Skip to main content

View Diary: Dumbass Police Chief Kessler threatens public official: 15 minutes about up. (113 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Here in the 21st century, most hospitals WON'T (9+ / 0-)

    take him because he hasn't 'really' hurt anybody and they don't have to evaluate or treat him. He's a loudmouth protected by freedom of speech.

    Several months ago I and some people I work with tried to get a severely mentally ill man placed on a 6 month involuntary commitment because he is truly a danger to himself.

    But noooooo......

    •  Don't try to lock him up, just disarm him. (5+ / 0-)

      Let him scream and holler all he wants, just NO FIREARMS.

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 04:47:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Preemptive strike is unconstitutional (0+ / 0-)

        While we all probably agree that this man is unbalanced and is dangerous when he's packing heat, you would have to pass the strict scrutiny test if you were going to try to take his guns away.

        I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

        by ccyd on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 05:13:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The threats he's making (6+ / 0-)

          that got him suspended should be more than enough to, at least temporarily, disarm him until a psych evaluation can be made.
          His "right" to own lethal weapons is a danger to everyone around him. Threatens their rights and their survival.

          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

          by CwV on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 05:35:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  He did not get suspended for making threats (8+ / 0-)

            He got suspended for using Borough-owned property (the guns) without authorization. He appears to have engaged in some shady deals in obtaining the guns on his own but in the name of the Borough of Gilberton. He possibly sold or traded guns that non-law-enforcement people typically can't buy. I believe the gun transactions will be what ultimately costs him his job and, perhaps, his freedom.

          •  I don't disagree with the sentiment (0+ / 0-)

            The question in my mind is how to do it within the bounds of the Constitution.

            I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

            by ccyd on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 10:09:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If the people he's threatened get (5+ / 0-)

              a restraining order against him, he can be disarmed without being convicted or locked up. And his threats would certainly move me to get him restrained. He's clearly a danger to society, loudly self-professed and if there is no law that keeps firearms out of his hands, there damm well should be.
              Or do we have to wait until he actually kills someone, because he has the "right"? What about the rights of those he threatens?

              If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

              by CwV on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 10:20:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Assuming that a restraining order could be issued (0+ / 0-)

                I doubt that it could take all his gunz away.  Most of the orders I have seen restrict contact and create a buffer zone, but do not take potentially dangerous weapons away.

                Or do we have to wait until he actually kills someone, because he has the "right"? What about the rights of those he threatens?
                I don't recall making the argument that he has the right to threaten people.  We don't live in the age of the Minority Report.  You can't lock someone up for a crime he or she hasn't committed.  As for the rights of the people he threatened, there are always the civil courts, and there you don't even have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  The legal standard there is a preponderance of the evidence.  The Restatement of Torts defines assault as:
                (1) An actor is subject to liability to another for assault if (a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and
                (b) the other is thereby put in such imminent apprehension
                 In other words, if he threatens you and you get scared, it is a common law assault and the actor is liable for civil damages.

                I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

                by ccyd on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 01:12:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  too bad that's unrealistic in america (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mark Mywurtz

        I don't see a way short of locking the guy up to keep one of his acolytes from rearming him if his armory is confiscated.
        He'd end up with a semi trailer full of AR-15s, courtesy of the NRA.

        Last full month in which the average daily temperature did not exceed twentieth-century norms: 2/1985 - Harper's Index, 2/2013

        by kamarvt on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 09:59:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Doesn't he have a lot of friends w/ guns? (0+ / 0-)

        I would seriously be very nervous about this guy. And just who is going to do the disarming?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site