Police shoot 20 year old holding rifle

[pseudonym]

So if the police are called to investigate a crime, such as an assault or say a bank robbery. They should allow anyone on the scene to be armed while they figure out who the bad guys are? I hope your kidding. Police can temporarily detain you and disarm you without violating your right to carry if they are investigating a possible crime.

I would agree with you if you were simply walking down the street with a rifle in a sling on your back. But at the scene of a crime and the rifle in your hands with police pointing guns at you then its time to put the gun down and talk about your rights afterwards.

You have identified probable cause and yes, I agree that if there is probable cause then they can order you to disarm.

What was the probable cause in this situation? Two guys arguing is not illegal. Bearing a long gun is not illegal. What was the illegal activity that gave them probable cause that a crime was committed. No crime was ever mentioned in the article.

 

[pseudonym]

it was a dispute at 2am...he didnt comply...

A dispute is a disagreement or an argument. Is that illegal? Now, if there was a fight with an assault then there would be probable cause that the man holding the gun was involved and then the police could legally detain him and take his weapon while they investigate.

 

[Blaster229]

What do they do when you self identify as having a concealed carry permit? The don't order you to disarm as they check your permit. I have had interactions with DNR when I'm carrying a firearm and have never been ordered to disarm while the check my license. How is open carry handled in other states? Do they order everyone to disarm when they interact with them? I think not.

Because those are times when there is not a dispute/fight and anger raging. Again, get real.

 

[Blaster229]

A dispute is a disagreement or an argument. Is that illegal? Now, if there was a fight with an assault then there would be probable cause that the man holding the gun was involved and then the police could legally detain him and take his weapon while they investigate.

So, they show up and just stand there while the argument plays out and then do something?

 

[pseudonym]

So, they show up and just stand there while the argument plays out and then do something?

No, they act within the bounds of the law and do not infringe on your constitutional rights without probable cause that a crime was committed while they investigate the situation. Ge real? Get a copy of the constitution and educate yourself on your rights and the limits of the of the government. And yes, the police have limits to their power as they are agents of the government. Again, the onus is on them to perform their jobs without overstepping the boundaries of the law.

Is a dispute (an agruement) a crime? Was there an assault? Was there the threat of an assault? Please, identify the crime that was committed that started this whole chain of events that ended in a man's death.

 

[swinokur]

If you look at the totality of the situation, not complying with a weapon in your hand is slightly different than being asked to comply with a search.

your call I guess

 

[Blaster229]

No, they act within the bounds of the law and do not infringe on your constitutional rights without probable cause that a crime was committed while they investigate the situation. Ge real? Get a copy of the constitution and educate yourself on your rights and the limits of the of the government. And yes, the police have limits to their power as they are agents of the government. Again, the onus is on them to perform their jobs without overstepping the boundaries of the law.

Is a dispute (an agruement) a crime? Was there an assault? Was there the threat of an assault? Please, identify the crime that was committed that started this whole chain of events that ended in a man's death.

The mere fact they were called there is to investigate if there was a crime committed. The crime committed does not HAVE to be based around that weapon he was holding. Cops were there for a legal reason. Legally they can id all parties. In order to do that, all parties need to play nice, put weapons down so we can get along doing business.
IF I or any other cop gets called to the scene of a fight or two people arguing, ID's will be ran. In order to do that, you will not have any weapon in your hand. So far after 18 years, not a lawsuit yet.

Google Terry frisk and see what comes up. This one makes it easy because the weapon is in plain view, no patting of clothing needed.

In order to learn something, you really don't have to troll and make us all go through the gamut of how police stops work. Just ask.

 

[Vile Shadow]

No, they act within the bounds of the law

Which they did.

and do not infringe on your constitutional rights without probable cause that a crime was committed while they investigate the situation.

Which they did NOT.

Police officers attempting to secure the situation while they investigate is NOT a Constitutional infringement. I would expect nothing less when they encounter two men arguing on the street at 2 AM, one of whom being armed.

Ge real? Get a copy of the constitution and educate yourself on your rights and the limits of the of the government.

Every officer swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, including Blaster, so I am not about to second guess his knowledge of it.

And yes, the police have limits to their power as they are agents of the government.

Here we go with this again.

Police do NOT serve the gooberment. They serve the law, and the people.

Again, the onus is on them to perform their jobs without overstepping the boundaries of the law.

And?

Every officer knows the ramifications of the decisions they make. They have to obey the law as well.

Is a dispute (an agruement) a crime?

No, but it is an indicator of potentially rising tensions.

Was there an assault? Was there the threat of an assault?

Not yet. But who's to say any of the above would not have happened had the LEO's not responded? Escalating disagreements can lead to these very things.

Please, identify the crime that was committed that started this whole chain of events that ended in a man's death.

Now it's your turn to "get real". In case you haven't been paying attention, the dummy holding the pellet gun failed to obey a lawful order to disarm, and therefore was dealt with.

Now quit making the rest of us "13'ers" look bad.

 

[swinokur]

 

[Blaster229]

I'll let him pander along. I said my bit.
We need a name calling, non-ban, amnesty day on here

 

[pbharvey]

I'll let him pander along. I said my bit.
We need a name calling, non-ban, amnesty day on here

Like that movie The Purge.

 

[kgain673]

A dispute is a disagreement or an argument. Is that illegal? Now, if there was a fight with an assault then there would be probable cause that the man holding the gun was involved and then the police could legally detain him and take his weapon while they investigate.

Wow You need to go on a ride along bro. One in PG county(the ghetto-ist part), and request Henry sector on a Friday or Saturday night. You will see about......hmmm........about 5-10 calls for fight in progress or something to that nature. Then let me know what your anus does when you roll up and one of the fighting parties has a gun?

 

[Moon]

Wow You need to go on a ride along bro.

Just put cameras on all law enforcement officers. Record interactions with the public. Better than a ride along.

 

[pseudonym]

Wow You need to go on a ride along bro. One in PG county(the ghetto-ist part), and request Henry sector on a Friday or Saturday night. You will see about......hmmm........about 5-10 calls for fight in progress or something to that nature. Then let me know what your anus does when you roll up and one of the fighting parties has a gun?

A fight in progress (crime)! Yes, yes, yes I agree!!! A crime is in progress and a gun is present. Yes, yes, yes I agree in this scenario completely!!!

 

[pseudonym]

I'll let him pander along. I said my bit.
We need a name calling, non-ban, amnesty day on here

I'm entitled to my opinion on this and I've stated why I believe what I believe. I have rather strong feelings about this story and felt the need to get my thoughts out there. Not meant to be trolling. Looking at the individual components, I don't believe this should have ended in death. I'll have to think more about the totality of the situation. For now, we disagree. So be it.

 

[Yellowhand]

FTFY.

Cool; thank you.

 

[Mooseman]

A question for the LEOs here. Is disturbing the peace a crime?

 

[Vile Shadow]

A question for the LEOs here. Is disturbing the peace a crime?

I think you can be written a civil citation for that.

 

[Mooseman]

I would think that a two A.M. argument would at the very least constitute disturbing the peace.

 

[Sourkraut115]

Yes. Disturbing the peace is a crime. As is disorderly conduct, in a number of forms. There are, of course, definite limits to what those words mean.