User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 5:10:29 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By exDefensorMilitas: I can't comprehend living a life where the mere sight of a weapon causes me to fear for my life, as seems to be the case for a few posters here. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By exDefensorMilitas: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By Middlelength: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Existence of guns is not a threat. Cops can't just shoot someone open carrying on the street, nor can they do so in your own house. The Deputy had no provocation for his attack, and has no justification for claiming it was in defense of himself or others. It is murder / manslaughter. I give a lot of people the benefit of the doubt in these circumstances because what happened is obviously a tragedy. But it is clear that lots of people don't have any ability to think critically about these types of incidents. Lets say YOU, not a police officer, were walking door to door in this apartment complex, with your daughter, because she wanted to sell Girl Scout cookies. So you knocked on each door, yelled "Girl Scout Cookies", and waited. At this particular door, after knocking and announcing your purpose, the door swings open and our young Airman is standing there, holding a pistol. You draw your concealed pistol and shoot him. Was that murder? Was that first degree murder? Using your logic, he is in his house with a firearm. He has brought that firearm to his door. Using your logic, no one at the other side of the door has any right to feel threatened, because a gun in a hand isn't threatening. But of course the truth is that it is complicated and really boils down to how you, as the shooter, understood the facts presented to you. And if you thought the gun was MEANT to be threatening, you would have made a reasonable conclusion and even the most progressive anti-gun DAs office would have a hard time convincing anyone to the contrary. And a jury in most states, especially Florida, would have a hard time convicting you of any type of murder in the scenario presented above. And that is the standard that the sheriff will be held to, "what facts did he reasonably understand at the time of the shooting". And it is why when police show up at my door, or people I believe to be the police, I make sure that my hands are clear and visible. And it is also why I generally NEVER have a firearm in my hand when I am interacting with strangers. Which is very different from saying I am ever unarmed. None of this is saying that the officer had to shoot the young man. But the mental dynamics so many people, including you, are applying to why he COULDN'T LEGALLY have shot him misses that there isn't a law enforcement agency that I know of in this country, and most other countries, where this shooting would be against law or policy. And that is what makes it a tragedy. No one loved this kid enough to tell him answering the door this way was a bad idea, or he had done it for long enough he thought it was good idea, and the exception proved it all wrong. If he doesn't show hostile intent, I don't shoot him. This isn't theoretical to me. I cleared houses in Baghdad and Talafar for 2 years. I've been in this exact scenario, more than a few times. Lots of people with guns in houses, on the street...If they aren't making a move, you don't have to get it on. If I would have done what this Deputy did, in Baghdad, I would have violated the ROE. The enemy has to show hostile intent. So even if your claims that this was a legal shoot were legit (they aren't) it's a VERY sad day when our Army does better at protecting the basic rights of people in a 3rd world country we are occupying, than a Deputy can do in Florida. The Deputy fucked up. He murdered a guy. Thanks for playing I can't comprehend living a life where the mere sight of a weapon causes me to fear for my life, as seems to be the case for a few posters here. Yes, it’s pretty sad and eye opening. There are posters in this thread who would excuse a game warden shooting everyone on a dove field when checking licenses because “they all had guns!” |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 5:30:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: SmilingBandit]
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UV18: Well, he or another male voice in the apartment says "police". That is on the audio from the bodycam. Now, did he think it was the police? Who knows. We have no idea. We have no idea what occurred prior to or during the initiation of the contact. It will take time to see. If he did think it was the police and chose to come armed to the door, it is not a choice I can't see any reasonable GDer choosing. Shoot, I wouldn't have done it. This isn't a case of where you are a victim calling the police but you are likely involved in a criminal incident and the police are showing up. Now for a tactical analysis- that apartment sucks. End of a walkway with no easy sidestep. He can't just step back to increase distance and we don't know the location of the officer without doing a comparison to the bodycam from a known position. He showed up alone and tried to make contact, when there was no rush to. Bad position and then likely shocked to have a guy open the door holding a gun. Especially when you can hear the person probably thought it was the police at the door. So, why would a person involved in a likely criminal incident answer the door for the police holding a gun? Your second sentence points out how little hearing police from the other side of the door means, but you keep yammering on about it. And your final sentence is nothing more than trying to tarnish the image of a special forces Airman. The sheriff's office has given no evidence to support any position that he was involved in criminal activity, so your saying he was likely involved in criminal activity is slanderous. You should be ashamed for your actions and withdraw your statement. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 5:34:29 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bunn19: Yes, it’s pretty sad and eye opening. There are posters in this thread who would excuse a game warden shooting everyone on a dove field when checking licenses because “they all had guns!” Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bunn19: Originally Posted By exDefensorMilitas: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By Middlelength: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Existence of guns is not a threat. Cops can't just shoot someone open carrying on the street, nor can they do so in your own house. The Deputy had no provocation for his attack, and has no justification for claiming it was in defense of himself or others. It is murder / manslaughter. I give a lot of people the benefit of the doubt in these circumstances because what happened is obviously a tragedy. But it is clear that lots of people don't have any ability to think critically about these types of incidents. Lets say YOU, not a police officer, were walking door to door in this apartment complex, with your daughter, because she wanted to sell Girl Scout cookies. So you knocked on each door, yelled "Girl Scout Cookies", and waited. At this particular door, after knocking and announcing your purpose, the door swings open and our young Airman is standing there, holding a pistol. You draw your concealed pistol and shoot him. Was that murder? Was that first degree murder? Using your logic, he is in his house with a firearm. He has brought that firearm to his door. Using your logic, no one at the other side of the door has any right to feel threatened, because a