Officers fatally shoot armed man while serving protective order to remove guns

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: GenerationGap

Trump is also the one that said

Or, Mike,take the firearms first and then go to court. Because that’s another system. A lot of times by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns early. Like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida. He had a lot of firearms. They saw everything. To go to court would have taken a long time. You could do exactly what you’re saying but take the guns first, go through due process second.

But that was dismissed out of hand when it was said.

Maybe by some, not by all. I cussed when I heard him say that.

I trust Trump about as far as I can throw him. I didn't vote for him, and frequently shake my head when he utters stupid phrases. I do the same for the "Orange man bad" crowd who give Trump free head space.

Maybe, just maybe, we should educate ourselves as a nation on what Rights and liberty are. Then select leaders based upon their track record in defending said Rights and liberty. Quit getting caught up in the false "team" mentality long enough to see that BOTH parties are bad.

I think too many people are willfully ignorant at this point. I truly believe that we are witnessing the fall of our Republic in slow motion.

a reply to: seagull

If we're up on our mountain, or out on the range, we're hurting no one and nothing--push us, and the results might not be to their liking.

The thing is, we don't want to hurt anyone or anything. We're in these mountains for a reason... we don't like the hustle and bustle and crime and noise and pollution of the cities. We want to be left alone.

It's peaceful out here... serene... quiet. Why anyone who hates our way of life so much would want so desperately to come out here and mess with it is beyond me. But the bottom line is that we will at least try to defend ourselves, just like the patriots in the Revolutionary War tried to defend themselves over 200 years ago. They went up against the best-financed, best-equipped, best-trained military force on the planet... and kicked their redcoated tails out!

Not that much has really changed. The police are better organized, but we know our land. We know where to hide and how to hide. We know our weaponry. We know how to survive. And most of us are at least as well-trained as the police. We have to be the police when the occasional crime happens. In a life-or-death emergency, 911 out here will get me a cop on site within 15 minutes... maybe... if they're not busy... and if they don't get lost.

Many years ago, a movie came out called "Red Dawn." Like many, I considered the "what-if" scenario in that movie... the US has been invaded by a foreign power, all the cities are under its control, and they are moving out into the country. What do I do?

I dug out the old topographical maps I have and studied them. The best military position here is a small yet high mountain peak overlooking the city. It's a high-class residential zone, with one road in and one road out, massive lots mostly uncleared to give that air of exclusivity. It would be easily defensible and would allow good coverage of the surrounding city below. I checked out how I could get to that location. It turns out I would have to make two crossings at roads, only two, and both locations had treelines on both sides. I could easily travel from here to there without being seen in the space of a single day or night.

I could still do that. I could cover the entire city if I had a mind to. I could rain terror down upon the place and maintain it for several days if I had a mind to. I don't have a mind to! I would be more likely to be the guy stopping anyone who tried to do something so horrible.

So what is the advantage of giving someone like me a reason to fight back?

TheRedneck

a reply to: cynicalheathen

Maybe, just maybe, we should educate ourselves as a nation on what Rights and liberty are. Then select leaders based upon their track record in defending said Rights and liberty. Quit getting caught up in the false "team" mentality long enough to see that BOTH parties are bad.

Sadly, I don't think that will ever happen. People are simply too easily led and too comfortable.

By the way, I had to do a double-take when Trump said that. Just the realization that he would consider it has dampened my support for him a great deal. That's a no-starter and worries the crap out of me.

TheRedneck

a reply to: cynicalheathen

Then select leaders based upon their track record in defending said Rights and liberty. Quit getting caught up in the false "team" mentality long enough to see that BOTH parties are bad.

That a very reasonable approach but for too many in our country, the logic and thinking required just won't happen. The team mentality always wins.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

Maybe by some, not by all. I cussed when I heard him say that.

I was on ATS when that comment was made, and was streaming the press conference or roundtable or whatever they called it live. The reaction to that comment, or lack thereof, by a lot of folks on ATS was absolutely shocking and was, frankly, my first glaring indication as to just how deep into the kool-aid some folks were/are.

I do the same for the "Orange man bad" crowd who give Trump free head space.

Good. We have a club, meets on Tuesdays. If you want to come to the meeting, you have to bring snacks.

Maybe, just maybe, we should educate ourselves as a nation on what Rights and liberty are. Then select leaders based upon their track record in defending said Rights and liberty. Quit getting caught up in the false "team" mentality long enough to see that BOTH parties are bad.

Sadly, far too many people find it far easier to put everybody into nice tidy little boxes because then they can just deal with entire groups of people with one thought rather than strain themselves and come up with a few thoughts.

Bottom line, this law is ripe for abuse and will do wonders to undermine public trust in law enforcement. When we start passing laws that can easily be used to trample on an individual's rights and then just "let due process catch up" that's a razor thin edge to walk.

a reply to: baddmove
if you want we can sign waivers and test your theory that you will kick my butt. fair warning,i have crosstrained jiu jitsu, muay thai, and wrestling.my old instructor has a cage in his gym we can use. i am 6'5" 205 pounds (light heavyweight). i have poured concrete,built and stood 2 story pool cages, and installed septic tanks on an island with 3 million dollar houses. you have over 20 years on me. if you can beat me my hat is off to you.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Very suspect.

I'd still like to know where this gentlemans due process was...

a reply to: seagull

When regular law abiding citizens can not take reasonable precautions at 5:00 am when there's a knock on the door, something is wrong. Very, very wrong.

When 'they' come for you before the break of dawn without a trial or a charge, something is very very wrong.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: highvein

Are there any reasons you could think of for this being okay to do?

Not sure I understand... okay to confiscate guns or okay to kill the man?

To be honest, my blood is boiling right now and I want to make sure I understand the question thoroughly before I answer.

TheRedneck

Understandable.
Do you believe that there would be any scenario that it would be okay to confiscate guns from a citizen in which the citizen is killed?

I've seen threads like this before. A lot of them. But the guy was black.

"If he had complied, he'd still be alive."

Again, answering the door with a gun in your hand is not okay, or normal. It's a threat, and he died over his threat.

Do you really think his family filed the report on him because he owned guns? No. He was a trigger happy nutjob like what seems to be the majority of this site. Nothing to hide? Comply and get your pew pews back.

My previous example of Trump was due to him literally calling for this while you all blame the left. He's the only politician that I know of who has said, take the guns and worry about due process later.

I don't care. I have no guns, and I have no use for guns. But dont blame the left when your messiah is the one calling for this.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

Welcome to the insanity of left-wing politics... Authoritarians in the left, which sorry to say includes pretty much everyone in the left, including in these forums.

a reply to: highvein

If the citizen is in commission of a crime and resists with deadly force.

Here's my logic: unless there is actual evidence of a crime, the police have no right to enter private property. If they do attempt to enter private property, they have no right to demand absolute compliance with any orders until and unless they witness evidence of a crime. On public property, the police have much greater leeway. They are, in essence, on their own property then.

Let me say I also hold accountable the politicians who passed the law in the first place and the judge who thought this was an acceptable reason to order the confiscation. This goes far deeper than the police department, but the police were the ones who shot the man.

Even in public, the police have a duty to attempt to maintain the peace. That includes their own actions. Every situation, when practical, should be met with diplomacy first, force second. The immediate use of force will almost always escalate the situation, and that is a disturbance of the peace which is often avoidable. It boils down to whether or not the officer has reasonable cause to believe that force is required to protect others.

That is the opposite of what happened in this case.

Here, the man's right to be secure in his own home was violated by two armed invaders at an odd hour who had no reasonable cause to suspect he was in commission of a crime. A phone call from a family member by itself is not what I would call reasonable cause, and the accusation was not that he was in commission of a crime... it was that he might in the future commit a crime.

Here, the man exhibited normal, reasonable precautions when faced with the invasion. He answered the door with a gun, yes, but then put it down when he saw he was dealing with police. He only picked it back up when the police attempted to rob him.

Here, the police apparently made no attempt to use diplomacy to de-escalate the situation. Instead, they escalated a situation which was already de-escalated, and which because of their actions ended in the death of an innocent man.

Here, the Police Chief made an official public statement that attempted to twist the incident into a need to perform the exact same actions again. That indicates a severe lack of concern for the lives of the general public and an overt violation of his duty to protect the public.

I do not advocate taking away the right to protect themselves from the police. But I do demand that the police follow the laws they are hired to uphold, and that includes disobeying or at least exercising extreme caution whenever the law conflicts with the Constitution. In this case, the man's right to keep and bear arms, his right to be secure in his home, his right against unreasonable search and seizure, and his right to life were all violated. Those are Nazi Germany Gestapo tactics by definition and cannot be tolerated for any reason.

TheRedneck

a reply to: LordAhriman

I've seen threads like this before. A lot of them. But the guy was black.

Don't even go there! I have a record of denouncing violence from the police in cases involving people of all colors. The only reason for any police officer to pull a weapon is if they have reason to believe their life or the lives of others are in danger. Period. There's no mention of black or white in that statement, and do not try to put such a mention in it.

This is about police violence, and your feeble attempt to play some sort of race card is not helping anyone but the violent.

Again, answering the door with a gun in your hand is not okay, or normal. It's a threat, and he died over his threat.

The threat is someone waking a person up in the wee hours. People have the right to protect themselves, whether you think it should be "normal" or not. You have several instances on here of that definition being incorrect.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: LordAhriman
I've seen threads like this before. A lot of them. But the guy was black.

"If he had complied, he'd still be alive."

So in addition to implying that gun owners are mentally ill, you're now implying that gun owners are racist. Care to back up your stance with anything more than veiled accusations? You know, since this isn't the Mud Pit?

Again, answering the door with a gun in your hand is not okay, or normal. It's a threat, and he died over his threat.

According to you. Not everyone lives in as safe an area as you. In what world is coming to your own door armed to check out an unexpected visitor at 5 in the morning any form of a threat. I have no doubt that the police were loudly banging on the door.

Do you really think his family filed the report on him because he owned guns? No. He was a trigger happy nutjob like what seems to be the majority of this site. Nothing to hide? Comply and get your pew pews back.

Post evidence of him being a trigger happy nutjob. Since you seem to know what was in it, post the contents of the affidavit used to secure the court order. Post evidence of "the majority of this site" being trigger happy nutjobs as well. No opinion, facts that show that we are all insane and fire guns recklessly.

I have natural Rights. I am not required to prove to a thief in a black robe that I am fit to exercise those rights when I have no prior history which suggests otherwise. Thought crime is antithetical to a free nation.

My previous example of Trump was due to him literally calling for this while you all blame the left. He's the only politician that I know of who has said, take the guns and worry about due process later.

Trump was wrong as well. But he did not pen this law, pass it, or sign off on it. So again, how is Trump relevant to this thread about a Maryland law?

I don't care. I have no guns, and I have no use for guns. But dont blame the left when your messiah is the one calling for this.

Left, Right, I don't see sides when it comes to tyranny. Blame goes to who deserves it. In this case the Maryland legislature, Maryland governor, and the law enforcement responsible.

But since you brought left vs. right into it...

26 of the 27 sponsors/cosponsors were Democrats.

MD House - 89 of 93 Yes votes were Democrats.

MD Senate - 30 of 31 Yes votes were Democrats.

MD Governor - Republican, but according to MD residents online, a RINO. His vote wasn't necessary regardless.

If we're going to place blame by party, it's fairly obvious which one's fault this bill is. Facts are funny things...

a reply to: LordAhriman

So, lacking any sort of other argument, you go with the implication that gun owners are bigots?

Since you seem to be all knowing, what was the reason behind the cops pounding on his door at five o'clock in the morning...surely, since you apparently read minds, you can share your discoveries?

Do you really think his family filed the report on him because he owned guns? No. He was a trigger happy nutjob like what seems to be the majority of this site. Nothing to hide? Comply and get your pew pews back.

We don't know the reasons...and since the paperwork filed is sealed, we'll never know, will we?

Trigger happy nut job? Good to see you remaining unbiased...well done. That's sarcasm in case you're wondering.

You completely miss the point many of us are making...either through ignorance, or deliberate obfuscation.

I've asked this several time, three times, I think... Anyway, what happened to this mans right to face his accusers? His right to due process? Y'know, that whole fifth amendment, sixth amendment, not to mention second amendment, and last but not least, his 14th amendment rights??

You don't care. That's plain. Since Trump had nothing to do with this state law, he's of no consequence to this. ...and I can not in any way be described as someone who considers him to be some form of "messiah".

What it is, is a bad law, that has already cost one man his life, and will undoubtedly cost others theirs, as well.


Lex iniusta non est lex.

a reply to: seagull

I wonder who in their right mind would do this so early in the morning, presumably to catch him half asleep and is it any wonder he picked up a gun? I would pick up a weapon too if somebody knocked on my door at that time.

It seems a rather deliberate act to go that early. Why?

P

a reply to: pheonix358

I have no idea.

Is it SOP for them? If so, it would seem to me to be a good idea to change it, at least in this sort of situation, a situation where they don't intend to arrest anyone--as there's no crime being committed, and supposedly it's for that persons own good.

I'd like to ask whose good was served here?

From what I have seen reported, early morning it to catch criminals off guard, it's their sleep/down time. Lots of drug and fugitive raids are early.

That's what happens when the government thinks it can remove guns over mere accusations alone. No due process in the States crime here.

Armed citizens will always fight back, and uphold the constitution but not neccesarily the constitution-hating law.

Taking someones rights for any reason is wrong. But over an assault? Unalienable = shall not be infringed, period end of discussion.

I have said it before and I'll say it again. The American people will "lawyer talk" and "legalize" their own demise.

The "police" not wanting to be fired from their "job", (because that's all it really is.) It's not like they'll face a firing squad for giving a two week notice. But, Believing they are the "thin blue line". The only thing standing between order and lawlessness. They will fallow "orders" even if it violates their oath. They are not Soldiers (no code) they are"employees". They stand for their "job". And they will do their job.

They will succeed in doing it. Because America no longer has a code, nor lives by a/the code. Evil has infiltrated "the law". The law passes "law", in violation of the "law". Individual liberty is a "democracy" "vote" away from losing our Republic.

In less than 300 years, we have lost the liberty the men at Lexington and Concord gambled their own lives and families on.

Because the "police" can't take a few moments to question or reason if the "law" violates their "oath".

Cops aren't willing to lose or gamble their livelihood, for your freedom. Some of them have been Soldiers or Marines... That said, police oaths, politicians oaths, are not the same oath.

A very, very few minority have ever taken the oath. Fewer have even read what they were swearing to...

The vast "majority" think somebody else will protect THEIR freedom.

All within 300 years... Because of these idiots. America will become the very thing it fought/rebelled against to begin with.

On the bright side? Gold chains are pretty to look at.