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

[Have Gun - Will Carry]

<snip>

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.

Not to detract from the excellent points raised by OCfM since this was posted - and I fully agree with you too, but... I must have missed the "bullet point" (pun intended) where SOP tells them to just shoot the individual without warning upon seeing an item which doesn't even resemble a gun...

Yet that's exactly what the top cop and others are trying to defend because, you know, it MIGHT HAVE BEEN a gun. Hey, as long as the cop goes home at the end of the day, everything's just peachy, right? Too bad for the innocent boy who dared to answer the door at his own residence while holding a game controller! SMH...

 

[Primus]

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.

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.

This and this I agree with.

I apologize and admit i was wrong and mispoke.

When I said the statement " if there's no law then its legal" I was looking at it from a citizens point of view, not from a LE point of view. It was wrong of me to apply it to the latter it is reserved for the former.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Primus]

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.

And this is just unneeded and doesn't help any one or anything. Look to previous posts. They were able to correct me in 10 words or less and get me to realize my mistake, admit my mistake openly, then correct said mistake.

Your post does nothing but make you look bad. Its based on very little to no truth or anything that was actually said. Its just an angry outburst about your dislike of myself. Waste of time and space on this forum.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Primus]

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!!!

And this....

You remind me of a guy beating his wife and or kid in public and then apologizing to the crowd. "Sorry you had to see me do this they made me do it".

I wouldn't expect an apology from you. That takes intestinal fortitude.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[1245A Defender]

Wellie!!!

This and this I agree with.

I apologize and admit i was wrong and mispoke.

When I said the statement " if there's no law then its legal" I was looking at it from a citizens point of view, not from a LE point of view. It was wrong of me to apply it to the latter it is reserved for the former.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

if there's no law then its legal,,, applies to both,,, the latter and,,, the former...
The law applies Equally to Law abiding citizens,,, and law enforcement officers..... alike!!!!

The Law does NOT apply to those who Choose to VIOLATE the LAW,,,, Equally!!!!

 

[Primus]

if there's no law then its legal,,, applies to both,,, the latter and,,, the former...
The law applies Equally to Law abiding citizens,,, and law enforcement officers..... alike!!!!

The Law does NOT apply to those who Choose to VIOLATE the LAW,,,, Equally!!!!

? What?

See the previous posts. They clarify up for you.

The if "there is no law I can do it" does not apply to LE. Laws give LE power to do things.

Now I still say the LE could legally tell someone to holster their firearm if their in their house for a legal reason , I say again, legal reason.

It would fall under officer safety all day. I didn't say disarm. Just holster it.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[WalkingWolf]

Any police officer who for any reason tells a citizen to touch their gun in any fashion is a BLOOMING IDIOT! Any citizen who does it is a fool that may lose his life.

 

[Have Gun - Will Carry]

<snip stuff that I more-or-less agree with>

Now I still say the LE could legally tell someone to holster their firearm if their in their house for a legal reason , I say again, legal reason.

It would fall under officer safety all day. I didn't say disarm. Just holster it.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

And my response to any cop who tells me what to do with my own gun... in my own house... no matter what "legal reason" they happen to be there for... would be "Absolutely not. Not going to happen."

Unless said cop is in my home to arrest or detain me, I don't give a flying frak about "officer safety". If he or she doesn't like the fact that I am armed in my own dwelling, (s)he's free to leave! Then (s)he will be "safe" from me.

There's the door, don't let it hit you...

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Unless said cop is in my home to arrest or detain me, I don't give a flying frak about "officer safety". If he or she doesn't like the fact that I am armed in my own dwelling, (s)he's free to leave! Then (s)he will be "safe" from me.

There's the door, don't let it hit you...

I can not lay my hands upon it, nor can I provide a citation at this time, but I believe there is indeed a court decision supporting that opinion; that outside of making an arrest or detaining someone an officer is free to withdraw from an encounter if he feels in any way threatened.

 

[marshaul]

And this is just unneeded and doesn't help any one or anything. Look to previous posts. They were able to correct me in 10 words or less and get me to realize my mistake, admit my mistake openly, then correct said mistake.

Your post does nothing but make you look bad. Its based on very little to no truth or anything that was actually said. Its just an angry outburst about your dislike of myself. Waste of time and space on this forum.

Not angry, and not interested in "correcting", but rather drawing attention to, your various slips which reveal your state of mind.

 

[Primus]

Not angry, and not interested in "correcting", but rather drawing attention to, your various slips which reveal your state of mind.

I'd say it does more to draw attention to yourself and the fact you weren't even concerned about correcting anything just attacking. You have no idea about my "state of mind", but we can all see yours when you blatantly make attacks then apologize to the audience for them seeing not doing it.. then stand up and confirm your that kind of guy.

On that note attempting to move back to OP if possible.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

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

Wrong Wrong Wrong! This has been pointed out to you time and time again. You as an officer are constitutionally restricted, in your duties as an officer you have no "rights" you have powers or authorities and those powers and authorities are spelled out by the law.

 

[DocWalker]

Wrong Wrong Wrong! This has been pointed out to you time and time again. You as an officer are constitutionally restricted, in your duties as an officer you have no "rights" you have powers or authorities and those powers and authorities are spelled out by the law.

+1

 

[Primus]

Wrong Wrong Wrong! This has been pointed out to you time and time again. You as an officer are constitutionally restricted, in your duties as an officer you have no "rights" you have powers or authorities and those powers and authorities are spelled out by the law.

? That was from like a week ago.

And I guess you missed me apologizing because I was WRONG. I stated I was jacked up when I stated that because I was thinking from the citizens point of view, not as a cop. While it was still wrong (about 5th time I'm admitting that) it should gladden you I'm starting to think more like a citizen and about freedom.

Bonus points if you point out and correct the other poster AFTER me that continually was pushing this wrong idea, after I apologized and admitted I was wrong.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Grapeshot]

? That was from like a week ago.

And I guess you missed me apologizing because I was WRONG. I stated I was jacked up when I stated that because I was thinking from the citizens point of view, not as a cop. While it was still wrong (about 5th time I'm admitting that) it should gladden you I'm starting to think more like a citizen and about freedom.

Bonus points if you point out and correct the other poster AFTER me that continually was pushing this wrong idea, after I apologized and admitted I was wrong.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Want to borrow my basket?



:lol:

 

[OC for ME]

? That was from like a week ago.

And I guess you missed me apologizing because I was WRONG. I stated I was jacked up when I stated that because I was thinking from the citizens point of view, not as a cop. While it was still wrong (about 5th time I'm admitting that) it should gladden you I'm starting to think more like a citizen and about freedom.

Bonus points if you point out and correct the other poster AFTER me that continually was pushing this wrong idea, after I apologized and admitted I was wrong.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I would like for cops to take a citizen's point of view. You seem to me to be a reasonable citizen. Our views on "specifics" may vary significantly, but our understanding of liberty in general seem to be very well aligned. The vast majority of cops do hold a liberty centric POV and I suspect that they too understand that some (most?) laws are anti-liberty.

Every day liberty is being restored. Not as quickly as i would like, but, liberty is being restored.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

? That was from like a week ago.

And I guess you missed me apologizing because I was WRONG. I stated I was jacked up when I stated that because I was thinking from the citizens point of view, not as a cop. While it was still wrong (about 5th time I'm admitting that) it should gladden you I'm starting to think more like a citizen and about freedom.

Bonus points if you point out and correct the other poster AFTER me that continually was pushing this wrong idea, after I apologized and admitted I was wrong.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

My apologies if you admitted you were wrong. I have been out of town and sick and not reading every post.

Glad you are seeing things a bit from the other side.

 

[Primus]

My apologies if you admitted you were wrong. I have been out of town and sick and not reading every post.

Glad you are seeing things a bit from the other side.

No apology needed, it happens. Glad your back and hope you feel better.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Kopis]

Any update to the shooting?

 

[OC for ME]

Not yet. I'm checking every day.