Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
TheCustomLime wrote: If you reach for something on your person while a cop is telling you to keep your hands in the open I think they'd be in the right to use force. Especially if the Taser failed to incapacitate the guy.
It is not. I have brought this up multiple times. I talked to a law enforcement professional and I was told this was not the case. Until a weapon is presented, shooting is not an option. Since the man was unarmed and there were two of them, this a gun should not even be an option. Please, this has been laid to rest already.
North Carolina Stand Your Ground Law wrote:(a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.
(2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14-51.2.
So actually, you cannot just shoot a man any time he threatens you like we have been led to believe. In fact, it is clearly against the law, according to this, to use deadly force you have to reasonably believe the person is going to do great harm or use deadly force against you. I dunno about you, but I haven't found a lot of people who can kill me through a locked door. Well, except people with guns. Kinda like you in your scenario. Holy crap, maybe I missed it. Were you playing the attacker in your scenario?
ยง 14-51.2. Home, workplace, and motor vehicle protection; presumption of fear of death or serious bodily harm.
(a) The following definitions apply in this section:
(1) Home. - A building or conveyance of any kind, to include its curtilage, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed as a temporary or permanent residence.
(2) Law enforcement officer. - Any person employed or appointed as a full-time, part-time, or auxiliary law enforcement officer, correctional officer, probation officer, post-release supervision officer, or parole officer.
(3) Motor vehicle. - As defined in G.S. 20-4.01(23).
(4) Workplace. - A building or conveyance of any kind, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, which is being used for commercial purposes.
(b) The lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:
(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.
(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(c) The presumption set forth in subsection (b) of this section shall be rebuttable and does not apply in any of the following circumstances:
(1) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the home, motor vehicle, or workplace, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person.
(2) The person sought to be removed from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace is a child or grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used.
(3) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in, attempting to escape from, or using the home, motor vehicle, or workplace to further any criminal offense that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
(4) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who enters or attempts to enter a home, motor vehicle, or workplace in the lawful performance of his or her official duties, and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties.
(5) The person against whom the defensive force is used (i) has discontinued all efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter the home, motor vehicle, or workplace and (ii) has exited the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.
(d) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(e) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties.
(f) A lawful occupant within his or her home, motor vehicle, or workplace does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.
(g) This section is not intended to repeal or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law. (2011-268, s. 1.)
SG 14-51.2 sections a and b identify that a citizen in his/her home has the right to defend him/herself with lethal force fromsomebody attempting to break into the home. The aggressor does not need to complete the act of breaking into the residence in order for lethal force to be justified. If somebody has chosen to unlawfully attempt to forcibly enter your home then it is reasonable to believe that said person has ill intent and poses a threat of imminent bodily harm, thereby justifying the use of deadly force.
Again you seem to be under the impression that your narrow interpretation of imminent is the legal interpretation but that is not the case. If somebody is trying to break into your home it is entirely reasonable to believe that person harbors bad intentions and poses an imminent threat to you and any other person in the residence. You can preemptively stop them from hurting you by using lethal force, the only requirement is that it be reasonable to believe that the aggressor is an imminent threat. Doors break, police take time to respond, you have the legal right to shoot somebody through the door before it breaks and that person enters your home and harms you.
It's clearly written in the statute:
(d) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
If a woman flees a spouse or signifcant other that is abusive and the abuser tracks her down and proceeds to try to break into the residence where the woman is located that woman does not have a legal obligation to let an angry, violent abuser physically force his way into the home before she can defend herself with lethal force. The law specifically states that it is reasonable to assume that the person attempting to break in has the intent to hurt you so you have the right to defend yourself from that harm with lethal force.
We do, which is why (at this point) he was let go. He had the right to defend his home and at this point it seems that he has a legitimate claim of "not knowing" he was shooting at cops.
It is not. I have brought this up multiple times. I talked to a law enforcement professional and I was told this was not the case. Until a weapon is presented, shooting is not an option. Since the man was unarmed and there were two of them, this a gun should not even be an option. Please, this has been laid to rest already.
Bull gak. Pure bull gak. You are either a liar, misunderstood the law enforcement professional, or he lied to you.
hahaha, so wait. You guys tell me I cannot comment on a subject as I have no experience or expertise. So I seek an expert on the subject. I did not misunderstand him. He did not lie to me. I am not telling you a lie. But, thanks for trying to pull that argument out. He also told me that cops are trained to seek cover behind the doors of cop cars to break line of sight with their body and slow the projectile. But you know, doors are terrible shields. What with obstructing view and everything. Get out of here with that bullgak argument.
