National Spousal confiscation equals theft

[American123]

Is this really about Constitutional rights? Then here's the flip side of what you said: Imagine the legally armed soul who is placed in such fear for his life that he is willing to take violent action with the real potential to remove - permanently - another person's Constitutionally guaranteed right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. For most of us, this is a very easy scenario to imagine; in fact, anyone who carries for self-defense should have actually made a decision about that scenario a long time ago.

Can you decide from the available info if that woman was vindictive, merely a bit frightened, or actually in fear for her life? Neither can I.

We can compare available alternatives, though. Would it have been better for her to (1) do nothing except wait, hoping against hope that the dude wouldn't come at her with the guns he agreed to relinquish in exchange for release, (2) arm herself and be ready to "stop the threat" when he comes at her with a gun, or (3) commit a non-violent, preemptive burglary to effectively disarm the person who she believed posed an ongoing threat to her life?

Choices 1 and 2 have real potential for one or both of them to be seriously injured or dead. She chose number 3 - which left no one injured or dead - to non-violently de-fang the perceived threat, even though it made her vulnerable to burglary charges.

The white night is strong here...

Seems the domestic violence that started this situation to begin with is still "alleged," could have happened, could have not. It is not uncommon for women to claim domestic violence during a divorce battle to gain favorable divorce outcomes. It's actually far too common, that and have the mom accuse the dad of molesting the kids. People do evil things when they are vindictive.

I tend to favorably view vigilantism when it rights a wrong not already corrected by the law, however, with no clear and obvious guilty guy action here, it seems far more likely this is a case of "crazy woman ex" being vindictive.

The irony in this whole situation is had he been home, he could have defended himself, and yet she was the one "fearing him" breaking into his home... right...

 

[nammac]

The white night is strong here...

Seems the domestic violence that started this situation to begin with is still "alleged," could have happened, could have not. It is not uncommon for women to claim domestic violence during a divorce battle to gain favorable divorce outcomes. It's actually far too common, that and have the mom accuse the dad of molesting the kids. People do evil things when they are vindictive.

I tend to favorably view vigilantism when it rights a wrong not already corrected by the law, however, with no clear and obvious guilty guy action here, it seems far more likely this is a case of "crazy woman ex" being vindictive.

The irony in this whole situation is had he been home, he could have defended himself, and yet she was the one "fearing him" breaking into his home... right...

Kinda sums up about where I am regarding this one... Considering I myself have "a crazy woman, off the hook ex", so there's that tainted perspective... Ya gotta live it to appreciate what a normal woman truly is...

 

[American123]

But can you blame her?

The guy rammed her car. He was obviously prone to violence. Had she not done this we probably would be reading about how he shot her.

Is there video of this ramming of the car, it could have easily been a brake check done by the (ex)wife to to induce the favorable the outcomes of whatvever legal battles they may be involved in. There is a LOT of assumption in this post blaming a guy with little evidence.

There are truly valid cases of domestic violence and women needing to protect themselves, and there are also truly valid cases of a bat-poop crazy woman being a complete vindictive female dog and utilizing the slanted court system, and "white nights" rushing to protect "the woman" to screw over the man. I'm all far "right" being done, but its too early to tell who is actually the victim here.

 

[American123]

Kinda sums up about where I am regarding this one... Considering I myself have "a crazy woman, off the hook ex", so there's that tainted perspective... Ya gotta live it to appreciate what a normal woman truly is...

People use the word jaded, and tainted, to describe what is really only "experience." Just because the experience and lessons learned doesn't leave society's suggested viewpoint in favorable light doesn't mean it is bad. I mean good grief, we don't have to hate women to acknowledge that some of them can be crazy at the best of times, and complete psychopaths bent on your personal suffering at the worst of times.

If you watch any redonkulas videos about the Mgtow movement, it leaves a guy with experience laughing at the accuracy of it all.

