Officers fatally shoot armed man while serving protective order to remove guns

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'd have thought you'd be all for getting the guns out of the hands of people with mental health issues that could lead to them abusing their gun ownership rights and removing the right to live of as many poor souls as they can. That would bring down gun crime stats, raise the safety of vulnerable people in gun free zones (that SHOULD remain so) and maybe give the 2nd and her advocates a little room to breathe.

There has to be a solution to all this.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I think you underscored a very important point, perhaps unintentionally.

You said...

I have in the past been personally somewhat cautiously hopeful about these "red-flag" laws, but this changes everything for me. ...

But, if taking guns from those who need to have them taken is going to result in the lost lives of those accused... no. No way. No way in HELL! I will now oppose any and all red flag laws. The cries of "no one is coming for your gunz" are hollow and false.

The more subtle element of this argument is this notion that half-steps are not an infringement, and there are many people (like perhaps yourself initially) who believe these so called "common sense measures" will be used for the greater good. They will not. Not today, not tomorrow...not ever! And, it's not about the possibly good intentions of the legislators who pass these laws, it's not about the possibly bad intentions of a select few enforcement goons. More importantly, it's about a cultural paradigm, a shift. This is where the real problem lies.

"...shall not be infringed". It didn't need to be written, because it is a Right, not a law.

The gun grabbers are sneaky. They know all this. And, they're doing it intentionally to keep things stirred up. They're weaponizing legislation for exactly this purpose. If people don't wake up and see it for what it is, things will end badly in the long run.

It's not going to go away, the gun culture in America. Firearms in the hands of people believing in a free country are one of the underpinnings of the very document the left treats as an 'antique novelty', the Constitution of the United States of America. They think that by some stroke of a pen they can undo this. They cannot.

There are laws, and then there are Rights. Laws are malleable, Rights are absolute.

Collectively as a society, we will either accept these Rights, or we will form another government, another country. There are no exceptions. And, not everyone will sit down for such an undertaking. I am among them.

It is incumbent upon family members and close friends to do what is right (as you did), not law enforcement. This is key, and this is the subtle point. The very second we allow legislators to do this for us is the very moment many will pick up their pens, and many (many) more will pick up their firearms. That will not end well, not well at all.

"...SHALL...NOT...BE...INFRINGED."

So what is to stop a person from issuing said complaint against a police officer? Judge? Or the Governor himself?

I read the law from top to bottom. There is not much burden of proof there required. I would troll everyone with it (law enforcement officials namely)

a reply to: SR1TX

Interesting angle.

Though, I honestly don't think LEO's are the ones who are sitting around dreaming up ways to disarm the populace. They've got enough other stuff to worry about. Now, the legislators on the other hand, well, there you might be onto something!

I think there are two issue going on in this incident, and I think it's important to keep these two things separate.

1.) The legislation leading up to the officers going to the home in the first place.

2.) The actions of the officers once they got there.

The first issue is a political one. The second issue boils down to training and protocol. Two separate issues.

a reply to: djz3ro

Any mass shooting is a tragedy, yes. I would prefer that none of them happen.

However, before we jump to banning inanimate objects and infringing rights, let's take a look at the numbers, shall we? I'll use round numbers.

474 - number of mass shooting deaths to date in 2018. Mass shooting defined as 4 people injured with one shooter.

327,000,000 - Population of the U.S.

140,000,000 - Appx number of people with a gun in the U.S. (43% of the population admits to owning a gun) Admittedly a bit high.

For every 100,000 people in the U.S., there are 0.145 mass shooting deaths.

There is a 1:690,000 chance of dying in a mass shooting.

For every 100,000 gun owners, there are .339 deaths due to mass shootings.

Of any given gun owner, there is a 1:295,359 chance they will kill someone as a mass shooter, assuming that only legal, admitted gun owners commit the shootings.

Given these numbers, would you say that there is a mass-shooting epidemic? This is not adjusting for whether or not the "mass shootings" as defined are perpetrated by criminals on criminals. I.E. gang violence. A quick skim over the data seems to suggest that a majority of the shootings may be just that based on the locations in which they occur.

Seeing as how 99.9999% of the population will not be killed in a mass shooting and 99.9996% of gun owners don't commit mass shootings, I don't see the justification to ban things or infringe rights.

Any mass shooting is a tragedy, but I see no epidemic. My eyes are plenty open.

I'm sorry, if you routinely answer the door with a gun in your hand, you're insane and don't need to own guns.

Also this.

t3h LibR'aL aGENda

a reply to: djz3ro

I'd have thought you'd be all for getting the guns out of the hands of people with mental health issues that could lead to them abusing their gun ownership rights and removing the right to live of as many poor souls as they can. That would bring down gun crime stats, raise the safety of vulnerable people in gun free zones (that SHOULD remain so) and maybe give the 2nd and her advocates a little room to breathe.

