Assaulted at B&I

[sempercarry]

imported post

 

[marshaul]

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

I visit other state sites all the time and it is good to get clarification on what someone is talking about.

Impossible! Didn't you know that the state subforums are the sole province of those who live there!?

God forbid you "tell them how to run their state" by commenting in other subforums!

:quirky

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

sempercarry wrote:

They were armed....both had Glocks in the serpa holster that has a hood over the top of the gun.

Would be interesting if somebody could get a photo of of these security guards at B&I with level 3 Serpas - they are unusual for security companies, though some LE use them.

Yata hey

 

[marshaul]

imported post

erps wrote:

gogodawgs wrote:

Johnny Law wrote:

It's true that the sg's did not have legal authority to detain, and should not have gone hands on.

I would concur with JohnnyLaw here... with one final outcome that could of happened.

At the point sempercarry pulled away AND put his hand on his weapon.  He should of remained silent.  Simply putting your hand on your weapon to prevent it's taking would be acceptable.  Then either simply leaving or waiting for the police would be ok, I think the fact that they grabbed sempercarry would of forced sempercarry to call first!

That's reassuring, as I consider myself pretty reasonable and I was having a hard time reconciling having an oddball perspective on the matter.

Well, I'm inclined to share your perspective.

But, I know that's irrelevant, as merely by posting here I'm "telling you how to run your state".

 

[sempercarry]

imported post

Perhaps I will go super secret squirrel (CC) and get some pics

 

[marshaul]

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

We are sheepdogs, not sheep.

Speak for yourself.

Last I checked, I'm still homo sapiens.

 

[sirpuma]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

You would seem to be excusing/permitting the use of deadly force against officers for perceived violations. How is that not taking on the role of judge and jury yourself?

I think that is a very thin line to walk, much less cross - if that is what you are saying.

Yata hey

I didn't say "perceived". A "perceived" violation of one's freedom would indicate that there was no violation and that the action was just. I do not condone lethal force against false threats, just real threats. As I said, one should always work toward a peaceful end to a confrontation. But when force is applied against someone to unjustly take their freedom, then force must be applied to protect it. It is a very thin line and a razors edge. It must be walked carefully, but it should be walked. To me it doesn't matter if an assailant is LEO or a gang member. If someone assaults me, I will defend myself and I will use just enough force as is needed to thwart the threat. If it requires lethal force than that's what I will use. If I can talk my way out of it, I will do that.

 

[sirpuma]

imported post

erps wrote:

However should an officer, security guard or some other civilian escalate the taking of your freedom by force, knowingly violating the law and constitution, then you have the right (granted by GOD) to defend yourself.

so was it appropriate in your mind to shoot these security guards then? do you determine first whether they were knowingly violating the constitution or just shoot them and let God sort it out? Do you have a line in mind as far as how long you're willing to endure an unlawful detention before you start shooting? 5 minutes, 20 minutes, 15 seconds?

Why does "defend yourself" require shooting first? One can defend themselves in many ways, but they should use every effort to protect their lives and freedom, whatever it takes. That doesn't mean start shooting and ask questions later. In this situation the OP did just fine, in my opinion, with the exception of putting his hand on his gun. But pulling away and challenging them to make him stay was good, it puts the ball in their court. If they try and force him physically, then he can escalate violence as needed. It all depends on the situation and the reactions of the other party.

 

[erps]

imported post

But when force is applied against someone to unjustly take their freedom, then force must be applied to protect it.

can one infer from this that you do not agree with Washington case law regarding using force to resist a false arrest when one's liberty is the only thing at stake then? And for clarification, I would be talking about situations where the officer believed he was making a righteous arrest while the suspect knew he was innocent.

edit:

In this situation the OP did just fine, in my opinion, with the exception of putting his hand on his gun.

never mind. it appears we are in agreement.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

erps wrote:

Orphan wrote:

erps, If you do not understand why myself andI suspect mostothers on this site would not allow anyone to restrict our freedom or batter us then maybe you are on the wrong site or you are trolling, what are you looking for here?

I support the open carry idea to educate and desensitize the public to the sight of people exercising that right. I have an interest in the interaction between open carry folks and the folks they come in contact with. When I first came across this site around two years ago, I thought it was a great source of information for the law enforcement community because frankly, many I knew in law enforcement were not up to speed on open carry rights. The information was favorably received by all but one officer I forwarded it to. I was surprised by that particular officer's reaction.

At any rate, I look at the open carry movement as another civil rights movement. I also believe that the open carry movement attracts a few folks on the fringe and I'm somewhat taken aback by statements made by members willing to resort to violence against their fellow man as part of their politics. I don't see how that can be productive for the open carry movement.

I've made very few statements in this thread. If you look, you'll see that there are a lot of questions to clarify just how far some people are willing to go. If asking follow up questions to clarify one's position is considered trolling, so be it. In another thread, members criticized the Bradey site for not allowing opposing opinions. In my case, my opinion is only an opposing one if you believe that the purpose for open carry is to look for trouble and then threaten or commit violence when you find it, then yes, I am definitely against for your particular beliefs.

So Orphan, I don't expect you to be battered or have your freedom restricted. I also don't expect you to use violence the next time an officer stops you for speeding or a burned out tail light. After all, that's a restriction of your freedom, and it appears that some here decide for themselves whether it was justified. You don't have control how others behave, but you certainly have control over how you behave.

So does that make me a troll?

Agree with what you have said - you have my support.

To answer your question - No it does not. It makes you both responsible and open minded - willing to listen and discuss rationally.

Yata hey

Grapeshot

I have read many of your posts and value your wise words but I have to disagree with you here somewhat. Go back and review erps posts on this thread.

erps

Exactly when and where did I sayIwould become violant against a LEO over a simple traffic stop or do harm to a LEO for any other reason. I specificaly stated in an earlier post today that I would handle that through the courts if my rights were violated. I do not consider a traffic stopto be more than a minorinconvenience and for god sakes why would anyone get violant over a traffic stop. This is why I amwondering if you area troll along with your statement about finding out how far people are willing to go.I went back and looked at your prior posts and you repeatedly go to shooting someone or shooting LEOs when the person you are replying to never mentioned any thingeven close tothat.Do not put words in my mouth.

We were discussing SGs or citizens laying hands onme and the reaction I would have to being assaulted or battered by them. Iwasbattered by a LEO once and if I had known then what I know now I would have filed a complaint and tried to bring charges. Other than that single time all of my interactions with LEOs have been good or at least the way they should have been. BTW I have not had a traffic violation in over 31 years.

I am a huge supporter of LE untill they break the law and then they should be punished just like the rest of the law breakers out there. Just like in every group of people there are a few bad LEOs and because of the authority they have they need to be weeded out quickly. The other LEOs should be doing the weeding.

I am going to give you the benifit of the doubt that you misunderstood me. Understand that at no time am I avocating violance against LE. Nor am I avocating violance against anyone unless they commit or are about to commit violance against me and then only up to the level of stopping the threat.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

sirpuma wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

You would seem to be excusing/permitting the use of deadly force against officers for perceived violations. How is that not taking on the role of judge and jury yourself?

I think that is a very thin line to walk, much less cross - if that is what you are saying.

Yata hey

I didn't say "perceived". A "perceived" violation of one's freedom would indicate that there was no violation and that the action was just. I do not condone lethal force against false threats, just real threats. As I said, one should always work toward a peaceful end to a confrontation. But when force is applied against someone to unjustly take their freedom, then force must be applied to protect it. It is a very thin line and a razors edge. It must be walked carefully, but it should be walked. To me it doesn't matter if an assailant is LEO or a gang member. If someone assaults me, I will defend myself and I will use just enough force as is needed to thwart the threat. If it requires lethal force than that's what I will use. If I can talk my way out of it, I will do that

The choice of "perception" was mine. We each perceive things as individuals.
To make such decisions as applying lethal force in a situation as the OP describes is to go outside the standards that we as a nation embrace. We are a nation of laws and have a system in place (imperfect though it is) to deal with such things in court.

We are not taking about a national total breakdown in all systems where we are reduced to survival of the fittest. We are talking about much simpler things.

How does deadly force against officers apply here? If I were in such a situation and the security guards drew down on me, I would not react with deadly force. My recorder would be running and I would likely "own" them when all was said and done.

If I were to react with such force, I am sure that my life and my family's would be ruined from that day forward. There is a time to be brave and a time to not be foolish. ymmv

Yata hey

 

[GreatWhiteLlama]

imported post

erps wrote:

Orphan wrote:

snip

"...The information was favorably received by all but one officer I forwarded it to. I was surprised by that particular officer's reaction.

Would you be willing to clarify?

 

[sirpuma]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

The choice of "perception" was mine. We each perceive things as individuals.
To make such decisions as applying lethal force in a situation as the OP describes is to go outside the standards that we as a nation embrace. We are a nation of laws and have a system in place (imperfect though it is) to deal with such things in court.

