stopped x2 handcuffed seached gun and billfold taken threatened with DC/CCW revoked

[self preservation]

That is true in Kentucky but the law also says you cannot be original aggressor.

You're making up your own scenario, you could claim whatever you want but you better hope witnesses have the same view of what happened.

If you come up to me and start harassing me because I am wearing a red shirt, then I look at it as you are the aggressor. The same as if you accost for OC'ing. Both acts are legal so I don't want to be bothered, period. And plus we are talking about not being overly nice to a LEO that is attempting to or is violating our rights. So I don't know where a defensive style shooting even comes into play in that scenario.

As far as a witness, they can say I was rude to the criminal all they want. A justified shooting is a justified shooting. You don't have to say please, thank you, yes sir or no sir when you are defending your life. The OP has shown his side of the story so we can't help but to back him. IF he did commit a crime, why didn't he go to jail?

 

[self preservation]

Can you provide a case so I can look it up?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

I'm sure this isn't the only one...


And as far as being the initial aggressor and not being able to use deadly force......

503.060 Improper use of physical force in self-protection.
Notwithstanding the provisions of KRS 503.050, the use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is not justifiable when:
(1) The defendant is resisting an arrest by a peace officer, recognized to be acting under color of official authority and using no more force than reasonably necessary to effect the arrest, although the arrest is unlawful; or
(2) The defendant, with the intention of causing death or serious physical injury to the other person, provokes the use of physical force by such other person; or
(3) The defendant was the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon the other person under this circumstance is justifiable when:
(a) His initial physical force was nondeadly and the force returned by the other is such that he believes himself to be in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury; or
(b) He withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so and the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts

 

[KYGlockster]

That is true in Kentucky but the law also says you cannot be original aggressor.

You're making up your own scenario, you could claim whatever you want but you better hope witnesses have the same view of what happened.

The first statement is incorrect. I would suggest you research Kentucky's self-defense statutes so you know what is and is not allowed in this state. I will give you a hint: Kentucky has the best self-defense statutes in the country!

Check out KRS 503.060(3) which can be found here: http://lrc.ky.gov/KRS/503-00/060.PDF

You can read all of Kentucky's statutes here: http://lrc.ky.gov/krs/titles.htm

You can read Kentucky's Administrative Regulations here: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/titles.htm

You can read the Kentucky Constitution here: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/legresou/constitu/list1.htm

I would recommend that you start going through Kentucky statutes so you can better verse yourself in Kentucky law. I would also recommend you read through all 263 sections of the Constitution of Kentucky.

 

[ericb327]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

I'm sure this isn't the only one...


And as far as being the initial aggressor and not being able to use deadly force......

503.060 Improper use of physical force in self-protection.
Notwithstanding the provisions of KRS 503.050, the use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is not justifiable when:
(1) The defendant is resisting an arrest by a peace officer, recognized to be acting under color of official authority and using no more force than reasonably necessary to effect the arrest, although the arrest is unlawful; or
(2) The defendant, with the intention of causing death or serious physical injury to the other person, provokes the use of physical force by such other person; or
(3) The defendant was the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon the other person under this circumstance is justifiable when:
(a) His initial physical force was nondeadly and the force returned by the other is such that he believes himself to be in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury; or
(b) He withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so and the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts

I was already aware of this decision, didn't interpret it the same as you for responding to calls. The Supreme court is dealing with police discretion for arrests, and liability. As a generality police here don't don't choose which calls to respond to. Dispatch tells them which calls to respond to.

 

[KYGlockster]

I should back up and say that I have been encouraged to open carry. I am not the only citizen to open carry in Bellevue. As far as I know the OP is the only person to have a negative experience. So I may have misspoke when I said they encourage citizens to OC. I will reaffirm that the Police encourage citizens to CC. The point I'm trying to argue is that although OC is legal and we have protected rights, some OCers (not all) are out there acting in ways to get attention and promote their own agenda. I understand that some here don't think it matters. I do! I honestly think some OCers out there cross the line with their behavior causing people to be uncomfortable and question their motives. Some behavior is cause for police to investigate. The OC of a firearm by itself does not constitute a reason to investigate. However, police do have to investigate MWAG calls. We should understand that with our interactions when this happens. We can cooperate without giving up any rights. If you choose not to that is your right. I do agree in many cases the police cross the line and violate our rights and this is unacceptable. However, I do believe there are cases when OCers actions give police cause to detain. Is this the case? I don't know if we will ever know because all we have is the short one sided video. I do not hate the police but I have had negative experiences with them. I prefer to work with them than against them.

Someone said here that it's not against the law to argue or be rude with someone while OC. See how that works out for you in court if it escalates into a defensive scenario where you use deadly physical force!

It will work out just fine; as I have already stated, you really should verse yourself in Kentucky law before it gets YOU in trouble.

As for the rescinding of your comment regarding the police department encouraging OC, well that I believe. However, you still say they encourage CC? You have not provided any proof of this statement either, other than you the Chief? teaches concealed-carry classes.

 

[self preservation]

Dispatch tells them which calls to respond to.

I worked part time as a police dispatcher several years back. I would give them the call and they decided how to proceed with it. I still remember "action 27" under the CAD system. We (dispatchers) had to put in what action was taken and action 27 was "passed call off to officer". When I got a MWAG call the officer would most generally radio back and ask me to check with the caller to see if there was more to the story other than just some guy OC'ing. If not, the LEO didn't leave his seat at McDonalds to answer the call. They would ask me to inform the caller that OC is legal. Now if the guy had his gun out waiving it at people then yes, they would respond.

And just FYI..... I "action 27'd" a lot of LEO calls... So no, they don't have to respond.

 

[KYGlockster]

I was already aware of this decision, didn't interpret it the same as you for responding to calls. The Supreme court is dealing with police discretion for arrests, and liability. As a generality police here don't don't choose which calls to respond to. Dispatch tells them which calls to respond to.

Warren v. D.C. -- If this case doesn't make your blood boil then I don't know what would.

For responding to MWAG calls:

United States v DeBerry (1996) USCA 7C, 95-2232

Terry v. Ohio

Without RAS that a crime is being committed then there is no basis to detain. Sure, they can talk to you, but you can walk away as well!

The dispatch centers merely tell officers what the call concerns. The officers are under no obligation to investigate these calls, and if you ever listen to dipatch/officer communications you will realize that calls get "stacked" numerous times throughout a day. Some of these calls eventually get answered, some don't.

 

[NavyMike]

Warren v. D.C. -- If this case doesn't make your blood boil then I don't know what would.

For responding to MWAG calls:

United States v DeBerry (1996) USCA 7C, 95-2232

Terry v. Ohio

Without RAS that a crime is being committed then there is no basis to detain. Sure, they can talk to you, but you can walk away as well!

The dispatch centers merely tell officers what the call concerns. The officers are under no obligation to investigate these calls, and if you ever listen to dipatch/officer communications you will realize that calls get "stacked" numerous times throughout a day. Some of these calls eventually get answered, some don't.

Add to the above: Florida vs JL. There is no firearm exception to the 4th Amendment.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Warren v. D.C. -- If this case doesn't make your blood boil then I don't know what would.

For responding to MWAG calls:

United States v DeBerry (1996) USCA 7C, 95-2232

Terry v. Ohio

Without RAS that a crime is being committed then there is no basis to detain. Sure, they can talk to you, but you can walk away as well!

DeBerry is not binding precedent in Kentucky however. As Kentucky is within the 6th circuit, and Deberry was under totally different circumstances, people here like to focus on the one or two sentences that say a call of a concealed weapon in a state which issues CPLs in not RAS but the court was speaking hypothetically, in that case that the same circumstances in DeBerry took place in a state where CCW was legal.

And DeBerry's conviction was upheld for carrying a concealed firearm.

Not saying that the police were right, it appears from the video that the officer was 100% in the wrong, but over-relying on DeBerry is not a good idea IMHO. I'd rather stick to case law decided in that states own supreme court under their own constitution if possible.

 

[self preservation]

Warren v. D.C. -- If this case doesn't make your blood boil then I don't know what would.

For responding to MWAG calls:

United States v DeBerry (1996) USCA 7C, 95-2232

Terry v. Ohio

Without RAS that a crime is being committed then there is no basis to detain. Sure, they can talk to you, but you can walk away as well!

The dispatch centers merely tell officers what the call concerns. The officers are under no obligation to investigate these calls, and if you ever listen to dipatch/officer communications you will realize that calls get "stacked" numerous times throughout a day. Some of these calls eventually get answered, some don't.

I'm sure you will back me up in saying that these are excellent reasons why we need to continue to fight to maintain or improve our defense laws. When people say "you don't need a gun, the police will protect you" that they would read this stuff.

 

[Grapeshot]

I should back up and say that I have been encouraged to open carry. I am not the only citizen to open carry in Bellevue. As far as I know the OP is the only person to have a negative experience. So I may have misspoke when I said they encourage citizens to OC. I will reaffirm that the Police encourage citizens to CC. The point I'm trying to argue is that although OC is legal and we have protected rights, some OCers (not all) are out there acting in ways to get attention and promote their own agenda. I understand that some here don't think it matters. I do! I honestly think some OCers out there cross the line with their behavior causing people to be uncomfortable and question their motives. Some behavior is cause for police to investigate. The OC of a firearm by itself does not constitute a reason to investigate. However, police do have to investigate MWAG calls. We should understand that with our interactions when this happens. We can cooperate without giving up any rights. If you choose not to that is your right. I do agree in many cases the police cross the line and violate our rights and this is unacceptable. However, I do believe there are cases when OCers actions give police cause to detain. Is this the case? I don't know if we will ever know because all we have is the short one sided video. I do not hate the police but I have had negative experiences with them. I prefer to work with them than against them.

Someone said here that it's not against the law to argue or be rude with someone while OC. See how that works out for you in court if it escalates into a defensive scenario where you use deadly physical force!

Appreciate the clarification. Actually thought that there might have been some overselling of the point - it is very easy to do.

Truth of the matter, I think that those that would take an seriously aggressive, in your face attitude are few and far between. Most when faced with a hard nosed, color of law challenge will still take the high road as the better route to travel.

I agree in general that a reasoned response works out best normally. LEOs if not my friends (do know some with whom I would gladly share a meal) are much the same as you and I. That I accept as a given, so no flames, please.

That said, if the affront is beyond extreme, threatening to my health or financial well being, then you might be better off standing in front of my brass Napolean (see avatar) when it reaches critical mass.

 

[ericb327]

It will work out just fine; as I have already stated, you really should verse yourself in Kentucky law before it gets YOU in trouble.

As for the rescinding of your comment regarding the police department encouraging OC, well that I believe. However, you still say they encourage CC? You have not provided any proof of this statement either, other than you the Chief? teaches concealed-carry classes.

It's a Police Captain that teaches CC and recruits people for classes, If that's not supporting CC then maybe you could give me some suggestions. I could email the The Captain.

In what way or post have I shown a lack of knowledge for Kentucky law. I have read the Use of Force laws more than I care to count. I referred to Kentucky Statute once in this thread and correctly I might add. I believe your interpretation is dangerous but that's your choice.

I've had fun here, I only meant to comment on the OPs post to reaffirm that I was not a LEO. On that note I will be going with the same opinion I came with.

 

[ericb327]

Appreciate the clarification. Actually thought that there might have been some overselling of the point - it is very easy to do.

Truth of the matter, I think that those that would take an seriously aggressive, in your face attitude are few and far between. Most when faced with a hard nosed, color of law challenge will still take the high road as the better route to travel.

I agree in general that a reasoned response works out best normally. LEOs if not my friends (do know some with whom I would gladly share a meal) are much the same as you and I. That I accept as a given, so no flames, please.

That said, if the affront is beyond extreme, threatening to my health or financial well being, then you might be better off standing in front of my brass Napolean (see avatar) when it reaches critical mass.

Well said thanks.

 

[KYGlockster]

DeBerry is not binding precedent in Kentucky however. As Kentucky is within the 6th circuit, and Deberry was under totally different circumstances, people here like to focus on the one or two sentences that say a call of a concealed weapon in a state which issues CPLs in not RAS but the court was speaking hypothetically, in that case that the same circumstances in DeBerry took place in a state where CCW was legal.

And DeBerry's conviction was upheld for carrying a concealed firearm.

Not saying that the police were right, it appears from the video that the officer was 100% in the wrong, but over-relying on DeBerry is not a good idea IMHO. I'd rather stick to case law decided in that states own supreme court under their own constitution if possible.

You are right, but court precedent from the district and appeals courts are referenced in cases for the entire country at the federal level.

 

[KYGlockster]

It's a Police Captain that teaches CC and recruits people for classes, If that's not supporting CC then maybe you could give me some suggestions. I could email the The Captain.

In what way or post have I shown a lack of knowledge for Kentucky law. I have read the Use of Force laws more than I care to count. I referred to Kentucky Statute once in this thread and correctly I might add. I believe your interpretation is dangerous but that's your choice.

I've had fun here, I only meant to comment on the OPs post to reaffirm that I was not a LEO. On that note I will be going with the same opinion I came with.

You seem to confuse the word "encourages" for the word "support." At first you claimed the entire department "encouraged" people to OC and CC, but now you claim the captain "supports" CC. It is one thing to support something; it is another thing altogether to encourage someone to do something.

My interpretation of the law is correct. Statutes are not allowed to be vague, and they are only allowed to pertain to one subject. KY law is very EASY to understand, and the plain reading of KRS 503.060 is exactly that: plain. It is simple reading comprehension. The statute clearly states: "The defendant was the INITIAL aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon the other person under this circumstance is justifiable when his initial PHYSICAL force was nondeadly and the force returned by the other is such that he believes himself to be in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury."(emphasis mine)

It could NOT be easier to understand than it currently is in its current form. If I were to start a physical confrontation and the person I was fighting came back at me with force that made me fear imminent death or serious physical injury then I can escalate to deadly force and still be protected under KRS Chapter 503.

Would I suggest someone start a fight with another person? Absolutely not. But if that were the case, and that other person came back and tried to kill or severely injure, then the initial aggressor can respond with deadly force. It is hard to argue against what the statute says when it is above for the World to see.