I married a crazy one, divorced a crazy one, and am engaged to be married again to what I believe to be a significantly less crazy one, time will tell but I think communication and directness goes a long way. If both men and women are clear with their expectations and lines that will not be tolerated if crossed, it makes it easier to avoid some of the craziness.

 

[OldBroad44]

Seems to me that if she breaks into the home of her estranged spouse and steals his guns she isn't all that afraid of him. After all, he could have come home while she was doing it. And presumably she realizes that breaking into his place and taking his guns would infuriate him. But apparently isnt worried about making him madder than ever. Women I've known who were genuinely afraid of their spouses took defensive measures like staying with a friend or relative, changing the locks on their doors, or getting someone to stay with them. They were worried about guy breaking into their place, not breaking into guy's place. Her story doesnt smell right to me.

Even if the woman had been aggressed upon, that gave her no right to break into anyone's apartment and take their guns. That was breaking and entering and theft. She should go to jail for it.

 

[bgdawgrr]

Based on what I'm reading here, I see how we ended up with Red Flag laws.

 

[Member 52301]

Seems to me that if she breaks into the home of her estranged spouse and steals his guns she isn't all that afraid of him. After all, he could have come home while she was doing it. And presumably she realizes that breaking into his place and taking his guns would infuriate him. But apparently isnt worried about making him madder than ever. Women I've known who were genuinely afraid of their spouses took defensive measures like staying with a friend or relative, changing the locks on their doors, or getting someone to stay with them. They were worried about guy breaking into their place, not breaking into guy's place. Her story doesnt smell right to me.

Even if the woman had been aggressed upon, that gave her no right to break into anyone's apartment and take their guns. That was breaking and entering and theft. She should go to jail for it.

I agree with this post 100%.

Thank you.

And theft IS theft whether you break in or have a key.

NO one has the right to steal another person's property whether it is a firearm, cash, a piece of clothing or a bottle of Bayer aspirin.

The story does smell fishy and what dumb bunny who was in fear of losing his/her life would go to the supposedly BAD GUY'S HOUSE to pull this theft - stunt?!

Old Lady Cate

 

[Member 52301]

As I don't know the whole story, I don't know who I would side with on this one. I've known more than one case where it turned out the female "victim" was actually Bat S.... crazy and upon further investigation it was discovered the male was the actual victim.

THIS is true. There are many cases where the SO CALLED VICTIM was the bat s crazy one and they wanted to really hurt the other person.

Bat s crazy or not - THEFT is theft.

The story smells fishy to me.

Cate

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Abuse has no place in a relationship...I also understand the fear of a partner.
But..
As has been pointed out , theft is theft...

As for Red Flag laws...there are needed but...many of them are so poorly worded and leave themselves open to a loose interpretation in court...
Which in turn makes me fear my partner in this case my partner being the court system...which , having a history of being abused ...brings me back around to my first statement...Abuse has no place in a relationship.
Andy

 

[The Heretic]

Ever see Minority report?

The guy had already committed a crime by ramming her car. The question is, why wasn't he in jail for that assault?

 

[slimmer13]

If he tried to ram her with a car, why didnt she steal his car?

Sounds like he is the weapon. Not sure how stealing one of many possible tools would make her safer.

 

[notazombie]

1. Allegedly
2. Huffpost
3. Florida

Need I continue?

 

[Mikej]

As reported. Yet they let him out after 1 day in jail? There are three possibilities:

1) Never happened.
2) She slammed on her brakes inducing a crash.
3) It happened as reported.

I think it should be pretty obvious based on how often basic firearms facts get twisted or are in complete error to push an agenda, that the same thing could happen in any newspaper article.

It's FLORIDA! 'Nuff said.

If you watch any redonkulas videos about the Mgtow movement, it leaves a guy with experience laughing at the accuracy of it all.

I'd never heard of this, MGTOW before. Men Going Their Own Way - Wikipedia Fascinating!

