Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Found a scary article from last month

  1. #1
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593

    Found a scary article from last month

    http://pugetsoundblogs.com/kitsap-cr...ngston-family/

    To make it on topic, what level of response would be appropriate for those of us who open-carry on their property? No one in that situation had a "good" choice and it was none of their faults.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Wolfebane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Bellingham, WA
    Posts
    113
    It seems like you are asking if one should do anything other than comply (doing anything other than that would most likely result in death, given the misinformation about the situation the police were given).

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran ComradeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Maple Hill, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    430
    The problem lies in neither the police nor the occupants of the home have the good information.

    The occupant just sees a bunch of armed men trying to capture or kill him and the police believe a possible multiple homicide incident is about to r has occurred.

    Both parties would be acting in good faith if they used force, including deadly force, one could argue.

    There really isn't any good answers to this situation and that's the point behind the attacks.

    Police need to respond and Citizens making a habit of surrendering to the police sets bad precedents.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Wolfebane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Bellingham, WA
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by ComradeV View Post
    The problem lies in neither the police nor the occupants of the home have the good information.

    The occupant just sees a bunch of armed men trying to capture or kill him and the police believe a possible multiple homicide incident is about to r has occurred.

    Both parties would be acting in good faith if they used force, including deadly force, one could argue.

    There really isn't any good answers to this situation and that's the point behind the attacks.

    Police need to respond and Citizens making a habit of surrendering to the police sets bad precedents.
    I'm not saying surrender all the time in all instances, but I have to point out that for the masses it's more than "a bunch of armed men" there's police vehicles with flashing lights and sirens. Technically both sides may be justified to use deadly force, but lets face it, I would highly doubt that the homeowner would be "allowed" to go free after firing on officers, assuming he survived (figuring 12 officers, all with 18 rounds each (factoring out a reload) that's 216 shots, to at the most 18 of the homeowners own.)

  5. #5
    Regular Member Vitaeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    593
    not really expecting better answers, I was just posting this since when I read the article I saw nothing good from any of the choices other than in this case everyone got out alive. LEO have to respond, the home owner is stuck with inadequate information and a lousy tactical situation. Imagine if it had been the middle of the night, waking up to a door knocker and shouts from men behind flashlights.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran ComradeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Maple Hill, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    430
    Well I suppose If one was faced with multiple armed units of men using flashing lights, sirens, tactical lights etc. legally or not, one most likely has no legitimate means of resistance at this point and likely, surrendering is the only option that includes any likelihood of not being killed.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    It's called swatting and it exploits a flaw in the 911 system and the VOIP.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  8. #8
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    It is a bit of over-reaction on the part of the SWAT team. Think of it this way...If you went to a judge with the information you have available, would the judge issue a proper warrent?

    That is where the breakdown comes...where is the warrent, signed by a judge? Doesn't matter if it is for OC while mowing your law, or DV.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    But Wilson said sheriff’s deputies are left with no choice but to respond “tactically” until they determine it’s a hoax.

    “We were acting in good faith,” he said.
    Officer, "I’m asking for identification."
    Citizen, "I’ve given you my identification (stated name and date of birth). The Supreme Court has agreed that.
    Officer, "Sir, the Supreme Court is not here right now. We have to make a decision right now. Okay. And you don’t want us to make the decision."
    Citizen, "Make the right one."
    Officer, "Don’t have to make the right one, okay. If I’m wrong, it’s in good faith; you’re walking around here with a handgun, okay. Supreme Court will cover me on that. I don’t want to do that, you seem like a nice guy."

    "... acting in good faith..." sure seems to excuse a lot of ills and ignorance, doesn't it? Think any other profession could get away with "I don't know what I'm doing, but I'm doing what I think I should"?
    An architect designs a building with no floors?
    A doctor removes the wrong leg because he thought that was the one that had the booboo?
    A barber gives a woman a mohawk because that's what he thought she asked for but wasn't?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327
    Well, I sure wonder about this sentence:
    Deputies got a hair-raising 911 call that came from out of the area. (emphasis added)
    Crappy reporting, I know, as it leaves it completely ambiguous as to how, and when, it was learned that the call was from out of the area. But surely if it was known in real time that it originated from elsewhere than on site or right across the street, then surely the police had a duty to treat it as interesting hearsay, rather than just rushing over with guns drawn?
    Last edited by kparker; 07-05-2012 at 10:53 PM. Reason: added "in real time"

  11. #11
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by kparker View Post
    Well, I sure wonder about this sentence:

    Crappy reporting, I know, as it leaves it completely ambiguous as to how, and when, it was learned that the call was from out of the area. But surely if it was known in real time that it originated from elsewhere than on site or right across the street, then surely the police had a duty to treat it as interesting hearsay, rather than just rushing over with guns drawn?
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...=1#post1778932

  12. #12
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    Officer, "Don’t have to make the right one, okay. If I’m wrong, it’s in good faith; you’re walking around here with a handgun, okay. Supreme Court will cover me on that. I don’t want to do that, you seem like a nice guy."
    And having said, he would lose any ability to truthfully claim he acted in good faith.

  13. #13
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    And having said, he would lose any ability to truthfully claim he acted in good faith.
    But would that make you "un-dead"?
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  14. #14
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    But would that make you "un-dead"?
    No. But it might not be me that's dead. There's a SCOTUS decision that found that resisting a false arrest is not a crime. Straight up self-defense is on much firmer ground.

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    No. But it might not be me that's dead. There's a SCOTUS decision that found that resisting a false arrest is not a crime. Straight up self-defense is on much firmer ground.
    It our common law right, one our State Supreme court statist judges decided to ignore.....

    But not Justice Sanders the lone dissent in that decision. Re-elect Sanders.....we need him back...
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfebane View Post
    I'm not saying surrender all the time in all instances, but I have to point out that for the masses it's more than "a bunch of armed men" there's police vehicles with flashing lights and sirens. Technically both sides may be justified to use deadly force, but lets face it, I would highly doubt that the homeowner would be "allowed" to go free after firing on officers, assuming he survived (figuring 12 officers, all with 18 rounds each (factoring out a reload) that's 216 shots, to at the most 18 of the homeowners own.)
    He would if he lived in Indiana...

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    He would if he lived in Indiana...
    Indiana codified a specific defense,

    ....to me it matters not what a state says, you have the natural, fundamental right of self defense and it matters not to me if you are wearing a state issued Halloween costume.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Indiana codified a specific defense,

    ....to me it matters not what a state says, you have the natural, fundamental right of self defense and it matters not to me if you are wearing a state issued Halloween costume.
    I agree, but until the SCOTUS affirms that right even when it involves police we can only hope more states take Indiana's stand. I didn't vote for Obama, or Carter. I thought Carter was a crappy president, except for one area, he ordered the FBI to vigorously investigate cases of police abuse across the country. I didn't like it at the time because a lot of us/police thought he was out to get us and protect the criminal. Looking back it was the right thing to do. I do not understand this shift in liberalism towards militarization of the police, and intimidating the populace. I do not understand liberals voting for such tards.

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I agree, but until the SCOTUS affirms that right even when it involves police we can only hope more states take Indiana's stand. I didn't vote for Obama, or Carter. I thought Carter was a crappy president, except for one area, he ordered the FBI to vigorously investigate cases of police abuse across the country. I didn't like it at the time because a lot of us/police thought he was out to get us and protect the criminal. Looking back it was the right thing to do. I do not understand this shift in liberalism towards militarization of the police, and intimidating the populace. I do not understand liberals voting for such tards.
    SCOTUS has affirmed it , in several cases, Bad Elk vs. U.S. is one....There are several more.

    From the horrible status decisions the courts have made. I put my liberties and trust not in governments or in the hands of men.


    The shift in granting more and more police powers has been happening for a long time, to me the militarization of the police by both parties is understandable (from a tyrannical viewpoint), they need a standing army to enforce their upside down meaning of rule of law, and the ever intrusiveness of laws on our freedoms.

    When Carter was president, the cops would send me home, if I was doing something mischievousness, maybe with a threat of telling my mom if caught again. I don't think you can say that anymore.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Snohomish County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    117
    This reminds me of something similar that happened to my neighbor over ten years ago. It was in the early evening when suddenly a number of who I believe were Snohomish County deputies converged on his house, running and carrying rifles or shotguns. They crossed my yard en route to his house. I retreated back inside my house and after a while they left and all went back to normal. The next day the neighbor visited the nearby houses to give us all an explanation. Apparently, he had been cold-called by someone trying to sell him something. She was located somewhere back east and heard his roughhousing kids screaming in the background, as kids often do. She apparently thought something bad was happening, called 911, and the deputies were ultimately dispatched. It turned out to be nothing, but it was a bit scary there for a while, more so for him and his family. A bit of an overreaction all the way around. I recall being shocked and mad (mostly at the telemarketer) that such a thing could happen. Sorry for the lack of specifics, but there you have it.
    Hoplophobia is a social disease.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •