Georgia Police Shoot Unarmed Teen As He Answers Their Knock At Door

[Primus]

Yeah, I got a question. Why don't you think a little more about what you're posting in the first place so you don't have to backtrack again and again when you're called on bs?

Here's an answer ...

For those who were part of the conversation or even took a second to peruse the previous posts they should have been able to gather I already made it clear about the pointing the gun portion. To simplify while speaking to those who were part of the conversation i shortened it.

I didn't think I'd have to break down every single post and spell every single thing out every post to get people caught of the conversation. That was my mistake. I apologize for that.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

The United States Supreme Court, in the 1994 case of Staples v. United States, rejected the premise that those who possess firearms should expect to be treated like criminals. The government had argued in the case that all firearms are tantamount to narcotics and hand grenades and that anybody who possessed one therefore did so at his or her legal peril, whether or not the person had any knowledge he or she was doing anything wrong.

Something tells me that our friendly, professional enforcers of the law haven't abandoned this premise.

 

[Grapeshot]

Something tells me that our friendly, professional enforcers of the law haven't abandoned this premise.

Some obviously have not, but then so to have a number of LAC embraced the idea that most LEOs do not make fit associates.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Today marks day eleven since this child was killed. Eleven days of opportunity to acknowledge the existence of a gun in this situation, other than the one that killed this child.

As of now, there has been no acknowledgement of this child having a gun in his hand when he opened the door.



"Euharlee Police Chief Terry Harget said, “Two officers were serving an arrest warrant for another member of the family at the address. It has been determined that the teen was holding what appeared to be a weapon. The officer who fired the shot has been with our department for more than a year but has 10 years of law enforcement training and experience. At this time that is all I can release because the incident is currently under investigation by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. As soon as the investigation is complete we will release the findings."

Read more: The Daily Tribune News - Teen dies in officer involved shooting

Words of the Chief of Police in a press release. "APPEARED TO BE" is key here.

Are these weasel words? I don't know what "appeared to be" really means. I do note there is no declaration by the police that a gun was confirmed to be in the hands of this child. As far as witnesses, there were three other people besides the victim in that home at the time of the killing. Reports indicate the shooter entered the home following the shooting and pointed the same firearm at the 13 year old sister of the victim and told her to "stay back and shut up".

There also seems to be a blackout on this situation in the media since the funeral, that was held Friday, Feb. 22.

http://obits.dignitymemorial.com/di...opher-Roupe&lc=7131&pid=169775475&mid=5863597

 

[Tackleberry1]

Some obviously have not, but then so to have a number of LAC embraced the idea that most LEOs do not make fit associates.

I serve RSO duty at my gun club with several City Cops and Sheriff's Deputies... To a man, they are all 2A supporters... At least they are "at the range" where all members wear photo ID badges about their necks.

I've not met any of them on the street while OCing so I suppose I really won't know the truth about them until that happens.

Tack

 

[OC for ME]

<snip> Reports indicate the shooter entered the home following the shooting and pointed the same firearm at the 13 year old sister of the victim and told her to "stay back and shut up".

There also seems to be a blackout on this situation in the media since the funeral, that was held Friday, Feb. 22. <snip>

Do you have a link/liks to these reports? The "blackout" has been explained. The EPD will not speak of this matter until the GBI completes there investigation.

 

[DocWalker]

A reasonable person would back away from the "armed home owner" post haste. I would, others may not.

But, the cop was there on official business and not required to take a step back and analyze the situation. Nope: "Looks like a gun, it must be a.....BANG....oh s****, what have I done."

Not tough for a great many reasonable folks, I suspect, who walk up to another persons home.

A finger could look like a gun....would that count?

 

[DocWalker]

Do you have a link/liks to these reports? The "blackout" has been explained. The EPD will not speak of this matter until the GBI completes there investigation.

It takes a while to fabricate an explination to make everyone believe. If there was a gun then it would have been reported....period.

The LE in this case are scrambling to save one of their own from a bad shoot, it is pretty clear. Eleven days, really

If it wasn't a cop they would have been in jail and charged by now and not with a slap on the wrist.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Do you have a link/liks to these reports? The "blackout" has been explained. The EPD will not speak of this matter until the GBI completes there investigation.

The refusal of police to divulge information to those they serve does not limit the media from performing their own investigations. I suspect there is some collusion in the lack of investigative reporting and the police, possibly making the blackout a bit of a conspiracy to control opinion. The hope being if no information comes forth until the dust settles, no opinions or actions will be taken.

"The female cop already had her gun drawn when Mr. Roupe opened the door and gave him no warning to drop the [controller]. The 13-year-old sister of Mr. Roupe, who was crying, went to hug and/or comfort her dying brother when the female cop pointed the gun at her and told her to “shut up.”

http://opnateye.com/?p=1001

This information was originally posted by the victims aunt on a Euharlee community Facebook page that has since been removed [the entire issue regarding the killing of this child removed].

Some may take issue with the validity of the report. Also note that over 28 of the U.S. largest police departments are or have been under the control of the Department of justice for court determined corruption and civil rights abuses. How many smaller departments simply slide by due to lack of investigating manpower and the overwhelming number of corrupt departments? We are expected to believe the police can police their own, however, the FBI and the DOJ entertain no such notions.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/polmis.php

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/corruption

 

[OC for ME]

Some obviously have not, but then so to have a number of LAC embraced the idea that most LEOs do not make fit associates.

"fit associates"? Associates of whom? Certainly the vast majority associates of some cops clearly do not hold there associates as unfit. In fact, it is the very rare cop who would act on their belief that one of their associates should not remain a associate. Sadly, those very rare cops tend to depart the profession vs. suffering the slings and arrows, from their associates, of finding a remedy.

