Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 75

Thread: Police/citizen proceedure

  1. #1
    Regular Member Jaysann22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St Louis
    Posts
    109

    Post Police/citizen proceedure

    Just a few simple questions for the MO firearms law experts.

    True or False?

    During a traffic stop a citizen is lawfully obligated to dislose he/she is armed.

    During a traffic stop a citizen is lawfully obligated to surrender his/her firearm.

    If an officer does a lawful search of a vehicle he may seize any lawfully owned firearms.

    If a citizens rights are violated by an officer, such as an unlawful entry into his/her vehicle or home, a citizen my use deadly force.

    If an officer attempts an unlawful seizure of a citizen's firearm, whether on his person, vehicle, or home, a citizen may use deadly force.

    I ask these questions on sheer curiosity and nothing more. I ask for truth as it is stated in MO law and how these actions may play out in court.

    thanks all for your time and answers!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    Just a few simple questions for the MO firearms law experts.

    True or False?

    During a traffic stop a citizen is lawfully obligated to dislose he/she is armed.

    During a traffic stop a citizen is lawfully obligated to surrender his/her firearm.

    If an officer does a lawful search of a vehicle he may seize any lawfully owned firearms.

    If a citizens rights are violated by an officer, such as an unlawful entry into his/her vehicle or home, a citizen my use deadly force.

    If an officer attempts an unlawful seizure of a citizen's firearm, whether on his person, vehicle, or home, a citizen may use deadly force.

    I ask these questions on sheer curiosity and nothing more. I ask for truth as it is stated in MO law and how these actions may play out in court.

    thanks all for your time and answers!
    I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice. But I will make a few points.

    Deadly force:
    It is only allowed if you sincerely believe as any normal person would in the same situation that you were in danger of grave personal injury or death.
    In some circumstances, some courts have even ruled it acceptable in defense of property during robbery. But this is dangerous ground.

    Read the wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense as a place to start and watch the Massad Ayoob video series which starts here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW_xaTf5oqI .

    I can say with great certainty that if you shot (and killed) a cop to prevent an illegal search or seizure, you would likely get the death penalty, EVEN IF HE IS WRONG, unless on the rare occasion you are being threatened by a "bad" cop, you knew he was bad (going to rob and/or kill you) and you acted in TRUE self-defense. Deadly force is not generally authorized to protect a legal right beyond self-defense and sometimes protection of loss of valuable property. Property is a gray area and you tread on thin ice using deadly force to protect it.

    I will leave MO state law treatment to others more versed in it than I.

    Anecdotally, my wife was pulled over a week ago. The cop asked her to leave the vehicle (still don't know why) and asked to sit in patrol car. She had her Glock strapped on (and she has a CCW) and the cop never blinked at it. She never told him she had it and he did not ask for it or take it. I have no idea how this relates to the actual laws but that may shed some light.

    A couple of notes. A lawful search of your vehicle suggests either you ALLOWED it (NEVER do that)
    http://www.youtube.com/user/FlexYourRights
    OR they got a search warrant, which denotes reasonable cause and they probably would take the weapons for at least the length of the search and keep them if related to any crimes you are accused of or for fear you may use them because of the situation.

    And welcome to the board! (AYAANC)

  3. #3
    Regular Member Jaysann22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St Louis
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by peterarthur View Post
    I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice. But I will make a few points.

    Deadly force:
    It is only allowed if you sincerely believe as any normal person would in the same situation that you were in danger of grave personal injury or death.
    In some circumstances, some courts have even ruled it acceptable in defense of property during robbery. But this is dangerous ground.

    Read the wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense as a place to start and watch the Massad Ayoob video series which starts here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW_xaTf5oqI .

    I can say with great certainty that if you shot (and killed) a cop to prevent an illegal search or seizure, you would likely get the death penalty, EVEN IF HE IS WRONG, unless on the rare occasion you are being threatened by a "bad" cop, you knew he was bad (going to rob and/or kill you) and you acted in TRUE self-defense. Deadly force is not generally authorized to protect a legal right beyond self-defense and sometimes protection of loss of valuable property. Property is a gray area and you tread on thin ice using deadly force to protect it.

    I will leave MO state law treatment to others more versed in it than I.

    Anecdotally, my wife was pulled over a week ago. The cop asked her to leave the vehicle (still don't know why) and asked to sit in patrol car. She had her Glock strapped on (and she has a CCW) and the cop never blinked at it. She never told him she had it and he did not ask for it or take it. I have no idea how this relates to the actual laws but that may shed some light.

    A couple of notes. A lawful search of your vehicle suggests either you ALLOWED it (NEVER do that)
    http://www.youtube.com/user/FlexYourRights
    OR they got a search warrant, which denotes reasonable cause and they probably would take the weapons for at least the length of the search and keep them if related to any crimes you are accused of or for fear you may use them because of the situation.

    And welcome to the board! (AYAANC)
    hey thanks for the welcome! I appreciate the lengthy reply. very well thought out and thorough. I do agree with the overall consensus that lethal force should be used for self defense but it also should be used for property. So that is where we disagree. To many people, your property IS your survival. If you cannot defend your hard earned property so that you may prosper you will fail and be picked off by predators. (criminals) Just because a person is on a state, city, or county payroll and has a badge does not give them authority over an individuals life. A criminal with a badge is no different than one without. Both will be met with the same resistance. I feel that most would agree. Most would shoot an intruder in one's home. The same goes with an officer who is acting outside of the law. Which by definition is a CRIMINAL. But i do agree, shooting any officers of the law is a bad idea and i was merely looking for comments from others for their knowledge of MO law. Not all officers are bad. I have met many good ones so this is not a hate cops thread. Just a shout out for info and opinions.
    Last edited by Jaysann22; 08-02-2010 at 04:04 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Big Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    STL, MO
    Posts
    443
    Deadly force for entry or seizure? HELL NO!


    Your ass will be thrown in jail and sent straight to the front of death row. First of all deadly force is only for when your life is in danger, secondly, it's an LEO. Maybe it shouldn't matter, but trust me, in court, it will.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    South KC, Raytown
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    During a traffic stop a citizen is lawfully obligated to dislose he/she is armed.
    False. On a routine traffic stop there is no reason to disclose a concealed weapon. I personally on disclose the possession of a weapon if I have it on my hip, making it visible if I lean over. If it is concealed in my car, they don't need to know unless they want to search my car. In that event they better have a reason. I won't give them consent. Of course I have never had an officer ask to search my vehicle either. Mostlikely because I never have warrants or anything like that. I am also very polite when talking to them. Even of I think the reason for them stopping me was bull $@#&.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    During a traffic stop a citizen is lawfully obligated to surrender his/her firearm.
    False. One if they don't even know about it why would they need to. Two if you own it legally they can't take it. They have no legal ground to if your stuff is in order.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    If an officer does a lawful search of a vehicle he may seize any lawfully owned firearms.
    Only if there is a reason to seize it. If it is registered to you or you have a bill of sale showing that it belongs to you then no. Also if you are a law abiding citizen, meaning to felonies, and not illegal CCW, they don't have a valid reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    If a citizens rights are violated by an officer, such as an unlawful entry into his/her vehicle or home, a citizen my use deadly force.
    False. I will ad HELL NO that is a quick way to the death penalty. The use of deadly force has very specific criteria that needs to be met.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    If an officer attempts an unlawful seizure of a citizen's firearm, whether on his person, vehicle, or home, a citizen may use deadly force.
    Again No. False. Deadly Force has VERY specific criteria.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    I ask these questions on sheer curiosity and nothing more. I ask for truth as it is stated in MO law and how these actions may play out in court.
    If you don't provoke an officer into thinking of clever ways to mess with you, there should never be a problem. Just be polite don't argue the reason for the stop, even if it is bull $#@&. Let them get there qouta in and go about your day. Fight it in court not on the side of the road. You won't win the fight on the side of the road. I know.

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,628
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    Just a few simple questions for the MO firearms law experts.

    I ask these questions on sheer curiosity and nothing more. I ask for truth as it is stated in MO law and how these actions may play out in court.

    thanks all for your time and answers!
    We are not by and large "firearms law experts," although a few here are attorneys. Some are quite well informed, but what we offer are layman's opinions supported by cites and experiences.

    As for how the law is stated, you need to familiarize yourself with that first hand. There can be no substitute.
    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap563.htm

    As for how these may "play out in court," there are court cases that have established precedence depending on the violation and circumstances and other laws that have not been successfully challenged for a variety of reasons.

    Your questions are too broad and vague. Supporting someone's simple curiosity could well test the mettle of an attorney general and IMO does not fit the confines of this forum.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    Just a few simple questions for the MO firearms law experts.

    True or False?

    During a traffic stop a citizen is lawfully obligated to dislose he/she is armed.
    False: You are not obligated to disclose whether or not you are armed at any time, unless directly asked, and then you can still exercise your 5th Amendment rights. You are, however, required to display your CCW endorsement if asked or you can be fined.

    As per RSMO 571.121. 1. Any person issued a concealed carry endorsement pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall carry the concealed carry endorsement at all times the person is carrying a concealed firearm and shall display the concealed carry endorsement upon the request of any peace officer. Failure to comply with this subsection shall not be a criminal offense but the concealed carry endorsement holder may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed thirty-five dollars.

    During a traffic stop a citizen is lawfully obligated to surrender his/her firearm.
    False. You are not lawfully obligated to surrender lawfully possessed property during a traffic stop. That said, if a LEO makes the decision that he/she if going to disarm you during a traffic stop, you'd be VERY ill advised to physically resist him/her. You will need to fight them in court, NOT on the side of the road.

    If an officer does a lawful search of a vehicle he may seize any lawfully owned firearms.
    False. But again, if a LEO makes the decision that he/she if going to confiscate your lawfully possessed firearm(s) during a traffic stop, you'd be VERY ill advised to physically resist him/her. You will have to take your battle to the courtroom.

    If a citizens rights are violated by an officer, such as an unlawful entry into his/her vehicle or home, a citizen my use deadly force.
    True, BUT, don't count on it to go your way in court.

    As per RSMO 563.031.2: A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony; or

    (2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person.

    3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining.


    If an officer attempts an unlawful seizure of a citizen's firearm, whether on his person, vehicle, or home, a citizen may use deadly force.
    False.

    As per RSMO 563.041. 1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.

    Deadly force can only be used:

    2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.

    Again, don't count on this going your way in court. Our courts have a long history of making rulings that favor police officers over citizens as a matter of common practice. If you use physical or deadly force against a LEO, you'd better hope and pray that you have absolutely rock-solid evidence on your side or you'll likely find yourself doing hard time.

    I ask these questions on sheer curiosity and nothing more. I ask for truth as it is stated in MO law and how these actions may play out in court.


    thanks all for your time and answers!
    There is no way of knowing how a "what if" scenario will play out in court. There are just too many unknown variables that can have a major impact on the outcome of any criminal or civil suit. My advice to my students is to ALWAYS err on the side of caution, rather than doing something that could make the situation worse, even if they feel that a LEO is doing something wrong at the time. If you want to fight the police, do it in a courtroom, NOT on the street or in your living room.
    Last edited by cshoff; 08-02-2010 at 10:31 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Boy View Post
    Deadly force for entry or seizure? HELL NO!


    Your ass will be thrown in jail and sent straight to the front of death row. First of all deadly force is only for when your life is in danger, secondly, it's an LEO. Maybe it shouldn't matter, but trust me, in court, it will.
    As part of our Castle Doctrine, you absolutely can use deadly force against someone who unlawfully enters, is attempting to unlawfully enter, or remains after unlawfully entering into a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in which you are lawfully present.

    Use of force in defense of persons.

    563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

    (1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:

    (a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or

    (b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or

    (c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;

    (2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;

    (3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

    2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony; or

    (2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person.

    3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining.

    4. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.

    5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
    Now, I'd estimate that, regardless of how justified you were under this law, you'd have a very hard time getting a favorable ruling from a court if the person you used force against was a LEO. Of course, it would all depend on the circumstances involved.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Jaysann22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St Louis
    Posts
    109
    You are not lawfully obligated to surrender lawfully possessed property during a traffic stop. That said, if a LEO makes the decision that he/she if going to disarm you during a traffic stop, you'd be VERY ill advised to physically resist him/her. You will need to fight them in court, NOT on the side of the road.
    I appreciate the concern and the info, and by all means, I do NOT wish to provoke any officer into an altercation which would lead to violence. I merely wish to make a point here. So, I have to spend MY hard earned money to defend MY rights, that are already GUARANTEED under the US Constitution in a more or less corrupted biased court? Sounds like this country is far from what its forefathers intended. Well, theres Obama's loophole to confiscate all weapons. Just have all LEOs unlawfully seize all weapons from ALL citizens upon any suspicion or traffic stops and only the rich and law savvy will be able to get them back.

    But again, if a LEO makes the decision that he/she if going to confiscate your lawfully possessed firearm(s) during a traffic stop, you'd be VERY ill advised to physically resist him/her. You will have to take your battle to the courtroom.

    Again, my point being, criminal action should be confronted. Not bargained, negotiated, and or pleaded for the officer/courtroom to cease the criminal activity.

    True, BUT, don't count on it to go your way in court.
    Very sad

    As per RSMO 563.031.2: A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony; or

    (2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person.


    Says nothing about LEOs being exempt.

    3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining.

    As per RSMO 563.041. 1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.

    Deadly force can only be used:

    2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.

    Again, don't count on this going your way in court. Our courts have a long history of making rulings that favor police officers over citizens as a matter of common practice.
    Super sad, and should be remedied. Maybe an independent court assembly that is voted in by the citizens to supervise courts to avoid such bias.

    If you use physical or deadly force against a LEO, you'd better hope and pray that you have absolutely rock-solid evidence on your side or you'll likely find yourself doing hard time.
    Im too cynical to reply to this.

    There is no way of knowing how a "what if" scenario will play out in court. There are just too many unknown variables that can have a major impact on the outcome of any criminal or civil suit. My advice to my students is to ALWAYS err on the side of caution, rather than doing something that could make the situation worse, even if they feel that a LEO is doing something wrong at the time. If you want to fight the police, do it in a courtroom, NOT on the street or in your living room.

    Very good advice and I'd unfortunately have to agree. Its wrong, and unAmerican to just let authority stomp all over your humanity but, that's the America we live in...

    Please excuse my cynical mind; I mean no disrespect and appreciate everyone's comments and opinions.
    Last edited by Jaysann22; 08-02-2010 at 11:30 PM. Reason: rewrite

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    South KC, Raytown
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    As part of our Castle Doctrine, you absolutely can use deadly force against someone who unlawfully enters, is attempting to unlawfully enter, or remains after unlawfully entering into a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in which you are lawfully present.



    Now, I'd estimate that, regardless of how justified you were under this law, you'd have a very hard time getting a favorable ruling from a court if the person you used force against was a LEO. Of course, it would all depend on the circumstances involved.
    I would disagree with that interpretation of the Castle Doctrine. If an Officer is entering a residence, even unlawfully, he/she is still acting in an offical manner. AE, Using the badge. It is still undisputibly illegal to kill a LEO. I violation of civil rights is not deadly force. There is no part of the castle doctrine that pertains to unlawful search and seizure.

  11. #11
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Let me see if I can straighten out your quote tags here and try to reply to your post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    I appreciate the concern and the info, and by all means, I do NOT wish to provoke any officer into an altercation which would lead to violence. I merely wish to make a point here. So, I have to spend MY hard earned money to defend MY rights, that are already GUARANTEED under the US Constitution in a more or less corrupted bias court? Sounds like this country is far from what its forefathers intended. Well, theres Obama's loophole to confiscate all weapons. Just have all LEOs unlawfully seize all weapons from ALL citizens upon any suspicion or traffic stops and only the rich and law savvy will be able to get them back.
    Believe it or not, that is EXACTLY how our system was designed by our founding fathers to work. If you are wronged either by a person or an entity, you are supposed to take your grievances to a court and have them decided upon by an impartial judge or jury. The idea, since this nation's inception, is that we are a nation of laws that has a judicial system in place where the people can seek justice. Yep, it sucks that mounting a legal defense is such a very expensive proposition, HOWEVER, there is nothing that says you MUST pay an attorney. You are perfectly within your rights to represent yourself either as plaintiff or defendant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    Again, my point being, criminal action should be confronted. Not bargained, negotiated, and or pleaded for the officer/courtroom to cease the criminal activity.
    And you are well within your rights to confront what you deem as criminal action. I never said or suggested otherwise, but you'd better be prepared to deal with a legal system that often looks down on folks who confront the police, even when the actions of said police officers are suspect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    Very sad

    Says nothing about LEOs being exempt.
    LEO's are NOT exempt. The law is the law, and it applies to everyone equally. But don't be so naive as to think you won't have a much harder time making your case in a court if it was a LEO who was on the receiving end of your force as opposed to some drug addict who was kicking in your door. No, it's not fair, but it is reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    Super sad, and should be remedied. Maybe an independent court assembly that is voted in by the citizens to supervise courts to avoid such bias.
    The only way injustices get remedied is for someone to challenge them, and keep challenging them all the way up to the highest court in the land, and get a favorable ruling. Once again, that is the way our system was designed to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    Im too cynical to reply to this...
    Understandable. It's sometimes sickening to see what some LEO's have got away with with the blessing of the court. Most folks run out of money long before they get to the point of appeal, much less to the point of being able to take the case in front of the highest court in the state or country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    Very good advice and I'd unfortunately have to agree. Its wrong, and unAmerican to just let authority stomp all over your humanity but, that's the America we live in...
    And you shouldn't let authority "stomp all over your humanity". You should assert your rights in a calm, non-physical manner, and if necessary, be prepared to have your day in court if you've been wronged. That is now, and always has been, the way it's supposed to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    Please excuse my cynical mind; I mean no disrespect and appreciate everyone's comments and opinions.
    No problem.

  12. #12
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by ALOTAGLOCK View Post
    I would disagree with that interpretation of the Castle Doctrine. If an Officer is entering a residence, even unlawfully, he/she is still acting in an offical manner. AE, Using the badge. It is still undisputibly illegal to kill a LEO. I violation of civil rights is not deadly force. There is no part of the castle doctrine that pertains to unlawful search and seizure.
    That is absolutely incorrect. A badge or any other "official" status does NOT justify the commission of a crime. There is no such thing as committing a crime "while acting in an official manner". A police officer does not have that right or that authority.

    RSMO 563.031.2.(2) ONLY addresses the act of unlawful entry. It has no bearing whatsoever on "unlawful search and seizure".

    It is illegal to kill anyone, but it IS lawful to use deadly force against ANYONE in Missouri when the requirements of RSMO 563.031.2(2) are met.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Jaysann22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St Louis
    Posts
    109
    Let me see if I can straighten out your quote tags here and try to reply to your post
    yeah, I screwed them up pretty bad! but i figured it out.


    Believe it or not, that is EXACTLY how our system was designed by our founding fathers to work. If you are wronged either by a person or an entity, you are supposed to take your grievances to a court and have them decided upon by an impartial judge or jury. The idea, since this nation's inception, is that we are a nation of laws that has a judicial system in place where the people can seek justice. Yep, it sucks that mounting a legal defense is such a very expensive proposition, HOWEVER, there is nothing that says you MUST pay an attorney. You are perfectly within your rights to represent yourself either as plaintiff or defendant.
    Understood and agreed. BUT, how much is enough? How far is too far? And there are times when justice isn't served and the officer re-offends. Did the American colonies just keep taking their issues to court? No, they CONFRONTED tyrannical criminals.


    And you are well within your rights to confront what you deem as criminal action. I never said or suggested otherwise, but you'd better be prepared to deal with a legal system that often looks down on folks who confront the police, even when the actions of said police officers are suspect.
    I however feel its a travesty that my rights may be, in a way, momentarily suspended, depending on whether the officer is in a good mood or at the mercy of his "good" judgment. AND when i assert my rights against such criminal action it is more likely that I am deemed the criminal. How is this justice?

    LEO's are NOT exempt. The law is the law, and it applies to everyone equally. But don't be so naive as to think you won't have a much harder time making your case in a court if it was a LEO who was on the receiving end of your force as opposed to some drug addict who was kicking in your door. No, it's not fair, but it is reality.
    I am not naive. Thankfully for most and myself. Its a sad reality and should be remedied but cannot because the ones who assert their Constitutional rights are deemed criminals in a court of unjust biased law. We've all seen the videos of people who assert their rights. They are all treated as such. Criminals. Beaten, tazed, harassed, and even jailed.

    The only way injustices get remedied is for someone to challenge them, and keep challenging them all the way up to the highest court in the land, and get a favorable ruling. Once again, that is the way our system was designed to work.
    Its unfortunately and obviously flawed. The innocent are presumed guilty instead of the rightfully other way around . The lawful acting citizens are oppressed and the lemmings are rewarded for their silence while criminals profit and prosper.


    Understandable. It's sometimes sickening to see what some LEO's have got away with with the blessing of the court. Most folks run out of money long before they get to the point of appeal, much less to the point of being able to take the case in front of the highest court in the state or country.
    Exactly my point

    And you shouldn't let authority "stomp all over your humanity". You should assert your rights in a calm, non-physical manner, and if necessary, be prepared to have your day in court if you've been wronged. That is now, and always has been, the way it's supposed to work.
    Now your confusing me. You say "you shouldn't let authority stomp on your humanity" yet you say let them beat, taze, question, humiliate, confiscate, trespass or otherwise until you can challenge their cronies in THEIR ball park at their game? all at your expense?

