• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Daytona Beach Police refuse to return fierarms

zgoldsmith23 said:
Indeed it should be his doctor / psychiatrist's call.
Granted I do not agree with their position, but I think most people are for eliminating guns for the sheer amount of capable damage. Does that make sense? I mean sure, someone can kill the entire world with a switchblade or a piece of wire.
Agreed except in the part of police, again, invoking the state.
Click to expand...
Most people include guns in this argument for the sheer fact they want to target guns. If someone is homicidal they could just as easily mow down 20-30 people in a busy crosswalk as they could create an incident of mass shooting. The very real fact is that while they are tragic, incidents of mass shootings are rare...average about 2-3 incidents a year over a 30 year span.

As for the police invoking the state...I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you implying the police are by rights some form of judge, jury, and executioner with regards to Constitution rights? I love cops...work with cops...most of them are great...but they are the last people I want to give that kind of power to.
 
rocket88 said:
He's proven to be unbalanced. Whenever a shooting happens, it's "Well one crazy guy doesn't mean you should take others' rights." Here's one crazy guy. Seems reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

Who has proven unbalance ? As I understand it, he had a bad day over six months ago and after treatment and receiving a diagnosis of "not a danger to himself or others" attempted to get back his seized property.
 
VanceMack said:
Most people include guns in this argument for the sheer fact they want to target guns. If someone is homicidal they could just as easily mow down 20-30 people in a busy crosswalk as they could create an incident of mass shooting. The very real fact is that while they are tragic, incidents of mass shootings are rare...average about 2-3 incidents a year over a 30 year span.

As for the police invoking the state...I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you implying the police are by rights some form of judge, jury, and executioner with regards to Constitution rights? I love cops...work with cops...most of them are great...but they are the last people I want to give that kind of power to.
Click to expand...

I didn't say those people were well informed. ;)

I also agree with your last statement except I don't love cops and I apply it to the whole government - I don't want to give them any power.
 
Disputatious71 said:
Who has proven unbalance ? As I understand it, he had a bad day over six months ago and after treatment and receiving a diagnosis of "not a danger to himself or others" attempted to get back his seized property.
Click to expand...

That's not clinical depression. Wow. You really are uninformed.
 
Disputatious71 said:
Who has proven unbalance ? As I understand it, he had a bad day over six months ago and after treatment and receiving a diagnosis of "not a danger to himself or others" attempted to get back his seized property.
Click to expand...

What does the law say? Should the police be "legislating from the badge?"
 
Black Manta said:
Sorry I don't agree at all. I have already stated my opinion. Not avoiding debate but your opinion is no more valid than mine on what is a valid psyc check.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but there is no "psyc check" for owning/possessing firearms. Registration only deals with those actively under psychiatric care. And the law only allows for a psych hold for a limited time and then only to determine if you are a danger to yourself and/or others. In this case, the state's own psychiatric personnel diagnosed him as neither and released him.

There are folks the state counts as having a valid opinion on your mental health, police officers are not among them. They have no call to withhold returning his firearms once the proper authorities have made their determination.
 
rocket88 said:
He's proven to be unbalanced. Whenever a shooting happens, it's "Well one crazy guy doesn't mean you should take others' rights." Here's one crazy guy. Seems reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. He's been vetted by the state and shown to not be "unbalanced" (in context), he was released after the 24 hour hold. Had he been judged unbalanced we would not be having this discussion.
 
clownboy said:
Perhaps, but there is no "psyc check" for owning/possessing firearms. Registration only deals with those actively under psychiatric care. And the law only allows for a psych hold for a limited time and then only to determine if you are a danger to yourself and/or others. In this case, the state's own psychiatric personnel diagnosed him as neither and released him.

There are folks the state counts as having a valid opinion on your mental health, police officers are not among them. They have no call to withhold returning his firearms once the proper authorities have made their determination.
Click to expand...

Again it does not matter. The law states what it states. Until it is shown to be unconstitutional, your point is moot.
 
clownboy said:
Actually, no. He's been vetted by the state and shown to not be "unbalanced" (in context), he was released after the 24 hour hold. Had he been judged unbalanced we would not be having this discussion.
Click to expand...

Well what if he went to the shooting range with a buddy and decided to shoot.... Oh wait.

24 hours does not cut it.
 
Black Manta said:
Again it does not matter. The law states what it states. Until it is shown to be unconstitutional, your point is moot.
Click to expand...

Huh? My position IS the one provided for by law, yours is not. You're calling for additional psych checks the law does not compel for having firearms. You're allowing the officers to make a psychiatric determination they are not qualified to make (under the law). Where are you getting this idea that the man must prove to a couple officers that he is stable in order to get his property back after the state has already cleared him for release?
 
Black Manta said:
Well what if he went to the shooting range with a buddy and decided to shoot.... Oh wait.

24 hours does not cut it.
Click to expand...

That's a wonderful opinion, but as you say, the law states what it states thus your opinion is moot.
 
clownboy said:
Huh? My position IS the one provided for by law, yours is not. You're calling for additional psych checks the law does not compel for having firearms. You're allowing the officers to make a psychiatric determination they are not qualified to make (under the law). Where are you getting this idea that the man must prove to a couple officers that he is stable in order to get his property back after the state has already cleared him for release?
Click to expand...

The local law does not state any time requirements at all. So no.
 
clownboy said:
That's a wonderful opinion, but as you say, the law states what it states thus your opinion is moot.
Click to expand...

Again the law does not state any time limit. Maybe you should look it up?
 
clownboy said:
Huh? My position IS the one provided for by law, yours is not. You're calling for additional psych checks the law does not compel for having firearms. You're allowing the officers to make a psychiatric determination they are not qualified to make (under the law). Where are you getting this idea that the man must prove to a couple officers that he is stable in order to get his property back after the state has already cleared him for release?
Click to expand...

Furthermore I have posted several studies all of which indicate that psychological conditions in no way equate to more violent crime. In this case it is his actions not his psychological condition that warrants an evaluation of his stability by a qualified doctor before the return of his firearms. Due Process.
 
Disputatious71 said:
It would not be "legislating" but interpreting the law from the badge, which is the judiciaries role in government.
Click to expand...

So if a judge says that a law you like is unconstitutional, that's "legislating from the bench" and that's bad.

The police selectively enforcing laws is OK, though. Got it.
 
rocket88 said:
So if a judge says that a law you like is unconstitutional, that's "legislating from the bench" and that's bad.

The police selectively enforcing laws is OK, though. Got it.
Click to expand...

Why not, the liberals see it just the opposite way around.
 
Black Manta said:
Again the law does not state any time limit. Maybe you should look it up?
Click to expand...

That does not matter in this case, the fact is he was released from hold because he passed the psych staff. Doesn't matter if they can hold him indefinitely (they can't), once the determination is made and he is cleared for release by psychiatric personnel they cannot hold him.
 
rocket88 said:
So if a judge says that a law you like is unconstitutional, that's "legislating from the bench" and that's bad.

The police selectively enforcing laws is OK, though. Got it.
Click to expand...

The judiciary branch is tasked with interpreting the law, that is not considered in any way "legislating from the bench" in this country.
 
Disputatious71 said:
My question was specific to if this story and if it had made it to a national network.
Click to expand...

And I answered it. It was made national. Although to be fair, pretty much every story goes national these days thanks to news aggregators.
 
clownboy said:
That does not matter in this case, the fact is he was released from hold because he passed the psych staff. Doesn't matter if they can hold him indefinitely (they can't), once the determination is made and he is cleared for release by psychiatric personnel they cannot hold him.
Click to expand...

It does matter. You think 24 hours is fine, most as stated here don't. The law makes no mention of any kind of time limits which you are or were stressing until I pointed out how irrelevant it is to the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom