this will be one heck of a lawsuit!!!


festus

festus

God Bless Our Troops!!!
Link Removed

I hope this guy wins and wins big for gun rights everywhere.
 

Law enforcement is going to have to learn new ways ways to deal with people with firearms in their homes (no-knock invasions will have to become a thing of the past) and in states where open carry is allowed, dealing with people openly carrying firearms.

Perhaps they should seek the advice of conservation officers who often have to investigate alleged hunting law violations by armed people. CO's don't normally walk up to a hunter suspected of violating a hunting law and ordered them to the ground. CO's still manage to effectively enforce hunting laws without going SWAT on the suspect.
 
The city attorney is saying that the officers have qualified immunity from prosecution. Remains to be seen if they can make that stick.
 
Nightmare45 said:
Kick my door in you will be in a war, dogs, guns, booby traps.
Click to expand...

Dose your local fire department know of that dangerous condition? What if a fire starts in your house and then spreads to other houses because fire fighters wouldn't enter your house to control the fire due to the dangerous condition you have created? You willing to serve time for that?

Booby traps are illegal in every jurisdiction I know of because of the hazard they pose to the community.
 
I'm hearing of more of these dynamic entries involving indiscriminate shooting. I find it most disconcerting that they seem to do this more regularly at wrong addresses and then simply say "OOPS, Sorry" and they get off scott free. Every time.
I've also been hearing of entries by crooks yelling "POLICE, SEARCH WARRANT" hoping to get the drop on unsuspecting victims, so I'm becoming more worried about such happenings. Consequently, I have been more wary to movement around my domicile and am getting jumpy. That's to say, if I hear any breakage, I have a defense plan and I really don't care what they say as they step across the threshold.
The militarized swat teams wear body armor but they aren't expecting to come up against a resident who knows how to take head shots without any second thought. What the police are going to experience is some of their badge-wearing thugs going home in body bags.
They may have qualified immunity from prosecution but do they have have qualified immunity from DEATH ?
So let them explain THAT to the public.
 
nogods said:
Dose your local fire department know of that dangerous condition? What if a fire starts in your house and then spreads to other houses because fire fighters wouldn't enter your house to control the fire due to the dangerous condition you have created? You willing to serve time for that?

Booby traps are illegal in every jurisdiction I know of because of the hazard they pose to the community.
Click to expand...

Believe we were talking about illegal entry to home, you get what you get.
 
That's ridiculous. I hate to say it, as much as I respect the title and position of a law enforcement officer, they are just that, a law enforcement officer. I realize that many may jump to conclusions, feel that they're justified in grilling you with questions or asking for your own justifications in peaceably carrying out your business, but I do not excuse it and frankly will not tolerate anything less than equal and deserving respect from anyone around me when I am opting to arm myself for the defense of innocent life all around me, my own especially. Badge or no badge, uniform or not, I don't owe anyone anything when I haven't taken from them. This sort of training and understanding needs to be pounded into the mental and psychological training that officers take on when preparing for duty. I mean no disrespect to those officers that handle the balance of rights and responsibilities in a non-confrontational manner and I'm certain there are some that can recognize just that.

Society has attempted to criminalize the act of carrying out your personal business in a public setting while armed, and this virtual "zero-tolerance" brainwashing has gone too far and repulses me when I think of the hoards of people willing to sacrifice their own lives out of ignorance for not choosing to take a more active role in their own defense and that of others around them. It's one matter to decide that you don't have the physical and mental constitution to handle that responsibility, and I respect that completely. But to cast aspersions on those that take on that responsibility is downright ignorant and I have no patience for those that are morally and mentally weak enough to attempt to strip me of that right. Forgive my rant, but I've had enough with the concept of "compromising" and homogenizing our views to appease everyone. It can't happen. Not everyone will agree with me, or you, or everyone else you affiliate with. We all hold different views. We have to learn to keep our opinions to ourselves and respect those of each other and not attempt to dismantle each others' lives because we don't feel they are in political and societal lockstep with what we feel is the only true course in life. If I choose to carry, and my neighbor despises it, too bad for him. Likewise, if he'd rather go about his day carefree and worry-free in hopes that no harm will befall him, that's on him and I will not chastise him for it. People need to leave one another the hell alone, including those charged with the duty of preserving peace within our neighborhoods when there is no disruption of peace taking place. An individual arming oneself for protection is not a disruption of peace. Period.
 
spasmonaut said:
That's ridiculous. I hate to say it, as much as I respect the title and position of a law enforcement officer, they are just that, a law enforcement officer. I realize that many may jump to conclusions, feel that they're justified in grilling you with questions or asking for your own justifications in peaceably carrying out your business, but I do not excuse it and frankly will not tolerate anything less than equal and deserving respect from anyone around me when I am opting to arm myself for the defense of innocent life all around me, my own especially. Badge or no badge, uniform or not, I don't owe anyone anything when I haven't taken from them. This sort of training and understanding needs to be pounded into the mental and psychological training that officers take on when preparing for duty. I mean no disrespect to those officers that handle the balance of rights and responsibilities in a non-confrontational manner and I'm certain there are some that can recognize just that.

