I have mixed feelings on this....

[jrbfishn]

3rd hand info is a big red flag, but we still have to go knock... this was about as shitty as it can get.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

I definately agree on that.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

 

[jrbfishn]

I have read the whole thread, and stayed out of this shit show up until now.

Loud and clear, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A " THIS IS THE POLICE" KNOCK. Period.


Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

 

[Tblack89]

And as far as "he had to know" it was a cop?

Where did I say this?

 

[Tblack89]

Typically, I am pro LE. They do a dirty, sometimes nasty, dangerous and inherantly unsafe job that most will not, even if they could.
Most often, I will be on the same side as you, but not this one.
You keep commoing back to "the knock", the " police knock".
I am sorry to disappoint you, but there is no such thing as a "police knock". Never has been. And yes, I have had police knock on my door. More than once. And there ain't no way on God's earth to to iif they were cops or not.
Even if there was an official "police knock", how long do you think it would take for home invaders to immitate it? Or just your jerk friend that wanted to mess with you? Is it against the Law to use the official police knock if you are not LE?

And as far as "he had to know" it was a cop?
If the cop hears muffled sounds, there is a likely hood that the occupants also heard muffled sounds.
If he can't see the cop, or see through walls, he doesn't know who is yelling "LE, open up".
What if he is hearing impaired like me? It don't go away when a cop shows up I promise you.

Deputy should be innocent because he was scared? It's a scary, dangerous job. Period. If cops get to shoot because they are scared, there are going to be a LOT of dead bodies.

I'm sorry, but I am gonna have to disagree on this. LE, ALL LE, should be held to the same standard of "shoot, no shoot" as everyone else. If it would have been a bad shoot for me, it was to him.
It is an UNSAFE job. Period. Going to work puts your life at risk. Any cop that does not understand and accept that is in the wrong line of work. Whe a cop's life means more than ours, case law or no, something is freakin WRONG. When cops can kill because a person doing something legal scared them, something is DAMNED sure WRONG.

Cops are supposed to be there to make sure others don't do that to us, they should not get a pass when they do it. Period. They are not supposed to be wearing a badge so they are safe, they are supposed to be wearing it so WE are.

At least are the legal side like Cycleguy2000, I have met him, good guy, I liked him. He's welcome to go with me to the gum club I belong to anytime.
And you, I expected something better from you than "police knock".

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

You should go back and read my posts and what I’ve said, instead of nitpicking what you think I said, or before expecting anything better from me.

You disagree, got it, none of your above opinions change the interpretation of the law. People disagree with me, big deal, people don’t like hearing facts.

Once again, a lot of speculation and finger pointing based off of personal opinions and feelings. People don’t get to pick and choose what laws they want to follow without consequences.

 

[jrbfishn]

Where did I say this?

How about logic?
If, according to you, the deputy used the official police knock, it stands to reason it must be a cop.

I hate to disillusion you, but the world is not what you think.
There is no police knock. A cop knocking, or pounding on, my door sounds just like my nieghbor, my brother or the angry bastard that don't like me from down the street.
When the deputy shot my dog, I didn't hear him yelling. I didn't even hear the gun shot. I barely heard the deputy that shook me awake yelling at me from 6 feet away. There are members here that can attest to the fact that I can sleep through hours of large caliber gun shots 20 feet way from me. Even awake with my hearing aids in, if the TV is on, I can't hear a knock at the door. And I have to be in the right place to hear the dog barking at the door let alone a person.
I live out in the country. I so seldom get a knock at night, in 24 years I can count them on my hands with fingers left over, that I usually answer it with a gun in my hand. Because I don't know who it is and I have that right to defend my home.

It is a sad truth that in today's world, all too many LE see everything as an attack against them. And tragically, all to often it is. But it ain't always so.

Expecting and or looking for violence at every interaction is a lot different than being ready for it at any time. If all you look for or expect is an attack, then that is all you see. When you get to that point, you need a different line of work.

Some of y'all keep looking at if from a cops point view. And I get that.

Try looking at it from ours. Pretend you have never been a cop and it is you answering the door to an unknown. How would you feel?


Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

 

[Johnny Diamond]

JR, I'm with you brother!


