98Z5V Posted February 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 When officers roll up on you, when they say police freeze, when they have you at gun point, or are executing a warrant... They have absolutely NO reason whatsoever to do that - to me. None. There's nothing in my past, or present, for a need for ANY police officer to do that.Now, if a police officer DOES "roll up on me," identifies himself, and starts firing - then you bet your ass, in the circumstances that you have provided, that I DO have a right to defend myself.Anyone in that exact situation - law-abiding, no criminal past or present, not doing ANYTHING wrong - they have that right, too.The United States Supreme Court agrees with me, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StainTrain Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 Well the police are not the enemy. There are some crappy cops out there, but I would say that the majority of cops (I know many members here are law enforcement) are strong 2nd Amendment supporters and believe in a strict adherence to the Constitution. Dorner and the trigger happy LAPD Officers are the minority. I try not to second guess Police Officers who have been in shootings, but it is hard to see any justification in the Perdue truck shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerman Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 I think you are reading a little too much into this.It always starts with... suspect fitting discription. You, have never done anything wrong... but for some reason... you are just sitting at a convienient store, 4 cop cars roll up and box you in, they order you to put your hands up and exit the vehicle.... Again... going out on a limb here... my guess is that you would put your hands up and exit the vehicle and see WTF they are talking about.There are rules governing every type of police contact with civilians and what they can and can't do at every level when it comes to your civil rights. That is not what I am talking about. In this case, the police were wrong by firing on citizens looking for someone else... that is a law suit. That is officers fired, a big pay day and an appology from the Police Chief. You returning fire because "you have not done anything"... that is possible charges against officers, and a big pay day for your family... but you, you will be dead. Shooting at cops tends to get you there in a hurry. Just sayin' Not condoning their actions, just stating reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98Z5V Posted February 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 I think you are reading a little too much into this.I think you typed a little too much into this. You stated it. It's inaccurate, and proven by the US Supreme Court. I didn't say it - you did. Just stating reality, here. <thumbsup>Important history lesson - research this, understand the conclusion of the court, and come back with the same argument that you currently have. This determination was made more than a century ago...John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerman Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 I think you typed a little too much into this. You stated it. It's inaccurate, and proven by the US Supreme Court. I didn't say it - you did. Just stating reality, here. <thumbsup>Then explain it to me. what did the SCOTUS rule on.I said the police ID themselves, and start shooting... you ASSUMED, it was an unjustified shooting... I meant they had justified reasons to start shooting. Even Ray Charles can see that a cop shooting at you for no reason is against the law. I did not think I needed to say that. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98Z5V Posted February 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 We must have been posting at the same time... I'll explain it for you.Important history lesson - research this, understand the conclusion of the court, and come back with the same argument that you currently have. This determination was made more than a century ago...John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StainTrain Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 All parties in that case were police officers. If a warrant is present, then there is probable cause. There are probable cause arrests, which the court recognizes. If the probable cause was weak or insufficient then a suppression hearing and or PC hearing will expose that. The above is an over simplification of the Bad Elk Case and does not justify killing a police officer in execution of a lawful arrest in any of the 50 United States. I know that this discussion centers around bad cops over stepping their lawful authority. I wanted to add this in for people who may be reading this thinking that the SCOTUS decision says that an Officer in Proper Pursuit of His duties can be resisted with deadly force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerman Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 That's pretty darn interesting. However, I'm sure there has been plenty of case law since to define that further.We are just getting side tracked on how far you can go in a completely false case of lawful police action to stop, detain, or arrest you. I do not know the exact law in that case and I was not arguing that point.Even in mistaken identity, the police have the right to stop you, if the circumstances warrant, they have the rigth to detain you... as long as they are following proper prcedure and so on. They would have to go down the line... we got a tip... fitting description... we atttempted a stop... suspect refused... we deployed measures... suspect drew a gun... we fired. I can't even begin to understand the justification for the shooting of a white guy... there is none. And if that was you, and you drew your weapon to defend yourself... when all the smoke settled... you MAY not be charged with a crime... but you most probably would be dead... and we would not be chatting right now. Do you want to be alive, or right? ;D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98Z5V Posted February 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 That's pretty darn interesting. However, I'm sure there has been plenty of case law since to define that further.That stands, to this day.Do you want to be alive, or right? ;DI'll be both. <thumbsup> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerman Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 That stands, to this day.I'll be both. <thumbsup>Right... when the cops come to arrest you, and they have no warrant, and no crime that you committed... feel free to shoot them all you want.When officers want to stop, or detain you with probable cause... I strongly suggest you don't pull a gun on them. Or do, if that's how you want to roll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98Z5V Posted February 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 Thanks for the advice. Have a