gun in a hand isn't threatening. But of course the truth is that it is complicated and really boils down to how you, as the shooter, understood the facts presented to you. And if you thought the gun was MEANT to be threatening, you would have made a reasonable conclusion and even the most progressive anti-gun DAs office would have a hard time convincing anyone to the contrary. And a jury in most states, especially Florida, would have a hard time convicting you of any type of murder in the scenario presented above. And that is the standard that the sheriff will be held to, "what facts did he reasonably understand at the time of the shooting". And it is why when police show up at my door, or people I believe to be the police, I make sure that my hands are clear and visible. And it is also why I generally NEVER have a firearm in my hand when I am interacting with strangers. Which is very different from saying I am ever unarmed. None of this is saying that the officer had to shoot the young man. But the mental dynamics so many people, including you, are applying to why he COULDN'T LEGALLY have shot him misses that there isn't a law enforcement agency that I know of in this country, and most other countries, where this shooting would be against law or policy. And that is what makes it a tragedy. No one loved this kid enough to tell him answering the door this way was a bad idea, or he had done it for long enough he thought it was good idea, and the exception proved it all wrong. If he doesn't show hostile intent, I don't shoot him. This isn't theoretical to me. I cleared houses in Baghdad and Talafar for 2 years. I've been in this exact scenario, more than a few times. Lots of people with guns in houses, on the street...If they aren't making a move, you don't have to get it on. If I would have done what this Deputy did, in Baghdad, I would have violated the ROE. The enemy has to show hostile intent. So even if your claims that this was a legal shoot were legit (they aren't) it's a VERY sad day when our Army does better at protecting the basic rights of people in a 3rd world country we are occupying, than a Deputy can do in Florida. The Deputy fucked up. He murdered a guy. Thanks for playing I can't comprehend living a life where the mere sight of a weapon causes me to fear for my life, as seems to be the case for a few posters here. Yes, it’s pretty sad and eye opening. There are posters in this thread who would excuse a game warden shooting everyone on a dove field when checking licenses because “they all had guns!” It's an unfortunate side effect of going home at the end of the shift becoming the most important thing rather than upholding the rights of the public. And the reasonable officer standard has gotten us to the point that we are in a negative feedback loop where questionable police behavior gets excused as what is acceptable which pushes the window further and further every cycle. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 5:50:06 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: Crump is a advocate for crump… but he has a template for this, demand an outside agency review, there will be, but he’ll then say the fbi, he’ll say if it was a white airman, they would have already convened a grand jury, all they want is for the facts and circumstances to be heard by a grand jury, so he’s saying grand jury regardless of the investigation outcome, if the grand jury convenes and will not indict, he’ll continue on saying the family is just seeking justice, where’s his day in court, if the deputy is indicted and goes to trial and not convicted, he’ll demand a conviction and go on and systemic racism, and he’ll be probing to see how apt that county is to a settlement (does anyone know if he had ever sued in court by way of actual trial or all just settled?), maybe there’s a state limit imposed, or he’ll look at the makeup of the county board that will ultimately vote to approve any settlement. Crump is a POS. But that officer should be in prison. He shot a man for holding a pistol. Fuck him. Crump should fuck that police officer over. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 5:53:32 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UV18: Correct. Police and polease could sound close enough. Nothing to say it is 100%. Either way, answering the door at 1630 with a gun in a nice apt complex is not a typical response. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UV18: Originally Posted By TAG_Match: The probability that he DID NOT know it was the police is significant to a degree it cannot be ruled out. Correct. Police and polease could sound close enough. Nothing to say it is 100%. Either way, answering the door at 1630 with a gun in a nice apt complex is not a typical response. Irrelevant & not illegal in the state of FL. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 5:56:13 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: But here's the thing. None of the things you are yammering on about are the critical thing being examined here. What are the critical things that happened? A door opened, and an armed agent of the state, met an armed civilian. The key question is if and when to shoot said civilian. It looks real bad that while the deputy was getting it on, the victim did nothing but show signs of submission. If the Deputy had taken a fraction of a second to evaluate, he would have seen that. Instead he shit his pants and murdered a guy as fast as he could. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By XNARC: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Soldiers fall under UCMJ. Investigating officers (essentially DA's) are appointed for suspected ROE violations. Most of these people are probably not best characterized as BTDT. They are more commonly paper pushing administrative people. Depending on the severity of the charge it can be decided a few ways: By Commanders essentially acting as judges, and or Juries. And yes, when you wrongfully kill someone in a warzone, death payments are typically made to the family. The amounts vary. In my experience, a shoot first and ask questions later Soldier, doing what this Deputy did, would be held accountable under the most common ROE (depending on where/when and the ROE that can change). With a video like this (we didn't have body or helmet cams in my day) I would suspect that a Soldier would be fired and summarily punished (loss of rank and pay) and a bad conduct discharge, at a minimum. It's very possible that they get charged for crimes for violation of ROE and LOAC. Keep in mind that this is for killing someone who is not a US citizen, in a declared warzone. Personally, if I used this shoot first approach; of shooting someone for being armed at, or just through the door... I would have killed a half dozen Iraqis who really weren't threatening me. They were just armed at their home. Since I don't like killing people, murder or jail, I chose to assess the threat and give them a chance to submit, which they all did. Which is what 99% of armed people will do when confronted by an armed agent of the state. Yes thanks for the reply, I wouldn’t know I just spent my time 2004 thru 2007 playing call of duty or my police experience ends with grand theft auto… so, when you say protect the rights, there is no real due process when youre conducting combat ops, is there, no warrants to intercept phone calls, email, you didn’t require a written consent or go find a neutral magistrate to issue a search warrant for those houses, or picking up or detaining a hvt, or anyone for that matter, you protected rights by gaining an arrest warrant thru a judge… and more likely than not during that time period if charged and went to a jury, a better