You knew it wouldn't be long after the tragedy for this to be brought up

#128
#128
dreVol said:
for example?
Click to expand...

The article you posted says he opened the door "with a gun in his hand." Local media reports says he pointed it in the face of the deputy standing outside.

Bear in mind I haven't seen the actual report and FDLE is investigating, as they do all police shootings. I'm just saying that according to local reports its not as simple as the guy just "having" a gun when he opened the door.

And let me ask you this -- if you are worried enough that you answer your door with a gun in your hand, aren't you going to, oh, I don't know, ask who is on the other side before you open it?
 
#129
#129
lawgator1 said:
And let me ask you this -- if you are worried enough that you answer your door with a gun in your hand, aren't you going to, oh, I don't know, ask who is on the other side before you open it?
Click to expand...

It's such an incredibly rare thing for you to have anything worthwhile to say regarding anything firearms/self-defense related I just wanted to give you an attaboy.

:thumbsup:
 
#130
#130
lawgator1 said:
The article you posted says he opened the door "with a gun in his hand." Local media reports says he pointed it in the face of the deputy standing outside.

Bear in mind I haven't seen the actual report and FDLE is investigating, as they do all police shootings. I'm just saying that according to local reports its not as simple as the guy just "having" a gun when he opened the door.

And let me ask you this -- if you are worried enough that you answer your door with a gun in your hand, aren't you going to, oh, I don't know, ask who is on the other side before you open it?
Click to expand...

The local media reports quote Lt. John Herrell claiming that Scott pointed his weapon at the officers

Assuming Scott did have his weapon pointed at the officers, how do you suppose he was shot by officers without firing a single round? From the available reports, the officer who shot Scott fired "multiple rounds." So, either the officers had their weapons drawn and shot Scott immediately when the door was opened; or Scott didn't have his weapon pointed at the officers (unless he had his weapon pouted with the safety engaged).

Officers came to his apartment at 1:30am. I don't disagree with your last paragraph, but irony think that justifies his shooting by trained law enforcement officers.
 
#131
#131
dreVol said:
The local media reports quote Lt. John Herrell claiming that Scott pointed his weapon at the officers

Assuming Scott did have his weapon pointed at the officers, how do you suppose he was shot by officers without firing a single round? From the available reports, the officer who shot Scott fired "multiple rounds." So, either the officers had their weapons drawn and shot Scott immediately when the door was opened; or Scott didn't have his weapon pointed at the officers (unless he had his weapon pouted with the safety engaged).

Officers came to his apartment at 1:30am. I don't disagree with your last paragraph, but irony think that justifies his shooting by trained law enforcement officers.
Click to expand...




The local news and the family have been critical of the deputies for failing to announce who they were when they knocked on the door. One can debate that point. What must be taken into consideration, however, is that they are trying to find someone who was a murder suspect.

Pointing a gun at a cop, even if ts because you don't know who it is, is a bad idea. The reason is that the cops don't know who you are or what misunderstanding you are operating from. This isn't the Old West. They don't have to wait for you to shoot first.
 
#132
#132
lawgator1 said:
The local news and the family have been critical of the deputies for failing to announce who they were when they knocked on the door. One can debate that point. What must be taken into consideration, however, is that they are trying to find someone who was a murder suspect.

Pointing a gun at a cop, even if ts because you don't know who it is, is a bad idea. The reason is that the cops don't know who you are or what misunderstanding you are operating from. This isn't the Old West. They don't have to wait for you to shoot first.
Click to expand...

If Scott had said, "Go f*** yourself, I'm not opening the door," would the officers have kicked it in?

Because they allegedly failed to identify themselves, do you think it would be justifiable homicide still?
 
#133
#133
dreVol said:
If Scott had said, "Go f*** yourself, I'm not opening the door," would the officers have kicked it in?

Because they allegedly failed to identify themselves, do you think it would be justifiable homicide still?
Click to expand...


You can't just shoot at somebody on the other side of your door because its late.
 
#134
#134
lawgator1 said:
You can't just shoot at somebody on the other side of your door because its late.
Click to expand...

I meant if Scott didn't open the door, was holding his weapon, the officers didn't identify themselves, then the officers kiked in his door.
 
#135
#135
dreVol said:
I meant if Scott didn't open the door, was holding his weapon, the officers didn't identify themselves, then the officers kiked in his door.
Click to expand...


