Is it time...

[Charlie]

“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are “in custody,” he pointed out



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Darren can kiss my ass for his opinion. What would be his opinion be if a policeman watched him gettin' his ass kicked?

 

[cycleguy2300]

Lol.

I was raised by a cop. Most of the family friend growing up were cops. I have extended family in law enforcement. And a sister who works with law enforcement regularly. I know exactly what police “really do”.

My brother in law is currently a cop. His opinion was the the Ft Worth cop is a “fucking idiot”.

You snoop suspiciously around someone’s house in the dark, and then shoot the person for being suspicious. Nothing “Alex Jones” about that. And I don’t judge all cops by what that cop did. But I will judge cops who defend him.

Hell, just a few days ago I had a Dallas cop tell me that if they make “one little mistake” they get locked up for murder. Because going in a wrong apartment and killing as innocent man is a “little mistake” now.

You want to talk like taking an innocent life is just part of the program. You need to really think about the words coming out of your mouth (or keyboard). If innocent people are getting shot, there is a problem with the system somewhere. Maybe it’s the recruiting, maybe it’s the training, and maybe it’s a combination. Personally I don’t think someone who defends the killing of an innocent woman in her home should be in law enforcement so recruiting is definitely an issue. But who would want to be a cop if they think that they would work with people that defend such actions?

You can bring up whatever examples you like but the truth is that the vast majority of welfare checks result in nothing more than a visit and leave. If you are too scared to knock on the door maybe you should hide behind your car and run the siren until someone comes out instead of sneaking around their house and shooting them through the window.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like I said I don't know the details of what happened in FW, the guy may have been a fucktard, I don't know, they are out there.... My point was I can see a situation where police could reasonably shoot person in a window with a gun and it is fucking stupid tactics to go to a window, flashing your piece back lit, no matter who you thought was out there but especially if you thought they had guns. Not that the FW shooting was justified.



Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

 

[DyeF9]

Darren can kiss my ass for his opinion. What would be his opinion be if a policeman watched him gettin' his ass kicked?

I think that exact scenario would prove his statement right. Don't know Darren from a lineup of ten other people, but he's not the only jackass that has said federally there's no requirement. If there is one, show me. Give me the legal code that says police are required to protect me from a threat and I'll shut up and beg for forgiveness.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[DyeF9]

Like I said I don't know the details of what happened in FW, the guy may have been a ********, I don't know, they are out there.... My point was I can see a situation where police could reasonably shoot person in a window with a gun and it is fucking stupid tactics to go to a window, flashing your piece back lit, no matter who you thought was out there but especially if you thought they had guns. Not that the FW shooting was justified.



Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

It's a lady with probably little to no training with a firearm or with tactics. What would you expect if someone's afraid for their life and owns a firearm? I'm sure she was a good shot standing still at a range with a motionless target, probably not the small percentage of people who signed up for a weekend advanced tactical pistol course for urban tactics.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

When I took my LTC class Texas law shield was there giving their sales pitch. I bit and signed up mostly so i get the book they were pimping " Texas gun laws"

Ive read about half of it, and I am less afraid of losing my second amendment rights than i am my 4th amendment rights now.

I almost convinced the 4th is completely eroded. With the second being whittled away behind it.

Curtailment trespassing, stop and frisk, probable cause because of a hunch. Less rights or privacy in my car than my home.

It's all pretty scary.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Explain the less rights in your home than car? That is not and never has been the case. Cars have always been held to a lower expectation of privacy than homes.

And what is curtailment trespassing?

Police cannot make a detention/stop on a "hunch". Hunches are "mere suspicion" for a stop you have to have "reasonable suspicion" which is articulable facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe crime was afoot. I.e. guy walking around a parking lot with a screw driver, looking into cars hasn't broken any laws, but a reasonable officer like myself with experience seeing people commit vehicle burglaries could believe they are looking for a car to break into and therefore they can be detained for a brief investigation. And IF the officer can articulate a reasonable belief of why the person may be armed and frisk (limited search) for their safety.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

 

[toddnjoyce]

SCOTUS didn't say what you are trying to make them out to have said.

Talk to me about Warren

...My point was I can see a situation where police could reasonably shoot person in a window with a gun and it is fucking stupid tactics

And it is stupid to assume every person in a window requires engagement.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Florida or Texas, doesn't matter. There's no requirement. I appreciate that YOU feel as though a sacred oath is taken and should step in to protect people, but if police have no legal requirement to protect me, I'm not going to just stand there and pretend that every cop is you. That means MY safety and the safety of my family is up to me and my family.

