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

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


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: 4859
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 # 20.

#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  


#18. To: Deckard, A K A Stone, Gatlin (#17) (Edited)

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

Here you go fucknuts. What is your legal theory for the federal court to order the sovereign state to pay. There were STATE troopers, not municipal employees. They were sued in their individual capacity. The State is not a defendant because that would be unconstitutional.

Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 677 (1974)

At 1 (Syllabus)

Held: The Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution bars that portion of the District Court's decree that ordered retroactive payment of benefits. Pp. 415 U. S. 658-678.

(a) A suit by private parties seeking to impose a liability payable from public funds in the state treasury is foreclosed by the Amendment if the State does not consent to suit. Pp. 415 U. S. 662-663.

At 675-677:

But it has not heretofore

415 U. S. 676

been suggested that § 1983 was intended to create a waiver of a State's Eleventh Amendment immunity merely because an action could be brought under that

415 U. S. 677

section against state officers, rather than against the State itself. Though a § 1983 action may be instituted by public aid recipients such as respondent, a federal court's remedial power, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, is necessarily limited to prospective injunctive relief, Ex parte Young, supra, and may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury, Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, supra.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-02   14:21:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: nolu chan (#18) (Edited)

They were sued in their individual capacity.

Oh, so the payment comes directly from the troopers pockets? Never gonna happen.

Deckard  posted on  2019-10-02   15:43:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 20.

#21. To: Deckard (#20)

Oh, so the payment comes directly from the troopers pockets? Never gonna happen.

Is that all you can say about the U.S. Supreme Court decision that says:

A suit by private parties seeking to impose a liability payable from public funds in the state treasury is foreclosed by the Amendment if the State does not consent to suit. ... Though a § 1983 action may be instituted by public aid recipients such as respondent, a federal court's remedial power, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, is necessarily limited to prospective injunctive relief, Ex parte Young, supra, and may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury, Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, supra.

A suit may not be brought by an individual against a State in Federal court. Add a State to the list of defendants and the suit gets tossed.

You're the expert calling others dumbass. Try harder. Distinguished from cases brought against cities and towns, this is against employees of a sovereign state that cannot be named as a defendant. That is why no state official appears as defendant in their official capacity. And yet, you seem to maintain that the State definitely will pay if the Court finds for the plaintiff.

If the Court rules for plaintiff, it will issue an order against the named defendants. If you insist that the Court will rule against a non-party to the litigation, take a seat on the short bus. It cannot issue an order against the State. You infer the State is required to pay. I am asking for your legal reasoning, if you have any. If you are just blathering, just say so.

If you are just to handicapped to understand the issue, or proficiently use the google, say that.

Just address the issue, or take your seat on the short bus.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-02 16:31:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Deckard, A K A Stone, nolu chan (#20) (Edited)

They were sued in their individual capacity. Oh, so the payment comes directly from the troopers pockets? Never gonna happen.
You and Stone keep saying things and you think and just because you “say” them, that is the way it will happen. You do this while you never show any legal reason to back up your statements.

The state is not even being sued here. The person is using ACLU lawyers. They are no dummies. If they had thought they could get money from the state in this case they would have sued the state as well. But the ACLU did not.

Here is a link to a situation posted on The Free Thought Project. Look carefully and you will see that the party is suing both the county government and the county deputies. If she wins, then the headline can read in that case: “Taxpayers to Be Held Liable.”

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-kidnaps-woman-baptize-her- underwear/ Shandle Marie Riley is now suing Hamilton County government and two Hamilton County Sheriff’s deputies after she claims
You show no justification for your statement. It is just something you think “should” happen. How many times do you have to be told that the state is not even being sued in this case?

Salute,
Gatlin

Gatlin  posted on  2019-10-02 17:51:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 20.

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