Officer shot for OC'ing - Alabama - Stories From The States - OpenCarry.org

OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Alabama > Officer shot for OC'ing

Moderated by: jpierce

Author

Post

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

Officer Brandon Sigler, someone whom I knew, was working as a courtesy officer at an apartment complex in Mobile. There was a fight between some females and an 18 year old male shot him. He said that he was not wearing a badge or anything so "he didn't know he was a cop". "I got scared and shot him" he said.

Just posting this so you will know that this could be anyone OC'ing. Sigler wouldn't wear his pistol tucked in his pants thug style or anything, so it looked just like you or I OC'ing wearing a regular holster.

kurtmax_0
Regular Member

Joined:	Mon Apr 23rd, 2007
Location:	Auburn, Alabama USA
Posts:	778
Status:	Offline

This sounds fishy. Any more info or a news story?

hansolo
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Apr 26th, 2009
Location:	Colorado Springs, Colorado USA
Posts:	180
Status:	Offline

Link please, troll.

lockman
State Researcher

Joined:	Sat Aug 19th, 2006
Location:	Elgin, Illinois USA
Posts:	641
Status:	Offline

http://blog.al.com/live/2009/06/mobile_police_officer_killed_i_1.html

Found this

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

hansolo wrote: Link please, troll.

Not a troll, just didn't feel the need to put a link. In the future, you may want to validate insults.

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

kurtmax_0 wrote: This sounds fishy. Any more info or a news story?

What I said was the short an sweet version. Basically, the kid claims he "got scared" and shot Brandon. It's true that he should have been wearing his badge, and he very well could have. We're going on what the kid who shot him said.

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote: Officer Brandon Sigler, someone whom I knew, was working as a courtesy officer at an apartment complex in Mobile. There was a fight between some females and an 18 year old male shot him. He said that he was not wearing a badge or anything so "he didn't know he was a cop". "I got scared and shot him" he said.

Just posting this so you will know that this could be anyone OC'ing. Sigler wouldn't wear his pistol tucked in his pants thug style or anything, so it looked just like you or I OC'ing wearing a regular holster.

I'm confused by the article--however, IF the individual can prove that he was truly afraid for his life at the time he shot--he could get off, and should get off.

The article said nothing about what caused the man to shoot--all it said was the off duty officer broke up a fight and was then shot--was he shot because he broke up the fight, or was he shot because the guy may have thought he was actually attacking the women, or was he shot simply to be shot--the article does not say.

It is possible that the guy thought he was stopping an assault in progress by shooting--not saying he did--but it is possible.

there are just too many unanswered questions here.

lockman
State Researcher

Joined:	Sat Aug 19th, 2006
Location:	Elgin, Illinois USA
Posts:	641
Status:	Offline

http://www.wkrg.com/crime/article/man_apologizes_for_killing_mobile_police_officer/76238/

Suspect apologizes. Video as he is taken away.

lockman
State Researcher

Joined:	Sat Aug 19th, 2006
Location:	Elgin, Illinois USA
Posts:	641
Status:	Offline

After watching that video he has certainly waived his right to remain silent.

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

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...

Last edited on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 12:00 am by suntzu

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

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.

hansolo
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Apr 26th, 2009
Location:	Colorado Springs, Colorado USA
Posts:	180
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote: hansolo wrote: Link please, troll.

Not a troll, just didn't feel the need to put a link. In the future, you may want to validate insults.

Haha, sorry man. The choppy sentence structures and lack of validation led me to believe that you were trolling.

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

hansolo wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: hansolo wrote: Link please, troll.

Not a troll, just didn't feel the need to put a link. In the future, you may want to validate insults.

Haha, sorry man. The choppy sentence structures and lack of validation led me to believe that you were trolling.

Well sorry. To be honest I was a bit emotional today because I knew him. He was a good man.

hansolo
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Apr 26th, 2009
Location:	Colorado Springs, Colorado USA
Posts:	180
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote: hansolo wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: hansolo wrote: Link please, troll.

Not a troll, just didn't feel the need to put a link. In the future, you may want to validate insults.

Haha, sorry man. The choppy sentence structures and lack of validation led me to believe that you were trolling.

Well sorry. To be honest I was a bit emotional today because I knew him. He was a good man.

No worries. That is good to be emotional. Sorry that I upset you.

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

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.

Last edited on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 02:37 am by suntzu

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

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.

HungSquirrel
Regular Member

Joined:	Tue Oct 2nd, 2007
Location:	Mobile, Alabama USA
Posts:	304
Status:	Offline

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?
That is the standard the police are held to. In a just society, the police are held to a higher standard than the public at large. Ergo, if it's good enough for a cop, it's good enough for Joe Sixpack.

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

kurtmax_0
Regular Member

Joined:	Mon Apr 23rd, 2007
Location:	Auburn, Alabama USA
Posts:	778
Status:	Offline

Hmmm. Looks like there is more to this story. The guy took off after shooting the guy. Probably didn't even know he was a cop. I doubt a 'fear for your life' defence will work so well when you lead the cops in a car chase.

It's possible that the OCed weapon contributed to the shooting. Maybe the guy saw a handgun and freaked out. On the other hand, he could have been shot regardless of the OCed weapon. Nobody will ever know.

Last edited on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 03:51 am by kurtmax_0

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

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.

Last edited on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 04:30 am by suntzu

HankT
State Researcher

Joined:	Tue Feb 20th, 2007
Location:	Are You From Joisey?
Posts:	4887
Status:	Offline

suntzu wrote: 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 if some CCer (not knowing that OC is legal) who is actually in fear of his life and shoots an LAC OCer should be set free?

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

HungSquirrel wrote: 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?
That is the standard the police are held to. In a just society, the police are held to a higher standard than the public at large. Ergo, if it's good enough for a cop, it's good enough for Joe Sixpack.It is the standard law enforcement meets--how many innocent--INNOCENT people have been killed by law enforcement simply because law enforcement THOUGHT the citizen was drawing or pointing a gun? It happened not long ago in Washington state--man was shot in his own doorway as I recall--his crime? Law enforcement "thought" he was a suspect they were looking for in a neighborhood-their excuse for killing him--he had a gun--turned out the innocent person was in fact in his OWN doorway, on HIS property, investigating strange noises coming from HIS property when he was shot in his doorway...

how many innocent citizens have been killed by the police--and then nothing was done to the officers but a slap on the wrist, because the officers "thought" they were drawing a weapon?

Last edited on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 04:42 am by suntzu

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

HankT wrote: suntzu wrote: 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 if some CCer (not knowing that OC is legal) who is actually in fear of his life and shoots an LAC OCer should be set free?

you would not draw your weapon if you reasonably thought someone you did not know was about to draw on you, or on someone you love?

There are levels of force--you don't shoot unless you have no choice--but we can arm chair quarterback this all day long.

a person on the street who is clearly NOT wearing a LEO uniform moves their hand to their weapon as if they are about to draw a gun on you--and you can tell when someone is about to draw, because there is no mistaking the telltale movements-- You tell me--what would you do? Do you draw out of an abundance of caution, and disarm the person and find out what is going on or do you wait it out and see what happens and risk possibly being shot?

there is no mistaking someone who is legitimately attempting to draw a gun--hand on the pistol, finger down along the side--the movements are unmistakable and only take a split second to perform--so you tell me--someone puts their hand on their gun as if they are about to draw on you--and you don't know them from Adam, and they clearly are NOT law enforcement--no uniform, no "police officer, drop your weapon" being shouted--what do you do? Draw and disarm, or wait it out?

So what do you do in the face of an armed individual that you don't know, and just came across who is acting like they are about to draw their side arm? Do you draw and then try to figure our what is happening while you are talking to the person and trying to defuse the situation before escalates further or do you wait and see if they make any other aggressive movements? So what do you do?

Last edited on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 05:05 am by suntzu

HankT
State Researcher

Joined:	Tue Feb 20th, 2007
Location:	Are You From Joisey?
Posts:	4887
Status:	Offline

suntzu wrote: HankT wrote: suntzu wrote: 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 if some CCer (not knowing that OC is legal) who is actually in fear of his life and shoots an LAC OCer should be set free?

you would not draw your weapon if you reasonably thought someone you did not know was about to draw on you, or on someone you love?

There are levels of force--you don't shoot unless you have no choice--but we can arm chair quarterback this all day long.

a person on the street who is clearly NOT wearing a LEO uniform moves their hand to their weapon as if they are about to draw a gun on you--and you can tell when someone is about to draw, because there is no mistaking the telltale movements-- You tell me--what would you do? Do you draw out of an abundance of caution, and disarm the person and find out what is going on or do you wait it out and see what happens and risk possibly being shot?

there is no mistaking someone who is legitimately attempting to draw a gun--hand on the pistol, finger down along the side--the movements are unmistakable and only take a split second to perform--so you tell me--someone puts their hand on their gun as if they are about to draw on you--and you don't know them from Adam, and they clearly are NOT law enforcement--no uniform, no "police officer, drop your weapon" being shouted--what do you do? Draw and disarm, or wait it out?

"No mistaking," eh?

Well, that's comforting. Especially for all who OC. All OCers should really feel safe from that fact...

