gc70
Member
Wow, I'm being ignored! Actually, I had thought Joab was already ignoring me in his blind and unbending defense of the cops.
Jacksonville, Fla Man killed by LEOs in yard.
- Thread starter Blackfork
- Start date
- Status
K3
Member
joab said:
Try reading my post again and you'll see that I didn't say shoot. You said it. IOW... strawman.
Also there is a big difference between drug dealers out in front of your house and headlights glaring into your windows. I trust you can make the distinction.
I stand by what I posted earlier.
Deanimator
Member
You do in New York City, or at least you did when Rudy Giuliani was mayor.
You might want to look up the name "Patrick Dorismond".
joab
Member
I'm sorry K3 I assumed that by armed you meant with a gun and that if you chose to confront "hooligans" with a gun you would be willing to use it.
Shows what you know. The kid was busted not long ago, and guess where he was dealing how his customers arrived and where they parked.
You definitely do if what provokes them is not a crime and their reaction to that provocation is
"An individual approached from between two houses brandishing a handgun. The officers gave several commands to drop the gun, he did not, so they exchanged gunfire," says Chief Dwain Senterfitt.
Witnesses told First Coast News it appeared the man mistook the officers for drug dealers and was trying to scare them away.
"The man came out three times and said move out of my yard. So after the third time he came out with a 357 and started shooting at the individuals," said a witness who did not want to be identified."
no where is this legal in florida IMO the man came out tried to be a bad ass brandishing a firearm and got shot by undercover police officers.
the law clearly states you can use deadly force if a person ENTERS your personal residence, dwelling or vehicle.
Witnesses told First Coast News it appeared the man mistook the officers for drug dealers and was trying to scare them away.
"The man came out three times and said move out of my yard. So after the third time he came out with a 357 and started shooting at the individuals," said a witness who did not want to be identified."
no where is this legal in florida IMO the man came out tried to be a bad ass brandishing a firearm and got shot by undercover police officers.
the law clearly states you can use deadly force if a person ENTERS your personal residence, dwelling or vehicle.
K3
Member
joab said:
If need be, yes, but I did not mean just go out and start slinging lead, which is what you implied. I suspect walking out in your yard with a rifle at port arms would be sufficient to shoo away the vast majority of thugs. The problem is this wussified world we live in that would throw a man in the pokey for that. As for the thugs who wouldn't be shooed away... well, that's why you keep it loaded.
joab said:
Shows what I know? ***? You didn't mention anything about that in the post I quoted. Nada. Zilch. You said:
"When my neighbors have parties their guests park all over the lawn in front of my house with their headlights glaring into my windows, should I be able to shoot them off this city ROW?"
Did that mention anything about dealing?
bogie
Member
If they're in the St. Louis/North County area, they're supplementing their incomes.
K3
Member
The thing is, nobody can say for sure who shot first, at least not on this forum.
Assuming that he didn't just walk out blasting, the man should be allowed to 'brandish' (wooo, scary) and run off the local dealer. If the dealer then gets belligerent and makes a move, presto, no more dealer. Unfortunately, the laws are written in such a way that citizen is the perp, and the criminal is the victim. There's a growing trend for you.
As for the dealers being undercover narcs... There employment is irrelevant IMO. I seriously doubt he knew they were cops at the time.
Assuming that he didn't just walk out blasting, the man should be allowed to 'brandish' (wooo, scary) and run off the local dealer. If the dealer then gets belligerent and makes a move, presto, no more dealer. Unfortunately, the laws are written in such a way that citizen is the perp, and the criminal is the victim. There's a growing trend for you.
As for the dealers being undercover narcs... There employment is irrelevant IMO. I seriously doubt he knew they were cops at the time.
K31 the law is cut and dry you can walk out in your yard brandishing here in Florida, you can open carry all day long in your yard as you see fit. but as soon as you go pointing that firearm at someone *EVEN if for intent of not using it. it is concedered aggravated assault.
gc70
Member
Multiple opportunities to defuse this situation were missed by all parties:
The man did not have to approach the suspected drug dealers.
OR
The police could have moved on or identified themselves when the man approached them multiple times.
The man could have called the police to report the suspected drug dealers.
OR
He might have called the police and got no response.
The man did not have to choose an armed confrontation with the suspected drug dealers.
OR
The police could have surrendered and identified themselves when the man appeared with a gun.
OR
The police could have moved on or identified themselves when the man approached them multiple times.
The man could have called the police to report the suspected drug dealers.
OR
He might have called the police and got no response.
The man did not have to choose an armed confrontation with the suspected drug dealers.
OR
The police could have surrendered and identified themselves when the man appeared with a gun.
K3
Member
xd45gaper:
I used the wrong term, but you know what I meant. IMO, leveling the barrel at a pimp or drug dealer to shoo him away should NOT be a crime.
I used the wrong term, but you know what I meant. IMO, leveling the barrel at a pimp or drug dealer to shoo him away should NOT be a crime.
joab
Member
That's right, because it has no relevance.
The people against the actions of the officers are basing there opposition on the fact that they were near his property line. and the mere fact that they are LEOs.( If you notice none of my comments in defense of their actions has to do with their job, but their right to respond to a deadly threat the opposition , in general,can not even try to make that claim without lying)The basis for my complaint parking at my house is just as relevant.
Either way neither activity warrants a deadly force response.
And in Florida if he had come out to shoo them away with the gun tucked in his belt he would have been legal and probably alive.
How do I know this
Because occasionally those neighbors would sit on my fence which put their butts over my property line.
I have had that discussion with them and later on that day, about fifteen minutes or so, with the local LEO.
i agree but the law doesnt see it this way. they are still humans even though low forms of them and have the same basic rights as everybody else out there. just as it is illegale to blast someone in the back right after they robbed you.
(edit excuse my spelling lol im a HORRIBLE speller if you have not noticed
)
(edit excuse my spelling lol im a HORRIBLE speller if you have not noticed
)K3
Member
joab:
If it was irrelevant, then why did you bring it up in a subsequent post?
I know what the law SAYS. My point is that the law is BS, and that it is further evidence of the zero-tolerance, wimpy, legalistic world we live in.
Argh. Nevermind. :banghead:
If it was irrelevant, then why did you bring it up in a subsequent post?
I know what the law SAYS. My point is that the law is BS, and that it is further evidence of the zero-tolerance, wimpy, legalistic world we live in.
Argh. Nevermind. :banghead:
K3
Member
xd45gaper:
I'd agree with you on shooting a man in the back. I'd never consider it.
I'd agree with you on shooting a man in the back. I'd never consider it.
Stretchman
member
In Florida, planning a crime can be considered conspiracy. If you get together with someone and begin to plan out, a homicide, or something similar, you can be arrested, simply on the grounds that you were not just thinking about it, but were actually beginning to act in a a manner which could be considered to be serious
When UC cops sell drugs, they too are in the planning stages of a crime, just lkike when they pose as hit men, dope users, and they conspire to commit. The difference for Police is that there is no actual intent to shift from Mens Rea to Actus Reus. Ordinary citizens have no protection against this, and are not authorized to investigate crime, including Private Detectives, etc. As an ordinary citizen, you can be arrested for helping or planning a criminal act. And as an ordinary citrizen, you have no lawful right to detain or arrest if you should involve yourself in a crime.
That being said, the officers were working, posing as drug dealers. The man in question, who pulled a weapon, was committing a crime regardless of how it is viewed by the general citizenry. Does he have a right to pull and fire a weapon at Police? No. Does he have the right to pull and fire a weapon at drug dealers? Juvenile delinquents? Prostitutes? No.
Does he have a right to pull a weapon without intent to fire? Brandishing is a crime as well. Would he have been remiss to simply stand there without pulling the weapon, until the persons in question left his property? Even if he had it illegally, there would have been no reason for him to produce unless his life was threatened. And there would have been no reason for cops, UC or not, to fire on him.
So, regardless of what you would like to think happened here, he exceeded his rights as a civilian, and tried to force the people in question to acquiesce to his demands. That makes it a crime. Using a firearm makes it a felony. This would hold up regardless of whether they were cops or drug dealers. Difference being that if they were drug dealers, and in the commission of a felony, they too would be in jail for what they did. But they were cops, and had no intention of selling drugs on his property, or shooting him without justification.
You also have to look at something else. The police at that time had no idea of why he was running them off. It may very well have been because they were police, and not drug dealers, and he was watching them do their job and got upset. We have no way of knowing, and neither do the police. Once he pulled or produced a weapon, he was guilty of a crime, and the police had justification for arrest. If his weapon was fired, regardless of the situation, then the police were justified.
I know it may not look or sound right, but the law is written that way to protect everyone, including the drug dealers, from vigilante violence by so called concerned citizens. Let the cops do their jobs. Stay within your legal rights. You should be ok.
Strtetch
Quit cigs 4W 12h 3m ago. So far saved $171.01, 1,140 cigs not smoked and counting ...
When UC cops sell drugs, they too are in the planning stages of a crime, just lkike when they pose as hit men, dope users, and they conspire to commit. The difference for Police is that there is no actual intent to shift from Mens Rea to Actus Reus. Ordinary citizens have no protection against this, and are not authorized to investigate crime, including Private Detectives, etc. As an ordinary citizen, you can be arrested for helping or planning a criminal act. And as an ordinary citrizen, you have no lawful right to detain or arrest if you should involve yourself in a crime.
That being said, the officers were working, posing as drug dealers. The man in question, who pulled a weapon, was committing a crime regardless of how it is viewed by the general citizenry. Does he have a right to pull and fire a weapon at Police? No. Does he have the right to pull and fire a weapon at drug dealers? Juvenile delinquents? Prostitutes? No.
Does he have a right to pull a weapon without intent to fire? Brandishing is a crime as well. Would he have been remiss to simply stand there without pulling the weapon, until the persons in question left his property? Even if he had it illegally, there would have been no reason for him to produce unless his life was threatened. And there would have been no reason for cops, UC or not, to fire on him.
So, regardless of what you would like to think happened here, he exceeded his rights as a civilian, and tried to force the people in question to acquiesce to his demands. That makes it a crime. Using a firearm makes it a felony. This would hold up regardless of whether they were cops or drug dealers. Difference being that if they were drug dealers, and in the commission of a felony, they too would be in jail for what they did. But they were cops, and had no intention of selling drugs on his property, or shooting him without justification.
You also have to look at something else. The police at that time had no idea of why he was running them off. It may very well have been because they were police, and not drug dealers, and he was watching them do their job and got upset. We have no way of knowing, and neither do the police. Once he pulled or produced a weapon, he was guilty of a crime, and the police had justification for arrest. If his weapon was fired, regardless of the situation, then the police were justified.
I know it may not look or sound right, but the law is written that way to protect everyone, including the drug dealers, from vigilante violence by so called concerned citizens. Let the cops do their jobs. Stay within your legal rights. You should be ok.
Strtetch
Quit cigs 4W 12h 3m ago. So far saved $171.01, 1,140 cigs not smoked and counting ...
joab
Member
I didn't want to be the only not going off on diversionary twisting expedition's
Lighten up it was just a long way to go for a bad joke set up. You were just the most convenient
As far as your new law, it still hinges on the fact that we don't know for a fact whether the cops were on his property or not as far as this thread goes.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
You Ain't Pushin' Us Around
And evidently didn't care.
In my (admittedly polite) world, if I'm standing outside someone's house and he tells me to leave, then I be movin' on. Don't really matter why he don't want me outside his house. I don't buy trouble where I don't need it.
I'd have to be a committed jackass to do otherwise.
And evidently didn't care.
In my (admittedly polite) world, if I'm standing outside someone's house and he tells me to leave, then I be movin' on. Don't really matter why he don't want me outside his house. I don't buy trouble where I don't need it.
I'd have to be a committed jackass to do otherwise.
K3
Member
joab said:
Too dang cold to lighten up.
My 'new law' is probably an old law that got phased out due to wimpiness and sensitivity.
You are right, we don't know where the cops were. Nor do we know who fired first. We don't know for sure whether he knew they were undercover cops or not. That's the lovely thing about news articles, very few of the relevant facts are known to the reader.
In the end, all anybody is doing here is speculating.
K3
Member
BTW, is there no 'Quote' function? I know VBulletin has one, as it is on a wargaming forum I visit. In fact it has a 'Quote multiple posts' function. Typing [quote....] gets a bit tedious.
Deanimator
Member
Are you sure?
Hypothetical:
You're in the mall CCW.
A guy pulls out a Czech Skorpion machinepistol, screams "Allahu akhbar!" and begins shooting everyone around him.
Would you NOT shoot him if he had his back to you?
I think somebody in a movie once said, "You shot that man in the back!"
The reply came, "He had his back TO me."
While most gun related discourse in films is assine, I think this exchange is eminently sensible.
Does a mass murderer have an inviolable 180deg. shield behind him?
TCB in TN
Member
Lets forget the entire bit about the shooting part. Just take the fact that 2 undercover police officers who were posing as drug dealers (so forget all the crap about how the old man was bothering folks who were minding their own business, or how he was power tripping etc. THEY WERE DEALING DRUGS!) right in front of his house. By their own admission they had already stung 5 people there that day. So the old man could have seen them sell drugs to at least 5 people. He tried to get them to leave. They would not! As LEO they escalated the situation by refusing to leave when they were confronted for "DEALING DRUGS", not loitering, not distrubing the peace, but for "DEALING DRUGS". Which for anyone other than the UC LEOs is supposed to be a felony, and an act that frequently involves violence and has a number of negative outcomes involved.
Fact is that you and I are involved in any act that appears to be a felony and are shot by LEO, even if it is not actually a felony. He gets a free pass. Most everone here on THR condems us for being dufuses and getting ourselves shot. Because WE put the situation in place, and caused the escalation. In this case 2 UC LEOs happen to cause the situation, and results in an escalation that takes a mans life, and many of you say that HE was at fault, and THEY should be given a pass! They could have easily de-escalated the situation in a number of different ways. At any time before, during, between, or after this man's first two times coming out and asking them to leave. They also could conceivably have broken contact, identified themselves, or surrendered when he came out the third time. Rather than any of those options they chose to stay and play the part of the BA drug dealer to egg on what appears to have been a solid, Law Abiding, former Vet who appears to have only wanted to have the "DRUG DEALERs" leave!
Legal/illegal, whatever. From what we know, they should have known better, and they should be held responsible for their actions!
Fact is that you and I are involved in any act that appears to be a felony and are shot by LEO, even if it is not actually a felony. He gets a free pass. Most everone here on THR condems us for being dufuses and getting ourselves shot. Because WE put the situation in place, and caused the escalation. In this case 2 UC LEOs happen to cause the situation, and results in an escalation that takes a mans life, and many of you say that HE was at fault, and THEY should be given a pass! They could have easily de-escalated the situation in a number of different ways. At any time before, during, between, or after this man's first two times coming out and asking them to leave. They also could conceivably have broken contact, identified themselves, or surrendered when he came out the third time. Rather than any of those options they chose to stay and play the part of the BA drug dealer to egg on what appears to have been a solid, Law Abiding, former Vet who appears to have only wanted to have the "DRUG DEALERs" leave!
Legal/illegal, whatever. From what we know, they should have known better, and they should be held responsible for their actions!
- Status