Police act swiftly after (LEGAL) gun purchases

[fightingquaker13]

TOMBOGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!

What the hell have you been smoking!



TOM! get yer head out of yer butt or I'll start calling ya FQ/TAB Jr!

Screw that! I agree with you! Since when did we start arresting people on suspscion? Oh, wait we did that in the 1790s, the Civil War, WWI, both Red Scares, and now with the "Patriot Act" (not withstanding the fact a real patriot would shoot you twice in face for half of what's in there).
FQ13 who will remind you again that he is a Libertarian

[Pathfinder]

Yes...lots of maybies....

But this question applies to a much broader scope than this individual case.

The questing I posed is   At what point is law enforcement justified in taking action.

The question also applies if he had purchased a base ball bat and was heading to the front door with it in hand.

In this case, I see where a protection order would have value since the police are watching the guy.  If he sets foot on the property a law is broken and they can take action.

I have not read the whole thread, but I had to respond to this. Justified? ? ? ?

The police are not obligated  - legally or morally - ever to intervene in any criminal action before or during, or even after (although it's usually safer for them if the BG has left the scene of the crime). This is an established fact, based on court rulings going all the way to the SCOTUS. Remember the cops standing around while the anarchists basically trashed downtown Seattle. No obligation to intervene.

So are they "justified"? I think they have some serious 'splaining to do in light of the case law.

[PegLeg45]

Not that I don't see the merit in your argument, I just think that it's a very slippery slope. Because where do you draw the line?

A very slippery slope indeed......and the very reason I could never be a LEO.

Think about it for a minute.....as a cop, do you choose to violate a person's rights, and break the very laws you swore an oath to uphold, to potentially save a life or lives because you think someone might break the law?
Or, do you wait and mop up after the fact?

Hope I never have to flip that coin.


My personal opinion?
I (and you) have the right to my freedom until I do something to warrant that it be taken away. Until then leave me be. If you suspect me of wrong-doing, investigate for proof. Then act.

I hate the unnecessary loss of life, but like others have said, it's a dangerous world...you pays your money and you takes your chances.

[Fatman]

I am my own "preventive measure" and so are many of you. We carry in case someone does snap, rob or attack us.  And that's the way it should be.

In a free society, we should be frowning heavily on government doing things "preemptively".  It's far too easy to for someone to make false accusations that could end up with you being denied your freedom, let alone your possessions. 

If they thought this guy might be a threat, they simply could have put him under surveillance - serves the purpose of preserving his rights while determining if the info they received was credible or just vindictive.  If he made threats, he should have been arrested and charged. Seems simple enough, even w/o all the information, all bases are covered.

Am I missing something? 

[twyacht]

Just re-read the whole thread. First off, CR is never allowed to use: "obstreporousness" in a post again....

Second, unless there is probable cause, that we are yet not privy to, other than here say,  getting a warrant, signed by a judge, is the system we have.

Perfect? Certainly not, but what laws did this man break? Maybe he was planning to change careers and become the next IDPA champion, maybe he has long wanted to get into shooting, SD, and competitive sports.

Point being, if he bought golf clubs, (which can be lethal also), no red flag would have been raised.... What triggered it? Another employee that was "concerned"? Granted, but the investigation coincidentally included recent gun purchases? I'll ask again, what law was broken. (and what did he do to get labeled so "disgruntled")

Too many things unknown.....and By The Grace Of God, and our Founding Fathers, we are innocent until proven guilty.

In other countries, maybe they just would have tortured him, and made him "disappear"...raped his wife, and orphaned his children.

Like Haz posted, it beats the alternative.

[Sponsor]

[Hazcat]

Just re-read the whole thread. First off, CR is never allowed to use: "obstreporousness" in a post again....

Second, unless there is probable cause, that we are yet not privy to, other than here say,  getting a warrant, signed by a judge, is the system we have.

Perfect? Certainly not, but what laws did this man break? Maybe he was planning to change careers and become the next IDPA champion, maybe he has long wanted to get into shooting, SD, and competitive sports.

Point being, if he bought golf clubs, (which can be lethal also), no red flag would have been raised.... What triggered it? Another employee that was "concerned"? Granted, but the investigation coincidentally included recent gun purchases? I'll ask again, what law was broken. (and what did he do to get labeled so "disgruntled")

Too many things unknown.....and By The Grace Of God, and our Founding Fathers, we are innocent until proven guilty.

In other countries, maybe they just would have tortured him, and made him "disappear"...raped his wife, and orphaned his children.

Like Haz posted, it beats the alternative.

I SOOOO agree.  I for one, find vociferous to be much more concise not to mention it is spelled obstreperousness.

 

[Solus]

Ok...the "Dream" solution to this situation.

The company makes an announcement.  


We have reason to believe a disgruntled ex-employee is armed and may intend violence at our location.

Until further notice, in addition to your side arms, please bring a long gun to assist in our defense if needed.  The Designated Marksman for the shift in each department should bring a rifle.  All others may choose between a rifle or shotgun.

The area surrounding the parking lot will be scanned, but you may want to be sure to leave in groups to provide cover fire if necessary.

The company pistol range will be open during all shifts.  Two extra 30 minute breaks per shift will be provided so we may hone our shooting skills.    9mm, .40 S&W and .45ACP ammo will be provided.  Please bring your range bag with hearing/eye protection and cleaning equipment.

We thank you for your assistance in this possible crisis.  

[Hazcat]

Yeah, that's a dream!  (nice one though )

[crusader rabbit]

Haz said:"I SOOOO agree.  I for one, find vociferous to be much more concise not to mention it is spelled obstreperousness."

Another fine argument for a spel chequer on this syght.
 

Crusader

[CJS3]

I haven't actually stated whether I approve or disapprove of what they did, they were presented with the above question , and they chose to err on the side of caution.

Actually, they chose to give him and his lawyer a big payday.