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

as I said--we can arm chair quarterback this to death...the issue is whether or not the person was in legitimate fear for his life at the time he drew and fired. How the officer was carrying at the time is of little difference to me--if he--the OD officer provoked the fight by trying to draw for his weapon without a legitimate reason--again not saying he did provoke it, but generally speaking IF he provoked it--and hopefully it will all come out, then I say the other guy is in the right and should be set free.

IF on the other hand the 18 y/o just drew and fired because he panicked at the sight of another person with a gun--I say lock him up for life, because he is not stable enough to live in any form of "civilized society"...

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

HankT wrote: suntzu wrote: HankT wrote: suntzu wrote: 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 if some CCer (not knowing that OC is legal) who is actually in fear of his life and shoots an LAC OCer should be set free?

you would not draw your weapon if you reasonably thought someone you did not know was about to draw on you, or on someone you love?

There are levels of force--you don't shoot unless you have no choice--but we can arm chair quarterback this all day long.

a person on the street who is clearly NOT wearing a LEO uniform moves their hand to their weapon as if they are about to draw a gun on you--and you can tell when someone is about to draw, because there is no mistaking the telltale movements-- You tell me--what would you do? Do you draw out of an abundance of caution, and disarm the person and find out what is going on or do you wait it out and see what happens and risk possibly being shot?

there is no mistaking someone who is legitimately attempting to draw a gun--hand on the pistol, finger down along the side--the movements are unmistakable and only take a split second to perform--so you tell me--someone puts their hand on their gun as if they are about to draw on you--and you don't know them from Adam, and they clearly are NOT law enforcement--no uniform, no "police officer, drop your weapon" being shouted--what do you do? Draw and disarm, or wait it out?

"No mistaking," eh?

Well, that's comforting. Especially for all who OC. All OCers should really feel safe from that fact...

let's try this again without the quaint remark: Question to you:so you tell me--someone puts their hand on their gun as if they are about to draw on you--and you don't know them from Adam, and they clearly are NOT law enforcement--no uniform, no "police officer, drop your weapon" being shouted--what do you do? Draw and disarm, or wait it out? Now remember--you only have a fraction of a second to decide, so don't make a mistake...

Last edited on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 05:24 am by suntzu

HungSquirrel
Regular Member

Joined:	Tue Oct 2nd, 2007
Location:	Mobile, Alabama USA
Posts:	304
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote:
Sorry dude...not following any relevance in your post whatsoever.

It's perfectly relevant. You're just not understanding the meaning. Since you're having trouble following, let me pose a question to you: should public servants be held to a higher standard of conduct than average citizens?

Daddyo
Regular Member

Joined:	Sat Jun 28th, 2008
Location:	Moody, AL
Posts:	205
Status:	Offline

I agree with Suntzu, this is why police officers don't need to hold security jobs. The actions one takes in uniform are far different than the action one would take out of uniform and the line becomes real blurry, real quick.

I don't think any of us, especially while OC, would try to break up a cat fight. That's a job for the cops. What if one of the ladies is armed? What if somebody sees an armed guy struggling with two women? It's pretty much asking to get shot right?

Off duty, without a badge, a police officer is just another citizen. Except they aren't used to thinking like a law abiding citizen, just like I have to force myself to see things from an officer's point of view.

Stick me in a patrol car, and I'd have myself in deep doo-doo in seconds. The rules are different for LEO's, and I don't know the rules. But it also goes vice-versa. LEO's don't know how to act if they don't have a badge. Not saying one is better than the other, or even that LEO's are held to a higher standard.

The decision making process is simply different.

Bottom line, this was bad decision making all around. The off-duty officer should have called in uniforms, or prominently displayed his badge if he was going to act as an officer.

Unless one of the ladies was the shooter's wife or GF, he should have stayed out of it as well.

smoking357
Banned

Joined:	Mon Dec 29th, 2008
Location:	The Land Of The Free
Posts:	1100
Status:	Offline

suntzu wrote: 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

The same standard that should apply to the People is a cop gets nervous and reaches for his gun against us.

no carry permit ?
Regular Member

Joined:	Thu Aug 7th, 2008
Location:
Posts:	171
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote: hansolo wrote: Link please, troll.

Not a troll, just didn't feel the need to put a link. In the future, you may want to validate insults.

Don't take that as an insult ! It's a compliment when they call you a troll. It means you think for yourself and don't see eye to eye with every thug on here that hides behind his gun. You obviously carry for protection, some of these clowns are all about being the "big man" and intimidating people. You see people post of how funny it is when they scare someone on the street, that says a lot about the mentality of some here. Get ready for bans on open carry, these guys are bring it about with their aggrogance.

8th ID
Regular Member

Joined:	Mon May 11th, 2009
Location:	Lexington KY
Posts:	299
Status:	Offline

Don't take that as an insult ! It's a compliment when they call you a troll. It means you think for yourself and don't see eye to eye with every thug on here that hides behind his gun. You obviously carry for protection, some of these clowns are all about being the "big man" and intimidating people. You see people post of how funny it is when they scare someone on the street, that says a lot about the mentality of some here. Get ready for bans on open carry, these guys are bring it about with their aggrogance.First let's learn how to spell or add 'ing' to complete the sentence correctly. My father and all 5 of his brothers are veterans, my brother just got back from Afghanistan where he LED 45 combat missions with NO casualties, I'm a veteran of the first Gulf War-and if I want to walk down the street in the U.S. with a pistol OC'd, then that is exactly what I'm going to do. I refuse to 'hide' when exercising a legal, constitutionally protected RIGHT. My question to you: What other rights are you willing to let slip away? I mean well let's take freedom of speech-what part of that are you willing to let go just so you can keep a portion of it? Here's my interpretation of all the OC haters-"Please don't OC, Please don't exercise you 2nd Amendment, because I'm afraid of Nanci Pelosi and the Brady People."

no carry permit ?
Regular Member

Joined:	Thu Aug 7th, 2008
Location:
Posts:	171
Status:	Offline

I open carry daily. The point is some on here believe their rights supercede 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.

HankT
State Researcher

Joined:	Tue Feb 20th, 2007
Location:	Are You From Joisey?
Posts:	4887
Status:	Offline

8th ID wrote:I refuse to 'hide' when exercising a legal, constitutionally protected RIGHT.

Do you have a CWP?

Have you ever carried concealed?

8th ID
Regular Member

Joined:	Mon May 11th, 2009
Location:	Lexington KY
Posts:	299
Status:	Offline

no carry permit ? wrote:
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.

WOW. Nazi? Good One-you sound just like Pelosi, Sorros and the like. And I defend you right to say what you want. Funny, huh? I'm sure you must have gone to Harvard or Yale. I think you need to rent the movie "A Few Good Men", because people like you want and need protecting, but won't do it themselves. That's OK, the real men and women will still look after you and the rest of the cowards...it's what they do...regardless of right and wrong...

8th ID
Regular Member

Joined:	Mon May 11th, 2009
Location:	Lexington KY
Posts:	299
Status:	Offline

HankT wrote: 8th ID wrote:I refuse to 'hide' when exercising a legal, constitutionally protected RIGHT.

Do you have a CWP?

Have you ever carried concealed?
In KY it's CCDW, but I know what you mean. I'm in a waiting pattern (paperwork, etc.) Here it's legal to carry OC without any permits.

HankT
State Researcher

Joined:	Tue Feb 20th, 2007
Location:	Are You From Joisey?
Posts:	4887
Status:	Offline

8th ID wrote: HankT wrote: 8th ID wrote:I refuse to 'hide' when exercising a legal, constitutionally protected RIGHT.

Do you have a CWP?

Have you ever carried concealed?
In KY it's CCDW, but I know what you mean. I'm in a waiting pattern (paperwork, etc.) Here it's legal to carry OC without any permits.

Won't you be violating your principle of not "hiding" your weapon when exercising a RIGHT to bear arms if you carry concealed?

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

HankT wrote: 8th ID wrote: HankT wrote: 8th ID wrote:I refuse to 'hide' when exercising a legal, constitutionally protected RIGHT.

Do you have a CWP?

Have you ever carried concealed?
In KY it's CCDW, but I know what you mean. I'm in a waiting pattern (paperwork, etc.) Here it's legal to carry OC without any permits.

Won't you be violating your principle of not "hiding" your weapon when exercising a RIGHT to bear arms if you carry concealed?Ok HankT, you didn't answer the question I asked you earlier so here it is again:

so you tell me--you're walking along and someone you don't know puts their hand on their gun as if they are about to draw on you--clearly they are addressing you, talkig to you and they put their hand ON their gun as if they are about to draw--and you don't know them from Adam, and they clearly are NOT law enforcement--no uniform, no "police officer, drop your weapon" being shouted--what do you do? Draw and attempt to disarm them and then figure out what is happening, or wait it out and hope they don't shoot you?