    How is this not getting your humanity stomped?
    Last edited by Jaysann22; 08-03-2010 at 12:18 AM. Reason: cut out rant

  14. #14
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    yeah, I screwed them up pretty bad! but i figured it out.

    Understood and agreed. BUT, how much is enough? How far is too far? And there are times when justice isn't served and the officer re-offends. Did the American colonies just keep taking their issues to court? No, they CONFRONTED tyrannical criminals.
    The founding fathers and their generation of patriots only took up arms as a last resort. They enshrined those tools in our Constitution for We The People to use in future conflicts if/when the need should arise. Right now, our legal system still works generally well, for the most part, albeit rather slow and largely expensive. Over the past couple of decades, many law-abiding citizens have won judgments against rogue police officers and departments. You'll likely find few sympathetic ears amongst a jury of your peers if you don't reserve the use of force as an absolute last resort.

    I however feel its a travesty that my rights may be, in a way, momentarily suspended, depending on whether the officer is in a good mood or at the mercy of his "good" judgment. AND when i assert my rights against such criminal action it is more likely that I am deemed the criminal. How is this justice?
    It is a travesty, and it is not justice, and I've already told you where you would be best advised to go to seek justice. If you find your rights being violated by a LEO, you have the right to do what is lawful on your part to make sure it doesn't continue, but again, you'd better be damn sure of what you are lawfully entitled to do.

    I am not naive. Thankfully for most and myself. Its a sad reality and should be remedied but cannot because the ones who assert their Constitutional rights are deemed criminals in a court of unjust biased law. We've all seen the videos of people who assert their rights. They are all treated as such. Criminals. Beaten, tazed, harassed, and even jailed.
    Not in all cases. Like I mentioned above, over the past couple of decades, many law-abiding citizens have won judgments against rogue police officers and departments. But you can be sure that very few, if any, did it by being a hard-ass on the side of the road.

    Its unfortunately and obviously flawed. The innocent are presumed guilty instead of the rightfully other way around . The lawful acting citizens are oppressed and the lemmings are rewarded for their silence and the criminals profit and prosper.
    See my reply directly above. That is not always the case.

    Now your confusing me. You say "you shouldn't let authority stomp on your humanity" yet you say let them beat, taze, question, humiliate, confiscate, trespass or otherwise until you can challenge their cronies in THEIR ball park at their game?

    How is this not getting your humanity stomped?
    I never said you should let them "beat, taze, question, humiliate, confiscate, [or] trespass", but on that note, if you have several police officer's taking part in those actions against you, it's very unlikely that you'll be in a position to fight them off anyway.

    You seem to be looking for someone here to tell you that it's "okay" to fire your gun at a police officer who's acting in a way that is not congruent with the law, and it's very unlikely you'll get that here. Most everyone here fully understands that using deadly force against another human being is the absolute last resort, and most would rather face a rogue police officer in court to seek justice, rather than to try to teach him a lesson on the side of the road. YMMV.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Jaysann22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St Louis
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    The founding fathers and their generation of patriots only took up arms as a last resort. They enshrined those tools in our Constitution for We The People to use in future conflicts if/when the need should arise. Right now, our legal system still works generally well, for the most part, albeit rather slow and largely expensive. Over the past couple of decades, many law-abiding citizens have won judgments against rogue police officers and departments. You'll likely find few sympathetic ears amongst a jury of your peers if you don't reserve the use of force as an absolute last resort.



    It is a travesty, and it is not justice, and I've already told you where you would be best advised to go to seek justice. If you find your rights being violated by a LEO, you have the right to do what is lawful on your part to make sure it doesn't continue, but again, you'd better be damn sure of what you are lawfully entitled to do.



    Not in all cases. Like I mentioned above, over the past couple of decades, many law-abiding citizens have won judgments against rogue police officers and departments. But you can be sure that very few, if any, did it by being a hard-ass on the side of the road.



    See my reply directly above. That is not always the case.



    I never said you should let them "beat, taze, question, humiliate, confiscate, [or] trespass", but on that note, if you have several police officer's taking part in those actions against you, it's very unlikely that you'll be in a position to fight them off anyway.

    You seem to be looking for someone here to tell you that it's "okay" to fire your gun at a police officer who's acting in a way that is not congruent with the law, and it's very unlikely you'll get that here. Most everyone here fully understands that using deadly force against another human being is the absolute last resort, and most would rather face a rogue police officer in court to seek justice, rather than to try to teach him a lesson on the side of the road. YMMV.
    I agree and appreciate your input. I am NOT seeking justification for shooting LEOs. Just to prove some points, debate facts, and clarify sanity. I may come off a little hostile, but look around. Its a hostile world and it takes its toll on some. Some deal with it better than others. If I appear to be offensive i apologize. I was merely trying to see if others see what i see, feel what i feel, and get in touch with other fellow Americans who have certain opinions on the subject. There was no ulterior motive. Thanks for your thoughts and insight.
    Last edited by Jaysann22; 08-03-2010 at 12:33 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Mo.
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    Just a few simple questions for the MO firearms law experts.

    True or False?

    During a traffic stop a citizen is lawfully obligated to dislose he/she is armed.

    During a traffic stop a citizen is lawfully obligated to surrender his/her firearm.

    If an officer does a lawful search of a vehicle he may seize any lawfully owned firearms.

    If a citizens rights are violated by an officer, such as an unlawful entry into his/her vehicle or home, a citizen my use deadly force.

    If an officer attempts an unlawful seizure of a citizen's firearm, whether on his person, vehicle, or home, a citizen may use deadly force.

    I ask these questions on sheer curiosity and nothing more. I ask for truth as it is stated in MO law and how these actions may play out in court.

    thanks all for your time and answers!

    Some great questions, some not so great. This is a great example of why WE must know our rights. 2A, 4A, 5A in particular. Not a lawyer and not giving advice just pointing out some issues, but I do know my rights and have interesting views on 571 in Mo.

    Rule #1 with EVERY LEO encounter: Any and all information gathered upon contact with a LEO is absolutely intended to gather evidence or illicit a criminal response. What YOU say is admissable in court against you, what the LEO says is hearsay and is inadmissable unless it has been recorded, submitted as evidence, and accepted as evidence by the court. There's a great youtube video on the 5th Amendment from a college professor, it might open some eyes and minds.

    Disclosure of a firearm? No disclosure of the presence of a firearm is required in Missouri, however Missouri does require that you present your permit upon request IF/WHEN you are carrying.

    Obligation to surrender? No, upon the firearm being removed from your person it has effectively been seized, no matter how short or long the period of time is.

    Lawful search of a vehicle leading to subsequent seizure of firearm? First, for a vehicle search to occur the driver would need to give consent or the LEO would need a warrant. (Grant v. Arizona) So no, this is not legal as it violates 4A and may violate other laws. However there has yet to be a case to challenge the legality of such a seizure to obtain evidence. This is exactly why you do not give consent to a vehicle search for any reason what so ever and keep the LEO trapped within the ruling of Grant v. Arizona. Any LEO that tries to tell you they can, needs a wake up call on the issue, so make sure you immediately request a written copy from their department policy, municipal code, or Missouri Statute (which we know it's not in RSMO).

