Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Chippopotanuse t1_itpgu86 wrote

Reply to comment by foreverpsycotic in All 6 Hartland fire victims sustained gunshot wounds, police chief confirms by MoMedic9019

Hmmm…do violent ACCUSED rapists and felons lose the right to wander society when they are held in pre-trial detention when bail is denied (due to either being a flight risk or because they are a threat to society)?

Yes.

All the damn time.

And it’s fully constitutional.

So…please explain why a pre-trial hearing as to whether a person accused of domestic violence should not be able to cause someone to surrender their firearms.

These aren’t willy-nilly decisions they lack due process. They are decision a judge makes AFTER a dangerousness hearing.

Are you saying you want violent individuals to continue to possess firearms EVEN AFTER they have appeared in court, and AFTER a judge has considered evidence, and AFTER the judge has found that the person ought to surrender their firearms?

−7

SohndesRheins t1_itpw050 wrote

When someone is deemed too dangerous to be free before their trial, bail is denied. Guess what you can't do while you are sitting in jail? Buy a gun. If you aren't considered too dangerous to be free, you get bail. I don't understand how someone can be deemed too dangerous to have a gun but we will let them walk free and buy all the knives, swords, daggers, black powder revolvers, piano wire, etc. they want. You can be out on bail or be a convicted killer who got let loose and be able to put together a murder kit, minus the smokeless powder firearm. Maybe a person too dangerous to own a gun is also too dangerous to ever walk the streets again.

13

foreverpsycotic t1_ittr4t8 wrote

If someone is too dangerous to own a gun, they should be denied bail.

1

Chippopotanuse t1_itu9pjq wrote

If that’s the compromise we need to make, I’m fine denying bail to domestic abusers.

One of the MOST dangerous times for abuse victims is when they take steps to protect themselves and end abuse. At the end of the day a restraining order just a piece of paper.

1

foreverpsycotic t1_itvfb40 wrote

I am ok with that, only if there is an actual penalty for false reporting. If you are going to take someone's freedom on a claim, you need to be held responsible.

0

Chippopotanuse t1_itvowds wrote

What, in your estimation, is the ratio of false DV and rape claims to legitimate ones?

1

foreverpsycotic t1_itww1fz wrote

I have no idea, I haven't researched. What is the cost to a person accused of such crimes and held without bail for months if not longer? If you were held for 18 months for a crime you were not convicted of, what would happen to you? Your family? Your home?

0

Chippopotanuse t1_itxe2i7 wrote

Come back when you’ve done the research. I’ve Represented dozens of women in DV cases. It’s eye opening.

I’ll give you two general principles:

  • False claims of rape and DV are incredibly rare.

  • most cases of rape and DV go unreported.

Whats interesting to me is that you seem to sympathize more with hypothetical falsely accused abusers (who you admit you have no idea how many exist) rather than sympathize with the victims and survivors who suffer horrific abuse and try to use law enforcement and the courts to get some iota off protection.

Have you thought of how many women are killed by abusers each year (well over 1,000). Or how many children? In the past month I’ve read of dozens of folks killed by abusive husbands, exes, and fathers.

Do you think there are more than 1,000 abusive men who have lost their homes and jobs to FALSE claims of DV each year?

1

foreverpsycotic t1_ityc3tp wrote

I sympathize with no one. If you are going to strip people of their rights on a claim without a trial, there must be some downside if someone does lie.

1