Larry McCarthy probably didn’t see it coming. On Friday, just 3 days ago, Larry’s wife filed for divorce and Larry was served with her petition. It appears that she took their two children and removed them to an unknown location.
Yesterday, Sunday afternoon, at about 3:00, Larry got a call from the Franklin, MA Police Department. Mrs. McCarthy had obtained an Abuse Prevention Order which required Larry to leave his home and not return. It ordered him not to contact his wife or his children. It also required him to surrender his firearms to the police department. It did not require any evidence, nor due process, nor finding of fact. It simply kicked him out of his life because his wife had requested that the Court do so.
Larry was apparently not impressed by this order and was not interested in being served with it, nor surrendering his property to armed collectors, and he apparently told the police so. Units were dispatched from 5 jurisdictions to surround the McCarthy home.
At 5:30 PM, Larry walked out his back door with a rifle. The Norfolk County District Attorney, William Keating, says that “He raised it with two hands, in a menacing manner…”
A Franklin Police officer, a 10 year veteran, shot him dead.
Keating says:
“It was obvious it was going to be a volatile situation”
I can’t help but wonder how the rest of Larry’s weekend went.
OPEN SEASON!!!
Geez. I wonder whether he had a life insurance policy, and who the beneficiary was.
So these shmucks in MA essentially went into a volatile situation with half a mind to kill this poor guy. Madness.
It reminds me of Chicago–already notorious for being ahead of the social curve. They don’t know anything about probable cause, either.
It’s quite common for unarmed young men to be shot in in the back if the police sense a potentially ‘volatile situation’ arising. You’d almost think they had ESP. It’s amazing how clearly the cops can see a small handgun in the black of night.
The customary internal investigation that arises after the grieving family takes it up with the local tv station always reveals the officers involved to be absolutely innocent and completely justified in their actions. Nothing to see here folks. Works like a clock.
If you come to Chicago, keep your nose clean.
No problem with the police action. The problem is a justice system, or lack of one, that allows one person to ruin the lives of many without any effort to check and see if she “it’s always she” was telling the truth. In 99 + % of the cases ‘she’ was lying and out for revenge or an easy out. In 75% of the cases she was/is cheating with someone else and is looking for an easy way out. People are still like cattle, they haven’t figured out the grass is not greener on the other side of the fence.
Interesting how the police will get off scot-free on this one, but not when there is a charging man reaching for something in his coat. (Who does not stop when told to.)
All politics is local they say, I guess a certain amount of idiocy is, too.
and people wonder why I refuse to get married…….
No hearing? wow.
Amen brother.
If you are a man the social contract of marriage
It’s a death trap, it’s a suicide rap
And that’s no bullshit.
If that’s a fair social contract no woman should balk at flipping things around.
Any takers ladies?
Because you’re the type that would walk out with a gun in your hand?
The no hearing part is whack. Though, my father got my mother removed from the house without a hearing, too. Why? She slapped him across the face. Why? For cheating on her for two years. Know where she went? To jail.
Its really not just the police, its everyone.
Also, this could have been a suicide (by cop). All he had to do was walk out with his rifle and look mildly threatening.
I’m sure his hands aren’t clean in this deal… but usually neither are the wife’s. Its a shame the police ended up getting involved. Will be interesting to find out the relevant facts as they emerge.
I looked it up. There is an ex-parte hearing, resulting in a temporary order if the court finds immediate and present danger of abuse. So it does require a finding, and it lasts until the respondent shows up for the hearing—within 10 days. This guy chose not to. Wonder how hard it was to show immediate and present danger of abuse.
No, because you can find stories of the courts and women fucking men over on a daily basis in this country.
The saddest part is that there is actually no evidence required.
See for instance child support. Did you know that a man can be required to pay child support for a child that everyone acknowledges (and has been proven by DNA testing) to not be his child?
Did you know that if a woman rapes a man and has a child, he can be forced to pay child support?
In most cases all it takes is an accusation.
Welcome to Massachusetts, Where you’re guilty when accused.
Figures acturd would show up and, exercising all forty nine IQ points and three consecutive years of preschool, miss the point.
Good thing the little clown isn’t “practicing law” someplace. If she were, she’d realize that the trial lawyer’s former national head honcho of family law had years ago publicly proclaimed the regular loss of a few innocent men at the hands of the legal establishment a completely acceptable cost if it meant enriching the girls in the audience.
I looked it up.
In other words, actus,
is simply functionally false.
Uh. The court has to make a finding. Based on something. Like testimony: ie, evidence.
I’ll be you this guy never made any decisions in his marriage. Not even the one to WALK OUT WITH A GUN.
but ‘she’? thats curious.
When are you guys going to wipe your feet after you step in that shit?
Hmmm. Suicide by cop? With male suicide reported to be between eight and ten times that of female suicide, one wonders.
Of course, one would have to have a soul, some constitutional background, and a commensurate sense of justice to imagine what having their life legally stolen on a whim in America feels like, right actus?
(Sorry McGhee.)
I call bullshit. I despise actard as much as most around here, but if you read the linked article, you find that
1. “ Lawrence J. McCarthy, 42, of Chestnut Street, was carrying a gun with a telescopic lens when he exited the rear of his home and raised the gun in the direction of police, authorities said.”
2. “ McCarthy was in the middle of a divorce and had been issued a restraining order earlier yesterday”.
TRO. What sounds like a hunting rifle.
Fuck him and his puppy dog, frankly. And what does the opinion of the head of the ambulance chaser’s guild have to do with the number of polyps in your colon, 6gun? No offense, but that’s a non sequitur worthy of . . . well, it’s worthy of actus.
Uh. He gets a hearing within 10 days. He can hire a lawyer. Or a gun.
Thanks Phil.
Fuck people that feel it’s okay to walk out of their home with a gun, when all the police want to do is talk.
Seriously.
Those cops wanted to talk. The guy probably would have been arrested. That’s why he brought a gun.
Fuck him.
I hope his family can get through this terrible tragedy (to them). I can’t imagine the pain.
Seriously.
Easyliving
What part of VAWA deals with this?
Oops. I was looking at the PA law. That one just says “finding.” the MA law says that the plaintiff needs to show a “substantial likelihood of immediate danger of abuse.” Within 10 days the defendant has an opportunity to be heard. Or defendant can come out with a gun right away.
He gets a foregone conclusion in ten days, actus, and a lawyer only ensures it. Yeah, you figure it out; I call it a self-perpetuating industry: In family law, attorneys work for one another. Litigants just keep the money flowing.
That’s an unfair generalization? No, it’s a growing majority opinion; take it up with the victims of the divorce and custody industries. You know where to find them; they’re the half or so million victims of your greater system of law, the branch that has trial lawyers and red-fems perpetually lobbying against citizen’s initiative after citizen’s initiative and bill draft after bill draft.
But you know that.
Phil’s pissy, ignorant little inkblot aside, I’m not defending the guy one iota. I’m just pointing to what we’ve become. Thanks for your help.
Well, I will agree with you, the sort of guy that does this thing. He’s not the sort that’s going to win out.
I’m sure the law enforcement officers of our country appreciate your input, 6gun.
Assume everything you’ve said is true, 6gun; you’re still left with a fucking idiot raising a gun towards the duly appointed officers of the law. They were doing their job, he fucked up, life is often a bitch.
Highly incomplete, actus. Aside from this guy’s tragic choice of negotiating style, losing everything the client-victim owns and lives for (at a few hundred an hour) is modus operandi for the divorce industry. It only requires trampling a half dozen prior constitutional assurances to do so.
I encourage you consider itemizing them; I believe they’re part of a legal education? I also encourage you to logically reconcile these figures:
1. 85% of primary or sole custody awards go to mothers, not fathers;
2. At least that ratio of restraining orders are filed and won by women, the results of which absolutely do not require cause, due process, presumption of innocence, or evidence. They require mere allegation.
3. Yet women commit just shy of half of all documented instances of domestic violence in the US. It’s now emerging that women account for more than half in Britian, Australia, and other western nations.
4. Men commit far less than half of all abuse and neglect of children.
5. (As an aside, women own billions more in personal property in the US, and outlive men by the better part of a decade. Food for thought—ask a man if he expects to win anything in family court. Try it. Walk-away is the overwhelming choice. Fighting for little things like your house and kids is the surest way to both poverty and an early grave, and not by way of what amounts to waving a hunting rifle around in a police station.)
The visible trail of breadcrumbs in all of this leads between VAWA, the NOW, big federally-enabled incentives for divorce, and your local legislature. All nice and tidy; just go look it up.
I’m no mysoginist. These are just common figures published all over the sizable and growing parenting-rights universe every day. VAWA is the end result of “welfare reform”, signed by Clinton at the behest of a Republican congress pressured by conservatives primarily to make black single fathers pay and now used by leftists to, well, make white and/or financially-adequate single fathers pay.
The untinded consequences have become intended consequences, and the players have changed sides. Because authoritarianism works so very well.
I can assure you that this is not an debate you can succeed at on facts, actus.
“Young man, this is a court of law, not a court of justice!” – Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
How do you feel about the cop that killed him? How do you feel for that guy or gal?
wow.
What part of VAWA does this?
I don’t know what part of the universe you guys live in that men always get the shaft in divorce and custody cases, but it is certainly not the reality in the world where the children I teach live. For years I have seen countless children and their mothers suffer divorce and separation induced poverty while dads refuse to visit or pay child support. Even worse are the dads who support the new girlfriend’s kids while neglecting their own.
