It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 8
41
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Enigma Publius

If they wanted this guys guns, why weren't they more strategic about it? Why show up at 5:00 AM under the cover of darkness and pound on the door? Of course the guy was going to come armed.

This just not make any sense at all. Why do this at 5:00 AM unless you wanted a confrontation? The people who planned this are the enemy and should be charged with murder.




posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: WUNK22
Just another way to disarm the populace. Brought to you by the left. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Obama, ect,ect.....


republicans are just as guilty of taking guns away.

republican governor ordering the confiscation of the guns from private citizens.
bearingarms.com...

there is another one, i can't remember which one it was at the moment.



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: subfab

originally posted by: WUNK22
Just another way to disarm the populace. Brought to you by the left. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Obama, ect,ect.....


republicans are just as guilty of taking guns away.

republican governor ordering the confiscation of the guns from private citizens.
bearingarms.com...

there is another one, i can't remember which one it was at the moment.



i found it.

republican governor rick scott ordered gun confication.
www.foxnews.com...

both parties are guilty of trying to remove guns from the hands of americans.



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: subfab

i found it.

republican governor rick scott ordered gun confication.
www.foxnews.com...

both parties are guilty of trying to remove guns from the hands of americans.


Interesting. This law appears to follow due process by requiring a petition to be filed and granted by a court, but it does not. The problem here is that a judge is emphatically NOT a psychologist or a psychiatrist - he is a judge. As such, he is not qualified to assess the psychological risk of any particular individual to bear arms, and especially not sight unseen.

This law is unjust in that particular, and therefore not a legitimate law.



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: subfab

i found it.

republican governor rick scott ordered gun confication.
www.foxnews.com...

both parties are guilty of trying to remove guns from the hands of americans.


Interesting. This law appears to follow due process by requiring a petition to be filed and granted by a court, but it does not. The problem here is that a judge is emphatically NOT a psychologist or a psychiatrist - he is a judge. As such, he is not qualified to assess the psychological risk of any particular individual to bear arms, and especially not sight unseen.

This law is unjust in that particular, and therefore not a legitimate law.



i agree.
but my statement still stands. both parties are just as guilty of trying to take guns away from citizens.



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 11:13 PM
link   
And this, my friends, is why gun control is nothing more than a tactic by the predator to rob his prey of their natural environmentally-bestowed defenses.



posted on Nov, 18 2018 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: subfab

republican governor rick scott ordered gun confication.
www.foxnews.com...

both parties are guilty of trying to remove guns from the hands of americans.


Its pathetic there are people still out there who don't know this...



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
Title shortened due to length.

Link



Two Anne Arundel County police officers serving one of Maryland’s new “red flag” protective orders to remove guns from a house killed a Ferndale man after he refused to give up his gun and a struggle ensued early Monday morning, police said.


MD HB 1302

This is troubling. This "red flag" law is ripe for abuse. From reading the text of the law, the petitioner can make up whatever claim they want without fear of being charged with anything more than a misdemeanor if they falsely do so.

The accused would have police sent to their house on the basis of an accusation and a judge's opinion. They would not have a chance to defend themselves in a court of law beforehand. They would then have their guns removed forcefully. No due process involved. In the "hearing" after the fact, the accused does not have the presumption of innocence, but in fact has to prove their innocence.

Even if they manage to get their guns back, the accused still could be responsible to pay "reasonable" storage fees to retrieve their guns.

I don't know the rules of Criminal Procedure for MD, but I see no mention of an appeal or jury trial. How does this law protect the accused's due process rights in any way?

The writers of this law have blood on their hands. They will continue to have blood on their hands as long as it is in effect. This law will get formerly law-abiding gun owners hurt and killed.

What's to stop an angry family member or jilted romantic partner from using this law as a weapon? I can foresee people using this as the new "Swatting", hoping to see something bad happen to the accused.

I am all for protecting potential victims, but kangaroo courts and star chambers are not the way. If you're going to take away someone's rights, you need to follow due process.


Haven't we seen countless posts on here about how not to behave around police so you don't get shot? He put his gun down, then reached for it during the process. Sounds like he deserves a posthumous Darwin award.



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: 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


I have no issue with someone answering their door at 5am with a gun in hand. I have an issue with him trying to grab said gun during the serving of a lawful directive. We've seen posts on here over and over and over where the perpetrator reached for a gun during a traffic stop, or when they have fled from police .... the vast majority of posts on here are of the theme of "Do what the cops say and you won't get shot" or "Don't reach for your gun and you won't get shot" .... this is exactly what happened here according to the information we are provided.


He initially put the gun down next to the door, but “became irate” when officers began to serve him with the order, opened the door and picked up the gun again, police said.


Don't grab your gun during a police encounter and you probably will not get shot. He would have to spend a few hours in court probably but he'd get his guns back if he shows he is not a danger to others or himself.
edit on 19-11-2018 by DoubleDNH because: Added stuff



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: IndyFront

So, you think that anyone who did know that, like myself, would think that if it's a Republican who ordered it, we'd be OK with it??

What, pray, gives you that idea? Allow me to enlighten you, most of us would still disagree most vociferously. I'm safe in saying the vast majority of us.



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: DoubleDNH

There's some truth to that, however, the fact that this law, and I use the term loosely, is a horrible one, isn't changed one iota.



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 04:03 PM
link   
This is completely insane. So what is the extra benefits package for these cops going door to door? Other than a higher percentage of dying on duty? All I gotta say is I hope they got a good supply of body bags for their own. Word gets around fast and maybe the next neighbor will just shoot through the door. If they're going to take on the role of a jackboots, then they must face the consequences and move forward at their own peril.



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: IndyFront

So, you think that anyone who did know that, like myself, would think that if it's a Republican who ordered it, we'd be OK with it??


Uh, no. What on earth gave you that idea?



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: IndyFront

OK. If I misunderstood, my apologies.



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Ummm yeah no! The left are the big freedom control party. As I put on my mandatory helmet and put out my offensive cigarette. All brought to you by the leftist thugs. a reply to: subfab



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Read a history book, socialist? My point is clear, crazy controlling political hacksa reply to: hombero



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 11:38 PM
link   
So we already have the 1st victim of radical Liberal gun control laws and the Democrats haven't even introduced the new gun grab laws that they're already working on.



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: DoubleDNH

The reason for the police being there in the first place was not lawful. It may have been legal, but that doesn't make it right.

Things that have also been "legal" before:
Slavery
Keeping minorities and women from voting
Discriminating against LGBT people

Legal =/= Lawful

So yes, the victim would have lived longer had he not picked his gun back up, but is living under the thumb of a tyrant really living?

There is a reason previous bad laws similar to this haven't been heavily enforced: Most police officers are smart enough to realize that they are putting their lives at severe risk.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Those who trade freedom for safety deserve neither.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: DoubleDNH


I have no issue with someone answering their door at 5am with a gun in hand. I have an issue with him trying to grab said gun during the serving of a lawful directive.

Let me understand you.

He initially had no intention of resisting anything and I would say was willing to listen to and potentially assist the police, until the police told him they were there for his property. At that point he claimed his property. And that action, claiming property that is unlawfully being taken, is worthy of execution?

This was not on public property. This guy was not driving down the road, got stopped, and exited the car with a firearm. He did not commit a crime... no felony, no misdemeanor, no offense... was not charged with a crime at the time of the incident... was not under investigation for a crime at the time of the incident... and yet claiming his property was a death sentence.

Murder is not an automatic death sentence. Rape is not an automatic death sentence. Only possession of a firearm in one's home and refusal to surrender it without due process is an automatic death sentence. Am I understanding that correctly?

So... let's work this forward. What if I have cash on me, my personal property, and the police come to my door and demand it. If I refuse to give it up, shall I be shot? What if the police like my car and decide they want it. Can they come to my door and shoot me if I do not immediately surrender the keys? Both of those incidents are the police taking my personal property without due process (or even reasonable suspicion), the same as if they come to my home and demand I surrender a gun without due process.

We can go even farther... if the police come to my door and demand my home, can I be shot for refusal to sign the deed? Where does this end?

You can say those examples are strawmen, but I don't see it that way. The guns I own are my property, just as my money, my car, my home. They belong to me. I paid for them. They are mine. They cannot be lawfully taken away from me even if the police or the politicians think they should be able to do so. That is the definition of unlawful, and makes zero distinction between the actions of the Blood, the Crips, or the cops.

Just the colors worn.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
41
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join