Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Red Wind, Dec 11, 2015.
Hopefully, Governor Rick Scott will quickly intervene with this Sheriff.
There's someone who shouldn't be in uniform, with a badge .....
And heaven help the legally armed citizen if he happens to be black!
Once again we are seeing proposals for confiscation of some or all privately-owned firearms, and even for summary execution of all gun owners. Needless to say, the latter proposal was called "reasonable." That sheriff should fit right in, since he seems to enjoy the idea of killing people.
Where's #blacklivesmatter to protest this?
Can't he be charged with making a terrorist threat?
Can't he be charged with making a terrorist threat?
I mean, the man said this publicly,,,
He stated the intent to violate a persons civil rights,,,
And he is a public official who has the means/authority to carry the threat out.
Doesn't that constitute a "terrorist threat" under the law?
Honestly, This is baiting someone to call his bluff?
I smell a deep-pocket lawsuit in the making.
First I don't think you all have a clue as to what the Sheriff is saying. His deputy is responding to a man with a gun call or bank robbery in progress. He shows up on scene and sees an individual with a gun pointed at others, he has to assume the worst that this is one of the "bad guys" until he can get the situation sorted out. Off duty cops in plain clothes are told if they draw their piece to also draw there creds/shield so the uniformed officer can see that he is probably a good guy and listen to his story first.
A lot of folks who have a pistol drawn when accosted will instead of just turning their head, will turn their whole body towards the sound. that is going to get you killed.
Perhaps you all ought to stop and think some of this stuff out before you out and out condemn a public servant
Also understand if you have to protect life with lethal force, you may be the only guy on scene (over a body) holding a gun when the cops show up. It's all about timing.
What he said was "legally-armed citizens would be "thrown down on the ground with a gun pointed at them" at a crime scene". I never doubted that for a moment. I have never been a cop but I'd guess the first thing a cop would do is secure the crime scene. If you are holding a gun he is going to point his gun at you and put you on the ground. Everything I've ever read has said you do not want to be in possession of a gun when the police arrive. Put it on the ground and step away.
I'm a recently retired LEO, I read both articles and given the way the sheriff's comments were presented they come across as threatening to those legally carrying. In addition, if you read through the comments you'll see that this guy has a history of condemning licensed carry and legal gun ownership in general.
There are plenty of people in LE admin that feel only the cops should have guns and don't believe citizens should be able to carry, this guy is clearly one of them. If I were you I wouldn't be so quick to jump to his defense just because he's wearing a badge and a title.
Nothing New in Pinellas County
This is Sheriff Bob's predecessor saying much the same thing when open carry came up some years ago. This seems to be the general ideology of law enforcement in Pinellas County. Sheriff and municipal police chiefs all agree as do a number of the rand and file.
I was a civilian member of the Saint Petersburg Police Pistol Club at the time of the first open carry debate seen in the above Utube clip. Both current and retired LEOs at this shooting range had some of the same views about scaring tourists and negative opinions of any mere civilian carrying a gun openly.
Pinellas County is a pit of progressive ideologues.
How will the cops know the straw man is packing heat? Does it matter? This sheriff sounds like the kind of cop who shoots people down like Laquan McDonald, 17, in Chicago. Could be something to online banking.
I don't think it's the posters here who "don't understand" anything. What was said was either too stupid to be from a purported Law Enforcement Administrator, or was a terroristic threat, for which he should be charged.
There are ways to actually disseminate information without threats of violence on admittedly law-abiding citizens. Only incompetence at his level prevents him from using them.
Even the scenario was faulty.
Really? Unless there were a group of perpetrators, he'll find ONE man with a gun pointed at ONE man. Others won't be exhibiting the same responses as if THEY were under attack. Many will point to the perpetrator, and offer vocal information.
Now, as for the off-duty. If the officer actually has a perp at gun-point, with his back to the approaching officer, it's the Deputies responsibility to identify himself as a responder, and to hold off on such stupidly aggressive actions until he finds out what, and who, the players are. Just arriving, and "throwing someone to the ground because they're armed" is liable to get BOTH people killed when the actual crook, watching the Keystone Cop doing his thing, simply shoots BOTH of them, and walks away.
Apparently, somebody should
Comments are more suitable for anti-gun Europe than FL.
I have run across many statements by opponents of concealed carry who who made dire predictions of blood in the streets from CCW, ten years later expressing "Boy was I wrong", including some making direct apologies to the sponsors of the legislation whom they had criticized.
I suspect that ten years after passage of open carry, I'll see similar apologies by opponents of open carry.
The apologizers are usually police chiefs, county sheriffs, and prosecutors. Politicians, opinion-editoralists, and left-wing academics though never admit error, so don't wait for an apology from them.
BTW. Bans on concealed carry were instituted when open carry of weapons for self defense was acceptable behavior. The good guy advertised he was armed, but only blackguards and assassins concealed their weapons.
What he basically does, is admit sociopathic behavior and homicidal tendencies. All that aside, even if those are his views, if he is stupid enough to say something like this publicly, he is probably too stupid (let alone too sociopathic) to hold office.
My shocked face! Moving on now.....
Heaven help the sheriff if one of his men takes his advice.. lawyers will now say they MURDERED the person at the orders of the sheriff.
Really? have you ever responded to a shooting scene? I've responded to about a dozen. You can be pretty sure that if there's one man with a gun pointed at another man, both of them are going to be screaming that they are the good guy. Half the bystanders will point to the guy with the gun and "offer vocal information" (be yelling) that he is the good guy and the other half will point to the guy without the gun and "offer vocal information" (also be yelling) that he is the good guy. As a general rule (100% of the time in my experience) the one with the gun is the bad guy. Letting a bad guy stand around with a gun while trying to sort out the "vocal information" is a great way to get shot.
Is it possible that the guy with the gun is the good guy? Sure. It's also possible that I'll win the lottery this weekend and retire. There's an old saying "The race may not always be to the swift nor the victory to the strong, but that's how you bet". Same thing applies to coming on the scene of a shooting. The smart money is on the most common scenario.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/damonrunyo389632.html#i6VcMp6qT4cxVb2Y.99
The real world isn't like TV. Bad guys don't wear black hats, and every single one that I've ever arrested has claimed to be the good guy. Doesn't matter if he has the bloody knife and stolen wallet in his pocket, he didn't do it and has no idea where they came from. If a deputy comes upon someone with a gun pointed at another person at gunpoint, there's probably about a 99% chance that the bad guy is the one with the gun. If the deputy "holds off" on aggressive action and lets the guy hold onto his gun, he's liable to end up dead (bad guys tend not to follow the law) along with whoever else gets in the way. Aggressive action in response to the threat of deadly force has been proven repeatedly to be the best decision.
Definitely. If by any chance one of his deputies follows his instructions and kills or even wounds a CCW holder, a public statement like that will land him in hot water in court.
Sorry...not buying it. And I thank God I don't live in your jurisdiction.
If someone is standing there holding someone else at gun point, the one holding the gun is the good guy. If he's the bad guy, he either shoots and/or takes off.
Bad guys don't hold good guys at gunpoint waiting for the cops to show up. That is self-evident.
^^^ This makes a whole lot of sense to me.
^^^ Completely agree, makes a lot of sense...
Thank heavens I never worked for a sheriff in the 22 years I was in law enforcement here in Florida.... More than once I've heard some ELected idiot use his sheriff's position to say something foolish (and I'm being polite since kids might be reading this....).
As for how you treat anyone holding a gun in a disturbance I have to say that you treat them all as potential opponents until you know who's who (and on more than one occasion I did some apologizing afterwards...).
"As a general rule (100% of the time in my experience) the one with the gun is the bad guy. Letting a bad guy stand around with a gun while trying to sort out the "vocal information" is a great way to get shot."
Seeing as CCers both never get shot by onlookers after being forced to use their piece, and also somehow maintain far better accuracy of fire than the average officer... Seriously, I can see demanding the gun owner disarm after the officers arrive (totally unnecessary, but I can understand it), but to shoot on sight? Moronic, and totally unacceptable from anyone lacking qualified immunity or a tremendous benefit of the doubt which cops enjoy.
But since a police order to immediately disarm is all too often indistinguishable from shoot-on-sight;
Standing around a crime scene as a good guy (especially with a gun) is a great way to get shot by panicked police who arrive with drawn guns and their fingers on the trigger. I can see why you often hear about CCers leaving the scene, and only returning after the scene is well secured, adrenaline levels of the officers are back down, and 911/cops have been informed over the phone as to the situation with the CCer. That famous Youtube video of the officer nearly blowing a handcuffed, kneeling suspect's head off from behind from a negligent discharge (and subsequent lack of discipline, IIRC) tells me everything I need to know about where I stand when the police have their guns out: nowhere close.
"If someone is standing there holding someone else at gun point, the one holding the gun is the good guy. If he's the bad guy, he either shoots and/or takes off."
Maybe he's talking about those near-mythical instances where the police arrive to actually stop the crime in progress?
Separate names with a comma.