TheCustomLime wrote: If you reach for something on your person while a cop is telling you to keep your hands in the open I think they'd be in the right to use force. Especially if the Taser failed to incapacitate the guy.
It is not. I have brought this up multiple times. I talked to a law enforcement professional and I was told this was not the case. Until a weapon is presented, shooting is not an option. Since the man was unarmed and there were two of them, this a gun should not even be an option. Please, this has been laid to rest already.
That you have and I have yet to hear a compelling reason why an officer should wait until the suspect flashes iron before opening up. If your ideas went into practice then we would end up with a lot more dead cops since it doesn't take much time from when it can be confirmed that the suspect has a gat until the police officer has been capped. Furthermore, what good reason would someone have to reach for a hidden place when an officer is yelling at them to keep their hands in the open? They're either going for a weapon or an idiot for looking like they are going for a weapon. It's not hard to avoid getting shot by the police. Just do what they tell you.
They are not my ideas. They are police practice, straight from the mouth of an LEO. So, your argument is pretty much over right there. But, the good enough reason for him was to hide his drugs. My compelling reason for why an officer should wait until the suspect flashes iron? To ensure credible threat and prevent a pointless death. Which is what they need. Are you even reading what I type?
SG 14-51.2 sections a and b identify that a citizen in his/her home has the right to defend him/herself with lethal force fromsomebody attempting to break into the home. The aggressor does not need to complete the act of breaking into the residence in order for lethal force to be justified. If somebody has chosen to unlawfully attempt to forcibly enter your home then it is reasonable to believe that said person has ill intent and poses a threat of imminent bodily harm, thereby justifying the use of deadly force.
Again you seem to be under the impression that your narrow interpretation of imminent is the legal interpretation but that is not the case. If somebody is trying to break into your home it is entirely reasonable to believe that person harbors bad intentions and poses an imminent threat to you and any other person in the residence. You can preemptively stop them from hurting you by using lethal force, the only requirement is that it be reasonable to believe that the aggressor is an imminent threat. Doors break, police take time to respond, you have the legal right to shoot somebody through the door before it breaks and that person enters your home and harms you.
It's clearly written in the statute:
(d) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
If a woman flees a spouse or signifcant other that is abusive and the abuser tracks her down and proceeds to try to break into the residence where the woman is located that woman does not have a legal obligation to let an angry, violent abuser physically force his way into the home before she can defend herself with lethal force. The law specifically states that it is reasonable to assume that the person attempting to break in has the intent to hurt you so you have the right to defend yourself from that harm with lethal force.
Thank you for finally linking the whole law, it appears I did not have the entirety of it. It does say that. Although, I am not sure about your comment about my narrow interpretation considering I was working without all the information. But thanks!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/16 00:38:36
I stand by assertion, you lie or misunderstood, or your expert did. Neither cops nor civilians who are legally carrying are under any legal constraint to wait until a weapon is brandished.
It may be your opinion it is a good idea, and your wish that it was the law, but it isn't. The NC law above is an example of the way these types of laws are written.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Yes, he does not understand the law. Just about every state that has a stand your ground, castle doctrine, etc... none of those require a firearm to be presented before you can defend yourself with deadly force.
All that needs to be present is the threat of deadly force being used against you. This does not mean a weapon needs to be presented against you.
If a dude says "I have a gun, and I'm going to blow your brains out." and then proceeds to reach for his waist band as if he is going to pull a gun out, you have all the legal means to blow his own damn brains out. Police Officer, or not.
If a man is pounding your face into a concrete block, but has not exhibited a weapon, you have all the right in the world to pull your weapon out, and create some new breathing holes for the assailant.
If a dude says "I have a gun, and I'm going to blow your brains out." and then proceeds to reach for his waist band as if he is going to pull a gun out, you have all the legal means to blow his own damn brains out. Police Officer, or not.
That was never said, but please make up more things to prove your point.
If a dude says "I have a gun, and I'm going to blow your brains out." and then proceeds to reach for his waist band as if he is going to pull a gun out, you have all the legal means to blow his own damn brains out. Police Officer, or not.
That was never said, but please make up more things to prove your point.
