Disarmed by VA Beach police in front of my own house on 04-26-2011

Wylde (caps mine):"Without directly advocating violence, if law enforcement officers were afraid that law-abiding citizens could shoot them and ENJOY THE SAME LEGAL AMNESTY THAT THEY DO, I believe many of them would think that much harder about abusing their "authority", for lack of any better term.

Click to expand...

In the 70-year history of the Fairfax County police, no officer has been charged with a crime for shooting someone in the line of duty.

ProShooter said:

This thread has officially ceased to be of any value.

Click to expand...

I disagree. This thread has been very informative. I think one learns the most in adversity and also the differing opinions are enlightening. I don't agree with much that has been said but I have learned a couple of things.

NovaCop10 said:

Why I see you are back at your games, I will chime in that many officers are held accountable for their actions. Qualified immunity may "sicken" you, however, it is reasonable.

Click to expand...

Reasonable ONLY if you're the person wearing the badge...

Not so reasonable if your name is John McKenna, Oscar Grant, Tyrone Brown, Prince Jones, or Sean Gamble, or their families...

Qualified Immunity is the WORST kind of classism imaginable--it gives a special group of people a "pass" when they screw up (or intentionall misbehave) and hurt, injure, violate the rights of, or even kill innocent people--JUST BECAUSE they have a badge. If an "ordinary citizen" were to do the same thing, they would be (and usually ARE) prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Making separate laws, or exempting certain types of people from punishment for the same sort of behavior that Citizens can be imprisoned for is sick, evil, and fundamentally a HUGE violation of the very concept of "fundamental human rights", not to mention the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.

NovaCop10 said:

We all know that police in society are necessary, that's not even a topic for debate (unless you want to live in Somalia). If you expect a bunch of humans to enforce laws and catch violent people in dangerous, highly stressful situations, which sometimes require split second decisions, honest mistakes will be made.

Click to expand...

Actually, police are only necessary as a source for revenue enhancement for government, and as a means of "rule by force" to keep the "citizenry" in line with the will of the ruling class. Our Nation got by for over 100 years without the vast majority of the police forces in existence today, and it wasn't until corporate interests started to implement their program of covert fascism in the US (Rule by Corporations) at the end of the 1800s that municipal police departments became the "norm" rather than the exception.

And in fact, in many rural areas of this Nation, even today, there are HUNDREDS of small unincorporated towns, boroughs, and hamlets that DO NOT have local police, and their crime rates are MIND-BOGGLINGLY low, to the point of being non-existent for the most heinous crimes like murder and rape.

In fact, a VERY strong statistical argument can be made that increased municipal police numbers have a DIRECT coorelation to increased crime rates, due to corruption, graft, and civil rights violations...

Sheriffs are a TOTALLY different issue though--as elected officials, the Sheriff (and his/her department) are DIRECTLY accountable to the People, whereas Police are answerable ONLY to their puppet masters in the Mayors office, and his corporate cronies in the private sector.

Let's be honest here...

Non Sheriff Police Forces exist ONLY as 1) a source of revenue generation through fines, and 2) an armed force to coerce the citizenry to the will of the Ruling Class. Period. End of discussion.

Any other justification for municipal police forces is simply apologetical propaganda.

NovaCop10 said:

You can't expect police not to make some serious mistakes which may result in fatal mistakes. It's just not possible. Everything should be done to prevent mistakes, training, better screening, etc. etc., but no matter what precautionary measures are in place.. mistakes will always be made. I don't think anyone would take a job where an honest mistake means prison time.

Click to expand...

No, actually we can.

We CAN expect Police to submit to the same Rule of Law under which Citizens must function. We CAN expect LEOs to use the same level of discretion, prudence, judgement, and spit-second decision-making that is expected of Citizens in the same situations. We CAN expect LEOs who make "mistakes" to have their chance to justify their actions in Court. And we CAN expect police who are OBVIOUSLY in the wrong--through fraud, coersion, lying, intentional brutality, tampering with evidence, collusion to cover up wrongdoing, or other malfeasance or misconduct--to be held to the SAME legal standards for those activities to which a Citizen would be held.

Any other sort of system, statute, code, or administrative policy for dealing with LE misconduct is simply evil, and flies directly in the face of the entire concept of "fundamental human rights".

Good LEOs are like gold--they should be treasured, collected, and held up as a standard of purity and integrity.

Bad cops, OTOH, are worse than criminals, because they violate the Public Trust--and should be addressed with the swiftest, most aggressive, and most ruthless prosecution and punishment that our Justice System can mete out...

Period.

End of discussion.

Hahaha Dreamer should wake up ha what a bunch of bs.

NovaCop10 said:

Hahaha Dreamer should wake up ha what a bunch of bs.

Click to expand...

Yeah, integrity, accountability and all that garbage, pffft.

NovaCop10 said:

Hahaha Dreamer should wake up ha what a bunch of bs.

Click to expand...

Prove me wrong... With citations, please...

Dreamer said:

Prove me wrong... With citations, please...

Click to expand...

Haha Everything you said was your own personal opinion. Cite what? This is getting silly.

NovaCop10 said:

Haha Everything you said was your own personal opinion. Cite what? This is getting silly.

Click to expand...

Serious question (not being snide or inflammatory): If some magical legislative wand was waved, and all LEA (Yeah, Feds too) lost qualified immunity, affirmative defense, and were judged exactly based off the actions of the peace officers as compared to the constitution: Would you want to remain an officer (or have signed up in the first place)?

Short version, cops lost all special consideration and are judged identically to how citizens are in their actions and methods, no more blue line.

Rhetorical question: How many co-workers of yours do you think would quit with only the law as a run book?

Guys,

MouthCop10 is trolling now. He's so disconnected from actually responding to your actual arguments, it is entirely possible he is trying to get the thread locked. Very much like he did with the McDonalds-beating thread.

Lets just chat among ourselves, and if the children fuss from the kid's table, we just ignore them. If they chip in a useful thought, we can take it up among ourselves.

I wish you two would just rent a hotel room and work out all those pent-up feelings for one another.

FFS, can you two not go TWO MINUTES without flirting like a couple of grade schoolers?

NovaCop10 said:

Hahaha Dreamer should wake up ha what a bunch of bs.

Click to expand...

No, who should wake up are Prince Jones and Sean Gamble...

Oh, but they can't because they are DEAD--shot by "mistake" while unarmed, not engaging in any illegal activities, and guilty of ONLY being BITWP (Black in the wrong place) by out-of-control PG County and Baltimore City "officers", who then claimed "qualified immunity".

Or maybe their families--children, siblings, wives, parents--would like to wake up from the nightmare of knowing that the immunity-claiming sociopaths who shot their loved ones in cold blooded incompetency continued to hold their position on the force, collect paychecks, and walk away from the situation while the PEOPLE payed the inevitable settlements issued by the Courts...

Or maybe the good people of this nation should wake up to the fact that there are thousands of "officers" who hide behind "qualified immunity" every year so they can bully, terrorize, extort, shake down, and otherwise strong-arm the public to satisfy their own sociopathic whims.

As someone who has actually engaged in the training of LEOs under contract from the US DOJ, I find your attitude to be a disgrace. I've known a lot of fine, honorable, law-abiding LEOs in my time, but you, sir, (judging from your posts here on OCDO) seem to be the poster child for why the public trust in LE is at an all-time low in this country.

I wonder if you ever actually were a real LEO? The only one's I've personally known who had such disdain for the Rule of Law, dismissiveness for the civil rights of Citizens, and absolute snarkiness with regards to proper LE conduct as you were (and unfortunately, some some still are) from MD...

If you do still wear a badge, I hope the Good People of your jurisdiction have VERY good lawyers, and carry voice recorders everywhere they go.

God save us all...

NovaCop10 said:

Wylde,

Why I see you are back at your games, I will chime in that many officers are held accountable for their actions. Qualified immunity may "sicken" you, however, it is reasonable. We all know that police in society are necessary, that's not even a topic for debate (unless you want to live in Somalia). If you expect a bunch of humans to enforce laws and catch violent people in dangerous, highly stressful situations, which sometimes require split second decisions, honest mistakes will be made. You can't expect police not to make some serious mistakes which may result in fatal mistakes. It's just not possible. Everything should be done to prevent mistakes, training, better screening, etc. etc., but no matter what precautionary measures are in place.. mistakes will always be made. I don't think anyone would take a job where an honest mistake means prison time.

With that being said, don't twist my words to mean I support corrupt police. I am actually much against corrupt police and hope their actions do result in criminal charges. I am merely stating that qualified immunity is necessary and society understands that.

Click to expand...

"Honest mistakes" have meant prison time for many non-cops. Qualified immunity means different things in different courts. That's the problem with it. Cops have a duty to possess greater knowledge of the laws they enforce. If they break one, they deserve no immunity. If they violate their oath to support and defend Fed/State constituions, they need to be tried and convicted with no immunity. If in a dark alley, they think some 16 year old banger is pointing a weapon at them and blow him away, then I support them. The more complicated scenarios are the ones most deserving of some type of very "limited," not qualified, immunity. Violations of constitutional rights are not. If the cop claims ignorance of constitutional rights, fire him on the spot. He lied under oath. Monetary and criminal penalties stepped up 100 fold will improve the quality of cops. Then, and only then, is cart blanche qualified immunity just.

NovaCop10 said:

Hahaha Dreamer should wake up ha what a bunch of bs.

Click to expand...

Really? In what way was it "BS"? You don't seem to have any problem elaborating on your opinions, so how are Dreamer's so easily dismissed by you? I have no horse in this race, save my comments on qualified immunity, so I'm interested in your response/support of a dismissive statement failing qualification.

epilogue said:

Serious question (not being snide or inflammatory): If some magical legislative wand was waved, and all LEA (Yeah, Feds too) lost qualified immunity, affirmative defense, and were judged exactly based off the actions of the peace officers as compared to the constitution: Would you want to remain an officer (or have signed up in the first place)?

Short version, cops lost all special consideration and are judged identically to how citizens are in their actions and methods, no more blue line.

Rhetorical question: How many co-workers of yours do you think would quit with only the law as a run book?

Click to expand...

Don't confuse the necessity of affirmative defense with qualified immunity. Cops should have the right to an affirmative defense which presupposes lack of any type of immunity. Self defense is an affirmative defense that must be shown. It should apply in any police shooting with NO immunity. Prove justification to a jury of reasonable men. Not a gutless, DA who is nothing more than a bootlicker for the cops and won't go to trial. As I stated above, I'm not 100% opposed to qualified immunity. It should simply be severely curtailed.

Gunslinger said:

Don't confuse the necessity of affirmative defense with qualified immunity. Cops should have the right to an affirmative defense which presupposes lack of any type of immunity. Self defense is an affirmative defense that must be shown. It should apply in any police shooting with NO immunity. Prove justification to a jury of reasonable men. Not a gutless, DA who is nothing more than a bootlicker for the cops and won't go to trial. As I stated above, I'm not 100% opposed to qualified immunity. It should simply be severely curtailed.

Click to expand...

I'm not confusing either/or, it's a made up fantasy world scenario sandwich with a meaty question.

ProShooter said:

The key here, is that this is not a situation where a cop randomly walked up to an OC'er on the street and disarmed him.

The cop is responding to a MWAG/brandishing call. At the location, there is a man with a gun. You're damn skippy that I'm going to disarm you. Period. Remove the gun from the situation until we get the facts.

Having been on both sides of the badge, I'd llike to think that I can see both sides of the coin. Some situations I read here and I say to myself, "that cop screwed up". I have zero hesitation in calling a LEO out for a poor judgement call or violation. In this case, I think that the officer did what he should have done in disarming you, and the prudent thing would have been to get the family inside and lock the doors.

Click to expand...

I believe he said that he gave the address of the MWAG. If cops are too dumb to read numbers, maybe they should become excops. As to hiding in your home in fear, if that suits you, fine. It doesn't suit me. While I would have gotten my family inside, I would be on my porch, armed. When the numbers challenged cops showed up, I would have pointed and said "that's the house I called about." And left it at that. If the cop walks up my drive, he'd better have a warrant. A badge renders no immunity--qualified or otherwise, from armed trespass. If some ******* cop tells me he "can do whatever he wants," he'll get the chance to repeat it in court. He just lost qualified immunity.

ProShooter said:

Please tell me what crime was committed.

Click to expand...

Violation of a citizen's right to be secure in his person and property from unreasonable search and seizure is a nice place to start. 42 USC 1983 an even nicer place to finish.

Grapeshot said:

>>>>>>>>>>>snip

Have no problem with your posting to the Virginia forum or another for that matter. Do wonder why you are not more active in solving the numerous problems in Maine though. You surely have not worn out your welcome there............have you?

Click to expand...

Uhh, there is not state limitation to residents only on the VA forum--where I used to live, btw, too damned hot and too damned many bugs... Let's get off this kick. It's one forum and many of us have lived in quite a few states and share current residents' concerns..now, back to the war.

DrMark said:

Interesting thread. :lol:

Click to expand...

LoL! My thoughts, exactly.

NovaCop10 said:

You are kidding right? I know you and Citizen are best buds.. however, you agree there was NO RAS for a stop?

Let's add RAS key points:
1. Have multiple callers/witnesses requesting police about a MWAG threatening another person by brandishing a handgun.
2. The officer gets to the scene in about 10 mins and sees a MWAG.
3. The MWAG was only three houses away (suspects normally use their legs to walk away from the scene of the crime).
4. The MWAG was standing outside one of the perceived 9-1-1 caller's address, thus making it believable that the suspect saw the neighbor calling and went over to confront him.
5. The MWAG motions towards the officer to get his attention when the officer came on scene.
6. The MWAG tells the officer he called, thus adding suspicion that he is involved in the incident (sometimes suspects will call after realizing someone called on them, attempting to play "victim").
7. The MWAG then somewhat verbally disagrees with the orders given.
8. The MWAG was outside near the street and the crime also occurred outside near the street.
9. Most people would leave the area in fear of a suspect brandishing a gun on the street, thus making it somewhat unusual that an innocent person would stay on scene.
10. No mention of other males openly carrying guns on them nearby.
11. Exact addresses are not always correct in calls, so the officers can't assume that the OP'ers address wasn't the actual incident location.

So Citizen, Mr. Nap, NO RAS for a terry stop to investigate? None? Really? We aren't talking about probable cause or proof beyond a reasonable doubt... it's mere suspicion that you can reasonably articulate. In this case, there is way beyond what's needed for a stop.

It's like a fantasy world in the VA forum at times.

Click to expand...

Man standing in his own yard lawfully having a holstered gun. Courts have repeatedly held this is not RAS for Terry.
Man calls to cops to tell them he made the 911 call and the subject is across the street.
Instead of responding to the 'complainant,' cop trespasses on private property and unlawfully seizes legally possessed property with implied threat of unlawful use of deadly force if the man resists..
Other cop tells man he "can do anything he wants." Makes implied threats of taking unconstitutional actions under color of law.
Your other points are immaterial and/or facts not in evidence. "Multiple MWAG calls"? Says who? " Most people would leave the area in fear..." Not if they live there. "needed for a stop..." What stop? The trespass? Surprised these jackasses didn't go house to house--avoiding, of course, the one house that matters because that could be dangerous...