Homeowner Doesn’t Back Down From Bully Cops - Page 4
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41

Thread: Homeowner Doesn’t Back Down From Bully Cops

  1. #31
    Distinguished Member High Seas Drifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Beach
    Posts
    9,785
    Quote Originally Posted by racer88 View Post
    Citation, please.
    https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...he-police.html

    -on Tapatalk
    • "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -The Dalai Lama

  2. #32
    Distinguished Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Pensacola
    Posts
    3,431
    Quote Originally Posted by High Seas Drifter View Post
    No. People who point guns at other people engaged in a legal activity on private property are criminals. One's profession whilst engaged in such activity is not relevant. I'm strictly speaking of criminal activity.

    -on Tapatalk
    No you're not. What you're trying to do is dance on the head of a pin, trying to isolate the action of drawing a weapon (by police) on an innocent citizen as though it's happening with labels applied and in a vacuum. Real life never presents itself that way. It presents itself as shown in the video... couple guys toting guns toward a house, might be nothing, might be something, and the right thing to do is check it out. That's it, just check it out.

    Now in the course of that, one can do as Racer suggested and have an easy time of it OR they can turn motormouth and try ordering the police around while ignoring their very reasonable commands to reholster/lay weapon down. In that case, it would turn into the public having an expectation that police officers are Kreskin the Magnificent, able to know the thoughts of any they encounter. But that's not so, and court cases are awash in situations where officers articulating a reasonable fear of danger were not punished for drawing a weapon and in some cases using it.

    They have no way to know if those two were completely disarmed or they only laid down a shotgun and still have something else on them. I don't think it's reasonable to force an officer to reholster on command of a citizen being investigated. What would be next, telling them to put the handcuffs away, you'll follow them to the jail?
    A man with two watches never really knows what time it is.
    M. Twain


    I think the feminists probably need some serious man in their lives.
    Delores O'Riodan

  3. #33
    Distinguished Member racer88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    10,320
    Quote Originally Posted by High Seas Drifter View Post
    That's about excessive force. You said you can't point a gun at someone doing something that's legal. Two very different things. Your stipulation is quite specific. There is no law that says, "you can't point a gun at someone doing something legal." It doesn't matter if what they were doing is LATER deemed to be legal. What would a reasonable officer do in the same situation?

    I bet you wouldn't find a single LEO ANYWHERE that would obligingly holster his weapon upon demand by a clearly agitated person who very recently had a gun in his possession (and might have others not yet visible). That scenario is all the MORE reason to NOT holster the weapon.

    IANAL, but I understand use of force law fairly well, I think. Just as it is with self-defense law... it's not a matter of the legality of what transpired. It's a matter of what a REASONABLE person would have done in the same situation. "Reasonableness" is part of the "Five Elements."

    In this case, I don't think anyone (including a lawyer) would be able to argue the cops used "excessive force." I'm sure you disagree, nevertheless.

    So, even though a robber may be using a fake gun, a REASONABLE person would perceive a threat to his life (and would therefore be justified in use of lethal force in self-defense).

    In a case where two officers are sent to investigate two men lurking around a home with a gun, and then SEE the men with a gun, they would REASONABLY assume the men could pose a threat. In this case, it would have been EASY for the two men to put the officers at ease. But, they didn't. They self-righteously escalated the situation, and they're DAMNED lucky they didn't get shot.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Life Member

    "Dances with guns."

  4. Remove Advertisements
    FloridaConcealedCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #34
    Distinguished Member High Seas Drifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Beach
    Posts
    9,785
    The Civil Rights Act of 1871 is a federal statute, numbered 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that allows people to sue the government for civil rights violations. It applies when someone acting “under color of” state-level or local law has deprived a person of rights created by the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes.

    And your takeaway is:
    Quote Originally Posted by racer88 View Post
    That's about excessive force.
    Well, so much for having a thought exercise where we discuss the forest. But y'all are right, that's a mighty fine lookin' tree!




    -on Tapatalk
    • "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -The Dalai Lama

  6. #35
    Distinguished Member racer88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    10,320
    Quote Originally Posted by High Seas Drifter View Post
    The Civil Rights Act of 1871 is a federal statute, numbered 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that allows people to sue the government for civil rights violations. It applies when someone acting “under color of” state-level or local law has deprived a person of rights created by the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes.

    And your takeaway is:


    Well, so much for having a thought exercise where we discuss the forest. But y'all are right, that's a mighty fine lookin' tree!

    -on Tapatalk
    Well, yeah.. the HEADER of the page you linked is:


    What Is a "Section 1983" Lawsuit Against the Police?
    The Civil Rights Act of 1871 allows people to sue for certain kinds of civil rights violations, including excessive police force.


    So, yeah... I figured that's what you were talking about.... in the context of your accusations against the police in the video.
    Last edited by racer88; 03-25-2020 at 08:32 PM.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Life Member

    "Dances with guns."

  7. #36
    Distinguished Member MPDC66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    SW Fl.
    Posts
    12,874
    You may have the right of way in a crosswalk BUT it is sheer stupidity to argue that point with a speeding truck screaming for you to move!
    God is great, beer is good, people are crazy.
    USMC 66-69 "wing wiper" Sgt E-5

    DON'T DISS THE DONALD!

    COTEP #744

  8. #37
    Distinguished Member racer88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    10,320
    Quote Originally Posted by MPDC66 View Post
    You may have the right of way in a crosswalk BUT it is sheer stupidity to argue that point with a speeding truck screaming for you to move!
    Great analogy.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Life Member

    "Dances with guns."

  9. #38
    Distinguished Member brownie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Superstition Mtns, Az
    Posts
    54,094
    Quote Originally Posted by OHEng View Post
    No you're not. What you're trying to do is dance on the head of a pin, trying to isolate the action of drawing a weapon (by police) on an innocent citizen as though it's happening with labels applied and in a vacuum. Real life never presents itself that way. It presents itself as shown in the video... couple guys toting guns toward a house, might be nothing, might be something, and the right thing to do is check it out. That's it, just check it out.

    Now in the course of that, one can do as Racer suggested and have an easy time of it OR they can turn motormouth and try ordering the police around while ignoring their very reasonable commands to reholster/lay weapon down. In that case, it would turn into the public having an expectation that police officers are Kreskin the Magnificent, able to know the thoughts of any they encounter. But that's not so, and court cases are awash in situations where officers articulating a reasonable fear of danger were not punished for drawing a weapon and in some cases using it.

    They have no way to know if those two were completely disarmed or they only laid down a shotgun and still have something else on them. I don't think it's reasonable to force an officer to reholster on command of a citizen being investigated. What would be next, telling them to put the handcuffs away, you'll follow them to the jail?
    And in fact, I've taught nearly forever, that if you find one gun, they are likely to have more weapons. In blades, if we found one, we always assumed [ erred on the side of caution ] that they still had weapons secreted on their body somewhere. UNTIL I search that person fully and KNOW they have no further weapons, erring on the side of caution is prudent. In some circles it's called apathy when an officer gets lax in their erring on the side of caution. Apathy has killed many an leo in the last 50 years.
    The mind is the limiting factor

    https://www.youtube.com/user/azqkr

    The lion does not even bother to turn his head when he hears the small dog barking..

    Stay Sharp

    Brownie

  10. #39
    Distinguished Member BrianB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Skyview (Pinellas)
    Posts
    7,542
    Quote Originally Posted by racer88 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianB View Post
    I think most of you are confused about what happened here. That's not surprising since the video was shot quite poorly. Once the shotgun was on the ground neither of the private citizens was armed. All of the calls to "holster your ******n weapon" were by the friend of the dude filming, directed at the police officers. Both of the non-LEOs were unarmed once the unloaded shotgun was on the ground.
    Hmmm... that's not evident in the video. But, I agree the video sucks.

    THAT said (and if true), the friend of the dude yelling, "holster your ****ing weapon" is STILL a douche and unnecessarily escalating the tension of the situation. What cop, in his right mind, would follow the order by a citizen to "RE-HOLSTER YOUR ****ING WEAPON???" Yeah.. I sure wouldn't! LOL! All the more reason to keep the gun at "low ready" in the very LEAST! An agitated subject ORDERING me to re-holster? I. Don't. Think. So.

    In reality, the police have no reason to believe the two subjects are unarmed as YOU assume. If they have one weapon (that's now on the ground), they very well might have others. And, if the subjects are visibly agitated, all the more reason for caution by the officers.

    As I said in my other comment... if I was in that position, I'd calmly put my firearm down, raise my hands and SMILE while saying, "Afternoon, sirs. I understand your concern. I can assure you all is well here. Just tell me what you'd like me to do next." I guarantee you I could have EASILY DE-escalated the situation and eventually had a nice conversation with the officers about our favorite guns. THEN the officers would have likely reholstered NATURALLY, as the situation and tension is de-escalated.

    Yes... it's "wrong" that they assumed I'm up to "no good" with a gun. But, again... there's a saying, "Pick your battles."
    To be clear, when I said "[o]nce the shotgun was on the ground neither of the private citizens was armed", what I meant was "visibly armed" - speaking specifically to all of the hollering to holster your weapon. Neither of the non-cops had a weapon in their hands at that point and it wasn't the cops hollering to holster the weapon it was the videographer's buddy hollering it at the cops.

    Several times you hear the same voice that yelled for someone to holster their weapon also yelling at someone stop pointing their weapon at a veteran. Obviously it is not the police yelling at the men to stop pointing guns at them. I'm pretty sure we know what would have happened if the men had pointed a gun at the officers.

    I make no statement about the rest of it. Just that nearly everyone here failed to distinguish who was talking to whom when evaluating the video. This is understandable since faces weren't in frame most of the time and the "commands" from the non-LEOs were rather unusual.
    NRA Certified Instructor (Pistol, Rifle, HFS, PPITH, PPOTH) and Chief Range Safety Officer
    Florida Carry Life Member, SAF Life Member, NRA Endowment Life Member
    Front Sight Distinguished Graduate, Defensive Handgun, Glock 35 and Glock 23
    FFL Type 7, Class 2 SOT (Licensed NFA Firearms Manufacturer)

  11. #40
    Super Moderator BeerHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    PBC
    Posts
    25,669
    Quote Originally Posted by MPDC66 View Post
    You may have the right of way in a crosswalk BUT it is sheer stupidity to argue that point with a speeding truck screaming for you to move!
    I'm reminded of this at least twice a day crossing the street to get to/from my office in West Palm Beach!
    -BH

    Member: Florida Carry, COTEP 766, SAF, GOA, NRA Endowment Life
    FFL 03, NRA CRSO & CI: P-R-S-PPITH
    Former USAF NCO 1980-1984, DoD 1987-Present
    Please consider joining NRA at www.nra.org and Florida Carry at www.floridacarry.org

    “The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution.”
    -- Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States

    "Those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are commuting violence on their behalf."
    -- George Orwell


    "The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."
    -- Herbert Spencer

Sposors

Posting Permissions

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