Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 71

Thread: 7th Circuit upholds warrantless entry, seizure of gun rights activist

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158

    7th Circuit upholds warrantless entry, seizure of gun rights activist

    "Milwaukee police who forced their way into a gun rights advocate's home without a warrant, took her for an emergency mental evaluation and seized her gun were justified under the circumstances and protected from her civil rights claims, a federal appeals court has ruled.

    Krysta Sutterfield, who twice made news because of her practice of openly carrying a handgun — at a Brookfield church and outside a Sherman Park coffee shop — drew police attention in 2011 after her psychiatrist reported a suicidal remark Sutterfield made during a difficult appointment.

    Sutterfield, 45, claimed police violated her rights against unreasonable search and seizure and Second Amendment rights to keep a gun, but a district judge dismissed the case.

    The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 75-page opinion analyzing existing law about when police may act without search warrants, upheld the decision but suggested there might be better ways to balance personal privacy rights in the context of emergency mental health evaluations.
    [ ... ]
    "To be clear then, what Sutterfield is arguing for is the creation of a particular type of warrant that does not currently exist."

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwauk...259087731.html

    The 75 page decision
    http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bi...:N:1342808:S:0 1.1 MB

    Other article internal link URL's
    http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/98865554.html
    http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/j...163622786.html
    http://judgepedia.org/Ilana_Rovner
    http://judgepedia.org/Daniel_Manion
    http://judgepedia.org/Joseph_Stadtmueller
    Last edited by Nightmare; 05-14-2014 at 07:20 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Is/was there a recording of the remark? Or just the shrink's allegation.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Is/was there a recording of the remark? Or just the shrink's allegation.
    I do not believe that it was denied. You too can read the decision. The courts have strong rules against hearsay, he-said-she-said, for just this reason.

    See page 2 of the decision;
    Dr. Michelle Bentle, a psychiatrist at Columbia/St. Mary’s Hospital in Milwaukee, placed a 911 call to report that Sutterfield had just left an outpatient appointment in her office after expressing suicidal thoughts. [... ] Sutterfield disputes the accuracy of the report, but accepts that this is
    what the defendant officers were told.
    And, just at this moment, my G00gle-alert bing'ed with this article.

    Wisc. Stats. Chapter 51 STATE ALCOHOL, DRUG ABUSE, DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
    AND MENTAL HEALTH ACT
    https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/doc...s/ch.%2051.pdf

    is interesting for my not having looked at it previously.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 05-14-2014 at 08:26 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Seems as if the carry rights are not considered important with the court..pg 56 ..paragraph attached

    Court said that stealing the gun was not proper.

    And decision talks about the exceptions to needing a warrant.

    This was a case where the person's doctor called in a suicidal concern, the cops discovered the person in the home 9 hrs later, snatched her, searched the house, and took a gun that they found in a locked case and her carry permit.

    CT has a similar law that was used in the WS case. One guy recently had his guns taken away because he entered a AA program. My FOIA requests regarding this incident have not been responded to in accordance with our FOIA laws. This case is even worse because the guy did not get found to be anything other than a guy who wants to remain sober. I guess in my state, being sober is enough to kick in these laws. http://www.infowars.com/recovering-a...cticut-police/

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    popple butte
    Posts
    349
    Excellent thread and correct decision by the 7th. My opinion.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Franky View Post
    Excellent thread and correct decision by the 7th. My opinion.
    I disagree. As the court noted, killing oneself is not a crime. So the person indicated that they may do a legal act.

    Oh, come and get me because I am going to do a legal act.

    Perhaps you tell your neighbor that you are going to try to roof your house, that you never have done that before, and you may end up killing yourself in the process. Now can they come and haul you away, steal you guns, etc?
    Why not? What's the difference? Both are legal acts, both may end up in you being dead. How many people kill themselves doing repairs to their house~most had not idea what they were doing and thought at the outset "this may end up in me being dead" but went ahead anyway.

    Now if this lady would have shot a person, would she get off on some mental defect? No.

    People who want to kill themselves, and most who do are not crazy, should be able to...why not? We allow abortions...I'm sure that most of those people would have liked to have been born.

    This law is not about carekeeping ~ its about stealing guns. And the court agreed on this point but yet also decided that the cop was operating in good faith. Who cares? He stole her gun. Plain and simple.

    And the court's example of the cop who witnessed a crime of battery occurring at the threshold of the doorway of a house was not a caretaker example at all; they witnessed a crime that allowed them to enter the house. Had nothing to do with caretaking.

    I could see a person who talked to his doctor and his doctor, mind reading powers gained at the local five and dime, comes to the idea that the person may be thinking about suicide and calls the cops. The person inside their home, listening to Krokus on their headphones notices an armed intruder and shoots. Zero chance I would convict the person of any crime. The cops never should have even been there..they had no warrant, they did not suspect a crime may occur. Why are they there? Simply to steal guns.

    The twisted logic of the court exemplifies the wrongness of the decision. When it takes 75 pages to explain yourself you know its a bad decision.

    See the door? Unless a crime is committed the state cannot enter. Under penalty of death. Easy enough to understand. Easy enough to make decisions based on that.

    There are no tooth fairies ~ anyone intruder in your house is presumed to be there for not so nice reasons.

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    I do not believe that it was denied. You too can read the decision. The courts have strong rules against hearsay, he-said-she-said, for just this reason.

    <snip>
    Sutterfield disputes the accuracy of the report, but accepts that this is what the defendant officers were told.
    I'll put it this way. The cops went on the word of one shrink, simply because he is a shrink.

    The victim was hunted down, robbed, and assaulted by those cops based only on one persons allegation. There was no due process for the victim. The courts gave the cops a pass for acting only on the word of one person who had zero hard evidence to support his allegation.

    What is she supposed to say, the cops were told something other than what they claim they were told?

    Sounds familiar does it not? A single person being believed by the court system over a mere citizen.

    This decision is a terrible blow to liberty and the protection of a citizen's rights to life, liberty, and property.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I'll put it this way. The cops went on the word of one shrink, simply because he is a shrink.

    The victim was hunted down, robbed, and assaulted by those cops based only on one persons allegation. There was no due process for the victim. The courts gave the cops a pass for acting only on the word of one person who had zero hard evidence to support his allegation.

    What is she supposed to say, the cops were told something other than what they claim they were told?

    Sounds familiar does it not? A single person being believed by the court system over a mere citizen.

    This decision is a terrible blow to liberty and the protection of a citizen's rights to life, liberty, and property.
    I think that the doctor was more worried about his insurance premiums than his patient. As I said, he used his mind reading powers gained at the local five and dime.

    And any process to return a gun should take the maximum amount of time needed to steal it. They stole her gun within 9 hrs ~ how long did it take her to get it back? More than that I'm sure.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Whether or not one agrees with the decision of the Court, the decision is instructive.

    When the law is not clear, or worse is ambiguent, often the best thing a Court can do is set out giudelines for how to proceed towards clarity or to resolve the ambiguity(ies). This, I believe, the Court has done.

    It is not quite so clear as in some other cases, where the Courts actually give step-by-step instructions on how things should have proceeded to remain within Constitutional bounds or how the argument(s) should have been framed to bring the Court to the decision the plaintiff was seeking.

    Sadly, often someone has to fail so that those following can become aware of the mistakes made, avoid them, and ultimately succeed.

    Even more sadly is the illustration of why gun-owners need to be aware of the nuances of case law while the police can usually pass not under but through that bar because of qualified immunity. Gun-owner plaintiffs, whether they are pro se or have big-name defense teams, need to cover all the bases while the police can just say "Well, I thought I was doing right and nobody ever said I specifically could not do that." It's only after someone (a court) says they specifically cannot do "that" that qualified immunity goes down the drain - and then only if you can prove they were/should have been instructed on that at the time they acted.

    Again, since the anti-rights crowd seems to be giving up on direct challenges to the Second Amendment and sneaking an end-around via the MH route, this decision is important for the instruction it gives on framing the questions.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  10. #10
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,884
    I believe Ms Sutterfield should file suit against her Dr. for APA ethic & possibly state regulatory violation(s).

    if her Dr. felt that strongly about Ms Sutterfield's suicide ideation to do self harm, that they called 911, ethically/regulatory wise , the Dr should not have let her depart from the Dr's care until relieved by competent medical authority. Further, no where can i discern if Ms Sutterfield was appropately evaluated by her Dr. regarding the viability of her statement(s) to do self harm?

    Does anybody know if Ms Sutterfield was actually placed on a three day psy hold by her Dr. or what specifically precipitated her loss of her firearm?

    mental health professionals have a duty to inform which stems from an incident in CA many years back.

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 05-14-2014 at 02:13 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    I believe Ms Sutterfield should file suit against her Dr. for APA ethic & possibly state regulatory violation(s).

    if her Dr. felt that strongly about Ms Sutterfield's suicide ideation to do self harm, that they called 911, ethically/regulatory wise , the Dr should not have let her depart from the Dr's care until relieved by competent medical authority.

    Most of you have made extremely ignorant remarks, out of emotions I'd guess, and are clueless as to how the system works under Chapter 51 of WI statutes, but this one takes the cake. solus, you carp about the shrink doing what they are required to do when a patient makes a statement that they may harm themselves, then you say the shrink should hold the patient against their will when, by your post, there is no legal authority for them to do so.

    Can you at least agree that it's pretty stupid to leave a psychiatrist with your departing words that you may harm yourself and not expect them to do something about it?
    Last edited by pkbites; 05-14-2014 at 03:34 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    The cops acted only on the word of that shrink. The implications are profound and apparently difficult for some to see.

    Bad decision.....very bad.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158
    The issue that they have by my understanding is that the MD psychiatrist has more credibility than the patient.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    I believe Ms Sutterfield should file suit against her Dr. for APA ethic & possibly state regulatory violation(s).

    if her Dr. felt that strongly about Ms Sutterfield's suicide ideation to do self harm, that they called 911, ethically/regulatory wise , the Dr should not have let her depart from the Dr's care until relieved by competent medical authority. Further, no where can i discern if Ms Sutterfield was appropately evaluated by her Dr. regarding the viability of her statement(s) to do self harm?

    Does anybody know if Ms Sutterfield was actually placed on a three day psy hold by her Dr. or what specifically precipitated her loss of her firearm?

    mental health professionals have a duty to inform which stems from an incident in CA many years back.

    ipse
    If you placed on a 3 day hold or 1 day hold or any day "hold" its so...... psych doctors can talk to you. You can safely assume this wasn't the first visit to this doctor. So I'm.pretty sure she's had many "days" of evaluation by this doctor who decided the last incident or statements met her duty to inform.

    As you said its a duty to INFORM. Not hold. Unless you can cite some state requirement that says they have a duty to physically restraint a patient in their office until the police get there.... she made the right call.

    She was clearly qualifies enough to determine this lady is bat s***** crazy. So she passed the word to someone to get her away from the ability to cause harm to others.

    Imagine if this happened to Adam lanza? Or countless other mentally unstable people who have harmed others?

    I'll gladly accept this woman getting her gun taken temporarily then her go shoot innocent and then more laws are passed so all of our guns get taken.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  15. #15
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    If you placed on a 3 day hold or 1 day hold or any day "hold" its so...... psych doctors can talk to you. You can safely assume this wasn't the first visit to this doctor. So I'm.pretty sure she's had many "days" of evaluation by this doctor who decided the last incident or statements met her duty to inform.

    As you said its a duty to INFORM. Not hold. Unless you can cite some state requirement that says they have a duty to physically restraint a patient in their office until the police get there.... she made the right call.

    She was clearly qualifies enough to determine this lady is bat s***** crazy. So she passed the word to someone to get her away from the ability to cause harm to others.

    Imagine if this happened to Adam lanza? Or countless other mentally unstable people who have harmed others?

    I'll gladly accept this woman getting her gun taken temporarily then her go shoot innocent and then more laws are passed so all of our guns get taken.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "She" happens to be a poster here at OCDO. Just keep that in mind next time you compare her to adam Lanza...
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    If you placed on a 3 day hold or 1 day hold or any day "hold" its so...... psych doctors can talk to you. You can safely assume this wasn't the first visit to this doctor. So I'm.pretty sure she's had many "days" of evaluation by this doctor who decided the last incident or statements met her duty to inform.

    <snip>
    Another post that attempts to appeal to emotion. She disputes the claim made by that shrink. But, that mattered not to the cops. One citizen make an allegation regarding another citizen. No proof as to the veracity of the allegation. Just go and get the citizen.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    "She" happens to be a poster here at OCDO. Just keep that in mind next time you compare her to adam Lanza...
    In CT we have a similar law and Adam Lanza was a patient of at least one doctor. People are using this as an excuse to take away guns of people in the same household. Then, they'll expand it to everyone the person has contact with, then with everyone in the world (except gov't people like DMV employees and the like).

    And why limit it to doctors? Why not require anyone who thinks a person is a harm to themselves or others be required to report? So anytime you raise your voice - into the clink you go and your guns are stolen from you?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158

    Remember, Anti-gun push gathers momentum. Hag Clinton @ National Council for Behavior

    Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday the nation’s gun culture has gotten “way out of balance” and the U.S. needs to rein in the notion that “anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime.”

    Hillary Clinton appeared at the National Council for Behavioral Health Conference in Maryland. While most of Clinton’s speeches up to this point have largely focused on women’s rights and foreign policy, she spoke about a number of domestic policy issues. Clinton spoke about the media’s role in the unpopularity of the Affordable Care Act, but again she expressed her openness to future changes. She also spoke at length about gun control. She stressed that she fully supports gun ownership, but that the current system makes it too easy for guns to get into the hands of those who misuse them. She said, “We have to rein in what has become [an] almost article of faith, that anybody can own a gun anywhere, anytime. And I don’t believe that.”http://hillaryspeeches.com/2014/05/0...th-conference/
    Thank goodness we Americans enjoy the rule of law. Only the law abiding abide the law, not like her sodomite spouse.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...y-out-balance/

    https://news.google.com/news/rtc?ncl...4SfEKiUBee55YM
    Last edited by Nightmare; 05-14-2014 at 05:29 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  19. #19
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    If you placed on a 3 day hold or 1 day hold or any day "hold" its so...... psych doctors can talk to you. You can safely assume this wasn't the first visit to this doctor. So I'm.pretty sure she's had many "days" of evaluation by this doctor who decided the last incident or statements met her duty to inform.

    As you said its a duty to INFORM. Not hold. Unless you can cite some state requirement that says they have a duty to physically restraint a patient in their office until the police get there.... she made the right call.

    She was clearly qualifies enough to determine this lady is bat s***** crazy. So she passed the word to someone to get her away from the ability to cause harm to others.

    Imagine if this happened to Adam lanza? Or countless other mentally unstable people who have harmed others?

    I'll gladly accept this woman getting her gun taken temporarily then her go shoot innocent and then more laws are passed so all of our guns get taken.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    you are a FUDD

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The cops acted only on the word of that shrink. The implications are profound and apparently difficult for some to see.

    Bad decision.....very bad.
    OFM, this is more on your previous post. it wasn't the fact that they took the shrinks word, it was the fact that they wanted to take her guns. if he had said she was fine they would not have taken his word for it, and just found another way
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Another post that attempts to appeal to emotion. She disputes the claim made by that shrink. But, that mattered not to the cops. One citizen make an allegation regarding another citizen. No proof as to the veracity of the allegation. Just go and get the citizen.
    Ummm if a DOCTOR specializing in psychiatric treatment says you have issues... might be a good idea to take their advice and word at face value and act upon it. If you can't, then who's word can you take?

    What more proof do you need? 2 psych doctors? 3 ? 48?

    I'll even give you maybe more "evaluations" but in the mean time.... no guns.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  21. #21
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by papa bear View Post
    you are a FUDD



    OFM, this is more on your previous post. it wasn't the fact that they took the shrinks word, it was the fact that they wanted to take her guns. if he had said she was fine they would not have taken his word for it, and just found another way
    Fudd? Care to elaborate? Or is it past your mental and physical capabilities?

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    [QUOTE=Nightmare;2060202]"Milwaukee police who forced their way into a gun rights advocate's home without a warrant, took her for an emergency mental evaluation and seized her gun were justified under the circumstances and protected from her civil rights claims, a federal appeals court has ruled.

    WHERE in the CONSTITUTION is there any clause for WARRANTLESS searches, WHERE? Just because the 7th circuit pontificated, doesn't make it right. OBTAIN A WARRANT FIRST! Might doesn't mean right.
    This needs to go to SCOTUS or some other higher appeals court. Krysta needs to be vindicated.

    I should ask my wife's cousin for his opinion. He sits on the Federal 12 District in St Paul. He told me a while back that " I believe I am a constitutional judge."

    "To be clear then, what Sutterfield is arguing for is the creation of a particular type of warrant that does not currently exist."

    Oh give me a break! The legal system isn't stupid. Specific warrants and not general warrants. Didn't we rebel against general warrants? They can come up with specific warrants on probable cause. Current paranoia caused by mass shootings by mentally unstable persons could have contributed to this, but on a hearsay?
    Last edited by Law abider; 05-14-2014 at 06:32 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I disagree. As the court noted, killing oneself is not a crime. So the person indicated that they may do a legal act.

    Oh, come and get me because I am going to do a legal act.

    Perhaps you tell your neighbor that you are going to try to roof your house, that you never have done that before, and you may end up killing yourself in the process. Now can they come and haul you away, steal you guns, etc?
    Why not? What's the difference? Both are legal acts, both may end up in you being dead. How many people kill themselves doing repairs to their house~most had not idea what they were doing and thought at the outset "this may end up in me being dead" but went ahead anyway.

    Now if this lady would have shot a person, would she get off on some mental defect? No.

    People who want to kill themselves, and most who do are not crazy, should be able to...why not? We allow abortions...I'm sure that most of those people would have liked to have been born.

    This law is not about carekeeping ~ its about stealing guns. And the court agreed on this point but yet also decided that the cop was operating in good faith. Who cares? He stole her gun. Plain and simple.

    And the court's example of the cop who witnessed a crime of battery occurring at the threshold of the doorway of a house was not a caretaker example at all; they witnessed a crime that allowed them to enter the house. Had nothing to do with caretaking.

    I could see a person who talked to his doctor and his doctor, mind reading powers gained at the local five and dime, comes to the idea that the person may be thinking about suicide and calls the cops. The person inside their home, listening to Krokus on their headphones notices an armed intruder and shoots. Zero chance I would convict the person of any crime. The cops never should have even been there..they had no warrant, they did not suspect a crime may occur. Why are they there? Simply to steal guns.

    The twisted logic of the court exemplifies the wrongness of the decision. When it takes 75 pages to explain yourself you know its a bad decision.

    See the door? Unless a crime is committed the state cannot enter. Under penalty of death. Easy enough to understand. Easy enough to make decisions based on that.

    There are no tooth fairies ~ anyone intruder in your house is presumed to be there for not so nice reasons.
    Don't waste too much breath on the troll Doug from Appleton.

  24. #24
    Regular Member F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The High Plains of Wyoming
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Ummm if a DOCTOR specializing in psychiatric treatment says you have issues... might be a good idea to take their advice and word at face value and act upon it. If you can't, then who's word can you take?

    What more proof do you need? 2 psych doctors? 3 ? 48?

    I'll even give you maybe more "evaluations" but in the mean time.... no guns.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Which is exactly why many returning vets refuse to seek help for PTSD. I have a nephew who did 2 tours as a combat engineer doing route clearance (bomb disposal) who has said he will never go to the VA or any shrink for fear of loosing his 2nd amendment rights.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by F350 View Post
    Which is exactly why many returning vets refuse to seek help for PTSD. I have a nephew who did 2 tours as a combat engineer doing route clearance (bomb disposal) who has said he will never go to the VA or any shrink for fear of loosing his 2nd amendment rights.
    I understand sir. Your preaching to the choir. I'd never go to the VA for help if I needed it either for the reasons he gave. It is a crappy situation.


    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •