[RScottie]

"Tisbury, Mass – A Tisbury School crossing guard was recently “relieved from duty” and has had his personal guns confiscated.

The man allegedly made threats to the school in the hearing of a waitress at Linda Jean’s restaurant in Oak Bluff.

But while the headline sounds ominous, the facts make the accusation laughable.

Stephen Nichols, 84, is a 60-year veteran of the Tisbury Police Department.

He’s also a veteran of the Korean War, a retired constable He’s served as a crossing guard for years and is beloved in the community.

What would make a man like this make a violent threat against the school children he had been protecting – in one form or another – for six decades?

Well, simply put, he didn’t."

https://www.secondamendmentdaily.com/2019/10/84-year-old-korean-war-veteran-school-crossing-guard-fired-guns-taken-your-blood-will-boil/

 

[Desperado]

Remind me again about how great Red Flag Gun Laws are.
And that power tripping Chief of Police needs multiple doses of laxatives, and terminated effective yesterday.
Good lord, a simple comment about a school guard leaving his post gets twisted into a threat? What the hell is next?

 

[GhostHorse]

I hope he sues the living corpuscles out of the Chief of Police. Abuse of power. Unbelievable.

 

[TrucksNCoffee]

When law enforcement takes anything from you, including your guns, without providing receipts, that is called theft. I was taught that this is true regardless of whether or not they are taken under warrant. It should be reported to the state police or the FBI.

 

[Ickthus]

Socialist commie state taxes hard at work. Your constitutional rights goose stepped on and
"There’s nothing that I can legally discuss about the matter. Period.”

red flags are flying with hammer and cycle. No white or blue about it. ​

​

 

[Czechbikr]

A resolution has been reached, but it's not finished until that Chief has been fired IMO.

https://www.mvtimes.com/2019/10/14/stephen-nichols-reinstated-crossing-guard/

 

[RScottie]

A resolution has been reached, but it's not finished until that Chief has been fired IMO.

https://www.mvtimes.com/2019/10/14/stephen-nichols-reinstated-crossing-guard/

Towards the last paragraph it seems to state that he will not be getting his guns back and will be forced to sell them?

How can that be?

 

[Czechbikr]

Towards the last paragraph it seems to state that he will not be getting his guns back and will be forced to sell them?

How can that be?

Pretty sure I read that his son or SIL has them. Not right that this American should be left defenseless however.

 

[GreenWolf70]

Several things wrong here.

1. there is no legal paperwork to back up the taking of his arms. Without legal paperwork, or a warrant signed by a judge, it is an illegal seizure.
2. I am pretty sure that the Police Chief acted without any probable cause. Second hand info from a waitress is not probable cause.
3. The Vet should request Whistle Blower status and formerly report that guard who left his station.
4. If I were that Vet I might want to talk to the DA about the actions of the Police Chief. It sounds like the Police Chief usurped the duties of the DA. When it comes to felonies, the Police Chief has no authority to charge anyone, that is up to the DA.
5. Did anyone say wrongful termination? Shouldn't there be a union grievance? The Vet should probably ask the DA about preferring charges against Police Chief who seemed to be covering up the fact the guard was leaving his post every day and leaving his charges defenseless.
6. Those Selectmen should be recalled. I almost can assume the Resources Officer is related to one of them.

 

[RScottie]

Pretty sure I read that his son or SIL has them. Not right that this American should be left defenseless however.

From the link you posted:

"Nichols said he never carries guns outside the house, and would like to have his license and his guns back, but the fate of the guns may be sealed. “My grandson is manager of a gun shop in Worcester, and he’s going to be allowed to come down and take the weapons and sell them for me,” he said."

 

[Ickthus]

Big deal, i wouldn't need guns anymore. i would have armed security around me 24-7 because of all the money i would have from the law suit. This is so unconstitutional and unlawful.

 

[Tuco_Ramírez]

Sue the Chief of Police.

If nothing else, it will expose him for the corrupt individual he is and hopefully get him demoted or fired. Heck, demotion would be better, imagine that power-tripping [EXPLETIVE DELETED] demoted and reassigned to the position of Meter Maid. (Or whatever they call it these days.)

 

[GreenWolf70]

Sue the Chief of Police.

If nothing else, it will expose him for the corrupt individual he is and hopefully get him demoted or fired. Heck, demotion would be better, imagine that power-tripping [EXPLETIVE DELETED] demoted and reassigned to the position of Meter Maid. (Or whatever they call it these days.)

Suing the Police Chief would net nothing, as soon as he was hit with a huge fine, he would file bankruptcy. The Town, which is standing behind the Police Chief, should be sued as they are the deep pockets.

 

[jtg452]

Suing the Police Chief would net nothing, as soon as he was hit with a huge fine, he would file bankruptcy. The Town, which is standing behind the Police Chief, should be sued as they are the deep pockets.

Sue everybody. Let the courts figure out culpability.

Ain't red flag laws wonderful?

 

[GreenWolf70]

LOL, no matter what law they think may have been violated, there is a thing called due process and from what I can tell, they completely skipped over that part.

 

[Fishinkeylargo]

LOL, no matter what law they think may have been violated, there is a thing called due process and from what I can tell, they completely skipped over that part.

That is the not so wonderful thing about red flag laws, there is no due process.

 

[GreenWolf70]

No, any law, including Red Flag laws, still requires the complaint going in front of a judge and getting the judge to issue a warrant taking the guns. From what I can see they did none of that before taking his guns. As far as I know the US Constitution still prohibits illegal search and seizure in one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Fishinkeylargo]

No, any law, including Red Flag laws, still requires the complaint going in front of a judge and getting the judge to issue a warrant taking the guns. From what I can see they did none of that before taking his guns. As far as I know the US Constitution still prohibits illegal search and seizure in one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

From what I have been reading about red flag laws their is very vague interpretations of this in some states and situations the due process happens after the fact, maybe. I have been reading some writings from an attorney in Orlando that specializes in this and she points out how the systems in many states are flawed.

 

[GreenWolf70]

I am no lawyer, but my understanding is that some Red Flag laws do not allow for due process, especially the right of appeal, and the right to confront the accuser. Some of these RF laws essentially try the defendant in absentia, and the defendant only finds out about the proceedings after the fact, when the police arrive to seize the guns. I would expect all of these RF laws to be struck down as unconstitutional when challenged at the Federal level.

The other issue I have with RF laws are that they presuppose a crime that has not yet occurred, not even to the point of conspiracy to commit. Being deprived of your rights because of a probability of the occurrence of a future crime is a scary area of law to think about. While I, personally, think these type laws are unconstitutional and should be struck down in Federal courts, I worry that defending these laws on the grounds of public safety puts this in a fuzzy legal area that could fall either way.

 

[garyh]

Absolutely ridiculous.