When would YOU say something?

[foszoe]

You fail to realize that the anti gun left and media are very quick to label anyone owing 5 handguns and a 1000 rounds of ammo as some one who is crazy or in the extremist category.

I don't fail to realize jack. You sure like to assume a lot of stuff about me though.

 

[foszoe]

My ex-neighbor had his soon to be ex-wife call the police and tell them he was looking at jihadi websites and was possibly suicidal. They rolled into his yard, got out one with an AR and another with a shotgun. When he came out to see what was up, they made him drop to his knees, cuffed him, and took him to a hospital for a psych eval. I had friends over. We watched it all go down from my patio. 5 hours later, I had to go get him at the hospital after he was cleared and take him home. They left him there with no transportation.

I guess you need to say the right key words.

Yeah my answer to my own question is "I don't know"

Thought maybe someone here had thought it out more.

I do know this. Based on the answers so far, I am beginning to answer the question I have asked about all these riots over the past year. "Why doesn't someone speak up or stop someone?" It's because it's none of their business.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Yeah my answer to my own question is "I don't know"

Thought maybe someone here had thought it out more.

I do know this. Based on the answers so far, I am beginning to answer the question I have asked about all these riots over the past year. "Why doesn't someone speak up or stop someone?" It's because it's none of their business.

Well... one is a presumption of the future based on words, the other is actual actions (crime) that has taken place.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I don't fail to realize jack. You sure like to assume a lot of stuff about me though.

Whoa. Why so hostile?



That F-15 still sitting in the yard isn’t it?

 

[foszoe]

Well... one is a presumption of the future based on words, the other is actual actions (crime) that has taken place.

True.

But let's say you told me in a believable tone....

Fos, I am going to huff and puff and blow your house down.

I wouldn't wait until you did it. I would take certain actions.

Let's say I get home and my wife says, this Hatin' guy came up to the door and said the next time he sees you go to work, he is gonna kill me.

Would I call the cops? Probably.

There has to be a line somewhere before a crime is committed where some people would say something. That is what I am wanting to explore.

 

[foszoe]

Whoa. Why so hostile?



That F-15 still sitting in the yard isn’t it?

Not hostile at all.

He has a habit of doing so.

 

[HoosierLife]

Man, I’m the most extreme person I know haha!

Or at least those I talk with on a regular basis.

People in my circles don’t say those type of things.

At a certain point, aren’t we judging people’s motives? I guess if the question is if they actually say something, but still, do we not have free speech?

Now it’s not like we’re pushing Unintended Consequences and even if I said that out loud and meant it, it doesn’t mean I’m going to act on it.

We’re getting into the realm of thought crime here.

The only reason it’s even a discussion is because the level of crazy has risen dramatically over the last few decades.

 

[DadSmith]

Yeah my answer to my own question is "I don't know"

Thought maybe someone here had thought it out more.

I do know this. Based on the answers so far, I am beginning to answer the question I have asked about all these riots over the past year. "Why doesn't someone speak up or stop someone?" It's because it's none of their business.

Most of us do not hang around with the rioters, looters, and mass shooters. So we do not know how to answer this question. Plus it's about pre-crime and I believe I'd have to go with what the founders would do. The difference between then and now is over 200 crimes gave you the death penalty and it was carried out rather fast unlike today's Justice system where murderers, rapist, and thieves walk freely on our streets.
That said back then they knew if they committed crime they would most likely be put to death and that was a huge deterrent.

 

[JEBland]

So called "red-flag" laws are unconstitutional, and personally, I don`t want to live in a police state, so no, I won`t turn someone in to the Gestapo because they may have made some out of line comment. You`re welcome.

I agree that red-flag laws as currently stated are unconstitutional. But reporting people who seem dangerous (like one's "troubled brother Ted") is how they caught the Unabomber: https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/unabomber

If we imagine a similar case, where someone had reported him before attacking others, the police investigated, then found a manifesto of someone who was actively planning to commit crimes (i.e. with hard evidence left behind), I don't see how this is a police state. Not years long seizure of property of someone who has been determined to be of no credible threat to others, again, that violates due process. I don't see how being investigated (with due process, not using big tech to circumvent that due process) is itself a violation of rights, and I don't see how actually planning a murder (not just thinking about it) isn't a crime.

 

[IndyBeerman]

I don't fail to realize jack. You sure like to assume a lot of stuff about me though.

Sorry I pushed your button, but there are millions upon millions who consider 5 handguns and 1000 rounds of ammo as "extreme", I was stating that as a fact.

 

[foszoe]

Sorry I pushed your button, but there are millions upon millions who consider 5 handguns and 1000 rounds of ammo as "extreme", I was stating that as a fact.

Yes. That is very true. Your gracious apology is accepted.

That was why I specifically mentioned that item as a line I wouldn't even consider. Heck most of us would be on that list.

I still think for all the bravado and none of my business though there are some lines out there that we just haven't thought about much.

 

[Tryin']

When I have reasonable, ARTICULATABLE suspicion that action beyond words is imminent or that the accused is involved in a conspiracy to commit same.

The biggest problem I have with mental health cases at work is family members say stuff like "He's acting really off" or "She's suicidal" but have little to no evidence or even a logical train of thought for why they think that. And their expectation is that the police will show up and cart them off to an already overwhelmed stress center so that the family can wash their hands of the matter. Then the cop is in a bad position if he does NOT find convincing evidence of intent, clears the scene, and three hours/days/months later the accused DOES do something. Little to no effort will be spared in the witch hunt for the one "professional" who had contact with the accused before the event, while no responsibility will be ascribed to the persons closest (and therefore in position to do the most good) to the accused.

 

[DadSmith]

Yes. That is very true. Your gracious apology is accepted.

That was why I specifically mentioned that item as a line I wouldn't even consider. Heck most of us would be on that list.

I still think for all the bravado and none of my business though there are some lines out there that we just haven't thought about much.

Do you personally know of anyone that fits the "I better report them right away" characteristic? Because I don't. How many here actually do?

 

[gregr]

My ex-neighbor had his soon to be ex-wife call the police and tell them he was looking at jihadi websites and was possibly suicidal. They rolled into his yard, got out one with an AR and another with a shotgun. When he came out to see what was up, they made him drop to his knees, cuffed him, and took him to a hospital for a psych eval. I had friends over. We watched it all go down from my patio. 5 hours later, I had to go get him at the hospital after he was cleared and take him home. They left him there with no transportation.

I guess you need to say the right key words.

You just described a liberal utopia. People weaponizing social, citizen "policing", and using another level of the cancel culture to quash freedom.

 

[gregr]

I agree that red-flag laws as currently stated are unconstitutional. But reporting people who seem dangerous (like one's "troubled brother Ted") is how they caught the Unabomber: https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/unabomber

If we imagine a similar case, where someone had reported him before attacking others, the police investigated, then found a manifesto of someone who was actively planning to commit crimes (i.e. with hard evidence left behind), I don't see how this is a police state. Not years long seizure of property of someone who has been determined to be of no credible threat to others, again, that violates due process. I don't see how being investigated (with due process, not using big tech to circumvent that due process) is itself a violation of rights, and I don't see how actually planning a murder (not just thinking about it) isn't a crime.

What you`re describing is a slippery slope, and unacceptable. Freedom comes with certain risks associated with it, or, you`re not really free. How often do you want the Gestapo in your home investigating you because you own firearms, and a neighbor saw the scowl on your face coming home from a tough day, and it "frightened" them? Liberals have created this scenario and all these monsters by destroying the traditional family and removing God entirely from the public square. Now, and with the help of certain folks who would try to appear to be conservative, they intend to use the monsters they`ve created, along with an hysterical, emotional propaganda campaign, to demonize law-abiding, and good, decent people simply because they stand in the way of those who are intent on crushing the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I absolutely reject the fear, the misdirection, and a Nazi-esque approach to "keeping us safe". In a free society, sadly, people have the opportunity to misuse their freedoms and individual liberties, but that does NOT make it acceptable or proper to trample the absolute rights of innocent and law-abiding people.

 

[HoosierLife]

What you`re describing is a slippery slope, and unacceptable. Freedom comes with certain risks associated with it, or, you`re not really free. How often do you want the Gestapo in your home investigating you because you own firearms, and a neighbor saw the scowl on your face coming home from a tough day, and it "frightened" them? Liberals have created this scenario and all these monsters by destroying the traditional family and removing God entirely from the public square. Now, and with the help of certain folks who would try to appear to be conservative, they intend to use the monsters they`ve created, along with an hysterical, emotional propaganda campaign, to demonize law-abiding, and good, decent people simply because they stand in the way of those who are intent on crushing the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I absolutely reject the fear, the misdirection, and a Nazi-esque approach to "keeping us safe". In a free society, sadly, people have the opportunity to misuse their freedoms and individual liberties, but that does NOT make it acceptable or proper to trample the absolute rights of innocent and law-abiding people.

