Thread: Self Defense: Yea or Nay

Originally Posted by John Drake

Not very much on this board, no, it isn't necessary.

Try shooting a cop, and then saying you thought he was a "rogue" at the trial, and/or you thought the arrest was illegal. (assuming you ever even make it there)

I understand that you fully embrace the police state in which we now live, John. I also understand that since you believe the police to be superior to yourself, that you can't understand why the rest of us don't agree.

That doesn't mean that the rest of us have to accept the role of slave as you have willingly done.

Originally Posted by John Drake

And yes, police get to defend their lives without checking with a lawyer first, just as you so vehemently claim you do too. They may pay for it later but they don't have to stand there and let someone shoot them because there may be a legal question.

You didn't say that they were able "to defend their lives", you said, "the police are under no obligation to be 'fair' to you if it in any way places their own lives in danger".

What you wrote earlier would allow cops to open fire into a car full of kids if they thought the soccer Mom driving it might have a handgun in her purse.

That is why your comment was, and still is, idiotic.

Originally Posted by John Drake

You have no way of knowing that, there's a big and rather obvious difference between an AK-47 and a Samsung 250.

You claiming that a police death-squad when sent to a residence wouldn't shoot anyone who was holding an object in hand when they bust a door in and the residents weren't laying on the ground like proper little subjects wouldn't be shot?

As far as whether the search is reasonable or not all the gun did was cost the guy lots of money in a big time lawsuit. Dead men's estates can't sue if the decedent was resisting arrest.

They weren't attempting arrest, they knocked his door opened and riddled him with bullets.

I"m going to put this in caps in hopes you might understand. YOU CAN'T LEGALLY RESIST ARREST, WHETHER THE ARREST IS LEGAL OR NOT. Cops can and do make mistakes in this matter every day, that does NOT give you the right to kill them.

You have the right not to be killed by the police executing an unreasonable search.

Originally Posted by John Drake

(



Neither are you, it seems. I told you the law requires trained interpretation. The way that law is written means only that you can defend yourself IF it looks like cop is about to hurt you unnecessarily during an arrest or IS hurting you unnecessarly during an arrest. The key word here seems "unnecesarily". If someone is pointing a gun at me and apparently about to shoot it I think it would be considered "necessary" to stop them

Try shooting a cop in Texas and then say you thought the arrest was illegal, see how far you get.

Depending on the circumstances you're certainly allowed to. As you can read there, I only need a reasonable belief.

Originally Posted by smurf

I understand that you fully embrace the police state in which we now live, John. I also understand that since you believe the police to be superior to yourself, that you can't understand why the rest of us don't agree.

That doesn't mean that the rest of us have to accept the role of slave as you have willingly done.



You didn't say that they were able "to defend their lives", you said, "the police are under no obligation to be 'fair' to you if it in any way places their own lives in danger".

What you wrote earlier would allow cops to open fire into a car full of kids if they thought the soccer Mom driving it might have a handgun in her purse.

That is why your comment was, and still is, idiotic.

I don't accept that cops are superior to me but I do accept that they represent the State, and the State is "awful and powerful in it's majesty"...Courthouses are made big and imposing for a REASON, and Mel Gibson was ACTING in that movie, but let's not digress right at the beginning here.

If she was Ma Barker, possibly. The cops are under the same obligations as the rest of us, really, they have to be "reasonable and prudent". Shooting a guy who is pointing an AK-47 at you and saying, "here's something for you" seems to pass that test, in my view.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

You claiming that a police death-squad when sent to a residence wouldn't shoot anyone who was holding an object in hand when they bust a door in and the residents weren't laying on the ground like proper little subjects wouldn't be shot?


They weren't attempting arrest, they knocked his door opened and riddled him with bullets.



You have the right not to be killed by the police executing an unreasonable search.