 

[Grapeshot]

--snipped--

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/polmis.php

The opening lines of this link are very telling:
"The vast majority of the law enforcement officers in this country perform their very difficult jobs with respect for their communities and in compliance with the law."

More importantly a better part of the post (which was snipped) is off-topic for this thread and would seem to an escalation outside the parameters of OCDO.

Note that the prior post has not been edited/deleted. If however that avenue is pursued here, be assured it will be addressed accordingly.

 

[OC for ME]

Got it.

 

[since9]

The question is when you answer the door is your gun in your hand? If so in the open? By your side? At the low ready? Or is it holstered like it should be?

Good questions. It's holstered when I look through peephole. Whether or not I even open the door depends on a lot of factors (whether or not I know them, their behavior, dress, credentials, sex, size, time of day, and my gut feeling).

In the case of law enforcement, yes, I would open the door, and of course the firearm remains holstered. To date I haven't had any issues with that.

That said, I stand by my earlier statement: "My point is "so what?" It's not the cop's home. It's the kid's home. I'm sick and tired of cops knocking on doors and flipping out like blithering idiots whenever the person answering the door is armed. He or she SHOULD be armed. We have enough crime as it is, and some wackos dress up as cops."

If the kid is pointing it at the cop, that's one thing. If he's simply holding it, that's another. I talked with a friend who is law enforcement, and he said their SOP is:

- if the firearm is holstered, keep a close eye on it and the individual, noting behavior, demeanor, etc.

- if the firearm is in hand, ask the individual to put it down.

- if they refuse, take action to secure the firearm.

 

[OC for ME]

<snip>

- if the firearm is in hand, ask the individual to put it down.

- if they refuse, take action to secure the firearm.

Did your friend cite the law that gives him the authority to compel a home owner, in his own home, to have to holster his firearm? What law did your friend cite that authorizes him to enter the home and confiscate the firearm? Or, is SOP all the authority he needs?

 

[Grapeshot]

Did your friend cite the law that gives him the authority to compel a home owner, in his own home, to have to holster his firearm? What law did your friend cite that authorizes him to enter the home and confiscate the firearm? Or, is SOP all the authority he needs?

Practical meet tactical - not withstanding that the teen was not a home owner and that the officer neither entered nor confiscated a firearm - a reasonable person might conclude that what looked like a gun in hand was in fact a gun. A potential with deadly possibilities.

Think there will be no conclusion that satisfies all parties.

 

[Primus]

Did your friend cite the law that gives him the authority to compel a home owner, in his own home, to have to holster his firearm? What law did your friend cite that authorizes him to enter the home and confiscate the firearm? Or, is SOP all the authority he needs?

Here's one.... if there's no law that says you can't do something then its legal right.....

So show me the law that says I can't tell you to holster a firearm or put it down if in your home on legitimate business.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Here's one.... if there's no law that says you can't do something then its legal right.....

So show me the law that says I can't tell you to holster a firearm or put it down if in your home on legitimate business.

I can't show you the law that says you can't order me to wear a tutu either, Primus. By your reasoning then, you could order me to so so.

It would seem obvious that your logic is lacking.

 

[OC for ME]

Here's one.... if there's no law that says you can't do something then its legal right.....

So show me the law that says I can't tell you to holster a firearm or put it down if in your home on legitimate business.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Yes, that is kind of the point behind laws. They are supposed to be enacted to deny and not to allow. Laws that allow a home owner to own a gun are a infringement of the 2A.

Unless I am suspected of committing a crime you have no authority to tell me to do anything when I am in my own home. The entry into my home, by a cop, without a warrant, will be denied and the firearm in my hand will remain in my hand until I decide to holster the firearm. There is no law that the mere presence of a cop demands that I holster my firearm when I am in my own home. Now, MA may have such a law. I do not know, and it is irrelevant anyway even if MA does have such a law as far as I am concerned.

After observing the Constitution Suspension Event, MA LE appears to agree with Since9's LEO friend. They will enter and disarm the homeowner.

 

[1245A Defender]

Oooops,,,

Sooo,,, I guess I got mod'd....

I wish to say,,, Im sorry to the gentle readers here,,, whomever you may be....
I make my apology to the FORUM,,,, Not Primus...

I was rude,,,so,,, I move on...

The Constitution protects me and us from a LEO that thinks ,,,
since their is no law telling him that he can tell me to wear a read shirt,
that he can do something to me if I am not wearing one...

His attempt to use the lack of a specific law,,, some how gives him,,, more authority!!!

How CONVENIENT!!!

 

[marshaul]

Here's one.... if there's no law that says you can't do something then its legal right.....

So show me the law that says I can't tell you to holster a firearm or put it down if in your home on legitimate business.

This amusing but ultimately inane post strongly reflects your corrupt view on the nature and proper intent of law, Primus. Although I doubt you realize it.

To law- and state-worshippers like yourself, the law dictates standards of conduct. Whether and to what extent people act within "the law" is the only possible measure of their criminality/immorality/badness.

To pretty much everyone else (and, once upon a time, nearly all Americans excepting a few Hamiltonian crypto-aristocratic anglomonarchophiles), standards of conduct inform the law, and to the extent that they do not, the law is of limited use or value. The law certainly cannot be the judge of right, rightness, or morality: rather, these must be the judge of the law.

This is evident here, because only a person with your twisted perspective would go into a conniption over such a forced example of inconsistency (I imagine, a very badly bungled attempt at a reductio ad absurdum on your part). To a sensible person, the resolution to your attempted contradiction is clear, for it is obvious that the law, if it has any value at all, is designed to limit or punish aggression, and that it is aggressive for you to force yourself into my home and, without prior cause, demand that I do something with my property. It is equally clear that it would not be aggressive for me to ask that you leave my house under such circumstance, and to be effectively armed while doing so.