ACLU Supports Gun Owner

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Another false argument - the doctor and pharmacist does that.

Uh, right. That's my point. Doctors and pharmacists, not cops, manage people's medication. A cop (or S+TA) is not liable for people's misuse of that medication.

The same logic dictates that a cop is not liable for the person's misuse of the gun, as well.

Of course, logic doesn't apply when a grieving family is looking to assign blame - which is the point that you still try to gloss over.

Quote

>Sure can't - can you show me someone whose breathing reflex was
>depressed until death occured due to an overdose of guns?

Nope. And that has nothing to do with what happened here.

Neither did 'blowing their head off' with sleeping pills.

Quote

>Since you're focusing on the mechanism of harm rather than the person,
>I'm sure it does - because NOBODY has ever chosen an alternate way to kill
>themself if their primary choice wasn't available.

Of course they have.

Good, then we agree that the INTENT is more important than the MECHANISM - yes?

Quote

But a cop can't make someone non-suicidal; all they can do is respond to a threat that someone makes to kill themselves (which is, BTW, a crime.).

Agreed.

Quote

If they threaten to do so with a gun, it makes sense for them to remove the gun. If they threaten to do so with sleeping pills, it makes sense for them to remove the sleeping pills.

So, if someone says they're thinking about swallowing a bottle of sleeping pills, that the cops should take the pills and leave the revolver sitting next to them on the nightstand?

Quote

In both cases it may also make sense to get a psychiatrist involved either immediately or as soon as possible.

Agreed.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,426]

>The same logic dictates that a cop is not liable for the person's misuse
>of the gun, as well.

If he is not threatening to kill himself with it - I agree.

>Good, then we agree that the INTENT is more important than
> the MECHANISM - yes?

In this case, no, since all the police can do is remove the mechanism. They can't change the intent.

>So, if someone says they're thinking about swallowing a bottle of
>sleeping pills, that the cops should take the pills and leave the revolver
>sitting next to them on the nightstand?

If they have reasonable suspicion that he will use it to kill himself with it - yes. If his weapons are locked up in a gun safe and he gives the cops no indication he will use them to kill himself with them - no.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

BTW: Our sidewalk food never was that good.

Relative to my sampling of indoor restaurants, it was.

But that can be poor luck. I believe that competitive forces make it easier to evaluate the sidewalk food - less variability.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>So, if someone says they're thinking about swallowing a bottle of
>sleeping pills, that the cops should take the pills and leave the revolver
>sitting next to them on the nightstand?

If they have reasonable suspicion that he will use it to kill himself with it - yes. If his weapons are locked up in a gun safe and he gives the cops no indication he will use them to kill himself with them - no.

They've already stated the intent that they want to kill themself - why take one mechanism and not the other?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
The same logic dictates that a cop is not liable for the person's misuse of the gun, as well.
....

He knew before, what the old man said. In such case, every cop has to be kept liable when handing over the weapon to such a person which proclaimed to commit suicide.

At least, here in my country

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[billvon 2,426]

>They've already stated the intent that they want to kill themself - why take
>one mechanism and not the other?

Because then you'd have to take (to use JohnRich's common example) all their spoons, too.

Again, the police cannot keep you from killing yourself, short of taking all your clothes and putting you in a cell. They CAN respond to the STATED intent of someone who intends to perform a specific illegal act.

Same would go for a threat to kill someone. If they threaten to shoot someone else, it would make sense to confiscate their guns (and often this happens in domestic violence cases.) If it's a serious enough threat it might make sense to arrest them and lock them up. It would not make sense to take all their spoons.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Quote

I don't think it's worth making a separate poll for this, but I am curious what people think the sheriff's office should do in a case where they are confronted with a person who is distraught for an understandable reason, such as the death of a spouse or child, and in the heat of the moment makes an unfortunate comment that they might shoot themselves.

There's going to be a lot of armchair quarterbacking either way.

Quote

Sure, but in the present instance the guy is alive and was able to reclaim his guns, once he was helped to follow the established procedure (obtain a court order). A good outcome, I think.

Quote

Should the deputy have:
1) done nothing. If the old guy kills himself, that's his choice.

2) taken the guns out of the environment and give the guy time to calm down. Hopefully he won't do anything else rash in the meantime.

If they're going to get blamed if he commits suicide with a gun, aren't they going to get blamed if he committs suicide by some other mean?

Quote

Perhaps, but as he specifically mentioned using a gun as the "tool of choice" to commit suicide, it seems to me to make sense to temporarily take away the tool.

Quote

3) called in the straight-jacket patrol to haul the guy to an institution for evaluation. Of course, then the guy will have on his record that he has been involuntarily committed, so he won't be allowed to own guns any more (this is my understanding, but I'm no expert on gun laws and if I'm wrong I'm sure I'll be corrected).

Evaluation isn't involuntary commitment.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>They've already stated the intent that they want to kill themself - why take
>one mechanism and not the other?

Because then you'd have to take (to use JohnRich's common example) all their spoons, too.

Again, the police cannot keep you from killing yourself, short of taking all your clothes and putting you in a cell. They CAN respond to the STATED intent of someone who intends to perform a specific illegal act.

Sure - I've already said that people deprived of one method to kill themself will find another method.

However, we're talking about perception and blame (per GeorgiaDon's mini-poll). Can you honestly say that, if that person uses a DIFFERENT mechanism to kill themself, the family isn't going to cry "why didn't you take the sleeping pills when you took the gun" (or vice versa)?

In that respect, it's a lose-lose situation for the law.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I think the LEO dealt with the situation with compassion and consideration.

Don

Agreed - I don't think the cop could have done anything else, given the circumstances.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,426]

>Sure - I've already said that people deprived of one method to kill
>themself will find another method.

Well, as this case proves, that's not true in general. But it's certainly a possibility.

>Can you honestly say that, if that person uses a DIFFERENT mechanism to
>kill themself, the family isn't going to cry "why didn't you take the sleeping
>pills when you took the gun" (or vice versa)?

Of course. And they will sue if the person DOESN'T kill themselves, as demonstrated here. In other words, people sue because people sue, not because of anything cops do (or don't do.)

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Yep. And now that oldie is going to buy himself a more modern weapon, why not an AK-47 or similar? That will spare him to move his shivery fingers more than once.
Jeez, what a daft comment: *Thank you, ACLU*
Will you blame or thank ACLU in case the old doter kills himself of someone in his neighbourhood???

Thank you for once again displaying your illogic and ignorance, rendering your comments irrelevant.

Original message modified due to the moderator warning:

Thank you for once again displaying your flawless logic and vast intelligence, rendering your comments irrefutable.

[billvon 2,426]

Your one warning. Stop with the PA's.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Evaluation isn't involuntary commitment.

It is for the 4 or 5 days in which the state shrinks evaluate you. And you only get released if you convince them that you're not a threat to yourself or others.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Fear of liability doesn't warrant seizure of property. I'm not convinced they're liable in the first place. This brings back the recent thread of the bedridden nut with a gun that the cops tazed to prevent possibility of her killing herself. Maybe we can simplify matters and say that this is not a obligation by the cops.

Just so I have this clear, you are stating an opinion that in a case where someone is threatening suicide, the police should do nothing. Do I have that right?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I feel that thanking *ACLU* for giving back weapons to such an old man is hypocrisy.

Since the ACLU is responsible for getting his guns returned to him, and the judge agreed that this was the proper thing to do, then who are you to call it wrong?

And what does his age have to do with it? Don't old people deserve to own guns? If he had been your age, would that change your opinion?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Reading the original article John linked to, it seems that Mr. Weinstein was distraught at the death of his wife, and mentioned to a sheriff's deputy that he was thinking of suicide using a gun ("blowing his head off" were the actual words).

That was just an off the cuff comment he made because of the screw-up over the processing of his wife's ashes. He had been trying to get them for three weeks so he could bury her, and he kept getting a run-around. It was an expression of his frustration, and not a serious suicide threat. He just wanted his wife's remains back.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

They've already stated the intent that they want to kill themself - why take one mechanism and not the other?

I'm wondering if he had stated that he was going to hang himself, would they have left the guns alone, and gone around confiscating all the rope?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Of course. And they will sue if the person DOESN'T kill themselves, as demonstrated here. In other words, people sue because people sue, not because of anything cops do (or don't do.)

As demonstrated here?

