“Americans should reasonably expect to be shot dead by police for possessing guns in their homes.”

SPM

SPM

Wobomagonda
Life Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
7,819
Location
NC
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
The "Justice" system....

The facts are undisputed, according to 11th Circuit Court of Appeals judges Ed Carnes, Gerald Tjoflat, Frank Hull, Stanley Marcus, William Pryor, Adalberto Jordan and Julie Carnes.


The appeals court, the most recent to rule in favor of the officers, cited “qualified immunity,” which is generally granted to law enforcement officers for doing their job.

The appeals judges claimed, “No clearly established federal law gave clear and fair notice that Deputy [Richard] Sylvester’s conduct was unlawful.”
Click to expand...

People need to wake up and realize this ain't the Land of the Free anymore....

Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2017/09/cops-knock-and-shoot-leaves-innocent-man-dead/#64h7U48ErlezhhqP.99
 
spittinfire said:
This story just doesn't make sense at all, from any aspect.
Click to expand...
That's because the "story" is a damn blog post using excerpts from the case. Even the title was a statement from an activist group putting their own spin on the judges decision and were never uttered by anyone involved with the case.

We deserve better.
 
J R Green said:
That's because the "story" is a damn blog post using excerpts from the case. Even the title was a statement from an activist group putting their own spin on the judges decision and were never uttered by anyone involved with the case.

We deserve better.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's a quote from the amicus brief of that notorious anti-Law Enforcement activist group the Second Amendment Foundation, and their dirty, anti-cop attorney Alan Gura.

You can see his anti-cop bias in his arguments in Heller and MacDonald.

Give me a break man. I get that you're honor bound to defend your particular street gang and their thuggery no matter what, but your insistence that their bad behavior should be dismissed in all cases because blog is silly.

Unless your position is the SAF is out of touch and anti- Law Enforcement....
 
Last edited:
SPM said:
Yep, it's a quote from the amicus brief of that notorious anti-Law Enforcement activist group the Second Amendment Foundation, and their dirty, anti-cop attorney Alan Gura.

You can see his anti-cop bias in his arguments in Heller and MacDonald.

Give me a break man. I get that you're honor bound to defend your particular street gang and their thuggery no matter what, but your insistence that their bad behavior should be dismissed in all cases because blog is silly.

Unless your position is the SAF is out of touch and anti- Law Enforcement....[/

QUOTE]
Click to expand...

I've defended nothing and I have no gang. You suggesting that I have is just more of the same inflammatory speculation that your title suggests. The fact that someone holds out for the whole story and doesn't buy the edited one sided version of the story automatically makes them against you.
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit wary of accepting this article on face value, because I'm not getting the full story.

BUT...

IF the court actually believes prima facie that “Americans should reasonably expect to be shot dead by police for possessing guns in their homes”, then this potentially changes the playing field.

Why? Because we're dealing with the rules involving the justifiable use of deadly force. Those same rules (essentially) apply to civilians. Except, of course, they don't have qualified immunity.

See, it's bad enough that a law enforcement officer would be beating on a door in the middle of the night without identifying himself. This alone sets the field up for tragedy.

Now this court is saying there is reason for citizens to fear for their lives when the police are simply knocking on their door.


NOW...that said...

Personally, I don't think the door should have been opened at all at 1:30 in the morning, without knowing who the person was on the other side. Opening the door removes the only physical barrier between yourself and potential assailants, and that's a stupid tactical move.

Also, the case here didn't involve a scenario where the person was shot simply for "possessing a gun in his home", as paraphrased from the article. Simply possession a gun in your home is a whole 'nuther world from answering a door with a gun in one's hand.

Even so...the resident of the apartment didn't attempt to shoot...he attempted to shut the door when he saw a figure with a gun. And apparently the officer shot through the door after this.


The problem here is that a wrongful death or manslaughter occurred. It was wrong because the police officer shot and killed someone who was NOT the person they were looking for and who was NOT, in any way, affiliated with that person or otherwise engaging in a criminal activity for which the police would have been pursuing him in the first place.

In the real world, people get sent to prison for manslaughter and wrongful deaths (caused by recklessness or negligence) all the time. They're fiscally destroyed by it. They carry a criminal record the rest of their lives.

"Qualified immunity" means that the STATE protects those who were acting as their agents if such a thing occurred while acting in their capacity as a state agent and under the guidelines and laws governing the agency.

HOWEVER...that does NOT change the fact that a wrongful death occurred. So, if the AGENT is covered by "qualified immunity", then the STATE should be the ones held responsible.
 
The theory of immunity for those on the government payroll is a judicial invention and an open declaration that they are above the law and may violate it without consequence.

Declaration of Independence
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

I was having a few adult beverages with a close friend of mine and another friend of his with whom I was merely acquainted. My buddy's friend was a prosecutor for a medium sized city. He told my friend that he (my close friend and his) "could ride his motorcycle 90 mph down Rte. 3 (the main drag through town and a 35 mph zone almost the whole way) buck naked and we would lose that case."

During the same conversation, the subject came up of a particular municipal court that was less than even handed in it's dispensation of justice, that he had argued cases in while in private practice. This court was so bad that the statewide daily did a story comparing conviction rates for DWI in different courts. A few were just over 50%. This one was 106%! The study looked at 6 years of data, throwing out cases starting before the period but resolved during and those brought during but not yet resolved. Nobody could explain more convictions than arraignments.

He said he loved cases in that court. He said before the session, attorneys for both sides (most appearing did not even have an attorney) would meet the judge in chambers and give a rundown of their evidence and arguments and he would decide then and there the resolution.

So I asked him directly, "Are you saying that everything is already decided before court is gavelled into session?"

He replied, "Yes. It's great."

:mad:

Crooks. Every single one of them.
 
Last edited:
There are lots of things I would like to say about this, but won't, at least openly.

What I will say is:
One, tactic change. Not opening the door, especially at silly o'clock.
One and a half, bust in my door and your not going to survive, I don't care who you work for. You're a criminal thug, period.
Two, I kept reading this nonsense about identifying as an "officer" (what is this, the Soviet Union?). For the umteenth time yelling the word Po Po is meaningless.
Three, those that think I'm nuts when I say we need to take away the function of "law enforcement " from the "government" need to wake up.
Four, qualified immunity, regardless of what flavor the po pop or any other "government" agent takes needs to go.
 
"Qualified immunity" apparently means government agents can use any measure of force to ensure the bad guys are punished, including killing any innocent folks who happen to get it the way.
 
Howland said:
The theory of immunity for those on the government payroll is a judicial invention and an open declaration that they are above the law and may violate it without consequence.

My buddy's friend was a prosecutor for a medium sized city. He told my friend that he (my close friend and his) "could ride his motorcycle 90 mph down Rte. 3 (the main drag through town and a 35 mph zone almost the whole way) buck naked and we would lose that case."
Click to expand...

Who would say such a thing?

160810171453-trump-quote-eleven-revised-super-169.jpg
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
I'm a bit wary of accepting this article on face value, because I'm not getting the full story.

BUT...

IF the court actually believes prima facie that “Americans should reasonably expect to be shot dead by police for possessing guns in their homes”, then this potentially changes the playing field.

Why? Because we're dealing with the rules involving the justifiable use of deadly force. Those same rules (essentially) apply to civilians. Except, of course, they don't have qualified immunity.

See, it's bad enough that a law enforcement officer would be beating on a door in the middle of the night without identifying himself. This alone sets the field up for tragedy.

Now this court is saying there is reason for citizens to fear for their lives when the police are simply knocking on their door.


NOW...that said...

Personally, I don't think the door should have been opened at all at 1:30 in the morning, without knowing who the person was on the other side. Opening the door removes the only physical barrier between yourself and potential assailants, and that's a stupid tactical move.

Also, the case here didn't involve a scenario where the person was shot simply for "possessing a gun in his home", as paraphrased from the article. Simply possession a gun in your home is a whole 'nuther world from answering a door with a gun in one's hand.

Even so...the resident of the apartment didn't attempt to shoot...he attempted to shut the door when he saw a figure with a gun. And apparently the officer shot through the door after this.


The problem here is that a wrongful death or manslaughter occurred. It was wrong because the police officer shot and killed someone who was NOT the person they were looking for and who was NOT, in any way, affiliated with that person or otherwise engaging in a criminal activity for which the police would have been pursuing him in the first place.

In the real world, people get sent to prison for manslaughter and wrongful deaths (caused by recklessness or negligence) all the time. They're fiscally destroyed by it. They carry a criminal record the rest of their lives.

"Qualified immunity" means that the STATE protects those who were acting as their agents if such a thing occurred while acting in their capacity as a state agent and under the guidelines and laws governing the agency.

HOWEVER...that does NOT change the fact that a wrongful death occurred. So, if the AGENT is covered by "qualified immunity", then the STATE should be the ones held responsible.
Click to expand...

Don't believe what this article tells you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/andrew-lee-scott-dead_n_1679408.html

“When we knocked on the door, the door opened and the occupant of that apartment was pointing a gun at deputies and that’s when we opened fire and killed him,” said Lt. John Herrell.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...hard-sylvester-andrew-lee-scott-miranda-mauck

Inside, Scott had been watching a movie with Mauck, his girlfriend of more than a year. He got his gun out of the bedroom. Mauck told investigators Scott answered the door armed with his 9mm gun at least twice before for unexpected visitors. Moments later, Sylvester said the door suddenly opened. "The door flings open, not just around what you would expect."

Scott was "standing in the doorway with an arm fully extended and he's got a semi-automatic pistol stuck in my face," Scott told the FDLE investigator. "I hollered 'gun' to warn everybody and I shot him."

There are actual legitimate news stories about this but you've been duped into believing a false narrative by someone with their own agenda.
 
J R Green said:
There are actual legitimate news stories about this but you've been duped into believing a false narrative by someone with their own agenda.
Click to expand...

The only agenda here is safeguarding unalienable Rights and the Public Liberty from those who wantonly violate both and the system which absolves them of any accountability, and demonstrating that the only thing LE Protects and Serves is the State.
 
If you feel threatened by someone knocking on the door, call 911. Pointing a gun at someone that you don’t intend to shoot is unwise.

I don’t recall having a civil right to point a gun at someone, does anyone here want to argue that this action should not be distinguishable from the right to be armed?

I don’t see this case as an example of qualified immunity being abused or expanded by the courts, much less a good example.
 
JimB said:
I don’t recall having a civil right to point a gun at someone, does anyone here want to argue that this action should not be distinguishable from the right to be armed?.
Click to expand...
Now it doesn't take much imagination to hypothesize that the po po didn't see him, draw from a holster, and fire. The time lag is such that either the victim would have gotten off multiple shots or seen who was there and lowered his weapon.

No, dollars to donuts says that THEY had their guns drawn and pointed and he would have been staring down a barrel when he opened the door. Either pointing a gun at someone is right or it's wrong. Take your pick.
 
This is just more proof, that the police are enemies of the general public. We already have a USSC case that states the general public has no expectation of protection from the police. The police are not required to investigate any crime, the police and DA office get to pick and chose what crimes investigated.
 
noway2 said:
Now it doesn't take much imagination to hypothesize that the po po didn't see him, draw from a holster, and fire. The time lag is such that either the victim would have gotten off multiple shots or seen who was there and lowered his weapon.

No, dollars to donuts says that THEY had their guns drawn and pointed and he would have been staring down a barrel when he opened the door. Either pointing a gun at someone is right or it's wrong. Take your pick.
Click to expand...

Uhh, it is wrong...but you know that.

Article says that police had guns drawn, but didn’t provide additional detail. I’d take your bet though, I can’t imagine that they planned to knock on every door in an apt complex and have guns pointed at whoever answered.

Hard to imagine what the victim was thinking. Take gun to door, so fearful, but not so fearful as to leave the door closed. Then open door and presumably expect bad guy, but not be mentally prepared to fire. My guess is that if you asked him he’d have said that he thought any bad guys would run off at the sight of him and his gun and he’d go back to watching tv and maybe get some action from his girl cause he’s a stud. What happened was the popo yelled, maybe pushed the door, and the guy froze up. Anyway, that’s just my bet.

Having said all that, would like to see body cam video.
 
noway2 said:
Now it doesn't take much imagination to hypothesize that the po po didn't see him, draw from a holster, and fire. The time lag is such that either the victim would have gotten off multiple shots or seen who was there and lowered his weapon.