I’ll admit that there are both bad moms and dads, but in my 30 years of teaching experience I have seen more pathetic dads than moms by a long shot. I wish a lot more dads would be more like my husband – a decent blend of goofiness and responsibility – knowing when to act like a kid with his kids and when to step up and be the man of his house.
As long as nobody got tortured, I don’t see what the fucking problem is.
It’s Sunday afternoon. Maybe you’ve been drinking since Friday night, when you found out your wife left you and took your kids.
3:00, the cops are notified that an AP order has been issued. They know you’ve got guns in the house. They know you must be emotionally distraught.
Waiting until Monday for you to go to work is apparently out of the question. Instead of coming to your door and trying to wrap things up on the spot, they call you and tell you they’re coming to remove you and take your guns.
Then they surround your house with units from 5 towns.
Would anyone like to tell me how forcibly separating a man from his property prevents abuse? I know how shooting him does it, but I fail to see how taking his house away from him does it.
Actard, the hearings are pro-forma, and McCarthy didn’t get one. The outcome is a foregone conclusion. These orders are passed out like candy by a court system that doesn’t care what the law says, beginning with that silly burden of proof thing. See David Letterman.
Anyone else wondering how Mrs. McCarthy is feeling about her decisions? How about her now fatherless children?
On the bright side, she does get the house now, no questions asked. Child support may be a problem.
If divorce is so terrible for women, why are two-thirds of divorces intitiated by women? Does divorce induce poverty, or is it lack of marketable skills that cause the poverty?
Must have come out of nowhere too.
Uh the wife and kids live there. This is the type of guy that goes on a 2 day bender and then comes out with a gun. How do you think he’ll act if there’s no cops around?
Right. he gets one in ten days. Or one right away if he walks out with his gun.
It could be that marriage to some people is also terrible. The sorts of people that bring guns to chat with the cops.
Does divorce induce poverty, or is it lack of marketable skills that cause the poverty?
Humn – I’ve stayed at home to care for the kids for the past 11 years so my husband couldn’t concentrate on his job. If he divorced me tomorrow, would you say it’s my lack of marketing skills, or a man that fucked me over?
A friend just lost her kids yesterday. Ex decided he didn’t want to pay child support anymore (after all he’s married again, and has a new baby) so he sued for custody. The children had to be removed by the police, kicking and screaming.
OH, paternal love.
That is the generally accepted strategy of choice.
But she apparently didn’t want to live with him anymore. So why shouldn’t she just leave? Why should he leave?
We don’t know whether the first is true, and as for the second he was home alone minding his own business when there were no cops involved.
Exactly. He didn’t have a hearing, he just had police come to seize his property without due process or even probable cause. Do you remember the Fourth Amendment?
I’d like to invite you to a “hearing”, actus. We’ll we use your definition, okay?
Leaving is an option, right? You can walk out of the house, file for divorce and never look back. But it isn’t any fun without taking all of the stuff. Do you think Tammy McCarthy is enjoying a clear conscience today?
But what if he was Brazilian? Then it would be wrong for the police to shoot him, huh? Even if they thought he might be trying to hurt innocent people.
Brings? He was at home. He didn’t bring anything. The cops brought guns to chat with an armed homeowner about taking his home away from him and barring him from it. And then they shot him dead with one.
Thats’s from another article on the topic, where we also learn that Larry was a nice guy and a helpful neighbor.
This had been building for some time. The notion that the wife just blindsided him with this is nonsense, as is the implication that 5 departments of cops just showed up without cause.
I own several guns myself, from a 9 to shotguns to hunting rifles. I also have been known to take a drink or two. And I am here to tell you, there is no chance whatsoever that I get drunk and walk out into a police standoff holding any guns. Rational people, no matter how drunk or depressed, don’t do that. The kind of people who do that are precisely the kind of people who need to be served with RO’s.
It seems silly to argue that either party has clean hands here.
dog8myhmwk: The women who chose those good-for-nothing men are messed up too. The sick part of the world of divorce, bad marriage, affairs and the rest of it is, THERE ARE NO CLEAN HANDS. Even my mother, who did not cheat on my father, recognized how she had contributed to the decay of a marriage of 30 years. In other words, she may not have done the deed, but she sure as hell didn’t do anything to stop it from happening. And she could have. Knowing my father, it was only a matter of time. But, she didn’t really know my dad, and didn’t much care to know him.
She’s not and will never be at fault by the law, and my father is a raving narcissist who continues to threaten her and try to force her to do what he wants, but she still had a hand in her situation.
What’s tragic here is that a man was shot and killed, and in a situation that very easily may have been prevented. REGARDLESS of his guilt in breaking up the marriage or not. REGARDLESS of whether the courts require real evidence (other than innuendo or claims made with marital priviledge.)
To me, it looks like a suicide-by-cop. Doesn’t mean the guy is not guilty of cheating on his wife or being abusive. Those things are wrong, but they don’t give the cops the right to take his life. They also don’t, in my opinion, give anyone the right to treat him like less than a human.
This is the way it usually works– everyone makes wrong decisions all in a row, and someone is dead as a result.
Quite obviously suicide by cop. Distraught, he didn’t fire a shot. Not the cops fault of course. But if he had been interested in actually killing police, he could have done so from within his house with a scoped weapon. He might have been the abuser she claims him to be, but but but..
But, how come the onus is on the male to immediately surrender his property to the female without due process before the fact? Sure, he gets a hearing within 10 days. 10 legal business days. That could be 2 weeks of being homeless. What if his business is run from his home? He is supposed to just surrender that too? With no before the fact due process? How come the man is automatically “The Bastard” just because he owns guns?
False accusation by women is rampant in divorce cases, expecially when there are children involved. Why? Because the children are the womans means to attach herself to the mans wallet until the children are grown. If she doesnt have the children, she might have to work for a living and pay child support to HIM. If you don’t think that women would lie in a court in order to secure this money source, you are stupidly naive.
The sexist double standard reeks to high heaven. Apparently, some are more equal than others, depending on whats between their legs.
If he divorced you, he’d be one of the relatively few men to file. And you’d still get custody, child support and alimony. But if he divorced you and you have marketable skills, you’re not going to be in poverty, are you?
I know a disabled vet, 62 years old who was a stay at home Dad while his wife went to work making very good money as a University Administrator. He had always been at home with the kids while she worked.
He’s sitting in jail right now for refusing to take a job 2 hours away that would allow him to pay more supprt to his wife who got custody of the kids and still makes close to $200K.
Did he get fucked?
And just like that, the judge agreed? Bullshit. There’s more to the story.
I don’t know about yours, but my Dad rocks. How about your hubby? Do your kids need him at all, or just the paycheck?
Yes. I’ve got a friend who was in just that situation, and while he was removed his wife sold off all of his equipment. So, with one brief flourish of a pen, the judge authorized him to be stripped of his kids, his house and his livelihood…simply because the wife asked for it.
But since he’s a man, the fucker must have been asking for it.
Having dispensed with the usual creative rhetoric and silly questions—bringing guns to the police ball; where the hell does VAWA specify killing dads on sight—acturd lays a little more of that pungent arial cable:
Well that’s the whole point of law, right actard? That old presumption of guilt clause a clearly authoritarian Jefferson wrote in there, on the backside of some piece of original parchment.
Thank’s for sleuthing that out, attorney. I say just take everything he owns and shoot him if he disagrees. The bastard.
e’s sitting in jail right now for refusing to take a job 2 hours away that would allow him to pay more supprt to his wife who got custody of the kids and still makes close to $200K.
Well, there is something strange about that story.
Did he get fucked?
If the details are as you stated, yes.
Ex decided he didn’t want to pay child support anymore (after all he’s married again, and has a new baby) so he sued for custody.
******
And just like that, the judge agreed? Bullshit. There’s more to the story.
Yes, dad is remarried, and has more money ( from his family). The money stutters, and has tatoos covering her body. First impressions? The mom is wacked. I’m sure the lawyer had little more than a first impression. The mom does NOT have much money. But, believe me – men do sue for custody so they won’t have to pay child support (that glorious thing called “joint custody”). And, women do use custody money (sometimes) for things other than child-related living expenses.
I don’t know about yours, but my Dad rocks. How about your hubby? Do your kids need him at all, or just the paycheck?
I was referring to the dad in my tale. I would have made a similar sarcastic comment about maternal love if it were a different story. My point was that moms are often thrown into poverty by divorce, and that they don’t “always’ get the children anymore.
Actually, divorce just sucks in general. KIds always lose.
above – mom stutters. Don’t know how I made that typo.
Actually, I rock, and my child chose accordingly, living with me and thereby upending all the system’s carefully orchestrated feminazi ways and means. Good thing too, because she was literally headed to the hospital under mom’s, um, maternal love. Yes, literally.
Speaking of paychecks, Pablo, you should see the look on the female child support DA’s face when Dad comes by to file for a large monthly support check support from the substantial estate of mom’s new sugar daddy.
Goddamn fathers, anyway.
Certainly. But that’s also the precise die-cut backstop rhetoric that poses as logic for when all else fails. Heard it a thousand times, most often from trial lawyers and the bench shaking their heads just after something terrible’s happened in their well-moneyed backyard.
Gosh, we never saw it coming! No, really! Kids always lose, you know, because, well, we want to be sure to sanctify the Right to Sue Into Oblivion For Fun and Profit. Those other rights—life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and all that?—forget about ‘em. Kids always lose. A shame.
Suggest you educate yourself on the numbers, Carin. They’ll tell you what’s actually going on downtown. Kid’s always lose … because it’s in their “best interest” to have at least one of their parents publicly dismembered by profiting strangers.
6Gun, no thanks for the offer to educate myself. I was educated enough as a child of divorce. And, it wasn’t the divorce lawyers who were driving that train.
I even took the advanced course. The abusive boyfriends (of mom) and the wicked stepmother and new half-brother. Otherwise known as “the special child.”
It’s amazing, really – and my husband is shocked – that divorce bullshit still affects family relations, and I’m almost 40. FTR, my parents were divorced when I was 7.
So, no. I actually have zero experience from the legal standpoint. I speak from personal experience.
Or both. It seems they’re talking about the lawyer’s children’s best interests. You’ve really got to read the fine print.
That depends on the parents. If they honestly act in the best interests of the kids, it doesn’t have to be so bad. I’ve seen it done extremely well. But as soon as one of them wants to get ugly, it’s all going to go to hell. That is what the system encourages.
That explains the reverent hush in the room.
Myself, I took personal experience and went to work finding out just how far we’d go to replace basic, essential rights with simple opportunity. I was apalled when I began, but thanks to all you wizened apathetics, now I’m merely horrified.
The point? It isn’t a gender war, Carin, nor is it even the sad outcome of one. It’s legislation for sale and once rights are lost (because nobody remembers to question their obliteration first and foremost) it’s all about who can get what from whom, even when it means ruining the family.
Long term cause and effect has the divorce and custody industries being to the family what welfare was and is to the whole family: Incentive for ruin and chaos. As I said, divorce and custody law, being now formed by vultures in the divorce and custody industries themselves, only converts the unintended consequences of old socialist policy into the intended consequence of the new social predators.
There’s nothing government can do but that someone doesn’t find a way to exploit it.
I don’t believe it is a gender war. In my history, my father was a better parent, but he made the fatal flaw of remarrying. And, the point of bringing up that I speak from personal experience is that you don’t even need to get into the legal issues of divorce to find fatal flaws in the concept. The legal headaches are often a moment-in-time issue for the parents. Divorce, remarriage – well, that’s the gift that keeps on giving for the kids.
Even in the best cases – you are faced with a lifetime of crap such as dividing holidays. Christmas is the worst. 24th with my mil. 25 morning with my dad, 25th evening with the my mom. There is going to be hell to pay this Thanksgiving, because it is my mom’s “turn” but my fil passed away over the summer (does death “trump” someone’s turn?)
And, don’t even get me started on step-parents. I’ve been told I’m only a “half” child to my dad, because his “new” child has full inheritance rights. Never-mind that the inheritance is from my dad’s family (versus what she might have brought to the marriage, which has already been fully passed-on to my brother.)
Can’t speak for anyone else, but I know I’m not. I’d like to get you started on marriage as a contract. Maybe from there we can get into vague minutiae like the Bill of Rights.
I see the issue as a social, not a legal, problem. Couples are free to make marriage contracts (or pre-nups). If people don’t take marriage seriously, or if they don’t see the harm done to children when a marriage fails- how is some sort of legal agreement make things easier? Might solve the money/legal issues, but to me – that should be the least of one’s concern.
As for the original story posted, it seems a tad too vague to make any over-reaching pronouncements.
Honestly, the problem with marriage is, nowadays, is that marriage is a covenant. People treat it like a contract.
Treating marriage like a contract leads directly to this bullshit nonsense of suing the shit out of each other and ruining the childrens’ lives.
A covenant you enter to give. A contract you enter to get. A contract has no love, and no real adhesion. A covenant is unbreakable as long as both parties continue to give. Maybe that’s why people are so afraid of them.
And I speak from personal experience (Though only a 20-something.)
TW: The turing word knows I’m white? It must have spies…
The problem with divorce is, nowadays, that marriage is a covenant and divorce isn’t a contract.
People treat marriage like a unilateral covenant, with the wreckage to be settled by an arbitrary, political, lopsided court of one, virtually outside of the bulk of the legal system and completely outside of the entirety of a citizen’s prior rights.
Then you really should look into the issue:
The overwhelming majority of divorce is unilateral. It’s aided by incentives for divorce that exist in federal and state legislation established by special interest. These special interests are trial lawyers and gender feminists.
Family law is a running violation of a half dozen prior legal rights enjoyed by any other law-abiding citizen: Presumption of innocence, probable cause, due process, facing your accuser, property rights, trial by jury, right to freedom, not having your kids kidnapped, not being forced to pay what amounts to ransom, more.