I agree with this assessment. Especially the part about removing God and destroying the family unit.

That’s the root cause of many of our issues.

But wasn’t it Adams that said our form of government only worked for a moral/religious people?

When biblical standards are the guardrails of society, things seemed to function pretty well.

Now we’ve allowed the government, MSM, and Social Media, and woke Karens to define those guardrails.

I hate these discussions. Always turns pessimistic.

Maranatha!

 

[rhamersley]

You just described a liberal utopia. People weaponizing social, citizen "policing", and using another level of the cancel culture to quash freedom.

“Swatting” anyone?

 

[gregr]

I agree with this assessment. Especially the part about removing God and destroying the family unit.

That’s the root cause of many of our issues.

But wasn’t it Adams that said our form of government only worked for a moral/religious people?

When biblical standards are the guardrails of society, things seemed to function pretty well.

Now we’ve allowed the government, MSM, and Social Media, and woke Karens to define those guardrails.

I hate these discussions. Always turns pessimistic.

Maranatha!

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." John Adams

 

[marvin02]

Most of us do not hang around with the rioters, looters, and mass shooters.

I'm sure you would like to think so. How many truly evil people were described as normal by neighbors, friends and even spouses? You really never know anyone well enough to be absolutely certain that there is nothing that will push them over the edge.

 

[JEBland]

What you`re describing is a slippery slope, and unacceptable. Freedom comes with certain risks associated with it, or, you`re not really free.

I agree that freedom has risks. There is of course going to be people who commit crimes without writing down plans, we can't get such people on conspiracy charges.

How often do you want the Gestapo in your home investigating you because you own firearms, and a neighbor saw the scowl on your face coming home from a tough day, and it "frightened" them?

Having a scowl isn't a crime. We could just as easily implement some restriction on the frequency of such visits. Of if a wife invents a fake reason like (presumambly) in the case that KLB posted (which they should provide him a ride home, but the assessing of the threat in and of itself doesn't seem to violate anything).

Liberals have created this scenario and all these monsters by destroying the traditional family and removing God entirely from the public square.

I don't see the connection between this and the other argument. I don't think we need to force people to be religious. I also surely disagree with the welfare state and dissolution of the traditional family which can be defended by hard data, to say the least. But I don't see how this is causal. Forcing someone to be religious isn't a small government/ conservative idea, nor is telling people that they have to adhere to traditional societal norms like marriage. If it matters, I'm religious, my fiance is religious, and we intend to raise our children the same. Of course, how to punish adults for being irreponsible by letting them face the consequences of their actions and not bailing them out using the government, that's a conservative ideal. (How to do this without starving children and perpetuating the cycle is a different, harder problem). But I don't see how any of this is directly related to, "we have someone actively planning a crime, with paper/digital plans on locations and targets, but oh well, I guess we can't do anything."

Now, and with the help of certain folks who would try to appear to be conservative, they intend to use the monsters they`ve created, along with an hysterical, emotional propaganda campaign,

"Liberals have created this scenario and all these monsters by destroying the traditional family and removing God entirely from the public square." This, to me, is emotional propaganda. Attempting to use competing ideals on a deity to dismiss their argument or to argue that they are inherently without values is an emotional argument. Again, the traditional family is backed up by data, but I don't want to go down that rabbit hole.

to demonize law-abiding, and good, decent people simply because they stand in the way of those who are intent on crushing the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Refusing any idea of prosecuting people who are say, actively planning a terrorist attack, is what gives the liberals fodder to burn and throw at us. They don't have to invent reasons if law-abiding people tell them that there is no due process answer to preventing planned crimes.

In a free society, sadly, people have the opportunity to misuse their freedoms and individual liberties, but that does NOT make it acceptable or proper to trample the absolute rights of innocent and law-abiding people.

Again, let's look at the KLB example, but give it a small twist and suppose that the police provided him (the neighbor) safe transportation back to his home. How has that violated his rights? The police asked questions to the neighbor with attorney present, neighbor answers them, they police/mental health expert determine that there is no direct credible threat like jihadist material and that such was a fabrication of the wife, and he is returned with all of his possessions to his home. That violated no rights of his that I can see. They should, however, charge the wife with filing a false report, and give her due process for that crime.