No, you said that the guy said a weapon had to be presented before someone could draw their own weapon and use it. I was offering scenario's where that is patently false.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Police get involved in dangerous situations as part of their jobs, the idea that they have to wait until their life is just about to be over before reacting is just ludicrous.
If a dude says "I have a gun, and I'm going to blow your brains out." and then proceeds to reach for his waist band as if he is going to pull a gun out, you have all the legal means to blow his own damn brains out. Police Officer, or not.
That was never said, but please make up more things to prove your point.
No, you said that the guy said a weapon had to be presented before someone could draw their own weapon and use it. I was offering scenario's where that is patently false.
hahaha, actually, I did not. But nice try!
Dreadwinter wrote:According to him, it goes against pretty much everything you are told as an officer to shoot before you verify a threat. To verify a perceived threat, it is heavily implied that an officer needs to see a weapon before he may open fire on a target.
Nothing is said about when to draw a weapon. Just firing it. But you keep on making up those silly arguments!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/16 01:51:38
djones520 wrote: And USE it. Reading comprehension, it's a thing.
It sure is, I wish you would use it a little bit. :(
This comment was in regard to the video in question. Stop trying to pull this out like I am making a blanket statement for all scenarios. Everything is different.
Now, as far as stand your ground, castle doctrine, other such laws. A weapon does not have to be present, but intent does. The Montana man did not show intent to harm anyone. He did not verbally threaten anybody. He did not make threatening gestures.(digging through your pocket? lololol) But you guys keep telling me the drugs made him violent. But, it is shown that he was not attempting to hurt anybody.(except himself, with the drugs) So this must mean not all drug addicts are violent and crazy, correct?
With the man in the vehicle full of civilians(which you guys still do not want to talk about) he was sitting down. Away from the cop. The cop had a weapon pulled on him already. What kind of threat could the man have posed to him? He was clearly having trouble with whatever was in his pocket. So he was not pulling anything out quickly. The cop already had a weapon drawn, so as soon as he would see a weapon he could pull the trigger. Unless this man can draw a weapon, point it at the cop, then pull the trigger quicker than the cop. If that is the case, I think the cop needs a little better training.
When a police officer tells you to put your hands up or on the dash, and you instead reach for your waistband, that is absolutely a threatening action.
Hordini wrote: When a police officer tells you to put your hands up or on the dash, and you instead reach for your waistband, that is absolutely a threatening action.
It is not, as has been pointed out before thanks to an expert. But, thank you for the attempt.
Hordini wrote: When a police officer tells you to put your hands up or on the dash, and you instead reach for your waistband, that is absolutely a threatening action.
It is not, as has been pointed out before thanks to an expert. But, thank you for the attempt.
Yes, it absolutely is. Who is the expert who pointed it out?
Edit - Oh, I see. You talked to a LEO. Well, if that's actually what he told you, he was wrong, and so are you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/16 04:38:56
Hordini wrote: When a police officer tells you to put your hands up or on the dash, and you instead reach for your waistband, that is absolutely a threatening action.
It is not, as has been pointed out before thanks to an expert. But, thank you for the attempt.
Yes, it absolutely is. Who is the expert who pointed it out?
Edit - Oh, I see. You talked to a LEO. Well, if that's actually what he told you, he was wrong, and so are you.
Hordini wrote: When a police officer tells you to put your hands up or on the dash, and you instead reach for your waistband, that is absolutely a threatening action.
It is not, as has been pointed out before thanks to an expert. But, thank you for the attempt.
Yes, it absolutely is. Who is the expert who pointed it out?
Edit - Oh, I see. You talked to a LEO. Well, if that's actually what he told you, he was wrong, and so are you.
Thanks for keeping an open mind!
It's not about keeping an open mind. It's about knowing what you are talking about. I'm probably one of the most open-minded people you could hope to meet. I am perfectly capable of considering an idea without accepting it. But when you have multiple people with a hell of a lot more experience than you telling you that you're wrong, maybe you should consider for a moment that it might be you who is mistaken.
We have multiple veterans and military personnel on this board who have been trained in the use of force continuum/escalation of force. We also have a bunch of experienced, knowledgeable concealed carriers who are familiar with laws involving use of force and self-defense, in addition to at least one lawyer.
As far as I know, not a single one has agreed with you, and most of the ones who have commented in this thread have specifically pointed out that you are wrong.
We have multiple veterans and military personnel on this board who have been trained in the use of force continuum/escalation of force. We also have a bunch of experienced, knowledgeable concealed carriers who are familiar with laws involving use of force and self-defense, in addition to at least one lawyer.
As far as I know, not a single one has agreed with you, and most of the ones who have commented in this thread have specifically pointed out that you are wrong.
So, no LEOs and who is the Lawyer that has commented in this thread? Is he an expert on LEO training and protocol?
We have multiple veterans and military personnel on this board who have been trained in the use of force continuum/escalation of force. We also have a bunch of experienced, knowledgeable concealed carriers who are familiar with laws involving use of force and self-defense, in addition to at least one lawyer.
As far as I know, not a single one has agreed with you, and most of the ones who have commented in this thread have specifically pointed out that you are wrong.
So, no LEOs and who is the Lawyer that has commented in this thread? Is he an expert on LEO training and protocol?
Do you not understand what I just posted? How old are you? I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm genuinely curious.
We have multiple veterans and military personnel on this board who have been trained in the use of force continuum/escalation of force. We also have a bunch of experienced, knowledgeable concealed carriers who are familiar with laws involving use of force and self-defense, in addition to at least one lawyer.
As far as I know, not a single one has agreed with you, and most of the ones who have commented in this thread have specifically pointed out that you are wrong.
So, no LEOs and who is the Lawyer that has commented in this thread? Is he an expert on LEO training and protocol?
Do you not understand what I just posted? How old are you? I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm genuinely curious.
27 and I understand what you posted. You posted telling me that military personnel and people who have a concealed carry license know more about LEO procedure than an LEO. Is that correct?
Hordini wrote: The point isn't knowing about LEO procedure, the point is knowing about the law.
This law?
45-3-102. Use of force in defense of person. wrote:A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary for self-defense or the defense of another against the other person's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to the person or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
It is not reasonable to believe that a person fumbling around in their pocket is likely to cause you death or serious bodily harm. In fact, the LEO that I talked to told me that Police are trained so that they do not think that way. Which is why discussion of police procedure and training are important in this discussion.
On top of all of this, the police officer put more lives at risk when he fired in to a vehicle full of unarmed civilians, when he assumed that one of them had a weapon.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/16 14:05:00
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
45-3-102. Use of force in defense of person. wrote:A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary for self-defense or the defense of another against the other person's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to the person or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
It is not reasonable to believe that a person fumbling around in their pocket is likely to cause you death or serious bodily harm. In fact, the LEO that I talked to told me that Police are trained so that they do not think that way. Which is why discussion of police procedure and training are important in this discussion.
-Uhh... yeah, it is, if you're LEO. If I'm just Joe Schmoe walking down the street, no someone fumbling around their pockets isn't a threat to me.... If someone kicked in the door to my house, starts acting in a violent manner (yelling, etc) and then starts fumbling around in pockets/waistband, yeah he/she is presenting a threat.
-Your LEO friend must live in one hell of a fethed up jurisdiction, because between the 3 or 4 LEOs that I personally know and have maintained contact with over the years (and they are spread over a large area, so there's no geographic similarity in thought) definitely think, and were trained to think differently.
-Yeah, police procedure and training is important for this discussion. It worked perfectly well here.
But hey... I already know you'll make some hamfisted attempt to poke holes in what I just said... But, I'm with all the other reasonable people here, and I'll just sit back and let you waste oxygen and look like a fool.
We have multiple veterans and military personnel on this board who have been trained in the use of force continuum/escalation of force. We also have a bunch of experienced, knowledgeable concealed carriers who are familiar with laws involving use of force and self-defense, in addition to at least one lawyer.
As far as I know, not a single one has agreed with you, and most of the ones who have commented in this thread have specifically pointed out that you are wrong.
So, no LEOs and who is the Lawyer that has commented in this thread? Is he an expert on LEO training and protocol?
Your LEO is fake, a liar or a buffoon. I have 3 LEO friends who all directly contraction your so-called facts... But this is the internet... You can make up all sorts of fake 'experts' to substantiate your claim when all factual documentation on the internet proves you wrong.
Grabbing for 'something' out of sight when you have been told to 'put your hands up and keep them visible' is a threatening action which could get you shot in virtually any police jurisdiction in the US.
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA."
The Undying Spawn of Shub-Niggurath 