Being a male litigant in an acrimonious divorce case where the opposition has taken full advantage of all available leverage is surely and statistically the fastest way to personal destruction in the land.
Being such is akin to being a criminal, only without benefit of due process.
The “money/legal” concerns are the least of one’s issues? They should be, but they’re simply not.
I’m sorry. Did you not notice that he stepped outside to an encouter with the police, carrying a gun?
Yes, we’re aware that he did something stupid.
Of course, one might say it is easy to get an armed, cornered, threatened man to emerge with a weapon given those circumstances.
Or did given all of what happened did they expect him to surrender?
I mean, common sense here, people shoot other people for less. (I would shoot someone who was trying to destroy my livelihood or my family.)
Having lost both, and now being surrounded, good or bad this man’s response was almost… predictable.
Nobody’s hands are clean here, actus.
You’re the attorney; is being armed illegal, actus? How about guilt by simple assertion? Legalized kidnapping? Legal theft of income and property? Indefinite imprisonment without jury trial? Witholding wages? The government disarming a citizen or taking his driver license?
Yes, he stepped out of HIS house into HIS backyard. Were there police in HIS backyard? Did they BRING guns?
Who fired?
That or die. Its kind of that simple when you’re dealing with the cops.
In MA? I don’t know. He apparently legally owned the guns. Do you really think this turns on the legality of owning hte guns, vs. what happens to your rights to hold a gun and raise it at the cops during a police a encounter? Is this really something people are having a hard time grasping? Are people really not able to divide between their dislike for the system that ordered him to leave the house and the system that says that cops have to serve that order and can protect themselves while doing that?
I really can’t believe this is the sort of thing you’re arguing for.
Try the Second Amendment, counselor.
What Constitutional right or law gave the police cause to make armed entry into McCarthy’s property for the purpose of seizing it without a probable cause based warrant or due process to deprive him of said property?
What law says that if a person who is violating your rights is a police officer that you do not have the right to defend yourself? Where is that exception codified into law?
Remember…no search warrant, no arrest warrant.
What law, counselor? Why are you arguing for summary deprivation of rights and seizure of private property?
Good thinking, Pablo. Apparently the good junior counselor knows jack shit about the fundamentals of law. Interesting, that—she’ll make a fine family law attorney.
Given her penchant for faithfully looking it all up, I was going to turn this discussion on its head a bit and ask acturd the following. But I think I’ll only do so rhetorically:
Under the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, by what subsequent law or laws is it legal to steal property, children, income, the right to vote, the right to privacy, the right to protect oneself, freedom, and occasionally life in a single day from a few hundred thousand lawabiding taxpayers without crime, probable cause, due process, hearing, trial, conviction, or a host of other prior rights?
The answer, of course, is a family court judge.
I was gonna ask but you can see just how pointless that is, not only with actard, but the majority of a population completely comfortable with our new statist Nanny. It takes a village to preempt once-sovereign personal legal status with feel-good socialist procedure aimed at reforming society leftward.
6Gun, if we were talking about a scumbag like Jose Padilla, actard would be up in arms defending his rights.
A middle aged, probably Catholic white guy, who happened to be two kids’ Dad, in his own home, can go fuck himself and die like a dog for his male disobedience.
In actusland, government applying deadly force is no BFD if it’s a pasty white guy dying.
In actusland, the total echoing lack of outrage at all of some poor bastard’s rights being violated at once by the government he pays for is matched in the irony stakes by a pathological insistence that the Left’s domestic socialism makes it the only Party of Constitutional ethics.
Maybe only as long as porn and abortion are free speech and terrorists mobbing prison guards constitutes expressing the right to face your accuser.
Liberalism is a religion of mental illness.
Uh, temporary ex parte hearings, followed by actual hearings, are consistent with due process.
As to probable cause, that I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Wait, you think the second amendment gives a person the right to raise a gun at the cops, following a standoff, without consequence? Someone tell all the cops doing Terry stops!
Now this is a good one: I think you can bring this one to the Black Panthers.
6Gun, have you always referred to me as “she”? Just curious.
This happened prior to an actual hearing so we don’t make it to “consistent with due process”, and a 209A order does not provide for government seizure of property. It orders you to abandon the property. Further, it had not been served. So, what law, counselor? Cite it, please.
If you were to familiarize yourself with the Fourth Amendment, you would understand that a warrant issued under probable cause is a basis for search and seizure. It is the only Constitutional reason outside of due process. Neither happened here.
This wasn’t a Terry stop. This was a man at his own home minding his own business. When you legally possess a weapon, you may raise it, lower it, twirl it around, and move it side to side to your heart’s desire. You may not commit a crime with it, such as attempted murder.
I don’t know of any law called “the Black Panthers” What law, actus?
You didn’t notice that they were trying to serve it?
Read it again.