Not when the people confiscating the guns are the ones with the mental health problems.

The only difference between this incident and a typical shooter scenario was that the perpetrators were dressed in blue, they ran out of victims after one, and there won't be even an effort to get them to stop.

No gun control. Period. Enough killing.

TheRedneck

a reply to: LordAhriman

At 5:00 AM... yes, I answer with a gun either in hand or right beside me.

Anyone who doesn't is taking their life in their hands.

TheRedneck

a reply to: LordAhriman

What if it's not routine? What if it's an unexpected knock at 0500hrs, you live in a very rural area 125 yards from the road, and the average law enforcement response is 10-15 minutes at best. I'd argue that in that case, it'd be a reasonable thing for me to do.

Context is everything.

Also, I didn't vote for Trump, don't particularly like him. He didn't have anything to do with HB 1302 in Maryland or this situation. So what does he have to do with the OP?

originally posted by: LordAhriman
I'm sorry, if you routinely answer the door with a gun in your hand, you're insane and don't need to own guns.

Also this.

t3h LibR'aL aGENda

I don't own a gun, but I do own items for self defense. Our apartment isn't necessarily in a bad part of town, but it's located right on the edge of town limits and we do get a LOT of drifters that have been known to break into cars in the area.

Now, nobody comes to our apartment as we prefer to visit other peoples homes(we're lazy/messy/boring lol), so if someone comes to my door during normal day hours then I assume they're trying to sell me something. What's weird is that nobody really comes to our door at normal hours, it's always very weird hours, such as 8pm on a snowy Sunday evening. That's fishy enough in my eyes and makes me wonder if it's people scoping places out to rob.

The point I'm getting to is that if someone came to my door at 5:30am, that is 100% completely unusual and will make me proceed very cautiously. I will look through the peephole and if I do not recognize the person I will not answer the door. I will, however, have one of my self defense items in hand. With the way the world is going I am pondering looking into getting a handgun, and in these situations, I will have it available if someone comes knocking that early in the morning.

If taking precaution to protect my wife and myself makes me insane, then I guess I'm insane. All I know is in my 39 years of life on this planet I have found that you must trust your instinct, and someone knocking on my door at 5:30am my instinct tells me to be careful.

originally posted by: LordAhriman
I'm sorry, if you routinely answer the door with a gun in your hand, you're insane and don't need to own guns.

You're wrong, fyi.

Knocking on someone's door at 5 am, in the dark, waking them up... That's a fantastic way to start a robbery.

originally posted by: WUNK22
Just another way to disarm the populace. Brought to you by the left. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Obama, ect,ect.....

And murdered women, children and others under protective order killed by armed men who violated that order.

First, I am not one to take these laws lightly and in general believe they are not reasonable.

But when Uncle Joe start shooting out the windows and threatening the neighbors, who is going to have to shoot him to stop it. Family or police.

Is it no confiscation unless a law is broken? Demonstrate an actual problem or no one can take you guns?

Let that be a warning to the cold dead hands gun fetishists out there. Seems they are willing to oblige. Don’t worry though, I’m sure you will fare so much better. Lol. a reply to: cynicalheathen

Let that be a warning to the cold dead hands gun fetishists out there. Seems they are willing to oblige

How long before he police no longer get through the door because people know their life will be in danger.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: djz3ro

It's been discussed to death on these forums, any attempt at confiscation would be futile.

Per capita, where is the evidence of a "mass shooting epidemic" beyond constant media coverage? Actual numbers and stats please.

I speak with police in my area on a regular basis. Most of the shooting "victims" around here are far from innocent. They are usually criminals shot during the commission of some sort of crime.

In my area 95% of shootings are gang or drug related, in one fashion or another. Last week one of my neighbors was killed in a home invasion. The home owner is a cancer patient, two hood rats forced there way in and the visiting son-in-law was killed by an invader. The bad guys are at large.
The crime rate soars after the time change. I won’t leave home without a weapon until it changes back in the spring. We call it the silly season.

Read the article.

He answered the door with a gun in his hand.

He put the gun down, then picked it up again when the officers served the order. A struggle ensued and the gun discharged.

He was then shot.

The officers serving the order have a right to protect themselves. They did not create the order or the law. Had the man complied with the legal order he would still be alive.

You might want to investigate the reason for the order.. However, who answers a door with a gun in their had?

However, who answers a door with a gun in their had?

People who prefer to not be victims.

I don't know where you live, but around here it's not common to answer the door with a gun in your hand

Perhaps in your neck of the woods this is standard manors.

Have a great day

a reply to: roadgravel

a reply to: Wildbob77

It's great that you live in a crime free area. There are still evil people in the world.