Joe Dees wrote:
> >Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 10:22:44 -0400
> > Mike Lorrey <firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com Re: MEDIA/POLITICS/GUNS "The changing politics of Guns"Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >Well, since you seem to think it's okay to keep discussing it, I will
> >(see what happens when you insist on having the last word?).
> >Dr. Emerson, who is the plaintiff in US v. Emerson did not do what you
> >claim he did. His separated wife, months after he caught her and her
> >boyfriend in bed together and allegedly threatened them (which is what
> >created their divorce proceedings), saw fit to perform some sort of
> >sitdown strike in his office: she wouldn't leave his place of business
> >and was interfering with his patients. He ordered her to leave, and when
> >she wouldn't, he called the police and pulled a gun on her to restrain
> >her until the police arrived. His daughter was never around.
> >Furthermore, her claims about his 'threats' remained unsubstantiated and
> >were never examined in court, he was never afforded his due process
> >rights, when the judge unilaterally issued a restraining order.
> >Dr. Emerson has never been charged with domestic abuse of any sort, does
> >not have a criminal record, while his wife has a record of mental
> >instability. Once again, Joe, you are caught in another one of your
> Let me get this straight Mike; when she REFUSED to leave, this guy pulled a gun on her to KEEP her from leaving? And you say he has no mental problems?
He was arresting her.
>Maybe not diagnosed so far, but the blatant illogic of that move should remedy that in short order. Why didn't he just call the cops to remove her? Answer: because he's obviously not the brightest, or most rational, banana in the hand. And as to the r
estraining order; a judge issued it, and when a person is under a restraining order or a peace bond, they should relinquish their weapons until the order is lifted; the #1 killer of married women is not armed, but their armed and abusive husbands.
The judge issued the restraining order with no due process. It is a
'prior restraint' violation of one's constitutional rights when you
issue an order that violates a persons rights without due process.
Emerson was never arrested prior to the order, was never charged or
arraigned, nor was he eve notified of the hearing during which the order
> People who are issued those orders by judges do not get to decide whether or not to obey them, any more than any other person a court rules upon, regardless of what certain organizations and people think. Considering his actions in drawing a weapon to
keep a soon-to-be-ex-wife, who was refusing to leave his office, from leaving,it looks like a damned good judicial judgment to me.
Only because you are ignorant of the law.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:09 MDT