| Author | Post |
|---|
no carry permit ?
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 06:30 am |
|
suntzu wrote: no carry permit ? wrote: I open carry daily. The point is some on here believe their rights supersede private property rights, post "amusing" stories about startling or scaring people because they were carrying, and conduct themselves like neighborhood bullies. This does nothing for our RIGHTS.
Not sure why you posted of your military experience. None of the military action you posted about had anything to do with defending our freedom. You were just an Nazi like invader of another sovereign nation. Every dead American solider that invaded and brutalized Iraq got exactly what he deserved for being a blind, baby killing follower.
So spare me your self indulgent hero worship. You are no hero, our brutal troops slaughtered over 800,000 Iraqi civilians.
1. If property owners/business owners want to keep armed citizens out of their businesses then all they have to do is PUT UP A SIGN that is LEGAL under applicable state law. People like you are pathetic--you claim to support the 2nd Amendment, and then turn around and accuse people that you don't even know of only being interested in "intimidation"--the police do enough of that against the citizens--we don't have to add to it. Business owners who don't want gun owners in their businesses carrying have a double standard--they think that no one other than LE should even be allowed to carry a gun--and then they turn straight around and depend ON PEOPLE WITH GUNS to protect them, just after they decide to throw out law abiding citizens with guns...In my opinion businesses have become far too independent--they have forgotten that without our money--they go out of business..they need our money more than we need their products...and I am not above boycotting business owners who choose to try and restrict my Constitutional rights while extending a double standard to law enforcement. If business owners want to restrict guns--fine, they should (1)get rid of any guns they have on their person or in their business (2)prohibit citizens from carrying and (3) prohibit law enforcement from carrying at all times while on their property. Let's not have a double standard---if you want to prohibit guns--prohibit ALL guns, regardless of who carries--citizen or LEO...
2. While I don't support the Iraq war for a number of reasons--my venom is reserved for the gutless, spineless politicians who are selling out this country to the foreign interests every day. You calling the soldiers in Iraq babykillers is exactly the same thing that happened in Vietnam. The sad thing is--the soldiers have exactly two choices--they can all stand together as one and and simply quit and come home, or they can continue to fight--and I simply don't see the soldiers all quitting as one.
If YOU don't like the way they are fighting--then why don't YOU pick up a rifle and go show them how it is done?
3. I have no issue whatsoever in calling the Iraq war what it is--it is about money, it is about oil, and it is about reconstruction contracts--money, money and more money. It was also about settling a vendetta against Hussein. That said--and I normally don't say this--but collateral damage happens in war--that is why it is called war. This is an unfortunate fact of life--get used to it. Now get this straight--I do not support the war in Iraq, I think the entire Bush whitehouse, the speaker of the House and the rest of them who have sold this country to the special interests and the big businesses and the foreign powers should all be arrested and put on trial for a variety of offenses-but I can support the individual soldier to an extent without supporting the wars they are involved in.
1) First off many States don't require a business to post a sign in order to prohibit firearms. They can just tell you and or ask you to leave. That in no way violates your 2ND amendment right. The second amendment doesn't give you the right to carry a weapon into or onto private property. That is a fact, you may not like it but the businesses that chose to ban firearms could really careless. A very small percentage of people carry a weapon. So the business loses our patronage, so what ? We are a very small, special interest group. The business community has a lot more to worry about than pissing off a few gun guys. I own several businesses and folks that open carry boycotting me would be a joke, I wouldn't think out it a second. With respect to banning law enforcement from carrying a weapon in a business that prohibits carry, that is a nice private fantasy of yours-but don't hold your breath. I do support the 2nd amendment, open carry everyday ( have for years) but I have read more than a few threads here where it is obvious that the carry is done to intimidate others. People post about scaring people in the community and laugh about it. I have witnessed it first hand where open carry folks have created disturbances to "exert their rights" , the rights of the property owner be damned is their attitude. BAD STRATAGY.
2) Don't like the way they are fighting ? I never said that fantasy boy. I don't think the baby killers should be there period. It's an unjust war and should be ended NOW. Going along with all this support the troops crap, just prolongs the mess and we can't afford it. Our country has murdered 800,000 civilians, some of them babies so yes they are baby killers. I have seen the pictures of burned children in Iraq, that is indefensible. Our country will pay dearly for this for years to come.
|
no carry permit ?
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 170 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 06:30 am |
|
suntzu wrote: no carry permit ? wrote: I open carry daily. The point is some on here believe their rights supersede private property rights, post "amusing" stories about startling or scaring people because they were carrying, and conduct themselves like neighborhood bullies. This does nothing for our RIGHTS.
Not sure why you posted of your military experience. None of the military action you posted about had anything to do with defending our freedom. You were just an Nazi like invader of another sovereign nation. Every dead American solider that invaded and brutalized Iraq got exactly what he deserved for being a blind, baby killing follower.
So spare me your self indulgent hero worship. You are no hero, our brutal troops slaughtered over 800,000 Iraqi civilians.
1. If property owners/business owners want to keep armed citizens out of their businesses then all they have to do is PUT UP A SIGN that is LEGAL under applicable state law. People like you are pathetic--you claim to support the 2nd Amendment, and then turn around and accuse people that you don't even know of only being interested in "intimidation"--the police do enough of that against the citizens--we don't have to add to it. Business owners who don't want gun owners in their businesses carrying have a double standard--they think that no one other than LE should even be allowed to carry a gun--and then they turn straight around and depend ON PEOPLE WITH GUNS to protect them, just after they decide to throw out law abiding citizens with guns...In my opinion businesses have become far too independent--they have forgotten that without our money--they go out of business..they need our money more than we need their products...and I am not above boycotting business owners who choose to try and restrict my Constitutional rights while extending a double standard to law enforcement. If business owners want to restrict guns--fine, they should (1)get rid of any guns they have on their person or in their business (2)prohibit citizens from carrying and (3) prohibit law enforcement from carrying at all times while on their property. Let's not have a double standard---if you want to prohibit guns--prohibit ALL guns, regardless of who carries--citizen or LEO...
2. While I don't support the Iraq war for a number of reasons--my venom is reserved for the gutless, spineless politicians who are selling out this country to the foreign interests every day. You calling the soldiers in Iraq babykillers is exactly the same thing that happened in Vietnam. The sad thing is--the soldiers have exactly two choices--they can all stand together as one and and simply quit and come home, or they can continue to fight--and I simply don't see the soldiers all quitting as one.
If YOU don't like the way they are fighting--then why don't YOU pick up a rifle and go show them how it is done?