    Rights violation = justification of deadly force? Absolutely not. Read justifications for the use of force in Missouri and you'll clearly see that there's a requirement for more than just a rights violation. The tricky part is when the LEO actually commits a crime by unlawfully entering your home, remember the LEO may have a lawful reason for being on your property and all it takes is telling them to leave if they do not have a warrant to enter. Again, it's important to NEVER allow a LEO into your home. What conversation needs to be had can be had outside your home, see Rule #1 above. Now if the LEO forces entry, then you're crossing the threshold of legality and you'd be taking your chances if you use force, this is especially important if the LEO does not have a warrant and you have told the LEO to leave (it's called trespassing). Now if a weapon is unlawfully utilized by a LEO during an unlawful entry, you again cross another threshold that has yet to see a legal challenge for the justification of deadly force.

    Unlawful seizure of a firearm from an individual carrying is where it gets really dangerous, very legally sticky, and very challenging. Under RSMO 571, we have the right to use deadly force for self defense, this goes without question I hope for most of us. Where you run into problems is when the LEO unlawfully attempts to disarm you, unlawfully seize your firearm from your person, or points the muzzle your own weapon at you following such a disarming. Let's look at them from a LEO use of force continuum standpoint.

    Attempt to disarm a LEO = deadly force assault
    Attempt to seize a firearm from a LEO = deadly force assault
    Pointing a muzzle of a firearm at a LEO = deadly force assault
    Equal protection clause should provide us the same legal protections under the law that are forded to LEOs who respond with deadly force against a deadly force assault; if the private armed citizen isn't going to be protected then the LEO should not either.

    So the question is this: If it is considered deadly force assault if these things are done to a LEO, why should the private armed citizen be any different? The answer is that the private armed citizen should not be treated any different, no matter who is engaged in the behavior. This would be especially important if the LEO disarms you anyway and points the muzzle of your own firearm at you. (unlawful use of deadly force/deadly force assault at that point)

    I've run across this personally more than once now and I've only had a bad experience (wake up call for the LEO) just one time. When informed by the LEO that he needed to disarm me for "officer safety", I simply said "if you do not know how to work a fully loaded (whatever model firearm), then please leave it where it is for my safety and yours. Your attempt to disarm me means you will accept full responsibility for the loaded firearm and any injuries or damage that might occur from your own negligence; this is also considered deadly force assault if I attempted to disarm you. Should you point the muzzle of my own firearm at me, I will consider this to be the unlawful use of deadly force upon my person." This usually gets a LEO to either leave your firearm put with strict instructions for you not to touch it or become even more aggressive.

    The self-defense portion of 571 is where it's quite muddy for this particular type of issue. Unfortunately, we've seen an increase of bone-headed LEO run-ins of late and it's just a matter of time before someone goes down an ugly road. None of us wants to shoot a LEO, nor do we want to be put in a position to have to even consider it as a survival option, but we do want to be secure in our persons, property, and effects as guaranteed by the US Constitution and the Missouri Constitution.


    Consensus: Using any kind of force against a LEO is not a smart decision.
    Last edited by heresyourdipstickjimmy; 08-03-2010 at 03:02 AM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Mo.
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by ALOTAGLOCK View Post
    I would disagree with that interpretation of the Castle Doctrine. If an Officer is entering a residence, even unlawfully, he/she is still acting in an offical manner. AE, Using the badge. It is still undisputibly illegal to kill a LEO. I violation of civil rights is not deadly force. There is no part of the castle doctrine that pertains to unlawful search and seizure.
    Official manner? Please refer to the legal definition of "color of law". Official manner does not give any LEO any authority to act in an unlawful manner. Once they do act unlawfully they're a criminal. This is where the lawful purpose comes into play for LEOs and once you tell a LEO to leave your property if they do not have a warrant, that LEO is no longer there for a lawful purpose if there is no evidence to provide reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a crime immediately present. It's then called trespassing.

    An attempt to unlawfully enter, search, or seize persons or property using "official manner" would fall under "color of law", especially if it's involving a LEO. Color of law incidents are absolutely illegal.
    Last edited by heresyourdipstickjimmy; 08-03-2010 at 02:49 AM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Jaysann22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St Louis
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by heresyourdipstickjimmy View Post
    Some great questions, some not so great. This is a great example of why WE must know our rights. 2A, 4A, 5A in particular. Not a lawyer and not giving advice just pointing out some issues, but I do know my rights and have interesting views on 571 in Mo.

    Rule #1 with EVERY LEO encounter: Any and all information gathered upon contact with a LEO is absolutely intended to gather evidence or illicit a criminal response. What YOU say is admissable in court against you, what the LEO says is hearsay and is inadmissable unless it has been recorded, submitted as evidence, and accepted as evidence by the court. There's a great youtube video on the 5th Amendment from a college professor, it might open some eyes and minds.

    Disclosure of a firearm? No disclosure of the presence of a firearm is required in Missouri, however Missouri does require that you present your permit upon request IF/WHEN you are carrying.

    Obligation to surrender? No, upon the firearm being removed from your person it has effectively been seized, no matter how short or long the period of time is.

    Lawful search of a vehicle leading to subsequent seizure of firearm? First, for a vehicle search to occur the driver would need to give consent or the LEO would need a warrant. (Grant v. Arizona) So no, this is not legal as it violates 4A and may violate other laws. However there has yet to be a case to challenge the legality of such a seizure to obtain evidence. This is exactly why you do not give consent to a vehicle search for any reason what so ever and keep the LEO trapped within the ruling of Grant v. Arizona. Any LEO that tries to tell you they can, needs a wake up call on the issue, so make sure you immediately request a written copy from their department policy, municipal code, or Missouri Statute (which we know it's not in RSMO).

    Rights violation = justification of deadly force? Absolutely not. Read justifications for the use of force in Missouri and you'll clearly see that there's a requirement for more than just a rights violation. The tricky part is when the LEO actually commits a crime by unlawfully entering your home, remember the LEO may have a lawful reason for being on your property and all it takes is telling them to leave if they do not have a warrant to enter. Again, it's important to NEVER allow a LEO into your home. What conversation needs to be had can be had outside your home, see Rule #1 above. Now if the LEO forces entry, then you're crossing the threshold of legality and you'd be taking your chances if you use force, this is especially important if the LEO does not have a warrant and you have told the LEO to leave (it's called trespassing). Now if a weapon is unlawfully utilized by a LEO during an unlawful entry, you again cross another threshold that has yet to see a legal challenge for the justification of deadly force.

    Unlawful seizure of a firearm from an individual carrying is where it gets really dangerous, very legally sticky, and very challenging. Under RSMO 571, we have the right to use deadly force for self defense, this goes without question I hope for most of us. Where you run into problems is when the LEO unlawfully attempts to disarm you, unlawfully seize your firearm from your person, or points the muzzle your own weapon at you following such a disarming. Let's look at them from a LEO use of force continuum standpoint.

