[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse"

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD"

"Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy"

Woodworking and Construction Hacks

"CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination"

"NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law"

"Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing"

Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine

Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn.

After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning

Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate

Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending.

Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar”

"Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny"

"Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is"

Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner.

Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him

South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien

GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis

Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash

New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms

Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania

Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally

"It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala

Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump

Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive'

(Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Watching The Cops
See other Watching The Cops Articles

Title: The Free Thought Project - Florida police seize a man's gun without due process
Source: Politifact
URL Source: https://www.politifact.com/florida/ ... ize-mans-gun-out-due-process-/
Published: Apr 4, 2018
Author: Allison Graves
Post Date: 2019-10-02 01:51:16 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 5603
Comments: 31

After the Parkland school shooting, Florida lawmakers passed a so-called "red flag" law that aims to keep guns out of the hands of people deemed to be a threat to others or themselves.

The new law went into effect March 9, quickly stoking concern among people about lost freedom.

A March 18 headline posted on the Free Thought Project said, "It begins: Florida police now confiscating guns from people with no due process."

The post went on to say a man in Lighthouse Point — in Broward County, like Parkland — had his guns taken away before he was determined to be mentally unfit and before he was accused of a crime, making him the first person in the state to "have his due process removed."

Facebook users flagged the post as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social network’s efforts to combat online hoaxes.

The post makes it seem like a man’s guns were taken without reason or cause, but that leaves out important nuance about the situation. Authorities said the man voluntarily surrendered his weapons and never contested the temporary risk protection order barring him from his guns for up to a year.

Florida’s "risk protection law"

Florida legislators moved quickly to pass SB 7026, allowing law enforcement to seek a risk protection order from a judge that would temporarily remove a person’s firearm(s) for up to a year. It also bars those individuals from buying guns during that time.

Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri took issue with the way the law has been portrayed in headlines. He said if a person doesn’t comply with a risk protection order, then police have to file a warrant and establish probable cause to obtain the weapon.

"There is no seizure authority," Gualtieri said. "You can ask them to comply with the risk protection order, but you can’t seize a person’s guns."

The law slightly amended the Baker Act, under which law enforcement officials can take someone against their will to a facility for a mental health evaluation if the person is a danger to themselves or others. Authorities can confiscate a person’s guns if they pose a potential danger to themselves or have made a credible threat of violence against another person.

Before this change, the Baker Act didn’t state whether guns should be taken or returned, except to ban guns from hospitals providing mental health services. In practice, officers would often — but not always — temporarily confiscate guns if the firearms were on the person or in plain sight during the Baker Act "episode," said Martha Lenderman, an expert on the Baker Act.

More states added similar "red flag" laws this year including Washington.

Matt Agorist, who wrote the Free Thought Project article, argued that Florida’s new law allows law enforcement officers to retain guns without due process.

"When a person is stripped of their constitutional rights, albeit temporarily, without being given the chance to make their own case based on what can be entirely arbitrary accusations, this is the removal of due process," Agorist said in an email to PolitiFact Florida.

However, this neglects the fact that the person in question allowed police to retain his guns at the time he was taken into custody under the Baker Act. After this, Lighthouse Point police took the necessary steps to obtain a temporary risk protection order, which a judge reviewed and signed.

Details about the Florida police seizing a man’s handgun PolitiFact Florida interviewed Lighthouse Point Police Chief Ross Licata and Broward County’s chief judge to get an understanding of the incident that led to a 56-year-old man losing his weapons.

Licata said officers have had interactions with the man for years, but it wasn’t until early March that his actions warranted action. (PolitiFact Florida is not naming the man because of his condition.)

On March 7, Lighthouse Point Police checked on the man at his condo after an anonymous person filed a complaint that he was acting strangely.

According to court records, the person said the man had been seen around the community "clutching his face and hair while arguing with himself." The complainant also said the man had admitted to turning off the main electrical breakers to the condo building "to prevent them from sending electrical impulses through his body and controlling him."

Licata said that this was causing a safety issue for other residents who depend on oxygen.

During the police welfare check, the man said he was being targeted by one of his neighbors, who he said shape-shifts and looks like Osama bin Laden. The man was carrying a firearm in the outer pocket of his cargo pants, according to court records.