By the way how is that sweet pup doin?
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[jrbfishn]

You should go back and read my posts and what I’ve said, instead of nitpicking what you think I said, or before expecting anything better from me.

You disagree, got it, none of your above opinions change the interpretation of the law. People disagree with me, big deal, people don’t like hearing facts.

Once again, a lot of speculation and finger pointing based off of personal opinions and feelings. People don’t get to pick and choose what laws they want to follow without consequences.

Police knock and he had to know are not facts, just your supposition and wishful thinking.

Choose which laws to follow? Please tell me at what point the airman broke the law. I fail to see it. Is there one in Texas or Florida that says a person can be shot by LE for answering the door with a gun in hand regardless of where it is pointed? If so, please please list the code so we can look it up.
Case law? It applies. Until someone gets it overturned or a law is passed nulifying it.. It has happened before. Just because it is case law doesn't make it right. It just means that for now, right or wrong, you can get away with it. Courts have been found to make un-Constitutional rulings before. It just means that in the absance of a law covering a specific case as presented, a court decided to make it's own defacto law and it has not been taken to a higher court.

I am going to try to get some sleep. Sooo, homework for the night.
1. I'll grant you case law. Problem; show the clause in the Constitution the case law is based on that allows an exemption to LE to kill when a citizen would be prosecuted for the same act.
2. What Texas law, or Florida since that is where it happened, grants exemption for LE to kill in a situation that a citizen would be prosecuted for the same act.

No BS, no rhetoric, cite the State law or clause in the Constitution.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

 

[jrbfishn]

JR, I'm with you brother!


By the way how is that sweet pup doin?
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

She is doing fine. Just had her bedtime goodies and is snuggled up against my legs between me and the wife.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

 

[Tblack89]

How about logic?
If, according to you, the deputy used the official police knock, it stands to reason it must be a cop.

I hate to disillusion you, but the world is not what you think.
There is no police knock. A cop knocking, or pounding on, my door sounds just like my nieghbor, my brother or the angry bastard that don't like me from down the street.
When the deputy shot my dog, I didn't hear him yelling. I didn't even hear the gun shot. I barely heard the deputy that shook me awake yelling at me from 6 feet away. There are members here that can attest to the fact that I can sleep through hours of large caliber gun shots 20 feet way from me. Even awake with my hearing aids in, if the TV is on, I can't hear a knock at the door. And I have to be in the right place to hear the dog barking at the door let alone a person.
I live out in the country. I so seldom get a knock at night, in 24 years I can count them on my hands with fingers left over, that I usually answer it with a gun in my hand. Because I don't know who it is and I have that right to defend my home.

It is a sad truth that in today's world, all too many LE see everything as an attack against them. And tragically, all to often it is. But it ain't always so.

Expecting and or looking for violence at every interaction is a lot different than being ready for it at any time. If all you look for or expect is an attack, then that is all you see. When you get to that point, you need a different line of work.

Some of y'all keep looking at if from a cops point view. And I get that.

Try looking at it from ours. Pretend you have never been a cop and it is you answering the door to an unknown. How would you feel?


Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

I’m looking at it from a legal point of view, unlike yourself I am not pro police, never have been. There are good and bad just like anything else. I do know the law and this logic you speak of is not it. Legally speaking if the officer felt in danger he has officer discretion and can react how he sees fit, including shooting, very simple. Your feelings do not matter.


Go read my post because this knock you keep speaking of wasn’t even in reference to this incident, it was a generalization and I never said he had to know, do better because now you’re just making shit up.



Contrary to popular belief laws don’t work quite how y’all think they do. Generally speaking, No matter the offense, if you can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt then you have no case. Even if you can and i can create the slightest doubt I can plead any case out for a much lesser offense if not drag it out until it gets dropped. Feeling and opinion don’t matter, facts and proof do.


Once again, in the eyes of the law you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer was in fear for his life. Not what you feel, not logic, not what you think, what you can prove. Once a lot of you get out of your feelings and understand that’s the way the law is written, the sooner you will understand what I’ve been repeatedly saying.

 

[Tblack89]

2. What Texas law, or Florida since that is where it happened, grants exemption for LE to kill in a situation that a citizen would be prosecuted for the same act.

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.




There’s your Florida law, if you want Texas also it’s pretty much the same.

 

[leVieux]

Most of us’’Gun Guys’’ have hearing losses as we age.

And, we are often in doorways with pistols.

Most Police in the South & West understand the difference b/t a geezer with a gun and someone who is a real threat to them.

We must all demand that basic 2A RIGHTS be honored everywhere in the USA.

leVieux

 

[Renegade]

Where did I say this?

Post #254:

"Let’s be real here, there is no confusing that knock for anything other than a police officer either."

 

[Renegade]

This case is really pretty simple.

Were officers actions reasonable? Some say yes, some say no.

OIS Investigation said no. So officer lost Round #1.

Round #2 coming soon.

 

[Havok1]

Catch up with the conversation
Go reread what I was replying to and what they were replying to...

"He didnt hear"
-replied with anecdotes about people hiding their dope then saying they didnt here us knocking

"but you are just thinking the worst of people"
- smell, sights, training, experience tell me people frequently lie about hearing us knock.



Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

I’m caught up. I knew the answer to the question. Just wanted to see your reply. The guy wasn’t hiding drugs, he wasn’t beating his gf, etc. Taking what you believe is too much time to answer the door because of a number of perfectly logical reasons is not criminal and is certainly not deserving of a death sentence.

 

[Johnny Diamond]

Question all who feel shooting was justified, what if the airman was in the shower, lying in bed sleeping off a hangover, or at his local quicky mart buying a pack of smokes and no one answered the door.....so door was forcibly opened and damaged. Who is responsible for repairs? Oh, oh well so sorry about that but you the renter will just have to pony up and pay for that. Unfortunately we arrived at wrong location/received a false report of a crime in progress. We have immunity and won't be doing shit about it.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[DoubleDuty]

When innocent people are killed by mistake it's a tragedy for the police and society. Again situational awareness is key to staying alive.

 

[jrbfishn]

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.




There’s your Florida law, if you want Texas also it’s pretty much the same.

Even his own department found that there was no threat of imminent danger or death. He saw a gun and got scared without considering the condition of the gun or actions of the airman. Actions that altough LE may not like it or it makes their heart go pitter patter were completely legal. So that law would not apply. And niether would a similar law in Texas.

If what could happen, instead of what did happen, becomes the metric that LE, or anyone else for that matter, can legally shoot for,,,,,get ready for a lot of bodies. Because there are countless times a day when most people COULD be killed or recieve great bodily injury from another. That is a very poor metric.

Obtuse arguments over wheher or not the officer was scared, "case law says I can" or he just thought he was special are pointless. The fact is, the actions of 3 people cost a young man his life for doing things inside his residence that were completely legal. And they will all most likely get off pretty much scott free.
But they should all be charged with at least accessory to murder. Even the cop. If case law or State law applies, that would be his defense to prosecution.
With what information is publicly available at this time, if he is not, anyone that is armed in anyway is subject to being shot by LE that claims he was scared.
Not acceptable.

I'm out. Y'all go back to the shit show.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

I’m caught up. I knew the answer to the question. Just wanted to see your reply. The guy wasn’t hiding drugs, he wasn’t beating his gf, etc. Taking what you believe is too much time to answer the door because of a number of perfectly logical reasons is not criminal and is certainly not deserving of a death sentence.

Youre deflecting (again)

Now then for the reat of you:

Just because there are legitimate reasons that *could* explain a behavior doesn't negate the illegitimate reasons. This is the basis of "totality of circumstances" where each part need not solely be criminal in nature.

The classic example involves no illegality, it is 100% legal:

Storytime:
An police officer doing a patrol through a mall parking lot after a call about a man breaking into vehicles on a sunny summer day in Austin. The officer eventually sees a man wandering through the parking lot wearing a hoodie over his head, backpack, gloves, carrying a screwdriver who is stops to look into several cars.

1:Has this hooded man done anything illegal?

2: Must the officer wait until the subject opens a door or smashes a window and enters the vehicle before detaining him or can the officer detain the man?

Detentions are based on Reasonable Suspicion articulated based on the totality of the circumstances as a Reasonable Officer believes them to be. Now the answer is #1 no, nothing illegal has occurred innthe officer’s view and #2 a seizure (investigatory detention aka terry stop) is 100% justified if the officer can articulate why wearing a hood and gloves in summer, and carrying tools commonly used to break into cars, and looking into cars are related to a criminal nexus. Just like an officer responding to a non-anonymous (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/529/266/) report (even if 2nd hand) of family violence who after knocking and announcing (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/540/31/) and is greeted by a potential suspect with a gun in their hand may reasonable seize (intentional application of force) that person with deadly force.

9.25 Particular Rights—Fourth Amendment—Unreasonable Seizure of Person—Excessive Force | Model Jury Instructions

www.ce9.uscourts.gov

9.25 Particular Rights—Fourth Amendment—Unreasonable

Seizure of Person—Excessive Force



In general, a seizure of a person is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment if a police officer uses excessive force [in making a lawful arrest] [and] [or] [in defending [himself] [herself] [others]] [and] [or] [in attempting to stop a fleeing or escaping suspect]. Therefore, to establish an unreasonable seizure in this case, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the officer(s) used excessive force.

Under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may use only such force as is “objectively reasonable” under all of the circumstances. You must judge the reasonableness of a particular use of force from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene and not with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Although the facts known to the officer are relevant to your inquiry, an officer’s subjective intent or motive is not relevant to your inquiry.

In determining whether the officer used excessive force in this case, consider all of the circumstances known to the officer on the scene, including:

(1) the nature of the crime or other circumstances known to the officer(s) at the time force was
applied;

(2) whether the [plaintiff] [decedent] posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officer(s) or to
others;

(3) whether the plaintiff was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight;

(4) the amount of time the officer had to determine the type and amount of force that reasonably
appeared necessary, and any changing circumstances during that period;

(5) the relationship between the need for the use of force and the amount of force used;

(6) the extent of the [plaintiff’s] [decedent’s] injury;

(7) any effort made by the officer to temper or to limit the amount of force;

(8) the severity of the security problem at issue;

(9) the availability of alternative methods [to take the plaintiff into custody] [to subdue the plaintiff;

(10) the number of lives at risk (motorists, pedestrians, police officers) and the parties’relative culpability; i.e.,which party created the dangerous situation, and which party is more innocent;

(11) whether it was practical for the officer(s) to give warning of the imminent use of force, and whether such warning was given;]

(12) whether the officer(s) [was] [were] responding to a domestic violence disturbance;
(13) whether it should have been apparent to the officer(s) that the person [he] [she] [they] used force against was emotionally disturbed;]

(14) whether a reasonable officer would have or should have accurately perceived a mistaken fact;

1 family disturbance/assault
2 YES without question
3 I think it is reasonable to believe the intent of the gun in his hand was to resist the deputy
4 minimal, the man could have shot the offi er before he could react even if the deputy's gun was drawn and aimed.
5 deadly threat, deadly force so not excessive
6 he dead
7 he didnt mag dump
8 not sure what they mean by security
9 say please?
10 the only person who created a deadly force situation (besides the caller) was the man opening his private space to public view with a gun in his hand.
11 there are tikes to talk and times to shoot. There was not space or reaction time to talk to the suspect
12 yes as a matter of fact that us exactly why the deputy was there
13 no
14 what mistake of fact?[/s]

 

[cycleguy2300]

Question all who feel shooting was justified, what if the airman was in the shower, lying in bed sleeping off a hangover, or at his local quicky mart buying a pack of smokes and no one answered the door.....so door was forcibly opened and damaged. Who is responsible for repairs? Oh, oh well so sorry about that but you the renter will just have to pony up and pay for that. Unfortunately we arrived at wrong location/received a false report of a crime in progress. We have immunity and won't be doing shit about it.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

SCOTUS has actually addressed the shower question

United States v. Banks, 540 US 31 (2004)

United States v. Banks

supreme.justia.com

Basically "I didn't hear" when it was reasonably loud isnt a reasonable excuse. Not applicable in whole because it was a warrant entry, but still fits my point pretty well.



Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Gordo]

I'm thinking cycleguy may have a hard time explaining these posts if he ever did need to use his sidearm in a situation.
Or even now, if the wrong woke person at whatever department he works for, happens to stumble into TGT.