It wasn't an "object" it was an AK-47 pointed at them, which if it had been converted to full auto (not at all an unreasonable supposition given the circumstances) could have easily killed them all in a second. They had given more than adequate notice they were there and coming in or he wouldn't have been waiting. I don't know about where you live but police in my area are very scrupulous about letting violent criminal suspects know they ARE police so that said suspects WON"T think they're just home invaders, as you're all supposing this guy did

You have no right to imminently threaten a policeman's life and not expect him to shoot you to save his own. It's one thing to respect the public's rights, quite another to let them make you swiss cheese while you consult Blackstone.

Given that you were the policeman in question, you had just kicked down the door. What would YOU do when faced with a man pointing an AK-47 at you and indicating clearly he was about to fire it?

Originally Posted by reality

Depending on the circumstances you're certainly allowed to. As you can read there, I only need a reasonable belief.

Let's see again:

1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary

The guy was suspected of being someone who regularly robbed OTHER PROFESSIONAL CRIMINALS, I think this justifies the use of about as much force as you can bring to bear.

Now, yes, he MIGHT have thought the police were about to shoot him. If he'd thrown the gun away while shouting "I surrender" I can see your point, however he pointed it at them and said "here's something for you". He didn't say, "Easy, "Don't shoot, don't shoot, who are you anyway?" (I realize any sort of dialogue seems silly under the circumstances but....)

Again, given those circumstances, would you read him his rights?


Home invaders don't usually give you enough warning so you can hide your family and get your AK-47...there we have to examine the individual circumstances in more detail. Again, I somehow doubt any policemen wouldn't identify themselves at least at the point of attack, if only for their own safety when apprehending a reasonably dangerous suspect.

I forget the original article and will lose this if I go back and look. DID the cops have the wrong house? or was this guy the suspect they were after?

Originally Posted by John Drake

I don't accept that cops are superior to me but I do accept that they represent the State, and the State is "awful and powerful in it's majesty"...Courthouses are made big and imposing for a REASON, and Mel Gibson was ACTING in that movie, but let's not digress right at the beginning here.

If she was Ma Barker, possibly. The cops are under the same obligations as the rest of us, really, they have to be "reasonable and prudent". Shooting a guy who is pointing an AK-47 at you and saying, "here's something for you" seems to pass that test, in my view.

So first it was, "the police are under no obligation to be 'fair' to you if it in any way places their own lives in danger".

And now it is, "The cops are under the same obligations as the rest of us, really, they have to be 'reasonable and prudent'".

I'll take that as a concession that your first comment was just bullshit.

Originally Posted by John Drake

It wasn't an "object" it was an AK-47 pointed at them, which if it had been converted to full auto (not at all an unreasonable supposition given the circumstances) could have easily killed them all in a second. They had given more than adequate notice they were there and coming in or he wouldn't have been waiting. I don't know about where you live but police in my area are very scrupulous about letting violent criminal suspects know they ARE police so that said suspects WON"T think they're just home invaders, as you're all supposing this guy did

It was an AR-15, not an AK-47.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound when you post, "which if it had been converted to full auto could have easily killed them all in a second"? Since you obviously know noting about guns, you should not comment on guns - it only makes you look ridiculously stupid.

Originally Posted by John Drake

You have no right to imminently threaten a policeman's life and not expect him to shoot you to save his own. It's one thing to respect the public's rights, quite another to let them make you swiss cheese while you consult Blackstone.

Given that you were the policeman in question, you had just kicked down the door. What would YOU do when faced with a man pointing an AK-47 at you and indicating clearly he was about to fire it?



Let's see again:



The guy was suspected of being someone who regularly robbed OTHER PROFESSIONAL CRIMINALS, I think this justifies the use of about as much force as you can bring to bear.

Now, yes, he MIGHT have thought the police were about to shoot him. If he'd thrown the gun away while shouting "I surrender" I can see your point, however he pointed it at them and said "here's something for you". He didn't say, "Easy, "Don't shoot, don't shoot, who are you anyway?" (I realize any sort of dialogue seems silly under the circumstances but....)

Again, given those circumstances, would you read him his rights?