    Attempt to disarm a LEO = deadly force assault
    Attempt to seize a firearm from a LEO = deadly force assault
    Pointing a muzzle of a firearm at a LEO = deadly force assault
    Equal protection clause should provide us the same legal protections under the law that are forded to LEOs who respond with deadly force against a deadly force assault; if the private armed citizen isn't going to be protected then the LEO should not either.

    So the question is this: If it is considered deadly force assault if these things are done to a LEO, why should the private armed citizen be any different? The answer is that the private armed citizen should not be treated any different, no matter who is engaged in the behavior. This would be especially important if the LEO disarms you anyway and points the muzzle of your own firearm at you. (unlawful use of deadly force/deadly force assault at that point)

    I've run across this personally more than once now and I've only had a bad experience (wake up call for the LEO) just one time. When informed by the LEO that he needed to disarm me for "officer safety", I simply said "if you do not know how to work a fully loaded (whatever model firearm), then please leave it where it is for my safety and yours. Your attempt to disarm me means you will accept full responsibility for the loaded firearm and any injuries or damage that might occur from your own negligence; this is also considered deadly force assault if I attempted to disarm you. Should you point the muzzle of my own firearm at me, I will consider this to be the unlawful use of deadly force upon my person." This usually gets a LEO to either leave your firearm put with strict instructions for you not to touch it or become even more aggressive.

    The self-defense portion of 571 is where it's quite muddy for this particular type of issue. Unfortunately, we've seen an increase of bone-headed LEO run-ins of late and it's just a matter of time before someone goes down an ugly road. None of us wants to shoot a LEO, nor do we want to be put in a position to have to even consider it as a survival option, but we do want to be secure in our persons, property, and effects as guaranteed by the US Constitution and the Missouri Constitution.


    Consensus: Using any kind of force against a LEO is not a smart decision.
    Well done. Very well thought out response. This was mostly what I was looking for and couldnt agree more.
    Last edited by Jaysann22; 08-03-2010 at 11:53 AM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5
    The following is not to be inferred as legal advise.

    Quote Originally Posted by heresyourdipstickjimmy
    Lawful search of a vehicle leading to subsequent seizure of firearm? First, for a vehicle search to occur the driver would need to give consent or the LEO would need a warrant. (Grant v. Arizona) So no, this is not legal as it violates 4A and may violate other laws. However there has yet to be a case to challenge the legality of such a seizure to obtain evidence. This is exactly why you do not give consent to a vehicle search for any reason what so ever and keep the LEO trapped within the ruling of Grant v. Arizona. Any LEO that tries to tell you they can, needs a wake up call on the issue, so make sure you immediately request a written copy from their department policy, municipal code, or Missouri Statute (which we know it's not in RSMO).
    Actually, Arizona v. Gant only applies to warrantless searches incident to arrest. The "motor vehicle exception" still applies to other motor vehicle searches. Also, warrantless searches incident to arrest are still valid if "it is reasonable to believe
    that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or
    that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest". Carroll v. United States (motor vehicle exception to the Fourth Amendment) still applies for all inventory searches (applies to police towed vehicles) and all probable cause searches of the vehicle. The only search limited by Arizona v. Gant was the search incident to arrest. Search incident to arrest is now limited to the arrestee's person only unless it meets one of the two exceptions provided by Gant.

    Quote Originally Posted by heresyourdipstickjimmy
    Obligation to surrender? No, upon the firearm being removed from your person it has effectively been seized, no matter how short or long the period of time is.
    Actually, while there is no obligation to disclose in Missouri, if the weapon is visible, an officer does maintain the right to temporarily seize the weapon for the duration of the stop. This falls under Terry v. Ohio, which allowed for "frisking" of suspects if the officer has reasonable suspicion that a suspect is armed. A plainly visible gun would most definitely be reasonable suspicion that the "suspect" is armed. An outline of a gun under clothing or a plainly visible magazine would also constitute reasonable suspicion. Remember that "suspect" for this purpose includes a simple traffic violator. In regards to Terry v. Ohio, "The sole justification of the search ... is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer." Michigan v. Long extended Terry to include vehicle compartments if reasonable suspicion exists.

    In response to Equal Protection, courts and legislatures have continuously given LEOs additional "rights" in terms of firearms. A LEO pointing a gun at a citizen can be justified outside of deadly force should it be done in "good faith." This applies to reasonable suspicion to believe that the stopped person is armed and involved in criminal activity. The stopped person may not believe they meet those requirements, but the stopped person's beliefs are not important at that time. It is what a "reasonable person" would believe with the information available to the LEO. If done in "good faith", the LEO is not subject to the same requirements by law. A non-LEO citizen is not protected by "good faith" in the state of Missouri.

    Just remember that "good faith" applies to all situations involving LEOs, including entering homes, searching and seizing, etc. That's not to say that you cannot defend yourself against an officer unlawfully entering your home, but it should be understood that the court will look at whether the officer's action was done in "good faith." An officer blatantly committing a criminal act is NOT done in "good faith" and the Castle Doctrine would 100% apply. But a search warrant that happened to have the incorrect address on it or a search where the officer heard someone screaming and believed it was your house where the scream was coming from would both be considered in "good faith."

    Bad officers definitely need to be removed from their duties if not from the gene pool, but remember that most officers' actions will be considered in "good faith." Also, failure to comply with a lawful command from a LEO constitutes a crime in most locales. It doesn't matter if you believe the command to be lawful, just that it was lawful.

    Continue to protect yourselves, but try to remember that 99.99999% of officers are on your side and are happy that law-abiding citizens are exercising their right to carry. Also remember that it's every officer's goal to go home at the end of their shift and they don't know immediately that you are a law-abiding citizen. Put yourselves in their shoes and a better understanding of their actions will follow.
    Last edited by Jon85; 08-03-2010 at 01:14 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Jaysann22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    St Louis
    Posts
    109
    Actually, while there is no obligation to disclose in Missouri, if the weapon is visible, an officer does maintain the right to temporarily seize the weapon for the duration of the stop.
    Not to say your wrong, and I fully believe this is true, however, it seems to me to be unconstitutional. An officer has the right to temporarily suspend a citizens rights and disarm them at their discretion? One man's judgement decides the fate of 100s of citizens rights a day? That doesnt seem any where near what the constitution intended.

    In response to Equal Protection, courts and legislatures have continuously given LEOs additional "rights" in terms of firearms. A LEO pointing a gun at a citizen can be justified outside of deadly force should it be done in "good faith." This applies to reasonable suspicion to believe that the stopped person is armed and involved in criminal activity. The stopped person may not believe they meet those requirements, but the stopped person's beliefs are not important at that time. It is what a "reasonable person" would believe with the information available to the LEO. If done in "good faith", the LEO is not subject to the same requirements by law. A non-LEO citizen is not protected by "good faith" in the state of Missouri.
    Sad. So if the officer is incompetant the citizen suffers the consequences? An officer can simply make up anything he/she wishes to act out side of the law? This loophole needs closing.

    Just remember that "good faith" applies to all situations involving LEOs, including entering homes, searching and seizing, etc. That's not to say that you cannot defend yourself against an officer unlawfully entering your home, but it should be understood that the court will look at whether the officer's action was done in "good faith." An officer blatantly committing a criminal act is NOT done in "good faith" and the Castle Doctrine would 100% apply. But a search warrant that happened to have the incorrect address on it or a search where the officer heard someone screaming and believed it was your house where the scream was coming from would both be considered in "good faith."
    more exploitable loopholes.

    Bad officers definitely need to be removed from their duties if not from the gene pool, but remember that most officers' actions will be considered in "good faith." Also, failure to comply with a lawful command from a LEO constitutes a crime in most locales. It doesn't matter if you believe the command to be lawful, just that it was lawful.
    How can you sift through the good ones from the bad when most of the laws are merely opinions enforced by courts? When officers lie and exploit loopholes to encroach rights, whos to know whos acting within the law or not?

    Continue to protect yourselves, but try to remember that 99.99999% of officers are on your side and are happy that law-abiding citizens are exercising their right to carry. Also remember that it's every officer's goal to go home at the end of their shift and they don't know immediately that you are a law-abiding citizen. Put yourselves in their shoes and a better understanding of their actions will follow.
    Understood and whole heartedly agree. However, tighter restraints, regulations, and supervision needs to be put in place for severe police actions. Second, loopholes in law to allow LEOs to "momentarily" suspend rights need closing. Most importantly ACCOUNTABILITY. If accountability was severely enforced with LEOs i feel citizens and LEOs would get along alot better knowing that LEOs cant just DO anything they feel is necessary with out recourse.

    Example: New proposed laws: LEOs who unlawfully disarm law abiding citizens will result in termination from their duties. (this would make LEOs think twice before disarming citizens who are clearly operating within the law.)

    LEOs unlawfully using physical/deadly force will result in termination from their duties and prosecution.

    LEOs are responsible for his/her actions and consequences of those actions whether or not the actions had "good intentions" (good faith) (meaning if they get the wrong address and enter the wrong home without the proper lawful entry requirements, whatever happens to them is a result of their own actions and no other party is accountable for these careless actions. This closing any loopholes and making sure the LEO better be damn sure he/she has the right address. Incompetence is unacceptable with an individual who has such authority over others.)

    LEOS shall not have an unfair bias in a court of law. Any unfair, unlawful, irresponsible, warrantless bias toward either party in an altercation will result in additional penal action.
    Last edited by Jaysann22; 08-03-2010 at 01:48 PM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349
    wow this is a good thread. learning a lot here

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    Not to say your wrong, and I fully believe this is true, however, it seems to me to be unconstitutional. An officer has the right to temporarily suspend a citizens rights and disarm them at their discretion? One man's judgement decides the fate of 100s of citizens rights a day? That doesnt seem any where near what the constitution intended.
    In all reality, a LEO is responsible for determining which rights a person has on a daily basis. Based on legislative and judicial decisions, LEO's are given this responsibility and would be unable to perform their jobs without the right. On the upper end of this daily responsibility is incarceration. (Obviously the upper end on a career basis would potentially be right to life.) I think anyone would agree that a LEO must at times temporarily suspend a person's right for the greater good. "With great power comes great responsibility." And that means acting within the Law and the Constitution (which includes judicial interpretation, whether you agree with the decisions made by the court or not). Also, it only comes down to one man's decision on a basic, at-the-time, level. If that person acts outside the Law or Constitution, that person can be punished up to incarceration for gross violations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    Sad. So if the officer is incompetant the citizen suffers the consequences? An officer can simply make up anything he/she wishes to act out side of the law? This loophole needs closing.
    In the short term, yes, this would be true. But, we as a nation need to work to make sure we don't have incompetant LEO's. Remember that "good faith" is not only determined based on the information available to the officer at the time, but what a "reasonable person" would have believed with that information. There has to be at least some protection for LEO's acting on unknowingly bad information or you wouldn't have a person in this world that would be willing to be a LEO.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    How can you sift through the good ones from the bad when most of the laws are merely opinions enforced by courts? When officers lie and exploit loopholes to encroach rights, whos to know whos acting within the law or not?
    They are not merely opinions enforced by courts. If the legislature has a problem with the way courts have interpreted the Law or Constitution, the legislature needs to enact laws or amendments that support their true intentions taking out loopholes they don't intend to be there. Their silence on the issues means they (overall) agree with the judicial review of the law.

    If an officer lies about information and that can be proven, that is effectively the end of their career based on Brady v. Maryland. In this case, the court determined that evidence of an officer lying in official capacity is admissible in court. Meaning, once an officer has lied in official capacity, he will no longer have credit in court and will almost always be released from his job as he is no longer capable of performing that job appropriately.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    Example: New proposed laws: LEOs who unlawfully disarm law abiding citizens will result in termination from their duties. (this would make LEOs think twice before disarming citizens who are clearly operating within the law.)
    It's a matter of education. I believe the current system works, so long as it is followed. Officers need the ability to feel some safety in their job and know that the law is going to back them for that reason. Officers that don't feel some safety will stop doing the more risky parts of the job and we will lose control of our society. So, during a Terry Stop (whether in a car or not), an officer should retain the right to temporarily disarm individuals for officer safety. This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of the Supreme Court. It is essential to law enforcement that this right remain intact. Will officers necessarily disarm individuals in every case? No. But an officer shouldn't have to have to articulate the reason for disarming the individual during this type of stop. A completely different stop would be one where an officer received a call simply because someone was open carrying. This stop is NOT a Terry Stop as there is no reason to believe an offense occurred (unless accompanied by another offense such as trespassing). The courts have not provided the right for an officer to disarm these individuals as officer safety is of no concern in those situations.

    [QUOTE=Jaysann22;1322560]LEOs unlawfully using physical/deadly force will result in termination from their duties and prosecution. [/QUESTION]
    In most jurisdictions, LEO use of deadly force is reviewed by a Grand Jury to determine prosecution. This way, it's taken out of the hands of a prosecutor, who may have bias toward the police, and puts it into the hands of individual citizens. This is the protection in this regard. I would support a similar approach to standard use of force.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    LEOs are responsible for his/her actions and consequences of those actions whether or not the actions had "good intentions" (good faith) (meaning if they get the wrong address and enter the wrong home without the proper lawful entry requirements, whatever happens to them is a result of their own actions and no other party is accountable for these careless actions. This closing any loopholes and making sure the LEO better be damn sure he/she has the right address. Incompetence is unacceptable with an individual who has such authority over others.)
    "Good faith" wouldn't necessarily cover an officer getting the wrong address, unless a "reasonable person" would have made the same mistake. When I said the wrong address before, I meant that the search warrant specified the incorrect address, which would be the responsibility of the judge, prosecutor, or filing officer, not necessarily the serving officer. We have to remember though that every aspect of the process is human and human error is going to occur on rare occasion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaysann22 View Post
    LEOS shall not have an unfair bias in a court of law. Any unfair, unlawful, irresponsible, warrantless bias toward either party in an altercation will result in additional penal action.
    I'm not sure what you mean by warrantless bias here. In terms of warrantless searches, the courts have determined that specific instances require the ability to do warrantless searches. These are very specific exemptions and have very specific purposes to them. Search incident to arrest is for officer/public/other inmate safety, to prevent contraband from being introduced into our jails, and to recover evidence of the crime that could easily be disposed of if not immediately recovered. Terry frisks and cursory searches (searching the immediate area inside a structure for other potential suspects) are solely for officer/public safety. Exigent circumstances is for public safety/recovery of evidence that may be disposed of prior to a warrant being issued. Motor vehicles is due to the mobile nature which would make it easy to dispose of evidence. Inventory searches are intended to provide a protection to the citizen's property that is being impounded by allowing valuable property to be placed on an inventory sheet and logged. And then there's obviously consent, which obviously shouldn't require a warrant regardless of the reason for the search (so long as consent isn't coerced). Outside of those, pretty much any other search requires a search warrant. Officers can't enter a home forcibly without a warrant or exigent circumstances (someone screaming "help me" or the like).

    Well, I'm sorry if this got a little off topic. I think that all of this (even though it's strayed a little) has some relevance to the original topic.

    All of this comes down to what the Legislature and Courts allow. If we have a problem with the Law or Constitution, we need to take steps to resolve it. This essentially means contacting your members of Congress and pushing for a change of law. It also means that they should be enacting laws that are clear in terminology. If a court determines something to be unconstitutional and the Legislature doesn't agree, they must address the issue in the Constitution through an amendment. It's tough, but it is possible.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    South KC, Raytown
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by heresyourdipstickjimmy View Post
    Official manner? Please refer to the legal definition of "color of law". Official manner does not give any LEO any authority to act in an unlawful manner. Once they do act unlawfully they're a criminal. This is where the lawful purpose comes into play for LEOs and once you tell a LEO to leave your property if they do not have a warrant, that LEO is no longer there for a lawful purpose if there is no evidence to provide reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a crime immediately present. It's then called trespassing.

    An attempt to unlawfully enter, search, or seize persons or property using "official manner" would fall under "color of law", especially if it's involving a LEO. Color of law incidents are absolutely illegal.
    Okay I don't think you are getting what I was saying. An Officer of the Law, IN uniform, who conducts an unlawful search and/or seizure is still acting as an Officer. Meaning yes he made a bad call, but he is still an Officer doing his job and just because it is unlawful does not give the resident the right, under the castle doctrine, to use deadly force. I never said that he/she was not a criminal, but they are still LEOs. I was simply saying that the misinterpretation of the Castle Doctrine would most certainly result in the lose of that law. No matter what some over zealous people may think or even wish. A violation of 1A, 2A, and/or 4A, are not grounds for deadly force.

  24. #24
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by ALOTAGLOCK View Post
    Okay I don't think you are getting what I was saying. An Officer of the Law, IN uniform, who conducts an unlawful search and/or seizure is still acting as an Officer. Meaning yes he made a bad call, but he is still an Officer doing his job and just because it is unlawful does not give the resident the right, under the castle doctrine, to use deadly force. I never said that he/she was not a criminal, but they are still LEOs. I was simply saying that the misinterpretation of the Castle Doctrine would most certainly result in the lose of that law. No matter what some over zealous people may think or even wish. A violation of 1A, 2A, and/or 4A, are not grounds for deadly force.
    Once again, this is wrong. Law enforcement officers enjoy NO exemption under RSMO 563.031.2. You really need to READ THE LAW and then understand how laws work. You can't just make something up because you have some kind of preconceived notion of how you think things should be, or because you think law enforcement officers enjoy some kind of "above the law" status that a "normal" person does not enjoy. There is no "misinterpretation" here on anyone's part except that of yourself. Think about it; by your line of reasoning, a police officer could pretty much enter any residence or vehicle for any reason at any time and be exempt from any consequences for his/her unlawful actions. That simply is not reality.

    In a nutshell, you have the right to use deadly force against ANY person unlawfully entering your residence in the middle of the night (or any other time) in Missouri. It doesn't matter if that person is a drunk, a crack-head, a teenager looking for an adrenaline rush, a deranged ex-spouse, or a police officer. The law is explicit and provides you with an absolute defense if the requirements of the law are met.

    Now, having said that, it doesn't mean you could use deadly force against a police officer who "announced" his forced entry into your home, but happened to be at the wrong address by mistake. If you hear the police at the front door shout, "POLICE DEPARTMENT - SEARCH WARRANT", you won't necessarily be justified in using deadly force even if they are at the wrong house. This would, no doubt, be a very precarious situation for a citizen to be in. A mistake made in "good faith" on the officer's part may not meet the requirements of justification in the eyes of the court. The courts would likely want hard evidence of a malicious, unlawful entry before ruling that you have an absolute defense under RSMO 563.074.1 if it was a LEO involved. .

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    South KC, Raytown
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    Once again, this is wrong. Law enforcement officers enjoy NO exemption under RSMO 563.031.2. You really need to READ THE LAW and then understand how laws work. You can't just make something up because you have some kind of preconceived notion of how you think things should be, or because you think law enforcement officers enjoy some kind of "above the law" status that a "normal" person does not enjoy. There is no "misinterpretation" here on anyone's part except that of yourself. Think about it; by your line of reasoning, a police officer could pretty much enter any residence or vehicle for any reason at any time and be exempt from any consequences for his/her unlawful actions. That simply is not reality.

    In a nutshell, you have the right to use deadly force against ANY person unlawfully entering your residence in the middle of the night (or any other time) in Missouri. It doesn't matter if that person is a drunk, a crack-head, a teenager looking for an adrenaline rush, a deranged ex-spouse, or a police officer. The law is explicit and provides you with an absolute defense if the requirements of the law are met.

    Now, having said that, it doesn't mean you could use deadly force against a police officer who "announced" his forced entry into your home, but happened to be at the wrong address by mistake. If you hear the police at the front door shout, "POLICE DEPARTMENT - SEARCH WARRANT", you won't necessarily be justified in using deadly force even if they are at the wrong house. This would, no doubt, be a very precarious situation for a citizen to be in. A mistake made in "good faith" on the officer's part may not meet the requirements of justification in the eyes of the court. The courts would likely want hard evidence of a malicious, unlawful entry before ruling that you have an absolute defense under RSMO 563.074.1 if it was a LEO involved. .


    I never said that a LEO can do whatever, whenever, however. I said that they are not the same as a "crack-head" or "deranged ex-spouse". They have to be precieved differently. In the situation where you are walking down the hall of your house. You see a crack-head, acting like a "crack-head", walking out of your living room coming toward you. Bang you shoot. Rightfully so. Kill him everytime. No debate. Everyone knows what could happen when dealing with some nut with no sense because of drugs. Now You are walking down your hall and see a Police Officer walking toward you. No bang. Why there is no reasonable perception of a threat. Why would you be threatened by a LEO. Yes you will definitly be stunned, maybe even a little pissed. I would hope pissed. But there is no reasonable threat.

    Never accept your rights being violated. But the situation does not dictate deadly force. An Officer has to be precieved differently. Common sense would tell you that. So would every Lawyer or Attorney. I know several.

    Also just food for thought there are circumstances that allow LEOs to not announce entry.

    Once more so you are not confused by my position. COPS DON'T HAVE SPECIAL POWERS SET BY THE GOVERNMENT TO ALLOW FOR THEM TO DO WHATEVER, WHENEVER, HOWEVER THEY WANT. BUT they are considered and classified differently in certain instances.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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