The failure of police to take appropriate action and do stupid shit like creep around that lady's family's house, and then shoot her through a window, shows there's a problem. She didn't do anything wrong other than to try to be prepared to protect herself. They fucked up, and if that's how you and your precinct operate, or if you think that's correct action taken then you're doing it wrong. That's not doing anything except being a danger to society.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Here is some Texas state law for you from Texas Code of Criminal Procrdure:

Art. 2.13. [37] [44] [45] DUTIES AND POWERS. (a) It is the DUTY of every peace officer to preserve the peace within the officer's jurisdiction. To effect this purpose, the officer shall use all lawful means.

(b) The officer SHALL:
(1) in every case authorized by the provisions of this Code, interfere without warrant to prevent or suppress crime;

Texas law says Texas Peace Office have a DUTY to preserve the peace and SHALL interfere to prevent or suppress crime.

It is a legal requirement in Texas.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

 

[toddnjoyce]

Here is some Texas state law for you from Texas Code of Criminal Procrdure:

Art. 2.13. [37] [44] [45] DUTIES AND POWERS. (a) It is the DUTY of every peace officer to preserve the peace within the officer's jurisdiction. To effect this purpose, the officer shall use all lawful means.

(b) The officer SHALL:
(1) in every case authorized by the provisions of this Code, interfere without warrant to prevent or suppress crime;

Texas law says Texas Peace Office have a DUTY to preserve the peace and SHALL interfere to prevent or suppress crime.

It is a legal requirement in Texas.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

So, what crime exists when a person who owns or controls property is armed on that property?

 

[DyeF9]

Here is some Texas state law for you from Texas Code of Criminal Procrdure:

Art. 2.13. [37] [44] [45] DUTIES AND POWERS. (a) It is the DUTY of every peace officer to preserve the peace within the officer's jurisdiction. To effect this purpose, the officer shall use all lawful means.

(b) The officer SHALL:
(1) in every case authorized by the provisions of this Code, interfere without warrant to prevent or suppress crime;

Texas law says Texas Peace Office have a DUTY to preserve the peace and SHALL interfere to prevent or suppress crime.

It is a legal requirement in Texas.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

Then my apologies. I retract all statements about Texas police not having a duty to protect. Still infuriating though. That's why the media is irresponsible. It's inflammatory writing that makes people become angry with public servants. I hope you're able to forgive on those counts. I still feel a duty to protect myself and my family though, and think everyone should.

Since this seems to be a good source of information, if I were holed up with family in a protected position with my rifle at the ready and someone busts in a door and calls police, what do you suggest the next course of action is? I've dwelled on that for a while but I come to a rock and a hard place where it's taking someone's word for it and immediately drop the weapon to avoid an unnecessary firefight, or call out saying you have a rifle and want identification before you relinquish your weapon but then potentially escalate the situation. Obviously if police are indeed there, it's not good, but could be over a misunderstanding by someone, or some crap like swatting. In this scenario, let's assume no one in my family actually did anything that requires an arrest prior to police busting through the door.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Bithabus]

How about you call your neighbor beroe you call in a welfare check on them.

or go knock on the door. Maybe bring a pie.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Then my apologies. I retract all statements about Texas police not having a duty to protect. Still infuriating though. That's why the media is irresponsible. It's inflammatory writing that makes people become angry with public servants. I hope you're able to forgive on those counts. I still feel a duty to protect myself and my family though, and think everyone should.

Since this seems to be a good source of information, if I were holed up with family in a protected position with my rifle at the ready and someone busts in a door and calls police, what do you suggest the next course of action is? I've dwelled on that for a while but I come to a rock and a hard place where it's taking someone's word for it and immediately drop the weapon to avoid an unnecessary firefight, or call out saying you have a rifle and want identification before you relinquish your weapon but then potentially escalate the situation. Obviously if police are indeed there, it's not good, but could be over a misunderstanding by someone, or some crap like swatting. In this scenario, let's assume no one in my family actually did anything that requires an arrest prior to police busting through the door.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

No, sorry it took so long for me to finally go pull it up.

I don't take much (anything) personally. I am far from perfect and I never mind someone engaging in a discussion and asking for proof.

The media is out to sell ads. More viewers, more ad $$. Just like clickbait, they bait and switch, or take things out of context. It is what it is.

I love my job and try hard to know the details of things so I don't have to think and can just act when the time comes, hesitation get people hurt just as much as going off half-cocked...

