|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 16, 2020, 05:34 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,292
|
Red Flag Law Case thrown out (Colorado)-abuse of the law?
An older woman whose son was shot and killed by a police officer brought a "Red Flag" case against the police officer.
Previously the police officer had been cleared of any wrong doing concerning the shooting. The woman claimed she and the police officer had a "child in common" perhaps reasoning that she had a child (the man that was killed) and the police officer shot him. Please note the woman was the one who called the police about her son...her call brought the police into the situation. The "child in common" reasoning was rejected by the judge. It would appear that there would be a VERY strong case to bring against the woman for filing the suit since according to the judge she clearly had no bases to bring the suit and the claim "child in common" could be considered perjury. The question one asks though is do you want to bring a lawsuit against a grieving mother who lost a son? Article about the story is here: https://www.coloradoan.com/story/new...er/4483559002/ |
January 16, 2020, 06:02 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 196
|
Yes, I do...She tried to use the law as personal retribution. Charge her...
|
January 16, 2020, 06:08 PM | #3 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
The mother is entitled to grieve, but she's not entitled to create her own fantasy about the incident. I watched a 9-minute video showing the incident from the perspective of two police officers' body cams. The university cop, Morris, backed away from the kid about 100 feet and he must have told him to drop the knife at least 20 or thirty times. It was faint, but you could hear the kid saying something like "My life is over." When Morris started to go for his taser, the kid charged him and both cops fired. And the mother's claim is that Officer Morris used excessive force. That's idiocy. The kid was a real life example of the Tueller Drill in action. It was suicide by cop, and that's all it was. The mother should not be allowed to continue her efforts to destroy the life and career of a police officer who tried very diligently NOT to kill her son.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
January 16, 2020, 06:10 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 11, 2013
Location: High up in the Rocky Moun
Posts: 665
|
She committed perjury. A felony. She deserves to be punished, regardless of the circumstances.
__________________
The soldier's pack is not so heavy a burden as the prisoner's chains. Dwight Eisenhower It is very important what a man stands for. But it is far more important what a man refuses to stand for. |
January 16, 2020, 07:08 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 6,432
|
Quote:
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa |
|
January 16, 2020, 07:55 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,869
|
Quote:
13-14.5-114. Liability. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 13-14.5-112, THIS ARTICLE 14.5 DOES NOT IMPOSE CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LIABILITY ON ANY PERSON OR ENTITY FOR ACTS OR OMISSIONS MADE IN GOOD FAITH RELATED TO OBTAINING AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER OR A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO REPORTING, DECLINING TO REPORT, INVESTIGATING, DECLINING TO INVESTIGATE, FILING, OR DECLINING TO FILE A PETITION PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE 14.5 https://www.westword.com/news/colora...pdate-11609942 Having checked a clearly perjurous basis-of-application block, she's toast. https://www.scribd.com/document/4430...Order-Petition Last edited by mehavey; January 16, 2020 at 08:06 PM. |
|
January 16, 2020, 07:56 PM | #7 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
Page 3, Section 13-14.5-103, line 6: https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/defau...177_signed.pdf The mother has been asked by the press why she perjured herself in her application for the order. She has declined to answer, other than saying that she doesn't think she perjured herself. When asked why not, she declines to answer because she wants to preserve her strategy for an appeal of her denial. My guess is that she's as psychotic as her son was. If I were a betting man, I'd wager that her argument is that she brought her son into this world and Corporal Morris took him out of this world, so they have a common interest in her son's life. (Which, of course, is not what the law means, but it's my guess that this is her twisted logic.)
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
January 16, 2020, 08:09 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,869
|
Quote:
|
|
January 16, 2020, 08:31 PM | #9 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
mehavey, we already know that she claims to have a child in common with the officer. That document only confirms that she made the claim, it doesn't explain how or why she doesn't think making the claim was perjury. I suspect that you and I pretty much agree what "have a child in common" means. Apparently the woman has another view, which so far she has declined to explain.
If you read the definitions on page 2 of the law, they imply the customarily-accepted view that having a child in common means both parties are the parents: Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
January 16, 2020, 08:32 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,322
|
Well that Red Flag law is off to a good start!!
Hopefully this will lay the ground work for getting them all repealed. |
January 16, 2020, 08:33 PM | #11 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
The curious wrinkle is that the text of the law says that the initial application shall have a hearing on the day of the filing of the petition or the next court day thereafter, with no notice to the defendant. Yet that doesn't appear to be what happened in this case, since Corporal Morris was represented in court by two attorneys from the State. Consequently, IMHO any claim that the law worked as intended are spurious, since the text of the law clearly intends for the initial hearing to be ex parte and the defendant doesn't get his chance to defend himself until a week (or two weeks) later. So this case is an aberration under the law.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
January 16, 2020, 09:16 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
The original petition was filed on the 9th. Accordingly, today's hearing wasn't likely the preliminary hearing with out notice.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; January 16, 2020 at 09:29 PM. |
January 16, 2020, 10:11 PM | #13 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
One of the articles I read said something to the effect that the mother didn't request an immediate, ex parte hearing. That confused me, because I don't see anything in the law that makes that an option. That's another aspect that leads me to regard this case as a aberration under the law.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
January 17, 2020, 02:28 AM | #14 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Legal eagles correct me if I'm wrong, (please!) but isn't the difference between the red flag enhanced protection order and the regular protection order just a matter of process and eligibility to apply?
Doesn't the petitioner have to (honestly, "in good faith") have to state they believe there is a threat to themselves or others from the person they are filing against?? Seems in this case, the Judge decided her definition of "child in common" did not meet the necessary legal standard, and so tossed the application. Therefore it never even got to the point of her stating there was a threat, did it?? The woman's son was killed in 2017. Since there is no other mention, we must assume she waited until 2020 to file for protection. Seems unlikely to me that any 'threat" from the officer only just materialized recently, and if not, why did she not file for a regular protection order before?? This seems to be a very clear case of someone trying to use a law to exact vengeance. Quite possibly deliberately perjuring themselves in order to do so. For that, there SHOULD be legal punishment, bereaved, grieving mother, or not. Waiting 2+ years to take legal action against the officer who you feel killed your son wrongly just doesn't look like lashing out in immediate grief, it looks like a cold, calculated attempt at revenge via the legal system. Not getting into the right or wrong of the law, but in this case it seems the system worked properly. An apparently spurious application was made, the Judge ruled it without merit, and it was dismissed. That is actually one of the ways the system is supposed to work.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
January 17, 2020, 04:48 AM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2004
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Posts: 715
|
Well this incident certainly exposed some serious flaws in the law.
Nobody should be able to file for an extreme risk protection order WITHOUT an investigation by law enforcement to substantiate their claims.
__________________
You can only learn from experience if you pay attention! |
January 17, 2020, 06:51 AM | #16 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
A petitioner should not have to request an initial hearing that is mandated by statute, and it isn't normally within a court's discretion to postpone that hearing. This looks like an episode in which the result at this point is correct, but the process was mangled to get there. Quote:
A regular civil temporary restraining order begins with a complaint requesting the TRO (good only for a short period), a temporary injunction (good for the pendency of the case, and a permanent injunction (an order that the defendant can't do X at all). The burden for a TRO, which can be ex parte, is more than a preponderance of the evidence, a probability that the Plaintiff will prevail, and requires the plaintiff to post a bond. In practice, this means one needs to convince the court that the TRO is necessary to avert a damage that can never be rectified. That basic structure informs somewhat abbreviated processes in criminal and domestic matters, but the idea is that quick action is balanced by safeguards and notice to the party affected. The Red Flag initial hearing can be ex parte, and only requires that the petitioner's testimony be uncontroverted. Metaphorically, it's an intersection with a malfunctioning signal.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
January 17, 2020, 08:35 AM | #17 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
Quote:
Quote:
But trying to use the law for "personal retribution"..not sure that's a crime. Waste of everybody's time for sure but absent perjury, not sure that's against the law. Women doesn't like guy she's living with playing video games all day..launches a RFL, that is thrown out by the judge..don't think that's 'illegal'..but I'm not a lawyer. BUT this one Thrown out tho by the judge, as it should have been.
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” |
||
January 17, 2020, 08:38 AM | #18 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” Last edited by USNRet93; January 17, 2020 at 09:03 AM. |
||
January 17, 2020, 09:11 AM | #19 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Is that what the sheriff wouldn't serve here? In my state, I need to show the court my efforts to give notice so the other party can be present for that first hearing, but those aren't RFL petitions.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; January 17, 2020 at 10:01 AM. |
|||
January 17, 2020, 10:21 AM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
Had the law "worked correctly," an order would have been issued and Morris' weapons seized and held for two weeks until a hearing, at which time the order would undoubtedly have been rescinded. As to whether the "grieving mother" should be charged, of course she should. This is a case of cold-blooded vengeance. It is no different than the cases of Aurora parents suing the ammo dealer for selling the ammo to the shooter, or the Sandy Hook parents suing Remington for manufacturing the AR-15 used in the massacre.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
|
January 17, 2020, 10:39 AM | #21 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
Quote:
Quote:
to plead the case?
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” |
||
January 17, 2020, 10:40 AM | #22 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
I'm still trying to find the article that mentioned the mother's opting not to have an initial, ex parte hearing. Of course, it was only one article, and there an extremely remote possibility (cough, cough) that the reporter might not have gotten the facts straight. I did find this article, though:
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...killed-her-son As do all the other articles I've found, this one reports that the judge declined to issue the order -- which means this was the initial hearing, because if this were the follow-up hearing the order would already have been issued and the hearing would have not been over issuing it, but over whether or not to leave it in place for a year. Yet this article confirms that Corporal Morris was represented by the state attorney general's office, so this was not an ex parte hearing -- and it was held a week after the petition was filed, not the same day or the next court day. It's confusing, and I don't think it's entirely due to senility on my part. Quote:
Aha! Here's another article that mentions bypassing the initial, ex parte hearing: https://www.rallyforourrights.com/re...titioners-son/ Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
||
January 17, 2020, 10:52 AM | #23 | |||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
My state also recently enacted a red flag law. It works similarly to the Colorado law, and I think the other states also largely follow suit. Filing the petition is NOT an order, and the police do not serve anything or confiscate firearms just because a petition has been filed. I posted a link to the actual text of the Colorado law, as enacted by the legislature. What it calls for is that, upon filing of the petition, there is an initial, ex parte hearing for the issuance of a temporary extreme risk protective order (ERPO). This initial hearing is to be held (under the Colorado law) the day the petition is filed or on the next court day thereafter: Quote:
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|||
January 17, 2020, 10:57 AM | #24 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
1. A petition is filed. 2. It is heard by a judge. 3. The judge denies or grants the petition and issues an order. 4. If the order grants the petition, it is served on the respondent. Quote:
Quote:
Otherwise, the two week hearing would show as having been held, but with no result on the docket. I'm not telling you that's how it worked here, but how these things should work according to ordinary court docketing procedures.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|||
January 17, 2020, 11:01 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 350
|
Sure, the LEO was notified and had representation when a regular citizen would get neither. Are any of y'all naïve enough to think it would happen otherwise?
Some of y'all think we still live under rule of law. You need to disabuse yourself of such foolish notions. Any regular citizen--especially anyone with view that dissent from the ruling class--would have the RF order applied early and hard and maybe only THEN would some member of the kritarchy notice, "Huh, there really is no child in common. Helluva thing. The deceased target of the red flag can have all his guns back. Make sure you rape his wife and kill his other dog on the way out."
__________________
Regards, jfruser "Books and bullets have their own destinies."----Bob Ross |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|