percentage of soldiers on the jury would have at least one deployment and considering the numbers deployed, actually be hard pressed to find a cubicle jockey who never deployed? So the exact scenario would have the deputy, pretty much entering houses based on nothing more than at the most, an order from sheriff leadership? And, even not mentioned in your response, but with an overwhelming armed team, m4s, a saw amongst the team somewhere, maybe, just maybe a perimeter with more, or are you saying you went alone? To parallel your experience, If he was brought up on charges, it would only be by command staff at the sheriffs office, and based on what you said instead of soldiers, his jury would be made up of sheriffs office deputies? If needed, instead of a CAG making a payout for the unwarranted death, it would become an office within the sheriff’s department that cuts a check for say $2,500? I guess we will just have to agree to disagree because i just dont see any similarities to your experience and the deputy’s incident. But here's the thing. None of the things you are yammering on about are the critical thing being examined here. What are the critical things that happened? A door opened, and an armed agent of the state, met an armed civilian. The key question is if and when to shoot said civilian. It looks real bad that while the deputy was getting it on, the victim did nothing but show signs of submission. If the Deputy had taken a fraction of a second to evaluate, he would have seen that. Instead he shit his pants and murdered a guy as fast as he could. This |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 6:01:19 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: That’s me, Mr Pessimistic, so many variables. I’ve seen criminal charges and a law enforcement agency and if union, the union stand behind the guy. And, I’ve seen policy where the sheriff can pretty much can you because a deputy parted his hair the wrong way ( just an exaggeration, i have no proof) but policies can be vague enough to can someone for bad optics. That’s why I say it’s not a good shoot not a bad shoot, is it within policy and the law.. What law did the airman violate to warrant his execution? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 6:01:22 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: Crump is a advocate for crump… but he has a template for this, demand an outside agency review, there will be, but he’ll then say the fbi, he’ll say if it was a white airman, they would have already convened a grand jury, all they want is for the facts and circumstances to be heard by a grand jury, so he’s saying grand jury regardless of the investigation outcome, if the grand jury convenes and will not indict, he’ll continue on saying the family is just seeking justice, where’s his day in court, if the deputy is indicted and goes to trial and not convicted, he’ll demand a conviction and go on and systemic racism, and he’ll be probing to see how apt that county is to a settlement (does anyone know if he had ever sued in court by way of actual trial or all just settled?), maybe there’s a state limit imposed, or he’ll look at the makeup of the county board that will ultimately vote to approve any settlement. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: Originally Posted By Deepsouth: Yep, 'cop sees black man with a gun' .... bang bang bang bang bang bang That's all you need to need to know the direction this will go Crump is a advocate for crump… but he has a template for this, demand an outside agency review, there will be, but he’ll then say the fbi, he’ll say if it was a white airman, they would have already convened a grand jury, all they want is for the facts and circumstances to be heard by a grand jury, so he’s saying grand jury regardless of the investigation outcome, if the grand jury convenes and will not indict, he’ll continue on saying the family is just seeking justice, where’s his day in court, if the deputy is indicted and goes to trial and not convicted, he’ll demand a conviction and go on and systemic racism, and he’ll be probing to see how apt that county is to a settlement (does anyone know if he had ever sued in court by way of actual trial or all just settled?), maybe there’s a state limit imposed, or he’ll look at the makeup of the county board that will ultimately vote to approve any settlement. Minus the racist garbage, good! Cop was wrong, plain and simple. He got amped up and jumped the gun. And yes, I've worked patrol and had people answer the door with a gun and you know what I didn't do, blast them immediately |
|
|
|
OK, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 6:31:44 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: Policy is more times than not, more restrictive than state law federal law, which is why you can see this deputy ‘canned’ for being outside policy, but not face criminal charges as a prosecutor doesn’t think they can prove a crime. So yes, regardless of the gd chatter, he will be held to a higher standard Cops aren't being held to a higher standard, and haven't been for some time. The shooting of innocent people in the last few years where the cops got off with no repercussions is pathetic in a country where you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. One of the worst parts about it to me is the number of cops who will support a bad cop rather than get him off the force. |
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 6:59:18 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UV18: Correct. Police and polease could sound close enough. Nothing to say it is 100%. Either way, answering the door at 1630 with a gun in a nice apt complex is not a typical response. Doesn't matter if it is typical or not. He was in his own place and doesn't have to justify is actions to anyone. If he wants to answer smeared in grape jelly wrapped in a antifa flag then so be it. I question is did he break the law by doing what he did. It is yes or no |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 7:04:47 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Plank_Spanker: Irrelevant & not illegal in the state of FL. Aside from the tragedy of a life lost needlessly , this is the most frustrating aspect from a selfish point of view: I don’t WANT a world where I have to second guess what I’m doing to avoid being killed in my own home/on my property because I inadvertently scared a police officer. If I’m finger fucking a gun, dry firing, playing Batman and Batgirl role play with my wife, I shouldn’t have to think about “what the police might think”. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 7:21:52 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TAG_Match: Aside from the tragedy of a life lost needlessly , this is the most frustrating aspect from a selfish point of view: I don’t WANT a world where I have to second guess what I’m doing to avoid being killed in my own home/on my property because I inadvertently scared a police officer. If I’m finger fucking a gun, dry firing, playing Batman and Batgirl role play with my wife, I shouldn’t have to think about “what the police might think”. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TAG_Match: Originally Posted By Plank_Spanker: Irrelevant & not illegal in the state of FL. Aside from the tragedy of a life lost needlessly , this is the most frustrating aspect from a selfish point of view: I don’t WANT a world where I have to second guess what I’m doing to avoid being killed in my own home/on my property because I inadvertently scared a police officer. If I’m finger fucking a gun, dry firing, playing Batman and Batgirl role play with my wife, I shouldn’t have to think about “what the police might think”. I own a modest 5 acre plot with a house, a pasture & a couple of horses, chickens, ducks, etc. When I developed the pasture for the horses my wife had, I also built a berm for a gun range. 