It is your duty to protect yourself and your family. And it is my duty to protect mine.

Its a tough spot to be asked to trust someone you don't know with your life... I wouldn't want to disarm after someone kicked in my door, but with my agency at least we are very well trained, if I was clearing a house and someone called out they are inside are the resident and are armed we would hold what we have and I would have a short conversation with you before calling you out to us (empty handed). I think it would be best so they don't pop in on you and see you with a gun... ymmv but cops forcing their wayinto your house is rare as rare gets unless you or you are committing family violence or the like. It's REALLY low on my list of worries, just above getting attacked by a shark as I get struck by lightning

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

So, what crime exists when a person who owns or controls property is armed on that property?

Obviously none, assuming they are not a felon in possession etc...

I know where you are trying to go, but you won't get there from here.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

 

[DyeF9]

No, sorry it took so long for me to finally go pull it up.

I don't take much (anything) personally. I am far from perfect and I never mind someone engaging in a discussion and asking for proof.

The media is out to sell ads. More viewers, more ad $$. Just like clickbait, they bait and switch, or take things out of context. It is what it is.

I love my job and try hard to know the details of things so I don't have to think and can just act when the time comes, hesitation get people hurt just as much as going off half-cocked...

It is your duty to protect yourself and your family. And it is my duty to protect mine.

Its a tough spot to be asked to trust someone you don't know with your life... I wouldn't want to disarm after someone kicked in my door, but with my agency at least we are very well trained, if I was clearing a house and someone called out they are inside are the resident and are armed we would hold what we have and I would have a short conversation with you before calling you out to us (empty handed). I think it would be best so they don't pop in on you and see you with a gun... ymmv but cops forcing their wayinto your house is rare as rare gets unless you or you are committing family violence or the like. It's REALLY low on my list of worries, just above getting attacked by a shark as I get struck by lightning

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

I find the scenerio massively unlikely, as this household isnt full of nonsense and domestic disputes or drugs. It just was the only thing I wasn't really sure of what to do beyond that point. I'm not a huge prepper, but I figure if I'm going to even entertain the idea of actually defending my family, I should have a very general plan of where and how to hole up, and when police arrive how to handle that.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

I find the scenerio massively unlikely, as this household isnt full of nonsense and domestic disputes or drugs. It just was the only thing I wasn't really sure of what to do beyond that point. I'm not a huge prepper, but I figure if I'm going to even entertain the idea of actually defending my family, I should have a very general plan of where and how to hole up, and when police arrive how to handle that.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Having a plan is great. It lets you think through the pros and cons while bit in the heat if the moment.

Stick to as many basics as you can for each option. I.e. hole up, longest distance/best fighting position etc but if they call out police, you call out you are armed. If they don't call out police, what ever target presents itself will be dealt with. That's my plan in a nut shell

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

Having a plan is great. It lets you think through the pros and cons while bit in the heat if the moment.

Stick to as many basics as you can for each option. I.e. hole up, longest distance/best fighting position etc but if they call out police, you call out you are armed. If they don't call out police, what ever target presents itself will be dealt with. That's my plan in a nut shell

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

The most likely version is someone breaks in you deal with the threat/hole up and the police arrive to do their thing...

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Bithabus]

So are you now shifting the blame to the neighbor?

The neighbor is partly to blame. Calling the Police for a BS reason is never OK

 

[mad88minute]

Explain the less rights in your home than car? That is not and never has been the case. Cars have always been held to a lower expectation of privacy than homes.

And what is curtailment trespassing?

Police cannot make a detention/stop on a "hunch". Hunches are "mere suspicion" for a stop you have to have "reasonable suspicion" which is articulable facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe crime was afoot. I.e. guy walking around a parking lot with a screw driver, looking into cars hasn't broken any laws, but a reasonable officer like myself with experience seeing people commit vehicle burglaries could believe they are looking for a car to break into and therefore they can be detained for a brief investigation. And IF the officer can articulate a reasonable belief of why the person may be armed and frisk (limited search) for their safety.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

Im not using legal terms here so bear with me, and I'm not going to go look up anything specific in my book.

I should have used VS ,OR or another word
Curtailment or trespassing. Police have the Legal right to search the curtailment around your property including looking in Windows. However most reasonable person would call this trespassing regardless of the perpetrator being a police officer. Take the woman in DFW, she saw someone in lurking in her yard and armed herself, that got her killed.

As far as stop and frisk policies. Reasonable suspicion has a much lower standard than probable cause and isn't hard to be met. According to Wikipedia .......a highly reliable source.......
Over 70% of stops we're on innocent individuals 90% being minorities

Regarding less right in your car. A lot of this issue ties in with the stop and frisk issues. I understand the police can't just pull random people over. However, pick a car, follow it for 5 minutes and you will find your reason to stop. A swerve, a missed turn resulting in a quick lane change.

Stolen from Wiki
If the police stop a motor vehicle on minor infringements in order to investigate other suspected criminal activity, this is known as a pretextual stop.

After said stop, it won't be hard for a LEO to find "reasonable suspicion" or " probable cause". Hell to most LEO not consenting to a search is suspicion enough.

I don't think it's reasonable to have your car searched because you failed to signal. My HOA dosent inspect my laundry hamper when I fail to mow my lawn.

I really dont have a problem with LEO. Actually I highly respect them, and wanted to be one in my younger years. After my military service that was my plan and I applied to many agencies, but life took me in a different direction. Pretty soon I just couldn't justify the paycut.




Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

 

[majormadmax]

I am very pro-police and active with the local PD in many capacities, to include training cadets; but as a LTC holder who regularly carries openly I am a bit concerned over any justifying the shooting of an armed civilian in their own domicile as was the case in Ft. Worth.

I can even understand the Amber Guyger case where she thought she was in her own apartment, but in this case there should be no justifiable reason the officer shot the woman through the window. Claiming she was a threat simply because she was armed opens anyone who carries up for the same response.

But I honestly believe this was the act of an inexperienced and badly trained officer, and is atypical of the many peace officers I know at the municipal, state and Federal levels. The vast majority of police officers I know will risk their lives to protect others, and respect the rights of the individual. However, like any such organization (i.e. the military), there is a small percentage of individuals who are not well suited for the job but due to other considerations are pushed through the system to meet some unreasonable requirements. I see this on occasion with the classes that go through the SAPD academy, and even the FTOs acknowledge it.

While such situations are regretful, I don't believe they reflect the vast majority of officers on the force.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Im not using legal terms here so bear with me, and I'm not going to go look up anything specific in my book.

I should have used VS ,OR or another word
Curtailment or trespassing. Police have the Legal right to search the curtailment around your property including looking in Windows. However most reasonable person would call this trespassing regardless of the perpetrator being a police officer. Take the woman in DFW, she saw someone in lurking in her yard and armed herself, that got her killed.

As far as stop and frisk policies. Reasonable suspicion has a much lower standard than probable cause and isn't hard to be met. According to Wikipedia .......a highly reliable source.......
Over 70% of stops we're on innocent individuals 90% being minorities

Regarding less right in your car. A lot of this issue ties in with the stop and frisk issues. I understand the police can't just pull random people over. However, pick a car, follow it for 5 minutes and you will find your reason to stop. A swerve, a missed turn resulting in a quick lane change.

Stolen from Wiki
If the police stop a motor vehicle on minor infringements in order to investigate other suspected criminal activity, this is known as a pretextual stop.

After said stop, it won't be hard for a LEO to find "reasonable suspicion" or " probable cause". Hell to most LEO not consenting to a search is suspicion enough.

I don't think it's reasonable to have your car searched because you failed to signal. My HOA dosent inspect my laundry hamper when I fail to mow my lawn.

I really dont have a problem with LEO. Actually I highly respect them, and wanted to be one in my younger years. After my military service that was my plan and I applied to many agencies, but life took me in a different direction. Pretty soon I just couldn't justify the paycut.




Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Hey, I am at work. Shoot me a PM so I don't forget to get back to ya.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

But I honestly believe this was the act of an inexperienced and badly trained officer, and is atypical of the many peace officers I know at the municipal, state and Federal levels. The vast majority of police officers I know will risk their lives to protect others, and respect the rights of the individual. However, like any such organization (i.e. the military), there is a small percentage of individuals who are not well suited for the job but due to other considerations are pushed through the system to meet some unreasonable requirements. I see this on occasion with the classes that go through the SAPD academy, and even the FTOs acknowledge it.

While such situations are regretful, I don't believe they reflect the vast majority of officers on the force.

I agree.

I do fear that the number of poorly trained/qualified officers may be growing. It’s difficult to tell, sometimes you have a cluster of negative events that aren’t representative of the true average.

Then again, it seems like there was a rash of “no knock” incidents that lead to changes that seem to have been effective. Maybe this will spur some change as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk