peoples republic of Illinois

[Rhoadmar]

Arlington Heights man, police in dispute over confiscating his guns - DailyHerald.com
Will Illinois ever learn? This is people control from Illinois' finest.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Fears of this sort of thing happening will probably result in people not getting the help they need.

 

[Rhoadmar]

Fears of this sort of thing happening will probably result in people not getting the help they need.

Someone I know in the service is not seeking the help he needs for just this reason.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Fears of this sort of thing happening will probably result in people not getting the help they need.

Maybe rather than not getting any help at all, they will turn to those who are trustworthy and willing to help, seeking their help (informally) from their church/other organization of worship, family, friends, etc., rather than going to mercenaries produced by those leftist mills we know as colleges.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Maybe rather than not getting any help at all, they will turn to those who are trustworthy and willing to help, seeking their help (informally) from their church/other organization of worship, family, friends, etc., rather than going to mercenaries produced by those leftist mills we know as colleges.

Here's hoping.

 

[Mark 1911]

Maybe rather than not getting any help at all, they will turn to those who are trustworthy and willing to help, seeking their help (informally) from their church/other organization of worship, family, friends, etc., rather than going to mercenaries produced by those leftist mills we know as colleges.

I think this would be much more effective, not to mention far more economical. Why pay someone, who you trust to keep your private information confidential, if they're only going to pocket your money and then betray you? That's dishonest and unethical.

 

[LordTio3]

The following sums up the entire article and how the writer feels about the issue:

This is where the story starts to diverge between Lovi's account of the hours and days to follow and what is recorded in Arlington Heights police reports, but the events set off what is now a federal-court case that pits one man's civil rights against the police's need to protect the public.

Our Negative-Powers Constitution is set up in order to protect the individual from the mob majority intrinsically. It, Blows, My, Mind how many people, even when I explain it to them calmly, slowly, and using small words, literally CANNOT GRASP this concept.

~LT

 

[level0]

The following sums up the entire article and how the writer feels about the issue:

Quote:
This is where the story starts to diverge between Lovi's account of the hours and days to follow and what is recorded in Arlington Heights police reports, but the events set off what is now a federal-court case that pits one man's civil rights against the police's need to protect the public.


Our Negative-Powers Constitution is set up in order to protect the individual from the mob majority intrinsically. It, Blows, My, Mind how many people, even when I explain it to them calmly, slowly, and using small words, literally CANNOT GRASP this concept.

~LT

Yes, and I seem to recall that the police are under no obligation to protect anyone. Am I mistaken?

 

[horsehaulin]

Yes, and I seem to recall that the police are under no obligation to protect anyone. Am I mistaken?

They are not. That's why the let the V Tech gunman run out of ammo.

 

[Rhoadmar]

The following sums up the entire article and how the writer feels about the issue:



Our Negative-Powers Constitution is set up in order to protect the individual from the mob majority intrinsically. It, Blows, My, Mind how many people, even when I explain it to them calmly, slowly, and using small words, literally CANNOT GRASP this concept.

~LT

They refuse to grasp the subject because doing so would cause them to face the fact that the authority that they have placed so much faith in is failed and flawed. It's frustrating to discuss any subject when the people you discuss it with are willfully blind.

 

[Libertarian01]

Let us not overlook...

To All,

I also have grave concerns and issues with Mr. Lovi's therapist.

One of the foundations of (if not THE foundation of) therapy is building absolute trust with the therapist. The therapist is someone who is entrusted with our most private and confidential secrets. They have rules regarding their professional behavior to promote this so that they can indeed better understand their patient and render appropriate aid.

What Mr. Lovi's shrink did was not only backstab that trust that is vital to her profession but also undermine the public's perceived trust in that profession. When she made clear to the police that "She told them she didn't think he would carry it out or that he was dangerous to himself or others, but she just wanted to do her job and report it" she destroyed that trust. She wasn't calling to report an honest threat like she is also required to do, she was simply playing CYA in a situation that did not require it. She knew it had been nine (9) years since Mr. Lovi's wife passed away and that he had taken no action in all that time.

Her failure to protect the doctor/patient confidentiality has destroyed yet another section of Mr. Lovi's life.

Who can he trust now?

How will this impact his life?

What can be done to remove her from the profession?

Just some thoughts when reading this.

Regards,

Doug

PS - Oh yeah, NEVER waive your rights! Make 'em get a warrant! Make them forcibly commit you! Protect yourself.

 

[Rhoadmar]

To All,

I also have grave concerns and issues with Mr. Lovi's therapist.