Society has attempted to criminalize the act of carrying out your personal business in a public setting while armed, and this virtual "zero-tolerance" brainwashing has gone too far and repulses me when I think of the hoards of people willing to sacrifice their own lives out of ignorance for not choosing to take a more active role in their own defense and that of others around them. It's one matter to decide that you don't have the physical and mental constitution to handle that responsibility, and I respect that completely. But to cast aspersions on those that take on that responsibility is downright ignorant and I have no patience for those that are morally and mentally weak enough to attempt to strip me of that right. Forgive my rant, but I've had enough with the concept of "compromising" and homogenizing our views to appease everyone. It can't happen. Not everyone will agree with me, or you, or everyone else you affiliate with. We all hold different views. We have to learn to keep our opinions to ourselves and respect those of each other and not attempt to dismantle each others' lives because we don't feel they are in political and societal lockstep with what we feel is the only true course in life. If I choose to carry, and my neighbor despises it, too bad for him. Likewise, if he'd rather go about his day carefree and worry-free in hopes that no harm will befall him, that's on him and I will not chastise him for it. People need to leave one another the hell alone, including those charged with the duty of preserving peace within our neighborhoods when there is no disruption of peace taking place. An individual arming oneself for protection is not a disruption of peace. Period.
Click to expand...

You, sir, have just delivered a very lucid and succinct post on this thread and should be commended for it. Excellent job.
 
I am not so sure about the term (law enforcement officer) when one of them blasted a guy at a movie theater for throwing popcorn at him, exactly WTF is that
 
What got me fired up the most is that the COP actually quoted Terry vs. OH. If this cop knows case law that he cannot stop someone just for having an open holstered firearm, then why is he doing it????

:confused: :confused: :confused:
 
wolf_fire said:
What got me fired up the most is that the COP actually quoted Terry vs. OH. If this cop knows case law that he cannot stop someone just for having an open holstered firearm, then why is he doing it????

:confused: :confused: :confused:
Click to expand...

Because the PD received a 911 call, so they had no option but to respond.

Right.

The leadership of the City of Grand Rapids are going radical liberal, and hoping to take the rest of us with them. The Mayor, in particular. There was no indicator of his inclinations until the last year or so that he has been in office, and he has been quietly gathering like-minded individuals to help him try to circumvent the state's pre-emption law.


The Grand Rapids Press has once again placed themselves on the wrong side of the gun control debate:

...Deffert and other advocates are exploiting a legal gray area, wherein open carry is neither prohibited nor explicitly allowed for in Michigan. State police and others have issued memos noting open carry is legal because no law exists barring the practice...

Deffert and his supporters seem to suggest that they shouldn’t receive any scrutiny because only law-abiding citizens openly carry guns. Criminals would be too scared to be so bold, they argue. That is a weak argument. If a person openly carrying a weapon should be shielded from police questioning, as they contend, why would a criminal refrain from wearing a visible holster?

We applaud the city of Grand Rapids for backing its police officer’s actions, and assuring the public that suspicious behavior will continue to be investigated. It’s time for state lawmakers to more clearly define the legal gray area regarding open carry. Editorial: Brazen tactics by open carry advocates do little to spur productive debate | MLive.com
Click to expand...


So, in other words, the Press equates "suspicious behavior," an inherently subjective term, with the Terry Rule's requirement that there must be reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing. Here is the letter I sent to the Editors of the Grand Rapids Press in response:

This is about the LAW, not individual sensibilities.

The issue of "Terry Stops" has been addressed in three different Michigan State Police legal updates: October 14, 2008, April 2007, May 2006. The 2006 update clearly outlines the requirements for a Terry Stop:

"1. Reasonable suspicion that a crime is afoot, AND
2. Reasonable suspicion that the person is armed."

A person talking to himself is not evidence that a crime is in progress; quite frankly, we ALL do that, because it helps to be able to actually articulate what we are thinking. So the fact that someone is talking to him-/herself is not evidence that stands up to the very low "reasonable suspicion" standard.

The same update makes it clear, actually, it EMPHASIZES, that "There is not an 'officer safety' exception to the search warrant rule - Terry pat-downs require more than a concern for safety… the court did not allow officers to search simply to ensure safety - they required that officers have a reason to be concerned for their safety BEFORE conducting the search."

Lacking articulable suspicion (an incredibly low legal standard that is not supported under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and represents yet another instance of judicial activism) that an individual openly carrying a firearm must have criminal intent, the only way that an officer can conduct a Terry search is if they obtain the consent of the person they wish to search (October 2008, May 2006 updates).

In other words, the fact that someone calls the police and says, "I see a person carrying a firearm," is not sufficient reason for police to conduct a Terry stop, as the mere exercise of the right to openly carry a firearm is not in any way evidence of criminal intent. As the April 2007 MSP Legal Update states, "IT IS NOT ILLEGAL UNDER MICHIGAN LAW TO OPENLY CARRY A PISTOL. As odd as it may appear, it is legal in Michigan for a person to carry a pistol in public as long as it is carried with lawful intent…" This is further affirmed under under Michigan Attorney General Opinion 7101, "...carrying a handgun in a holster that is in plain view, does not violate section 234e of the Michigan Penal Code, which prohibits brandishing a firearm in public."

Now, I know that there are many that will continue to argue that the police have a right to provide for their own safety, and that is true - within the bounds of the LAW, and as has already been pointed out, the Terry rule does not contain an officer safety exception.

As it related to the Deffert situation, the fact that he was talking to himself was not evidence of criminal activity, nor was the fact that he was openly carrying a clearly holstered firearm. When the police rolled up on him and asked if they could speak with him, Deffert would have been within his legal rights to say, "No," and continue on his way. The police saying that they had an obligation to insure that he didn't pose a threat is something that should have been established BEFORE they approached him in the first place, and the argument that they had a right to ensure their own safety is clearly in violation of the directives issued by the MSP Legal Updated relating to the Terry ruling.

This is about the law; frankly, personal sensibilities have no room in this discussion.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 174 (members: 0, guests: 174)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,544
Messages
611,260
Members
74,959
Latest member
defcon

Share this page

Back
Top