150 yards to the berm from where we shoot. For the 1st few months, I would have the sheriffs dept show up due to some karen neighbor calling in about gun fire. According to some in this thread, the responding deputy would be well within his rights to gun all of us down because we were carrying pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc. I mean we might have had 40 different types of firearms on display at any one time. This is at my private residence. It's funny that not one deputy ever drew his weapon down on any of us while we were engaged in actively target shooting when they pulled up. I even approached said deputy with a pistol on my hip, one in my hand & a SBR slung on my shoulder as he was exiting his patrol car. Not a peep from him to disarm, lay on the ground or "step back". Does this change anything for the airmen's family? no. But it does show that deputy quick draw did not have the ability to define a threat correctly. I bet the dept. training will show a very aggressive posture that dictated the outcome we see here. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 7:41:53 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CryptoMan: Doesn't matter if it is typical or not. He was in his own place and doesn't have to justify is actions to anyone. If he wants to answer smeared in grape jelly wrapped in a antifa flag then so be it. I question is did he break the law by doing what he did. It is yes or no It’s just a continue of the outrage, no? I think a few others mentioned that deputy had a reasonable belief the airman was a threat and his life was in jeopardy, that’s all that counts, was it reasonable …was it in policy of the department he worked for, was his actions unlawful? If you were told brandishing a weapon, you’ll bicker about that, or, default to it’s a misdemeanor and shouldn’t mean a death sentence. Here… read this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ryan_Whitaker https://www.abc15.com/search?q= |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 7:48:04 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Plank_Spanker: I own a modest 5 acre plot with a house, a pasture & a couple of horses, chickens, ducks, etc. When I developed the pasture for the horses my wife had, I also built a berm for a gun range. 150 yards to the berm from where we shoot. For the 1st few months, I would have the sheriffs dept show up due to some karen neighbor calling in about gun fire. According to some in this thread, the responding deputy would be well within his rights to gun all of us down because we were carrying pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc. I mean we might have had 40 different types of firearms on display at any one time. This is at my private residence. It's funny that not one deputy ever drew his weapon down on any of us while we were engaged in actively target shooting when they pulled up. I even approached said deputy with a pistol on my hip, one in my hand & a SBR slung on my shoulder as he was exiting his patrol car. Not a peep from him to disarm, lay on the ground or "step back". Does this change anything for the airmen's family? no. But it does show that deputy quick draw did not have the ability to define a threat correctly. I bet the dept. training will show a very aggressive posture that dictated the outcome we see here. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Plank_Spanker: Originally Posted By TAG_Match: Originally Posted By Plank_Spanker: Irrelevant & not illegal in the state of FL. Aside from the tragedy of a life lost needlessly , this is the most frustrating aspect from a selfish point of view: I don’t WANT a world where I have to second guess what I’m doing to avoid being killed in my own home/on my property because I inadvertently scared a police officer. If I’m finger fucking a gun, dry firing, playing Batman and Batgirl role play with my wife, I shouldn’t have to think about “what the police might think”. I own a modest 5 acre plot with a house, a pasture & a couple of horses, chickens, ducks, etc. When I developed the pasture for the horses my wife had, I also built a berm for a gun range. 150 yards to the berm from where we shoot. For the 1st few months, I would have the sheriffs dept show up due to some karen neighbor calling in about gun fire. According to some in this thread, the responding deputy would be well within his rights to gun all of us down because we were carrying pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc. I mean we might have had 40 different types of firearms on display at any one time. This is at my private residence. It's funny that not one deputy ever drew his weapon down on any of us while we were engaged in actively target shooting when they pulled up. I even approached said deputy with a pistol on my hip, one in my hand & a SBR slung on my shoulder as he was exiting his patrol car. Not a peep from him to disarm, lay on the ground or "step back". Does this change anything for the airmen's family? no. But it does show that deputy quick draw did not have the ability to define a threat correctly. I bet the dept. training will show a very aggressive posture that dictated the outcome we see here. Yes their does seem to be a trend with this department. And yeah, even after all this time the sheriffs department shows up when the happy switches get turned on at my folks place. Instead of shooting us the run a mag through them “just to make sure everything works correctly” because having fun on duty breaks some kind of “policy” or some shit. We both speak from real world experience where getting opened up on for having a gun or 12 just doesn’t happen. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 7:51:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TAG_Match]
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: It’s just a continue of the outrage, no? I think a few others mentioned that deputy had a reasonable belief the airman was a threat and his life was in jeopardy, that’s all that counts, was it reasonable …was it in policy of the department he worked for, was his actions unlawful? If you were told brandishing a weapon, you’ll bicker about that, or, default to it’s a misdemeanor and shouldn’t mean a death sentence. Here… read this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ryan_Whitaker https://www.abc15.com/search?q= I personally think that those that hypothetically said that the officer was reasonable are faggot cowards. Of course they would excuse one of their own. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 7:59:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: XNARC]
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TAG_Match: I personally think that those that hypothetically said that the officer was reasonable are faggot cowards. Of course they would excuse one of their own. Well, continue to have your outrage, nothing wrong with that, but it really doesn’t matter. You’ve had a host of people here try to explain the process, based on what was seen and existing doctrine. You may very well be some type of fag expert, that would be able to identify the cowards among them… that must come in handy as a side hustle, or at parties. Good for you though! Like to hear though from the the fag experts on fag cowards…if that deputy was one, why didn’t he just turn and run away like a nancy boy screaming |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 8:28:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Missilegeek]
[#17]
That escalated quickly...
