| Author | Post |
|---|
thejax
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon May 11th, 2009 08:24 pm |
|
HankT wrote:
SpringerXDacp wrote: Welocme to OCDO Thejax. Your "friend" appears to be very pro-OC, did you inform him of this site? Is he a member here?
Or can the "friend" join up, if he's not currently a member?
It would be educational to get some information from him about the events described.
Let's hear from the man and give him a pat on the back or something...
I'll ask him. He is very pro-gun but doesn't like to get involved in banter. Like I told him about the site and he said he would glance at it. This was a few days ago. I know though he doesn't like to get involved online in forums due to people who like start problems.
I don't know. I'm a nice guy and I like my guns. He is a very serious guy and loves his guns. We are two very different people. The only thing we have in common are guns, cars, and the fact that we like to get away from our girlfriends cause they love to complain.
Long story short I will ask him if he wants to join. But I doubt it.
|
HankT
State Researcher
|
Posted: Mon May 11th, 2009 08:26 pm |
|
| Actually, I (and everybody else) can neither say anything nor judge the OP story because, in the the end, I was not there!
|
Task Force 16
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Tue May 12th, 2009 06:09 am |
|
All I'll say about this is if this really happened as you say, 1) the cop that reached for your friends gun from the rear like he did must have been a total moron rooky, and 2) your friend is a crazy suicidal maniac to draw on another cop. Both are possible, I suppose.
|
wrightme
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | Fallon, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 1347 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 12th, 2009 06:17 am |
|
Task Force 16 wrote: All I'll say about this is if this really happened as you say, 1) the cop that reached for your friends gun from the rear like he did must have been a total moron rooky, and 2) your friend is a crazy suicidal maniac to draw on another cop. Both are possible causes for a shortened lifespan.
|
smoking357
Banned
|
Posted: Tue May 12th, 2009 06:42 pm |
|
thejax wrote:
I just wanted to share. I don't agree with my friends actions by the way.
Why not? Sounds like a great story, and it sounds like your friend would have been completely justified in returning fire if the cop had escalated his terrorism.
Cops have to start saying "so?" when people call in an OC'er. OC'ing ought not draw the cops any more than wearing a pear of shoes.
Cops really need to learn their place.
|
centsi
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Wed May 13th, 2009 11:11 pm |
|
Obvioiusly no one here but you knows if this is true, but if it is, your friend is both very brave and very stupid.
|
sean3686
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 63 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 14th, 2009 04:16 am |
|
smoking357 wrote: thejax wrote:
I just wanted to share. I don't agree with my friends actions by the way.
Why not? Sounds like a great story, and it sounds like your friend would have been completely justified in returning fire if the cop had escalated his terrorism.
Cops have to start saying "so?" when people call in an OC'er. OC'ing ought not draw the cops any more than wearing a pear of shoes.
Cops really need to learn their place.
delaware cops are not as stupid as you think.
I raise the Bs flag, rummors have it that no one in the dsp has heard of this happening.
if this did happen outside, after a mall ninja run in, then it should be on camera. if we saw video of this then maybe id believe it. as of now, no way.
if you draw on a cop you deserve to be shot, end of story.
there were other points of your story that smelled fishy.
|
smoking357
Banned
|
Posted: Thu May 14th, 2009 02:13 pm |
|
sean3686 wrote: if you draw on a cop you deserve to be shot, end of story.
Huh? Cops are servants. Servants serve. Cops are untrustworthy and have a horrible reputation. It's now so dire that a citizen needs to fear for his life in the presence of a cop. If a cop unjustifiably draws on a citizen, the citizen has to presume his life is in danger.
I'm less worried about an average citizen having a gun than a cop, because a cop can kill with almost seeming impunity, while the citizen has to worry about legal consequences.
Here's the rule:
If you draw on anyone improperly, no matter who you are, you deserve to be shot. Period.
|
sean3686
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 63 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15th, 2009 04:04 am |
|
smoking357 wrote: sean3686 wrote: if you draw on a cop you deserve to be shot, end of story.
Huh? Cops are servants. Servants serve. Cops are untrustworthy and have a horrible reputation. It's now so dire that a citizen needs to fear for his life in the presence of a cop. If a cop unjustifiably draws on a citizen, the citizen has to presume his life is in danger.
I'm less worried about an average citizen having a gun than a cop, because a cop can kill with almost seeming impunity, while the citizen has to worry about legal consequences.
Here's the rule:
If you draw on anyone improperly, no matter who you are, you deserve to be shot. Period.
another us vs them.
tell a cop you are my servant next time you see one and see how that ends for you.
leos drawing and civ drawing are 2 different things.
if a cop challenges you and you shot him. you go to jail end of story.
if a cop draws on you even if you think you have done nothing wrong and you draw back you you are dumb. if you comply a cop will not shoot at you just because.
and cops are no less immune from a shooting than any of us. they take there gun and send it into be examined just like they wold with any other person. I dont know where you get off saying they are immune like they shoot everyone they see doing something wrong.
since your not from delaware ill save you the work and give you some of our laws.
§ 1903. Searching questioned person for weapon. A peace officer may search for a dangerous weapon any person whom the officer has stopped or detained to question as provided in § 1902 of this title, whenever the officer has reasonable ground to believe that the officer is in danger if the person possesses a dangerous weapon. If the officer finds a weapon, the officer may take and keep it until the completion of the questioning, when the officer shall either return it or arrest the person. The arrest may be for the illegal possession of the weapon. (Code 1935, § 5343C; 48 Del. Laws, c. 304; 11 Del. C. 1953, § 1903; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)
§ 1240. Terroristic threatening of public officials or public servants; class G felony.
(a) A person is guilty of terroristic threatening of a public official or public servant when the person threatens to commit any crime likely to result in death or in serious injury to a public official or public servant during or because of the public official's or public servant's exercise of the official's or servant's official functions.
§ 464. Justification -- Use of force in self-protection.
(a) The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as the person believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which the person has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.
(c) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect the defendant against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.
(d) The use of force is not justifiable under this section to resist an arrest which the defendant knows or should know is being made by a peace officer, whether or not the arrest is lawful.
the last one you fail at. the individual should have been arrested. end of story.
|
rady8um
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri May 15th, 2009 04:44 am |
|
I can't believe all you guys overlooked the part about his friend having a Maryland AND a New Jersey carry permit. HA!
That alone should have pegged the B.S. meter to FULL LOAD!
Entertaining story though. Can anybody get him to tell us another. PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!
|
smoking357
Banned
|
Posted: Fri May 15th, 2009 01:01 pm |
|
sean3686 wrote: leos drawing and civ drawing are 2 different things.
Police officers are civilians.
|
Agent19
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jul 29th, 2007 |
| Location: | PWC, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 2363 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15th, 2009 03:04 pm |
|
rady8um wrote: I can't believe all you guys overlooked the part about his friend having a Maryland AND a New Jersey carry permit. HA!
He might be covered under H.R. 218, he was former LE.
http://www.leaa.org/218/218text.html
Not really a permit but permitted.
ETA:
I agree with the conscious, where is that FLAG.Last edited on Fri May 15th, 2009 03:06 pm by Agent19
|
DKSuddeth
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon May 8th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bedford, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 613 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15th, 2009 04:17 pm |
|
sean3686 wrote:
§ 464. Justification -- Use of force in self-protection.
(a) The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as the person believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which the person has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.
(c) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect the defendant against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.
(d) The use of force is not justifiable under this section to resist an arrest which the defendant knows or should know is being made by a peace officer, whether or not the arrest is lawful.
the last one you fail at. the individual should have been arrested. end of story.
You fail that last one. NUMEROUS us supreme court decisions as well as natural law render said quoted section unconstitutional.
|
sean3686
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 63 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15th, 2009 05:05 pm |
|
I dont see any quotes...
and im gonna find it hard to believe that its legal to draw down on a cop.
and Id say the DA here in delaware would go after you for that as well and with our liberal judges you would probably be guilty.
|
smoking357
Banned
|
Posted: Fri May 15th, 2009 05:22 pm |
|
DKSuddeth wrote: You fail that last one. NUMEROUS us supreme court decisions as well as natural law render said quoted section unconstitutional.
Well said. A person has a right to defend himself from a thug, regardless of the costume a thug is wearing.
Thanks for the cite to natural law. People need to be reminded of the highest law, from time to time.
|
American Rattlesnake
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Idaho USA |
| Posts: | 266 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15th, 2009 05:33 pm |
|
smoking357 wrote: Thanks for the cite to natural law.
Indeed. See also John Bad Elk v. United States.
|
thejax
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri May 15th, 2009 06:23 pm |
|
rady8um wrote:
I can't believe all you guys overlooked the part about his friend having a Maryland AND a New Jersey carry permit. HA!
That alone should have pegged the B.S. meter to FULL LOAD!
Entertaining story though. Can anybody get him to tell us another. PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!
Not that I should reply to your banter but he was an LEO in MD and NJ, which is obviously why he has a permit. I am not listing the Depts for the obvious reasons but you can think what you want. Like I said, I just wanted to share a story about my experience with my friend. Thats about it.
|
DKSuddeth
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon May 8th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bedford, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 613 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15th, 2009 07:30 pm |
|
sean3686 wrote: I dont see any quotes...
and im gonna find it hard to believe that its legal to draw down on a cop.
and Id say the DA here in delaware would go after you for that as well and with our liberal judges you would probably be guilty.
You want quotes?
(We the people) "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: "Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed."
"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. If the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter." Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
"Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that 'a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.' There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, 'If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.' That was the 'ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.'" (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.
As for grounds for arrest: "The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace." (Wharton's Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)
|
sean3686
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 63 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15th, 2009 07:51 pm |
|
the cop never said he was under arrest..
detain and arrest are different.
|
American Rattlesnake
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Idaho USA |
| Posts: | 266 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 15th, 2009 08:16 pm |
|
sean3686 wrote: the cop never said he was under arrest..
detain and arrest are different.
Are you saying that the application of deadly force (officer drew his weapon) to detain a person is legal?
Are you saying that while it is legal to resist unlawful arrest with the necessary level of force (as is well demonstrated by DKSuddeth's citations) it is unlawful to resist an unlawful detention with the same level of force?
Last edited on Fri May 15th, 2009 08:16 pm by American Rattlesnake
|
Current time is 09:26 am | Page:   1 2 3   |
|
