State Police arrest Moreau man for illegally possessing a rifle
- Thread starter GOYABEAN
- Start date
"Further investigation located an illegally possessed noncompliant rifle and a high-capacity magazine within the home. The firearms, along with additional legally owned firearms, were seized as a result of a court order. "
The number of infringements in these statements alone should result in jail time for both law enforcement and politicians!
The number of infringements in these statements alone should result in jail time for both law enforcement and politicians!
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
DV incidents are a LEO nightmare.
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
A DV incident where the perp threatened the wife and responding officers with any firearm should be cause for seizure. Especially since dude will be handed an appearance ticket at his arraignment and be right back home to finish the job.
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
Unpossible!
Cuomo said so!
Cuomo said so!
repete
.338 Win Mag
What kind of special wing nut do you have to be to get into it with your ole lady that not only are the cops called but then threaten to shoot them, all the while knowing your guns are "illegal"? What a dumb ass! Geuss he never heard about only break one law at a time.
spat
.950 JDJ
Nope, if he's dangerous you keep him locked up.
If he's not dangerous you don't take his guns.
Taking his guns and letting him go is just stupid. If he's dangerous he can get another weapon in an hour. If he's not there's no point in taking the guns.
For those who will say "if he's dangerous you have to do something", no, no you don't. Doing "something" without making it something effective is called "panic". Panic is never a good plan.
ManualF150
.308 Win
I remember a few months ago, not sure if it was in NY or not, but the police came and took the guns, because of the same issue. Well, they let the perp off with an appearance ticket, and went back and slaughtered not only the wife, but two kids with a knife.
Guns or no guns, perps will slain others if they are destined to do it.
Guns or no guns, perps will slain others if they are destined to do it.
repete
.338 Win Mag
Damn, do I give you a thumbs up for the point you made or a sad face because of the facts of the case? Either way I can look like a dick!
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
In a perfect world, yes. But this is not the reality of our society.
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
Close to midnight, my guess he was probably into the fire water pretty heavily.
spat
.950 JDJ
No, my statement *was* the real world. The choices are "lock them up" or "accept the danger". In the real world that's all you've got.
The fact that our justice system won't do what needs to be done just means it fails. All the red flag bullshit simply will not work for it's stated purpose.
The head in the clouds idealists are the ones thinking the red flag laws will do anything to keep anyone safer.
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
I'm certainly in agreement with you on how this SHOULD be the method. Unfortunately it's not what happens in the real world. Wife and child beaters are the lowest, most vile scum on the face of the earth.
This particular case i wouldn't put into the "red flag" category. In this incident the man actively committed a crime using a firearm. In that case I would expect them all to be taken initially. Im all for bringing back Project Exile, which jails people for 5 years for crimes with a gun. But we all know that was racist.
A red flag incident is more along the lines of a thought crime. Someone thinks you might be dangerous, and bam! Guns taken without proper cause. I am absolutely against that. Ever. Thats not what happened here.
spat
.950 JDJ
In my reckoning you either incarcerate someone, or you let them have their guns.
Nothing in between makes any sense at all.
So, even if you arrest the guy for murder, you don't seize the guns unless they are evidence for that crime.
For the same reason you don't seize his fishing tackle or his TV.
If he's going to be in prison for the next 10 years, then he needs to arrange for storage or disposal of it himself. Just like everything else in his house or apartment.
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
Right, I get it. There's the absolutionist theory that you're either in prison OR you're an upstanding citizen with all rights restored. I don't necessarily believe that simply serving your judge decreed term makes you trustworthy the day you walk out of prison. I'm more of the "prove it, earn you way back in to society" crowd. It's an incremental thing. Both up and down. Commit more crimes, get a harsher sentence. Be a good citizen, get your standing restored.
spat
.950 JDJ
That's a reasonable approach for some things. It's not a trust issue as much as it is a part of the punishment.
But when it comes to weapons possession, letting them out *is* trusting them. Making them pinky swear to not touch any guns is just silly.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
N.J. gun association calls Berlin woman's death an 'absolute outrage'
When Carol Bowne was fatally stabbed by an ex-boyfriend late Wednesday night just outside her Berlin home, she had been waiting since mid April. Although she had filed a restraining order against suspect Michael Eitel, 45, the man attacked her shortly after 10 p.m. upon Bowne's arrival at her...
www.nj.com
they should ban knifes .. ban coooking food ..
@spat @dwa12479
Alternate similar scenario that brings questions to both scenarios.
@dwa12479 - all things the same BUT the allegations against him are false. Now we are denying his rights without due process.
@spat - in this, he is guilty but posts bail and then has access to his firearms. Does access to capital give him the ability to finish the DV violently?
Points intentionally given to both sides for fairness.
Alternate similar scenario that brings questions to both scenarios.
@dwa12479 - all things the same BUT the allegations against him are false. Now we are denying his rights without due process.
@spat - in this, he is guilty but posts bail and then has access to his firearms. Does access to capital give him the ability to finish the DV violently?
Points intentionally given to both sides for fairness.
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
Keeping someone locked up for a crime they didn't commit is also denying them their rights. Many many people have served jail time or worse for a crime they didn't commit. Its an imperfect system.
So then where is the line drawn?
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
Thats exactly the question that is nearly impossible to answer. There is no clear line.
Oft the argument is made that "guns make murder/suicide easier" well, a Bench Grinder makes it easier to put a sharp enough edge on a shovel to part a head from a body. What is always ignored and cannot be quantified is the determination of the person intent on committing the act.
And exactly the reason why government intervention in many scenarios fails IE- pistol permits, drivers licenses ect. Examples permeate news feeds daily of them all. And simply the argument that "if it saves one life " isn't justification for intervention as no intervention by any government can stop someone from thuer own determination to do whatever they choose, legal or otherwise.
Edit- in many ways intervention creates marketplaces for the illicit activity to thrive due to its profitability.
spat
.950 JDJ
The only options are
Deny him bail and give him a speedy trial.
Grant bail and accept the risk of him being dangerous.
There is no practical difference between taking the guns then granting bail and issuing a restraining order then granting bail. In both cases the bail is the only part that matters and the other action is useless.
Also, bail should be set based on the need to get him to show up for trial, and that alone.
And if your justice system is incapable of granting him a speedy trial (say within a couple weeks) then it is not fit for purpose and should be completely rebuilt from the ground up, likely with far far fewer criminal statutes.
spat
.950 JDJ
When government agents can be held responsible for malfeasance or malpractice.
They should not be able to exempt themselves from liability, nor to be the party responsible for investigating and prosecuting themselves.
And groups that work closely together ( like the police and local prosecutors amd judges) should not be responsible for investigating each other.
The whole system is unethical.
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
Punishments should be incremental.
Repeat offenses should bring harsher penalties. People are going to do bad things, I don't think that means we say screw it and not have barriers in place.
Restraining Orders are just a piece of paper. They do get violated. Should we eliminate them? Or can it be a step in the process to putting dangerous people away. Violate the Order, ok, now we have a better reason to lock you away without bail. You've shown a pattern of repeat offense.
The border wall is another example. Its not going to stop 100% of illegal traffic, should we just not build it then?
Drivers license. Issued and good til revoked. Get yourself a DWI, license is pulled. Do people drive without them? Yep. Get caught, harsher penalty for repeat offense. I also know plenty of people that lost their license for one reason or another and it gave them a reason to modify their bad behavior to get it back.
Bad behavior in the eyes of who? Insurance lapses meaning Insurance companies? Failure to register a vehicle, so bad behavior in the eyes of NYS? Just playing devils advocate..
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
Bad behavior as in whatever got you into trouble in the first place. Lose your drivers license due to too many speeding tickets, so need to modify your behavior to get it back and keep it.
Go to jail for armed robbery, be good in prison, serve your time, and then stop committing crimes when you get out and you can keep your freedom.
To modify or clarify my position meaning who defines what "bad behavior ", meaning does an insurance company have the right to invoke thier rules dealing with mandatory insurance in the state causing loss of your license? Basically, who decides? In the above sentence, why does and insurance industry get the ability to force insurance by way of insurance cancelation to have your license suspended or revoked?