Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Its past time tobecome familiar with these concepts in yours and other departments.
Its past time tobecome familiar with these concepts in yours and other departments.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Ask LEO a question
- Thread starter LEO 229
- Start date
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
LEO 230 wrote:
Actually LEO 230 you are wrong here. In the law a reputable presumption means that it is presumed that you committed a certain act but that presumption (of guilt if you will) can be rebutted with facts to the contrary. This is well settled law in regulatory affairs, but not very common in criminal matters as it carries a presumption of guilt and shifts the burden of proof to the accused. Presumptions carry with them "Intent". By that I mean that the law assumes you intended to do the act with full knowledge of the illegality of the act.
In regulatory law this a a common concept. it is presumed that something will not happen unless there is sufficient rebuttal evidence to show that it should be done. One example would be the old EPA program for regulation of pesticides called Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration (RPAR). In this case it is presumed that a pesticide cannot be registered for use unless the registrant can show why the registration should occur.
The only other area of criminal law where I believe this is a common issue is in game codes where under certain circumstances it can be presumed that you have committed a chargeable offense unless rebutted by facts to the contrary. One example would be if the law states that you cannot take trout by use of more than three baited lines with hooks in the water at a time, if you do, this would constitute illegal method. The Officer catches you with four poles in the water in a trout stream. Under the law he can presume you were fishing for trout by illegal methods unless you can prove otherwise.
I have actually seen people claim all four poles in this circumstance and eat a $250 fine, where they could have denied ownership of one of their $30 rigs and avoided the charge.
LEO 230 wrote:
Actually LEO 230 you are wrong here. In the law a reputable presumption means that it is presumed that you committed a certain act but that presumption (of guilt if you will) can be rebutted with facts to the contrary. This is well settled law in regulatory affairs, but not very common in criminal matters as it carries a presumption of guilt and shifts the burden of proof to the accused. Presumptions carry with them "Intent". By that I mean that the law assumes you intended to do the act with full knowledge of the illegality of the act.
In regulatory law this a a common concept. it is presumed that something will not happen unless there is sufficient rebuttal evidence to show that it should be done. One example would be the old EPA program for regulation of pesticides called Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration (RPAR). In this case it is presumed that a pesticide cannot be registered for use unless the registrant can show why the registration should occur.
The only other area of criminal law where I believe this is a common issue is in game codes where under certain circumstances it can be presumed that you have committed a chargeable offense unless rebutted by facts to the contrary. One example would be if the law states that you cannot take trout by use of more than three baited lines with hooks in the water at a time, if you do, this would constitute illegal method. The Officer catches you with four poles in the water in a trout stream. Under the law he can presume you were fishing for trout by illegal methods unless you can prove otherwise.
I have actually seen people claim all four poles in this circumstance and eat a $250 fine, where they could have denied ownership of one of their $30 rigs and avoided the charge.
imported post
Hawkflyer... Did I have it right the first time? Interpretation of the code can be hard some times. I do the best I can but it was written by lawyers and not easily understood.
I can admit if I am wrong and open to alternative points of view.
Hawkflyer... Did I have it right the first time? Interpretation of the code can be hard some times. I do the best I can but it was written by lawyers and not easily understood.
I can admit if I am wrong and open to alternative points of view.
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
Edited to add links -
[/size]WIKI Rebuttable Presumption
Legal definition Rebuttable Presumption
In a way many arrests are made based on a rebuttable presumption. Say you find a guy in possession of a bag full of screwdrivers, a hammer, pliers, a flashlight, and a ski mask. When you find him he is in his car at the rear of a closed business, and you see that the door has been pried open and closed again and the alarm is going off. More than likely you would arrest this guy and charge him with breaking and entering. A lesser included might be possession of burglary tools.
In that example you made the arrest based on your presumption that he had just broken into the place, and that presumption is based in part on his possession of burglary tools. He could in court press the affirmative defense that he works for the gas company, and had just completed a call at the store next door, the tools you found are the tools of his trade, and the ski mask is routinely used by him because he works outside at night in the winter. The alarm was actually a gas detection alarm set off by the gas leak he was there to repair. If all of those facts bear out he could be acquitted. But failing the assertion of this affirmative defense he would be found guilty. i.e.. taking the fifth is not an option for his defense, he MUST explain the situation. If he takes the fifth he goes away. This does not mean he could not take the fifth, but if he does he is defenseless in the eye of the law.
