Yes, but I don't know if there is a clear standard for what is sufficient to bring in law enforcement. Teen with AK-47 threatens to kill 400 people at school ‘for fun,’ Oklahoma cops say The girl "is accused of telling someone that she was going to “shoot 400 people for fun and that there were so many people at her old school that she would like to do it,” the McAlester News-Capital reported." I don't know all the laws in all the states, but at least the cops in Ok. were able to step in. Obviously, red flags were flying. The girl has had a history of emotional issues. And many of the recent shootings have had red flags that were ignored by friends, family, and law enforcement. I'm not necessarily advocating for new laws, just more of a willingness to step in and do something.
Regarding the thought, “Yes, but I don't know if there is a clear standard for what is sufficient to bring in law enforcement.”, I would suggest there is a standard inherent in both the processes for obtaining search warrants and with obtaining restraining orders as I posted previously, given, if not an immediate emergency... an immediate threat of harm to self or others, a determination can be made by an impartial magistrate who can evaluate evidence of a threat provided in a pubic hearing. There are two kinds of ‘emergency’ actions, the first is a judge signing a emergency order (again, based on probable cause) and second, by LE, if enough probable cause exists that would reasonably indicate the time waiting for a judge to issue an order would place lives in clear and immediate danger. Both are subject to the state then following due process and having the burden of substantiating the ‘emergency’ nature of such an action. Reports of threats either by being appraised by credible witnesses or informants have long been able to trigger investigation... the FBI, for instance has long done such investigations, even acquiring or placing informants in play to accumulate evidence of a threat. But, there have been times the level of threat is only known in 20/20... a consequence, of our protecting the civil rights of individuals, a price paid for our freedoms and our recognized rights. But, as in many incidences, many people see potential indicators, but many people, friends and family, fail to recognize/report them. That’s a hard nut to crack. We could end up like East Germany in the Cold War, every body reporting on every body, but not recognizing/reporting warning signs is the other extreme. If someone is online issuing threats, or even issuing them verbally, I see nothing wrong with notifying authorities and triggering an investigation (not hearsay provoked action) into the credibility of a threat. There will always be those no one sees coming in Free society... you can’t know what people are thinking. Back in the 80’s, I had a fellow, huge fellow, one I had never seen before, sit down next to me at the bar in a pub. After a couple minutes or so, he looked at me and out of the blue told me he was going to kick my a**. Taken by surprise, I asked, audible to others around me, “you are going to kick my a**?”. He replied in a resolute tone...”Yes, I am”. Given, he was much larger than I and seemed a bit intoxicated, my first thought was to move/leave. But, he shifted and moved as if he was going to stand and do just that. I took his threat seriously, and hit him in the throat, dropping him. Standing just outside, were two passing officer on security detail who saw the commotion, entered and intervened, calling for backup by LE on duty. On hearing my explanation and others nearby corroborating what I said, they, along with the just arrived duty officers, get the fellow out of the bar (we were next to entrance) which would likely to have been the end of it. But, the follow threw punches at the uniforms. Well, there were more of them than needed and... off to jail. My and other statements were taken, but my actions (validated by the fellow’s subsequent actions and statements of other witnesses) resulted in the LE seeing them as justified... I was not detained. One of the Officers commented to me, tongue in cheek, saying he was being arrested for the crime of stupidity. My point here being the threat was both credible, verified, witnessed, and immediate.
I don't support Red Flag laws for the same reason, it circumvents due process, creates a public record regardless of outcome, and presumes guilt over innocence. If such tripe is going to be passed by those idiots we call legislators, then it must apply to all groups that could be affiliated with crime, be it drug dealing and murder or burning a cross...
If such proposals are not crafted in a way to automatically apply to individuals known by law enforcement to have connections with illegal activity, then the proposal serves no purpose in even being discussed as if it held merit. Either it applies to criminals and their known associates as well, or it applies to absolutely no one.
Beto removed all possibility of compromise. Democrats have a hidden agenda. SHOCKING: Democrats’ Red Flag Laws Meant to Take Weapons from Rural Gun Owners – But Not Gang Members Who Commit 80% of Gun Homicides Democrats want to use the laws to take guns from rural Americans, Democrats voted down his amendment to include gang members in the legislation. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee rejected an amendment that would have red-flagged anyone who law enforcement lists as a gang member. According to JPFrg 80% of gun homicides are committed by gang members. But the Red Flag Laws by Democrats are not meant to stop crime. They are only meant to take guns from legal gun owners.
So, you advocate that a short term Constitutional abridgement is okay and a long term Constitutional abridgement is a matter for discussion. I suppose you also see AR's as functionally different from other semi-automatic firearms. This is an extremely important issue. Your "feelings" are not of concern. You liberals have to step and consider the overall picture. You have to ask yourselves whether you are not, in fact, creating a repressive Draconian state because anyone with any common sense can see that you are.
It might be that the problem is that they do not pursue information they already have about some student or whoever that is about to go off the rails. That seems to happen a lot. So one must consider red flag laws as primarily a political power play -- Democrats going after everyone who doesn't embrace their dictatorial or communist frame of reference as the real target of their unConstitutional laws. They want power and ultimately probably want you gone, and to accomplish it, they will allow the same old same old to continue so they can push more laws to consolidate and tighten their grip. Do you see what I'm saying? How can they expand red flag laws? By not enforcing the laws on the books and by ignoring the signs that someone is about to go totally off the rails, and by the way, that state of imbalance, call it, is almost always -- I'd say in every instance -- due to presciption medications. It is absolutely deplorable what pharma is getting away with. It is deplorable and it is political, and it has to stop.
If you want to discuss the issue, that's fine, but don't invent my argument and stuff me into a stereotype of liberals you seem to have.
This is pretty much exactly what happens. Authorities who suspect a problem youth do nothing, and they will continue to do nothing while "red flag" laws become more draconian. It's an open ended gambit that you see as a "moral failing". I see it as democrat liberal devouring America for their own permanent oligarchy. That's not a "moral failure"? They are playing you like a banjo. Just say "No!" to "red flag" laws.