One of the foundations of (if not THE foundation of) therapy is building absolute trust with the therapist. The therapist is someone who is entrusted with our most private and confidential secrets. They have rules regarding their professional behavior to promote this so that they can indeed better understand their patient and render appropriate aid.

What Mr. Lovi's shrink did was not only backstab that trust that is vital to her profession but also undermine the public's perceived trust in that profession. When she made clear to the police that "She told them she didn't think he would carry it out or that he was dangerous to himself or others, but she just wanted to do her job and report it" she destroyed that trust. She wasn't calling to report an honest threat like she is also required to do, she was simply playing CYA in a situation that did not require it. She knew it had been nine (9) years since Mr. Lovi's wife passed away and that he had taken no action in all that time.

Her failure to protect the doctor/patient confidentiality has destroyed yet another section of Mr. Lovi's life.

Who can he trust now?

How will this impact his life?

What can be done to remove her from the profession?

Just some thoughts when reading this.

Regards,

Doug

PS - Oh yeah, NEVER waive your rights! Make 'em get a warrant! Make them forcibly commit you! Protect yourself.

I certainly would not trust that therapist.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I certainly would not trust that therapist.

I doubt quite highly that Mr. Lovi will anymore either.

This is a situation that should never have transpired and the police have only themselves and the therapist to blame for it. Mr. Lovi, according to all reports of this case that I've read, is utterly blameless.

At every stage of this circle jerk, the people in positions of authority had the opportunity to end it and failed to exercise that good judgement, while Mr. Lovi never had any power to end it.

A) The therapist admits that she had no reasonable belief that Mr. Lovi was a credible threat to himself or others… Then why did she call the cops on him?

B) The cops contacted the doctor who treated his wife, and he admits that he had no reasonable belief that Mr. Lovi was a credible threat to himself or others… Then why did the cops feel the need to contact Mr. Lovi himself?

C) The cops who contacted Mr. Lovi admit that they did not have any reasonable beliefs that Mr. Lovi was a credible threat to himself or others… Then why did they feel the need to revisit him to confiscate his guns, willingly or with coercive violence?

D) The cops then used coercive violence to force Mr. Lovi into a psychiatric hospital, and the doctors there released him the next day, admitting that they had no reasonable belief that he was a credible threat to himself or others.

At no time can anyone in this farse claim to have had a reasonable belief that Mr. Lovi was a credible threat to himself or others. That is the hallmark of a legal firestorm that Mr. Lovi did not light, but everyone else is guilty of fanning, and so deserve to get burned by it.

I understand that he's gotten his antique firearms back, but I would question what value they have lost due to the maltreatment to which we all know private firearms in police custody are subjected.

This is the poster case for my personal feelings of trepidation over what passes for the current public discourse over mental illness/health care and firearms ownership.

1) Who gets to decide that a given person is too mentally infirm to enjoy their self-defense rights?

1A) Is it one person or many?
1Ai) How many?

1Bi) Are they mental health professionals?
1Bii) Are they legal professionals?

2) What kind of evidence will be permitted to be used to make such a decision averse to the person's rights?

2A) Will mere personal utterances be sufficient?
2Ai) Will social media content be useable?
2Aia) Of just the person in question or would the social media content of others be useable as well?

2B) Will clinical diagnostics be required before adverse action can be taken?
2Bi) Which diagnostics?
2Bii) With what threshold of decision?

3) What kinds of safe-guards are they for the rights of those caught up in this system?
3A) Will it be like family court where, for the good of the child/patient and in the interests of finality, the first decision of the body will be unappealable to any higher body?
3B) Will there be the opportunity for the person to appeal any adverse decision prior to suffering the associated adverse government action?

4) What kinds of end-games are to be in place for someone to regain their self-defense rights after they have been stripped, right or wrong, through this process?

4A) Will all firearms so seized be immediately disposed of with a similar attitude as 3A) for a sense of finality?

4B) Will all firearms so seized be stored by the government for the duration of the sentence of no-self-defense?
4Bi) Stored where?
4Bib) Under what conditions?
4Bii) Who will be the responsible party for damage inflicted to the private property while it is seized by the government?

4C) How would a person go about regaining their self-defense rights?
4Ci) All of the same concerns as 1) and 2) apply here as well.
4Cii) Having secured a government decision to regain their self-defense rights, how would the person go about regaining their seized firearms?
4Ciia) Can the person responsible for the person's property while seized, the CLEO for instance, thumb his nose at the government body that issues such an order and retain possession even after 4Cii) has been obtained, essentially overruling the decisions of the body in 4Ci)?