8th ID
Regular Member

Joined:	Mon May 11th, 2009
Location:	Lexington KY
Posts:	299
Status:	Offline

Won't you be violating your principle of not "hiding" your weapon when exercising a RIGHT to bear arms if you carry concealed?
My RIGHT is to carry it how I CHOOSE. I don't make my principles based on how others would like me to CHOOSE to carry. And I'm not afraid of being confronted about my RIGHT to carry OC. You see, I feel it is a duty for me to stand up for my RIGHT and not cower from the possibility of being confronted by an anti. That said: here is how I do it-I'm always presentable, clean shaven, collared shirt tucked in and I will not and do not argue with anyone about ANYTHING. My mom raised a polite man. I always take copies of KY Gun Laws with me to pass out to the uneducated.

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

no carry permit ? wrote: I open carry daily. The point is some on here believe their rights supercede 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.

Pagan
Regular Member

Joined:	Thu Mar 5th, 2009
Location:	Gloucester, Virginia USA
Posts:	292
Status:	Offline

If the off duty /ununiformed cop was in the mix of a fight, even just trying to break it up, and this kid sees this unidentified cop, put his hand on his weapon to stop the fight, how the hell is this other kid gonna know that this unidentified person with a gun is not about to start shooting these girls for whatever reason, or just start shooting the other guy, or maybe the cop is dating one of the girls and wants to protect her, the possibilities are endless and the suspect has a reasonable defense, sounds like the cop f*cked up, sorry but it just sounds that way to me.

no carry permit ?
Regular Member

Joined:	Thu Aug 7th, 2008
Location:
Posts:	171
Status:	Offline

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:	171
Status:	Offline

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

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:	896
Status:	Offline

now please--let's get back on topic...

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

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

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:	896
Status:	Offline

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:	896
Status:	Offline

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

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:	896
Status:	Offline

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:	896
Status:	Offline

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

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

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

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:	896
Status:	Offline

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:	896
Status:	Offline

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:	896
Status:	Offline

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

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

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

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.

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

HungSquirrel wrote: 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.
Well you gotta keep in mind that is NY. Quite different from AL. Besides, you would have to be a bit more specific, otherwise I'm not sure what your point is in posting that.

Phssthpok
Regular Member

Joined:	Tue Jul 17th, 2007
Location:
Posts:	711
Status:	Offline

suntzu wrote:
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.

Not to get OT again, but I have a problem with this statement, and I think it stems more from sentence structure than intent. However words mean things, and one must strive to accurately express their thoughts, lest one begin to inadvertently corrupt the idea contained therein.

See...as I understand it, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did NOT have a valid fear. The way the highlighted words above read, the accused must prove his innocence beyond doubt. This is not how it works....at least it's not SUPPOSED to work that way.

(I offer no opinion either way re: the guilt or innocence of the individual....merely pointing out a matter of procedure)

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

Phssthpok wrote: suntzu wrote:
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.

Not to get OT again, but I have a problem with this statement, and I think it stems more from sentence structure than intent. However words mean things, and one must strive to accurately express their thoughts, lest one begin to inadvertently corrupt the idea contained therein.

See...as I understand it, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did NOT have a valid fear. The way the highlighted words above read, the accused must prove his innocence beyond doubt. This is not how it works....at least it's not SUPPOSED to work that way.

(I offer no opinion either way re: the guilt or innocence of the individual....merely pointing out a matter of procedure)

Right, but when you see a fellow OC'er in public, do you fear your life? That's about the best comparison I can think of since to the guy's knowledge, Brandon was just OC'ing in public.

Phssthpok
Regular Member

Joined:	Tue Jul 17th, 2007
Location:
Posts:	711
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote: Phssthpok wrote: suntzu wrote:
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.

Not to get OT again, but I have a problem with this statement, and I think it stems more from sentence structure than intent. However words mean things, and one must strive to accurately express their thoughts, lest one begin to inadvertently corrupt the idea contained therein.

See...as I understand it, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did NOT have a valid fear. The way the highlighted words above read, the accused must prove his innocence beyond doubt. This is not how it works....at least it's not SUPPOSED to work that way.

(I offer no opinion either way re: the guilt or innocence of the individual....merely pointing out a matter of procedure)

Right, but when you see a fellow OC'er in public, do you fear your life? That's about the best comparison I can think of since to the guy's knowledge, Brandon was just OC'ing in public.

Nooooo....to YOUR knowledge Brandon was just OC'n in public.

To the best of MY knowledge, we (the general public) do not have the benefit of being able to access the alleged perpetrators official sworn statement. A newspaper quote does not qualify. We can only infer/guess/presuppose the events and his perceptions thereof because we were not there.

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

Phssthpok wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: Phssthpok wrote: suntzu wrote:
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.

Not to get OT again, but I have a problem with this statement, and I think it stems more from sentence structure than intent. However words mean things, and one must strive to accurately express their thoughts, lest one begin to inadvertently corrupt the idea contained therein.

See...as I understand it, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did NOT have a valid fear. The way the highlighted words above read, the accused must prove his innocence beyond doubt. This is not how it works....at least it's not SUPPOSED to work that way.

(I offer no opinion either way re: the guilt or innocence of the individual....merely pointing out a matter of procedure)

Right, but when you see a fellow OC'er in public, do you fear your life? That's about the best comparison I can think of since to the guy's knowledge, Brandon was just OC'ing in public.

Nooooo....to YOUR knowledge Brandon was just OC'n in public.

To the best of MY knowledge, we (the general public) do not have the benefit of being able to access the alleged perpetrators official sworn statement. A newspaper quote does not qualify. We can only infer/guess/presuppose the events and his perceptions thereof because we were not there.

That was his verbal statement upon leaving the precinct heading to metro to be booked. It's on channel 5 and 10's websites. All you gotta do it go there and watch it.

Here I will make it even easier for ya:

http://www.wkrg.com/crime/article/man_apologizes_for_killing_mobile_police_officer/76238/

Last edited on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 08:22 pm by smttysmth02gt

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

(I offer no opinion either way re: the guilt or innocence of the individual....merely pointing out a matter of procedure)

In a normal society where the burden of proof actually lies with the state you would be right--but as we all know, we are presumed guilty until we prove ourselves innocent--that is the way it works, sad but true.

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

(I offer no opinion either way re: the guilt or innocence of the individual....merely pointing out a matter of procedure)

Phssthpok
Regular Member

Joined:	Tue Jul 17th, 2007
Location:
Posts:	711
Status:	Offline

Again...none of us were there. We don't know if it was a casual conversation or if it was a highly charged atmosphere and the un-badged but openly armed officers request for him to leave was perceived as an immediate threat.

Maybe there was still a bit of a tussle going on as he spoke (say...trying to restrain/separate belligerents) and his arm went back in a random motion that was perceived as a reach for the sidearm.

The point is...you don't know....I don't know....none of us KNOWS what the suspect's perception was that caused him to shoot. Additionally, to base a conclusion that there were no other factors to his decision to shoot based solely on the statement in the video is questionable at best. The man seems pretty much out-of-it mentally and who could blame him?.....he faces capital murder charges for what (he claims) was self defense. I dunno about you, but that would jack my mental functions pretty good for a while.

Again, please understand... I'm neither defending nor indicting his actions....I'm merely stating that WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE DETAILS.

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote: HungSquirrel wrote: 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.
Well you gotta keep in mind that is NY. Quite different from AL. Besides, you would have to be a bit more specific, otherwise I'm not sure what your point is in posting that.
it is what it is--there are two sets of rules--one for them and one for the peasants, er citizens....

they feel threatened then the persons friends and family might as well go ahead and call a funeral home, because the citizen is going to get killed, more often than not due to the trigger happy nature of more than a few LE who think they can shoot first and ask questions later....

Last edited on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 08:50 pm by suntzu

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

Phssthpok wrote: Again...none of us were there. We don't know if it was a casual conversation or if it was a highly charged atmosphere and the un-badged but openly armed officers request for him to leave was perceived as an immediate threat.

Maybe there was still a bit of a tussle going on as he spoke (say...trying to restrain/separate belligerents) and his arm went back in a random motion that was perceived as a reach for the sidearm.

The point is...you don't know....I don't know....none of us KNOWS what the suspect's perception was that caused him to shoot. Additionally, to base a conclusion that there were no other factors to his decision to shoot based solely on the statement in the video is questionable at best. The man seems pretty much out-of-it mentally and who could blame him?.....he faces capital murder charges for what (he claims) was self defense. I dunno about you, but that would jack my mental functions pretty good for a while.

Again, please understand... I'm neither defending nor indicting his actions....I'm merely stating that WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE DETAILS.

He actually never claimed self defense at all. He simply said he was scared and shot him.

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: HungSquirrel wrote: 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.
Well you gotta keep in mind that is NY. Quite different from AL. Besides, you would have to be a bit more specific, otherwise I'm not sure what your point is in posting that.
it is what it is--there are two sets of rules--one for them and one for the peasants, er citizens....

they feel threatened then the persons friends and family might as well go ahead and call a funeral home, because the citizen is going to get killed, more often than not due to the trigger happy nature of more than a few LE who think they can shoot first and ask questions later....

That may or may not be true. I know several LEO's that I would trust with my life, if I was in a situation where I was unable to defend myself. That being said, I know a few that I'd be quickly to distance myself from in a bad situation, knowing that they do not necessarily care about the law itself, but what they "think" is the law.

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: Phssthpok wrote: suntzu wrote:
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.

Not to get OT again, but I have a problem with this statement, and I think it stems more from sentence structure than intent. However words mean things, and one must strive to accurately express their thoughts, lest one begin to inadvertently corrupt the idea contained therein.

See...as I understand it, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did NOT have a valid fear. The way the highlighted words above read, the accused must prove his innocence beyond doubt. This is not how it works....at least it's not SUPPOSED to work that way.

(I offer no opinion either way re: the guilt or innocence of the individual....merely pointing out a matter of procedure)

HungSquirrel
Regular Member

Joined:	Tue Oct 2nd, 2007
Location:	Mobile, Alabama USA
Posts:	304
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote:
Besides, you would have to be a bit more specific, otherwise I'm not sure what your point is in posting that.

I was responding to an earlier post of yours. Here it is again:
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, if police are held to that standard, I believe the public at large should be too. Of course, I think police should be held to a much higher standard than that!

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote: 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.
1. We all know about statements made in the heat of the moment don't we...

2. We might as well agree to disagree about "code of coduct"

3. LE can show their "code of conduct" all day long--but it isn't enforced and they more often than not don't abide by it anyway. Again--we might as well agree to disagree.

4. You gave your opinion I gave mine.

5. you would most certainly have justified your friend shooting someone in a similar circumstance--you have already said as much in previous statements.

6. "courtesy officer"=security guard. Same thing--it is semantics regardless of how you want to paint it. And if your friend was off duty--he most certainly should NOT have been trying to engage in a private job in a law enforcement capacity

7. you can get opinions from LEOs all day long--and at the end of the day that is exactly what it is--an opinion. just like they have an opinion regarding OC'ing. Opinions are a dime a dozen--they mean absolutely nothing.

8. If he was in street clothes and off duty he should not have been on a private job acting in a law enforcement capacity.

I'm sorry your friend is dead--but both of them obviously made mistakes that day.

The question now is whether they arrested him simply because the person he shot was an off duty police officer, or if they REALLY felt he violated the law...The other question is--will he be able to use the self-defense statute to justify the shooting?

Last edited on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 09:00 pm by suntzu

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: Phssthpok wrote: suntzu wrote:
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.

Not to get OT again, but I have a problem with this statement, and I think it stems more from sentence structure than intent. However words mean things, and one must strive to accurately express their thoughts, lest one begin to inadvertently corrupt the idea contained therein.

See...as I understand it, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did NOT have a valid fear. The way the highlighted words above read, the accused must prove his innocence beyond doubt. This is not how it works....at least it's not SUPPOSED to work that way.

(I offer no opinion either way re: the guilt or innocence of the individual....merely pointing out a matter of procedure)

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

double post...

Last edited on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 09:01 pm by suntzu

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

HungSquirrel wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:
Besides, you would have to be a bit more specific, otherwise I'm not sure what your point is in posting that.

I was responding to an earlier post of yours. Here it is again:
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, if police are held to that standard, I believe the public at large should be too. Of course, I think police should be held to a much higher standard than that!I do too...and if the people are held to one standard, then the police should be held to the exact same standard...

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: HungSquirrel wrote: 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.
Well you gotta keep in mind that is NY. Quite different from AL. Besides, you would have to be a bit more specific, otherwise I'm not sure what your point is in posting that.
it is what it is--there are two sets of rules--one for them and one for the peasants, er citizens....

they feel threatened then the persons friends and family might as well go ahead and call a funeral home, because the citizen is going to get killed, more often than not due to the trigger happy nature of more than a few LE who think they can shoot first and ask questions later....

That may or may not be true. I know several LEO's that I would trust with my life, if I was in a situation where I was unable to defend myself. That being said, I know a few that I'd be quickly to distance myself from in a bad situation, knowing that they do not necessarily care about the law itself, but what they "think" is the law.
the vast majority of what is employed in LE now are more interested in the power trip than anything else. If a LEO feels threatened by an individual--that individuals family might as well call the funeral home...the police have been trigger happy for some time now...

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: 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.
1. We all know about statements made in the heat of the moment don't we...

2. We might as well agree to disagree about "code of coduct"

3. LE can show their "code of conduct" all day long--but it isn't enforced and they more often than not don't abide by it anyway. Again--we might as well agree to disagree.

4. You gave your opinion I gave mine.

5. you would most certainly have justified your friend shooting someone in a similar circumstance--you have already said as much in previous statements.

6. "courtesy officer"=security guard. Same thing--it is semantics regardless of how you want to paint it. And if your friend was off duty--he most certainly should NOT have been trying to engage in a private job in a law enforcement capacity

7. you can get opinions from LEOs all day long--and at the end of the day that is exactly what it is--an opinion. just like they have an opinion regarding OC'ing. Opinions are a dime a dozen--they mean absolutely nothing.

8. If he was in street clothes and off duty he should not have been on a private job acting in a law enforcement capacity.

I'm sorry your friend is dead--but both of them obviously made mistakes that day.

The question now is whether they arrested him simply because the person he shot was an off duty police officer, or if they REALLY felt he violated the law...The other question is--will he be able to use the self-defense statute to justify the shooting?

Well the problem with our opinions is, you're standing by yours instead of accepting the way things actually are. You can "think" that because they are off duty, their job is over and it doesn't matter if they're on a courtesy job or not, that they are a regular citizen. The problem is, you're thinking this instead of knowing it. Whereas, I actually know that is not correct. So, you can continue thinking that if you'd like, but you'll continue to be wrong. Among several other things you've said...the same statement I just made could be applied to them.

He is not claiming self defense. If he were, then he would not be so apologetic about it.

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote: Phssthpok wrote: Again...none of us were there. We don't know if it was a casual conversation or if it was a highly charged atmosphere and the un-badged but openly armed officers request for him to leave was perceived as an immediate threat.

Maybe there was still a bit of a tussle going on as he spoke (say...trying to restrain/separate belligerents) and his arm went back in a random motion that was perceived as a reach for the sidearm.

The point is...you don't know....I don't know....none of us KNOWS what the suspect's perception was that caused him to shoot. Additionally, to base a conclusion that there were no other factors to his decision to shoot based solely on the statement in the video is questionable at best. The man seems pretty much out-of-it mentally and who could blame him?.....he faces capital murder charges for what (he claims) was self defense. I dunno about you, but that would jack my mental functions pretty good for a while.

Again, please understand... I'm neither defending nor indicting his actions....I'm merely stating that WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE DETAILS.

He actually never claimed self defense at all. He simply said he was scared and shot him.
if he gets a lawyer that knows what he is doing--he'll claim self-defense.

if he can get a jury to believe he really was in fear for his life, then he can and should get off. That is what the law is for.

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: Phssthpok wrote: suntzu wrote:
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.

Not to get OT again, but I have a problem with this statement, and I think it stems more from sentence structure than intent. However words mean things, and one must strive to accurately express their thoughts, lest one begin to inadvertently corrupt the idea contained therein.

See...as I understand it, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did NOT have a valid fear. The way the highlighted words above read, the accused must prove his innocence beyond doubt. This is not how it works....at least it's not SUPPOSED to work that way.

(I offer no opinion either way re: the guilt or innocence of the individual....merely pointing out a matter of procedure)

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

suntzu wrote: HungSquirrel wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:
Besides, you would have to be a bit more specific, otherwise I'm not sure what your point is in posting that.

I was responding to an earlier post of yours. Here it is again:
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, if police are held to that standard, I believe the public at large should be too. Of course, I think police should be held to a much higher standard than that!I do too...and if the people are held to one standard, then the police should be held to the exact same standard...

I agree, however, they are held at a higher standard (more responsibility).

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: HungSquirrel wrote: 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.
Well you gotta keep in mind that is NY. Quite different from AL. Besides, you would have to be a bit more specific, otherwise I'm not sure what your point is in posting that.
it is what it is--there are two sets of rules--one for them and one for the peasants, er citizens....

they feel threatened then the persons friends and family might as well go ahead and call a funeral home, because the citizen is going to get killed, more often than not due to the trigger happy nature of more than a few LE who think they can shoot first and ask questions later....

That may or may not be true. I know several LEO's that I would trust with my life, if I was in a situation where I was unable to defend myself. That being said, I know a few that I'd be quickly to distance myself from in a bad situation, knowing that they do not necessarily care about the law itself, but what they "think" is the law.
the vast majority of what is employed in LE now are more interested in the power trip than anything else. If a LEO feels threatened by an individual--that individuals family might as well call the funeral home...the police have been trigger happy for some time now...

I can agree with that.

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: 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.
1. We all know about statements made in the heat of the moment don't we...

2. We might as well agree to disagree about "code of coduct"

3. LE can show their "code of conduct" all day long--but it isn't enforced and they more often than not don't abide by it anyway. Again--we might as well agree to disagree.

4. You gave your opinion I gave mine.

5. you would most certainly have justified your friend shooting someone in a similar circumstance--you have already said as much in previous statements.

6. "courtesy officer"=security guard. Same thing--it is semantics regardless of how you want to paint it. And if your friend was off duty--he most certainly should NOT have been trying to engage in a private job in a law enforcement capacity

7. you can get opinions from LEOs all day long--and at the end of the day that is exactly what it is--an opinion. just like they have an opinion regarding OC'ing. Opinions are a dime a dozen--they mean absolutely nothing.

8. If he was in street clothes and off duty he should not have been on a private job acting in a law enforcement capacity.

I'm sorry your friend is dead--but both of them obviously made mistakes that day.

The question now is whether they arrested him simply because the person he shot was an off duty police officer, or if they REALLY felt he violated the law...The other question is--will he be able to use the self-defense statute to justify the shooting?

Well the problem with our opinions is, you're standing by yours instead of accepting the way things actually are. You can "think" that because they are off duty, their job is over and it doesn't matter if they're on a courtesy job or not, that they are a regular citizen. The problem is, you're thinking this instead of knowing it. Whereas, I actually know that is not correct. So, you can continue thinking that if you'd like, but you'll continue to be wrong. Among several other things you've said...the same statement I just made could be applied to them.

He is not claiming self defense. If he were, then he would not be so apologetic about it.You only "know" exactly what you have been told--nothing more and nothing less.

You think you know--there is a difference.

a leo is off duty--he is off duty. That is what off duty means. And off duty leos should not be involved in private security acting in a law enforcement capacity...

there is no further need to debate this subject with you, because you refuse to budge from your opinion and I have no need to move from mine, because I have seen no evidence to support moving from it.

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: Phssthpok wrote: suntzu wrote:
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.

Not to get OT again, but I have a problem with this statement, and I think it stems more from sentence structure than intent. However words mean things, and one must strive to accurately express their thoughts, lest one begin to inadvertently corrupt the idea contained therein.

See...as I understand it, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did NOT have a valid fear. The way the highlighted words above read, the accused must prove his innocence beyond doubt. This is not how it works....at least it's not SUPPOSED to work that way.

(I offer no opinion either way re: the guilt or innocence of the individual....merely pointing out a matter of procedure)

Last edited on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 09:15 pm by suntzu

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: Phssthpok wrote: suntzu wrote:
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.

Not to get OT again, but I have a problem with this statement, and I think it stems more from sentence structure than intent. However words mean things, and one must strive to accurately express their thoughts, lest one begin to inadvertently corrupt the idea contained therein.

See...as I understand it, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did NOT have a valid fear. The way the highlighted words above read, the accused must prove his innocence beyond doubt. This is not how it works....at least it's not SUPPOSED to work that way.

(I offer no opinion either way re: the guilt or innocence of the individual....merely pointing out a matter of procedure)

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: Phssthpok wrote: suntzu wrote:
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.

Not to get OT again, but I have a problem with this statement, and I think it stems more from sentence structure than intent. However words mean things, and one must strive to accurately express their thoughts, lest one begin to inadvertently corrupt the idea contained therein.

See...as I understand it, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did NOT have a valid fear. The way the highlighted words above read, the accused must prove his innocence beyond doubt. This is not how it works....at least it's not SUPPOSED to work that way.

(I offer no opinion either way re: the guilt or innocence of the individual....merely pointing out a matter of procedure)

Right, but when you see a fellow OC'er in public, do you fear your life? That's about the best comparison I can think of since to the guy's knowledge, Brandon was just OC'ing in public.
No I don't--BUT if I see an OC'er stand and confront me and put his/her hand on their sidearm as if they are about to draw I most certainly am going to become extremely concerned.

Again, he never said he put his hand even on the firearm. He simply said he told them to leave and had the gun on his hip. Got scared and then shot him.
And maybe he really believed his life was in danger...

Okydoky, and I feel like my life is in danger all the time, hence the reason I carry, but I am not going to shoot anyone who is a potential threat. You can only justify someone "believing" their life is in danger to a certain extent. That's a little too broad and relative to be used in every situation.
you don't know what you would do when faced with a potential threat--you might panic or you might not, and you don't know until you are there. But you can huff and puff about what you would do and how you would handle it all day long, but until you face the threat you just don't know.

and yes, if he can get a jury to believe that he actually felt his life was in danger he could and should get off.

Well if someone shoots you for OC'ing they should be freed too because they felt threatened.
I just don't quite know how to respond to you in a way that you could possibly understand it. Your opinion is already set in stone.

I will say this--if I INTENTIONALLY initiate a confrontation with someone that I don't know, when that person has not attacked me, or presented any viable threat to me or my family--then I should expect to get hurt, and not be surprised when it happens...

I mind my own business, and if I choose to carry--I make doubly sure I mind my own business, and act and dress professionally, and keep my hands AWAY from my gun at all times I am in public.

A person who puts a gun on--should leave it ALONE unless they intend to draw it..

Last edited on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 09:30 pm by suntzu

Phssthpok
Regular Member

Joined:	Tue Jul 17th, 2007
Location:
Posts:	711
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote:

Well if someone shoots you for OC'ing they should be freed too because they felt threatened.

You seem to be (deliberately) ignoring the fact that there was a confrontation involved here.

Your friend wasn't simply walking down the street and blind-sided with a shot from an alley.

These two were in conflict......the intensity of which is a factor, a has yet to be determined.

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: Phssthpok wrote: suntzu wrote:
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.

Not to get OT again, but I have a problem with this statement, and I think it stems more from sentence structure than intent. However words mean things, and one must strive to accurately express their thoughts, lest one begin to inadvertently corrupt the idea contained therein.

See...as I understand it, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did NOT have a valid fear. The way the highlighted words above read, the accused must prove his innocence beyond doubt. This is not how it works....at least it's not SUPPOSED to work that way.

(I offer no opinion either way re: the guilt or innocence of the individual....merely pointing out a matter of procedure)

Right, but when you see a fellow OC'er in public, do you fear your life? That's about the best comparison I can think of since to the guy's knowledge, Brandon was just OC'ing in public.
No I don't--BUT if I see an OC'er stand and confront me and put his/her hand on their sidearm as if they are about to draw I most certainly am going to become extremely concerned.

Again, he never said he put his hand even on the firearm. He simply said he told them to leave and had the gun on his hip. Got scared and then shot him.
And maybe he really believed his life was in danger...

Okydoky, and I feel like my life is in danger all the time, hence the reason I carry, but I am not going to shoot anyone who is a potential threat. You can only justify someone "believing" their life is in danger to a certain extent. That's a little too broad and relative to be used in every situation.
you don't know what you would do when faced with a potential threat--you might panic or you might not, and you don't know until you are there. But you can huff and puff about what you would do and how you would handle it all day long, but until you face the threat you just don't know.

and yes, if he can get a jury to believe that he actually felt his life was in danger he could and should get off.

Well if someone shoots you for OC'ing they should be freed too because they felt threatened.
I just don't quite know how to respond to you in a way that you could possibly understand it, either because you have never been in a position where your life, or the life of your family has been in danger or because you are just too arrogant in your beliefs that you simply will not allow yourself to see any other point of view other than your own already well conceived ideas because of your close personal friendship with someone you no longer have with you.

He was not a close personal friend, but I did know him. I also never said I've never been in a threatening position. Wrong on both counts...I simply know what information we already have and know things you are in some form of denial about concerning SOP/code of conduct with Mobile LE. I guess we should agree to disagree about this from here on out since you're so adamant that your opinion is fact.

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

Phssthpok wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:

Well if someone shoots you for OC'ing they should be freed too because they felt threatened.

You seem to be (deliberately) ignoring the fact that there was a confrontation involved here.

Your friend wasn't simply walking down the street and blind-sided with a shot from an alley.

These two were in conflict......the intensity of which is a factor, a has yet to be determined.

I'm not ignoring that, I'm basing my opinion on the information currently available, in conjunction with current Mobile LE SOP/code of conduct.

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote:

He was not a close personal friend, but I did know him. I also never said I've never been in a threatening position. Wrong on both counts...I simply know what information we already have and know things you are in some form of denial about concerning SOP/code of conduct with Mobile LE. I guess we should agree to disagree about this from here on out since you're so adamant that your opinion is fact.So you tell me--do you know what it is like to draw your gun in a hostile situation? When your heart is pounding, and you're faced with the possibility that you might be forced to shoot? Do you know? Have you been there?

The fact is, regardless of how you might like to say you will act in a particular way--you simply don't know how you will respond until you actually are put in the situation--regardless of how you might like to posture.

And the "information" that you have is of little use--because it tells me nothing. That is what a jury is for.

I'm not the only one who thinks opinion is fact--you're in that same category.

As for "code of conduct and sop"--we've been through that. "Code of conduct" for LE is a joke by and large.

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote: Phssthpok wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:

Well if someone shoots you for OC'ing they should be freed too because they felt threatened.

You seem to be (deliberately) ignoring the fact that there was a confrontation involved here.

Your friend wasn't simply walking down the street and blind-sided with a shot from an alley.

These two were in conflict......the intensity of which is a factor, a has yet to be determined.

I'm not ignoring that, I'm basing my opinion on the information currently available, in conjunction with current Mobile LE SOP/code of conduct.
we've been through that over and over again.

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:

He was not a close personal friend, but I did know him. I also never said I've never been in a threatening position. Wrong on both counts...I simply know what information we already have and know things you are in some form of denial about concerning SOP/code of conduct with Mobile LE. I guess we should agree to disagree about this from here on out since you're so adamant that your opinion is fact.So you tell me--do you know what it is like to draw your gun in a hostile situation? When your heart is pounding, and you're faced with the possibility that you might be forced to shoot? Do you know? Have you been there?

The fact is, regardless of how you might like to say you will act in a particular way--you simply don't know how you will respond until you actually are put in the situation--regardless of how you might like to posture.

And the "information" that you have is of little use--because it tells me nothing. That is what a jury is for.

I'm not the only one who thinks opinion is fact--you're in that same category.

As for "code of conduct and sop"--we've been through that. "Code of conduct" for LE is a joke by and large.

Whether it be a joke or not is not the issue. The problem here is your refusal to accept what it is or is not based upon what you "think" it should or should not be.

Please don't group me in the same category as you. I do not base my opinion on inaccuracies, my own personal opinion (when factual information is available) and empty "possibilities".

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: Phssthpok wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:

Well if someone shoots you for OC'ing they should be freed too because they felt threatened.

You seem to be (deliberately) ignoring the fact that there was a confrontation involved here.

Your friend wasn't simply walking down the street and blind-sided with a shot from an alley.

These two were in conflict......the intensity of which is a factor, a has yet to be determined.

I'm not ignoring that, I'm basing my opinion on the information currently available, in conjunction with current Mobile LE SOP/code of conduct.
we've been through that over and over again.

You are correct. The problem is I'm not interjecting what my personal opinion is, or arguing that my opinion does not line up with Mobile LE SOP/COC so therefore it's incorrect, or adding scenarios that according to the evidence thus far, never occurred. :-)

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:

He was not a close personal friend, but I did know him. I also never said I've never been in a threatening position. Wrong on both counts...I simply know what information we already have and know things you are in some form of denial about concerning SOP/code of conduct with Mobile LE. I guess we should agree to disagree about this from here on out since you're so adamant that your opinion is fact.So you tell me--do you know what it is like to draw your gun in a hostile situation? When your heart is pounding, and you're faced with the possibility that you might be forced to shoot? Do you know? Have you been there?

The fact is, regardless of how you might like to say you will act in a particular way--you simply don't know how you will respond until you actually are put in the situation--regardless of how you might like to posture.

And the "information" that you have is of little use--because it tells me nothing. That is what a jury is for.

I'm not the only one who thinks opinion is fact--you're in that same category.

As for "code of conduct and sop"--we've been through that. "Code of conduct" for LE is a joke by and large.

Whether it be a joke or not is not the issue. The problem here is your refusal to accept what it is or is not based upon what you "think" it should or should not be.

Please don't group me in the same category as you. I do not base my opinion on inaccuracies, my own personal opinion (when factual information is available) and empty "possibilities".
I'm not refusing anything. All you have given is your opinion--same as me

you obviously do base your opinion on the opinions of others--you accept out of hand the opinions of LE....it is perfectly clear from your posts.

and I'll ask again since you brought it up--since you seem to say that you have been in a threatening situation before--So you tell me--do you know what it is like to draw your gun in a hostile situation? When your heart is pounding, and you're faced with the possibility that you might be forced to shoot, and you keep asking yourself do I shoot or do I wait and see? Do you know what it is like? Have you been there?

Last edited on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 09:52 pm by suntzu

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: Phssthpok wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:

Well if someone shoots you for OC'ing they should be freed too because they felt threatened.

You seem to be (deliberately) ignoring the fact that there was a confrontation involved here.

Your friend wasn't simply walking down the street and blind-sided with a shot from an alley.

These two were in conflict......the intensity of which is a factor, a has yet to be determined.

I'm not ignoring that, I'm basing my opinion on the information currently available, in conjunction with current Mobile LE SOP/code of conduct.
we've been through that over and over again.

You are correct. The problem is I'm not interjecting what my personal opinion is, or arguing that my opinion does not line up with Mobile LE SOP/COC so therefore it's incorrect, or adding scenarios that according to the evidence thus far, never occurred. :-)
but that is the problem--you don't know what occurred or did not occur--you were not there were you? All you have is the statement of an individual who was clearly troubled because of a violent situation he was allegedly involved in--his statements at that time are suspect at best, but suspect or not they'll be used against him in court.

Last edited on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 09:49 pm by suntzu

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:

He was not a close personal friend, but I did know him. I also never said I've never been in a threatening position. Wrong on both counts...I simply know what information we already have and know things you are in some form of denial about concerning SOP/code of conduct with Mobile LE. I guess we should agree to disagree about this from here on out since you're so adamant that your opinion is fact.So you tell me--do you know what it is like to draw your gun in a hostile situation? When your heart is pounding, and you're faced with the possibility that you might be forced to shoot? Do you know? Have you been there?

The fact is, regardless of how you might like to say you will act in a particular way--you simply don't know how you will respond until you actually are put in the situation--regardless of how you might like to posture.

And the "information" that you have is of little use--because it tells me nothing. That is what a jury is for.

I'm not the only one who thinks opinion is fact--you're in that same category.

As for "code of conduct and sop"--we've been through that. "Code of conduct" for LE is a joke by and large.

Whether it be a joke or not is not the issue. The problem here is your refusal to accept what it is or is not based upon what you "think" it should or should not be.

Please don't group me in the same category as you. I do not base my opinion on inaccuracies, my own personal opinion (when factual information is available) and empty "possibilities".
I'm not refusing anything. All you have given is your opinion--same as me

you obviously do base your opinion on the opinions of others....it is perfectly clear from your posts.

and I'll ask again since you brought it up--since you seem to say that you have been in a threatening situation before--So you tell me--do you know what it is like to draw your gun in a hostile situation? When your heart is pounding, and you're faced with the possibility that you might be forced to shoot? Do you know? Have you been there?
In most situations with CCW or OC, once the threat realizes you are armed, the need to draw goes away. I'm not saying that is the case every time, but most criminals are going to back down once they see your piece. Hence it being, the greatest crime deterrent. I have been in situations that forced me to place my hand on it ready to draw, but have never had to draw. Besides, that's some what irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is about a druggie, with a stolen, and ILLEGAL gun who shot someone for OC'ing because he was scared. That's all the information we have, so we can't speculate anything further (ie: he grabbed his gun, so he shot him, etc.).

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: Phssthpok wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:

Well if someone shoots you for OC'ing they should be freed too because they felt threatened.

You seem to be (deliberately) ignoring the fact that there was a confrontation involved here.

Your friend wasn't simply walking down the street and blind-sided with a shot from an alley.

These two were in conflict......the intensity of which is a factor, a has yet to be determined.

I'm not ignoring that, I'm basing my opinion on the information currently available, in conjunction with current Mobile LE SOP/code of conduct.
we've been through that over and over again.

You are correct. The problem is I'm not interjecting what my personal opinion is, or arguing that my opinion does not line up with Mobile LE SOP/COC so therefore it's incorrect, or adding scenarios that according to the evidence thus far, never occurred. :-)
but that is the problem--you don't know what occurred or did not occur--you were not there were you? All you have is the statement of an individual who was clearly troubled because of a violent situation he was allegedly involved in--his statements at that time are suspect at best, but suspect or not they'll be used against him in court.

Exactly. The problem is, you're not paying attention to what HE SAID. You're adding "what ifs" into the equation instead of basing your opinion on current information. If more information comes out later then fine, that'll be new information. But as it stands right now, from his statements, he shot him for OC'ing because was scared. All other information at this point is nothing more than speculation.

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:

He was not a close personal friend, but I did know him. I also never said I've never been in a threatening position. Wrong on both counts...I simply know what information we already have and know things you are in some form of denial about concerning SOP/code of conduct with Mobile LE. I guess we should agree to disagree about this from here on out since you're so adamant that your opinion is fact.So you tell me--do you know what it is like to draw your gun in a hostile situation? When your heart is pounding, and you're faced with the possibility that you might be forced to shoot? Do you know? Have you been there?

The fact is, regardless of how you might like to say you will act in a particular way--you simply don't know how you will respond until you actually are put in the situation--regardless of how you might like to posture.

And the "information" that you have is of little use--because it tells me nothing. That is what a jury is for.

I'm not the only one who thinks opinion is fact--you're in that same category.

As for "code of conduct and sop"--we've been through that. "Code of conduct" for LE is a joke by and large.

Whether it be a joke or not is not the issue. The problem here is your refusal to accept what it is or is not based upon what you "think" it should or should not be.

Please don't group me in the same category as you. I do not base my opinion on inaccuracies, my own personal opinion (when factual information is available) and empty "possibilities".
I'm not refusing anything. All you have given is your opinion--same as me

you obviously do base your opinion on the opinions of others....it is perfectly clear from your posts.

and I'll ask again since you brought it up--since you seem to say that you have been in a threatening situation before--So you tell me--do you know what it is like to draw your gun in a hostile situation? When your heart is pounding, and you're faced with the possibility that you might be forced to shoot? Do you know? Have you been there?
In most situations with CCW or OC, once the threat realizes you are armed, the need to draw goes away. I'm not saying that is the case every time, but most criminals are going to back down once they see your piece. Hence it being, the greatest crime deterrent. I have been in situations that forced me to place my hand on it ready to draw, but have never had to draw. Besides, that's some what irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is about a druggie, with a stolen, and ILLEGAL gun who shot someone for OC'ing because he was scared. That's all the information we have, so we can't speculate anything further (ie: he grabbed his gun, so he shot him, etc.).
so you've put your hand on, but have never drawn...when you have been put into a situation where you have drawn your weapon and were ready to shoot then you know you can talk about threatening situations. I sincerely hope you are never in such a situation

Now how do you know the guy is a druggie?

I am saying--if he can prove he was legitimately in fear for his life--he should get off. IF on the other hand he just shot because he saw someone with a gun--then I say he should be locked away forever. I'm fair. if it was defense--turn him lose, if it was just shoot the first person you see with a gun cop type mentality--then lock him away from society for the rest of his life.

as for "seeing the piece"--if you are justified in putting your hand on your gun/showing the gun then the threat is real enough to draw it. Don't play games with criminals--because the first time you do they are going to take that piece away and shoot the person with their own gun...

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: Phssthpok wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:

Well if someone shoots you for OC'ing they should be freed too because they felt threatened.

You seem to be (deliberately) ignoring the fact that there was a confrontation involved here.

Your friend wasn't simply walking down the street and blind-sided with a shot from an alley.

These two were in conflict......the intensity of which is a factor, a has yet to be determined.

I'm not ignoring that, I'm basing my opinion on the information currently available, in conjunction with current Mobile LE SOP/code of conduct.
we've been through that over and over again.

You are correct. The problem is I'm not interjecting what my personal opinion is, or arguing that my opinion does not line up with Mobile LE SOP/COC so therefore it's incorrect, or adding scenarios that according to the evidence thus far, never occurred. :-)
but that is the problem--you don't know what occurred or did not occur--you were not there were you? All you have is the statement of an individual who was clearly troubled because of a violent situation he was allegedly involved in--his statements at that time are suspect at best, but suspect or not they'll be used against him in court.

Exactly. The problem is, you're not paying attention to what HE SAID. You're adding "what ifs" into the equation instead of basing your opinion on current information. If more information comes out later then fine, that'll be new information. But as it stands right now, from his statements, he shot him for OC'ing because was scared. All other information at this point is nothing more than speculation.
see that is the point-the news is already speculating. I am saying that it IS POSSIBLE he felt threatened. We simply don't know and won't for a while. All I am saying is he could have legitimately felt threatened--and until more comes out, we really don't know. I never said otherwise. I said it is POSSIBLE the security guard provoked it--again we don't know--you don't know, and I don't know what started that fight. All we know is one is dead and one is in jail as a result of it.

it is just a sad case all around.

now how about we quit bickering over petty things?

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:

He was not a close personal friend, but I did know him. I also never said I've never been in a threatening position. Wrong on both counts...I simply know what information we already have and know things you are in some form of denial about concerning SOP/code of conduct with Mobile LE. I guess we should agree to disagree about this from here on out since you're so adamant that your opinion is fact.So you tell me--do you know what it is like to draw your gun in a hostile situation? When your heart is pounding, and you're faced with the possibility that you might be forced to shoot? Do you know? Have you been there?

The fact is, regardless of how you might like to say you will act in a particular way--you simply don't know how you will respond until you actually are put in the situation--regardless of how you might like to posture.

And the "information" that you have is of little use--because it tells me nothing. That is what a jury is for.

I'm not the only one who thinks opinion is fact--you're in that same category.

As for "code of conduct and sop"--we've been through that. "Code of conduct" for LE is a joke by and large.

Whether it be a joke or not is not the issue. The problem here is your refusal to accept what it is or is not based upon what you "think" it should or should not be.

Please don't group me in the same category as you. I do not base my opinion on inaccuracies, my own personal opinion (when factual information is available) and empty "possibilities".
I'm not refusing anything. All you have given is your opinion--same as me

you obviously do base your opinion on the opinions of others....it is perfectly clear from your posts.

and I'll ask again since you brought it up--since you seem to say that you have been in a threatening situation before--So you tell me--do you know what it is like to draw your gun in a hostile situation? When your heart is pounding, and you're faced with the possibility that you might be forced to shoot? Do you know? Have you been there?
In most situations with CCW or OC, once the threat realizes you are armed, the need to draw goes away. I'm not saying that is the case every time, but most criminals are going to back down once they see your piece. Hence it being, the greatest crime deterrent. I have been in situations that forced me to place my hand on it ready to draw, but have never had to draw. Besides, that's some what irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is about a druggie, with a stolen, and ILLEGAL gun who shot someone for OC'ing because he was scared. That's all the information we have, so we can't speculate anything further (ie: he grabbed his gun, so he shot him, etc.).
so you've put your hand on, but have never drawn...when you have been put into a situation where you have drawn your weapon and were ready to shoot then you know you can talk about threatening situations. I sincerely hope you are never in such a situation

Now how do you know the guy is a druggie?

I am saying--if he can prove he was legitimately in fear for his life--he should get off. IF on the other hand he just shot because he saw someone with a gun--then I say he should be locked away forever. I'm fair. if it was defense--turn him lose, if it was just shoot the first person you see with a gun cop type mentality--then lock him away from society for the rest of his life.

as for "seeing the piece"--if you are justified in putting your hand on your gun/showing the gun then the threat is real enough to draw it. Don't play games with criminals--because the first time you do they are going to take that piece away and shoot the person with their own gun...

He is 18, which is too young to carry a pistol. The pistol was stolen, and he was in possession of marijuana. There must be proof of the fear for his life. You can't just shoot someone because they have a pistol holstered and claim self defense. That is what we're looking at right now. Anything else is speculation.

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: Phssthpok wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:

Well if someone shoots you for OC'ing they should be freed too because they felt threatened.

You seem to be (deliberately) ignoring the fact that there was a confrontation involved here.

Your friend wasn't simply walking down the street and blind-sided with a shot from an alley.

These two were in conflict......the intensity of which is a factor, a has yet to be determined.

I'm not ignoring that, I'm basing my opinion on the information currently available, in conjunction with current Mobile LE SOP/code of conduct.
we've been through that over and over again.

You are correct. The problem is I'm not interjecting what my personal opinion is, or arguing that my opinion does not line up with Mobile LE SOP/COC so therefore it's incorrect, or adding scenarios that according to the evidence thus far, never occurred. :-)
but that is the problem--you don't know what occurred or did not occur--you were not there were you? All you have is the statement of an individual who was clearly troubled because of a violent situation he was allegedly involved in--his statements at that time are suspect at best, but suspect or not they'll be used against him in court.

Exactly. The problem is, you're not paying attention to what HE SAID. You're adding "what ifs" into the equation instead of basing your opinion on current information. If more information comes out later then fine, that'll be new information. But as it stands right now, from his statements, he shot him for OC'ing because was scared. All other information at this point is nothing more than speculation.
see that is the point-the news is already speculating. I am saying that it IS POSSIBLE he felt threatened. We simply don't know and won't for a while. All I am saying is he could have legitimately felt threatened--and until more comes out, we really don't know. I never said otherwise. I said it is POSSIBLE the security guard provoked it--again we don't know--you don't know, and I don't know what started that fight. All we know is one is dead and one is in jail as a result of it.

it is just a sad case all around.

now how about we quit bickering over petty things?

I agree to stop bickering over petty things and speculation when it stops being brought up in this thread. Sheesh.

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:

He was not a close personal friend, but I did know him. I also never said I've never been in a threatening position. Wrong on both counts...I simply know what information we already have and know things you are in some form of denial about concerning SOP/code of conduct with Mobile LE. I guess we should agree to disagree about this from here on out since you're so adamant that your opinion is fact.So you tell me--do you know what it is like to draw your gun in a hostile situation? When your heart is pounding, and you're faced with the possibility that you might be forced to shoot? Do you know? Have you been there?

The fact is, regardless of how you might like to say you will act in a particular way--you simply don't know how you will respond until you actually are put in the situation--regardless of how you might like to posture.

And the "information" that you have is of little use--because it tells me nothing. That is what a jury is for.

I'm not the only one who thinks opinion is fact--you're in that same category.

As for "code of conduct and sop"--we've been through that. "Code of conduct" for LE is a joke by and large.

Whether it be a joke or not is not the issue. The problem here is your refusal to accept what it is or is not based upon what you "think" it should or should not be.

Please don't group me in the same category as you. I do not base my opinion on inaccuracies, my own personal opinion (when factual information is available) and empty "possibilities".
I'm not refusing anything. All you have given is your opinion--same as me

you obviously do base your opinion on the opinions of others....it is perfectly clear from your posts.

and I'll ask again since you brought it up--since you seem to say that you have been in a threatening situation before--So you tell me--do you know what it is like to draw your gun in a hostile situation? When your heart is pounding, and you're faced with the possibility that you might be forced to shoot? Do you know? Have you been there?
In most situations with CCW or OC, once the threat realizes you are armed, the need to draw goes away. I'm not saying that is the case every time, but most criminals are going to back down once they see your piece. Hence it being, the greatest crime deterrent. I have been in situations that forced me to place my hand on it ready to draw, but have never had to draw. Besides, that's some what irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is about a druggie, with a stolen, and ILLEGAL gun who shot someone for OC'ing because he was scared. That's all the information we have, so we can't speculate anything further (ie: he grabbed his gun, so he shot him, etc.).
so you've put your hand on, but have never drawn...when you have been put into a situation where you have drawn your weapon and were ready to shoot then you know you can talk about threatening situations. I sincerely hope you are never in such a situation

Now how do you know the guy is a druggie?

I am saying--if he can prove he was legitimately in fear for his life--he should get off. IF on the other hand he just shot because he saw someone with a gun--then I say he should be locked away forever. I'm fair. if it was defense--turn him lose, if it was just shoot the first person you see with a gun cop type mentality--then lock him away from society for the rest of his life.

as for "seeing the piece"--if you are justified in putting your hand on your gun/showing the gun then the threat is real enough to draw it. Don't play games with criminals--because the first time you do they are going to take that piece away and shoot the person with their own gun...

He is 18, which is too young to carry a pistol. The pistol was stolen, and he was in possession of marijuana. There must be proof of the fear for his life. You can't just shoot someone because they have a pistol holstered and claim self defense. That is what we're looking at right now. Anything else is speculation.
1. how do you know the pistol was stolen?
2. how do you know he had marijuana?

and you are correct to a point--he must be able to convince the jury that he was in legitimate fear for his safety.

the DA will say he just shot a man down in cold blood and will put forth one story to back it up--a good defense atty will put forth a case of self-defense and try to show he was in fear for his life.

if he does not plea bargain or plead guilty then it is all going to come down to how 12 people see the events of that night. And a lot of emphasis is going to be placed on the fact the guard was OC'ing--the def. atty might try to show that he was "looking for trouble" that night....again more speculation of course.

and I don't know about Alabama, but in several states you can OC at 18...you only have to be 21 as I understand it to buy a handgun from a dealer--but from a private person in many states you only have to be 18--at least from the things I have been reading in different forums anyway.

Last edited on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 10:18 pm by suntzu

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

suntzu wrote:
1. how do you know the pistol was stolen?
2. how do you know he had marijuana?

and you are correct to a point--he must be able to convince the jury that he was in legitimate fear for his safety.

the DA will say he just shot a man down in cold blood and will put forth one story to back it up--a good defense atty will put forth a case of self-defense and try to show he was in fear for his life.

if he does not plea bargain or plead guilty then it is all going to come down to how 12 people see the events of that night. And a lot of emphasis is going to be placed on the fact the guard was OC'ing--the def. atty might try to show that he was "looking for trouble" that night....again more speculation of course.
1. It was covered in the news.
2. It was covered in the news.

There has already been talk of a plea bargain. A LE buddy I talked to doesn't have much faith in the DA.

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

then let us both stop speculation and let the thread drop--it has been went over and kicked around enough.

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote:
1. how do you know the pistol was stolen?
2. how do you know he had marijuana?

and you are correct to a point--he must be able to convince the jury that he was in legitimate fear for his safety.

the DA will say he just shot a man down in cold blood and will put forth one story to back it up--a good defense atty will put forth a case of self-defense and try to show he was in fear for his life.

if he does not plea bargain or plead guilty then it is all going to come down to how 12 people see the events of that night. And a lot of emphasis is going to be placed on the fact the guard was OC'ing--the def. atty might try to show that he was "looking for trouble" that night....again more speculation of course.
1. It was covered in the news.
2. It was covered in the news.

There has already been talk of a plea bargain. A LE buddy I talked to doesn't have much faith in the DA.
faith that the DA will get a conviction if it goes to trial? Or faith that the DA even has enough of a case to take to trial?

HungSquirrel
Regular Member

Joined:	Tue Oct 2nd, 2007
Location:	Mobile, Alabama USA
Posts:	304
Status:	Offline

He is 18, which is too young to carry a pistol.
Show me the Alabama law saying an 18-year-old cannot carry.

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote:
1. how do you know the pistol was stolen?
2. how do you know he had marijuana?

and you are correct to a point--he must be able to convince the jury that he was in legitimate fear for his safety.

the DA will say he just shot a man down in cold blood and will put forth one story to back it up--a good defense atty will put forth a case of self-defense and try to show he was in fear for his life.

if he does not plea bargain or plead guilty then it is all going to come down to how 12 people see the events of that night. And a lot of emphasis is going to be placed on the fact the guard was OC'ing--the def. atty might try to show that he was "looking for trouble" that night....again more speculation of course.
1. It was covered in the news.
2. It was covered in the news.

There has already been talk of a plea bargain. A LE buddy I talked to doesn't have much faith in the DA.
faith that the DA will get a conviction if it goes to trial? Or faith that the DA even has enough of a case to take to trial?

Let's just say in past similar instances, the plea bargains gave the criminal too much lee way.

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

HungSquirrel wrote: He is 18, which is too young to carry a pistol.
Show me the Alabama law saying an 18-year-old cannot carry.
I could be wrong, but I thought the age for concealed carry was 21. I can't remember.

HungSquirrel
Regular Member

Joined:	Tue Oct 2nd, 2007
Location:	Mobile, Alabama USA
Posts:	304
Status:	Offline

Mobile County arbitrarily refuses to issue permits to those under 21, but no such restriction exists at the state level.

smttysmth02gt
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun May 10th, 2009
Location:	Eight Mile, USA
Posts:	84
Status:	Offline

HungSquirrel wrote: Mobile County arbitrarily refuses to issue permits to those under 21, but no such restriction exists at the state level.
Right...therefore they say it's an "illegal possession". Just another ridiculous "law" or lack thereof. The constitution doesn't say you can keep (own) and bear (carry) arms if you're 21, and agree to pay for a license to do so, and only do so in certain areas and with only certain kinds of firearms and ammunition.

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote: HungSquirrel wrote: He is 18, which is too young to carry a pistol.
Show me the Alabama law saying an 18-year-old cannot carry.
I could be wrong, but I thought the age for concealed carry was 21. I can't remember.
the age to purchase a handgun from a dealer is 21 by federal law.

many states--and Alabama may be one of them--will allow an 18y/o to buy a handgun from a private citizen, and there are more than a few states that have no restrictions against an 18y/o OC'ing...especially in states where you do not need a permit to carry openly.

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote: HungSquirrel wrote: Mobile County arbitrarily refuses to issue permits to those under 21, but no such restriction exists at the state level. The constitution doesn't say you can keep (own) and bear (carry) arms if you're 21, and agree to pay for a license to do so, and only do so in certain areas and with only certain kinds of firearms and ammunition.
It will if the government has its way--but then again if they have their way we won't even be allowed to own a gun period....just like in glorious ol England...

our British cousins handed their rights away on a silver platter and tucked their tale between their legs and just bent over and took it....where is the spine in people anymore?

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

HungSquirrel wrote: Mobile County arbitrarily refuses to issue permits to those under 21, but no such restriction exists at the state level.does Alabama have preemption?

if it does then perhaps Mobile County needs a lawsuit or two...

suntzu
Regular Member

Joined:	Sun Jun 22nd, 2008
Location:
Posts:	896
Status:	Offline

smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote:
1. how do you know the pistol was stolen?
2. how do you know he had marijuana?

and you are correct to a point--he must be able to convince the jury that he was in legitimate fear for his safety.

the DA will say he just shot a man down in cold blood and will put forth one story to back it up--a good defense atty will put forth a case of self-defense and try to show he was in fear for his life.

if he does not plea bargain or plead guilty then it is all going to come down to how 12 people see the events of that night. And a lot of emphasis is going to be placed on the fact the guard was OC'ing--the def. atty might try to show that he was "looking for trouble" that night....again more speculation of course.
1. It was covered in the news.
2. It was covered in the news.

There has already been talk of a plea bargain. A LE buddy I talked to doesn't have much faith in the DA.
faith that the DA will get a conviction if it goes to trial? Or faith that the DA even has enough of a case to take to trial?

Let's just say in past similar instances, the plea bargains gave the criminal too much lee way.
well they do care more about the criminal than anything else...so that does not surprise me.

SlackwareRobert
Regular Member

Joined:	Tue Jun 10th, 2008
Location:	Alabama
Posts:	962
Status:	Offline

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.
Well you gotta keep in mind that is NY. Quite different from AL. Besides, you would have to be a bit more specific, otherwise I'm not sure what your point is in posting that.

How did the police explain the fear of a gun when you can't get a concealed
permit even if you never had so much as a jaywalking ticket. How then if they
are looking for a serial rapist would they ever believe he got a permit to have a
gun. Guess that is why they move to upstate, no one in NYC would believe
anyone but a cop has a carry permit to have a gun on them.

But as for AL, lets not forget that upstanding citizen in Hunstville, argued that
the gun he put to the drivers head and pulled the trigger on didn't have
bullets in it. So he is free to go, it was the dead drivedrs fault. I still can't believe
any one could buy that excuse. So what you pulled the trigger, all guns are
loaded, so pull the switch and fry em'. :banghead:

But getting involved with an altercation and one party has a gun, nope...
it is time to pull back and assess the situation at best.
Now if he starts after me at that point and places his hand on gun,
I tried to withdraw, did all I could. With all the police impersonators
around these parts I would be hard pressed to hold back even if he says
he's a cop. If so better leave the gun alone till I am satisfied.