3. I have no issue whatsoever in calling the Iraq war what it is--it is about money, it is about oil, and it is about reconstruction contracts--money, money and more money. It was also about settling a vendetta against Hussein. That said--and I normally don't say this--but collateral damage happens in war--that is why it is called war. This is an unfortunate fact of life--get used to it. Now get this straight--I do not support the war in Iraq, I think the entire Bush whitehouse, the speaker of the House and the rest of them who have sold this country to the special interests and the big businesses and the foreign powers should all be arrested and put on trial for a variety of offenses-but I can support the individual soldier to an extent without supporting the wars they are involved in.
1) First off many States don't require a business to post a sign in order to prohibit firearms. They can just tell you and or ask you to leave. That in no way violates your 2ND amendment right. The second amendment doesn't give you the right to carry a weapon into or onto private property. That is a fact, you may not like it but the businesses that chose to ban firearms could really careless. A very small percentage of people carry a weapon. So the business loses our patronage, so what ? We are a very small, special interest group. The business community has a lot more to worry about than pissing off a few gun guys. I own several businesses and folks that open carry boycotting me would be a joke, I wouldn't think out it a second. With respect to banning law enforcement from carrying a weapon in a business that prohibits carry, that is a nice private fantasy of yours-but don't hold your breath. I do support the 2nd amendment, open carry everyday ( have for years) but I have read more than a few threads here where it is obvious that the carry is done to intimidate others. People post about scaring people in the community and laugh about it. I have witnessed it first hand where open carry folks have created disturbances to "exert their rights" , the rights of the property owner be damned is their attitude. BAD STRATAGY.
2) Don't like the way they are fighting ? I never said that fantasy boy. I don't think the baby killers should be there period. It's an unjust war and should be ended NOW. Going along with all this support the troops crap, just prolongs the mess and we can't afford it. Our country has murdered 800,000 civilians, some of them babies so yes they are baby killers. I have seen the pictures of burned children in Iraq, that is indefensible. Our country will pay dearly for this for years to come.
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 12:41 pm |
|
no carry permit ? wrote: suntzu wrote: no carry permit ? wrote: I open carry daily. The point is some on here believe their rights supersede private property rights, post "amusing" stories about startling or scaring people because they were carrying, and conduct themselves like neighborhood bullies. This does nothing for our RIGHTS.
Not sure why you posted of your military experience. None of the military action you posted about had anything to do with defending our freedom. You were just an Nazi like invader of another sovereign nation. Every dead American solider that invaded and brutalized Iraq got exactly what he deserved for being a blind, baby killing follower.
So spare me your self indulgent hero worship. You are no hero, our brutal troops slaughtered over 800,000 Iraqi civilians.
1. If property owners/business owners want to keep armed citizens out of their businesses then all they have to do is PUT UP A SIGN that is LEGAL under applicable state law. People like you are pathetic--you claim to support the 2nd Amendment, and then turn around and accuse people that you don't even know of only being interested in "intimidation"--the police do enough of that against the citizens--we don't have to add to it. Business owners who don't want gun owners in their businesses carrying have a double standard--they think that no one other than LE should even be allowed to carry a gun--and then they turn straight around and depend ON PEOPLE WITH GUNS to protect them, just after they decide to throw out law abiding citizens with guns...In my opinion businesses have become far too independent--they have forgotten that without our money--they go out of business..they need our money more than we need their products...and I am not above boycotting business owners who choose to try and restrict my Constitutional rights while extending a double standard to law enforcement. If business owners want to restrict guns--fine, they should (1)get rid of any guns they have on their person or in their business (2)prohibit citizens from carrying and (3) prohibit law enforcement from carrying at all times while on their property. Let's not have a double standard---if you want to prohibit guns--prohibit ALL guns, regardless of who carries--citizen or LEO...
2. While I don't support the Iraq war for a number of reasons--my venom is reserved for the gutless, spineless politicians who are selling out this country to the foreign interests every day. You calling the soldiers in Iraq babykillers is exactly the same thing that happened in Vietnam. The sad thing is--the soldiers have exactly two choices--they can all stand together as one and and simply quit and come home, or they can continue to fight--and I simply don't see the soldiers all quitting as one.
If YOU don't like the way they are fighting--then why don't YOU pick up a rifle and go show them how it is done?
3. I have no issue whatsoever in calling the Iraq war what it is--it is about money, it is about oil, and it is about reconstruction contracts--money, money and more money. It was also about settling a vendetta against Hussein. That said--and I normally don't say this--but collateral damage happens in war--that is why it is called war. This is an unfortunate fact of life--get used to it. Now get this straight--I do not support the war in Iraq, I think the entire Bush whitehouse, the speaker of the House and the rest of them who have sold this country to the special interests and the big businesses and the foreign powers should all be arrested and put on trial for a variety of offenses-but I can support the individual soldier to an extent without supporting the wars they are involved in.
1) First off many States don't require a business to post a sign in order to prohibit firearms. They can just tell you and or ask you to leave. That in no way violates your 2ND amendment right. The second amendment doesn't give you the right to carry a weapon into or onto private property. That is a fact, you may not like it but the businesses that chose to ban firearms could really careless. A very small percentage of people carry a weapon. So the business loses our patronage, so what ? We are a very small, special interest group. The business community has a lot more to worry about than pissing off a few gun guys. I own several businesses and folks that open carry boycotting me would be a joke, I wouldn't think out it a second. With respect to banning law enforcement from carrying a weapon in a business that prohibits carry, that is a nice private fantasy of yours-but don't hold your breath. I do support the 2nd amendment, open carry everyday ( have for years) but I have read more than a few threads here where it is obvious that the carry is done to intimidate others. People post about scaring people in the community and laugh about it. I have witnessed it first hand where open carry folks have created disturbances to "exert their rights" , the rights of the property owner be damned is their attitude. BAD STRATAGY.
2) Don't like the way they are fighting ? I never said that fantasy boy. I don't think the baby killers should be there period. It's an unjust war and should be ended NOW. Going along with all this support the troops crap, just prolongs the mess and we can't afford it. Our country has murdered 800,000 civilians, some of them babies so yes they are baby killers. I have seen the pictures of burned children in Iraq, that is indefensible. Our country will pay dearly for this for years to come.
1. You know for a FACT that many states do not require business owners to post or are you ASSUMING this to be the case? You have checked the firearms laws in all fifty states, and the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam and the USVI so you absolutely know of a certainty that many of the states have absolutely NO posting requirements whatsoever?
2. You claim to defend the Second Amendment, but your words don't back it up. If Business owners don't want gun owners in their stores--all they have to do is post the places off limits or ask them to leave--they will obey the laws of the state in which they live. My taking my money down the street is no big deal to me--trust me--it's my money and spending an extra minute in line down the street at your competitor in order to avoid giving my money to people with attitudes like the one you have would just make my day, it really would--the PEOPLE have the buying power-so if they don't buy, businesses don't sell, which means they go OUT of business....
3. Whether you do or do not own businesses is of no concern to me--but if everyone in the country would stand together and simply refuse to buy from business owners like yourself--you would be OUT of business before long.
4. If business owners want to ban firearms on their property--why don't they ban ALL of them--up to and including LE who may come onto their property. It isn't a "fantasy" as you like to call it--I just despise double standards.
5. I will not dispute with you the unjustness of the Iraq war--because it is. What I will dispute is your calling individual soldiers "babykiller". Point one finger at them--you have 4 more pointing back at you from your own hand.....let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
Now again--if you don't like the way they are fighting--why don't you pick up a rifle and go show them how to avoid all of those civilian casualties? Civilians die in war--that is why it is called war. I don't think they should be there--but I certainly would not call them baby killers and dishonor the memory of my dad who served in the Army many years ago....the job of a soldier is to kill the enemy--or rather kill those that he is told is the enemy...I hold no hatred in my heart toward the soldiers of this country.
6. You have a major chip on your shoulder don't you. If you knock the chip off then your life might get some happier...just a suggestion.
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 02:26 pm |
|
now please--let's get back on topic...
|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 04:13 pm |
|
suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: lockman wrote: After watching that video he has certainly waived his right to remain silent.
if he can prove that he was reasonably in fear of his life--he most certainly should get off. The off duty officer should have identified himself as such.
This does not sound like murder to me. He sounds as if he was in legitimate fear for his life.
as for the confession--he should have remained silent and said nothing without a lawyer present.
And this is exactly why a police officer should not be allowed to hold any off duty jobs in security or in positions where they might have to act in a law enforcement capacity...
I'd beg to disagree. The guy admitted that Brandon just told them they needed to leave and he got scared and shot him. Not sure what you're trying to defend.
Not defending anything--I don't know what he was or was not thinking--anymore than you or anyone else does. I said--if he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in fear of his life--he absolutely should be set free.
You don't know why he was scared--maybe the OD officer moved his hand toward his weapon--maybe he had his hand on the weapon--the story does not say and only those who were there actually know.
I'm saying that if he was in fear of his life, and actually felt that his life was in danger--he should be set free. The same as it would be if a LEO became nervous, and thought a person was reaching for a weapon and opened fire...Now on the other hand--if the 18 y/o simply shot just to shoot--then they should give him the maximum penalty under Alabama law.
So you're saying if Brandon put his hand on his pistol, the kid should be released simply because he "thought" he was going to shoot? I think I'm in fear of my life all the time, hence the reason I even carry a firearm, but I don't go around shooting potential threats.
so you are telling me that if you are walking toward someone in street clothes and he suddenly moves his hand toward a holstered firearm in a defensive/offensive posture/body language, or if he actually puts his hand ON the firearm as if he is prepared to draw it while looking in your direction and talking to you that you are not at least going to have SOME concern that he is going to draw it? Your hand does NOT go on the weapon unless you are prepared to pull it--and you don't pull it unless you are prepared to use it...other than that, you keep your hand away from the gun in public period.
sorry--your logic if flawed--you're letting emotion cloud your reasoning. Think about it logically. You put your hand on the butt of your gun as if you are prepared to draw it-you probably are.
If your friend did put his hand on his gun as if he was preparing to draw it--not saying he did, but IF he did--then the 18 y/o could indeed have been in fear for his life, and if he was in legitimate fear for his life--mistake or no--he should be set free--you don't put your hand on your pistol in public unless you are preparing to draw it--if you are not drawing it--then keep your hands away and don't fiddle with the gun.
You either A. do not know any LE officers, or B. are going to get yourself killed or end up in the same situation as this guy did. You do not shoot someone for having their hand on a holstered pistol. Besides, the guy never even said that he touched his HOLSTERED gun. My logic is not flawed, I just know that someone having their hand on their pistol is not a threat most times, and if it is, then my hand will be on mine, but I'm not gonna freaking shoot someone because I "feel" like I am in fear for my life. That's some pretty retarded logic to attempt justification for. Feelings are relative to each individual.
|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 04:24 pm |
|
Holy crap guys. You sure do know how to hijack a thread. You guys went WAYYYYYY off topic. Look, here is what the guy said "Guy told us to leave with a gun on his hip, I got scared and shot him.".
He did not say "Guy drew a pistol or put his hand on it.". Therefore, any further discussion about that is irrelevant. Please rethink your position on this though. You're really in danger of getting put in jail or possibly killed if you think that someone having their hand on their piece qualifies as reason to use your firearm against them. Especially if you feel that open carry is a good thing.
Some other things to note is that the gun was stolen, he is 18 years old (legal age for ccw in Mobile is 21 if I'm not mistaken), and was in possession of drugs. LE officers don't normally walk up to people they don't know and put their hand on their pistol, unless their adjusting the belt or holster or something. The ones I know personally, don't mind resting their hand on theirs, much like I do when I'm at home or whatever or around people I know. Some will pop the magazine out and get any dust or dirt off of it while it is holstered...something else I also do. Of course I'd never even think about shooting someone for having their hand on it or anything of the like. That's just silly.
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 04:52 pm |
|
smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: lockman wrote: After watching that video he has certainly waived his right to remain silent.
if he can prove that he was reasonably in fear of his life--he most certainly should get off. The off duty officer should have identified himself as such.
This does not sound like murder to me. He sounds as if he was in legitimate fear for his life.
as for the confession--he should have remained silent and said nothing without a lawyer present.
And this is exactly why a police officer should not be allowed to hold any off duty jobs in security or in positions where they might have to act in a law enforcement capacity...
I'd beg to disagree. The guy admitted that Brandon just told them they needed to leave and he got scared and shot him. Not sure what you're trying to defend.
Not defending anything--I don't know what he was or was not thinking--anymore than you or anyone else does. I said--if he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in fear of his life--he absolutely should be set free.
You don't know why he was scared--maybe the OD officer moved his hand toward his weapon--maybe he had his hand on the weapon--the story does not say and only those who were there actually know.
I'm saying that if he was in fear of his life, and actually felt that his life was in danger--he should be set free. The same as it would be if a LEO became nervous, and thought a person was reaching for a weapon and opened fire...Now on the other hand--if the 18 y/o simply shot just to shoot--then they should give him the maximum penalty under Alabama law.
So you're saying if Brandon put his hand on his pistol, the kid should be released simply because he "thought" he was going to shoot? I think I'm in fear of my life all the time, hence the reason I even carry a firearm, but I don't go around shooting potential threats.
so you are telling me that if you are walking toward someone in street clothes and he suddenly moves his hand toward a holstered firearm in a defensive/offensive posture/body language, or if he actually puts his hand ON the firearm as if he is prepared to draw it while looking in your direction and talking to you that you are not at least going to have SOME concern that he is going to draw it? Your hand does NOT go on the weapon unless you are prepared to pull it--and you don't pull it unless you are prepared to use it...other than that, you keep your hand away from the gun in public period.
sorry--your logic if flawed--you're letting emotion cloud your reasoning. Think about it logically. You put your hand on the butt of your gun as if you are prepared to draw it-you probably are.
If your friend did put his hand on his gun as if he was preparing to draw it--not saying he did, but IF he did--then the 18 y/o could indeed have been in fear for his life, and if he was in legitimate fear for his life--mistake or no--he should be set free--you don't put your hand on your pistol in public unless you are preparing to draw it--if you are not drawing it--then keep your hands away and don't fiddle with the gun.
You either A. do not know any LE officers, or B. are going to get yourself killed or end up in the same situation as this guy did. You do not shoot someone for having their hand on a holstered pistol. Besides, the guy never even said that he touched his HOLSTERED gun. My logic is not flawed, I just know that someone having their hand on their pistol is not a threat most times, and if it is, then my hand will be on mine, but I'm not gonna freaking shoot someone because I "feel" like I am in fear for my life. That's some pretty retarded logic to attempt justification for. Feelings are relative to each individual.
1. I did not say shoot someone for having their hand on a holstered firearm--I said that IF you are walking down the street and someone you do NOT know is addressing you and putting their hand on a holstered firearm as if they are about to draw--then you have a reasonable fear that something is about to happen, and should be either prepared to draw and disarm or be prepared to possibly to be shot yourself. No where did I say draw and shoot without justification.
2. There are levels of force.
3. You "know" that someone with a hand on their pistol while addressing you and telling you to leave an area and you have no idea who it is--is not a potential threat to you? You are more trusting of people than I am.
4. The person who got shot was NOT acting in a law enforcement capacity at the time he was shot--he was average, every day joe average when he was shot--if he was not dressed like a LEO, and he was OD at the time--then he was not acting in a leo capacity.
Don't believe me about putting a hand on a gun--start talking to a LEO in a controntational manner, tell him to leave an area--your front yard for example and then put your hand on your weapon as if you are about to draw it and then tell me what happens...I can almost guarantee you that when you do--you will either end up face down on the ground getting cuffed, or killed.
I have said it before--IF the OD leo provoked this fight, which I am not saying he did, but IF he did, and the guy who shot him had a reasonable fear under the law that he was about to be shot or killed--then he was completely justified in what he did and should be set free.
Last edited on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 04:55 pm by suntzu
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 04:59 pm |
|
I have highlighted the section dealing with deadly force
Alabama Code:
Section 13A-3-23Use of force in defense of a person. (a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:
(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.
(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.
(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.
(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:
a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;
c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.
(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:
(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.
(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.
(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.
(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.
Last edited on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 05:00 pm by suntzu
|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 05:06 pm |
|
suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: lockman wrote: After watching that video he has certainly waived his right to remain silent.
if he can prove that he was reasonably in fear of his life--he most certainly should get off. The off duty officer should have identified himself as such.
This does not sound like murder to me. He sounds as if he was in legitimate fear for his life.
as for the confession--he should have remained silent and said nothing without a lawyer present.
And this is exactly why a police officer should not be allowed to hold any off duty jobs in security or in positions where they might have to act in a law enforcement capacity...
I'd beg to disagree. The guy admitted that Brandon just told them they needed to leave and he got scared and shot him. Not sure what you're trying to defend.
Not defending anything--I don't know what he was or was not thinking--anymore than you or anyone else does. I said--if he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in fear of his life--he absolutely should be set free.
You don't know why he was scared--maybe the OD officer moved his hand toward his weapon--maybe he had his hand on the weapon--the story does not say and only those who were there actually know.
I'm saying that if he was in fear of his life, and actually felt that his life was in danger--he should be set free. The same as it would be if a LEO became nervous, and thought a person was reaching for a weapon and opened fire...Now on the other hand--if the 18 y/o simply shot just to shoot--then they should give him the maximum penalty under Alabama law.
So you're saying if Brandon put his hand on his pistol, the kid should be released simply because he "thought" he was going to shoot? I think I'm in fear of my life all the time, hence the reason I even carry a firearm, but I don't go around shooting potential threats.
so you are telling me that if you are walking toward someone in street clothes and he suddenly moves his hand toward a holstered firearm in a defensive/offensive posture/body language, or if he actually puts his hand ON the firearm as if he is prepared to draw it while looking in your direction and talking to you that you are not at least going to have SOME concern that he is going to draw it? Your hand does NOT go on the weapon unless you are prepared to pull it--and you don't pull it unless you are prepared to use it...other than that, you keep your hand away from the gun in public period.
sorry--your logic if flawed--you're letting emotion cloud your reasoning. Think about it logically. You put your hand on the butt of your gun as if you are prepared to draw it-you probably are.
If your friend did put his hand on his gun as if he was preparing to draw it--not saying he did, but IF he did--then the 18 y/o could indeed have been in fear for his life, and if he was in legitimate fear for his life--mistake or no--he should be set free--you don't put your hand on your pistol in public unless you are preparing to draw it--if you are not drawing it--then keep your hands away and don't fiddle with the gun.
You either A. do not know any LE officers, or B. are going to get yourself killed or end up in the same situation as this guy did. You do not shoot someone for having their hand on a holstered pistol. Besides, the guy never even said that he touched his HOLSTERED gun. My logic is not flawed, I just know that someone having their hand on their pistol is not a threat most times, and if it is, then my hand will be on mine, but I'm not gonna freaking shoot someone because I "feel" like I am in fear for my life. That's some pretty retarded logic to attempt justification for. Feelings are relative to each individual.
1. I did not say shoot someone for having their hand on a holstered firearm--I said that IF you are walking down the street and someone you do NOT know is addressing you and putting their hand on a holstered firearm as if they are about to draw--then you have a reasonable fear that something is about to happen, and should be either prepared to draw and disarm or be prepared to possibly to be shot yourself. No where did I say draw and shoot without justification.
2. There are levels of force.
3. You "know" that someone with a hand on their pistol while addressing you and telling you to leave an area and you have no idea who it is--is not a potential threat to you? You are more trusting of people than I am.
4. The person who got shot was NOT acting in a law enforcement capacity at the time he was shot--he was average, every day joe average when he was shot--if he was not dressed like a LEO, and he was OD at the time--then he was not acting in a leo capacity.
Don't believe me about putting a hand on a gun--start talking to a LEO in a controntational manner, tell him to leave an area--your front yard for example and then put your hand on your weapon as if you are about to draw it and then tell me what happens...I can almost guarantee you that when you do--you will either end up face down on the ground getting cuffed, or killed.
I have said it before--IF the OD leo provoked this fight, which I am not saying he did, but IF he did, and the guy who shot him had a reasonable fear under the law that he was about to be shot or killed--then he was completely justified in what he did and should be set free.
Well if defending the guy because he "felt" like he was in danger wasn't your point, I'm not sure what your point was. Btw, just because they are off duty doesn't reallly mean anything. When they take the courtesy jobs, they're their for a reason, and it isn't to sit there. They are there in case they are needed, which in this case, he was needed. Don't act like the LEO's are just like you and I. They have a code of conduct and SOP to abide by at all times. When their shift ends, it doesn't mean they are an average joe like you and I. I'd encourage you to talk to some of them about that before acting like you know what you're talking about.
Sorry if I sound cynical, but to be honest, I really don't appreciate the twisting of the situation to fit a justification of this murder. We already know that he didn't draw his weapon, or provoke the situation. We only know that he was not in uniform and/or did not have his badge visible, so he appeared to be a regular joe OC'ing, which was my entire point for posting this story, since it could have been any one of you guys who OC, and happened to be involved in a confrontation or attempted to alleviate a bad situation while OC'ing.
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 05:07 pm |
|
now the question I have is--did they arrest the person because he shot an OD police officer, or did they arrest him because they legitimately had PC that he used unjustified deadly force under AL. law?
you see--anytime a leo gets killed they work 5 times harder to bring their killer to justice than they would if an average citizen was killed. There are two sets of rules--the rules for them, and the rules for the people.
The life of a LEO is of no more value than the life of any other person--all lives should be equal, but they are not--LEOs are seen as being more important than anyone else for some unknown reason. The question is--did they arrest him simply because he shot an OD leo?
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 05:21 pm |
|
smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: lockman wrote: After watching that video he has certainly waived his right to remain silent.
if he can prove that he was reasonably in fear of his life--he most certainly should get off. The off duty officer should have identified himself as such.
This does not sound like murder to me. He sounds as if he was in legitimate fear for his life.
as for the confession--he should have remained silent and said nothing without a lawyer present.
And this is exactly why a police officer should not be allowed to hold any off duty jobs in security or in positions where they might have to act in a law enforcement capacity...
I'd beg to disagree. The guy admitted that Brandon just told them they needed to leave and he got scared and shot him. Not sure what you're trying to defend.
Not defending anything--I don't know what he was or was not thinking--anymore than you or anyone else does. I said--if he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in fear of his life--he absolutely should be set free.
You don't know why he was scared--maybe the OD officer moved his hand toward his weapon--maybe he had his hand on the weapon--the story does not say and only those who were there actually know.
I'm saying that if he was in fear of his life, and actually felt that his life was in danger--he should be set free. The same as it would be if a LEO became nervous, and thought a person was reaching for a weapon and opened fire...Now on the other hand--if the 18 y/o simply shot just to shoot--then they should give him the maximum penalty under Alabama law.
So you're saying if Brandon put his hand on his pistol, the kid should be released simply because he "thought" he was going to shoot? I think I'm in fear of my life all the time, hence the reason I even carry a firearm, but I don't go around shooting potential threats.
so you are telling me that if you are walking toward someone in street clothes and he suddenly moves his hand toward a holstered firearm in a defensive/offensive posture/body language, or if he actually puts his hand ON the firearm as if he is prepared to draw it while looking in your direction and talking to you that you are not at least going to have SOME concern that he is going to draw it? Your hand does NOT go on the weapon unless you are prepared to pull it--and you don't pull it unless you are prepared to use it...other than that, you keep your hand away from the gun in public period.
sorry--your logic if flawed--you're letting emotion cloud your reasoning. Think about it logically. You put your hand on the butt of your gun as if you are prepared to draw it-you probably are.
If your friend did put his hand on his gun as if he was preparing to draw it--not saying he did, but IF he did--then the 18 y/o could indeed have been in fear for his life, and if he was in legitimate fear for his life--mistake or no--he should be set free--you don't put your hand on your pistol in public unless you are preparing to draw it--if you are not drawing it--then keep your hands away and don't fiddle with the gun.
You either A. do not know any LE officers, or B. are going to get yourself killed or end up in the same situation as this guy did. You do not shoot someone for having their hand on a holstered pistol. Besides, the guy never even said that he touched his HOLSTERED gun. My logic is not flawed, I just know that someone having their hand on their pistol is not a threat most times, and if it is, then my hand will be on mine, but I'm not gonna freaking shoot someone because I "feel" like I am in fear for my life. That's some pretty retarded logic to attempt justification for. Feelings are relative to each individual.
1. I did not say shoot someone for having their hand on a holstered firearm--I said that IF you are walking down the street and someone you do NOT know is addressing you and putting their hand on a holstered firearm as if they are about to draw--then you have a reasonable fear that something is about to happen, and should be either prepared to draw and disarm or be prepared to possibly to be shot yourself. No where did I say draw and shoot without justification.
2. There are levels of force.
3. You "know" that someone with a hand on their pistol while addressing you and telling you to leave an area and you have no idea who it is--is not a potential threat to you? You are more trusting of people than I am.
4. The person who got shot was NOT acting in a law enforcement capacity at the time he was shot--he was average, every day joe average when he was shot--if he was not dressed like a LEO, and he was OD at the time--then he was not acting in a leo capacity.
Don't believe me about putting a hand on a gun--start talking to a LEO in a controntational manner, tell him to leave an area--your front yard for example and then put your hand on your weapon as if you are about to draw it and then tell me what happens...I can almost guarantee you that when you do--you will either end up face down on the ground getting cuffed, or killed.
I have said it before--IF the OD leo provoked this fight, which I am not saying he did, but IF he did, and the guy who shot him had a reasonable fear under the law that he was about to be shot or killed--then he was completely justified in what he did and should be set free.
Well if defending the guy because he "felt" like he was in danger wasn't your point, I'm not sure what your point was. Btw, just because they are off duty doesn't reallly mean anything. When they take the courtesy jobs, they're their for a reason, and it isn't to sit there. They are there in case they are needed, which in this case, he was needed. Don't act like the LEO's are just like you and I. They have a code of conduct and SOP to abide by at all times. When their shift ends, it doesn't mean they are an average joe like you and I. I'd encourage you to talk to some of them about that before acting like you know what you're talking about.
Sorry if I sound cynical, but to be honest, I really don't appreciate the twisting of the situation to fit a justification of this murder. We already know that he didn't draw his weapon, or provoke the situation. We only know that he was not in uniform and/or did not have his badge visible, so he appeared to be a regular joe OC'ing, which was my entire point for posting this story, since it could have been any one of you guys who OC, and happened to be involved in a confrontation or attempted to alleviate a bad situation while OC'ing.
1. I am not defending anyone--I am saying that if the LEO provoked this fight then the guy who shot him should be justified. You would say the same thing if the situation was reversed and it was your friend who had just shot an "apartment complex courtesy employee" or an average citizen in a similar situation...
2. the "code of conduct sop" bit was funny--you mean like the officers in Mesa Az. who are now in trouble? At least one of which is alleged to have flushed an aborted fetus down a toilet like so much garbage--others in trouble for alleged excessive force? SOP?
3. if they are OD--then they are OD. if they want to be on duty all the time--then my advice is don't go home, don't change into civilian clothes--stay on the job and in uniform 24/7/365
Off duty means exactly that--they leave their cop mentality at work--they are average joe citizen when they take off that uniform.
4. If a LEO wants to work private security as a security guard--then quit being a LEO and start being mall security. LE should absolutely NOT be allowed to hold any other jobs while they are employed as a LEO--none whatsoever.
5. If he was not in uniform he should not have been trying to act in a LE capacity.
6. the lesson OC'ers could learn from this is vigilance--and I say again, as I have said over and over--keep your hand away from your gun when you are in public unless you are preparing to draw it.
|
HungSquirrel
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Mobile, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 304 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 05:24 pm |
|
Please rethink your position on this though. You're really in danger of getting put in jail or possibly killed if you think that someone having their hand on their piece qualifies as reason to use your firearm against them.
That (very low) standard is the standard to which police are held. Do you think public servants should be held to a lower standard of conduct than the citizens they serve?
|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 05:37 pm |
|
1. I am not defending anyone--I am saying that if the LEO provoked this fight then the guy who shot him should be justified. You would say the same thing if the situation was reversed and it was your friend who had just shot an "apartment complex courtesy employee" or an average citizen in a similar situation...
2. the "code of conduct sop" bit was funny--you mean like the officers in Mesa Az. who are now in trouble? At least one of which is alleged to have flushed an aborted fetus down a toilet like so much garbage--others in trouble for alleged excessive force? SOP?
3. if they are OD--then they are OD. if they want to be on duty all the time--then my advice is don't go home, don't change into civilian clothes--stay on the job and in uniform 24/7/365
Off duty means exactly that--they leave their cop mentality at work--they are average joe citizen when they take off that uniform.
4. If a LEO wants to work private security as a security guard--then quit being a LEO and start being mall security. LE should absolutely NOT be allowed to hold any other jobs while they are employed as a LEO--none whatsoever.
5. If he was not in uniform he should not have been trying to act in a LE capacity.
6. the lesson OC'ers could learn from this is vigilance--and I say again, as I have said over and over--keep your hand away from your gun when you are in public unless you are preparing to draw it.
1. Irrelevant since we already know it was not provoked.
2. No.
3. Incorrect. I would suggest you educate yourself on this.
4. Your opinion on what LE "should NOT be allowed" is irrelevant to the actual reality of the way things currently are. You do not make up the rules.
5. Yes, actually he should, as it was his job to do so. A courtesy officer is not a security guard. It is an officer who is OD hired as a contractor, should he be needed to act as a LEO. Incorrect again.
6. The lesson OC'ers should learn from this is, you could very well be shot for doing nothing more than OC'ing and engaging in a situation, regardless of your intentions. My advice would be, if you continue to OC, mind your own business to the best of your ability, or conceal your firearm should you choose to engage in a situation in an attempt to keep the peace or simply help someone out. Your logic is irrelevant due to the fact that we already know he did not draw his pistol. A druggie with a stolen, and illegal weapon shot an OD police officer because he was "scared" after seeing a holstered pistol on his hip and no visible identification. We do not know if Brandon told him he was a police officer or not. That is actually irrelevant to my point, as he appeared to be a person like anyone on this board, who OC's.
My entire point in posting this story was not to provoke an arguement, as one is not even merited. My point is simple. As per the assailant, Brandon appeared to be someone like many of you who open carry, and told them they needed to leave. So, you guys are OC'ing and see a fight and tell everyone they need to break it up and leave whereever they are...your neighborhood or apartment complex or a parking lot...whatever. You could be put in the same situation Brandon was in. My message was informative if anything at all.
Last edited on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 05:42 pm by smttysmth02gt
|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 05:41 pm |
|
HungSquirrel wrote: Please rethink your position on this though. You're really in danger of getting put in jail or possibly killed if you think that someone having their hand on their piece qualifies as reason to use your firearm against them.
That (very low) standard is the standard to which police are held. Do you think public servants should be held to a lower standard of conduct than the citizens they serve?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Let me tell you a story. A cop in a neighborhood let his grand kids run rampant through the neighborhood. A neighbor walked up to them and asked them to keep it down (it was sunday night at 1:30 AM). They said OK but then made several loud comments about "if the cops show up I'll just drop the knife and tell them I didn't stab him". At this point, the neighbor calls the sheriff for the safety of the kids (neighbor is armed at all times) because he was not about to walk up to the front door in a situation like that in an attempt to talk to the neighbors. To make a long story short, his Captain told the neighbor that if it should happen again, to let him know and he would be reprimanded, as that is not in compliance of their code of conduct. To be clear, any situation at their OWN HOME, which is obviously off duty, could get them written up and/or reprimanded in any other way. Yes, I would say that their standards for literally everything changes quite a bit when they join the force.
Last edited on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 05:41 pm by smttysmth02gt
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 06:08 pm |
|
smttysmth02gt wrote:
1. I am not defending anyone--I am saying that if the LEO provoked this fight then the guy who shot him should be justified. You would say the same thing if the situation was reversed and it was your friend who had just shot an "apartment complex courtesy employee" or an average citizen in a similar situation...
2. the "code of conduct sop" bit was funny--you mean like the officers in Mesa Az. who are now in trouble? At least one of which is alleged to have flushed an aborted fetus down a toilet like so much garbage--others in trouble for alleged excessive force? SOP?
3. if they are OD--then they are OD. if they want to be on duty all the time--then my advice is don't go home, don't change into civilian clothes--stay on the job and in uniform 24/7/365
Off duty means exactly that--they leave their cop mentality at work--they are average joe citizen when they take off that uniform.
4. If a LEO wants to work private security as a security guard--then quit being a LEO and start being mall security. LE should absolutely NOT be allowed to hold any other jobs while they are employed as a LEO--none whatsoever.
5. If he was not in uniform he should not have been trying to act in a LE capacity.
6. the lesson OC'ers could learn from this is vigilance--and I say again, as I have said over and over--keep your hand away from your gun when you are in public unless you are preparing to draw it.
1. Irrelevant since we already know it was not provoked.
2. No.
3. Incorrect. I would suggest you educate yourself on this.
4. Your opinion on what LE "should NOT be allowed" is irrelevant to the actual reality of the way things currently are. You do not make up the rules.
5. Yes, actually he should, as it was his job to do so. A courtesy officer is not a security guard. It is an officer who is OD hired as a contractor, should he be needed to act as a LEO. Incorrect again.
6. The lesson OC'ers should learn from this is, you could very well be shot for doing nothing more than OC'ing and engaging in a situation, regardless of your intentions. My advice would be, if you continue to OC, mind your own business to the best of your ability, or conceal your firearm should you choose to engage in a situation in an attempt to keep the peace or simply help someone out. Your logic is irrelevant due to the fact that we already know he did not draw his pistol. A druggie with a stolen, and illegal weapon shot an OD police officer because he was "scared" after seeing a holstered pistol on his hip and no visible identification. We do not know if Brandon told him he was a police officer or not. That is actually irrelevant to my point, as he appeared to be a person like anyone on this board, who OC's.
My entire point in posting this story was not to provoke an arguement, as one is not even merited. My point is simple. As per the assailant, Brandon appeared to be someone like many of you who open carry, and told them they needed to leave. So, you guys are OC'ing and see a fight and tell everyone they need to break it up and leave whereever they are...your neighborhood or apartment complex or a parking lot...whatever. You could be put in the same situation Brandon was in. My message was informative if anything at all.
1, It is not irrelevant--do you know for a FACT--110% indisputable fact that the fight was not provoked? Did you witness the shooting to know that your friend did not provoke the fight? It is far from irrelevant.
2. no--what? elaborate.
3. then by all means show me where a LEO is on duty regardless of where they are or what they are doing. Off duty means exactly that--it means check the LE attitude at the door on your way out, because once you are on the street--you're an average person subject to the same rules as everyone else.
4. Neither does your opinion matter--but irregardless of opinions--a LEO who wants to moonlight as a security guard should not try to act in ANY LE capacity while not directly engaged in his job as a POLICE OFFICER...two totally different jobs there--pick one or the other.
5. So you would justify your friend if he killed someone while off duty who reached for a weapon, but condemn another who may have done the same thing to your friend? That is ridiculous beyond words. Self defense is self defense--thankfully you are not in control.
6. What OC'er need to learn is not that they can be shot simply for OC'ing, but the way you act WHILE OC'ing. If your friend moved his hand to his weapon as if he was about to draw--I don't blame the guy for drawing--whether he should have fired or not I can't say, I was not there--but if he felt threatened then he was justified in drawing his firearm, and if he reasonably felt that unjust deadly force was about to be used against him--then he was completely justified in pulling the trigger and I for one would not vote to convict him of anything except stupidity for talking when he should keep his mouth shut.
7. Your friend was a security guard--you can call it a "courtesy officer" if it makes you feel better--but when the rubber hits the road--it's still a security guard position and a LEO should not be allowed to hold them ever.
8. your friend was in regular clothes, not a uniform yes?--he was off duty and therefore should not have been acting in any LE capacity while working as a private security guard.
Last edited on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 06:13 pm by suntzu
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 06:28 pm |
|
smttysmth02gt wrote: Please rethink your position on this though. You're really in danger of getting put in jail or possibly killed if you think that someone having their hand on their piece qualifies as reason to use your firearm against them. Especially if you feel that open carry is a good thing.
I'm not in danger of anything. No where did I say that someone putting their hand on their gun as if they are about to draw is a justification to shoot--I said, and I have said it so many times that I simply think some of you are glossing over it trying to hurry and write your opinion. I said for the upteenth time--a person you DO NOT KNOW is CONFRONTING you with their hand on their firearm as if they are about to draw...there is justification to fear that they are about to do exactly that and you should either be prepared to pull your own weapon or be prepared to possibly be shot.
a couple of you guys are just down right silly trying to hurry and write your opinion without taking the time to read everything before you write.
Don't put your hand on your gun unless you are prepared to use it--if I put mine on, when I leave the house my hands stay AWAY--even my wallet is in my opposite hip pocket. I won't adjust it, I won't reach for it or put my hand to it. if it needs adjusting--do it before you leave your house/property/range. The ONLY reason I would ever reach for my firearm is to draw it....
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 06:32 pm |
|
smttysmth02gt,
please read the Alabama Code Alabama Code:
Section 13A-3-23. I posted it here on page 3 in an earlier post....
if your friend provoked the fight and the person who shot him was in fear of his life--then he should be set free.
it all depends on what happens in court--but if it was a legitimate case of self-defense, then I would never vote to convict him of anything other than stupidity for talking to the media when he should have kept quite and got a lawyer.
Last edited on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 06:33 pm by suntzu
|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 07:02 pm |
|
suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt,
please read the Alabama Code Alabama Code:
Section 13A-3-23. I posted it here on page 3 in an earlier post....
if your friend provoked the fight and the person who shot him was in fear of his life--then he should be set free.
it all depends on what happens in court--but if it was a legitimate case of self-defense, then I would never vote to convict him of anything other than stupidity for talking to the media when he should have kept quite and got a lawyer.
Dude...it is IRRELEVANT!!! Did you not read what the dude said? He said "guy with a pistol on his hip told us to leave. I got scared and shot him.". You're trying to argue points that are inaccurate and possibilities that are ruled out.
|
HungSquirrel
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Mobile, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 304 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 07:02 pm |
|
smttysmth02gt wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Let me tell you a story.
Let me tell you a story.
In the early morning of February 4, 1999, Diallo was standing near his building after returning from a meal. Police officers Edward McMellon, Sean Carroll, Kenneth Boss and Richard Murphy passed by in a Ford Taurus when they thought Diallo matched the description of a (since-captured) serial rapist and approached him. The officers were in plain clothes. The officers claimed that they loudly identified themselves as NYPD officers and that Diallo ran up the outside steps toward his apartment house doorway at their approach, ignoring their orders to stop and "show his hands". As the suspect reached into his jacket, Carroll believed Diallo was drawing a firearm and yelled "Gun!" to alert his colleagues. The officers opened fire on Diallo and during the burst McMellon fell down the steps, appearing to be shot. The four officers fired forty-one shots, hitting Diallo nineteen times. Investigation found no weapons on Diallo's body; the item he had pulled out of his jacket was not a gun, but a wallet.
On March 25 a Bronx grand jury indicted the officers on charges of second-degree murder and reckless endangerment. On December 16 a New York appellate court ordered a change of venue to Albany, New York, stating that pretrial publicity had made a fair trial in New York City impossible. On February 25, 2000, after two days of deliberations, a mixed race jury unanimously voted to acquit the officers of all charges.
During the case, the attorneys argued that because the police officers thoughy the victim was reaching toward a gun, they were legally justified in shooting the victim and the jury must acquit.
So, tell me, since the police officers of the largest police department in the United States are held to the standard of "any shoot is OK if you think a perp has a hand on a gun", is it logical to hold citizens to the same standard? The police are, after all, public servants, and in any just society, public servants are held to the same standard of conduct as civilians, if not higher.
|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 07:09 pm |
|
suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:
1. I am not defending anyone--I am saying that if the LEO provoked this fight then the guy who shot him should be justified. You would say the same thing if the situation was reversed and it was your friend who had just shot an "apartment complex courtesy employee" or an average citizen in a similar situation...
2. the "code of conduct sop" bit was funny--you mean like the officers in Mesa Az. who are now in trouble? At least one of which is alleged to have flushed an aborted fetus down a toilet like so much garbage--others in trouble for alleged excessive force? SOP?
3. if they are OD--then they are OD. if they want to be on duty all the time--then my advice is don't go home, don't change into civilian clothes--stay on the job and in uniform 24/7/365
Off duty means exactly that--they leave their cop mentality at work--they are average joe citizen when they take off that uniform.
4. If a LEO wants to work private security as a security guard--then quit being a LEO and start being mall security. LE should absolutely NOT be allowed to hold any other jobs while they are employed as a LEO--none whatsoever.
5. If he was not in uniform he should not have been trying to act in a LE capacity.
6. the lesson OC'ers could learn from this is vigilance--and I say again, as I have said over and over--keep your hand away from your gun when you are in public unless you are preparing to draw it.
1. Irrelevant since we already know it was not provoked.
2. No.
3. Incorrect. I would suggest you educate yourself on this.
4. Your opinion on what LE "should NOT be allowed" is irrelevant to the actual reality of the way things currently are. You do not make up the rules.
5. Yes, actually he should, as it was his job to do so. A courtesy officer is not a security guard. It is an officer who is OD hired as a contractor, should he be needed to act as a LEO. Incorrect again.
6. The lesson OC'ers should learn from this is, you could very well be shot for doing nothing more than OC'ing and engaging in a situation, regardless of your intentions. My advice would be, if you continue to OC, mind your own business to the best of your ability, or conceal your firearm should you choose to engage in a situation in an attempt to keep the peace or simply help someone out. Your logic is irrelevant due to the fact that we already know he did not draw his pistol. A druggie with a stolen, and illegal weapon shot an OD police officer because he was "scared" after seeing a holstered pistol on his hip and no visible identification. We do not know if Brandon told him he was a police officer or not. That is actually irrelevant to my point, as he appeared to be a person like anyone on this board, who OC's.
My entire point in posting this story was not to provoke an arguement, as one is not even merited. My point is simple. As per the assailant, Brandon appeared to be someone like many of you who open carry, and told them they needed to leave. So, you guys are OC'ing and see a fight and tell everyone they need to break it up and leave whereever they are...your neighborhood or apartment complex or a parking lot...whatever. You could be put in the same situation Brandon was in. My message was informative if anything at all.
1, It is not irrelevant--do you know for a FACT--110% indisputable fact that the fight was not provoked? Did you witness the shooting to know that your friend did not provoke the fight? It is far from irrelevant.
2. no--what? elaborate.
3. then by all means show me where a LEO is on duty regardless of where they are or what they are doing. Off duty means exactly that--it means check the LE attitude at the door on your way out, because once you are on the street--you're an average person subject to the same rules as everyone else.
4. Neither does your opinion matter--but irregardless of opinions--a LEO who wants to moonlight as a security guard should not try to act in ANY LE capacity while not directly engaged in his job as a POLICE OFFICER...two totally different jobs there--pick one or the other.
5. So you would justify your friend if he killed someone while off duty who reached for a weapon, but condemn another who may have done the same thing to your friend? That is ridiculous beyond words. Self defense is self defense--thankfully you are not in control.
6. What OC'er need to learn is not that they can be shot simply for OC'ing, but the way you act WHILE OC'ing. If your friend moved his hand to his weapon as if he was about to draw--I don't blame the guy for drawing--whether he should have fired or not I can't say, I was not there--but if he felt threatened then he was justified in drawing his firearm, and if he reasonably felt that unjust deadly force was about to be used against him--then he was completely justified in pulling the trigger and I for one would not vote to convict him of anything except stupidity for talking when he should keep his mouth shut.
7. Your friend was a security guard--you can call it a "courtesy officer" if it makes you feel better--but when the rubber hits the road--it's still a security guard position and a LEO should not be allowed to hold them ever.
8. your friend was in regular clothes, not a uniform yes?--he was off duty and therefore should not have been acting in any LE capacity while working as a private security guard.
1. Yes, as per the statements the assailant made.
2. I answered your sarcastic question about the code of conduct with some irrelevant statement about someone in OK.
3. You'd have to speak to LE or possibly find out how to obtain the documentation about their code of conduct. I know from speaking to many LE's about the subject, both management, detective, and regular patrol.
4. Wrong again. I never said anything about my opinion.
5. No, I would not justify a cop killing someone for placing their hand on their firearm. Nice assumption though.
6. I can agree with that absolutely. If someone moves to draw or appears to, you should do the same, otherwise carrying at all is pointless.
7. Nope. A courtesy police officer is not a security guard. The news might say that and some other people might, but it isn't the same.
8. Wrong again. Yes he was in regular clothes, and if I'm not mistaken, they are still supposed to wear their badge at least to make it known they are LE. He was wrong if he wasn't doing that. I've been told the policy is for them to be in uniform but some of them will wear police shirts and their badge as well.
I'm not sure where you got your information, but I got mine from actual LEO's so I'm not really sure why you keep arguing your opinions over the way things actually are.
|
Current time is 05:18 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6   |
|
|
|
