7th Circuit Upholds Warrantless Entry to Seize Gun

[SteveM4A1]

Gosh, only 3% killed somebody else? Well, no reason to intervene then. 1,000 to 1,500 murders done by suicidal people is simply par for the course and we should just accept it.

Oh, by the way, how many INGO members used their gun to protect themselves or others from an assault this week? Anywhere near 3%? Probably more like 0%? Yet we rail against a business that won't let us carry because we may need to protect ourselves. In that situation we'll say its not the odds, its the stakes. But mentally ill people with a gun? Ah, who cares about 1,000 to 1,500 citizens killed, we shouldn't bother to intervene because the odds are just so low.

The problem with this argument is you can never know who will end up kiling another. Restricting the rights of a group of people based upon "what-ifs" is not logical. Also, narrowing down people into the "mentally ill" category presents its own issues. Who exactly is mentally ill, and according to whom? In a free society, you will have consequences because of that freedom. Restricting those freedoms because of rare occurrences will lead to greater injustices.

 

[KLB]

Gosh, only 3% killed somebody else? Well, no reason to intervene then. 1,000 to 1,500 murders done by suicidal people is simply par for the course and we should just accept it.

Oh, by the way, how many INGO members used their gun to protect themselves or others from an assault this week? Anywhere near 3%? Probably more like 0%? Yet we rail against a business that won't let us carry because we may need to protect ourselves. In that situation we'll say its not the odds, its the stakes. But mentally ill people with a gun? Ah, who cares about 1,000 to 1,500 citizens killed, we shouldn't bother to intervene because the odds are just so low.

Even the title of the article points out the issue with your argument. The vast majority of the murder suicides follow a pattern, which is different than a suicidal person.

Zipple said impulsiveness and substance abuse "are pretty common features," and up to half of murder-suicides involve divorce. Zipple said that, while mental illness is common among perpetrators, serious psychosis is not; the man is more likely to be depressed. Mental illness is thought to be a factor in nine out of 10 suicides overall.

Do you plan to deny everyone that ever gets divorced or is depressed a gun? The best indicator would probably be the existing charged with domestic violence.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Anyone here ever - in frustration - make such a statement?

No. But let's say I did. Did I do it while seeking counseling for mental health issues to my mental health care provider? Not the same thing as joking around with friends. Totality of the circumstances.

That 3% figure got me thinking, what's the percentage of the general population that murders? Looks like, depending on what stats you use, is somewhere between .0055% and .0035%. Apparently, the suicidal mentally ill are about 550 times more likely to murder someone than the average person. Still think we should just leave them alone?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The problem with this argument is you can never know who will end up kiling another. Restricting the rights of a group of people based upon "what-ifs" is not logical. Also, narrowing down people into the "mentally ill" category presents its own issues. Who exactly is mentally ill, and according to whom? In a free society, you will have consequences because of that freedom. Restricting those freedoms because of rare occurrences will lead to greater injustices.

So, because its a difficult issue, we should ignore it. Got it. I suppose people's freedom to not be murdered by the mentally ill doesn't enter the equation. Only what the government does matters. I suppose if you were to pick between two babysitters, one of which was 550 times more likely to be a pedophile than the other, it's just a wash because who can really determine who a pedophile is, and if its even wrong.

Even the title of the article points out the issue with your argument. The vast majority of the murder suicides follow a pattern, which is different than a suicidal person.

Do you plan to deny everyone that ever gets divorced or is depressed a gun? The best indicator would probably be the existing charged with domestic violence.

Then I fail to see the issue with having them evaluated by a mental health professional who can determine if they fit that pattern or not. We aren't taking these people and hanging them. In Indiana, you are held a maximum of 3 days without the sign off of a judge and mental health professional. If the mental heath professional determines you aren't an immediate threat to yourself or others (and it must be immediate) you aren't held beyond the evaluation.

As for the second part, I don't think that's any part of what's under discussion. Did someone mention expanding it to divorcees? I disagree with the Brady act because its permanent. Someone who slaps their spouse at 19 shouldn't be penalized the rest of their life. There should be a way to be reevaluated and have the restrictions dropped. The mental health evaluation is the same. While access to weapons and opportunities for violence should be restricted while the threat is present, once the threat subsides, so do the restrictions.

 

[thebishopp]

I never understood calling the police for a person threatening suicide (if he is only threatening himself). You almost guarantee "suicide by cop". It seems kind of stupid if the goal is for the person NOT to die.

 

[SteveM4A1]

So, because its a difficult issue, we should ignore it. Got it. I suppose people's freedom to not be murdered by the mentally ill doesn't enter the equation. Only what the government does matters. I suppose if you were to pick between two babysitters, one of which was 550 times more likely to be a pedophile than the other, it's just a wash because who can really determine who a pedophile is, and if its even wrong.

I didn't say ignore it, but ok. People have a right to not be murdered by someone else, but only they have the responsibility to protect that right. You can't place the responsibility at the feet of the government to protect us from ourselves. That is when we are no longer a free society. I can see your point, and I can definitely see it is coming from a protective personality, something I am sure you take very seriously in your line of work. However, you cannot be held responsible for my protection, nor I for yours. It is a personal responsibility issue, not a government issue.

Your last part is creating a false dichotomy..

 

[cce1302]

No. But let's say I did. Did I do it while seeking counseling for mental health issues to my mental health care provider? Not the same thing as joking around with friends. Totality of the circumstances.

That 3% figure got me thinking, what's the percentage of the general population that murders? Looks like, depending on what stats you use, is somewhere between .0055% and .0035%. Apparently, the suicidal mentally ill are about 550 times more likely to murder someone than the average person. Still think we should just leave them alone?

If by "we" you mean the government and its agents, then yes.

So, because its a difficult issue, we should ignore it. Got it. I suppose people's freedom to not be murdered by the mentally ill doesn't enter the equation. Only what the government does matters. I suppose if you were to pick between two babysitters, one of which was 550 times more likely to be a pedophile than the other, it's just a wash because who can really determine who a pedophile is, and if its even wrong.

I choose who I hire to babysit. The police department doesn't choose for me.

Then I fail to see the issue with having them evaluated by a mental health professional who can determine if they fit that pattern or not. We aren't taking these people and hanging them. In Indiana, you are held a maximum of 3 days without the sign off of a judge and mental health professional. If the mental heath professional determines you aren't an immediate threat to yourself or others (and it must be immediate) you aren't held beyond the evaluation.

I don't have a problem with them getting a mental health evaluation. I have a problem with police officers forcing it at gunpoint and confiscating private property without due process.

 

[Bill of Rights]

No. But let's say I did. Did I do it while seeking counseling for mental health issues to my mental health care provider? Not the same thing as joking around with friends. Totality of the circumstances.

That 3% figure got me thinking, what's the percentage of the general population that murders? Looks like, depending on what stats you use, is somewhere between .0055% and .0035%. Apparently, the suicidal mentally ill are about 550 times more likely to murder someone than the average person. Still think we should just leave them alone?

What was it Mark Twain was noted for saying? Lies, da*n lies, and statistics? You can make the numbers say whatever you want. It's a very sad day when people decide to try to restrict others' access to their natural rights based on a spreadsheet.

Who of us has never said that so-and-so "should be shot", or some similar phrase? It's right up there with "there oughta be a law against.....", as neither of those things is a good idea. Just because I say that someone "should be shot" does not mean I'm planning on going out and doing the job myself!

Too, even saying what this person said to a mental health care provider in the course of a counseling session is not indicative in and of itself. Scenario: When checking job references, a business is allowed to ask (and the former employer is allowed to answer) only certain questions, such as, "Did <name> work for you between <start date given> and <end date given>?"
When answering that question, I can say, "Oh yes, he worked here then." and in a typed transcript, I've violated no employment law. Now... consider that the inflection given to certain words can alter the meaning of that phrase: The above typed, vs. "OH yes... HE worked here then."

Coming back to our person in a counseling session, how something is said is equally if not more important than what was said. A phrase like "Maybe I should just go blow my brains out." can be said as typed, or otherwise, and the problem is that people don't speak in purple text. Hell, people have problems discerning sarcasm here even WITH purple text!

I know a couple of police officers who I've personally heard say, "Let's go violate someone's civil rights", and while they were referring to going back out to their patrol districts and looking for people violating laws, if that phrase had been used in front of their chief or the merit board, should they be immediately relieved of duty and put on unpaid suspension pending review? (I know some will answer this as "yes", simply because they are LEOs. Those people will be ignored for the purpose of this discussion.)

As you said, totality of circumstances, and I don't think you're looking at that totality, just the portion of it that justifies LE action.

Upthread, someone answered with the politician syllogism: We must do something; this is something; we must do this. Ignoring the inherent falsehood of the initial premise (we must do something... why? Why must something be done, and why you?) I'm left with the fact that just because an action may address a problem does not mean that that is the right action, let alone necessary or proper.