But the point is he was snagged on the obvious facts and the context of the presumed offense at the time of the arrest, and had to express an affirmative defense to defeat the presumption. I would guess that this kind of case would only be heard in front of a Judge rather than a jury because hearing the defense would require a significant understanding of the law not just a simple finding of fact.
One interesting element of the wording of that kind of statute is that the rebuttable presumption MAY provide a shield to the arresting officer against subsequent false arrest charges if the guy can prove he is innocent (your mileage may vary). The law basically says if conditions A, B, and C exist, then "X" must also true. As the arresting officer the law forces you to a specific conclusion of prima fascia guilt. I don't think that if the guy subsequently gets off that he could assert false arrest so long as the proscribed conditions did exist.
The other side of the coin is that the law almost demands that an arrest be made if the proscribed conditions exist. So basically the Officer has less discretion.
Regards
LEO 229 wrote:
If I understand your original post on this subject you had it basically correct. The use of the term "Rebuttable Presumption" means a person is presumed (based on observed evidence) to have committed the act. That assumption can be defeated by presentation of an affirmative defense showing that you did not commit the act and that the conditions that led to the arrest have a perfectly plausible and innocent explanation.Hawkflyer... Did I have it right the first time? Interpretation of the code can be hard some times. I do the best I can but it was written by lawyers and not easily understood.
I can admit if I am wrong and open to alternative points of view.
Edited to add links -
[/size]WIKI Rebuttable Presumption
Legal definition Rebuttable Presumption
In a way many arrests are made based on a rebuttable presumption. Say you find a guy in possession of a bag full of screwdrivers, a hammer, pliers, a flashlight, and a ski mask. When you find him he is in his car at the rear of a closed business, and you see that the door has been pried open and closed again and the alarm is going off. More than likely you would arrest this guy and charge him with breaking and entering. A lesser included might be possession of burglary tools.
In that example you made the arrest based on your presumption that he had just broken into the place, and that presumption is based in part on his possession of burglary tools. He could in court press the affirmative defense that he works for the gas company, and had just completed a call at the store next door, the tools you found are the tools of his trade, and the ski mask is routinely used by him because he works outside at night in the winter. The alarm was actually a gas detection alarm set off by the gas leak he was there to repair. If all of those facts bear out he could be acquitted. But failing the assertion of this affirmative defense he would be found guilty. i.e.. taking the fifth is not an option for his defense, he MUST explain the situation. If he takes the fifth he goes away. This does not mean he could not take the fifth, but if he does he is defenseless in the eye of the law.
But the point is he was snagged on the obvious facts and the context of the presumed offense at the time of the arrest, and had to express an affirmative defense to defeat the presumption. I would guess that this kind of case would only be heard in front of a Judge rather than a jury because hearing the defense would require a significant understanding of the law not just a simple finding of fact.
One interesting element of the wording of that kind of statute is that the rebuttable presumption MAY provide a shield to the arresting officer against subsequent false arrest charges if the guy can prove he is innocent (your mileage may vary). The law basically says if conditions A, B, and C exist, then "X" must also true. As the arresting officer the law forces you to a specific conclusion of prima fascia guilt. I don't think that if the guy subsequently gets off that he could assert false arrest so long as the proscribed conditions did exist.
The other side of the coin is that the law almost demands that an arrest be made if the proscribed conditions exist. So basically the Officer has less discretion.
Regards
Toad
Founder's Club Member
imported post
I have seen it said too many times, 'the officer has a right...', I would like to remind all LEO's that while on duty you have no rights (aside of the personal rights we are all afforded) you only have powers or authority granted to you by the body of people. Please don't forget your place.
I have seen it said too many times, 'the officer has a right...', I would like to remind all LEO's that while on duty you have no rights (aside of the personal rights we are all afforded) you only have powers or authority granted to you by the body of people. Please don't forget your place.
LeagueOf1291
Regular Member
imported post
If you forget everything else about rebuttable presumptions, just remember this: the effect of a rebuttable presumption is to "establish" a fact without having to prove it. It's a way of alleviating a substantial burden from the proponent of the fact, in a criminal case that's usually the prosecution. It's a way of making the prosecution's job easier. It takes the requirement of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and fills it with a pretense that the requirement has been met.
"We're going to assume that X has been proved -- now you have toraise an affirmative defense."
"But there's no proof of X."
"Well, in reality you're right, but technically you're wrong. Says so right here in this obscure sub-paragraph..... it's right here somewhere....."
If you forget everything else about rebuttable presumptions, just remember this: the effect of a rebuttable presumption is to "establish" a fact without having to prove it. It's a way of alleviating a substantial burden from the proponent of the fact, in a criminal case that's usually the prosecution. It's a way of making the prosecution's job easier. It takes the requirement of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and fills it with a pretense that the requirement has been met.
"We're going to assume that X has been proved -- now you have toraise an affirmative defense."
"But there's no proof of X."
"Well, in reality you're right, but technically you're wrong. Says so right here in this obscure sub-paragraph..... it's right here somewhere....."
LeagueOf1291
Regular Member
imported post
Toad wrote:
In addition it's helpful to understand the distinction between authority and power.
We give police officers power, and we ask them to exercise it within the bounds of their authority. When they exercise power beyond their authority, they're acting like bullies. And I'm not picking on LEOs -- the same applies to city clerks, corporate officers, and fathers. I have the power to discipline my son. When I do it within the bounds of justice and fairness, it engenders respect and results in the correction of his behavior. When I do it outside of the bounds of fairness and justice, it engenders bitterness and results in rebellion.
But you see, I demand justice and fairness of myself, and I expect the same of city clerks, corporate officers...... and LEOs.
Toad wrote:
In addition it's helpful to understand the distinction between authority and power.
We give police officers power, and we ask them to exercise it within the bounds of their authority. When they exercise power beyond their authority, they're acting like bullies. And I'm not picking on LEOs -- the same applies to city clerks, corporate officers, and fathers. I have the power to discipline my son. When I do it within the bounds of justice and fairness, it engenders respect and results in the correction of his behavior. When I do it outside of the bounds of fairness and justice, it engenders bitterness and results in rebellion.
But you see, I demand justice and fairness of myself, and I expect the same of city clerks, corporate officers...... and LEOs.
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Toad wrote:
Regards
Toad wrote:
Perhaps I missed it somewhere, Where exactly was this statement made? And by whom? I do not believe that I ever asserted that an Officer has rights beyond those of ordinary citizens. Although that is the practical effect of certain laws.
Regards
imported post
Just remembr this..... Absent witesses/cameras an officer can say anything and the judge will believe him. He can drop a little baggie on you, say you were agressive/violent toward him....ANYTHING he wants! I have NEVER seen or met ANY officers with this attitude in Vermont Maine, Kentuckyor Montana, but it is COMMON in states like NJ, Mass, OH, FL Etc, Etc. There are a lot of steroid pumped, type A, bully cops out there. There are a LOT of good cops too. Some states hire a better caliber of officer than others, and tolerate less abuse than others. Just be careful and follow all his instructions no matter how right you are. I was almost shot in the back by a PA township officer just walking down the road b/c I "fit the description" of a 16 year old petty thief (I am 45 with grey hair). I wasn't even armed, just walking home from a jobsite. BE CAREFUL. Don't trust them like they don't trust you. I have 6 years as a former LEO, and I know what loose screws SOME of them can be!
Just remembr this..... Absent witesses/cameras an officer can say anything and the judge will believe him. He can drop a little baggie on you, say you were agressive/violent toward him....ANYTHING he wants! I have NEVER seen or met ANY officers with this attitude in Vermont Maine, Kentuckyor Montana, but it is COMMON in states like NJ, Mass, OH, FL Etc, Etc. There are a lot of steroid pumped, type A, bully cops out there. There are a LOT of good cops too. Some states hire a better caliber of officer than others, and tolerate less abuse than others. Just be careful and follow all his instructions no matter how right you are. I was almost shot in the back by a PA township officer just walking down the road b/c I "fit the description" of a 16 year old petty thief (I am 45 with grey hair). I wasn't even armed, just walking home from a jobsite. BE CAREFUL. Don't trust them like they don't trust you. I have 6 years as a former LEO, and I know what loose screws SOME of them can be!
LeagueOf1291
Regular Member
imported post
vermonter wrote:
People in an official position get the idea of what their function is from the people who put them there.
So long as we give government officials, including LEOs, the impression that we want them to exercise power, that's what they'll do. It's a natural tendency of humans to arrogate power to themselves.
The alternative is to appoint LEOs who share our view of their function.
Try the John Doe test, where you're John Doe. You're appointed to be a police officer in charge of looking out for your own interests and those of your community. Now just imagine that, and see what kind of officer you'll have.
I say LEO because that's the subject here. But we're talking about the authority of the state in general, not just with respect to law enforcement -- legislation and regulatory enforcement too.
Just suppose you had a government full of people who said to themselves "I only have the authority granted by the people I serve. I'm here to look to their interests. I need to know the law and live by it, and defend their rights to the best of my ability. I don't have special privileges. I'm here to defend the privileges of citizenship."
Man, what a wonderful world that would be.
vermonter wrote:
People in an official position get the idea of what their function is from the people who put them there.
So long as we give government officials, including LEOs, the impression that we want them to exercise power, that's what they'll do. It's a natural tendency of humans to arrogate power to themselves.
The alternative is to appoint LEOs who share our view of their function.
Try the John Doe test, where you're John Doe. You're appointed to be a police officer in charge of looking out for your own interests and those of your community. Now just imagine that, and see what kind of officer you'll have.
I say LEO because that's the subject here. But we're talking about the authority of the state in general, not just with respect to law enforcement -- legislation and regulatory enforcement too.
Just suppose you had a government full of people who said to themselves "I only have the authority granted by the people I serve. I'm here to look to their interests. I need to know the law and live by it, and defend their rights to the best of my ability. I don't have special privileges. I'm here to defend the privileges of citizenship."
Man, what a wonderful world that would be.
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
While I see the point some here are trying to make, I object to the broad brush they use to make it. Using the same basis they use to measure all government employees and LEO's by, I should be able to assume that anyone with a gun is a dangerous felon because a few of them are. Just because people have encountered a number of individuals, even if it is a LOT of individuals who abuse their positions and or authority, does not mean that there are not a LOT of good people fighting the same battle you are fighting from within the system.
I have personally met thousands of LEO's and other government employees at all levels of government, and the vast majority believe in the constitution of this country and support and defend it every day. And they do it well. Since citations are welcomed here I submit that 200 years of history and our continued existence as a nation are evidence of that fact.
I don't want to imply that we ALL should not keep a watchful eye on things, but there is a big difference between being watchful and saying that everyone in government is corrupt. Yes there are some corrupt people in positions of authority, but there are also corrupt people outside of government that wield a lot of abusive power as well. It does a disservice to a lot of dedicated people, and discourages them from taking the personal risks necessary to fight what should be fought, to simply say that are all corrupt.
At this point unless you have read all the posts in context of the participating LEO's in these threads, you really do not have an understanding of the nature of their participation in these discussions. I can tell from some of the recent posts that people have not read these threads.
Frankly, those here that reject the information offered by line Officers on these issues are doing the entire OC community disservice. These guys are on your side! They are trying to provide you with the other side of the story so you are better equipped to join the battle. Comments like "I don't care about your opinion" (which I have seen from some posters) are an affront to civil discourse and are the hallmark of a closed mind.
Learn all you can to know the enemy or be prepared to loose the fight. I for one want to win, and the LEO's that are contributing here are helping in that effort. If you absolutely feel the need to lash out at some LEO;s that deserve it, then visit the MCPD and give the Chief a good dose, but don't dump on the good guys.
Regards
While I see the point some here are trying to make, I object to the broad brush they use to make it. Using the same basis they use to measure all government employees and LEO's by, I should be able to assume that anyone with a gun is a dangerous felon because a few of them are. Just because people have encountered a number of individuals, even if it is a LOT of individuals who abuse their positions and or authority, does not mean that there are not a LOT of good people fighting the same battle you are fighting from within the system.
I have personally met thousands of LEO's and other government employees at all levels of government, and the vast majority believe in the constitution of this country and support and defend it every day. And they do it well. Since citations are welcomed here I submit that 200 years of history and our continued existence as a nation are evidence of that fact.
I don't want to imply that we ALL should not keep a watchful eye on things, but there is a big difference between being watchful and saying that everyone in government is corrupt. Yes there are some corrupt people in positions of authority, but there are also corrupt people outside of government that wield a lot of abusive power as well. It does a disservice to a lot of dedicated people, and discourages them from taking the personal risks necessary to fight what should be fought, to simply say that are all corrupt.
At this point unless you have read all the posts in context of the participating LEO's in these threads, you really do not have an understanding of the nature of their participation in these discussions. I can tell from some of the recent posts that people have not read these threads.
Frankly, those here that reject the information offered by line Officers on these issues are doing the entire OC community disservice. These guys are on your side! They are trying to provide you with the other side of the story so you are better equipped to join the battle. Comments like "I don't care about your opinion" (which I have seen from some posters) are an affront to civil discourse and are the hallmark of a closed mind.
Learn all you can to know the enemy or be prepared to loose the fight. I for one want to win, and the LEO's that are contributing here are helping in that effort. If you absolutely feel the need to lash out at some LEO;s that deserve it, then visit the MCPD and give the Chief a good dose, but don't dump on the good guys.
Regards
LeagueOf1291
Regular Member
imported post
When I clerked for a federal judge in TN, I had an awesome amount of power. I could sink someone's case on a whim, if my judge was too busy to oversee my action.
That amount of power is dangerous no matter who wields it. It's like a firearm -- it's just inherently dangerous, and if mishandled will do great harm.
LEOs wield great power. If they do not recognize the bounds of the authority within which they should exercise that power, they will do great harm.
This is true regardless of their intentions. My five-year-old loves me, thinks I'm just fantastic. But if he doesn't know better and aims a loaded firearm at me and ignorantly pulls the trigger -- then he has wielded power beyond his ken and killed me with it.
So let's be clear -- I treat all men equally. Any man {person} with the power to govern his kin must do so within the bounds of the authority given him, or else do great harm to us.
When I clerked for a federal judge in TN, I had an awesome amount of power. I could sink someone's case on a whim, if my judge was too busy to oversee my action.
That amount of power is dangerous no matter who wields it. It's like a firearm -- it's just inherently dangerous, and if mishandled will do great harm.
LEOs wield great power. If they do not recognize the bounds of the authority within which they should exercise that power, they will do great harm.
This is true regardless of their intentions. My five-year-old loves me, thinks I'm just fantastic. But if he doesn't know better and aims a loaded firearm at me and ignorantly pulls the trigger -- then he has wielded power beyond his ken and killed me with it.
So let's be clear -- I treat all men equally. Any man {person} with the power to govern his kin must do so within the bounds of the authority given him, or else do great harm to us.
cato
Newbie
imported post
deleted by poster
deleted by poster
bayboy42
Regular Member
imported post
Hawkflyer wrote:
Hawkflyer wrote:
I see your point Hawlflyer but its entirely based on trust that can't be substantiated...i.e. nobody here is certain that folks like LEO 229 or cato are actually "Line Officers".You control your screen name andpersonal details around here....I could be the next VA Attorney General at the click of a button. I have enjoyed reading some of their posts and truely appreciate their insight but have taken the things they say with a grain of salt just like everyone else. Additionally, we must all realize that everything they say is solely an opinion (which as you say is indeed still valuable).
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
bayboy42 wrote:
I accept your premise and recognize that is the case. All I am suggesting is that in the absence of proof to the contrary, a few civil courtesies should be extended to ANY posters on this or any other list. I keep reading posts from people bashing any LEO in sight, as though they were all "Jack booted thugs" (NRA's term not mine).
Now come a few guys, who try to explain police procedures and department operational rules. Guys who have said NOTHING that would hint that they are not completely supportive of the goals of everyone else I have seen on this website. Not one of these detractors has cited a single example where it can be shown that what they are saying is not the truth. Nor is there any evidence indicating that they are not exactly who they say they are. And yet they are treated with a level of disrespect that just should not be part of civil discourse without cause.
While this sort of thing is common on many discussion sites, I for one was hoping that this particular site would aspire to a higher goal of civil discourse. After all I have not seen any one of these guys accuse anyone of not being just who they say they are. And at every opportunity they have been supportive of individual firearms rights. More importantly, I can not find any error generally in the information they have provided. Until I do they will continue to receive the same respect from me that I extend to anyone else.
As for screen names, believe me it is actually the case that some of us are not permitted to speak freely on issues without a complete break between our opinions and where we work. Someone in the Tony's 7 thread made a universal statement to the effect that all government employees abuse their positions.
Well I would submit that is not the case, and part of the evidence is the very isolation of the person from their employer created by the use of a screen name. If many on this list divulged completely who they were and where they worked it would produce an instant pecking order of authorities on every issue. While this might be a good thing in some ways, it would also be an abuse of position, and in many agencies it would be actionable. Moreover, that sort of thing comes back to bite LEO's and expert witnesses every day in the Courtroom.
My take on screen names is that people can read and believe any post as equally authoritative and research the matter further if they have a question as to veracity. While this forum bills itself as open to all for the exchange of ideas, it may in fact only be so under conditions that somehow I can't seem to find in the rules of engagement threads.
In short I would like to see mutual respect and courtesy between the participants, absence actual evidence that says a person might not warrant such.
Regards
bayboy42 wrote:
I accept your premise and recognize that is the case. All I am suggesting is that in the absence of proof to the contrary, a few civil courtesies should be extended to ANY posters on this or any other list. I keep reading posts from people bashing any LEO in sight, as though they were all "Jack booted thugs" (NRA's term not mine).
Now come a few guys, who try to explain police procedures and department operational rules. Guys who have said NOTHING that would hint that they are not completely supportive of the goals of everyone else I have seen on this website. Not one of these detractors has cited a single example where it can be shown that what they are saying is not the truth. Nor is there any evidence indicating that they are not exactly who they say they are. And yet they are treated with a level of disrespect that just should not be part of civil discourse without cause.
While this sort of thing is common on many discussion sites, I for one was hoping that this particular site would aspire to a higher goal of civil discourse. After all I have not seen any one of these guys accuse anyone of not being just who they say they are. And at every opportunity they have been supportive of individual firearms rights. More importantly, I can not find any error generally in the information they have provided. Until I do they will continue to receive the same respect from me that I extend to anyone else.
As for screen names, believe me it is actually the case that some of us are not permitted to speak freely on issues without a complete break between our opinions and where we work. Someone in the Tony's 7 thread made a universal statement to the effect that all government employees abuse their positions.
Well I would submit that is not the case, and part of the evidence is the very isolation of the person from their employer created by the use of a screen name. If many on this list divulged completely who they were and where they worked it would produce an instant pecking order of authorities on every issue. While this might be a good thing in some ways, it would also be an abuse of position, and in many agencies it would be actionable. Moreover, that sort of thing comes back to bite LEO's and expert witnesses every day in the Courtroom.
My take on screen names is that people can read and believe any post as equally authoritative and research the matter further if they have a question as to veracity. While this forum bills itself as open to all for the exchange of ideas, it may in fact only be so under conditions that somehow I can't seem to find in the rules of engagement threads.
In short I would like to see mutual respect and courtesy between the participants, absence actual evidence that says a person might not warrant such.
Regards
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
This is a very educational thread. Kudos to LEO229 for starting and participating in it with honesty and openness. You got gumption, guy.
Also, some very savvy and judicious 'splaining by SST,Hawkflyer and Lo1921 (and others). I really like it when a discussionor debate is elevatedway above where the LCDers and simplists would have it reside. Remember folks: thesis, antithesis,synthesis...
This is a very educational thread. Kudos to LEO229 for starting and participating in it with honesty and openness. You got gumption, guy.
Also, some very savvy and judicious 'splaining by SST,Hawkflyer and Lo1921 (and others). I really like it when a discussionor debate is elevatedway above where the LCDers and simplists would have it reside. Remember folks: thesis, antithesis,synthesis...
imported post
One of my co workers, lets call him "John" was in the fan area in richmond and at about 9 oclock at night when he was still a highschool student when someone tried to rob him. They claimed they had a gun and would shoot if he did not give them his things. He said what the guy had up his sleeve did not look like a gun so he fought back. Eventually the attacker tore open Johns jacket where he had a fixed blade buck knife that he grabbed and started to stab the attacker repeatedly. When the police came, John did not get a concealed weapon charge considering the fact that it had saved his life, and the attacker who was traced by his blood trail turned out to have robbed and assaulted many other people recently. He was sentenced to 15 years in jail for his crimes if I remember it correctly. And get this...It turned out his so called gun was a pair of pliers.
Now, I assume John could have gotten a concealed weapon charge, but apparently he had police officers arrive who used their better judgment and knew he was just a citizen trying to protect himself. Just a side note...his mom always asked " why do you always carry so many knives around!?" He finally had a good excuse when he came home unscathed but covered in the attachers blood, he said "THIS IS WHY~!" Heheh... Anyway, being that the man did not have a gun, but claimed he did and would use it to inflict bodily harm or even death, does this mean that John was in fact acting against deadly force?
I guess what I am saying is, in this area, many of these theives roll up on you with thier hand in their pocket claiming to have a gun and shoot you if you dont give them your wallet etc. Does this give me a right to draw and fire on them even though you dont know for sure if they really have a weapon or not(I have a CHP)? First of all, I fear they take my gun from me if I do not act, and if they do not have a weapon to begin with, they will now have mine to commit the next robbery. Second,what if I give them my things and they pat me down anyway, find my gun and shoot me. Personally I think I would take the chance and draw and fire until I ran outta bullet because I tired of hearing about this bastards getting away with this gangter crap in my neighborhood. I don't care if they carry tech 9's, a knife, or a pair of pliers to rob us with, I want them to know that citizens are ready to fight back regardless of how bad @ss they think they are. A trained, practiced citizen can draw and shoot faster than they can ever believe when it simply looks as though you are reaching to get your wallet out for them. I carry at four o clock and dry practice and practicing shooting from this position so it will seem as though I am getting my wallet when really I am ready to do what I have trained for: protecting my life and the others around me when someone puts me into the situation where there are no other options.
I even know someone who had this happen and when they drew their CCgun the bad guy ran home with his tail betwe en his legs...obviously did not actually have a weapon. Personally, this was stupid because he drew and did not fire. What if the guy did have one and you were calling his bluff. He would fire first...So yea...
Sorry for the long post, but i have one more quick question. If someone invades your home, I have heard two things. 1.You can shoot them as long as they are inside. 2. You can only shoot them if you know they are armed. I was always told to make sure you shoot him so he falls into through the doorway so he is technically inside...haha, just joking. But which one is it? I for one am not going to come out with the flashlight and a gun pointed at a burgler and ask if he has a gun before I shoot, but would this get me a manslaughter charge?
So there, I will shut up now...LEO 229 I put in italics what I actually wanted answered to try and make it easier for you...Thanks!@
Oh man...I just rememebered one other question. You guys are gonna hate me. Someone at the other chain from where I work was leaving work and these five guys walked by and one just cold cocked him right in the face, laughed, and kept walking. What were his rights in that situation if he was carrying? What if they had proceeded to try and beat him right there on the concrete?
Ok, I am done, I promise...
One of my co workers, lets call him "John" was in the fan area in richmond and at about 9 oclock at night when he was still a highschool student when someone tried to rob him. They claimed they had a gun and would shoot if he did not give them his things. He said what the guy had up his sleeve did not look like a gun so he fought back. Eventually the attacker tore open Johns jacket where he had a fixed blade buck knife that he grabbed and started to stab the attacker repeatedly. When the police came, John did not get a concealed weapon charge considering the fact that it had saved his life, and the attacker who was traced by his blood trail turned out to have robbed and assaulted many other people recently. He was sentenced to 15 years in jail for his crimes if I remember it correctly. And get this...It turned out his so called gun was a pair of pliers.
Now, I assume John could have gotten a concealed weapon charge, but apparently he had police officers arrive who used their better judgment and knew he was just a citizen trying to protect himself. Just a side note...his mom always asked " why do you always carry so many knives around!?" He finally had a good excuse when he came home unscathed but covered in the attachers blood, he said "THIS IS WHY~!" Heheh... Anyway, being that the man did not have a gun, but claimed he did and would use it to inflict bodily harm or even death, does this mean that John was in fact acting against deadly force?
I guess what I am saying is, in this area, many of these theives roll up on you with thier hand in their pocket claiming to have a gun and shoot you if you dont give them your wallet etc. Does this give me a right to draw and fire on them even though you dont know for sure if they really have a weapon or not(I have a CHP)? First of all, I fear they take my gun from me if I do not act, and if they do not have a weapon to begin with, they will now have mine to commit the next robbery. Second,what if I give them my things and they pat me down anyway, find my gun and shoot me. Personally I think I would take the chance and draw and fire until I ran outta bullet because I tired of hearing about this bastards getting away with this gangter crap in my neighborhood. I don't care if they carry tech 9's, a knife, or a pair of pliers to rob us with, I want them to know that citizens are ready to fight back regardless of how bad @ss they think they are. A trained, practiced citizen can draw and shoot faster than they can ever believe when it simply looks as though you are reaching to get your wallet out for them. I carry at four o clock and dry practice and practicing shooting from this position so it will seem as though I am getting my wallet when really I am ready to do what I have trained for: protecting my life and the others around me when someone puts me into the situation where there are no other options.
I even know someone who had this happen and when they drew their CCgun the bad guy ran home with his tail betwe en his legs...obviously did not actually have a weapon. Personally, this was stupid because he drew and did not fire. What if the guy did have one and you were calling his bluff. He would fire first...So yea...
Sorry for the long post, but i have one more quick question. If someone invades your home, I have heard two things. 1.You can shoot them as long as they are inside. 2. You can only shoot them if you know they are armed. I was always told to make sure you shoot him so he falls into through the doorway so he is technically inside...haha, just joking. But which one is it? I for one am not going to come out with the flashlight and a gun pointed at a burgler and ask if he has a gun before I shoot, but would this get me a manslaughter charge?
So there, I will shut up now...LEO 229 I put in italics what I actually wanted answered to try and make it easier for you...Thanks!@
Oh man...I just rememebered one other question. You guys are gonna hate me. Someone at the other chain from where I work was leaving work and these five guys walked by and one just cold cocked him right in the face, laughed, and kept walking. What were his rights in that situation if he was carrying? What if they had proceeded to try and beat him right there on the concrete?
Ok, I am done, I promise...
LeagueOf1291
Regular Member
imported post
The test is whether you have a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm or death. If the guy says he has a gun, and acts like he has a gun, and threatens you as if he had a gun, then you have a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm or death.
And I don't know about you, but if I just saw a guy break someone's nose and laugh, and then he eyes me and heads in my direction, my hand's going for my piece.
The test is whether you have a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm or death. If the guy says he has a gun, and acts like he has a gun, and threatens you as if he had a gun, then you have a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm or death.
And I don't know about you, but if I just saw a guy break someone's nose and laugh, and then he eyes me and heads in my direction, my hand's going for my piece.
jimwyant
Regular Member
imported post
cato wrote:
cato wrote:
Off topic, but I have to ask - do you have a Russian background? I wouldn't have recognized the word, but my wife is Russian/Ukrainian.
jimwyant
Regular Member
imported post
Here's a scenario for LEO229. I posted this in another thread, milliseconds before the Manassas thread went crazy, so I'm reposting here.
Let's say I'm walking down a public street in a residential neighborhood, minding my own business, taking an evening stroll, about an hour before sunset. Nothing about the way I'm carrying myself is suspicious. There have been no recent reports of any crimes committed in which the perpetrators in any way resemble me or the way I am dressed. I am, however, openly carrying both an H&K USP45 in a holster, and a Benelli shotgun secured via a quality sling. You are on duty, and happen to drive by and observe me. For the record, there is obviously no question as to whether or not I am over the age of 21. What, if anything would you do?
Consider the same scenario, but instead of "happening to drive by and see me", someone called to report my presence - no suspicious activity beyond the presence of the weapons, just a "concerned citizen" who wouldn't take "OC in VA is legal" as an answer from dispatch.
What if instead of early evening, it is 1AM, and I am also carrying a flashlight, which I am using between street lights? (I work night shift, and maintain the same sleep schedule on my days off, but for the purpose of this scenario, you are not aware of this fact.)
If, in either scenario, you choose to stop and chat, assume that I am polite and courteous, but claim not to be carrying an ID, and decline to volunteer any details about why I am there, where I am going, or why I am armed. How would you handle the situation, and why?
I'm just looking for a current LEO's opinion on this. If you'd rather not answer, no problem.
Here's a scenario for LEO229. I posted this in another thread, milliseconds before the Manassas thread went crazy, so I'm reposting here.
Let's say I'm walking down a public street in a residential neighborhood, minding my own business, taking an evening stroll, about an hour before sunset. Nothing about the way I'm carrying myself is suspicious. There have been no recent reports of any crimes committed in which the perpetrators in any way resemble me or the way I am dressed. I am, however, openly carrying both an H&K USP45 in a holster, and a Benelli shotgun secured via a quality sling. You are on duty, and happen to drive by and observe me. For the record, there is obviously no question as to whether or not I am over the age of 21. What, if anything would you do?
Consider the same scenario, but instead of "happening to drive by and see me", someone called to report my presence - no suspicious activity beyond the presence of the weapons, just a "concerned citizen" who wouldn't take "OC in VA is legal" as an answer from dispatch.
What if instead of early evening, it is 1AM, and I am also carrying a flashlight, which I am using between street lights? (I work night shift, and maintain the same sleep schedule on my days off, but for the purpose of this scenario, you are not aware of this fact.)
If, in either scenario, you choose to stop and chat, assume that I am polite and courteous, but claim not to be carrying an ID, and decline to volunteer any details about why I am there, where I am going, or why I am armed. How would you handle the situation, and why?
I'm just looking for a current LEO's opinion on this. If you'd rather not answer, no problem.