But not quickly enough for a certain Sheriffs department |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 8:44:58 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: It’s just a continue of the outrage, no? I think a few others mentioned that deputy had a reasonable belief the airman was a threat and his life was in jeopardy, that’s all that counts, was it reasonable …was it in policy of the department he worked for, was his actions unlawful? If you were told brandishing a weapon, you’ll bicker about that, or, default to it’s a misdemeanor and shouldn’t mean a death sentence. The same department believes acorns are a threat to their lives and almost killed somebody over it. Maybe some parallels can be drawn about their paranoia level. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 8:46:48 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tallahasseezz: The same department believes acorns are a threat to their lives and almost killed somebody over it. Maybe some parallels can be drawn about their paranoia level. I'm pretty sure they had a lot of shootings around that time. Not somewhere I'd want to work. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 8:55:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: XNARC]
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tallahasseezz: The same department believes acorns are a threat to their lives and almost killed somebody over it. Maybe some parallels can be drawn about their paranoia level. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tallahasseezz: Originally Posted By XNARC: It’s just a continue of the outrage, no? I think a few others mentioned that deputy had a reasonable belief the airman was a threat and his life was in jeopardy, that’s all that counts, was it reasonable …was it in policy of the department he worked for, was his actions unlawful? If you were told brandishing a weapon, you’ll bicker about that, or, default to it’s a misdemeanor and shouldn’t mean a death sentence. The same department believes acorns are a threat to their lives and almost killed somebody over it. Maybe some parallels can be drawn about their paranoia level. I haven’t read much about the acorn slayer…but first I was glad that no one was hurt, then thought the same… How the fuck did that guy become a cop. Maybe the fag experts can chime in on the guy. But I did not know this about that cop This guy never should have been a cop! Why are they hiring people like this?” implying the deputy lacked the kind of mental acuity or stress tolerance needed to be a cop. Those same commentors may be shocked to learn the deputy in this case was a graduate of West Point, an officer in the US Army’s Special Forces and was twice deployed to tours in Afghanistan. Without knowing more, the deputy certainly seems like someone with the proper background to thrive in a high-stress environment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 8:59:54 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: I haven’t read much about it..but first I was glad that no one was hurt, then thought the same… How the fuck did that guy become a cop. Maybe the fag experts can chime in on the guy. But I did not know this about that cop This guy never should have been a cop! Why are they hiring people like this?” implying the deputy lacked the kind of mental acuity or stress tolerance needed to be a cop. Those same commentors may be shocked to learn the deputy in this case was a graduate of West Point, an officer in the US Army’s Special Forces and was twice deployed to tours in Afghanistan. Without knowing more, the deputy certainly seems like someone with the proper background to thrive in a high-stress environment. IIRC it was reported that the suspect, or someone, was armed with a suppressed weapon. So when he heard the acorn that's where his mind went. Either way I wouldn't want to work with him after hearing that story. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 9:04:04 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: Well, continue to have your outrage, nothing wrong with that, but it really doesn’t matter. You’ve had a host of people here try to explain the process, based on what was seen and existing doctrine. You may very well be some type of fag expert, that would be able to identify the cowards among them… that must come in handy as a side hustle, or at parties. Good for you though! Like to hear though from the the fag experts on fag cowards…if that deputy was one, why didn’t he just turn and run away like a nancy boy screaming Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: Originally Posted By TAG_Match: I personally think that those that hypothetically said that the officer was reasonable are faggot cowards. Of course they would excuse one of their own. Well, continue to have your outrage, nothing wrong with that, but it really doesn’t matter. You’ve had a host of people here try to explain the process, based on what was seen and existing doctrine. You may very well be some type of fag expert, that would be able to identify the cowards among them… that must come in handy as a side hustle, or at parties. Good for you though! Like to hear though from the the fag experts on fag cowards…if that deputy was one, why didn’t he just turn and run away like a nancy boy screaming 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 9:14:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DubyaB]
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: It’s just a continue of the outrage, no? I think a few others mentioned that deputy had a reasonable belief the airman was a threat and his life was in jeopardy, that’s all that counts, was it reasonable …was it in policy of the department he worked for, was his actions unlawful? If you were told brandishing a weapon, you’ll bicker about that, or, default to it’s a misdemeanor and shouldn’t mean a death sentence. Here… read this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ryan_Whitaker https://www.abc15.com/search?q= This just rose my BP, pretty similar. Reading incident . |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 9:28:16 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: It’s just a continue of the outrage, no? I think a few others mentioned that deputy had a reasonable belief the airman was a threat and his life was in jeopardy, that’s all that counts, was it reasonable …was it in policy of the department he worked for, was his actions unlawful? If you were told brandishing a weapon, you’ll bicker about that, or, default to it’s a misdemeanor and shouldn’t mean a death sentence. Here… read this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ryan_Whitaker https://www.abc15.com/search?q= So anyone that is reasonably thought to be a threat can be killed? Because this officer was without a doubt a threat. Could the airman have justifiably shot the cop? |
|
|
OK, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 9:32:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: SixpackinOk]
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: It’s just a continue of the outrage, no? I think a few others mentioned that deputy had a reasonable belief the airman was a threat and his life was in jeopardy, that’s all that counts, was it reasonable …was it in policy of the department he worked for, was his actions unlawful? If you were told brandishing a weapon, you’ll bicker about that, or, default to it’s a misdemeanor and shouldn’t mean a death sentence. Here… read this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ryan_Whitaker https://www.abc15.com/search?q= So are you saying that after a certain number of innocent people are killed by cops, it becomes ok for cops to kill innocent people because a trend has been set? |