good one. <thumbsup> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planeflyer21 Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 EDITJon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jgun Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 I'm not suggesting that it is appropriate to "shoot it out" with police, or even advisable. One armed individual in a car doesn't stand much of a chance of coming out on top against a group of armed police wearing body armor. I was trying to make the point that if the Gov,(local/state/federal) employs people that are so irresponsible as to shoot up cars with unarmed womed in them, in the supposed pursuit of a criminal that they supposedly want to apprehend and not assasinate, then the guns in their hands are as much or more of a hazard to innocent people as those that the Gov is trying to take away from private citizens. Did you see the picture of the back of the car that the two women were driving? It looked like something from Bonney and Clyde. Although I don't advocate that anyone return fire with police lawfully trying to arrest them, I think that if LE are operating with such total disregard for those that they are trying to protect than we really are on our own, and it's like the wild west, and if innocent people are hurt or killed it will just be considered collateral damage. I'd have to say that if I'm minding my own business, and ANYONE no matter who, starts shooting at me, I should have the ability to shoot back. just because it's a mistake doesn't make it OK for them to act with such wanten disregard for the lives of people that are on the street. I think that to expect them to make sure that they are shooting at the right people before they open fire is not too much to expect, and this didn't happen just once but twice that I'm aware of in this perticular manhunt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerman Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 I agree Bud. I understand what you are saying. It's areal fornicate at the very least... potentially criminal depending on motives. Ya, if that is the caliber of police these days, then we should hire less and arm more people. :) (I do not think that is a fair representation of most of the officers these days.)But even with disregard for public safety, complete incompetence, and civil rights violations... if a citizen opens fire on police in self defense... then that person is probably going to die. It isn't right. A lawyer can get him off... I'm just saying, as you pointed out... you probably are not going to come out on top on that one. I'm not arguing for or against, right or wrong... just saying that is probably not going to be a successful course of action to peruse. I think this horse is officially hamburger. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StainTrain Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 The reasonableness standard applies. I don't think any le reading this expects a private citizen to stand there and get assassinated by rogue police officers applying deadly force when simple verbal commands would suffice. As in any gunfight, there is a chance you will die. One only have one life on this earth use it wisely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jgun Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 I wasn't trying to attack LE in my last post, although it would appear that those LAPD LE that have shot up two cars and wounded two people in the pursuit of this guy were overreacting. It would seem to me that the only justification for shooting these two vehicles up as they did, would be if you KNEW that this guy was definitley the one in the car, or if the people in the cars had initiated gun fire. I was actually trying to point out that banning private individuals from gun ownership will not prevent things like this from happening, and since they are not trying to ban LE from carrying guns, due to the actions of certain mentally ill individuals, then they shouldn't use it as an excuse to prevent law abiding private citizens from being armed as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNP Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 Hey....turn on the news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sketch Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 Won't be long now they've been on him since 12:30 if it is him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StainTrain Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 Excellent. Who are the idiots showing up with signs with "don't kill Dorner" on them? Where were these tender hearts when they could have said "Dorner, don't kill anyone"? <munch>. Can't wait to see which lucky team gets to go in and apprehend him! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imschur Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 LA Times could not wait to use this headline "Dorner shootout: 'Hundreds of rounds' fired during gun battle"I suggest authorities remind Dorner of the 10 round limit. Perhaps a well placed "No guns allowed" sign can be dropped from above to end this mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StainTrain Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 It's so crazy, it just might work. ;D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magwa Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 I do believe he is well done.....looks like it was trial by fire.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StainTrain Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Lets just hope this radical leftist cop killer is roasting in those flames right now. Another Leo dead at his hands. I bet within 24 hours there will be bloggers talking about how the .gov set the cabin on fire to silence the wronged American Hero...... Nothing like the unrestrained amateur media in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98Z5V Posted February 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 That fucker has GOT to be dead. He got another Sheriff's Deputy (killed) and wounded one more. I'll tell you what - I think if the LEOs DID set that cabin on fire, it would be completely justifiable in the court system. I'll bet that would fly, considering the circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt.Cross Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 That fucker has GOT to be dead. He got another Sheriff's Deputy (killed) and wounded one more. I'll tell you what - I think if the LEOs DID set that cabin on fire, it would be completely justifiable in the court system. I'll bet that would fly, considering the circumstances.He was dead before the fire caught up. At this point, this is nothing more than a bunch of what if by the media to whore as much attention can come of this situation as possible. This has been over for an hour and forty-five minutes as of this post. That's my $.02 anyways..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.