year will be unaffected, few suicides will be affected.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Have you ever felt threatened enough to obtain a restraining order? It's not an easy thing to do, not nearly as easy and automatic as you apparently think it is. Maybe that's why judges take such testimony seriously and make decisions based upon the testimony they receive.

Are you at all acquainted and familiar with the process, do you have any direct experience with it? I would think that if you had ever been down that road you would certainly understand a person's fear. This is what the judge must consider. Why would you think it is not a part of due process?

I don't know why you would consider such a process some kind of lesser standard. Do you not think judges have the same questions on their mind that you are expressing? Do you not think they are making the same observations? They are simply trying to apply the law and I don't think you will find a one who considers his or her courtroom lacking in due process or fairness or justice.

It's only hard to obtain if you stick to the truth.

Apparently you've never sought one either and view it as some kind of farce. The fact is that if you stick to the truth obtaining the restraining order is quite easy.

 

[laughing dog]

No comparison. Sorry.

Yes comparison, sorry.
In both cases there is a phenomenon that is killing thousands of people and a mitigating measure that is argued against on the basis of negative effects to a relatively very few.
Again, in the absence of a controlled study such as I described early, and which would take many years to complete, the prudent thing would be to invoke the measure.

The problem is that while thousands are dying from guns only a tiny percentage of those deaths would be affected by red flag laws. The vast majority of the ten thousand murders/year will be unaffected, few suicides will be affected.

Oh well, then, there is no reason to inconvenience some potentially dangerous gun owners just to save some lives.

 

[Elixir]

The problem is that while thousands are dying from guns only a tiny percentage of those deaths would be affected by red flag laws. The vast majority of the ten thousand murders/year will be unaffected, few suicides will be affected.

Oh well, then, there is no reason to inconvenience some potentially dangerous gun owners just to save some lives.

Right. What is the "vast minority of murders" plus a "few suicides" compared to the great and urgent need of marginally sane people to be able to quickly and easily kill other people?
Come on, Loren. Quantify those murders and suicides for us, and tell us how many marginally sane people you'd be willing to inconvenience to save one of those lives. Is it one-to-one, meaning the convenience of one marginally sane person is worth the same as another person's life? Is it ten to one? A hundred to one? Ten thousand to one?
Get real -
What is it, Loren?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Due process to prevent frivolous, mistaken or malicious from being acted upon being the key to understanding.

So, iow, a process to investigate reports of an alleged crime.

Due process after the event

What “event”? The alleged crime? So, no investigation should be taken after someone reports a crime? So, no process to investigate reports of an alleged crime. Got it.

is too late to prevent a whole lot of trouble for an innocent gun owner, which may have been prevented with a couple of phone calls to determine the nature of the report.

So, iow, a process to investigate reports of an alleged crime.

And these magical phone calls you speak of, walk us through them in the Nichols case. A credible witness reports a conversation she heard between two people, wherein a crossing guard says he’s going to shoot the kids at the grade school he works for.

Exactly what phone calls do the police make to “determine the nature of the report”? Try to think carefully, as it’s a trick question. They can’t just call the other person in the conversation, since he too is implicated in the report and the police would have no way of knowing—on a fucking phone call—whether or not he was just lying to cover his part in the crime.

No one else heard the conversations, but the other guy and the waitress.

So, how, exactly, does a couple of phone calls put the whole credible threat of children being murdered to rest?

 

[DBT]

What “event”? The alleged crime? So, no investigation should be taken after someone reports a crime? So, no process to investigate reports of an alleged crime. Got it.

Don't be ridiculous, you know very well what I'm talking about. Which is, to repeat, doing an adequate inquiry into the validity of the claims/reports made against someone before the papers are placed before a Judge to be approved and action taken, thereby not onlyl preventing malicious, frivolous or mistaken reports from going ahead, but saving the victim, the police and the courts a whole lot of trouble. Basic common sense really.

From the article;
''The purported threat need not be "extreme" or imminent. At this stage, the respondent has no opportunity to challenge the claims against him, and the experience of other states suggests that judges will routinely rubber-stamp initial orders.''

''Exactly what phone calls do the police make to “determine the nature of the report”? Try to think carefully, as it’s a trick question. They can’t just call the other person in the conversation, since he too is implicated in the report and the police would have no way of knowing—on a fucking phone call—whether or not he was just lying to cover his part in the crime.

No one else heard the conversations, but the other guy and the waitress. '

So you think the police are incapable of investigating claims? They could ask the waitress exactly what she heard and in what context, they could ask the guy what he said to his friend, check what the friend heard the guy say, cross reference the three accounts and determine risk.

It should become quickly clear that the waitress was overreacting