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 9:38:01 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: I haven’t read much about the acorn slayer…but first I was glad that no one was hurt, then thought the same… How the fuck did that guy become a cop. Maybe the fag experts can chime in on the guy. But I did not know this about that cop This guy never should have been a cop! Why are they hiring people like this?” implying the deputy lacked the kind of mental acuity or stress tolerance needed to be a cop. Those same commentors may be shocked to learn the deputy in this case was a graduate of West Point, an officer in the US Army’s Special Forces and was twice deployed to tours in Afghanistan. Without knowing more, the deputy certainly seems like someone with the proper background to thrive in a high-stress environment. Let's not church up our expectations of unskilled labor with qualified immunity. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 9:38:09 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: So anyone that is reasonably thought to be a threat can be killed? Because this officer was without a doubt a threat. Could the airman have justifiably shot the cop? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: Originally Posted By XNARC: It’s just a continue of the outrage, no? I think a few others mentioned that deputy had a reasonable belief the airman was a threat and his life was in jeopardy, that’s all that counts, was it reasonable …was it in policy of the department he worked for, was his actions unlawful? If you were told brandishing a weapon, you’ll bicker about that, or, default to it’s a misdemeanor and shouldn’t mean a death sentence. Here… read this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ryan_Whitaker https://www.abc15.com/search?q= So anyone that is reasonably thought to be a threat can be killed? Because this officer was without a doubt a threat. Could the airman have justifiably shot the cop? Yep….have at it, but I’m not an attorney. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 9:39:00 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SixpackinOk: So are you saying that after a certain number of innocent people are killed by cops, it becomes ok for cops to kill innocent people because a trend has been set? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SixpackinOk: Originally Posted By XNARC: It’s just a continue of the outrage, no? I think a few others mentioned that deputy had a reasonable belief the airman was a threat and his life was in jeopardy, that’s all that counts, was it reasonable …was it in policy of the department he worked for, was his actions unlawful? If you were told brandishing a weapon, you’ll bicker about that, or, default to it’s a misdemeanor and shouldn’t mean a death sentence. Here… read this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ryan_Whitaker https://www.abc15.com/search?q= So are you saying that after a certain number of innocent people are killed by cops, it becomes ok for cops to kill innocent people because a trend has been set? Yep…that’s one interpretation. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 9:41:24 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DubyaB: This just rose my BP, pretty similar. Reading incident . Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DubyaB: Originally Posted By XNARC: It’s just a continue of the outrage, no? I think a few others mentioned that deputy had a reasonable belief the airman was a threat and his life was in jeopardy, that’s all that counts, was it reasonable …was it in policy of the department he worked for, was his actions unlawful? If you were told brandishing a weapon, you’ll bicker about that, or, default to it’s a misdemeanor and shouldn’t mean a death sentence. Here… read this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ryan_Whitaker https://www.abc15.com/search?q= This just rose my BP, pretty similar. Reading incident . Sorry…here’s another… https://www.motherjones.com/criminal-justice/2023/06/minneapolis-is-quietly-trying-to-throw-out-the-lawsuit-against-the-cop-who-killed-amir-locke/ Locke, a legal gun owner, had been sleeping under a blanket on the couch, and body camera footage shows a gun in his hand as he begins to sit up when police begin to approach him. An officer can be seen shooting him less than 10 seconds after entering the room: "That's the moment when the officer had to make a split-second decision to assess the circumstances and determine whether he felt like there was an articulable threat," according to acting Minneapolis Police Chief Amelia Huffman. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 9:42:47 PM EDT
[#30]
Wow, you cop apologizers are really coming up with some outlandish excuses.
Disgusting. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 9:54:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Beltfed308]
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Sixgunner45: Wow, you cop apologizers are really coming up with some outlandish excuses. Disgusting. I love it. The more the better. 38,250+ views seeing it in all its glory. People reading can draw their own conclusions. ETA: On a gun board where whether you are at the door or sleeping makes no difference. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 9:57:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TAG_Match]
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: Well, continue to have your outrage, nothing wrong with that, but it really doesn’t matter. You’ve had a host of people here try to explain the process, based on what was seen and existing doctrine. You may very well be some type of fag expert, that would be able to identify the cowards among them… that must come in handy as a side hustle, or at parties. Good for you though! Like to hear though from the the fag experts on fag cowards…if that deputy was one, why didn’t he just turn and run away like a nancy boy screaming Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: Originally Posted By TAG_Match: I personally think that those that hypothetically said that the officer was reasonable are faggot cowards. Of course they would excuse one of their own. Well, continue to have your outrage, nothing wrong with that, but it really doesn’t matter. You’ve had a host of people here try to explain the process, based on what was seen and existing doctrine. You may very well be some type of fag expert, that would be able to identify the cowards among them… that must come in handy as a side hustle, or at parties. Good for you though! Like to hear though from the the fag experts on fag cowards…if that deputy was one, why didn’t he just turn and run away like a nancy boy screaming Point being you are stating an opinion that others sharing your opinion means that a correct assessment has been made. If strength in numbers is all it takes to find the “truth”, it wouldn’t take me too long to get the numbers I need to make the “faggot coward” opinion the truth. And yeah, I wish this particular esteemed colleague would have done everyone a favor and ran off like a little bitch instead of blasting this kid like a big bitch. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 10:01:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: super223]
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UV18: Well, he or another male voice in the apartment says "police". That is on the audio from the bodycam. Now, did he think it was the police? Who knows. We have no idea. We have no idea what occurred prior to or during the initiation of the contact. It will take time to see. If he did think it was the police and chose to come armed to the door, it is not a choice I can't see any reasonable GDer choosing. Shoot, I wouldn't have done it. This isn't a case of where you are a victim calling the police but you are likely involved in a criminal incident and the police are showing up. Now for a tactical analysis- that apartment sucks. End of a walkway with no easy sidestep. He can't just step back to increase distance and we don't know the location of the officer without doing a comparison to the bodycam from a known position. He showed up alone and tried to make contact, when there was no rush to. Bad position and then likely shocked to have a guy open the door holding a gun. Especially when you can hear the person probably thought it was the police at the door. So, why would a person involved in a likely criminal incident answer the door for the police holding a gun? Best analysis done so far. Side Note: Holy shit, we agree on a topic. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 10:22:51 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Sixgunner45:
Absolutely stupid reasoning. I guess someone has to lick those boots. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 10:37:37 PM EDT
[#35]
How do you know the airman knew it was a cop at his door? Well, he or another male voice in the apartment says "police". That is on the audio from the bodycam. I can tell you, a lot of the support for the officer is plain old GD hypocrisy. As soon as many of them heard the name "Ben Crump", they made their decision immediately. I'm not going to lie, it made me suspect as well....until I actually watched the video. I get folks are tired of the race-baiting in the media, but there is a sort of subconscious thought process when they hear "black man shot by white officer" and the assumption is "He had a gun, he must be guilty!". On the other hand, replace Fortson with that crazy plane lady from a few months ago, and this place would be falling over themselves to crucify the officer. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 10:47:59 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: Well, continue to have your outrage, nothing wrong with that, but it really doesn’t matter. You’ve had a host of people here try to explain the process, based on what was seen and existing doctrine. You may very well be some type of fag expert, that would be able to identify the cowards among them… that must come in handy as a side hustle, or at parties. Good for you though! Like to hear though from the the fag experts on fag cowards…if that deputy was one, why didn’t he just turn and run away like a nancy boy screaming He wanted to shoot someone for exercising their 2nd amendment right. |
|
|
|
IA, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:02:05 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Plank_Spanker: I own a modest 5 acre plot with a house, a pasture & a couple of horses, chickens, ducks, etc. When I developed the pasture for the horses my wife had, I also built a berm for a gun range. 150 yards to the berm from where we shoot. For the 1st few months, I would have the sheriffs dept show up due to some karen neighbor calling in about gun fire. According to some in this thread, the responding deputy would be well within his rights to gun all of us down because we were carrying pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc. I mean we might have had 40 different types of firearms on display at any one time. This is at my private residence. It's funny that not one deputy ever drew his weapon down on any of us while we were engaged in actively target shooting when they pulled up. I even approached said deputy with a pistol on my hip, one in my hand & a SBR slung on my shoulder as he was exiting his patrol car. Not a peep from him to disarm, lay on the ground or "step back". Does this change anything for the airmen's family? no. But it does show that deputy quick draw did not have the ability to define a threat correctly. I bet the dept. training will show a very aggressive posture that dictated the outcome we see here. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Plank_Spanker: Originally Posted By TAG_Match: Originally Posted By Plank_Spanker: Irrelevant & not illegal in the state of FL. Aside from the tragedy of a life lost needlessly , this is the most frustrating aspect from a selfish point of view: I don’t WANT a world where I have to second guess what I’m doing to avoid being killed in my own home/on my property because I inadvertently scared a police officer. If I’m finger fucking a gun, dry firing, playing Batman and Batgirl role play with my wife, I shouldn’t have to think about “what the police might think”. I own a modest 5 acre plot with a house, a pasture & a couple of horses, chickens, ducks, etc. When I developed the pasture for the horses my wife had, I also built a berm for a gun range. 150 yards to the berm from where we shoot. For the 1st few months, I would have the sheriffs dept show up due to some karen neighbor calling in about gun fire. According to some in this thread, the responding deputy would be well within his rights to gun all of us down because we were carrying pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc. I mean we might have had 40 different types of firearms on display at any one time. This is at my private residence. It's funny that not one deputy ever drew his weapon down on any of us while we were engaged in actively target shooting when they pulled up. I even approached said deputy with a pistol on my hip, one in my hand & a SBR slung on my shoulder as he was exiting his patrol car. Not a peep from him to disarm, lay on the ground or "step back". Does this change anything for the airmen's family? no. But it does show that deputy quick draw did not have the ability to define a threat correctly. I bet the dept. training will show a very aggressive posture that dictated the outcome we see here. Or, a lack of leadership and training about the use of force. Mostly, leadership about PROTECTING and serving. kwg |
|
|
NM, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:14:24 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UV18: Well, he or another male voice in the apartment says "police". That is on the audio from the bodycam. Now, did he think it was the police? Who knows. We have no idea. We have no idea what occurred prior to or during the initiation of the contact. It will take time to see. If he did think it was the police and chose to come armed to the door, it is not a choice I can't see any reasonable GDer choosing. Shoot, I wouldn't have done it. This isn't a case of where you are a victim calling the police but you are likely involved in a criminal incident and the police are showing up. Now for a tactical analysis- that apartment sucks. End of a walkway with no easy sidestep. He can't just step back to increase distance and we don't know the location of the officer without doing a comparison to the bodycam from a known position. He showed up alone and tried to make contact, when there was no rush to. Bad position and then likely shocked to have a guy open the door holding a gun. Especially when you can hear the person probably thought it was the police at the door. So, why would a person involved in a likely criminal incident answer the door for the police holding a gun? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UV18: Originally Posted By haveTwo: We can't know that the victim knew it was a cop, he's dead. Kinda hard to ask him what he knew. 100% bullshit that he was brandishing. Holding a gun pointed down by your side is not brandishing. May be tactically poor, but not brandishing, and not illegal, ESPECIALLY in your own residence. Cops own worst enemies are cops and departments like this. Well, he or another male voice in the apartment says "police". That is on the audio from the bodycam. Now, did he think it was the police? Who knows. We have no idea. We have no idea what occurred prior to or during the initiation of the contact. It will take time to see. If he did think it was the police and chose to come armed to the door, it is not a choice I can't see any reasonable GDer choosing. Shoot, I wouldn't have done it. This isn't a case of where you are a victim calling the police but you are likely involved in a criminal incident and the police are showing up. Now for a tactical analysis- that apartment sucks. End of a walkway with no easy sidestep. He can't just step back to increase distance and we don't know the location of the officer without doing a comparison to the bodycam from a known position. He showed up alone and tried to make contact, when there was no rush to. Bad position and then likely shocked to have a guy open the door holding a gun. Especially when you can hear the person probably thought it was the police at the door. So, why would a person involved in a likely criminal incident answer the door for the police holding a gun? Did the airman commit a crime holding the gun held by his side in his own residence? No? Then it's fucking murder by the cop, and fry his ass. I don't give a shit about "it's not smart to scare a cop." Fuck that. It's not illegal, the cop doesn't get to murder. That cop, and probably others in that same department based on acorn cop, should never be allowed to be free in society ever again. |
|
|
NM, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:21:01 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: Yep…that’s one interpretation. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: Originally Posted By SixpackinOk: Originally Posted By XNARC: It’s just a continue of the outrage, no? I think a few others mentioned that deputy had a reasonable belief the airman was a threat and his life was in jeopardy, that’s all that counts, was it reasonable …was it in policy of the department he worked for, was his actions unlawful? If you were told brandishing a weapon, you’ll bicker about that, or, default to it’s a misdemeanor and shouldn’t mean a death sentence. Here… read this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ryan_Whitaker https://www.abc15.com/search?q= So are you saying that after a certain number of innocent people are killed by cops, it becomes ok for cops to kill innocent people because a trend has been set? Yep…that’s one interpretation. Another interpretation is that I will never respond to a cop at my gate without first calling 911, or just ignoring them. They can either break down the gate, or provide proof of a warrant I'll read, or leave and I'll interact with them in another way. No good comes from unannounced police presence. And I have zero faith in any of them getting held accountable. Fuck, Albuquerque PD in NM has been under a Federal consent decree for years, and the police chief seems to be skating after t-boning a guy while he ran a red, all while violating department policy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:22:14 PM EDT
[#40]
The use of force continuum isn't really based on legality. It's based on force.
|
|
|
|
NM, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:32:31 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TaskForce: The use of force continuum isn't really based on legality. It's based on force. Scared trumps everything. Just learned that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:34:46 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By haveTwo: Scared trumps everything. Just learned that. I mean. If you can articulate why you were scared and it makes sense it will work for a self defense situation for you, too. But I'm not a lawyer so don't blame me if it doesn't. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:39:23 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TaskForce: I mean. If you can articulate why you were scared and it makes sense it will work for a self defense situation for you, too. But I'm not a lawyer so don't blame me if it doesn't. You can be super scared at a carnival haunted house but that doesn’t mean you can start blasting the skeletons and ghosts |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:40:54 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KELBEAST: You can be super scared at a carnival haunted house but that doesn’t mean you can start blasting the skeletons and ghosts Obviously I meant scared of someone with a gun. Or knife. Within a set of circumstances. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:42:52 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TaskForce: The use of force continuum isn't really based on legality. It's based on force. If it’s not based on legality, why have a use of force continuum at all. I’ll let you think about that one a little bit before I start making retard references. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:45:04 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TAG_Match: If it’s not based on legality, why have a use of force continuum at all. I’ll let you think about that one a little bit before I start making retard references. Not really the nature of what I meant. The use of force continuum itself, as in the policy, would be legal and if performed within the scope of employment backed by the agency. And ruled legal. Within the continuum, there is no, "you need reasonable suspicion of a crime to use force to defend yourself." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:46:21 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MSGTUSAF: You realize the police whined to get the definition changed cause they didn't like being called civilian. The definition of civilian for the past century was basically anyone under the ucmj, cops aren't under the ucmj, they just whine alot. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MSGTUSAF: Originally Posted By XNARC: Here….just like the gd, understand shit half ass https://i.imgur.com/KtquXKe.jpg You realize the police whined to get the definition changed cause they didn't like being called civilian. The definition of civilian for the past century was basically anyone under the ucmj, cops aren't under the ucmj, they just whine alot.  Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:49:59 PM EDT
[#48]
The only people that I have ever encountered that really care about the word civilian are here.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:55:15 PM EDT
[#49]
A knock and talk where a resident gets shot just for having a firearm at his side answering the door of his home. That's it really. No witnesses so far, just whatever the front desk lady may have heard 2nd 3rd or 40th hand.
What if Mr.Fortson had just shut the door when being told to step back? Under no legal obligation right? Do you think Acorn2 would have just walked away? Or does opening the door start the "infamous" investigation into nothing to confirm the nothing that could be confirmed before even entering the elevator? |
|
|
|
NM, USA
|
Posted: 5/12/2024 11:55:37 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TaskForce: Obviously I meant scared of someone with a gun. Or knife. Within a set of circumstances. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TaskForce: Originally Posted By KELBEAST: You can be super scared at a carnival haunted house but that doesn’t mean you can start blasting the skeletons and ghosts Obviously I meant scared of someone with a gun. Or knife. Within a set of circumstances. Not to include someone in their own residence who's not threatening you. Unless you're a government agent protected by said government. Wonder what happens when the governed lose respect for the government? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