The text says 2 things: searches and seizures can’t be unreasonable. And warrants must have probable cause. It doesn’t say that searches and seizures need probable cause. Lots of searching and seizing goes on without probable cause or warrants. But lots of other opinions say that warrants are required in many circumstances.
Then he walked outside with his gun and raised at the cops.
You try that, next time you’re in court, or in a traffic stop. Or have had a 3 hour long standoff with the police.
Unless it’s with permission it’s unconstitutional. Feel free to cite a fucking law that says otherwise at some point, counselor, if you want to argue otherwise.
Outside into his yard, remaining on his property. As for “raised at the cops”, we have no evidence that this is the case, other than an assumption that he did because they shot him. The DA who is the only person to make a public statement on this said “he raised it with two hands”, not that he took aim.
I think if he had taken aim, more than one cop would have fired more than one round.
Cite the law that allows you to be killed for engaging in legal behavior, counselor.
Why are you arguing for summary deprivation of rights, actus? You hate it when it happens to a terrorist, but you’re just fine when it kills a pasty white American guy. Why is that?
I told you. The 4th amendment doesn not require probable cause for all searches and seizures. It reaquires reasonableness. Read the text.
Oh. the 4th amendment allows that. Reasonable seizure. Its quite reasonable for cops to shoot at people in this sort of situation. doncha know?
And they didn’t have it. There was no order to seize nor to enter McCarthy’s property, let alone kill him on it.
I see. So shooting someone to death is now both a “hearing” and a “seizure”.
Actus, you’re a grade A goddamned idiot. You are the Retarded Typing Telephone Pole. If you ever practice law, you’ll need to get yourself a warning label. Somehow, I fear you’ll one day find your way to the bench, not in spite of your stupidity, but because of it.
Wasn’t there an order to serve him?
No to the first, and the second, thats the 4th amendment. Try looking up some cases of police shootings. You’ll see how the legal arguments get played out.
Cite one where a man is shot in his own home.
You mean outside his home? Didn’t someone get shot during a standoff—like, not Waco, but ruby ridge.
Again I say bullshit.
Look, forget the marital issues leading up to this. Whether any of us like it or not, he was served with a lawful order to vacate the premises, and he didn’t. He chose to walk out into a police cordon after three hours of negotiations, and brandish a firearm. He wasn’t “in his home” starting the instant he was served, and he sure as hell wasn’t “in his home” when he walked out the door.
Darwin award winner. End of story. This guy is absolutely NOT the poster-child for gun ownership or any other property rights.
So you’re for summary deprivation of private property?
Aren’t people given an order also given time to comply with it? Do you really think a 5 jurisdiction cordon was necessary?
Darwin, maybe. I certainly wouldn’t recommend it. But is it legal?
If it is, America is fucked.
He should be. His were violated by fiat, as if by a King. That ain’t America, and that it should happen in the Cradle of Liberty is disgusting.
And what was the ultimate resolution of that case, counselor?
You can figure this shit out yourself if you actually bother to look it up. If you do you’ll find that Randy Weaver was acquitted of all related charges and later won a $3.1 million settlement for the wrongful deaths of his family members. I just pulled that up in about 90 seconds, counselor.
He was given three hours, and you and I both know he would have been given plenty more had he not acted the fool. Come on, Pablo. You’re trying to make sweeping generalizations from the behavior of one unstable jackass and the consequences of that behavior.
And please, leave your strawmen at the door. Explicit recognition of the law (he was served with a lawful order to vacate the premises) is not the same thing as “being for the summary deprivation of private property”.
Revisit the bare facts of the case. He was served with divorce papers on Friday; his wife obtained an RO on Sunday after the situation had deteriorated; he was served, the cops negotiated for a while, called for backup, and three hours after being served, he walked out of his house and into that police cordon brandishing a gun.
Far from being a poster child, he’s precisely the kind of ninny who provides the gun prohibition lobby with ammunition, no pun intended. Add to that the “men are inherently violent” crowd.
Actually, Weaver was convicted on the original firearms charge. He was awarded $100k. Each of his surviving kids got $1M.
It also isn’t the slightest bit relevant to our boy Larry, unless you believe the fed’s version of events, and that justice miscarried when he was acquitted and they were given the awards. You see, the argument that the criminal jury accepted was that the feds didn’t properly identify themselves prior to the start of shooting.
Larry knew damn good and well that there were cops outside. That’s incontrovertible. Big, BIG difference.
Correction: not the firearms charge, but the failure to appear charge.
What due process underlies the order? There is none. It is a summary judgement, without an opportunity to answer. It is a summary deprivation of property and liberty, graciously subject to later review.
The order is, most likely, not legal. Most of them in MA aren’t.
So, what law did he break and what law justifies killing him to enforce an order with no due process underlying it?
Right. An event not related to what occurred at his home where the shooting was. But instead, failure to appear. In court.
So, Weaver was exonorated for everything that happened at his home and he and his family were paid for damages regarding what the government did there, were they not?
It’s a damned tough way to be right, but the courts have said they were. And a system that treats a guy like it treated Larry McCarthy is dangerous.
So look to what happens with this case. If you’re not a threat, the cops can’t shoot you. Its when you raise your gun at them…then things start getting problematic. I don’t think people can get shot outside their homes. I do think that under certain circumstances the police use of force, lethal at times, will be permissible.
Summary is the wrong term. Its ex-parte and temporary. Till they show up in court to answer.
I don’t think the validity of the order has anything to do with the argument of the justification of the shooting. If you want you can look up the protection order statute in MA.
You do realize, Pablo, that you’re arguing very vituperously that the guy who gave you the keys to this place obtained an “unlawful” restriction of liberty against one D.F., Ph.D.? By getting a TRO that couldn’t be responded to until a later date? Ergo, according to you, no due process? Blah blah blah?
You haven’t thought this through at all. The only thing that looks at all unique about it is the gun confiscation order. Other than that, MA has fuck all to do with it.
What law did he violate? Natural selection. Point a gun at cops, get perished, regardless of why you do it.
Darwin Award Finalist.
Yep, a jury said that it ain’t murder to shoot at folks that you think aren’t cops.
Larry knew he was pointing a gun at cops.
The situations are not in the least analogous.
Dammit, another lacuna.
It ain’t murder to shoot at folks who are shooting at you that you think aren’t cops.
Da, Comrade. Is right to do.
Nonsense. Jeff did not have Dr Demento evicted from her home at gunpoint.
Not. Even. Close.
Read the Fourth Amendment…again.
That has not been alleged. The DA says he raised it menacingly with two hands, but not that he took aim at anyone.
I really want to see what they’ve got on video.
So at least it depends on video, rather than having some ultimate right to use guns in confrontations with cops
A temporary restraining order was obtained. In your world, that is a restriction of liberty without due process.
It’s merely a difference in degree, not in kind.
I’ve said it several times already, but since you refuse so far to pay attention, I’ll try again: It doesn’t matter if I like the law that resulted in Larry getting an RO served on him. It doesn’t matter if I like MA’s family law. You cannot point guns at cops. Period. Only a truly stupid motherfucker would do it. Larry was a truly stupid motherfucker. I’m utterly bemused that you are attempting—and failing rather miserably—to defend his idiocy.
Got that?
Larry was stupid. Now he’s dead. Too fucking bad. There is no guarantee in the constitution that anyone has the Right to Keep and Point Guns at the Police after a Three-hour Standoff.
Get serious. This is just plain stupid.
No, the line is between the right to bear arms and attempting to murder. Did you skip Law 101? Did McCarthy try to kill someone? If you think so, what do you base that on?
The first and the last person to be threatened in this is the guy who was killed by the only shot fired.
But they got him out of the house! Woo Hooo!
You should put that on a card, Phil, and send it to his kids.
Jeez, what an asshole you are, Phil. I’ll break my own rule and engage you:
Stop prancing around with that pointed-a-gun-at-cops canard and YOU get down to the core issues. Which are that society absofuckinglutely HAS short-circuited essential, basic rights in order to willfully separate a statistical male from his family, property, freedom, and hell yes, due process.
Nobody’s debating Darwin awards except you. Enough with the pragmatism already, unless you really do believe in physical anarchy, at which point “pointing a gun” at Hells Angels is precisely, equivalently, exactly morally identical to getting shot by cops for having committed no crime other than inhabiting your own property. Just to reverse your RO example a few unfortunate posts back, that is.
As I almost pointed out to actard a couple days ago, there are about a third of a billion firearms in the country, a huge number, at any given time, either visibly sported as hunting hardware or as legally-concealed personal protection. Unless I miss my guess, the open-carry laws in my state and many, many others, easily extend to my back yard.
So where, really, is the fucking beef, Phil?
The answer is rad-fem legislation. So how about you just admit it? This episode is symptomatic.
Yep, “pointing guns at cops” who came to challenge you on rad-fem legislation that violates the Constitution and BoR WILL invariably get you killed. You procreating white male bastard you.
But that’s not the fucking point.
Law 101? now you’re just not making sense.
</blockquote>
The first and the last person to be threatened in this is the guy who was killed by the only shot fired.
<blockquote>
I thought it depended on the video.
Civility, decency, respect, rights, self-responsibility, fatherhood, and compassion are relics, Pablo. Welcome to AmpitheatreWorld. It’s not about what’s right anymore, it’s just how shit works for a majority.
6gun–
You might be interested in this.
This isn’t an open carry issue. Don’t you realize this is about a confrontation with the police?