The man voluntarily surrendered his weapons during the welfare check, said Broward’s chief administrative judge, Circuit Judge Jack Tuter. After that, police determined the man was a risk to himself and others and took him into custody under the Baker Act.

Licata said the subject was not released from the medical center until March 21.

Before he was released, police petitioned the court to get a temporary ex parte order and a permanent risk protection order March 14 to retain the man’s guns. (An ex parte orders allows the court to proceed temporarily without both parties present for a hearing. In this case, the man was still being held at a medical facility.)

Law enforcement met with the man at his condo March 21 to remove additional ammunition. One week after his release, there was a final hearing to determine if the guns and ammunition should be removed for one year.

The man was there. He did not contest the one-year risk protection order requested by police. Tuter signed the order preventing him from owning or purchasing guns.

Our ruling

A headline on the Free Thought Project said, "Florida police now confiscating guns from people with no due process."

The headline and the story make it appear that Florida police arbitrarily took away a man’s guns, and that’s not the case. The man in question voluntarily gave his weapons to police before he was taken into custody under the Baker Act, a judge said.

While the man was being treated, Lighthouse Point police followed the protocol for obtaining a temporary risk protection order, and the man did not contest the order at any point during the court proceedings.

With everything considered, we rate this claim False.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 19.

#1. To: Gatlin (#0)

He said if a person doesn’t comply with a risk protection order, then police have to file a warrant and establish probable cause to obtain the weapon.

"There is no seizure authority," Gualtieri said. "You can ask them to comply with the risk protection order, but you can’t seize a person’s guns."

Why did you post an article with lies in it?

There is no seizure authority it says then it says you have to obtain probable cause to obtain the weapon.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-10-02   7:41:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: A K A Stone (#1)

Why did you post an article with lies in it?

That’s a damned great question, Stone. And such a direct question deserves a simple pointed answer. I shall try to be brief in giving you one.

I posted an article with lies in it because I read where you gave your enigmatic permission to Deckard for him to do just that. And I upon realizing it was your “accepted norm” saw the light as I simply want to also be considered a great asset and make terrific contributions to your LibertysFlame forum.

Thank you, Sir, for asking.

Salute,
Gatlin

Gatlin  posted on  2019-10-02   8:18:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Gatlin, A K A Stone (#2)

Can I post articles with lies in them, too?

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-02   9:07:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone, Deckard (#4)

Can I post articles with lies in them, too?

We need to nominate a LF Liar in Chief to decide on this sort of lying thing.

I submit Deckard to be considered for the position since he has shown himself profoundly to be a worthy authority based on his many years posting experience in this field.

Perhaps an alternating posting submission schedule can be worked out sp we can have a equal shot at performing the duty.

Salute,
Gatlin

Gatlin  posted on  2019-10-02   9:35:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Gatlin (#5)

We need to nominate a LF Liar in Chief to decide on this sort of lying thing.

You need to quit lying about stuff. You posted an article with a lie in it.

The free thought project article in question contained no lies. The tax payers will pay.

Reminds me of this verse.

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-10-02   10:42:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: A K A Stone, Gatlin (#7)

[A K A Stone] The free thought project article in question contained no lies. The tax payers will pay.

Why? Do you expect the court to order the taxpayers to pay?

It should be noted that there is no possibility whatever that the Federal court will order the taxpayer to pay a dime pursuant to this lawsuit.

What is your legal theory that the taxpayer will pay?

If the acts of the employees are found to have been wanton, reckless or malicious, and the employees are ordered by the court to pay, why would the taxpayers be on the hook?

There were three Counts. The TFTP article failed to mention that all of Count 1 has been dismissed on summary judgment, and one of the three parts of Count 3 has been dismissed on summary judgment. Nobody will pay for those.

Actually, the TFTP article contained a whopper that officers had been ordered to stand trial. The case was filed in 2016 and no trial has been ordered yet. The litigation is still at a stage where nobody has been ordered to stand trial.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-02   12:59:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: nolu chan (#16)

[A K A Stone] The free thought project article in question contained no lies. The tax payers will pay.

Why? Do you expect the court to order the taxpayers to pay?

Where do you suppose the money comes from to pay out these lawsuits dumbass?

Deckard  posted on  2019-10-02   13:23:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Deckard, A K A Stone, nolu chan (#17) (Edited)

[A K A Stone] The free thought project article in question contained no lies. The tax payers will pay. Why? Do you expect the court to order the taxpayers to pay? Where do you suppose the money comes from to pay out these lawsuits dumbass?
This is a lawsuit against three individual who were, or atill are, employed by the State of Connecticut.

I don’t see where the State of Connecticut is named as a defendant in the civil lawsuit.

I will show you the formal definitive procedure outlined by the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch to be followed by the individuals who are named in civil lawsuits while the state is not

You can easily see that when employees are found to have been wanton, reckless or malicious in their acts and they become the subjects to CIVIL lawsuits – they are own their own and the employees are not ordered by the court to pay.

Read very carefully where it says:
These instructions are to help you represent yourself in responding to a civil lawsuit.

Now, I respectfully ask that either you – or either Stone – show where, how and under what statute and in which lawsuit that the Federal Court will require the State Connecticut tax payers to pay when they are not even being sued.

https://www.jud.ct.gov/forms/grouped/civil/respond_suit.htm

Disclaimer: The information on this web page is provided as a service and a convenience by the Connecticut Judicial Branch. It is not intended as legal advice to any person. If you have questions about the use of these forms, your legal rights, or particular issues in your case, it is strongly recommended that you talk to an attorney.

Due to the changing nature of the law, the forms and information found on this web site will change from time to time. It is up to you to follow the current procedures and to file the correct, up-to- date forms. Each court location has a Clerk's Office and many locations also have a Court Service Center that can give you help and information about court procedures. Please note, however, that Clerk's Office and Court Service Center personnel cannot provide you with legal advice.

Instructions

These instructions are to help you represent yourself in responding to a civil lawsuit. Legal words and court documents can be confusing. The more you know about what forms you will need to fill out in order to respond to a civil lawsuit the more comfortable you will be when you come to court. These instructions will give you some useful information and instructions on completing the required forms.

Every case is different and these instructions are to be used as a guide only; if you think you need more help you may want to get an attorney. You can also go to a Court Service Center or contact the Connecticut Network for Legal AidExternal Link or find additional information at the Law Libraries. Court Staff can help you understand the legal process, and while they may give you procedural information, they cannot give you legal advice.

To respond to a Civil Lawsuit you will need to fill out the following 2 forms:

IMPORTANT: There are other pleadings that you can file for which there are no pre-printed forms. Sections 10-6 and 10-8 of the Connecticut Practice Book give information on the timing and order for the filing of these pleadings.

The Law Library also has a Video on the First Steps in Responding to a Lawsuit.


By filing an Appearance form you are telling the court that you are acting as your own attorney and giving the court your mailing address. Once you file an Appearance, all court notices and papers filed about your case that are filed after your Appearance will be sent to the address on your Appearance.

The Appearance form (JD- CL-12) should be filed on or within two days after the date shown in the box marked “Return Date” on the top right corner of the Summons. The Return Date is the date that starts the countdown for things taking place in the case. You must fill out the Appearance form in order to receive any court notices. You must provide your current correct mailing address. The court and the other parties will use the address you provide to send notices and other correspondence to you.

In all cases except foreclosure actions, the deadline to file the Answer to file the Answer Complaint (JD-CV-106) is within 30 days of the “Return Date” shown in the box on the top right corner of the Summons. In foreclosure actions, the deadline is within 15 days of the Return Date. (There are some exceptions to these deadlines that are in sections 10-6 and 10-8 of the Connecticut Practice Book. You may want to look at these before you file your answer.)

You can use the Answer to Complaint (JD-CV-106) to respond to the numbered allegations in the Complaint.

If you do not file the Appearance form, a default for failure to appear could be entered against you. If you file the Appearance form, but do not file an Answer to the complaint, a default for failure to plead could be entered against you.


For Help - You may go to the Court Service Center for help completing these or any other forms. Any additional procedural questions that you might have may also be directed to the staff of the Court Service Center.
From this, it should be easy for you to see that the defendants in the civil lawsuit will get some generic advice from time to time – but they are on their own.

Salute,
Gatlin

Gatlin  posted on  2019-10-02   14:42:17 ET  (1 image) Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 19.

        There are no replies to Comment # 19.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 19.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com