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

[Loren Pechtel]

It should become quickly clear that the waitress was overreacting

And even without overreacting you can get it very wrong if you don't know the context. I recall reading about one where a group of auditors were discussing tomorrow's work over dinner. The next morning they walk into a bunch of police at the bank. It seems they discussed what they would "hit". The waitress didn't have anything to clue her in that "hit" meant a surprise inspection, not a stickup.

 

[KeepTalking]

''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

It does not appear that you are thinking this scenario through. Turn the tables and imagine that this was a guy actually talking about/ planning to shooting up a school. When the cops call the guy to get his side of the story, they have just alerted the person that they are on to him. Maybe he wasn't planning on doing the deed for another week, now he moves up his timeline, grabs his gun, and heads for the nearest school, not necessarily the one he was targeting before, but rather another one that the he thinks the cops are not watching. Or, they call him up, and he does poorly making excuses on the phone, but he still has a lot of guns and ammo. Now he knows the cops are coming for him, so he can set up an ambush for the police.

In other words, it would be extremely stupid for the police to call a suspect in this situation and get their side of the story. The absolutely must err on the side of caution, pay the man a visit before he becomes aware that anyone has said anything, and if possible remove any weapons from immediate use by the suspect before getting his side of the story. That seems to be exactly what they did in this case.

 

[DBT]

''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

It does not appear that you are thinking this scenario through. Turn the tables and imagine that this was a guy actually talking about/ planning to shooting up a school. When the cops call the guy to get his side of the story, they have just alerted the person that they are on to him. Maybe he wasn't planning on doing the deed for another week, now he moves up his timeline, grabs his gun, and heads for the nearest school, not necessarily the one he was targeting before, but rather another one that the he thinks the cops are not watching. Or, they call him up, and he does poorly making excuses on the phone, but he still has a lot of guns and ammo. Now he knows the cops are coming for him, so he can set up an ambush for the police.

In other words, it would be extremely stupid for the police to call a suspect in this situation and get their side of the story. The absolutely must err on the side of caution, pay the man a visit before he becomes aware that anyone has said anything, and if possible remove any weapons from immediate use by the suspect before getting his side of the story. That seems to be exactly what they did in this case.

An experienced officer should know how to go about doing an investigatin...start with with the waitress/claimant to determine what exactly happened and precisely what she heard. If that's too difficult to figure out, there is no hope for the police, their ability investigate or assess risk, or the human race.....well, maybe the latter....

 

[laughing dog]

It does not appear that you are thinking this scenario through. Turn the tables and imagine that this was a guy actually talking about/ planning to shooting up a school. When the cops call the guy to get his side of the story, they have just alerted the person that they are on to him. Maybe he wasn't planning on doing the deed for another week, now he moves up his timeline, grabs his gun, and heads for the nearest school, not necessarily the one he was targeting before, but rather another one that the he thinks the cops are not watching. Or, they call him up, and he does poorly making excuses on the phone, but he still has a lot of guns and ammo. Now he knows the cops are coming for him, so he can set up an ambush for the police.

In other words, it would be extremely stupid for the police to call a suspect in this situation and get their side of the story. The absolutely must err on the side of caution, pay the man a visit before he becomes aware that anyone has said anything, and if possible remove any weapons from immediate use by the suspect before getting his side of the story. That seems to be exactly what they did in this case.

An experienced officer should know how to go about doing an investigatin...start with with the waitress/claimant to determine what exactly happened and precisely what she heard. If that's too difficult to figure out, there is no hope for the police, their ability investigate or assess risk, or the human race.....well, maybe the latter....

Unlike you, I am heartened that law enforcement is willing to err on the side of humsn safety rather than minor inconvenience or to use your preferred vernacular, they prefer to avoid the injustice of loss of the right to life over the injustice of temporary loss of the right to possess a firearm.

 

[DBT]

Erring is one thing, and understable, but Stalinist jackboot policing where the right to privacy and the presumption of innocence is trampled on the flimsiest evidence, a waitress heard something, is quite another. It should not be hard to do an adequate check on actual risk posed before the papers go, perhaps needlessly before a judge, to be rubber stamped and the police fly into action wasting everyone's time and causing trouble for an innocent party.

It's not rocket science.

 

[laughing dog]

Erring is one thing, and understable, but Stalinist jackboot policing where the right to privacy and the presumption of innocence is trampled on the flimsiest evidence, a waitress heard something, is quite another. It should not be hard to do an adequate check on actual risk posed before the papers go, perhaps needlessly before a judge, to be rubber stamped and the police fly into action wasting everyone's time and causing trouble for an innocent party.

It's not rocket science.

You prioritize the potential injustice against and inconvenience for gun owners over potential injustice and physical harm against potential victims of dangerous gun owners,
Sloppy police work affects more than gun owners, yet you seem to only cate about minor inconveniences inflected on a few gun owners. It shouldn’t be rocket science that the physical safty of people should take precedence over convenience of a few gun owners, but apparently it is.

 

[DBT]

Erring is one thing, and understable, but Stalinist jackboot policing where the right to privacy and the presumption of innocence is trampled on the flimsiest evidence, a waitress heard something, is quite another. It should not be hard to do an adequate check on actual risk posed before the papers go, perhaps needlessly before a judge, to be rubber stamped and the police fly into action wasting everyone's time and causing trouble for an innocent party.

It's not rocket science.

You prioritize the potential injustice against and inconvenience for gun owners over potential injustice and physical harm against potential victims of dangerous gun owners,
Sloppy police work affects more than gun owners, yet you seem to only cate about minor inconveniences inflected on a few gun owners. It shouldn’t be rocket science that the physical safty of people should take precedence over convenience of a few gun owners, but apparently it is.

It's not prioritizing. It's just a fair and reasonable balance between the needs of safety and the right of individuals. An adequate check before the papers are placed before a judge and unnecessary action taken, that's all. Nothing too difficult.

 

[KeepTalking]

It does not appear that you are thinking this scenario through. Turn the tables and imagine that this was a guy actually talking about/ planning to shooting up a school. When the cops call the guy to get his side of the story, they have just alerted the person that they are on to him. Maybe he wasn't planning on doing the deed for another week, now he moves up his timeline, grabs his gun, and heads for the nearest school, not necessarily the one he was targeting before, but rather another one that the he thinks the cops are not watching. Or, they call him up, and he does poorly making excuses on the phone, but he still has a lot of guns and ammo. Now he knows the cops are coming for him, so he can set up an ambush for the police.

In other words, it would be extremely stupid for the police to call a suspect in this situation and get their side of the story. The absolutely must err on the side of caution, pay the man a visit before he becomes aware that anyone has said anything, and if possible remove any weapons from immediate use by the suspect before getting his side of the story. That seems to be exactly what they did in this case.

An experienced officer should know how to go about doing an investigatin...start with with the waitress/claimant to determine what exactly happened and precisely what she heard. If that's too difficult to figure out, there is no hope for the police, their ability investigate or assess risk, or the human race.....well, maybe the latter....

They were already acting on what she said. How would giving her a call to confirm that she said it changed the outcome? I am pretty sure she would have just reinforced her previous statement. Now you are left with calling the suspect and/or possible co-conspirator which might tip them off. Since you are apparently an ace detective, do you have any other tips for how police should do their jobs?

 

[DBT]

It does not appear that you are thinking this scenario through. Turn the tables and imagine that this was a guy actually talking about/ planning to shooting up a school. When the cops call the guy to get his side of the story, they have just alerted the person that they are on to him. Maybe he wasn't planning on doing the deed for another week, now he moves up his timeline, grabs his gun, and heads for the nearest school, not necessarily the one he was targeting before, but rather another one that the he thinks the cops are not watching. Or, they call him up, and he does poorly making excuses on the phone, but he still has a lot of guns and ammo. Now he knows the cops are coming for him, so he can set up an ambush for the police.

In other words, it would be extremely stupid for the police to call a suspect in this situation and get their side of the story. The absolutely must err on the side of caution, pay the man a visit before he becomes aware that anyone has said anything, and if possible remove any weapons from immediate use by the suspect before getting his side of the story. That seems to be exactly what they did in this case.

An experienced officer should know how to go about doing an investigatin...start with with the waitress/claimant to determine what exactly happened and precisely what she heard. If that's too difficult to figure out, there is no hope for the police, their ability investigate or assess risk, or the human race.....well, maybe the latter....

They were already acting on what she said. How would giving her a call to confirm that she said it changed the outcome? I am pretty sure she would have just reinforced her previous statement. Now you are left with calling the suspect and/or possible co-conspirator which might tip them off. Since you are apparently an ace detective, do you have any other tips for how police should do their jobs?

Obviously they acted on too little information. If she had nothing more than 'oh, I heard someone in the cafe say....'' then that is a piss poor reason to don the jackboots and raid someones home to seize guns. It seems that they didn't even bother to listen to the owner when they were there. Once the go ahead was rubber stamped, there is no stopping the process regardless of any reasonable explanation forthcoming, just rigid, implacable bureaucracy in action....shoot first, ask questions later....never mind logic, reason or justice. Or that it is possible to determine risk by applying a bit due diligence.

If that can't be done, there is no hope.

 

[laughing dog]

They were already acting on what she said. How would giving her a call to confirm that she said it changed the outcome? I am pretty sure she would have just reinforced her previous statement. Now you are left with calling the suspect and/or possible co-conspirator which might tip them off. Since you are apparently an ace detective, do you have any other tips for how police should do their jobs?

Obviously they acted on too little information. If she had nothing more than 'oh, I heard someone in the cafe say....'' then that is a piss poor reason to don the jackboots and raid someones home to seize guns. It seems that they didn't even bother to listen to the owner when they were there. Once the go ahead was rubber stamped, there is no stopping the process regardless of any reasonable explanation forthcoming, just rigid, implacable bureaucracy in action....shoot first, ask questions later....never mind logic, reason or justice. Or that it is possible to determine risk by applying a bit due diligence.

Do I think the police did a poor job in this case? Yes.

Is that a reason to change red flag laws? No.

 

[DBT]

They were already acting on what she said. How would giving her a call to confirm that she said it changed the outcome? I am pretty sure she would have just reinforced her previous statement. Now you are left with calling the suspect and/or possible co-conspirator which might tip them off. Since you are apparently an ace detective, do you have any other tips for how police should do their jobs?

Obviously they acted on too little information. If she had nothing more than 'oh, I heard someone in the cafe say....'' then that is a piss poor reason to don the jackboots and raid someones home to seize guns. It seems that they didn't even bother to listen to the owner when they were there. Once the go ahead was rubber stamped, there is no stopping the process regardless of any reasonable explanation forthcoming, just rigid, implacable bureaucracy in action....shoot first, ask questions later....never mind logic, reason or justice. Or that it is possible to determine risk by applying a bit due diligence.

Do I think the police did a poor job in this case? Yes.

Is that a reason to change red flag laws? No.

Modifications to reduce or eliminate this kind of piss poor police work is a good thing. Which does not mean doing away with red flag laws, just making them better and fairer for everyone, stopping false reports before things go too far, thereby freeing up the police and courts to do the work they are meant to do and not running around like headless chooks because a 'waitress heard something' or a child made a silly remark in school, or someone wants revenge.....this is not unreasonable to expect from the police or the judges.

 

[laughing dog]

Do I think the police did a poor job in this case? Yes.

Is that a reason to change red flag laws? No.

Modifications to reduce or eliminate this kind of piss poor police work is a good thing. Which does not mean doing away with red flag laws, just making them better and fairer for everyone, stopping false reports before things go too far, thereby freeing up the police and courts to do the work they are meant to do and not running around like headless chooks because a 'waitress heard something' or a child made a silly remark in school, or someone wants revenge.....this is not unreasonable to expect from the police or the judges.

When your push for improving police work in order to reduce the number of inconveniences or "injustices" to gun owners instead of pushing for improving police work to reduce the number of avoidable arrests,etc...., it is difficult not to conclude you care more about the relatively minimal effect on gun owners over the effect on the potential victims of dangerous gun owners.

 

[DBT]

Do I think the police did a poor job in this case? Yes.

Is that a reason to change red flag laws? No.

Modifications to reduce or eliminate this kind of piss poor police work is a good thing. Which does not mean doing away with red flag laws, just making them better and fairer for everyone, stopping false reports before things go too far, thereby freeing up the police and courts to do the work they are meant to do and not running around like headless chooks because a 'waitress heard something' or a child made a silly remark in school, or someone wants revenge.....this is not unreasonable to expect from the police or the judges.

When your push for improving police work in order to reduce the number of inconveniences or "injustices" to gun owners instead of pushing for improving police work to reduce the number of avoidable arrests,etc...., it is difficult not to conclude you care more about the relatively minimal effect on gun owners over the effect on the potential victims of dangerous gun owners.

I care about justice and good police work. Good police work should be about solving crimes, not punishing people for something they are not guilty of. Sloppy work is not good for anyone. It gives the police and judicial system a bad reputation.

Again, it should not be difficult to determine risk before charging into action.

The police may be tied up in a situation where there is little or no risk while overlooking a case that they should have attended to. Get the priorities right.

What a waitress overheard should be checked before going off half cocked and making a mess that the innocent gun owner has to sort out.