Sometimes, intentionally antagonizing someone who is carrying a weapon is a poor judgement call. They may have been having a bad day; and they may be hearing voices, other than the one coming from your mouth. Regardless, the place to challenge a police officer is in court, not on the side of the road. A Major Caudill, USMC Ret., wrote a good essay, which made the rounds on the internet a few years back; in which he made the case that if everyone was carrying a gun, we would have a more civilized society - that one would more carefully consider ones words and actions, if the consequences of those words and actions could easily be fatal.
That's a ridiculous assertion when applied to an officer of the law. You pretty much insinuated the kid deserved to be murdered for talking back to a cop who woke up on the wrong side of the bed and was on a power trip. According to your wisdom, the right to free speech only exists when not confronted by a cop with a gun. And, unless I am mistaken, Miranda does not include "You have the right to be murdered if you talk back."
Oh, lighten up. I'm not siding with the cop. The cop is obviously a nut-job. I think he will have a difficult time convincing anyone that he acted in accordance with department policy, or in defense of his own life. I would expect to see some jail time in his future, and rightfully so. I'm just saying that the kid made a poor judgement call in saying anything that would escalate the friction, when he was dealing with an armed person who was out of control. A person can harp about their rights all they want, but they are rarely going to win when they already have an irrational police officer on the side of the road. The kid should have attempted to defuse the situation, and then let the judge hand the cop his butt in a courtroom; discretion sometimes being the better part of valor. Whether its a cop or not, you talk nicely to a crazy person with a gun, at least until you can maneuver yourself into a defensible situation. At least, that's my take on it. Dying with the words, "Oh, you're gonna shoot me?" on my lips would bring me little satisfaction in my final moments, I would think.
PA State Trooper Prohibited From Gun Possession While Off Duty If you ever needed clinical proof that our nation’s gun laws are certifiably insane, here’s a prime example. A Pennsylvania State Trooper, who carries a gun on a daily basis while enforcing the laws of the Commonwealth is federally prohibited from carrying – or even possessing – a firearm while off-duty with no way to restore his firearms rights. Ever. Of course, there are two ways of looking at any story. The first paragraph is only the nice way of describing this gun law fustercluck. If you’re more cynical (like me), read on . . . Michael L. Keyes is a PA State Trooper with a history of mental illness. Seven years ago he repeatedly tried to kill himself by overdose and was involuntarily committed. After a year of mental health treatment, he was cleared by his psychiatrist and started a long legal battle to get his job back. An arbitrator ordered the Pennsy State Police to return him to limited duty and the State Police lost their appeal of that decision in 2010. If that doesn’t sound fishy enough for you, Keyes also won $16,000 in back pay. And he’s been allowed to carry a gun while on duty ever since. But a Pennsylvania appeals court just ruled that Keyes’ involuntary commitment constitutes a permanent and irrevocable revocation of his right to possess firearms while off-duty. Judge Kate Ford Elliott wrote that this lifetime ban was reasonable under the 2nd Amendment because… “Given the extreme potential harm attendant to the possession of deadly weapons by the mentally ill, and the risk of relapse,” the judge wrote, “we see an important government interest in controlling the availability of firearms for those who have ever been adjudged mentally defective or have ever been committed to a mental institution but are now deemed to be cured.” So it’s too dangerous to trust a once-committed person with a gun . . . but it’s rational for the Pennsylvania State Police to issue him a government-owned gun every morning? According to Judge Elliott, this makes perfect sense: “Were [Keyes] to again fall into a depressive state with suicidal ideation, it would be much more likely to be discovered while he is on-duty and his superiors could then restrict his access to state police firearms.” Yeah, just like they tried to do years ago? Before the Police Union arbitrator ordered them to put him back on the job? Judge Elliott must have unique mental, er, skills to be so cognitively flexible. Michael Keyes cannot be trusted with a gun, so we’re going to put him back in a uniform and hand him a firearm? Nicely done, your honor. I’m not much of a lyricist or songwriter myself, but Gilbert and Sullivan had a field day with judges like you.
This, with no supprise, is a very accurate illustration of the duality of the north eastern states mentality.. corupte in logic...