Home invaders don't usually give you enough warning so you can hide your family and get your AK-47...there we have to examine the individual circumstances in more detail. Again, I somehow doubt any policemen wouldn't identify themselves at least at the point of attack, if only for their own safety when apprehending a reasonably dangerous suspect.

I forget the original article and will lose this if I go back and look. DID the cops have the wrong house? or was this guy the suspect they were after?

Originally Posted by John Drake

I REALLY like Hairball's solution, except an H-Bomb will involve the whole afternoon explaiining to Commissioner Gordon about the vaporising of the city's south end. The simple ten ton Daisy Cutter will work fine for my purposes

The S bomb violates the Geneva protocols. Even the war on terror doesn't alllow crimes against humanity, old chum.

I think all the internet Rambo's here would drop the S-Bomb if a SWAT team busted in their door in the middle of the night. And admit it, you would too... regardless of the Geneva Protocols.

Originally Posted by John Drake

I don't accept that cops are superior to me but I do accept that they represent the State, and the State is "awful and powerful in it's majesty"...Courthouses are made big and imposing for a REASON, and Mel Gibson was ACTING in that movie, but let's not digress right at the beginning here.

If she was Ma Barker, possibly. The cops are under the same obligations as the rest of us, really, they have to be "reasonable and prudent". Shooting a guy who is pointing an AK-47 at you and saying, "here's something for you" seems to pass that test, in my view.



It wasn't an "object" it was an AK-47 pointed at them, which if it had been converted to full auto (not at all an unreasonable supposition given the circumstances) could have easily killed them all in a second. They had given more than adequate notice they were there and coming in or he wouldn't have been waiting. I don't know about where you live but police in my area are very scrupulous about letting violent criminal suspects know they ARE police so that said suspects WON"T think they're just home invaders, as you're all supposing this guy did

You have no right to imminently threaten a policeman's life and not expect him to shoot you to save his own. It's one thing to respect the public's rights, quite another to let them make you swiss cheese while you consult Blackstone.

Given that you were the policeman in question, you had just kicked down the door. What would YOU do when faced with a man pointing an AK-47 at you and indicating clearly he was about to fire it?



Let's see again:



The guy was suspected of being someone who regularly robbed OTHER PROFESSIONAL CRIMINALS, I think this justifies the use of about as much force as you can bring to bear.

Now, yes, he MIGHT have thought the police were about to shoot him. If he'd thrown the gun away while shouting "I surrender" I can see your point, however he pointed it at them and said "here's something for you". He didn't say, "Easy, "Don't shoot, don't shoot, who are you anyway?" (I realize any sort of dialogue seems silly under the circumstances but....)

Again, given those circumstances, would you read him his rights?


Home invaders don't usually give you enough warning so you can hide your family and get your AK-47...there we have to examine the individual circumstances in more detail. Again, I somehow doubt any policemen wouldn't identify themselves at least at the point of attack, if only for their own safety when apprehending a reasonably dangerous suspect.

I forget the original article and will lose this if I go back and look. DID the cops have the wrong house? or was this guy the suspect they were after?

Well thats what the cops claim he did. The same cops that first claimed to have seen muzzle flash. The same cops that denied him medical care for an hour. The same cops that have flip flopped their story about 4 times now. I'm not inclined to believe a word any of them say. His weapon was still on safe, and he was a combat vet. If he intended to shoot them it woulda been off safe.

And besides, I wasn't referring to that specific instance. I was referring to your comments that you can't ever resist the police no matter what. That comment was total bullshit. You're welcome for the education.

Originally Posted by reality

Well thats what the cops claim he did. The same cops that first claimed to have seen muzzle flash. The same cops that denied him medical care for an hour. The same cops that have flip flopped their story about 4 times now. I'm not inclined to believe a word any of them say. His weapon was still on safe, and he was a combat vet. If he intended to shoot them it woulda been off safe.

And besides, I wasn't referring to that specific instance. I was referring to your comments that you can't ever resist the police no matter what. That comment was total bullshit. You're welcome for the education.

Your first para is questions of facts, which have yet to be clarified at trial.

As to the second I believe you misunderstand. You seemingly have the right to resist if you feel you are in imminent peril of death or injury as a result of the arrest, but I still maintain that you have no right to resist violently if you feel the arrest itself is illegal. The time to resist that is later, in a court of law.

I truly fail to understand how anyone believes that the policeman's obligation to respect your rights means he must consult a lawyer before he is allowed to defend his own life. He may indeed be proescuted later, both civilly and criminally if the arrest is illegal, but that in no way will exonerate you if you defend your rights with violence and it results in harm, or even if it does not.

And incorrect education is a disservice, as someone might act on it to their detriment. This is one reason why thanking in advance is usually crass, though "please and thank you" is acceptable casually.

Originally Posted by John Drake

Your first para is questions of facts, which have yet to be clarified at trial.

As to the second I believe you misunderstand. You seemingly have the right to resist if you feel you are in imminent peril of death or injury as a result of the arrest, but I still maintain that you have no right to resist violently if you feel the arrest itself is illegal. The time to resist that is later, in a court of law.

I truly fail to understand how anyone believes that the policeman's obligation to respect your rights means he must consult a lawyer before he is allowed to defend his own life. He may indeed be proescuted later, both civilly and criminally if the arrest is illegal, but that in no way will exonerate you if you defend your rights with violence and it results in harm, or even if it does not.

And incorrect education is a disservice, as someone might act on it to their detriment. This is one reason why thanking in advance is usually crass, though "please and thank you" is acceptable casually.

I find it hilarious that you say the police don't have to consult a lawyer before employing deadly force but you claim that I must. I posted those statutes on self defense in texas for a reason skip. Because it shows you most certainly ARE entitled to use violence to resist unlawful arrest or search and seizure. Your entire statement here is just flat wrong. And I've shown you why.

Originally Posted by John Drake

It wasn't an "object" it was an AK-47

It could be any suspect item.

pointed at them

we have no reason to belive it was pointed at them.

.I don't know about where you live but police in my area are very scrupulous about letting violent criminal suspects know they ARE police so that said suspects WON"T think they're just home invaders

He was a violent criminal suspect because.... ????

Given that you were the policeman in question, you had just kicked down the door.

I'd shoot. Being put in that sitution by the state doesn't change the mortality or morality of the situation.

Originally Posted by reality

I find it hilarious that you say the police don't have to consult a lawyer before employing deadly force but you claim that I must. I posted those statutes on self defense in texas for a reason skip. Because it shows you most certainly ARE entitled to use violence to resist unlawful arrest or search and seizure. Your entire statement here is just flat wrong. And I've shown you why.

You've shown me nothing but the fact that you can't understand your own problems in comprehending the law even when they're directly pointed out to you, bunkie.

You're entitled to your opinion. If you're ever arrested illegally, please, defend your rights, resist violently. The world can do with less fools.

Originally Posted by smurf

So first it was, "the police are under no obligation to be 'fair' to you if it in any way places their own lives in danger".

And now it is, "The cops are under the same obligations as the rest of us, really, they have to be 'reasonable and prudent'".

I'll take that as a concession that your first comment was just bullshit.



It was an AR-15, not an AK-47.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound when you post, "which if it had been converted to full auto could have easily killed them all in a second"? Since you obviously know noting about guns, you should not comment on guns - it only makes you look ridiculously stupid.

No, my second comment was a way of restating the first. When you attack someone who robs other criminals for a living I think it "reasonable and prudent" to bring all the force you can to bear

An AR15 at full auto has a rate of fire of 800 rounds per minute, (from Wiki) that is 13.33 per second, it only takes one to kill somebody. I'm assuming they couldn't fit more than 4 in the doorway

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

I think all the internet Rambo's here would drop the S-Bomb if a SWAT team busted in their door in the middle of the night. And admit it, you would too... regardless of the Geneva Protocols.

Do I really have to put the in all the time.

And no, I don't think I'd shit myself for real. I've been told you can't do that while having a coronary too.