They would have had to be in fresh pursuit for that to have occurred and, having lost sight of him for a length of time, it would probably not meet that and so they'd have had to identify themselves at that point.

I'm not "blaming" this guy, by the way. But what you have to understand is that the test for what they did is from their perspective, not his. From their perspective they think the guy they are after is in that house because the scooter is parked across the street and is still warm. They knock on the door and a guy opens it and points a gun at them.

Even if they immediately know that he is not who they are looking for, and even if they suspect that he might not know who they are, they are simply not obliged to stand there and get shot because it may all be a misunderstanding.

It is a terrible thing for events to have come together that way, but we expect the police to investigate crimes and to pursue people and if, in the course of that, someone enters the picture, even if totally innocent, but threatens the officers (in this case deputies) then they are going to protect themselves.
 
#136
#136
lawgator1 said:
They would have had to be in fresh pursuit for that to have occurred and, having lost sight of him for a length of time, it would probably not meet that and so they'd have had to identify themselves at that point.

I'm not "blaming" this guy, by the way. But what you have to understand is that the test for what they did is from their perspective, not his. From their perspective they think the guy they are after is in that house because the scooter is parked across the street and is still warm. They knock on the door and a guy opens it and points a gun at them.

Even if they immediately know that he is not who they are looking for, and even if they suspect that he might not know who they are, they are simply not obliged to stand there and get shot because it may all be a misunderstanding.

It is a terrible thing for events to have come together that way, but we expect the police to investigate crimes and to pursue people and if, in the course of that, someone enters the picture, even if totally innocent, but threatens the officers (in this case deputies) then they are going to protect themselves.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with you?
 
#137
#137
OrangeEmpire said:
What is wrong with you?
Click to expand...


LOL, I'm assuming that's because we are in accord on this one?

I will tell you, there is a line of cases from the more liberal circuit courts that holds that it is possible that, if the police are pursing in a really reckless way and cause the confrontation then they can be held liable.

For example, if they had as hypothesized earlier gone into the guy's house with no warrant and no announcement on bare suspicion that the suspect might be in there, and the guy was on his couch and drew on them in surprise and they shot him, they might have a problem.

But just going to the door and knocking should not result in liability for shooting the fellow who answers with a gun and points it at them.
 
#138
#138
lawgator1 said:
LOL, I'm assuming that's because we are in accord on this one?

I will tell you, there is a line of cases from the more liberal circuit courts that holds that it is possible that, if the police are pursing in a really reckless way and cause the confrontation then they can be held liable.

For example, if they had as hypothesized earlier gone into the guy's house with no warrant and no announcement on bare suspicion that the suspect might be in there, and the guy was on his couch and drew on them in surprise and they shot him, they might have a problem.

But just going to the door and knocking should not result in liability for shooting the fellow who answers with a gun and points it at them.
Click to expand...

It freaks me out when you are rational.
 
#140
#140
lawgator1 said:
I have more familiarity with the legalities of that issue than you can imagine.
Click to expand...

+1

No doubt, your viewpoints on this and the recent zimmerman thoughts were spot on.

I dont understand how you go bat shat crazy when it comes to racism, govt, gun control, welfare, govt spending etc.

Jekyll and Hide
 
#141
#141
OrangeEmpire said:
+1

No doubt, your viewpoints on this and the recent zimmerman thoughts were spot on.

I dont understand how you go bat shat crazy when it comes to racism, govt, gun control, welfare, govt spending etc.

Jekyll and Hide
Click to expand...


In this day and age, one cannot assume that, because a person holds a liberal view on 6 of the first 10 things you ask, he will also hold the liberal view on the last 4.

And vice versa.
 
#142
#142
lawgator1 said:
In this day and age, one cannot assume that, because a person holds a liberal view on 6 of the first 10 things you ask, he will also hold the liberal view on the last 4.

And vice versa.
Click to expand...

Your views arent liberal in any sense, just bat shat crazy.
 
#147
#147
It's no coincidence that the Small Arms Treaty is up for vote at the current UN meetings.

The massacre has a false flag written all over it.
 
#149
#149
myrobbins7 said:
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg told CNN's Piers Morgan last night that he doesn't "understand why police officers across this country don’t stand up collectively and say we’re going to go on strike, we’re not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe."
Click to expand...

Memphis cops I know, are completely supportive of personal firearm ownership.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top