Seized 67 guns without trial?

Bender

Something witty here
Feb 12, 2014
2,979
2,790
113
Cheyenne WY.
#1
What am I missing? This is a tough case....

https://www.officer.com/tactical/fi...-seize-bailiffs-67-guns-under-new-florida-law

Deputies Seize Bailiff’s 67 Guns Under New Florida Law
A Broward County Sheriff’s bailiff accused of threatening behavior toward courthouse colleagues was temporarily relieved of duty and his 67 firearms were taken by law enforcement.
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — A Broward County Sheriff’s bailiff accused of threatening behavior toward courthouse colleagues was temporarily relieved of duty and his 67 firearms were taken by law enforcement, the agency said Tuesday.
In court documents, Franklin Joseph Pinter was described as making threats toward other bailiffs. In May, one bailiff alleged that while delivering documents to Pinter’s courtroom, Pinter told him the defendants weren’t there and that he should “get the … out of here” and “All you rats should be exterminated.”
Six months ago, Pinter, 60, of Hollywood, was allegedly seen on the fifth floor of the courthouse, leaning over the atrium and pretending to hold a long gun and shoot at people, an affidavit said.
Another bailiff alleged that Pinter told him he wanted to burn two other bailiffs with a blow torch.
Pinter allegedly told another bailiff “I’m going to exterminate you.”
And another bailiff described how Pinter told him, “Nobody will take my guns, not over my dead body,” according to the affidavit. While in the courthouse garage, Pinter also showed off a newly purchased Glock handgun to a colleague and claimed he’d bought an AR-15 rifle, court documents said.
In granting the temporary order to take Pinter’s guns, a judge wrote that the court found “there is reasonable cause to believe the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or others in the near future” by having guns and bullets.
Pinter was hired by the sheriff’s office in August 1992 and worked on the 10th floor in the west wing of the main courthouse in Fort Lauderdale.
Pinter is a civilian employee, Broward Sheriff’s spokeswoman Veda Coleman-Wright said. She added that he has been placed on leave, not fired, pending evaluation.
No one answered a phone at Pinter’s home. His lawyer, Lewis A. Fishman, could not be reached for comment.
On May 25, the sheriff’s office sought the risk protection order, which a judge granted that day. In the afternoon, Pinter’s 67 firearms as well as ammunition and his concealed carry permit were taken from his home.
On March 9, Florida passed a “red flag” law that authorizes police to seize weapons from people who could pose a threat to themselves or others.
It was enacted almost a month after 17 people were killed in a shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.
Violating a risk protection order is a third-degree felony punishable by a maximum of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
Six weeks after the new law was passed, a South Florida Sun Sentinel review found police in Broward County led the state in obtaining the risk protection orders and had obtained 34. Broward County’s Chief Judge Jack Tuter said in the April 26 report that half the cases involved mental health crises and the rest were for people accused of making online threats.
On June 11, a hearing will determine whether a final risk protection order should be issued for Pinter.
———
©2018 Sun Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, Fla.)
 

Strykervet

Resident Phoenix Eye and Dim Mak Instructor
Jun 5, 2011
2,958
1,109
113
42
Pierce County, WA
#4
Meh just don’t act like an idiot and people won’t have reason to take your shit away. If we keep letting morons have guns, soon none of us will have them.
Yeah, but he wasn't exactly a moron. I've read some psychological papers and I've had a good relationship with two psychiatrists over the years. Now they all say it's COMPLETELY NORMAL for someone to fantasize, even to the extreme, violence. What's not normal is carrying it out.

So we keep coming back to the same spot. Pre-emptive seizure is seizure without merit. No crime has been committed that warrants that kind of response. A direct death threat may be one thing, "you all should be exterminated" is well within American lexicon and akin to Middle East "Death to America". Some may mean just that, but it's typically understood "Death to (pick an issue)" is their version of "Down with (pick an issue)".

So I see this shit being taken too far. Using a law just because it's there and to further your political goals. When we give power to those with political agendas, we are heading down the wrong road.
 

brazz04

New Hide Member
Feb 10, 2018
18
7
3
#5
Sure, then fantasize all you want. When you say it out loud and make references and gestures, that’s where the difference is from normal behavior to not so normal. This guy was absolutely a moron. Would you as a gun owner with this law in place have done the same actions as he did? I’m guessing no as I doubt your moronic. Until the mass shooting are under control this is the world we will be living in. So again, I have no problem with taking weapons from morons.
 
Likes: Rootshot

Maser

Friendliest Faggot
May 17, 2006
3,232
870
113
29
Mysterious Cities of Gold
www.youtube.com
#6
Meh just don’t act like an idiot and people won’t have reason to take your shit away. If we keep letting morons have guns, soon none of us will have them.
The problem is that the government tells us who's a moron and can't own a gun. I act like a fucking idiotic faggot moron on a daily basis because that's just who I am. Because of that, I'm not allowed to defend my wife and two sons? Fuck the government! Us civilians have knowledge that the government doesn't have. It's called common sense!
 

brazz04

New Hide Member
Feb 10, 2018
18
7
3
#9
Mass shootings are down quite a bit from 1990s levels when the AWB was in place.
So do you not think they could come down more? Not arguing but you have to admit it is still too common here. I just don’t like that as a gun community we always just push back on anything that someone proposes for slowing the problem down. All while offering no solutions to the problem either.
 

lash

Swamp Rat
Sep 28, 2012
3,394
1,047
113
59
Central Florida
#14
So do you not think they could come down more? Not arguing but you have to admit it is still too common here. I just don’t like that as a gun community we always just push back on anything that someone proposes for slowing the problem down. All while offering no solutions to the problem either.
It sounds to me like you are all for more "common sense" gun laws. That makes you part of the problem.
 
Jan 28, 2011
2,757
615
113
GA
#16
If the threat is credible, he should be charged.
As of right now this looks to be the correct judgement. If the various articles are at all correct this guy is a magnum douche. While being a douche isn't illegal, it appears he made credible death/murder threats more than once. And that is illegal.

I don't know about the law cited but in many cases like these there would be an immediate review of the guys psychological state which can open the door to weapons seizure and possibly committing him.

Slippery slope? Absolutely. In this case he appears to have expended effort at putting his freedoms in jeopardy all by himself.
 
Last edited:

lash

Swamp Rat
Sep 28, 2012
3,394
1,047
113
59
Central Florida
#17
Please explain that in a bit more detail...
Its very simple. The argument you just used:

So do you not think they could come down more? Not arguing but you have to admit it is still too common here. I just don’t like that as a gun community we always just push back on anything that someone proposes for slowing the problem down. All while offering no solutions to the problem either.
...is right out of the gun control playbook. First, you start by indicating that we cannot stop until nobody is killed by a gun anymore. It can always get better, right? Why, it's only common sense to want to make it better, right? What if your child/wife/mother/father/husband were killed by a gun? That's the line.

Secondly, you effectively make the statement that "we must all agree (that IT must get better), right?" Implicating that not to agree makes one evil or some kind of stupid gun nut. That's the hook. If I agree to this leading line, then the hook is set.

Then you make the generalization that the "gun community", meaning everyone that owns one, "always" pushes back, indicating your deep contempt for our apparent inability to think for ourselves, marching in lock-step in a mindless gun-toting frenzy. It helps to indicate that you are "one of us", just showing us the error in our ways. Reel 'em in.

Finish by pointing out (falsely, I'll add) that there have been no solutions offered by the "gun community". This all works to vilify us and make sure that we know that "we" are the problem and well-meaning emotionally generated gun control is the solution.

Now, just make sure that MSM focuses sharply on any and all shootings and pay special attention to the evil guns that are the "cause". Never let up the pressure until all people are "safe". It's so simple really. I cannot understand why we just don't get it. Why do we keep fighting it?

PSA: I slightly apologize to others for the mild derail of this thread with my response.
 
Jul 22, 2007
321
3
18
P.C. Florida
#20
The new law here in florida is pretty scary. Say youre child gets into an argument with another child or youre wife gets in a shouting match with someone and anything they say is construed as a threat, the police can get a protective order and take youre guns, even if they are locked in a safe and only you have the combo, even if you agree to store them out of the home they still take them and you get to go to a hearing and convince a judge that you should be allowed to have guns. Its crazy and a miscarriage of justice as we already have the baker act where if somone is a danger they have to be evaluated and if after a hearing you are found to be a threat a judge can order youre guns be seized, but thats after youve had due process.
 
Jan 6, 2012
4,120
3,438
113
#22
He may be a total f'ing loon. If he made threats of violence there's already laws in place to address that. He could be charged, jailed and if convicted of felony threats he looses his right to possess firearms.

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
 

brazz04

New Hide Member
Feb 10, 2018
18
7
3
#23
Its very simple. The argument you just used:
...is right out of the gun control playbook. First, you start by indicating that we cannot stop until nobody is killed by a gun anymore. It can always get better, right? Why, it's only common sense to want to make it better, right? What if your child/wife/mother/father/husband were killed by a gun? That's the line.
Secondly, you effectively make the statement that "we must all agree (that IT must get better), right?" Implicating that not to agree makes one evil or some kind of stupid gun nut. That's the hook. If I agree to this leading line, then the hook is set.
Then you make the generalization that the "gun community", meaning everyone that owns one, "always" pushes back, indicating your deep contempt for our apparent inability to think for ourselves, marching in lock-step in a mindless gun-toting frenzy. It helps to indicate that you are "one of us", just showing us the error in our ways. Reel 'em in.

Finish by pointing out (falsely, I'll add) that there have been no solutions offered by the "gun community". This all works to vilify us and make sure that we know that "we" are the problem and well-meaning emotionally generated gun control is the solution.

Now, just make sure that MSM focuses sharply on any and all shootings and pay special attention to the evil guns that are the "cause". Never let up the pressure until all people are "safe". It's so simple really. I cannot understand why we just don't get it. Why do we keep fighting it?

PSA: I slightly apologize to others for the mild derail of this thread with my response.
I’ll answer in order...with common sense

1) Should we not continue to try and make it better?

2) Yes I would think as a member of society you’d want to continue to make it better

3) No contempt from me, I just think using sensible thought, many gun issues could be handled better. Because someone want to ban a bump stock doesn’t mean the government wants to take everything you own.

4) Yes I’m clearly stating that I think it is an error in the ways of gun owners to just blindly push back on every possible regulation.

5) compromise on something that aids in fixing the issue.

In the end of you deny there is an issue, that’s more problematic than any other statement. Fighting common sense makes no sense.
 
Oct 17, 2009
406
404
63
Shelbyville, TN
#24
So do you not think they could come down more? Not arguing but you have to admit it is still too common here. I just don’t like that as a gun community we always just push back on anything that someone proposes for slowing the problem down. All while offering no solutions to the problem either.
The solution is to hold people accountable instead of blaming inanimate objects, which by definition cannot be good or bad.
We currently live in a society which says killing your unborn baby is an empowering choice, yet we're shocked when some disaffected teen seeks empowerment by killing kids who are a bit older?

ARs and AKs have been around for over 60 years, and there were no mass shootings to speak of then.
That tells us another part of the equation has changed.
 

brazz04

New Hide Member
Feb 10, 2018
18
7
3
#25
I’ll answer in order...with common sense

1) Should we not continue to try and make it better?

2) Yes I would think as a member of society you’d want to continue to make it better

3) No contempt from me, I just think using sensible thought, many gun issues could be handled better. Because someone want to ban a bump stock doesn’t mean the government wants to take everything you own.

4) Yes I’m clearly stating that I think it is an error in the ways of gun owners to just blindly push back on every possible regulation.

5) compromise on something that aids in fixing the issue.

In the end of you deny there is an issue, that’s more problematic than any other statement. Fighting common sense makes no sense.
 
Oct 17, 2009
406
404
63
Shelbyville, TN
#26
I’ll answer in order...with common sense

1) Should we not continue to try and make it better?

2) Yes I would think as a member of society you’d want to continue to make it better

3) No contempt from me, I just think using sensible thought, many gun issues could be handled better. Because someone want to ban a bump stock doesn’t mean the government wants to take everything you own.

4) Yes I’m clearly stating that I think it is an error in the ways of gun owners to just blindly push back on every possible regulation.

5) compromise on something that aids in fixing the issue.

In the end of you deny there is an issue, that’s more problematic than any other statement. Fighting common sense makes no sense.

Compromise is a word leftys love to misuse.

What laws are on the table to be repealed for the left's part of their compromise?

You do realize compromise means both sides give up something for a mutual agreement?
 

lash

Swamp Rat
Sep 28, 2012
3,394
1,047
113
59
Central Florida
#27
I’ll answer in order...with common sense

1) Should we not continue to try and make it better?

2) Yes I would think as a member of society you’d want to continue to make it better

3) No contempt from me, I just think using sensible thought, many gun issues could be handled better. Because someone want to ban a bump stock doesn’t mean the government wants to take everything you own.

4) Yes I’m clearly stating that I think it is an error in the ways of gun owners to just blindly push back on every possible regulation.

5) compromise on something that aids in fixing the issue.

In the end of you deny there is an issue, that’s more problematic than any other statement. Fighting common sense makes no sense.
Do not put words in my mouth. I never said that there is not an issue as there certainly is an issue. The issue is not bump stocks or black guns or high capacity magazines, nor even those so-called "evil assault rifles". The issue is a society that chooses to ignore and bypass the laws that are currently in place to curb those that would use a gun in a criminal way. You think the issue is a certain gun, or part of a gun, or a certain demographic (I.E. 18-21 year-olds or war veterens) and then somehow think that you can legislate common sense and change society to all happy cloud walkers and dreamers of the perfect utopia. I think that the issue is general lack of accountability and a victim-based society.

As a person who is ready to continually compromise instead of holding your ground, you indeed are part of the problem. I did say that and meant it. That is exactly the strategy of the gun-control movement, to continually demand ridiculous curtailments of rights and go for the "common sense" compromise. I'm not making this up. They have said as much on more than one occasion.
 
Jan 6, 2012
4,120
3,438
113
#29
I do not understand people that want more laws. There's already multiple laws to deal with crazy and/or violent people. If the guy's crazy and a threat to himself or others he can be committed. If he's just violent and made credible threats he can be arrested and charged. If the judge thinks he's a threat, he can be held till trial. This law has not one damned thing to do with public safety.
 

brazz04

New Hide Member
Feb 10, 2018
18
7
3
#30
Do not put words in my mouth. I never said that there is not an issue as there certainly is an issue. The issue is not bump stocks or black guns or high capacity magazines, nor even those so-called "evil assault rifles". The issue is a society that chooses to ignore and bypass the laws that are currently in place to curb those that would use a gun in a criminal way. You think the issue is a certain gun, or part of a gun, or a certain demographic (I.E. 18-21 year-olds or war veterens) and then somehow think that you can legislate common sense and change society to all happy cloud walkers and dreamers of the perfect utopia. I think that the issue is general lack of accountability and a victim-based society.

As a person who is ready to continually compromise instead of holding your ground, you indeed are part of the problem. I did say that and meant it. That is exactly the strategy of the gun-control movement, to continually demand ridiculous curtailments of rights and go for the "common sense" compromise. I'm not making this up. They have said as much on more than one occasion.

Meh I’ll use my common sense and continue to dominate life.
 

lash

Swamp Rat
Sep 28, 2012
3,394
1,047
113
59
Central Florida
#33
But this guy is a officer of the court with a lot of experience acting like a dick in the workplace. Stupid is as stupid does.
I agree. My discussion with brazz04 is somewhat outside of the realm of this thread, even though it deals with the basis of unnecessary and likely unconstitutional laws. My point is more like what MtnCreek just said above:

I do not understand people that want more laws. There's already multiple laws to deal with crazy and/or violent people. If the guy's crazy and a threat to himself or others he can be committed. If he's just violent and made credible threats he can be arrested and charged. If the judge thinks he's a threat, he can be held till trial. This law has not one damned thing to do with public safety.
 

RNWRKNP

Sophisticated Redneck
Dec 13, 2017
1,340
1,578
113
PHX, AZ
#34
Due process or big brother?🤔 I’ll take due process for $5,000 Monte😉 Common sense is already on the books and adding shit like this is an emotional response with logic having left the building.
 

Veer_G

Cunning Linguist, Emeritus
Jun 15, 2008
8,591
5,539
113
SEPA
#36
I’ll answer in order...with common sense

1) Should we not continue to try and make it better?

2) Yes I would think as a member of society you’d want to continue to make it better

3) No contempt from me, I just think using sensible thought, many gun issues could be handled better. Because someone want to ban a bump stock doesn’t mean the government wants to take everything you own.

4) Yes I’m clearly stating that I think it is an error in the ways of gun owners to just blindly push back on every possible regulation.

5) compromise on something that aids in fixing the issue.

In the end of you deny there is an issue, that’s more problematic than any other statement. Fighting common sense makes no sense.
Fuck off.

You posting the same shit twice in one thread is flood-posting and exactly what goes on at a protest when Antifa mindlessly chants the same incendiary idiot mantras. I put you in the same league as that annoying cunt Luis Marquez.
 

brazz04

New Hide Member
Feb 10, 2018
18
7
3
#37
Fuck off.

You posting the same shit twice in one thread is flood-posting and exactly what goes on at a protest when Antifa mindlessly chants the same incendiary idiot mantras. I put you in the same league as that annoying cunt Luis Marquez.
Lol my bad dude, my phone posted it twice, super sorry...calm down homie
 

Culpeper

One divided by F
Nov 25, 2006
2,360
764
113
59
Roswell NM
#41
The problem is the dude and not the system. We need to hold our fellow gun owners accountable for their actions in our own ways. The guy is a fucking nutcase. Fuck him. He's on his own as far as I'm concerned. Excommunicated. No fucking Eucharist. Flogged. Branded. Drawn and quartered, burned at the stack. Let the system suck him in. Don't use him to defend our rights. It is unfavorable ground.
 

Bender

Something witty here
Feb 12, 2014
2,979
2,790
113
Cheyenne WY.
#42
The problem is the dude and not the system. We need to hold our fellow gun owners accountable for their actions in our own ways. The guy is a fucking nutcase. Fuck him. He's on his own as far as I'm concerned. Excommunicated. No fucking Eucharist. Flogged. Branded. Drawn and quartered, burned at the stack. Let the system suck him in. Don't use him to defend our rights. It is unfavorable ground.
I agree completely, but this is a slippery slope use of a gun law. The next case maybe it’s somebody that they just don’t like because they are too conservative? Or they drove a purple truck that day? Maybe that is why they took their guns away from them? The next use of this law may not be common sense.
 
Dec 5, 2017
3
5
3
#43
Had an uncle where a woman said he was making threats.

Wasn't true. She was crazy. But his guns were taken.

He was involuntarily committed. And now he cannot legally own a gun.

It seems like it is easy to take away the guns of law abiding people. It is only the school shooters that they leave alone.

This story is just one of many.
 

Bender

Something witty here
Feb 12, 2014
2,979
2,790
113
Cheyenne WY.
#45
Had an uncle where a woman said he was making threats.

Wasn't true. She was crazy. But his guns were taken.

He was involuntarily committed. And now he cannot legally own a gun.

It seems like it is easy to take away the guns of law abiding people. It is only the school shooters that they leave alone.

This story is just one of many.
Exactly........
 
Likes: RNWRKNP

j-huskey

Jafo / Instigator !
Jul 27, 2001
1,514
2,237
113
AL
None
#47
Do not put words in my mouth. I never said that there is not an issue as there certainly is an issue. The issue is not bump stocks or black guns or high capacity magazines, nor even those so-called "evil assault rifles". The issue is a society that chooses to ignore and bypass the laws that are currently in place to curb those that would use a gun in a criminal way. You think the issue is a certain gun, or part of a gun, or a certain demographic (I.E. 18-21 year-olds or war veterens) and then somehow think that you can legislate common sense and change society to all happy cloud walkers and dreamers of the perfect utopia. I think that the issue is general lack of accountability and a victim-based society.

As a person who is ready to continually compromise instead of holding your ground, you indeed are part of the problem. I did say that and meant it. That is exactly the strategy of the gun-control movement, to continually demand ridiculous curtailments of rights and go for the "common sense" compromise. I'm not making this up. They have said as much on more than one occasion.
Compromise is such a wonderful thing. (Sarcasm)...
Free world compromised with Adolph Hitler, Joe Stalin, Chairboy Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Nikita Khrushchev, Putin, Ferdinand Marcos, Khomeni, Ortega, Chavez, Barak, Hitlery, and a few more, and how many INNOCENT people suffered ?????
"Because compromise helps solve problems "...

So, your three daughters, 13, 15, & 17 want to smoke weed because everybody in school is doing it, you compromise and let them do it at home....
The 17 year old, daddy, I snuck a weed smoke in and wrecked the car.
The 15 year old, daddy, I snuck a weed smoke in at Cindy's and her (police detective) mom caught us. Can u come get me at the police station?
The 13 year old, daddy, i snuck a weed smoke in over at Caties house, and while i was sleepy, her 5 brothers poked me and i wont stop bleeding...
Compromise.......

Your wife is seeing your neighbor, and if you will just compromise and forgive her, it will all be ok.... and she files first and smokes your ass. Fair to say, she dominated in that case....

I really don't like non due process seizure, it's not the American way I grew up in, I believe it's very misused and abused.

Smart people pick their battles, and more appropriate places to vent or act out. Homie there didnt meet the definition of smart, and no amount of compromise will fix stupid.

Discipline MUST hold, whether self initiating, parental, or lawful governmental, otherwise, it's bad news.

Homie didnt exercise appropriate discipline and did the "stupid", now hes getting disciplineD....

Life can suck sometimes.... for the stupid, and for the innocent who get bloodied by compromise....

I do resent me and mine being compromised by someone whose values are different from mine and their vision being forced on me and taking from me my heretofore acceptable way of life.

A very carefully reasoned compromise based on evidence of need, with a cleary defined goal can be the proper course of action, but history shows compromise less valuable than correctly applied discipline.
 
Last edited:

lash

Swamp Rat
Sep 28, 2012
3,394
1,047
113
59
Central Florida
#49
Meh not worth my time any more, I’ll leave you extremists be.
Ah...name calling. The last bastion of someone with an indefensible position. You left out Nazis, hillbillies, rednecks, and a few other choice and popular names. Can't we just compromise and define us as those that are unwilling to give up our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms for an un-attainable "safety" administered by a benevolent and dictatorial people's government?