Oh, you mean the gentleman having to sue to get his property back after being cleared by the doctors - that's a bit different situation, wouldn't you say?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,426]

>I'm wondering if he had stated that he was going to hang himself, would
>they have left the guns alone, and gone around confiscating all the rope?

If they had reason to believe that he was really going to do that, yes.

And if you had a friend who was threatening to hang himself, and you went to his place, and saw a noose, I have a feeling that you would take down the noose and leave him his spoons.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Evaluation isn't involuntary commitment.

It is for the 4 or 5 days in which the state shrinks evaluate you. And you only get released if you convince them that you're not a threat to yourself or others.

It's not the 'involuntary commitment' per GCA 68 that would automatically strip him of his arms, which is what I was referring to.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Because then you'd have to take (to use JohnRich's common example) all their spoons, too.

In the many years I've been in these forums, the word "spoons" only appears twice in posts that I've made, and both times it was in embedded quotes from someone else. So, I've never uttered that word here. Even the singular "spoon" version of that word has only been used a few times in my messages, and never in the context you suggest. So, you are obviously thinking of someone else, as it's not at all common to me.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Evaluation isn't involuntary commitment.

It is for the 4 or 5 days in which the state shrinks evaluate you. And you only get released if you convince them that you're not a threat to yourself or others.

It's not the 'involuntary commitment' per GCA 68 that would automatically strip him of his arms, which is what I was referring to.

Aha! Got it. You are correct on that perspective - that one takes a judge's order. But it IS involuntary commitment in the sense that you are taken to a hospital for mental evaluation against your will. When I lived in Florida that was called the "Baker Act", after the law which allowed it.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Evaluation isn't involuntary commitment.

It is for the 4 or 5 days in which the state shrinks evaluate you. And you only get released if you convince them that you're not a threat to yourself or others.

Just to clarify: having watched & dealt with MH commitment cases in court myself, I'm pretty sure that, in the event of a short-term emergency "commitment for evaluation", the burden of proof in most states is on the state's doctors to demonstrate to the court why the patient should remain in commitment custody, not on the patient to prove to the court that he should be released. Sort of the MH version of habeas corpus, if you know what I mean.

[billvon 2,426]

>So, you are obviously thinking of someone else, as it's not at all common to me.

Sorry, to be more specific:

"you can kill someone anyway with whatever happens to be available: clubs, knives, hammers, or lamps."

" I think they should ban forks as dangerous weapons."

"I wonder when Diane Feinstein will enact a law to ban knives, clubs and fists?"

"Ban Knives!"

"Ban Lazer Tag!"

"What are those Brits doing leaving all those dangerous assault-bricks laying around where thugs can pick them up and use them as murder weapons? Shouldn't they all be cemented into buildings?"

"Save the planet: Ban fireplaces!"

". . . we should also ban cars, buildings and ladders over five feet tall,
poisonous substances, matches and flammable liquids, pools and bath tubs, and lastly, gluttony."

And yes, if your friend was threatening to hang himself, I have no doubt you'd try to remove the noose he was going to use to do so. And I also have no doubt you would leave him his spoons, clubs, hammers, lamps, forks, fists, lazer tag pistols, bricks, fireplaces, cars, ladders, poisonous substances, pools, bath tubs and frozen pizzas.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Quote

Reading the original article John linked to, it seems that Mr. Weinstein was distraught at the death of his wife, and mentioned to a sheriff's deputy that he was thinking of suicide using a gun ("blowing his head off" were the actual words).

That was just an off the cuff comment he made because of the screw-up over the processing of his wife's ashes. He had been trying to get them for three weeks so he could bury her, and he kept getting a run-around. It was an expression of his frustration, and not a serious suicide threat. He just wanted his wife's remains back.

Fair enough. Likely that is why the deputy just temporarily removed the guns, rather than having Mr. Weinstein taken for psychiatric evaluation. If I was at the DZ, and someone who I knew had just lost a close family member and was dealing with other issues made an off the cuff comment to the effect that "maybe today I won't bother to pull", I'd suggest (pointedly if necessary) that maybe they shouldn't be jumping today. If a person is determined to commit suicide, they'll find a way. On the other hand, sometimes people are momentarily overwhelmed, and perhaps all it takes is a steadying hand, even from a stranger, to prevent an irrevocable mistake.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)