 

[nammac]

There's a single word that describes this woman, you can thank the Mrs for this, "Insane"

 

[titsonritz]

I'm so terrified of the bear, I think I'll go poke it.

 

[BrandonQuixote]

Is this really about Constitutional rights? Then here's the flip side of what you said: Imagine the legally armed soul who is placed in such fear for his life that he is willing to take violent action with the real potential to remove - permanently - another person's Constitutionally guaranteed right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. For most of us, this is a very easy scenario to imagine; in fact, anyone who carries for self-defense should have actually made a decision about that scenario a long time ago.

Can you decide from the available info if that woman was vindictive, merely a bit frightened, or actually in fear for her life? Neither can I.

We can compare available alternatives, though. Would it have been better for her to (1) do nothing except wait, hoping against hope that the dude wouldn't come at her with the guns he agreed to relinquish in exchange for release, (2) arm herself and be ready to "stop the threat" when he comes at her with a gun, or (3) commit a non-violent, preemptive burglary to effectively disarm the person who she believed posed an ongoing threat to her life?

Choices 1 and 2 have real potential for one or both of them to be seriously injured or dead. She chose number 3 - which left no one injured or dead - to non-violently de-fang the perceived threat, even though it made her vulnerable to burglary charges.

1- Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness arent constitutionally protected nor are they even Constitituonal. That phrase is from the Declaration of Independence.

2- You're looking at this from too high up. She very well could have broken into his home while he was there and he could have smoked her- thinking she was another junkie. All three of your scenarios could have ended badly, you're just framing the one you like best as the most effective and safest.
3- You're justifying the confiscation of property based on a POSSIBILITY. What if someone you worked with came to your home, saw you get drunk and they next day broke into your home , stole your car and turned it in to the cops, saying they were scared you were gonna drive after a few PBRs?

4- You masquerade her actions as non violent but B&E is still B&E if you dont beat the piss out of the occupants. Non violent crime is still non violent CRIME.

Committing a crime under the auspices that YOU can see the future, so it's not a crime to violate someone's rights, is preposterous.

 

[BrandonQuixote]

Anyone here supporting red flag laws is our enemy, gentlemen. Confiscating property on hearsay and not through DUE PROCESS is criminal in itself. Those supporting it dont realize they're one Facebook-crazed aunt away from having everything taken at gun point for posting a perforated anatomical target from the range.

 

[awshoot]

Is this really about Constitutional rights? Then here's the flip side of what you said: Imagine the legally armed soul who is placed in such fear for his life that he is willing to take violent action with the real potential to remove - permanently - another person's Constitutionally guaranteed right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. For most of us, this is a very easy scenario to imagine; in fact, anyone who carries for self-defense should have actually made a decision about that scenario a long time ago. ....

The first rule of carrying: don't go breaking the law.

There isn't a flip side to this story with a lawful self-defense angle. She broke the law. A better analogy would be this: she was afraid he might do something so she hunted him down and shot him. Nobody would bat an eye if she was arrested for that because she broke the law. Nobody should be shocked she was arrested for breaking the law another way.

 

[awshoot]

The guy had already committed a crime by ramming her car. The question is, why wasn't he in jail for that assault?

Please take media with a little more salt. That is what is claimed. It might be true, exaggerated, or totally false. We'll never know though by reading what is reported.

 

[Ura-Ki]

The white night is strong here...

Seems the domestic violence that started this situation to begin with is still "alleged," could have happened, could have not. It is not uncommon for women to claim domestic violence during a divorce battle to gain favorable divorce outcomes. It's actually far too common, that and have the mom accuse the dad of molesting the kids. People do evil things when they are vindictive.

I tend to favorably view vigilantism when it rights a wrong not already corrected by the law, however, with no clear and obvious guilty guy action here, it seems far more likely this is a case of "crazy woman ex" being vindictive.

The irony in this whole situation is had he been home, he could have defended himself, and yet she was the one "fearing him" breaking into his home... right...

YUP, I'm thinking this is the likely situation!