Gun Zone Deals

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • bones_708

    Well-Known
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 24, 2013
    1,301
    21
    Well said... Put yourself in the Officers place.


    I'm not sure how this applies either. I mean yes it is a legal order under normal circumstances. That doesn't mean that a jury will always convict or that a DA will pursue charges. It does mean that if the officer can articulate a reason, and officer safety has been a sanctioned reason in ruling after ruling so it's hard to imagine an officer who couldn't articulate a reason, then the officers actions will be legal and within the law. That doesn't mean that every action cops take are acceptable just because they are legal. Every department has policies and procedures that are much more restrictive than what would be considered illegal. Something doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong and we don't have to have a law to regulate every action of public servants
    ARJ Defense ad
     

    popo22

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 1, 2009
    174
    11

    Plaintiff contends that no force was necessary because he never removed the pistol from his hip pocket and because Murray conceded that if he (Thomas) were not waving or brandishing the gun, he (Murray) had no legal basis to disarm Plaintiff. Plaintiff's argument is specious. [SUP]HN13[/SUP]
    core_up.gif
    A police officer should be able to conduct an investigation without any threats or potential threats to his safety or that of others. Indeed, it would be fatuous to suggest that a police officer could not take action to "neutralize" any threats or potential threats to his safety or that of others during the course of a legitimate police inquiry or detention. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 24, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968). Given the facts and circumstances of [**28] this case, a reasonablepolice officer could have believed that it was necessary to disarm Thomas for safety reasons while he conducted his investigation, even though the pistol remained in Thomas's hip pocket at all times. A gun in one's hip pocket certainly can pose a threat to a law enforcement officer's safety because the gun could be pulled out and used in a matter of seconds. A reasonable police officer certainly could have concluded that the use of force was necessary under the facts of this case as long as Thomas had a weapon in his immediate possession. Regardless of any subjective intent or motive on Murray's part, a reasonable officer could have believed that the force Murray used was necessary to effect the investigatory stop. Some officers could disagree regarding Murray's use of force; however, the true essence of qualified immunity is that it should be recognized if officers of reasonable competence could disagree on the action or conduct in question. Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 89 L. Ed. 2d 271, 106 S. Ct. 1092 (1986). Moreover, the record necessarily establishes that once Murray took possession of Thomas's gun, he holstered his own gun [**29] and no further force or threat of force was used. The court finds that the force used by Murray was not clearly excessive to the need and that the amount of force used by Murray was objectively reasonable. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact, and Murray is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to Plaintiff's claim of excessive force. [SUP]2[/SUP]

    case law: Thomas vs Murray
     

    cheez

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 29, 2013
    10
    1
    Plaintiff contends that no force was necessary because he never removed the pistol from his hip pocket and because Murray conceded that if he (Thomas) were not waving or brandishing the gun, he (Murray) had no legal basis to disarm Plaintiff. Plaintiff's argument is specious. [SUP]HN13[/SUP]
    core_up.gif
    A police officer should be able to conduct an investigation without any threats or potential threats to his safety or that of others. Indeed, it would be fatuous to suggest that a police officer could not take action to "neutralize" any threats or potential threats to his safety or that of others during the course of a legitimate police inquiry or detention. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 24, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968). Given the facts and circumstances of [**28] this case, a reasonablepolice officer could have believed that it was necessary to disarm Thomas for safety reasons while he conducted his investigation, even though the pistol remained in Thomas's hip pocket at all times. A gun in one's hip pocket certainly can pose a threat to a law enforcement officer's safety because the gun could be pulled out and used in a matter of seconds. A reasonable police officer certainly could have concluded that the use of force was necessary under the facts of this case as long as Thomas had a weapon in his immediate possession. Regardless of any subjective intent or motive on Murray's part, a reasonable officer could have believed that the force Murray used was necessary to effect the investigatory stop. Some officers could disagree regarding Murray's use of force; however, the true essence of qualified immunity is that it should be recognized if officers of reasonable competence could disagree on the action or conduct in question. Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 89 L. Ed. 2d 271, 106 S. Ct. 1092 (1986). Moreover, the record necessarily establishes that once Murray took possession of Thomas's gun, he holstered his own gun [**29] and no further force or threat of force was used. The court finds that the force used by Murray was not clearly excessive to the need and that the amount of force used by Murray was objectively reasonable. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact, and Murray is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to Plaintiff's claim of excessive force. [SUP]2[/SUP]

    case law: Thomas vs Murray

    Very cool- so now we have established that officers are authorized to legally order one to self-disarm, even on private property, and have cited case law precedent on it. My curiosity is satisfied- thank you greatly popo22!!
     

    HillRider

    Active Member
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 5, 2013
    335
    1
    Helotes, TX
    Police commit crimes at a higher rate than most gun owners or CHL holders yet we are unable to suspect them of crimes, wrong doing, bad intentions if they come upon our private property at night. We are automatically suppose to know who they are and their intentions.

    Police do not have the moral authority to do whatever they want to us because somehow they might suspect us as threats, especially on our own properties or in our own homes.

    Even though Jerry Waller was on his own property, he was already a suspected criminal in the officer's own mind. In reality, the police officer was the greater threat to Mr. Waller than what he was investigating.

    The only way this will stop happening is if private citizens on their own properties draw on and shoot anyone that they might suspect of having a gun or meaning to do them wrong, cop or not. As in this case discussed here:
    http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/...no-bills-cop-killer-during-no-knock-raid.html

    If we happen to find ourselves in this unlucky situation, it is obvious that we cannot trust that we will be given any better treatment than the common murderous thug.

    So basically this is about survival. As I have said before, as gun owners and CHL holders, police represent probably a greater threat to our safety than the random murderous psychopath.

    “When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.”

    ― Thomas Jefferson
     
    Last edited:

    bones_708

    Well-Known
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 24, 2013
    1,301
    21


    Well that does not support HR's claim and it shows complains of crimes as crimes. They are also measuring general pop #'s, which includes infants and people in their 90's, to a population that is 21-65 only. I would be interested on knowing what was up with the sexual assault numbers. My understanding is that close to 50% of the complaints people make are shown to be false or wrong with another 30% or more without the evidence to prove the allegation and 10% are either withdrawn or some deal worked out with the complainant. So if these numbers are based on complaints fully half should be tossed out of the figures. Now while you may doubt those numbers if you doubt that cops enforcing laws and arresting people will be accused of offences without basis by some people merely because an officer did their job, then you are way to biased to bother to have a conversation with.
     

    XinTX

    Well-Known
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 29, 2010
    1,928
    31
    South of Houston
    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.

    We'll never know his motive for going out to the garage. Since he's now dead we can't just go ask him. But regardless his motive, that's where he was. And I did say there is a lot we don't know. Was there an incidence of violent home invasions/break ins in this area? We don't know. Could he clearly see the cops? We don't know, but it's likely not seen them. Again, I'm not saying this was a 'bad shoot'. What I am saying is, in hindsight, the PD should evaluate what happened and see if there are any lessons to be learned. Not having ALL the info, I can't make that assessment. As for the lights having a detrimental impact on catching the bad guys, I would say they should (in hindsight, with an eye towards learning to improve) weigh this against the potential for a repeat of this outcome. No system operated by humans will be perfect. But it lessons can be learned to avoid repeating this same incident, it would be beneficial to all.
     

    AustinN4

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Nov 27, 2013
    9,853
    96
    Austin
    Well that does not support HR's claim and it shows complains of crimes as crimes. They are also measuring general pop #'s, which includes infants and people in their 90's, to a population that is 21-65 only. I would be interested on knowing what was up with the sexual assault numbers. My understanding is that close to 50% of the complaints people make are shown to be false or wrong with another 30% or more without the evidence to prove the allegation and 10% are either withdrawn or some deal worked out with the complainant. So if these numbers are based on complaints fully half should be tossed out of the figures. Now while you may doubt those numbers if you doubt that cops enforcing laws and arresting people will be accused of offences without basis by some people merely because an officer did their job, then you are way to biased to bother to have a conversation with.
    I read the material at that link and agree with bones, that the study at this link is deeply flawed.

    Also, allegations are one thing, convictions are another. Toward the end there is a chart of the conviction rate which shows the LE rate much, much lower than the general pop.

    As to the sexual misconduct, the study even say that for LE it includes consensual sex, something the general pop doesn't get dinged for.
     

    AustinN4

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Nov 27, 2013
    9,853
    96
    Austin
    Hey found a source with stats close to my claim. FWIW
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ccpuf.pdf
    Again, the material at that link is mostly about allegations, not convictions. Don't you undersatand that allegations against LE are mostly done as a way to get out of jail free?

    And also that most allegations result in the LE being cleared? Look at Table 7. Complaint dispositions.

    So, exactly where is the factual information to back up the claim you made? Without, I am calling BS on it.
     

    bones_708

    Well-Known
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 24, 2013
    1,301
    21
    Again, the material at that link is mostly about allegations, not convictions. Don't you undersatand that allegations against LE are mostly done as a way to get out of jail free?

    And also that most allegations result in the LE being cleared? Look at Table 7. Complaint dispositions.

    So, exactly where is the factual information to back up the claim you made? Without, I am calling BS on it.


    Reading is fundamental. I made no claims , I challenged HR's. And yes I do understand because that was a major point of my post right before the link.
     

    AustinN4

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Nov 27, 2013
    9,853
    96
    Austin
    Reading is fundamental. I made no claims , I challenged HR's. And yes I do understand because that was a major point of my post right before the link.
    I think I was confused by your post: Hey found a source with stats close to my claim. FWIW
    Perhaps you meant to say close to HillRiders claim? But even then, I don't think it is at all close to HillRiders claim.
     

    bones_708

    Well-Known
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 24, 2013
    1,301
    21
    I think I was confused by your post: Hey found a source with stats close to my claim. FWIW
    Perhaps you meant to say close to HillRiders claim? But even then, I don't think it is at all close to HillRiders claim.

    I should of said stats not claim. I was referring to the stats on complaints and percentages.
     

    HillRider

    Active Member
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 5, 2013
    335
    1
    Helotes, TX
    Again, the material at that link is mostly about allegations, not convictions. Don't you undersatand that allegations against LE are mostly done as a way to get out of jail free?

    And also that most allegations result in the LE being cleared? Look at Table 7. Complaint dispositions.

    So, exactly where is the factual information to back up the claim you made? Without, I am calling BS on it.

    You guys can argue all day long about the statistics. The fact is most cops are protected by the system so we will never know the exact level of their misconduct. Somewhere Frank Serpico is shaking his head.

    Instead of addressing the entre post, you want to fact check me like some CNN twerp.

    Doesn't change the fact that an imbalance of power is developing and a lot of cops have a cowardice about them. They have some supposed authority to shoot regular folks down on their own property and we're suppose to kiss their asses for it.

    I'm saying that is fucked up. When did Americans hand over all of their responsibilities of self defense over to some uniformed goons? Even to the point that if you are in the moral right and protecting yourself and your family, you can still get murdered by the police because they think you are the criminal.
     
    Top Bottom