Having been a victim of a crazed cop some 25 years ago, beaten and bloodied I was handcuffed, thrown in hte back of the car, taken to an alley "tuned up a little more" and then thrown in jail for 6 hours. I requested medical treatment, refused. $15,000 bail later I was released and taken to the hospital by my family. At hte hospital I had an argument wight he ER staffs they insisted I was "run over by a car" and it was impossible to get my injuries in a simple arrest... Fractured skull, 10 stitches in 2 places, severe hematoma to the torso, back, things knees and ankles (and some bruised knuckles) and a concussion. The City and county prosecutors came down pretty hard insisting I was the aggressor and possessed a delay weapon, I was charger with attempted murder, I was offered a plea of "simple assault" and accepted it based on my lawyers (3 different firms advised me the same thing). At my sentencing hearing the Judge threw out the plea of simple assault and exclaimed "there is no such thing as simple assault on an officer, any assault of an officer is by definition aggravated" I received a 2 year-suspended jail term, 1 years probation. 3 months after my arrest and a few weeks after my "conviction" the officer in question was ARRESTED on charges of drug dealing, drug use and sexually abusing his 9yo step daughter, as he was being relieved of his service weapon in the Chiefs office he pulls out his backup gun and kills himself. It turned out that the cop was under County Sheriff and FBI surveillance at the time of my assault, the authorities knew I was a victim and hid the evidence, threatened witnesses and kept this asshole on the force for almost a year after the first accusations by drug dealers that he was robbing them at gunpoint in uniform and telling them if they reported it, there dead.... Yeah most cops are good and join for the right reasons, the others could be weeded out but aren't. Just another reason we need to exercise our power at the town level, had the city counsel known this guy was a bad actor they could direct the Chief to arrest him as soon as suspicions arose, and should the chief refuse its time for a new chief.
That's a heck of a raw deal, man. It's good to know the bad cop only took out himself in the end, though. He probably could have gotten his job back after a year or two vacation...paid, of course. A little counseling and maybe some desk work and he would have been right back on the streets in no time. Good riddance. Most are masons anyway, and they take care of their own. Yeah, we don't need police. Just keep the Sheriff's and carry your guns --that's the American way. We shouldn't have to apply for licenses, either. Free and sovereign citizens have no need to ask for permission to exercise a right...unless they live in a dictatorship.
Your right, I never thought about it that way. You're also right about the sheriffs, there elected and therefore answerable and accountable.
And now for another example of the alphabets running amuck.. "The Continued Lack of Accountability at ATF is Disturbing" - Katie Pavlich
And another.. Sheriff's Deputy Executes Unarmed Man Surrendering With Hands In The Air (VIDEO) | The Libertarian Republic
This kind of "police state" BS is out of control in this country. If a civilian has a total justified shoot they try to look for something to arrest them for and if a LEO murders someone it's a paid vacation and justified.
A sloppy abduction?? Woman Who Alleges Abduction, Sexual Assault by LAPD has Video on Her Side | The Libertarian Republic
I'll wait for the rest of the evidence, like the dash cam audio, and DNA.. But I'd put rapists on death row, Personally. YMMV
I just read about that LAPD story a little bit ago. Kind of sad that it doesn't surprise me. LAPD does not have a good reputation, which makes it that much harder for the good cops to do their job.
GA police are now doing strip searches on the side of the road? Roadside violation: Drivers, passengers say police searched... | www.wsbtv.com While what they describe would not be a "strip" search, searching where there are and how is best left done in private, on the side of the road, and with much better probable cause.
Another pu$$y LEO that does not know how to deal with dogs. Sorry for getting so pissed about this, but this kind of thing REALLY gets to me. Would not want to be that guy if he shot my dog, hint hint! Cop Shoots Man's Service Dog During His 9-Year-Old Son's Birthday Party - ConservativeVideos.com
Don't you think that in their escalation of force training this dipshit would have tried pepper spray or a taser first! But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
I agree that pepper spray would have been a more appropriate first response; huge BUT though, if the homeowner wanted his dog to be safe, the dog should have been in a fence. The man lives in a built up area, a leash law is in effect, and his dogs are running out into the street and acting in an aggressive manner. The police officer was required to make contact with the dogs' owner, after getting a call on the dogs, and he shouldn't have to suffer being bitten in the performance of his duties because this dog owner is negligent. It was obvious that the police officer was disturbed by his shooting of the dog. You can hear it in his voice. It is probably true that the officer was a little quicker on the trigger than he might have otherwise been because of being bitten before, but the dogs' owner is ultimately responsible for there being an altercation to begin with. I have eight large dogs; two in the house, four in the yard, and two in the pasture. They are all confined to their areas, and represent a threat to no one. They do their jobs of watching and guarding without terrorizing the neighborhood. My neighbors though, are another matter entirely. They have two large boxers which roam the neighborhood at will. They have gone after my chickens on several occasions, they harass me an my wife every time we check our mail, or put out the garbage, at the end of the drive. Yesterday, they came across the road, and up my drive, growling and snapping at my son, who was sledding down his own driveway. I have a four hundred foot driveway. One would think that my child could safely play on it, that far from the road. For once in a blue moon, I didn't have a gun on me, or they would have probably met their end then. When they saw me running down the drive toward them, they cut and ran. I don't want to kill the dogs. I love dogs, and those dogs ostensibly belong to an eight year old boy. I don't want to shoot his dogs, but his idiot parents are leaving me few options. Good fences make good neighbors, as well as responsible pet owners. I am sick and tired of irresponsible pet owners.