People do crazy (not the clinical definition) things. People do stupid things. Doing crazy or stupid things is not against the law, nor should it be. Why do people call police when something happens that they feel ill-equipped to address? Same reason people called the fire department in years past to get cats out of trees. The FD had ladders. Today, they've moved beyond using those ladders for tasks other than the reason they have them. Maybe it's time LE moved beyond using their tools for things that are not malum in se crimes also.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

if someone is willing to harm themselves, is it not illogical they might have a propensity to harm others?

Yes, it is illogical to make that assumption. The person who loathes himself enough to wish to be dead might harm himself enough to make it happen, but there is no reason to expect that he holds any animosity for anyone else in the process, and if in the process, (say, jumping off a building) he does cause harm to another, it is purely incidental. Regrettable, yes. Tragic, even, but not worthy of violating the natural, civil, and Constitutional rights of anyone solely to create an illusion of safety.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[EdC]

It sounds like the facts here were pretty bad, and even though the police might have meant well, but "the intrusions on [her] privacy were profound" said the court.

As reported in the article:

"Sutterfield's doctor called police after Sutterfield left an appointment by saying she might as well go home and "blow her brains out," after Sutterfield had gotten some bad news. Sutterfield was wearing an empty gun holster to the appointment, so her doctor assumed Sutterfield had a gun.

Sutterfield later disputed making the comment.

Police went to Sutterfield's home but didn't find her.

Later, Sutterfield called her doctor and said she was not in need of assistance and to call off the police.
But officers returned to Sutterfield's residence that evening, some nine hours after her comment to her doctor. They found her at home. She told them she was fine, did not want their help and asked them to leave, and called 911 when they would not.
The officers forcibly entered, handcuffed Sutterfield and took her to the county's Mental Health Complex."

However, one bad incident under bad facts shouldn't mean the government and police should stay out of such situations. To craft laws and policies based on outliers is just crazy. BTW, I think that the Court got it wrong, and that in this instance, based on these facts, her rights to privacy were violated.

 

[actaeon277]

As it's been mentioned, if it was so important to seize the gun, were other instruments of suicide also taken?

 

[cce1302]

It sounds like the facts here were pretty bad, and even though the police might have meant well, but "the intrusions on [her] privacy were profound" said the court.

As reported in the article:

"Sutterfield's doctor called police after Sutterfield left an appointment by saying she might as well go home and "blow her brains out," after Sutterfield had gotten some bad news. Sutterfield was wearing an empty gun holster to the appointment, so her doctor assumed Sutterfield had a gun.

Sutterfield later disputed making the comment.

Police went to Sutterfield's home but didn't find her.

Later, Sutterfield called her doctor and said she was not in need of assistance and to call off the police.
But officers returned to Sutterfield's residence that evening, some nine hours after her comment to her doctor. They found her at home. She told them she was fine, did not want their help and asked them to leave, and called 911 when they would not.
The officers forcibly entered, handcuffed Sutterfield and took her to the county's Mental Health Complex."

However, one bad incident under bad facts shouldn't mean the government and police should stay out of such situations. To craft laws and policies based on outliers is just crazy. BTW, I think that the Court got it wrong, and that in this instance, based on these facts, her rights to privacy were violated.

For the record, my opinion of the role of the government police has nothing to do with this situation, or other "outliers." It is a result of my understanding of the words, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

 

[88GT]

They aren't, but....


Sutterfield's doctor called police after Sutterfield left an appointment by saying she might as well go home and "blow her brains out," after Sutterfield had gotten some bad news. Sutterfield was wearing an empty gun holster to the appointment, so her doctor assumed Sutterfield had a gun.

So she had a means, motive, and plan.

Ridiculous. Saying she might as well blows her brains out isn't motive. Nor is it really a plan. It's an ASSumption on the doc's part. As is the conclusion drawn that she owned a firearm because she had an empty holster.

If that's all you got, then there are thousands of depressed individuals who should be SWATted immediately for their inherent risk to.....themselves? So the cop can shoot instead of the individual. That's just brilliant.

they didn't try because they don't really have "warrants" for that type of situation. There was not a crime and she was not a suspect.

Then WTH does LE need to stick its nose in it for?

if someone is willing to harm themselves, is it not illogical they might have a propensity to harm others?

Yes, it is illogical. When I was suffering severe post partum depression, I wanted to die. I didn't want to kill myself. Just not live. And I certainly didn't want to cause harm to anybody else. Why would you assume that someone who doesn't want to live wants to hurt someone else?

Gosh, only 3% killed somebody else? Well, no reason to intervene then. 1,000 to 1,500 murders done by suicidal people is simply par for the course and we should just accept it.

It goes without saying that in order for it to be a murder-suicide, the murder part has to take place first. At which point, I doubt anybody here would say that LE shouldn't intervene. Let's keep the comparison apples to apples, huh?