Douglas County opposed to Red Flag?

Can spurlock be recalled?

What I've never undestood is . . . what does Spurlock think would have been different if his officers had shown up to confiscate that whackjob's guns under a red flag order vs what happened when they went to just put a mental health hold on him? Think he wouldn't have reacted the same way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric P

Can spurlock be recalled?

---

Tough call. He ran unopposed...

Could we end up with someone worse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramsker

What I've never undestood is . . . what does Spurlock think would have been different if his officers had shown up to confiscate that whackjob's guns under a red flag order vs what happened when they went to just put a mental health hold on him? Think he wouldn't have reacted the same way?

---

Let us look at what is reported to have happened.

https://www.9news.com/article/news/i...h/73-574332128

Per the article

The report said at 5:12 a.m. Riehl called 911 again, saying he needed an emergency restraining order against his roommate. Riehl told the 911 operator he had weapons, but “he would not hurt anyone.”

After talking to deputies and demanding a “domestic restraining order” from them, Riehl slammed the door on Deputies Parrish and Davis, the summary said.

“Deputy Parrish told other deputies that Mr. Riehl was having a manic episode and that he, Deputy Parrish was going to place him on a mental health hold,” the report said.

According to the report, deputies discussed placing Riehl on a mental health hold. Riehl’s roommate provided them the key to get inside the apartment.

“Deputy Davis led the team inside carrying a ballistic shield,” the letter said.

Riehl’s roommate had warned the deputies that Riehl had rifles in the apartment.



Notice the part "Riehl’s roommate provided them the key to get inside the apartment"


This implies they had permission to enter the apartment from the roommate.

However, when multiple people co-occupy a residence and they are both in the residence, if one person does not give consent there is no consent. All parties must give consent. A single party cannot give consent over the other parties.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/...-searches.html

"If, however, one occupant consents to a search of shared premises, but a physically present co-occupant expressly objects to the search, the search is unreasonable"


There were many mistakes made and Spurlock is trying to cover up the culpability that his department has in the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDT951

Let us look at what is reported to have happened.

https://www.9news.com/article/news/i...h/73-574332128

Per the article

The report said at 5:12 a.m. Riehl called 911 again, saying he needed an emergency restraining order against his roommate. Riehl told the 911 operator he had weapons, but ?he would not hurt anyone.?

After talking to deputies and demanding a ?domestic restraining order? from them, Riehl slammed the door on Deputies Parrish and Davis, the summary said.

?Deputy Parrish told other deputies that Mr. Riehl was having a manic episode and that he, Deputy Parrish was going to place him on a mental health hold,? the report said.

According to the report, deputies discussed placing Riehl on a mental health hold. Riehl?s roommate provided them the key to get inside the apartment.

?Deputy Davis led the team inside carrying a ballistic shield,? the letter said.

Riehl?s roommate had warned the deputies that Riehl had rifles in the apartment.



Notice the part "Riehl?s roommate provided them the key to get inside the apartment"


This implies they had permission to enter the apartment from the roommate.

However, when multiple people co-occupy a residence and they are both in the residence, if one person does not give consent there is no consent. All parties must give consent. A single party cannot give consent over the other parties.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/...-searches.html

"If, however, one occupant consents to a search of shared premises, but a physically present co-occupant expressly objects to the search, the search is unreasonable"


There were many mistakes made and Spurlock is trying to cover up the culpability that his department has in the situation.

---

No one wants to hear the truth. Colorado liberals need a body count so that the red flag law can be passed.

comming back to one of the questions...how do we get him recalled? I am a newb to this kind of thing...

I'm interested in learning more. I'm not thrilled with Spurlock's mentality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDT951

Let us look at what is reported to have happened.

https://www.9news.com/article/news/i...h/73-574332128

Per the article

The report said at 5:12 a.m. Riehl called 911 again, saying he needed an emergency restraining order against his roommate. Riehl told the 911 operator he had weapons, but “he would not hurt anyone.”

After talking to deputies and demanding a “domestic restraining order” from them, Riehl slammed the door on Deputies Parrish and Davis, the summary said.

“Deputy Parrish told other deputies that Mr. Riehl was having a manic episode and that he, Deputy Parrish was going to place him on a mental health hold,” the report said.

According to the report, deputies discussed placing Riehl on a mental health hold. Riehl’s roommate provided them the key to get inside the apartment.

“Deputy Davis led the team inside carrying a ballistic shield,” the letter said.

Riehl’s roommate had warned the deputies that Riehl had rifles in the apartment.



Notice the part "Riehl’s roommate provided them the key to get inside the apartment"


This implies they had permission to enter the apartment from the roommate.

However, when multiple people co-occupy a residence and they are both in the residence, if one person does not give consent there is no consent. All parties must give consent. A single party cannot give consent over the other parties.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/...-searches.html

"If, however, one occupant consents to a search of shared premises, but a physically present co-occupant expressly objects to the search, the search is unreasonable"


There were many mistakes made and Spurlock is trying to cover up the culpability that his department has in the situation.

---

The police likely didn't need the roomate's permission to enter the apartment. If there is an emergent situation, the police can enter a dwelling without permission or a warrant. Everything listed above adds up to an emergent situation.

Yeah that doesn't make sense to me at all. Since when are the police just going away when only one party refuses entry? If that were the case there'd never be any DV cases.

It would make it real interesting when 20 illegals all billet in the same house with one citizen too. Bring 21 officers, separate them all, and get unanimous consent... yeah, that doesn't happen.