We are not taking about a national total breakdown in all systems where we are reduced to survival of the fittest. We are talking about much simpler things.

How does deadly force against officers apply here? If I were in such a situation and the security guards drew down on me, I would not react with deadly force. My recorder would be running and I would likely "own" them when all was said and done.

If I were to react with such force, I am sure that my life and my family's would be ruined from that day forward. There is a time to be brave and a time to not be foolish. ymmv

Yata hey

Again, where does Defend Yourself With Whatever It Takes mean lethal force? IF a situation requires lethal force it should be used, if it does not require lethal force, don't use it.

If security guards drew their firearms on me for no just reason, they would find themselves in a very bad situation. Not because I would sue them from beyond the grave, but because I would defend myself IN WHAT EVER METHOD WAS NEEDED.

Again, defending your freedom doesn't mean instant lethal force. It means do whatever is necessary to protect yourself and your freedom. For some strange reason some of you folks are either 110% on or 110% off; you seem to have no in between. If I can talk my way out of a bad situation, then I will do that. Lethal force is the last resort, BUT if I'm going to carry the tool that enables me to use lethal force, then I had better be willing and able to use it.

The question was "Where you ready to use deadly force to prevent an unlawful detention?" My answer was "If you are not willing to do whatever it takes to defend yourself, your rights and your freedom, then you shouldn't be carrying a firearm in the first place." In other words, don't carry the tool if you're not willing to use it and take all necessary steps to secure your rights and freedoms, ALL NECESSARY STEPS. That means use the steps needed and not the steps not needed.

 

[kparker]

imported post

[SG] then attempt [illegally] to verbally detain him for the police. Man makes choice to refuse, first escalation,

Oh my goodness. That is not an escalation, that is continuing to go about his lawful business.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Orphan wrote: I think we can agree to have misunderstood. I too intended for clarification. but yes had concerns. I apologize if I have needlessly offended you. I shall speak of it no more.

Yata hey

 

[Jeff Hayes]

imported post

Grapeshot

You have not offended me, I have also been tryingto clarify my stance and its not working. I will not participate in this thread anymore as well.

 

[BigDave]

imported post

sempercarry wrote:

They were armed....both had Glocks in the serpa holster that has a hood over the top of the gun.

This got my curiosity up as to having armed guards in a mall setting, as this is not a common practice so I made the call to B&I Officer and introduced myself and asked their policy on armed guards.

Their comment was that they do not have armed guards period and the guards they have do carry hand held tasers (does not look like a gun).
Their policy is that the guards will not lay hands on to anyone except when detaining someone shoplifting or passing bad checks and trying to flee.
Also note they had no idea about this or like incident occurring but do have assualts against guards doing their job.

Their policy on firearms as well is they do not want gun in the mall but accept that if they are licensed and conceal carry there is little they can do.

sempercarry you have had two incidents in the last month that appear to be questionable as to your involvement or escalation thereof, even though you may be a Marine you need to seek out professional training in civilian life, it is totally different then the military with mindset.

As with MythBusters "This Myth is Busted"

 

[sempercarry]

imported post

 

[BigDave]

imported post

sempercarry wrote:

I know what a gun looks like and they both had small framed glocks (9mm .40 or .357 sig) in serpa holsters so there are 3 possibilities.1) They were cops (they had convincing enough uniforms buttheircollars had "SD" on them.2)The person on the phone lied to you or doesn't know what they are talking about or they are impostors. Also,neither of these incidents were even close to questionable so don't think you can lecture me on how to act incivilian life. People on here who know me will attest that I am an upstanding member of society. 100 years ago, if you questioned the honesty or integrity of a person known to be of the highest morale caliber....well lets just say you probably wouldn't have left that room under your own power.

You have been exposed and now want to threaten, careful now.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

BigDave wrote:

sempercarry wrote:

I know what a gun looks like and they both had small framed glocks (9mm .40 or .357 sig) in serpa holsters so there are 3 possibilities.1) They were cops (they had convincing enough uniforms buttheircollars had "SD" on them.2)The person on the phone lied to you or doesn't know what they are talking about or they are impostors. Also,neither of these incidents were even close to questionable so don't think you can lecture me on how to act incivilian life. People on here who know me will attest that I am an upstanding member of society. 100 years ago, if you questioned the honesty or integrity of a person known to be of the highest morale caliber....well lets just say you probably wouldn't have left that room under your own power.

You have been exposed and now want to threaten, careful now.

:shock: :X

Yata hey