• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Found a scary article from last month

Wolfebane

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
113
Location
Whidbey Island
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).
 

ComradeV

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
428
Location
Maple Hill, North Carolina, USA
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.
 

Wolfebane

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
113
Location
Whidbey Island
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.)
 

Vitaeus

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
596
Location
Bremerton, Washington
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.
 

ComradeV

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
428
Location
Maple Hill, North Carolina, USA
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.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
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.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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?
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
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:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
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/s...nd-mentality&p=1778932&viewfull=1#post1778932
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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...
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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...
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

geojohn

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
117
Location
Snohomish County, Washington, USA
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.
 
Top