Close
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35
  1. #11
    Machine Gunner
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Highlands Ranch
    Posts
    1,960

    Default

    Can spurlock be recalled?

  2. #12
    High Power Shooter Ramsker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Highlands Ranch
    Posts
    764

    Default

    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?

  3. #13
    Mr Yamaha brutal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Unincorporated Douglas County, CO
    Posts
    13,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric P View Post
    Can spurlock be recalled?
    Tough call. He ran unopposed...

    Could we end up with someone worse?
    My Feedback
    Credit TFOGGER : Liberals only want things to be "fair and just" if it benefits them.
    Credit Zundfolge: The left only supports two "rights"; Buggery and Infanticide.
    Credit roberth: List of things Government does best; 1. Steal your money 2. Steal your time 3. Waste the money they stole from you. 4. Waste your time making you ask permission for things you have a natural right to own. "Anyone that thinks the communists won't turn off your power for being on COAR15 is a fucking moron."

  4. #14
    Varmiteer
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Longmont
    Posts
    658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramsker View Post
    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.

  5. #15
    Zombie Slayer kidicarus13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Littleton
    Posts
    6,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DDT951 View Post
    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.
    Lessons cost money. Good ones cost lots. -Tony Beets

  6. #16
    Just a little different buckshotbarlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    littleton
    Posts
    1,866

    Default

    comming back to one of the questions...how do we get him recalled? I am a newb to this kind of thing...
    NRA BP+PPITH Instructor
    CO state senator: 2nd Amendment doesn't protect duck hunting, therefore:
    2 non web feet bad,
    2 web feet good...
    Vas-tly Different Now...and prefers corn to peas

  7. #17
    Possesses Antidote for "Cool" Gman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Puyallup, WA
    Posts
    17,848

    Default

    I'm interested in learning more. I'm not thrilled with Spurlock's mentality.
    Liberals never met a slippery slope they didn't grease.
    -Me

    I wish technology solved people issues. It seems to just reveal them.
    -Also Me


  8. #18
    Paper Hunter Storm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Westminster, CO
    Posts
    152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DDT951 View Post
    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.
    Loyalty Above All Else, Except Honor

  9. #19
    QUITTER Irving's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    46,527
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    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.
    "There are no finger prints under water."

  10. #20
    Keyboard Operation Specialist FoxtArt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Montrose
    Posts
    2,802

    Default

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •