TexasCHLforum.com

Grillmark55 wrote:Somebody filed a report with the police - or called them - and said that she made threats to use a gun. How is it that the person who made the claim (I can only assume that they were false, based on everything that I've heard and read) is not charged with filing a false report? I thought that in most places if you make a false statement to the police about somebody, that itself is an offense and you go to jail - or at least are fined for it. What am I missing here?
As an aside, isn't this also a GREAT example of how our FIRST Amendment rights are being taken away. Say something that somebody doesn't like and get the cuffs slapped on you, guns confiscated, legal costs, etc., etc.

So they are violating her rights under the 7th too?

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

It seems to me that one of the basic tenets of the document in question is "Innocent until proven guilty" but she has to turn in her guns, before a trial to determine her guilt or innocence, in order to avoid a "prohibitively high" bail?

So besides seizing her property without proper warrant: IE the Fourth Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Then they are violating her Eight Amendment rights: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Which SCOTUS has held: "In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."

The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."


I went through something resembling this when I fought a re-evaluation in my little town back in the 80s. My evaluation was significantly higher than my neighbor's with the same house, which had some specific improvements that my house didn't. The town building inspector was a former friend, whose wife (a closer friend) had lived with us for a while when she was in the process of leaving him (a whole 'nother story) and that earned me his everlasting enmity.

I eventually won the re-evaluation.