[quote]doogie wrote:
nephorm wrote:
You have no legal (as opposed to natural) right to protect property with deadly force.
In Texas you have a legal right to protect your property with deadly force.
[/quote]
One of the only times that I’ll aplaud anything from Texas besides the cheerleaders…
[quote]doogie wrote:
nephorm wrote:
You have no legal (as opposed to natural) right to protect property with deadly force.
In Texas you have a legal right to protect your property with deadly force.
[/quote]
Good point. In Maryland and many other states, you don’t. Obviously Texas has the right idea.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
How do you call violently knocking my door down doing me no harm? I don’t care who you are, I am no criminal (at least for any real crimes) so if my door comes flying off the hinges then you’re getting a .308 in your chest. Besides, criminalizing drugs has made us all LESS safe, so these poor police officers aren’t making anyone any safer.
mike
Here are a few things for consideration
for anyone considering blindly opening fire on the next person that comes through their door:
2.You don’t automatically have the legal right to “put a .308” in anyone’s chest if they come through your door. Your life could very well end unnecessarily if you do so(either by being shot of spending the rest of it in a small cell). A few examples from my own experience. Once, I had a guy who was severely mentally handicapped push his way into a neighbors house. He wandered away from a group home and had some strange compulsion which caused him to seek drinks. He made his way to the refrigerator and helped himself to the cool-aid. All in all a harmless guy who was not in control of his actions. I’ve had the same thing happen with drunks on numerous occasions. Neither situation warrants the “.308 in the chest”. This also goes for situations such as trespassers. This is not to say I would
hesitate to defend my home with extreme
violence if need be. It is to say that the decision should be reasonable and measured as much as possible.
3.This kind of goes along with the above, but you have no legal right to resist police actions unless they are
A.on their face unlawful and B. immediately threaten yours or someone else’s life. These situations are exceedingly rare and would take a rogue cop who was out to kill you for his own personal reasons. If the police make a mistake and raid the wrong house, you have no business unloading with a .308.
Hopefully, you will know they are police because of the first in my series of points here. If you can’t handle what I brought up in point #1, you may wish to reconsider owning a firearm. This also goes for any false arrest situation. If the cops are wrong, unless they are beating you to death unjustly, go along
with their actions and it can be dealt with later.
4.Spare me the juvenile rambo fantasy crap. Defending yourself and potentially taking life is serious business. Anyone I have ever know that
was well-trained at taking life, or had actually done so, never walked around spouting off about blasting anyone that comes through their door or such other trash. They know what it entails, the serious personal and social costs of doing so, not to mention the actual reality of engaging in combat with another human being.
[/quote]
Great post, JD.
[quote]Edders wrote:
In a big freaking hurry to get their drug bust cops sometimes try to make a case when there is no case. Or in this case they simply got it wrong.[/quote]
Yup, every cops’ goal is to wrongfully arrest people. So we just make stuff up. Great for law suits and promotions! A mistake was made here, we both agree, but your point of blame is misguided.
[quote]
Criminally negligent? Sure, maybe I don’t know enough about the case to judge.[/quote]
I don’t think you know enough about law, let alone the case.
[quote]
But, they sure killed a 92 year old lady who had nothing to do with drugs. And that my nearsighted friend is WRONG. And it was initiated by the Police. The gun toting granny did not go looking for them, they busted into her house with guns drawn.[/quote]
Far sighted and open minded actually. You are the one being one sided and narrow minded. Why you keep bringing up that the actions by the Police was wrong is beyond me. I AGREE. Try to digest all of my words instead of just the ones you want to argue with.
What you and I don’t agree on is the point of blame. I’m not interested in arresting and prosecuting police officers that most likely had nothing to do with calling the shots or the process that the warrant was received.
The officers were following orders, law and procedures. Period. That is not and should not be punishable to the officers carrying them out.
These were not rogue actions. If they were, then yes, they should be punished. To what degree, is not up to me.
[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
Edders wrote:
In a big freaking hurry to get their drug bust cops sometimes try to make a case when there is no case. Or in this case they simply got it wrong.
Yup, every cops’ goal is to wrongfully arrest people. So we just make stuff up. Great for law suits and promotions! A mistake was made here, we both agree, but your point of blame is misguided.[/quote]
First, no one said it was a “goal” to to wrongfully arrest people. But there are many overzealous cops and prosecutors and mistakes are more likely to happen under those circumstances.
[quote]Criminally negligent? Sure, maybe I don’t know enough about the case to judge.
I don’t think you know enough about law, let alone the case.[/quote]
Of course I don’t know enough about the law. I’m a guy typing on a message board and spouting off…just like you.
But how much do you have to know other than a 92 year old woman was gunned down in her own home by THE POLICE for no reason.
Here’s why: The police kicked down the door of a residence of an innocent person without even identifying who they were. They then proceeded to shoot her…and she died.
And that is WRONG.
Do you understand now?
I am for prosecuting police officers who did this. [/quote]
Young Nazi solders were also simply obeying orders.
Oh darn…you’re wrong again. It doesn’t matter my friend. An innocent person is now dead because these clowns broke her door down without any justifiable reason. I don’t have to be a lawyer or donut eating cop to realize that this is wrong.
[quote]Edders wrote:
Incoherent blather.
[/quote]
You are unable to present your point without name calling? Just because we have differing opinions doesn’t mean we have to be enemies.
You sound like a broken record. You keep saying I’m wrong. You saying someone’s opinion or insight is wrong, is just your own opinion. Not fact.
Over and over again we have agreed that the actions carried out by the police were wrong, only disagreeing the who is responsible. But comparing the actions of Nazi’s to the lawful execution of a warrant is absurd and over the line of sanity.
You are obviously incapable of open minded discussion on this subject, so this is where the discussion ends for you and I.
Take care, see you in another thread.
p.s. I don’t like donuts and only consume them due to peer pressure.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
How do you call violently knocking my door down doing me no harm? I don’t care who you are, I am no criminal (at least for any real crimes) so if my door comes flying off the hinges then you’re getting a .308 in your chest. Besides, criminalizing drugs has made us all LESS safe, so these poor police officers aren’t making anyone any safer.
mike
Here are a few things for consideration
for anyone considering blindly opening fire on the next person that comes through their door:
2.You don’t automatically have the legal right to “put a .308” in anyone’s chest if they come through your door. Your life could very well end unnecessarily if you do so(either by being shot of spending the rest of it in a small cell). A few examples from my own experience. Once, I had a guy who was severely mentally handicapped push his way into a neighbors house. He wandered away from a group home and had some strange compulsion which caused him to seek drinks. He made his way to the refrigerator and helped himself to the cool-aid. All in all a harmless guy who was not in control of his actions. I’ve had the same thing happen with drunks on numerous occasions. Neither situation warrants the “.308 in the chest”. This also goes for situations such as trespassers. This is not to say I would
hesitate to defend my home with extreme
violence if need be. It is to say that the decision should be reasonable and measured as much as possible.
3.This kind of goes along with the above, but you have no legal right to resist police actions unless they are
A.on their face unlawful and B. immediately threaten yours or someone else’s life. These situations are exceedingly rare and would take a rogue cop who was out to kill you for his own personal reasons. If the police make a mistake and raid the wrong house, you have no business unloading with a .308.
Hopefully, you will know they are police because of the first in my series of points here. If you can’t handle what I brought up in point #1, you may wish to reconsider owning a firearm. This also goes for any false arrest situation. If the cops are wrong, unless they are beating you to death unjustly, go along
with their actions and it can be dealt with later.
4.Spare me the juvenile rambo fantasy crap. Defending yourself and potentially taking life is serious business. Anyone I have ever know that
was well-trained at taking life, or had actually done so, never walked around spouting off about blasting anyone that comes through their door or such other trash. They know what it entails, the serious personal and social costs of doing so, not to mention the actual reality of engaging in combat with another human being.
[/quote]
JD-
Reread my quote. I was referring to entering my house with violence. As a former infantry Marine and two-war vet I need no lecture as to when it is apropriate to shoot. Much as in combat and well…baseball, I tend to have many situations mapped out beforehand. If this happens, I react like that. If that happens, I react like this. They are essentially loose immediate reaction drills for life. This of course warrants for Murphy’s Law, but I am sure you get the idea. The fact is that any man who is willing to shoot someone merely for entering their property and raiding their fridge is a murderer and a coward who will some day have to come to terms with his sick desire merely to kill.
That said, I reiterate my statement: knock my door down and rush into my house and I will kill you. I am no criminal (except for mala prohibitum crimes) and so anyone coming into my house violently will not be a police officer. If they are they better damn well be smart enough to announce themselves before coming in.
mike
Just face it.
Most POlice officers simply think they are above the law. Most (not all) are
uneducated and need much more training than they are getting.
The standards are too low but the pay
will continue to push the standards lower.
[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
Edders wrote:
Incoherent blather.
You are unable to present your point without name calling? [/quote]
Where as claiming that I have written only “incoherent blather” is very complimentary.
You’re forgetting a very important point: The Nazis did nothing illegal. Everything they did was according to the current law of the land AT THAT TIME.
Stop thinking that cops can do no wrong. They do plenty wrong and they do it everyday.
[quote]You are obviously incapable of open minded discussion on this subject, so this is where the discussion ends for you and I.
Take care, see you in another thread.[/quote]
That’s okay with me. You can run away, some cops are not all that good without back up anyway.
(ouch)
[quote]p.s. I don’t like donuts and only consume them due to peer pressure.
[/quote]
LOL…okay that was funny.
[quote]Go-Rilla wrote:
Just face it.
Most POlice officers simply think they are above the law. Most (not all) are
uneducated and need much more training than they are getting.
The standards are too low but the pay
will continue to push the standards lower.[/quote]
I’d say that’s a pretty good read there Go-Rilla.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
All I can say is damn, good shooting grandma! Poor old bat probably had a bottle of ephedra or something. I’m sure she had it coming for violating the law like that. <–sarcasm
mike[/quote]
no if she had ephedra the FBI/ATF would have busted down her door.
Old thread, new developments.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2009/02/23/johnston_sentencing.html
This article explains some of the details.
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/51151/
If the details in the second article posted are accurate, the sentencing seems a bit light.
This thread weirded me out. I’m looking at the title scratching my head and thinking, " I didn’t do this." But apparently I did. Thanks for the update. It’s nice to see the bad guys get theirs from time to time.
Mike
[quote]doogie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Yes. How about…noticing it is the middle of the night…waiting for the 92 year old woman to even answer and then introduce yourselves with a freaking badge…and then present your warrant?
Sure, knock on the drug dealer’s door, wait for him to flush everything down the toilet, put on his body armor and get out his AK-47 with the armor piercing rounds before you politely introduce yourself as a police officer. That makes all kinds of fucking sense.[/quote]
That makes sense to me, why don’t we just call ahead and make an appt. so the drug dealers can be present and accounted for?
[quote]JD430 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
How do you call violently knocking my door down doing me no harm? I don’t care who you are, I am no criminal (at least for any real crimes) so if my door comes flying off the hinges then you’re getting a .308 in your chest. Besides, criminalizing drugs has made us all LESS safe, so these poor police officers aren’t making anyone any safer.
mike
Here are a few things for consideration
for anyone considering blindly opening fire on the next person that comes through their door:
2.You don’t automatically have the legal right to “put a .308” in anyone’s chest if they come through your door. Your life could very well end unnecessarily if you do so(either by being shot of spending the rest of it in a small cell). A few examples from my own experience. Once, I had a guy who was severely mentally handicapped push his way into a neighbors house. He wandered away from a group home and had some strange compulsion which caused him to seek drinks. He made his way to the refrigerator and helped himself to the cool-aid. All in all a harmless guy who was not in control of his actions. I’ve had the same thing happen with drunks on numerous occasions. Neither situation warrants the “.308 in the chest”. This also goes for situations such as trespassers. This is not to say I would
hesitate to defend my home with extreme
violence if need be. It is to say that the decision should be reasonable and measured as much as possible.
3.This kind of goes along with the above, but you have no legal right to resist police actions unless they are
A.on their face unlawful and B. immediately threaten yours or someone else’s life. These situations are exceedingly rare and would take a rogue cop who was out to kill you for his own personal reasons. If the police make a mistake and raid the wrong house, you have no business unloading with a .308.
Hopefully, you will know they are police because of the first in my series of points here. If you can’t handle what I brought up in point #1, you may wish to reconsider owning a firearm. This also goes for any false arrest situation. If the cops are wrong, unless they are beating you to death unjustly, go along
with their actions and it can be dealt with later.
4.Spare me the juvenile rambo fantasy crap. Defending yourself and potentially taking life is serious business. Anyone I have ever know that
was well-trained at taking life, or had actually done so, never walked around spouting off about blasting anyone that comes through their door or such other trash. They know what it entails, the serious personal and social costs of doing so, not to mention the actual reality of engaging in combat with another human being.
[/quote]
Exactly.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Fullback33 wrote:
People, as usual, are looking way too far into this. It looks to me like we have at least one cop himself on here who thinks these guys didn’t do anything wrong. Thats not a bad start. It also seems like a “no-knock” warrant explains all of this. Also, since when is it Okay so start blasting away at people for busting through your door? I am sure I would be surprised too, but I don’t think I would start shooting before I knew what was going on. I can’t just shoot people bcause I think they might hurt me. Police generally work very hard to protect us for not a whole lot of money. I give them the benefit of the doubt most of the time.
Damn, you are one complete dumbass. You have the RIGHT to protect your own home from invasion. Or at least, we are supposed to. That means, yes, if people come running into your house for no damn reason, breaking down your door in the process, you have every right to take out the perceived threat.
You sound like you have lived one very sheltered existence. I would love to see how inviting you are to people breaking down your door if you actually lived in a neighborhood where a break-in was an everyday threat.
Then again, judging by this post, you would be dumb enough to invite a few burglars in for tea before they robbed your shit and killed you.
It took this incident for that state to review their own “no knock” policy. That means apparently, there are other dumbasses like you who allowed an action that stupid to become law in the first place.[/quote]
As the officer said, not necessarily. There is what is called bare fear and there is what a reasonable person would consider to be a threat. Bare fear is just being scared. Being scared doesn’t authorize deadly force. It is an irrational fear. Let’s say a woman is mugged by a man and now she is afraid of guys.
A strange man approaches her to ask for directions and she shoots or pepper sprays him because she is afraid. She has assault charges at a minimum. This is of course for someone with honest intentions.
Now some guy in an alley shoves her against the wall, demands money, and she shoots him. this is a reasonable fear that a jury will almost always side with.
A warning of police shouted out or a knock and follow through as the officer said will wipe out any “reasonable” fear and put this in the realm of a good shoot by the cops. They did identify themselves and then executed the warrant.
now if the grandmother couldn’t hear, was confused, or mistaken, this does not take her responsibility away. The NRA mags have app. 10-12 examples of good shootings by private citizens every issue. A legitimate threat is described every time.
There have been bad shoots by cops, not not as many as the media would like to portray. when you actually get all the facts, you can see the why, especially when you understand the when and whys of a self defense shooting. You often see a whole lot of this stuff called evidence in a trial or hearing compared to a news report.
This woman getting shot is a definite tragedy, but she did play a part in it. She shot three officers and was obviously a lethal threat at the time. She violated rule 4 of gun safety, know your target and beyond.
BTW, in case anyone cares these are Jeff Copper’s four rules of gun safety. 1. Every gun is loaded 2. never point a gun at anything you do not want to destroy. 3.keep your finger off the trigger until you are on target and ready to fire. 4. know your target and beyond.
I can do all of these correctly and still face a civil suit at minimum. for instance, if I shoot a threat and the bullet passes through and hit an innocent, i might face a lawsuit, even though I was threatened.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
doogie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Yes. How about…noticing it is the middle of the night…waiting for the 92 year old woman to even answer and then introduce yourselves with a freaking badge…and then present your warrant?
Sure, knock on the drug dealer’s door, wait for him to flush everything down the toilet, put on his body armor and get out his AK-47 with the armor piercing rounds before you politely introduce yourself as a police officer. That makes all kinds of fucking sense.
That makes sense to me, why don’t we just call ahead and make an appt. so the drug dealers can be present and accounted for?
[/quote]
I don’t know about you, but I’d rather see 30 tons of coke go down the business end of a toilet than to have an old lady and a few cops killed.
mike
[quote]Fullback33 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Fullback33 wrote:
People, as usual, are looking way too far into this. It looks to me like we have at least one cop himself on here who thinks these guys didn’t do anything wrong. Thats not a bad start. It also seems like a “no-knock” warrant explains all of this. Also, since when is it Okay so start blasting away at people for busting through your door? I am sure I would be surprised too, but I don’t think I would start shooting before I knew what was going on. I can’t just shoot people bcause I think they might hurt me. Police generally work very hard to protect us for not a whole lot of money. I give them the benefit of the doubt most of the time.
Damn, you are one complete dumbass. You have the RIGHT to protect your own home from invasion. Or at least, we are supposed to. That means, yes, if people come running into your house for no damn reason, breaking down your door in the process, you have every right to take out the perceived threat.
You sound like you have lived one very sheltered existence. I would love to see how inviting you are to people breaking down your door if you actually lived in a neighborhood where a break-in was an everyday threat.
Then again, judging by this post, you would be dumb enough to invite a few burglars in for tea before they robbed your shit and killed you.
It took this incident for that state to review their own “no knock” policy. That means apparently, there are other dumbasses like you who allowed an action that stupid to become law in the first place.
I didn’t know we had the right to shoot trespassers.
[/quote]
“… right to shoot trespassers” is a misleading phrase in this context. A stranger taking a shortcut across the corner of your lawn is significantly less threatening than a stranger kicking down your door.
I am pretty sure that the laws regarding the use of deadly force against a home invasion vary from state to state.
I have not read every word of every post but why do people keep saying the police didn’t identify themselves?
Cockney, after reading that last article, they probably didn’t. Those cops were as crooked as a dog’s hind leg.