Intune
Member
Joab-
Are you TRYING to get this thread closed? Sheesh.
Jacksonville, Fla Man killed by LEOs in yard.
- Thread starter Blackfork
- Start date
- Status
offthepaper
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,446
Me thinks some posters here spent a lot of their High School years trying to outsmart the Principle. 
joab
Member
Do you have a comment pertinent to the discussion? Sheesh
Intune
Member
Yeah, make one of your patented "inductive leaps" and stay on the HighRoad so the thread doesn't get closed. That would be pertinent to the discussion continuing, eh? 
Unless you're conducting an internet sting and I'm interfering in a police matter. In that case, officer, I'll pack up my house and computer & move along. I'm allergic to bullets...
joab-
Unless you're conducting an internet sting and I'm interfering in a police matter. In that case, officer, I'll pack up my house and computer & move along. I'm allergic to bullets... joab-
Really? You sure have a dour method of articulating it.
TCB in TN
Member
That is irrelavant to the discussion being held. The only issue here is were they on his property. The pertinent FL statutes have been posted that explain the he had the right to display a firearm to get those individuals to leave his property "EVEN" if all they were doing was tresspassing. Force, even the threat of deadly force (which is still just force) are certainly justified under the previously stated FL statutes. The only question now is were they on his property, and did her fire before or after they did.
I don't think anyone said they were to lazy, just to arogant, macho, disrespectful etc.
All anyone has said is that he has run off other "Drug Dealers" now perhaps some of them were UC police, and if they were then they knew enough to move on when he asked them to. If your assumption is correct that they did work his yard before, and knew that he would try to run them off and then "DID NOT" leave then I would hope they really are charged and convicted of murder.
Sounds to me like you are! LOL!
Plenty of us do that regularly though!Nicely thought out opinion, but irelavant as the stand your ground law has nothing to do with this conversation. As the statutes that are relavant have been posted on multiple occasions!
The cops had even more opportunites to respond intelligently, and rather than fullfilling their duty to protect and serve, they decide to poke and prod, and provoke, and escalate until a situation occurs where they end up shooting an old man in his own yard!
Strawman – no one has said anything so absurd.
What HAS been suggested is that the cops’ actions in dealing with Mr. Singletary created a dangerous situation unnecessarily.
He had? Can you cite me the post please? I must have missed it.
How do you know that is not what actually happened? It actually fits what we know better than the other scenarios being considered. Thank you for the idea.
Citizen’s arrest?
Last edited:
joab
Member
That comment was also a direct response to a direct question by another poster. I suggest you read all the comment pertinent to that comment before you make your comment
I'll take it that you didn't read all the posts here before chiming in
No the links provided by another poster in this thread validate the claims that I am making.
I haven't seen any. I have seen some posted that state that the use of deadly force is not warranted against simple trespassing. And if you look just a little, as I have been trying in vain to get some others to do, you will find that making threats while in the possession of a firearm is a mandatory three year felony in Fla called aggravated assault And since the SYG law is being held as the go to statute here it is hardly irrelevant
BINGO I knew it would come soon. Why do you not see that Pops escalated the situation when other more viable and intelligent course could have been followed. And Protect and Serve is a marketing slogan it has no basis in law, you can look that up.
I suggest that you also reread the thread. The accusation of murder was specifically made here
As stated the links to that info were posted here by another poster, I can not assume responsibility for you not taking the time to read them
Gonna make another inductive leap, huh?
OK show me the statute that allows you to use deadly force or the threat of deadly force to execute a citizens arrest
for a non violent, non forcible, non felony.
Did you read that link about aggravated battery
If he had no right to use deadly force then he had no right to use the threat of deadly force and holding a gun while making that threat constitutes aggravated battery, unless you can prove otherwise
I do see it. Why can’t you see that the cops did the same?
If you can’t cite it, don’t refer to it.
(I bet you missed the post showing that joab is a paid shill for the Jacksonville police, didn’t you.)
That’s all any of us are doing, you included. Are you claiming a monopoly?
TCB in TN
Member
[/QUOTE]
If you are going to ask others to post links to support claims they are making then it would be prudent to do so as well.
Here are the relavent statutes, as posted yesterday.
Might want to take your own advice and read the thread.
If things transpired as the majority of the clips posted state they did, then the 2 UC LEOs should be in major trouble. They had planty of opportunities to stand down, and de-escalate the situation.
Bingo is right, the police here certainly were not concerned with serving their community. They obviously had the attitude that the public is there for their benefit rather than the other way around. Protect and Serve may just be a marketing slogan, and you are correct I know the legal standard you base the comment of, but that is the attitude that has locally gotten rid of several Sherrifs, and many of the local officers who behaved and believed that way. If it is prevalent there in Jacksonville, as it seems to be, then I would hope that they would be voted out of office there as well. Because the only power bestowed upon the Gov. is that given by the people. Hope those folks down there get a chance to put that into practice.
In retrospect the old man could have done some things differently and things might have turned out better, but anyone who believes the LEO in question bare no responsiblity for his death, are wearing some major blinders.
BigFatKen
Member
I think its just another example of Every Knee Shall Bend.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
joab
Member
I think a trip to the dictionary is in order. Citing known facts and basing my opinion on those known facts or at least items stated as fact is hardly an inductive leap.
xd45gaper took the time to post it, I took the time to read it so I guess I could counter with
"if you're not going to bother to fully participate in the discussion don't bother posting"
But I'll be all HighRoady here for a second
Brooks says this wasn't the first time an undercover drug sting happened in front of the house, but it was a first for a loss like this to occur.
The cops did not commit the violent criminal act
If you are too lazy to turn on the light then sit therein the dark. The link was provided earlier by another poster. Participating in a discussion should entail actually following it.
What was it I was called earlier? Obtuse?
Did you notice that your source clearly states EXCEPT DEADLY FORCE?.
If you are not allowed to use deadly force in what way do you suppose that you can use the imminent threat of deadly force.
Issuing threats while in possession of a firearm is aggravated battery, a forcible felony which can be met with deadly force. Pops illegally used either deadly force or the threat of deadly force while in possession of a firearm, nobody disputes that. That is a felony in Florida
You base that prejudice on one incident that we do not even know the facts of and that has not even been thoroughly investigated yet?
You base this on a few statements by emotionally involved witnesses that may or may not have even been there?.
responsibility no. They did not out the gun in his hand or the violent behavior in his nature.
Sure hind sight is 20/20 but I would not place the blame for this man's exercising his free will on the cops.
He could have simply called the police, the group bore no direct threat to him they were simply pissing on his tree and his verifiable territorial nature kicked in.
After the incident escalated he could have dropped his gun when they IDed themselves as he had ample reason based on history to believe that they were cops or at least to give benefit of doubt to that possibility.
joab
Member
This thread is going round and round and, based on some of the recent comments, is starting to draw flies
I'm getting bored repeating myself to people who have already made up their minds as soon as it was determined that cops were involved that they were the villains and people who can't be bothered with actually reading the thread before trying to participate in it.
As I am thoroughly bored with all of this and the only thing less productive than preaching to the choir is preaching to atheist I gonna bow out.
After actually reading the comments posted and/or letting go of your prejudice and juvenile accusations of shilling for the police , if you can present any argument that mitigates the aggravated battery Pops committed, and don't be stupid and try that law that clearly states that deadly force is not an option for simple trespasser,. feel free to PM me and I'll come back to address it or exchange in PM
If deadly force is not an option then the threat of imminent deadly force is not an option and is in fact aggravated battery a forcible felony which falls within the scope of the response of deadly force or threat of deadly force
Pops committed aggravated battery and the group responded to that forcible felony with deadly force
That is my argument in a nutshell
I'm getting bored repeating myself to people who have already made up their minds as soon as it was determined that cops were involved that they were the villains and people who can't be bothered with actually reading the thread before trying to participate in it.
As I am thoroughly bored with all of this and the only thing less productive than preaching to the choir is preaching to atheist I gonna bow out.
After actually reading the comments posted and/or letting go of your prejudice and juvenile accusations of shilling for the police , if you can present any argument that mitigates the aggravated battery Pops committed, and don't be stupid and try that law that clearly states that deadly force is not an option for simple trespasser,. feel free to PM me and I'll come back to address it or exchange in PM
If deadly force is not an option then the threat of imminent deadly force is not an option and is in fact aggravated battery a forcible felony which falls within the scope of the response of deadly force or threat of deadly force
Pops committed aggravated battery and the group responded to that forcible felony with deadly force
That is my argument in a nutshell
Spreadfire Arms
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,312
woodcdi wrote:
im not sure about Florida law, but in Texas that is clearly aggravated assault if you point the gun at someone without justification. pointing a gun at someone in Texas without a self defense justification will land you in jail since there is a difference between terroristic threat and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
insiduous calm wrote:
i think we all know the difference, and i realize that is what you've been saying. i think there is a difference between (1) making a threat of deadly force without brandishing a firearm and (2) making a threat of deadly force while brandishing a firearm. if you are doing (1) and your gun is concealed from plain view you're probably legal. if you are doing (2) then you raise the issue of self-defense by the person you are addressing. that is the problem.
that's another problem. affirmative defense only applies in some place like a court of law. it unfortunately doesn't help you if you get shot and killed, right?
another major issue here, do we know for a FACT that they were indeed trespassing? all ASSUMPTIONS have been that they had, but no hard facts, right? please provide some sort of proof that they were indeed trespassing.
i think the fact that he returned without calling 911 and took matters into his own hands is the relevant issue. can you justify why he did not call the police?
glummer wrote:
and if the opponent is carrying a gun, then you've just escalated the situation into a deadly force situation by introducing a gun into the mix. of course having a gun in hand is a great advantage. unfortunately that can work against you (action vs. reaction) because if the other party is armed he can use that as justification to fire upon you first. the advantage can be a disadvantage too.
not really. we have to have some sort of established standards of when deadly force, or the threat of deadly force when a weapon is brandished, is applied. otherwise, if we had no set rules of engagement then people could just walk around pulling guns every time they disagreed with someone. Florida is a "shall issue" state with numerous CCW holders. if there were no set rules of engagement there would be alot of CCW holders shooting other CCW holders. everyone who carries a gun and is law-abiding needs to understand when they can and cannot introduce deadly force (or the threat of deadly force with a gun in hand).
that is only speculation. we don't know if he was trying to perform a citizens arrest any more than if we know that else he was saying to them.
besides, in Florida there is no citizen arrest law, but you can detain someone for a felony or for a breach of the peace.
so you can detain them, but you have to detain them for the police. the problem is......he never called the police. so that blows the citizen arrest theory out of the water...doesn't it?
im not sure about Florida law, but in Texas that is clearly aggravated assault if you point the gun at someone without justification. pointing a gun at someone in Texas without a self defense justification will land you in jail since there is a difference between terroristic threat and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
insiduous calm wrote:
i think we all know the difference, and i realize that is what you've been saying. i think there is a difference between (1) making a threat of deadly force without brandishing a firearm and (2) making a threat of deadly force while brandishing a firearm. if you are doing (1) and your gun is concealed from plain view you're probably legal. if you are doing (2) then you raise the issue of self-defense by the person you are addressing. that is the problem.
that's another problem. affirmative defense only applies in some place like a court of law. it unfortunately doesn't help you if you get shot and killed, right?
another major issue here, do we know for a FACT that they were indeed trespassing? all ASSUMPTIONS have been that they had, but no hard facts, right? please provide some sort of proof that they were indeed trespassing.
i think the fact that he returned without calling 911 and took matters into his own hands is the relevant issue. can you justify why he did not call the police?
glummer wrote:
and if the opponent is carrying a gun, then you've just escalated the situation into a deadly force situation by introducing a gun into the mix. of course having a gun in hand is a great advantage. unfortunately that can work against you (action vs. reaction) because if the other party is armed he can use that as justification to fire upon you first. the advantage can be a disadvantage too.
not really. we have to have some sort of established standards of when deadly force, or the threat of deadly force when a weapon is brandished, is applied. otherwise, if we had no set rules of engagement then people could just walk around pulling guns every time they disagreed with someone. Florida is a "shall issue" state with numerous CCW holders. if there were no set rules of engagement there would be alot of CCW holders shooting other CCW holders. everyone who carries a gun and is law-abiding needs to understand when they can and cannot introduce deadly force (or the threat of deadly force with a gun in hand).
that is only speculation. we don't know if he was trying to perform a citizens arrest any more than if we know that else he was saying to them.
besides, in Florida there is no citizen arrest law, but you can detain someone for a felony or for a breach of the peace.
so you can detain them, but you have to detain them for the police. the problem is......he never called the police. so that blows the citizen arrest theory out of the water...doesn't it?
TCB in TN
Member
.
This was posted about DEADLY force. Look at the definition very carefully,
Deadly force means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm, then it specificly talks about FIRING a weapon. Now I agree that we familiar with firearms are taught as one of the first safety rule to never point a loaded weapon at anyone or anything that we do not want to destroy, but as a matter of law, as pointed out above, pointing a weapon at someone in and of it's self is not likely to cause death or great bodily harm, and while it is certainly a step along the force continuim, it does not meet the level of deadly force according to the FL statute. And as mentioned before, since using a level of force less than the level of deadly force to remove those who are doing nothing more than trespassing is legal, then as long as the UC officers were on his property then he was legally within his rights to ask/demand that they leave, even if he pointed his weapon at them.
The only question now legally, is were they actually on his property or not, and then even if they were not, who pointed their weapon 1st. If they were on his property then he was within his legal rights ether way. Were they on the street and 1st pointed their weapons at him even if he did have his weapon out, with him on his own property, then they would still be legally responsible. If they are on the street and he pointed his weapon first then he broke the law at that point.
But in the grand sceme of things, and regardless of the legal rigamarole, they still had an opportunity to retreat, or take other steps to de-escalate the situation before it ever came down to a shoot out.
Spin it however you want to but both morally, and from a common sense stand point they should have done so!
Spreadfire Arms
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,312
TCB in TN wrote:
not really. just because someone is standing on their own property does not give them the legal authority to be brandishing a firearm and telling them to leave, even though you are not committing any crime (no trespass since you are on public property, i.e. the sidewalk).
in the absence of the trespass, like you state, there is no crime, and thus no justification to use any force, including the threat of deadly force. the officers would be 100% justified in pointing their guns at the man and ordering him to drop his gun and depending on the circumstances, using deadly force to defend themselves.
the common sense thing to do when you have trespassers, after they have declined verbal orders to leave, is to call 911 and wait a reasonable amount of time for the police to respond, not to go out there and confront them with a gun in your hand and escalate the situation.
what is the reasonable man's standard in introducing deadly force into a nonviolent misdemanor?
also look at the section you pointed out which states:
paired with your quote:
"Deadly force means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm, then it specificly talks about FIRING a weapon."
the term "but is not limited to" shows that these are not the only two examples of deadly force. that means other definitions may fit the definition of deadly force, correct?
again i go back to the example of two sets of citizens out in public. Citizen 1 says to Citizen 2 that he needs to vacate the premises. Citizen 2 is in a public place. Citizen 1 is standing on his own property which borders the public place. Citizen 2 has no legal obligation to leave and declines to engage Citizen 1 in further discussion about it.
instead of doing the prudent thing, Citizen 1 leaves and returns with a gun in plain view and threatens to use deadly force upon Citizen 2.
Citizen 2 happens to be a CCW holder armed with a pistol. Citizen 2 perceives this is an immediate deadly force threat and takes his gun out and shoots Citizen 1.
i don't see Citizen 2 as being guilty of anything?
not really. just because someone is standing on their own property does not give them the legal authority to be brandishing a firearm and telling them to leave, even though you are not committing any crime (no trespass since you are on public property, i.e. the sidewalk).
in the absence of the trespass, like you state, there is no crime, and thus no justification to use any force, including the threat of deadly force. the officers would be 100% justified in pointing their guns at the man and ordering him to drop his gun and depending on the circumstances, using deadly force to defend themselves.
the common sense thing to do when you have trespassers, after they have declined verbal orders to leave, is to call 911 and wait a reasonable amount of time for the police to respond, not to go out there and confront them with a gun in your hand and escalate the situation.
what is the reasonable man's standard in introducing deadly force into a nonviolent misdemanor?
also look at the section you pointed out which states:
paired with your quote:
"Deadly force means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm, then it specificly talks about FIRING a weapon."
the term "but is not limited to" shows that these are not the only two examples of deadly force. that means other definitions may fit the definition of deadly force, correct?
again i go back to the example of two sets of citizens out in public. Citizen 1 says to Citizen 2 that he needs to vacate the premises. Citizen 2 is in a public place. Citizen 1 is standing on his own property which borders the public place. Citizen 2 has no legal obligation to leave and declines to engage Citizen 1 in further discussion about it.
instead of doing the prudent thing, Citizen 1 leaves and returns with a gun in plain view and threatens to use deadly force upon Citizen 2.
Citizen 2 happens to be a CCW holder armed with a pistol. Citizen 2 perceives this is an immediate deadly force threat and takes his gun out and shoots Citizen 1.
i don't see Citizen 2 as being guilty of anything?
Intune
Member
Joab- You quoted;
Are you being obtuse or disingenuous when you leave out the very next line of the article which supports others’ contention?
Sure doesn’t appear that this citizen had any problem with police helping his neighborhood.
Intune
Member
Spreadfire Arms-
From the same article, not to derail the thread-
True. This incident should be a lesson on what NOT to do. Even if the man had the right/was right in intervening there are sometimes better ways to resolve the situation short of introducing firearms, thus escalation. BOTH sides screwed up royally to make for a FUBAR situation.
From the same article, not to derail the thread-
Oops!
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony;
Here would be a classic example:
John Doe is committing armed robbery of a gas station. During this crime, a lawful citizen Mark Smith pulls his firearm. John Doe can not shoot Mark Smith, and claim self-defense under the statutes.
The ideal resolution, of course, is that John Doe doesn't see Mark Smith draw his gun, and Mark Smith proceeds to put 3 closely spaced bullets COM in Mr Doe.
insidious_calm
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Messages
- 337
Spreadfire,
and
It seems we agree on more than you think. The thing is that in this case we DO HAVE an established set of standards codified in the florida law. This specific case deals with the use of force to terminate an unlawful tresspass. What would occur between two people CCWing on the street is wholly irrelevant. The law explicitly gave him the right to use force.
I see that you are struggling with, and Joab absolutely is ignorant of, the fact that brandishing a firearm amounts to force and only force, not deadly force. The law explicitly deals with the definition of what deadly force is. Yes it does include the catch all "but is not limited to", but it is not appropriate to apply it in this situation. Someone driving a car at you is deadly force. Someone swinging a golf club at you is deadly force. Those are appropriate uses of "but is not limited to". The florida legislature specifically addresses firearms in the statue. I must assume they meant exactly what they said.
Noone is making the case that people can go around pointing guns at people with impunity. What is being said is that it was explicitly allowed by law in this case. The law allows me to "meet force with force" and draw a firearm and point it at you for approaching me aggressively with a tire iron in your hand. Likewise, it allows one to approach tresspassers with gun in hand and demand that they vacate your property immediately. You seem to disagree that that is appropriate. Our personal feelings aside the florida legislature has said that it is legal.
The issue of whether the officers had "a right to self defense" is only relevant when addressed withing the context of the tresspassing issue. IF they were in fact tresspassing then they had no legal right to produce their own weapons and stand their ground. That is why I stated the only relevant question at this point is were they in fact on his property?
I.C.
and
It seems we agree on more than you think. The thing is that in this case we DO HAVE an established set of standards codified in the florida law. This specific case deals with the use of force to terminate an unlawful tresspass. What would occur between two people CCWing on the street is wholly irrelevant. The law explicitly gave him the right to use force.
I see that you are struggling with, and Joab absolutely is ignorant of, the fact that brandishing a firearm amounts to force and only force, not deadly force. The law explicitly deals with the definition of what deadly force is. Yes it does include the catch all "but is not limited to", but it is not appropriate to apply it in this situation. Someone driving a car at you is deadly force. Someone swinging a golf club at you is deadly force. Those are appropriate uses of "but is not limited to". The florida legislature specifically addresses firearms in the statue. I must assume they meant exactly what they said.
Noone is making the case that people can go around pointing guns at people with impunity. What is being said is that it was explicitly allowed by law in this case. The law allows me to "meet force with force" and draw a firearm and point it at you for approaching me aggressively with a tire iron in your hand. Likewise, it allows one to approach tresspassers with gun in hand and demand that they vacate your property immediately. You seem to disagree that that is appropriate. Our personal feelings aside the florida legislature has said that it is legal.
The issue of whether the officers had "a right to self defense" is only relevant when addressed withing the context of the tresspassing issue. IF they were in fact tresspassing then they had no legal right to produce their own weapons and stand their ground. That is why I stated the only relevant question at this point is were they in fact on his property?
I.C.
just herd on the news lastnight that they found gunpowder residue on MR. Woods' Gloves so they said they proved he had a gun (or fired one recently latley)
I give those witness about as much crediability as a dog turd. The news crew was live at his APT complex and all his neighbors where dancing and waiving behind the news caster trying to get attention and be on tv..
Off topic but this happed a few weeks ago, and of course the news media is blasting it all over the tv that UC JSO officers killed a child. the FREAKING GUY IS 18 he is a man that is responsible for his actions*
Here is another article about the shooting it doesnt say much about the details though just some insights on the UC work and the JSO in general in Jacksonville.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/10872921/detail.html
joab
Member
And the threat of deadly force while in possession of a firearm is called ag-gra-vate-ed bat-ter-ry. It is a forcible felony for which a proper and legal response is deadly force, Is there any simpler way that it can be put? This statute you people insist on posting spells out when deadly force can be used and simple trespassing just ain't on the list. If you do not have the right to use deadly force you do not have the right to threaten deadly force while possession of a firearm
And it has not been established that Pops did not come out firing as one witness, the only one I can think of that is actually placed at the scene, claims. Just as it has not been established that the police were actually on the old man's property
My point was that this had happened before.
Mr. Brooks who may or may not have even been at the scene, I don't think that that has even been alleged, is by his own admission "trying to make sense of the death of a close relative" his second hand take on the situation is not fact in any sense of the word.
I feel for him, but that doesn't mean I have to take his grief laden words as fact.
The quote you posted claims that he was cooperative with the cops when they IDed themselves in the past. If true why would he not cooperate when they IDed themselves this time, even if it was after he chose to commit a violent felony. Or maybe it is because it was after he chose to commit a violent felony.
And what exactly was the forcible felony that these drug dealer posers were committing at the time that would make this remotely pertinent to this case.?
Lets sit back and watch them try to twist that into murder or irresponsible police officer not caring about those children he is supposed to protect
Do you people even read the sources you quote
He had to know that there was a very good chance that these were cops since there was a history of cops using his street as a staging area.
Oh and looky here, looks like he had a habit of armed confrontations thanks XD
And it seems that according to these relatives, you only had to be near his ho,me to get his hackles up
nobody_special
member
Just one comment...
and...
It would probably take a lawyer to definitively resolve this, but my understanding is that a sidewalk which is on the lot is not public property. It is private property, but with an easement granted for the public right-of-way. (Joab, look up the definition of an easement... it is a grant of a specific right; but a public easement on property does not make it become public property.)
A right-of-way easement could (in principle) make a person on the sidewalk immune from trespassing or loitering statutes; however I rather doubt that is the case. A right of passage is all that is necessary, whereas a right of loitering is more broad and does not seem proper.
Insidious_calm, your latest post sums up my opinion on this perfectly... nicely stated. Everything hinges on whether or not the officers actually were trespassing on his property (which probably includes any sidewalk on his lot) and thus had a duty to retreat, and whether or not "Pops" used deadly force before the officers drew their guns.
We don't have any facts. However, the statements I read suggest that the police fired first and that they were in fact trespassing. But regardless of the facts, the police could (and should) have de-escalated the situation.
joab said:
and...
Spreadfire Arms said:
It would probably take a lawyer to definitively resolve this, but my understanding is that a sidewalk which is on the lot is not public property. It is private property, but with an easement granted for the public right-of-way. (Joab, look up the definition of an easement... it is a grant of a specific right; but a public easement on property does not make it become public property.)
A right-of-way easement could (in principle) make a person on the sidewalk immune from trespassing or loitering statutes; however I rather doubt that is the case. A right of passage is all that is necessary, whereas a right of loitering is more broad and does not seem proper.
Insidious_calm, your latest post sums up my opinion on this perfectly... nicely stated. Everything hinges on whether or not the officers actually were trespassing on his property (which probably includes any sidewalk on his lot) and thus had a duty to retreat, and whether or not "Pops" used deadly force before the officers drew their guns.
We don't have any facts. However, the statements I read suggest that the police fired first and that they were in fact trespassing. But regardless of the facts, the police could (and should) have de-escalated the situation.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
kill joy
all those pesky facts! you don't think reallity will derail their train of rant do you?
all those pesky facts! you don't think reallity will derail their train of rant do you?
Last edited:
pacodelahoya
Member
Hypothetical encounter
Home owner: Hey man, get the h*** out of here, I am sick and tired of you punks selling that s**** in my neighborhood.
Under cover police: Sir, we are undercover police, if we show you our ID at this time, we would blow our cover. Why don't you go inside and call our supervisor, Sgt Goodcop at 867-5309 and he can confirm our identity. Thanks and we appreciate your caring enough to question our activity.
Home owner: Oh... Ok then, I'll go make that call.
Cut to a happy ending where everyone got to go home alive.
Just saying
Home owner: Hey man, get the h*** out of here, I am sick and tired of you punks selling that s**** in my neighborhood.
Under cover police: Sir, we are undercover police, if we show you our ID at this time, we would blow our cover. Why don't you go inside and call our supervisor, Sgt Goodcop at 867-5309 and he can confirm our identity. Thanks and we appreciate your caring enough to question our activity.
Home owner: Oh... Ok then, I'll go make that call.
Cut to a happy ending where everyone got to go home alive.
Just saying
- Status