Jerry Waller's shooting and the requirement to drop a firearm on your own property

[riskinstrument]

Exactly what differance is the legality going to make if they decide you're a threat because you didn't put the gun down and they kill you?

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[benenglish]

Exactly what differance is the legality going to make if they decide you're a threat because you didn't put the gun down and they kill you?

I think every human being has the right to die to make a point. I also think I'm unlikely to choose that path.

However, you're asking Cheez a legit question. What is the practical application? If it's legal for me to refuse an order to disarm, under what circumstances would I choose to assert my right to refuse such an order?

If the original question is to move past potential sophistry to something people can actually wrap their heads around, then that issue needs to be addressed. Otherwise, this thread reminds me too much of those weird philosophical discussions that took place in the common rooms when I went to college and physicists and philosophers with too much alcohol in them got into heartfelt debates on metaphysical topics that no one would remember in the morning, iow, just an interesting waste of time.

 

[Younggun]

Jerry Waller's shooting and the requirement to drop a firearm on your own pro...

TXI will give you the answer.....eventually.


He likes to play with his victims first and lead them in to a trap. That is where your answer lies. Follow the white rabbit.

 

[riskinstrument]

Benenglish
Your words, I likes them.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[XinTX]

I'm not so much concerned regarding the 'legality' of who did what. A guy is in his own garage at night. PD shows up and (apparently from reading between the lines) the cops approach him while shining their flashlights in his face. They say they're PD, but, given they're shining lights in his face, he can't tell if they're PD or just someone saying that so he'll drop his guard. It was night and they stated the area wasn't lit. They didn't have the blueberries and strawberries lit. So I can see how he MIGHT have cause to believe they might not be cops. That COULD be why he put the gun down, then went back and picked it up. He likely couldn't see them. His elderly wife was behind him (in the house, alone apparently). He's approached by two strangers who say they're cops. Also, there was apparently a burglar alarm going off across the street. What type, it doesn't say. It only states late in the article that it was a 'false alarm'. So if he thought there was a burglar (or two) in the vicinity, he might not be too keen on dropping his weapon. Burglars will tend to prey on the elderly. So he had some cause to believe when they said "drop it we're cops", that it wasn't the case.

 

[cheez]

I think every human being has the right to die to make a point. I also think I'm unlikely to choose that path.

However, you're asking Cheez a legit question. What is the practical application? If it's legal for me to refuse an order to disarm, under what circumstances would I choose to assert my right to refuse such an order?

If the original question is to move past potential sophistry to something people can actually wrap their heads around, then that issue needs to be addressed. Otherwise, this thread reminds me too much of those weird philosophical discussions that took place in the common rooms when I went to college and physicists and philosophers with too much alcohol in them got into heartfelt debates on metaphysical topics that no one would remember in the morning, iow, just an interesting waste of time.

It's a weird philosophical discussion to ask what the letter of the law is? Really?

 

[ZX9RCAM]

txi will give you the answer.....eventually.


He likes to play with his victims first and lead them in to a trap. That is where your answer lies. Follow the white rabbit.

lol

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Benenglish
Your words, I likes them.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

+1

 

[benenglish]

It's a weird philosophical discussion to ask what the letter of the law is? Really?

Yeah. It can be. Allow me to introduce you to certain parts of the Internal Revenue Code.

Still, realize that as the thread has progressed I've moved from characterizing your question as merely "meaningless" to sticking up for your right to ask the question but observing that without some context, no one is going to take it too seriously.

Oddly enough, XinTX has provided a context that might work.

Sorry if I offended you. I think I'll sit back now and see how this finally gets answered.

 

[AustinN4]

I'm not so much concerned regarding the 'legality' of who did what. A guy is in his own garage at night. PD shows up and (apparently from reading between the lines) the cops approach him while shining their flashlights in his face. They say they're PD, but, given they're shining lights in his face, he can't tell if they're PD or just someone saying that so he'll drop his guard. It was night and they stated the area wasn't lit. They didn't have the blueberries and strawberries lit. So I can see how he MIGHT have cause to believe they might not be cops. That COULD be why he put the gun down, then went back and picked it up. He likely couldn't see them. His elderly wife was behind him (in the house, alone apparently). He's approached by two strangers who say they're cops. Also, there was apparently a burglar alarm going off across the street. What type, it doesn't say. It only states late in the article that it was a 'false alarm'. So if he thought there was a burglar (or two) in the vicinity, he might not be too keen on dropping his weapon. Burglars will tend to prey on the elderly. So he had some cause to believe when they said "drop it we're cops", that it wasn't the case.

That is what I was trying to get at with my post (#15) in this thread, but you said it better.

 

[cheez]

Yeah. It can be. Allow me to introduce you to certain parts of the Internal Revenue Code.

Still, realize that as the thread has progressed I've moved from characterizing your question as merely "meaningless" to sticking up for your right to ask the question but observing that without some context, no one is going to take it too seriously.

Oddly enough, XinTX has provided a context that might work.

Sorry if I offended you. I think I'll sit back now and see how this finally gets answered.

No offense; I was just incredulous that one would characterize wanting to understand the letter of the law as a philosophical discussion.

 

[bones_708]

On it's face a officer telling you to disarm is legal regardless if it is on private property or not. You do have to obey the order or there are legal, and possibly lethal, consequences. Now the officer must have a reason for doing so and his order is subject to judicial review but unless it is so outlandish as to be simply impossible to be legal you would be required to disarm.

 

[Dinga67]

Well said... Put yourself in the Officers place.

 

[bullgator]

I'd sue the bastards in civil court. A policeman will likely only tell a story that protects himself. The news media would never go against the police. Dead right is not much of a claim anymore. Your testimony has been silenced. A dead intruder cannot testify against you. Nor can they wake up and kill you while you are waiting for 911 to respond.

 

[Mic]

Well put yourself in the Officers place.

Screw this notion of putting yourself in the officer's shoes. The officer is the government and the mentality should be to look at things from the eyes of the free man on his own damn property, not the state when it is encroaching your castle.

 

[PhulesAu]

Getting really close to " Do as I say, not Do as I do".

 

[riskinstrument]

How does being right help when you're dead?

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[XinTX]

Well said... Put yourself in the Officers place.

I'm trying to put myself in Waller's place. He's an elderly man. Just himself and his elderly wife at home. Area is unlit. There's apparently been a burglar alarm, though the article doesn't specifically say so. But an audible alarm MIGHT be why he was standing in his garage holding his pistol. I'm having to assume it's since been silenced. Otherwise I can't see how the cops were at the wrong house. But, the article doesn't say, I'm just having to read between the lines.

So Waller hears a burglar alarm and goes to stand between danger and his family. Now he's approached by two silhouettes shining bright lights in his face. Being an elderly man, he likely has poor night vision (men tend to lose night vision earlier and more significantly than females). So he can't visually ID the two figures approaching him. They say "drop your weapon, we're police". But he can't see, so he has no way of knowing whether they are PD, or just the burglars from across the street who are now targeting his house. Given he's seen no other signs that these ARE cops (cops weren't using their flashing lights, he's heard no sirens) I think he has at least a plausible reason to doubt their claim of who they are.

Now Waller is faced with a tough decision. Believe these voices in the dark, or don't. If he believes them and he's wrong, he and his wife will likely be robbed, or worse. If he disbelieves them and he's wrong, the worst that happens is he's hurt or arrested, but his wife is okay. He was obviously conflicted, but in the end it appears he chose to disbelieve them. I can't fault him for that given he saw no other evidence that it was indeed the police. He was put in a no win situation.

I'm not saying it was a "bad shoot". But the PD should analyze what happened, and try to look at it from Waller's perspective, and then learn lessons from it. Personally, I'd rather they rolled up with at least the lights flashing. Had Waller seen the unmistakable flashing red/blue, he'd probably have chosen to believe the cops were who they said they were.

 

[bones_708]

I'd sue the bastards in civil court.

For what would you sue? You are an unknown person outside, and yes I consider just inside an open garage to be "outside", with a gun in your hand in your hand. Cops who were there in response to a prowler call see you then tell you to put down your gun. What in the heck do you think you are going to sue for?

 

[bones_708]

I'm trying to put myself in Waller's place. He's an elderly man. Just himself and his elderly wife at home. Area is unlit. There's apparently been a burglar alarm, though the article doesn't specifically say so. But an audible alarm MIGHT be why he was standing in his garage holding his pistol. I'm having to assume it's since been silenced. Otherwise I can't see how the cops were at the wrong house. But, the article doesn't say, I'm just having to read between the lines.

So Waller hears a burglar alarm and goes to stand between danger and his family. Now he's approached by two silhouettes shining bright lights in his face. Being an elderly man, he likely has poor night vision (men tend to lose night vision earlier and more significantly than females). So he can't visually ID the two figures approaching him. They say "drop your weapon, we're police". But he can't see, so he has no way of knowing whether they are PD, or just the burglars from across the street who are now targeting his house. Given he's seen no other signs that these ARE cops (cops weren't using their flashing lights, he's heard no sirens) I think he has at least a plausible reason to doubt their claim of who they are.

Now Waller is faced with a tough decision. Believe these voices in the dark, or don't. If he believes them and he's wrong, he and his wife will likely be robbed, or worse. If he disbelieves them and he's wrong, the worst that happens is he's hurt or arrested, but his wife is okay. He was obviously conflicted, but in the end it appears he chose to disbelieve them. I can't fault him for that given he saw no other evidence that it was indeed the police. He was put in a no win situation.

I'm not saying it was a "bad shoot". But the PD should analyze what happened, and try to look at it from Waller's perspective, and then learn lessons from it. Personally, I'd rather they rolled up with at least the lights flashing. Had Waller seen the unmistakable flashing red/blue, he'd probably have chosen to believe the cops were who they said they were.

Waller didn't go out to "stand between danger and his family". I mean come on if that is his main concern walking out in your open garage is not what you do. I figure he heard an alarm and thought he would look around, who knows maybe catch a BG, maybe not. No problem with that but lets not go crazy writing with fanciful narrative. Everyone keeps saying that the lights made it impossible for him to see, but at best thats a supposition and one that's based on nothing but a possibility. Even the reason for his actions are a total guess and may not of had anything to do with his ability to identify them as cops. He could of very well thought "It's my damn property so I'll do what I want!" after first reflexively obeying the officers orders. As to the lights they were going to a alarm response. Alerting everyone that they are there may help identify them as officers but it would have a detrimental effect on catching BG's and most likely piss off those that were woken up when they do so when they respond the the numerous false alarms they get. Police should always be looking and trying to improve and evolve. But we also can't expect or require perfection. There is a quote about not letting perfection be the enemy of the good, or something like that.