• Winner! Quick Shot Challenge: What’s the dumbest shooting myth you’ve heard?

    View thread

Red Flags laws aka Thought Police

deersniper

Protecting the Sheep
Banned !
Minuteman
  • Feb 22, 2007
    13,705
    19,966
    Northeast
    1984 coming to your state soon.
    Look at your friendly respected police officer using new tools available to them to make up crap and be the first one to use the BS law

    FIRST USE OF FLORIDA'S NEW RED FLAG LAW CREATES THE NIGHTMARE MANY HAVE WARNED US ABOUT!

    http://thefreethoughtproject.com/kid...hool-shooting/

    A smack-talking University of Central Florida student's life has been ruined after police phony up a petition to put the student into a mental ward for evaluation and confiscate a pistol locked in the safe of the student's father--all in the midst of a heavy handed and, apparently, unlawful targeting of the family.

    It was the first use of the Risk Protection Order (RPO) signed into law by Florida Governor Rick Scott, and came after the law had been in effect for only 7 days .

    In a story published just today (Saturday) by The Free Thought Project (along with parallel reporting in the Orlando Sentinel), 21-year old UCF student Chris Velazquez was effectively kidnapped by police and put into a locked psych ward for a weekend based on alleged false declarations by Orlando authorities, who appeared in a rush to proclaim they had intervened to stop what they said was a mass shooter prepping to attack.

    All this, based on anonymous posts to the REDDIT online chat site where Velazquez is said to have commented on mass shooters in a fashion that his family describes as in keeping with many of the snarky and edgy Black Humor posts that are a signature feature of the REDDIT site.

    For posting three comments online, Velasquez had his freedom temporarily taken away, was forced to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, and was later told not to return to UCF, an action known as being “trespassed.” He is still a student at the university but now is the focus of a campus-based investigation to determine whether he will be allowed back on campus. UCF is determining if Velasquez broke the university’s code of conduct—simply for exercising his rights to free speech in a public forum, and using a fake name.

    The Orlando Sentinel obtained the original petition for an RPO against Velasquez. Orlando Police Sgt. Matthew Ochiuzzo wrote in the petition, “Due to the respondent’s admissions of detailed homicidal ideation, your petitioner is gravely concerned that a real or perceived life event could unpredictably cause your respondent to obtain a firearm and commit a mass shooting.”

    The temporary RPO was granted but a subsequent review by the same judge who signed it found there was no probable cause to allow for a permanent RPO that would last for one year.

    The family has since hired a lawyer who claims UCF police coerced comments out of Velasquez. According to a report from the Orlando Sentinel, Kendra Parris, attorney for the Velasquez family, described Velasquez’ treatment by police as “shameful.”

    “Officer [Jeffrey] Panter took a handful of online comments—none of which was an actual threat—from a forum in which people are known to troll and act like ‘edgelords,’” she said. Parris also used the term “coercive” to describe how police arrived at the conclusion her client had “homicidal ideations.”

    Predictably, police praised their actions as having been able to further protect the community. UCF Police Department spokeswoman Courtney Gilmartin issued a statement in which she said, “We should all sleep easier at night knowing that a firearm was removed from his household and that he is barred from purchasing any others.” That statement is only partially true. Velasquez did not own a weapon and the only gun taken belonged to his father, leaving the rest of the Velasquez family entirely defenseless and unable to protect themselves against home intruders or criminals who may target them.

    “There is a long list of jurisprudence which constitutes a threat,” Parris told The Free Thought Project in an exclusive interview. After being forced to spend the weekend in a mental health facility, doctors also concluded Velasquez posed “no threat to anyone.” Parris said her client was engaged in “constitutionally protected free speech.”

    “There’s another thing that is absolutely bonkers about this, anybody can buy a gun in a private sale in this state. This law is not stopping anybody from purchasing a firearm. What it did do was trample on my client’s constitutional rights,” Parris said, noting that her client was simply a victim of the “thought police.”
     
    looks-like-youve-had-a-bit-too-much-to-think-support-your-local-thought-police-dont-speak-out-or-question-closed-minds-stop-thought-crimes.jpg
     
    Most here could be accused of the same.
    No shit. How many "from my cold dead hands" statements would equal "homocidal ideation" in this brave new world and get your guns and freedom stolen?

    Edit. The big problem with all this BS is we are sitting here complaining while the hoards of rats that we pay to reproduce are just living their useful idiot lifestyle not paying attention to anything. No wonder dope is getting legalized. Easy to rule over someone with fried brain cells. Not that I'm a fan of the WOD
     
    It is a real mine field we walk. Of course every state has people who own guns and should not, just like every bureaucracy would love to be able to be the arbiter of who those people are.

    Suppose you are a drivers license examiner in your state. Suppose each examiner needs to be giving 40 exams per week or a politician will lay one off to save money. Some people pass the first time and some need to take the test twice to get their license. If your county enters a demographic time where only 20 people per week per examiner are becoming the age where people get their license, likely even qualified drivers will not pass their first test, because you and your fellow examiners need to examine all students twice so that you can all keep your jobs.

    In my opinion if we create a bureaucracy to find people who should not have guns and disarm them, then the politicians will also set a standard where each person so employed should be disarming a certain quota. In addition to the people wrongfully singled out another draw back is that those correctly identified will reacquire guns on the black market.

    A better way might be to ask law enforcement to do their jobs properly in the first place. If this Florida shooter had been arrested, charged and convicted just half of the times that the police had been called to his home he would have already been ineligible to own firearms.
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: deersniper
    Well, I'm getting on; so it just might be a good time to make like the Old Soldier, and just fade away.

    Since people can now be railroaded for something that might just be the keyboard walking of an overly intelligent cat, and I have two overly intelligent cats, the hand cat writing is on the wall...

    Sigh...
     
    Funny . I don't see an interaction like this as lawful , Constitutional or reasonable in any way . I have a few buddies and a trainer who have all cleaned out entire fuckin bars by themselves . Back in the day my trainer was at a bar with his wife when the place blew up . Popo showed up and put him in cuffs for cleaning house . Shi heads decide that once he was in cuffs to go after his wife . To their own peril the Police tried to subdue my trainer who proceede to kick the piss out of four cops and said shit heads .
    Moral of the story . Some may not go quitely and some may provide a very pai8nful/rough ride . Tread on people at your own risk .
     
    This whole "thought police" issue reminds me of a discussion I once had with someone over having qualifications to vote. Essentially, it came down to who decides what the qualifications are to vote. When it is YOUR group making the decisions, all is well, but once it is the "other party" deciding who gets to vote, things aren't so great. It is the same with the thought police...who decides which statements are dangerous, and which are benign?