No, dollars to donuts says that THEY had their guns drawn and pointed and he would have been staring down a barrel when he opened the door. Either pointing a gun at someone is right or it's wrong. Take your pick.
Click to expand...
It's only wrong to point the gun & not pull the trigger. The decision to use deadly force should come before you aim.
 
“Assuming tactical positions surrounding the door to Apartment 114, the deputies had their guns drawn and ready to shoot. Sylvester, without announcing he was a police officer, then banged loudly and repeatedly on the door, causing a neighbor to open his door. When questioned by a deputy, the neighbor explained that the motorcycle’s owner did not live in Apartment 114. This information was not relayed to Sylvester. Unnerved by the banging at such a late hour, Andrew Scott retrieved his handgun before opening the door. When Scott saw a shadowy figure holding a gun outside his door, he retreated into his apartment only to have Sylvester immediately open fire. Sylvester fired six shots, three of which hit and killed Scott.”

This statement is enough for me to question the entire blog. Did this happen fast or slow? Were they loud enough to have neighbors come out and talk before it all happened as it sounds or did it just happen fast and loud? If neighbor came out how is it they weren’t afraid for their life? This is a very one sided re-enactment of facts.
 
I'm not opening the door for anyone after 9PM that doesn't call or text me first. And rest assured if you are in the long private driveway you are already on surveillance video.

So, bang away at the door. If the door opens by force or by burglary tools you have 30 pain-and-death inducing chances to leave on your own volution
 
If anyone thinks that a lot of people that are in law enforcement don't have a sense of entitlement, they are foolish. The sense of entitlement extends way beyond thinking society owes them a giant smooch on the backside and special discounts.

This has probably gotten worse since I worked with quite a few police officers as part of my job. I haven't dealt with many after 9/11. The few I have dealt with failed to impress me. Not that they have to or anything, but treating citizens like crap, and playing a gotcha game along side the road at 0430. Between that and a 23 minute response time to an alarm at my home doesn't instill much confidence.

Treating a citizen like crap - Cop couldn't understood directions given to him by a jogger that my neighbors dog bit. I declined to fess up and he proceeded to intimate that I was being untruthful. I asked specific questions that he answered in the affirmative about the directions. He was lying. Fortunately I witnessed the event earlier and when he finally stopped running his mouth long enough, I think he was reaching for his bullet, I clued him in to where he needed to be. That clown stood in my driveway and called me a liar. Fortunately it wasn't something serious, or it probably would not have ended well.

0430 am - Pulled over by a very twitchy young officer who came up on my vehicle and asked if I was armed before anything could have been said if I was. First thing out of his mouth. Too much coffee? Drugs? Twitchy to the point that I was getting nervous. When I worked in a drug rehab, I would have assessed excessive stimulant use. I'm pretty sure most anyone would the way this guy was acting.

23 minute response time - Alarm company notified police as they are supposed to, as well as me. I beat them there and since I knew why the alarm went off, I got back to the house and confirmed it. As I am finishing with the alarm company, officer not in any hurry pulls up. I could have been a bad guy, never asked for ID when I told him he wasn't needed. Got letter in mail letting me know that it would cost 45 dollars next time.

Yeah....
 
concepthomes1 said:
I'm going to park at the end of your driveway and just sit
Click to expand...
you might want to clear the way for the suburban coming thru at a fast clip. We put some Rhino armor on it just for that reason. I'm looking at hardening the doors and putting some plexi in also.
If we gonna treat each other like Iraqis, I'm rolling like I'm going out of the green zone.
 
Last edited:
TripleO7 said:
If anyone thinks that a lot of people that are in law enforcement don't have a sense of entitlement, they are foolish. The sense of entitlement extends way beyond thinking society owes them a giant smooch on the backside and special discounts.....
Click to expand...

True. But many years in EMS and being on two different LE tactical/SWAT teams has shown me that cops are distributed on a bell curve: some are truly exceptional, some are truly bad apples, but most are just folks wanting to go home at the end of the day. But those cops like you mentioned, they squeak loudest....
 
Chuckman said:
cops are distributed on a bell curve: some are truly exceptional, some are truly bad apples, but most are just folks wanting to go home at the end of the day.
Click to expand...

Kinda like the rest of us I suppose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom