http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100309/NEWS/3090315
Whats your opinions? i think they went to far.
Whats your opinions? i think they went to far.
Last edited:
Mans guns siezed because he "might" do something
- Thread starter 68skylark455
- Start date
I think we'll start to see more of this sort of thing. I wonder if he ever threatened someone at work, and what were the exact circumstances for him to be put on leave?
I was wondering the same thing. It's hard to make an informed opinion based on what you read in a news article.
WoW This man needs a lawyer! that is his right as a American. they went too far the scary thing is the way we are going this is going to happen more and more.I'm guessing some lib that he use to work with probably one in higher power made a fuss and got this man where he is at today. that man better keep his mouth shut ,I'm not sure if freedom of speech is still legal.:spit:
Too far..... Not right to arrest a person based on what you "think" they might do. Starting to sound a lot like Minority Report.
Can't make any valid opinion without knowing all the facts.... and we know the media is always right about that
Can't make any valid opinion without knowing all the facts.... and we know the media is always right about that
So if someone is mentally unstable, are you supposed to wait until they do something before you evaluate them? It sounds like the guy has some issues, but like I said, it's hard to make an informed opinion based on a news article. I can think of a few people in Ft. Hood who wish the law enforcement had acted on their suspicions before it was too late...
Flame suit on.
Flame suit on.
it's a lose-lose image for the cops IMO. One hand they invade privacy and break common rights based on a whim or preventative measure. Or they look to laxed if they didn't act and he really does go in and shoot up the place in a few days after stockpiling.
I guess if I'm purist and by the book, the cops were wrong based only on the info. provided in the article. They sure tried to make it sound like he was already a bad guy. Typical media twist jargin to sway the sheeple into thinking how they want.
It's obviously a fine line between needing to intervene before something does happen, and letting a guy exercise his rights. I sure wouldn't want to make that call on which way to go.
Later
I guess if I'm purist and by the book, the cops were wrong based only on the info. provided in the article. They sure tried to make it sound like he was already a bad guy. Typical media twist jargin to sway the sheeple into thinking how they want.
It's obviously a fine line between needing to intervene before something does happen, and letting a guy exercise his rights. I sure wouldn't want to make that call on which way to go.
Later
I agree, Mitch. That is exactly how I see it. The only bad part about it is it sets a precedent.
Sounds as if the coppers were doing all they should have done by watching him and never should have gone any further. Wow.
Guilty until proven innocent.
Guilty until proven innocent.
I think if they were suspicious they should have just kept monitoring him, thats it. Lets not get too political or this will be removed. I guess someone should move it to the gun thread. I probably should have put it there sorry.