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

See im torn on this because i know there are people that shouldn't have access to firearms. But along those same lines i wouldn't allow the police to just cone in my home and take them either court order or not. These things used to be handled by the family. When you had that crazy relative the family took away the guns from them. Now tines has changed and the state is trying to take over that job.

I think the argument could be made here for a wrongful death lawsuit against the police. Sounds like they botched this every way possible. First you dont go to someone's house that early in the morning. Next what officer could not overpower a 60 year old man. Next if hes leaving it by the door sounds like a 12 guage. Meaning its not easy to grab and fire what was the officer doing to even allow him to grab it.

I think the biggest problem with this is it doesnt require anything to have happened to remove the firearms. All it requires is someone not liking the fact you have them. Do to family squabbles and even nosy neighbors this just sounds like a bad idea.

originally posted by: fightzone58
A-why was the cop overpowered by a 60 year old man. B- why wasnt the second cop helping with the struggle. this is more evidence that the world needs better cops rather than it needs gun control

Agreed.

a reply to: TheRedneck

His children removed his guns, as well as some of my father's old guns, from their house. But they didn't do it without protest; the old man fought tooth and nail to try and keep them. But it was necessary to protect him, my mother, and my family.

It should be families that step up and deal with this issue anyway.

Not the governments job to come take a gun from my crazy grandfather. It's my job.

a reply to: dragonridr

I think you meant to reply to me because of the below:

These things used to be handled by the family. When you had that crazy relative the family took away the guns from them. Now tines has changed and the state is trying to take over that job.

I just wanted to put out there that this situation was not something that happened way back when. It was less than 10 years ago... maybe less than 5 now that I think about it...

It's not a time difference; it is a regional difference.

TheRedneck

a reply to: scraedtosleep

It should be families that step up and deal with this issue anyway.

By George Lexington McAllister, I think you and dragonridr are on to something!

How about no confiscation can ever occur without the immediate family or next of kin being present and doing the confiscation, only backed by law enforcement in case there is an overt threat to life and to explain any rights to a review of the case that the target has? I can see exceptions in the case of those with no family, but that would be few and far between... and maybe established close friends in that case, if there are any? And the complainant must be present as well.

And special training in de-escalation practices as well for the police involved?

In that case, it would not be the state who is taking the guns. It would be the family. Family members are not limited by the 2nd Amendment... that applies to government.

I can only imagine the turmoil that would have happened in the anecdote I used had someone besides his children tried to do the deed. It would have been a shoot-out for sure; as it was he threatened (thankfully only threatened) to burn his children out.

Taking guns from people for their own safety, who have depended on them all their lives for their safety, is just not something that can be done willy-nilly. It's the most sensitive of situations and requires the most sensitive of solutions. Anything less is simply tyranny.

TheRedneck

All removing access to firearms for the common people does is consolidate those weapons (and by extension, militarization) into police forces.

a reply to: TheRedneck

More family involvement .
Less government intervention.


Would solve a lot of issues I think.

originally posted by: roadgravel
But when Uncle Joe start shooting out the windows and threatening the neighbors, who is going to have to shoot him to stop it. Family or police.

Is it no confiscation unless a law is broken? Demonstrate an actual problem or no one can take you guns?

First, randomly shooting out windows (in most places) and threatening anyone, neighbor or otherwise, is usually considered a crime.

But, to address your question: correct, no confiscation unless/until a law is broken or an actual problem is demonstrated warranting something so drastic as denying someone the exercise of their unalienable Rights.

Oh, and no-knock warrants should b abolished, and all warrants should be required by law to be served during the day, preferably intercepting the victim when they are leaving from or arriving to their abode. You know, using common sense to create a scenario least likely to end in violence, instead of banging on someone's door at 5am in the morning in order to create the kind of confusion that can easily escalate into someone getting murdered (this guy was murdered by the police, no two ways about it). In case you didn't know, a lot of police swat teams do this for just this very reason - to increase the chances of a violent encounter. The guys in these teams thrive on violence.

David Koresh could have easily been taken at almost any time, there was absolutely no reason for them all to have been murdered.

Why do you disagree with this?

originally posted by: soundguy
Let that be a warning to the cold dead hands gun fetishists out there. Seems they are willing to oblige. Don’t worry though, I’m sure you will fare so much better. Lol. a reply to: cynicalheathen

Wow. Just wow.

For someone who claims to want to take everyone's guns to save lives, you sure show a callous disregard for this mans life.

a reply to: tanstaafl

First, randomly shooting out windows (in most places) and threatening anyone, neighbor or otherwise, is usually considered a crime.

Your response might show the need to stop the person, just not who. I just wondered who believes a crime needs to occur first. Looks like your are a yes. It was a question, not a statement of my position.

As far as the second part, I didn't mention any of that but I tend to agree with your points.

originally posted by: roadgravel
From the source

She said one of her aunts requested the protective order to temporarily remove Willis’ guns.

Her word is all it took to deprive a man of his right.

Ahem... and more importantly, his life.

Any cop who even tries to enforce such an obviously unconstitutional law is in blatant violation of their oath of office, and in this case, a murderer. Why? Because a private citizen is within their right to resist, even with deadly force, an unlawul arrest.

Of course, I'm not naive enough to believe that anyone would be successful in any such claim, if they were lucky enough to survive the encounter.

originally posted by: Scifi2424
The family called the cops. What do they expect? You call the cops, expect bad things to happen. Its a bad law but the family that called the cops are worse than that. If they want to blame someone, they need to look in the mirror.

Agreed 100%...

a reply to: tanstaafl

Why? Because a private citizen is within their right to resist, even with deadly force, an unlawul arrest.

Of course, I'm not naive enough to believe that anyone would be successful in any such claim, if they were lucky enough to survive the encounter.

That is certainly a sad fact, isn't it. Too many don't believe errors and mistakes can be made.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: tanstaafl

Why? Because a private citizen is within their right to resist, even with deadly force, an unlawul arrest.

Of course, I'm not naive enough to believe that anyone would be successful in any such claim, if they were lucky enough to survive the encounter.

That is certainly a sad fact, isn't it. Too many don't believe errors and mistakes can be made.

Which is why, when it comes to law enforcement - because their "mistakes" can have grave consequences for the innocent - they should always err on the side of caution.

a reply to: tanstaafl

But, to address your question: correct, no confiscation unless/until a law is broken or an actual problem is demonstrated warranting something so drastic as denying someone the exercise of their unalienable Rights.

Exactly!

Laws punish law breakers after due process has been fully observed, not prevent crime/violence. And certainly not to deny a Citizen their sacred rights (including the sacred, written in stone, immutable, unalienable, ever-lasting second amendment) based on mere accusations or concerns alone... those are never, ever enough

Armed Citizens prevent crime/violence