User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:16:13 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: There's an amazing irony in asking who a guy that was killed would have needed to defend himself. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: Originally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By Beltfed308: Originally Posted By BCPVP: The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C) 790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms. If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. The only logical purpose of answering a door with gun in hand and visible is to threaten the person on the other side. That it turned out to be a cop on the other side of the door who was probably on alert given the nature of the call was bad luck for the airman. Airman was acting in self defence inside his home. Try again. What was he defending himself against? If he really did think he needed to defend himself, why open the door? He wanted to give some potential bad guy a better chance of shooting him first? There's an amazing irony in asking who a guy that was killed would have needed to defend himself. You don't have a right to brandish guns and put other people in fear they're about to be shot and you can't justifiably complain if the people you threaten by brandishing a gun react accordingly. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:16:35 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Agree. Swiftly firing, then charging this guy with murder and going to trial seems appropriate. Reasonable people would expect and be satisfied with that. But we've also seen, with the Floyd saga, when the person responsible was tried and held accountable in the media, far beyond that of a legitimate justice system. And it did not matter. Leftist zealots burned down half the country anyway and few were held accountable. So we have seen this example, as well as others that promotes the us vs them mentality that some police have. So while it's obvious the officer is in the wrong, it's also fairly obvious what the leftist agitators will try to do with this, in an election year. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By SmilingBandit: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By Sixgunner45: Pure murder. And some here are defending it. Deal with your own problems. Never answer the door to the police (or if you aren't expecting someone). You just might get killed by a coward cop. I agree. But I hope the race baiters and cop haters don't make too much of this tragedy. While it is legitimately worse than the George Floyd fiasco, it is still just one jumpy cop, who made a big mistake and killed one man. We don't need to kill and injure dozens more, and lose billions burning down half the country over it. There is a completely appropriate and great way to make it so that people can't make "too much" out of a man being killed in a manner that isn't justifiable for anyone other than the "reasonable officer". The person who killed someone that wasn't a threat to him needs to be held personally accountable for his actions. When you do that anyone that says "Justice for Roger" can be shut up with facts. Unfortunately what is likely to happen is that the killer will be held to a woefully low standard for killing innocent men and only the taxpayers will be liable. A lot of people have a problem with that. Agree. Swiftly firing, then charging this guy with murder and going to trial seems appropriate. Reasonable people would expect and be satisfied with that. But we've also seen, with the Floyd saga, when the person responsible was tried and held accountable in the media, far beyond that of a legitimate justice system. And it did not matter. Leftist zealots burned down half the country anyway and few were held accountable. So we have seen this example, as well as others that promotes the us vs them mentality that some police have. So while it's obvious the officer is in the wrong, it's also fairly obvious what the leftist agitators will try to do with this, in an election year. There are going to be people that take advantage of a tragedy when things are done right. But if you don't even have support of folks that look at the facts rather than the fiction, you're going to lose hard. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:17:47 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TAG_Match: You’re absolutely right! “Why did he feel the need to open his door with a holstered handgun?” “A holstered handgun is brandishing (because I’m a cop ball gargler and they said so)”, “Wasn’t to bright coming to the door with a holstered pistol. What was he afraid of? He wouldn’t have been open carrying like that if he wasn’t trying to intimidate someone”. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TAG_Match: Originally Posted By SmilingBandit: Originally Posted By TAG_Match: Originally Posted By BCPVP: The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C) 790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms. If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. The only logical purpose of answering a door with gun in hand and visible is to threaten the person on the other side. That it turned out to be a cop on the other side of the door who was probably on alert given the nature of the call was bad luck for the airman. Good thing it’s not up to you what constitutes “brandishing”. Innocent citizens would get killed because of people like you. Oh, wait! https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/583190/EF77A370-D38E-4C5E-A2E9-2B5D2B4BA52B_jpe-3211715.JPG It’s a gun grabber’s definition. The exact same thing could be said if the gun was in a holster. You’re absolutely right! “Why did he feel the need to open his door with a holstered handgun?” “A holstered handgun is brandishing (because I’m a cop ball gargler and they said so)”, “Wasn’t to bright coming to the door with a holstered pistol. What was he afraid of? He wouldn’t have been open carrying like that if he wasn’t trying to intimidate someone”. And a guy can draw from a holster and shoot someone before the other person can react. Don't make me show the math*. * - The math is just some numbers with no math. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:18:40 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: It's a gun grabber's definition. The exact same thing could be said if the gun was in a holster. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: Originally Posted By TAG_Match: Originally Posted By BCPVP: The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C) 790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms. If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. The only logical purpose of answering a door with gun in hand and visible is to threaten the person on the other side. That it turned out to be a cop on the other side of the door who was probably on alert given the nature of the call was bad luck for the airman. Good thing it's not up to you what constitutes "brandishing". Innocent citizens would get killed because of people like you. Oh, wait! https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/583190/EF77A370-D38E-4C5E-A2E9-2B5D2B4BA52B_jpe-3211715.JPG It's a gun grabber's definition. The exact same thing could be said if the gun was in a holster. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:20:04 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PepePewPew: Was there ever a time, say, after the signing of the Geneva Convention, that what we see here would not have been a war crime? This was in response to a comment that some outragee said he wished the military had the same roe as the cop, ie shooting an armed military aged man on sight. My counterpoint addressed that. Geneva convention ain’t got a dog in that! |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:20:18 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: Let's pretend Fortsman answered the door with no gun in hand. Do you think he still gets shot? Do you understand how cause and effect works? You don't have a right to brandish guns and put other people in fear they're about to be shot and you can't justifiably complain if the people you threaten by brandishing a gun react accordingly. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By SmilingBandit: Originally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By Beltfed308: Originally Posted By BCPVP: The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C) 790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms. If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. The only logical purpose of answering a door with gun in hand and visible is to threaten the person on the other side. That it turned out to be a cop on the other side of the door who was probably on alert given the nature of the call was bad luck for the airman. Airman was acting in self defence inside his home. Try again. What was he defending himself against? If he really did think he needed to defend himself, why open the door? He wanted to give some potential bad guy a better chance of shooting him first? There's an amazing irony in asking who a guy that was killed would have needed to defend himself. You don't have a right to brandish guns and put other people in fear they're about to be shot and you can't justifiably complain if the people you threaten by brandishing a gun react accordingly. It’s sad when you guys don’t even realize that you are basically arguing that us regular joes should interact with police with the same caution we would a wild animal. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:20:46 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: Let's pretend Fortsman answered the door with no gun in hand. Do you think he still gets shot? Do you understand how cause and effect works? You don't have a right to brandish guns and put other people in fear they're about to be shot and you can't justifiably complain if the people you threaten by brandishing a gun react accordingly. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By SmilingBandit: Originally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By Beltfed308: Originally Posted By BCPVP: The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C) 790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms. If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. The only logical purpose of answering a door with gun in hand and visible is to threaten the person on the other side. That it turned out to be a cop on the other side of the door who was probably on alert given the nature of the call was bad luck for the airman. Airman was acting in self defence inside his home. Try again. What was he defending himself against? If he really did think he needed to defend himself, why open the door? He wanted to give some potential bad guy a better chance of shooting him first? There's an amazing irony in asking who a guy that was killed would have needed to defend himself. You don't have a right to brandish guns and put other people in fear they're about to be shot and you can't justifiably complain if the people you threaten by brandishing a gun react accordingly. That's a great job blaming the victim for him getting shot while acting legally. He also would have been alive if the officer didn't illegally detain him, escalate the situation, then kill the victim in self-defense while he wasn't being a threat. Also, are you using the Florida statutory definition of brandish or the one you feel it should be? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:23:06 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: Let's pretend Fortsman answered the door with no gun in hand. Do you think he still gets shot? Do you understand how cause and effect works? You don't have a right to brandish guns and put other people in fear they're about to be shot and you can't justifiably complain if the people you threaten by brandishing a gun react accordingly. He understands that holding a gun at your side and pointed in a safe direction is not cause to kill a man in his own home. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:23:22 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: A gun in a holster is treated differently in the law. Otherwise open carry would be impossible for handguns. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By SmilingBandit: Originally Posted By TAG_Match: Originally Posted By BCPVP: The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C) 790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms. If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. The only logical purpose of answering a door with gun in hand and visible is to threaten the person on the other side. That it turned out to be a cop on the other side of the door who was probably on alert given the nature of the call was bad luck for the airman. Good thing it's not up to you what constitutes "brandishing". Innocent citizens would get killed because of people like you. Oh, wait! https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/583190/EF77A370-D38E-4C5E-A2E9-2B5D2B4BA52B_jpe-3211715.JPG It's a gun grabber's definition. The exact same thing could be said if the gun was in a holster. In the Florida statute there is no difference. It states the person needs to "exhibit" the gun. Now that you've lost that part of the argument, care to talk about the practical difference? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:24:21 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: He defensively opened the door to expose a gun to the person outside? If you perceived there was a threat right outside your door, would you open the door with your gun at your side? You're drowning. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:24:29 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek:  What was the threatening, careless or angry manner? Is being prepared for self defense, in your own home, not a logical purpose? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By BCPVP: I can't think of any tactical/safety benefit to opening your door with a gun in hand but at your side. If you're concerned, why are you opening the door in the first place? If you're not concerned, why are you answering with a gun in hand on full display? The only reasons that make any sense are if you plan to shoot the person on the other side of the door or you want to make them think you will/might. Don't really understand the pushback on this. WI is an open carry state but that doesn't mean I can walk around town with a gun in my hand, even if I don't point it at anyone. Likewise, being on my property doesn't mean it's impossible for me to brandish a gun. Define brandish. Please. 790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms. If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. The only logical purpose of answering a door with gun in hand and visible is to threaten the person on the other side. That it turned out to be a cop on the other side of the door who was probably on alert given the nature of the call was bad luck for the airman. What was the threatening, careless or angry manner? Is being prepared for self defense, in your own home, not a logical purpose? Which leaves the only other motivations as being to shoot or intimidate the person knocking. Since he didn't have the gun pointed when he answered, that really just leaves intimidation. Which is not lawful. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:24:48 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jDrexler: It’s sad when you guys don’t even realize that you are basically arguing that us regular joes should interact with police with the same caution we would a wild animal. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jDrexler: Originally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By SmilingBandit: Originally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By Beltfed308: Originally Posted By BCPVP: The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C) 790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms. If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. The only logical purpose of answering a door with gun in hand and visible is to threaten the person on the other side. That it turned out to be a cop on the other side of the door who was probably on alert given the nature of the call was bad luck for the airman. Airman was acting in self defence inside his home. Try again. What was he defending himself against? If he really did think he needed to defend himself, why open the door? He wanted to give some potential bad guy a better chance of shooting him first? There's an amazing irony in asking who a guy that was killed would have needed to defend himself. You don't have a right to brandish guns and put other people in fear they're about to be shot and you can't justifiably complain if the people you threaten by brandishing a gun react accordingly. It’s sad when you guys don’t even realize that you are basically arguing that us regular joes should interact with police with the same caution we would a wild animal.  WarGames - "The Only Winning Move" |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:25:07 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: Semantics are important. Otherwise we have to choose to live with what people feel like words should mean. It's a shame that you see men talking about how the English language should be accurately used and consider it their pussy being hurt. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: Originally Posted By Strike6: Originally Posted By Phil_Billy: Originally Posted By Strike6: Bad shoot all the way around. He saw the gun in the civilian's hands, made a verbal command, and then went lethal without any justification to do so and without giving time for the verbal command to take effect. If you're a LEO and you are defending this, you are absolutely the wrong man for the job. Period. First off the Airman is not a "civilian" and second off the Police are "civilians" you got that completely backward. About par for GD. You did at least get the bad shoot part right. Holy shit dude. Talk about semantics. And that is par for GD. Ok, I will do it over again for you so your pussy doesn't hurt. The civilian LEO saw a gun in a CITIZEN's hand and murdered him. Fuck, are you ok now? Semantics are important. Otherwise we have to choose to live with what people feel like words should mean. It's a shame that you see men talking about how the English language should be accurately used and consider it their pussy being hurt. God, another one who can't see the forrest for the trees... |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:25:44 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: A gun in hand, on display, for no other purpose. Opening the door with the gun indicates that the victim did not have a subjective fear of what was outside. No person with functioning survival instincts would give up the safety of staying inside if they truly believed there was a threat. Which leaves the only other motivations as being to shoot or intimidate the person knocking. Since he didn't have the gun pointed when he answered, that really just leaves intimidation. Which is not lawful. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By BCPVP: I can't think of any tactical/safety benefit to opening your door with a gun in hand but at your side. If you're concerned, why are you opening the door in the first place? If you're not concerned, why are you answering with a gun in hand on full display? The only reasons that make any sense are if you plan to shoot the person on the other side of the door or you want to make them think you will/might. Don't really understand the pushback on this. WI is an open carry state but that doesn't mean I can walk around town with a gun in my hand, even if I don't point it at anyone. Likewise, being on my property doesn't mean it's impossible for me to brandish a gun. Define brandish. Please. 790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms. If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. The only logical purpose of answering a door with gun in hand and visible is to threaten the person on the other side. That it turned out to be a cop on the other side of the door who was probably on alert given the nature of the call was bad luck for the airman. What was the threatening, careless or angry manner? Is being prepared for self defense, in your own home, not a logical purpose? Which leaves the only other motivations as being to shoot or intimidate the person knocking. Since he didn't have the gun pointed when he answered, that really just leaves intimidation. Which is not lawful. Do you have case law to support that position or is that your feelings on the subject? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:25:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Lug1]
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C) 790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms. If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. The only logical purpose of answering a door with gun in hand and visible is to threaten the person on the other side. That it turned out to be a cop on the other side of the door who was probably on alert given the nature of the call was bad luck for the airman. ETA: Nothing he did was rude threatening or careless, you are making shit up and assigning it to him to make your point SEEM more valid, only NO. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:26:16 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: A gun in hand, on display, for no other purpose. Opening the door with the gun indicates that the victim did not have a subjective fear of what was outside. No person with functioning survival instincts would give up the safety of staying inside if they truly believed there was a threat. Which leaves the only other motivations as being to shoot or intimidate the person knocking. Since he didn't have the gun pointed when he answered, that really just leaves intimidation. Which is not lawful. You're drowning |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:26:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: SmilingBandit]
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Strike6: God, another one who can't see the forrest for the trees... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Strike6: Originally Posted By SmilingBandit: Originally Posted By Strike6: Originally Posted By Phil_Billy: Originally Posted By Strike6: Bad shoot all the way around. He saw the gun in the civilian's hands, made a verbal command, and then went lethal without any justification to do so and without giving time for the verbal command to take effect. If you're a LEO and you are defending this, you are absolutely the wrong man for the job. Period. First off the Airman is not a "civilian" and second off the Police are "civilians" you got that completely backward. About par for GD. You did at least get the bad shoot part right. Holy shit dude. Talk about semantics. And that is par for GD. Ok, I will do it over again for you so your pussy doesn't hurt. The civilian LEO saw a gun in a CITIZEN's hand and murdered him. Fuck, are you ok now? Semantics are important. Otherwise we have to choose to live with what people feel like words should mean. It's a shame that you see men talking about how the English language should be accurately used and consider it their pussy being hurt. God, another one who can't see the forrest for the trees... Words matter. If you feel differently, I'm not sorry. PS: There's one "r" in forest. 
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:31:04 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: Brandishing is not perfectly legal. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By BCPVP: I can't think of any tactical/safety benefit to opening your door with a gun in hand but at your side. If you're concerned, why are you opening the door in the first place? If you're not concerned, why are you answering with a gun in hand on full display? The only reasons that make any sense are if you plan to shoot the person on the other side of the door or you want to make them think you will/might. Don't really understand the pushback on this. WI is an open carry state but that doesn't mean I can walk around town with a gun in my hand, even if I don't point it at anyone. Likewise, being on my property doesn't mean it's impossible for me to brandish a gun. Because the kid was doing nothing wrong. Opening the door with a pistol in your hand is perfectly legal. He was in his own fucking home, minding his own fucking business. And now he is dead. Due to a situation created entirely by the presence of a police officer, and justified by the uniform he was wearing. You don't understand the problem with this? i wouldn't call what I saw on video as Brandishing, thats a big stretch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:31:22 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jDrexler: It's sad when you guys don't even realize that you are basically arguing that us regular joes should interact with police with the same caution we would a wild animal. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:32:29 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: On the contrary, interacting with a wild, dangerous type of animal would definitely justify having a gun in hand. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By jDrexler: It's sad when you guys don't even realize that you are basically arguing that us regular joes should interact with police with the same caution we would a wild animal. Man, talk about a self-own |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:34:41 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: And a guy can draw from a holster and shoot someone before the other person can react. Don't make me show the math*. * - The math is just some numbers with no math. The criminal knows what he is going to do before he does it, he just works himself up to do it or waits for an opportunity to do it, then does it. The victim's brain takes a few seconds to react. Also goes back to the "knife drill". A criminal armed, at 7 yards away, 21 feet, can advance and attack you faster than an average person or cop can draw. (Especially considering the differences between the thumb strapped Level 2 retention holsters used on LE duty belts and regular person CCW with IWB, OWB or groin carry combined with seasonal clothing) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:35:09 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lug1: He didn't brandish a fucking gun. was pointed down and finger off the trigger. Just stop with the gymnastics. He was in HIS place of residence, not outside of it. JUST STOP. ETA: Nothing he did was rude threatening or careless, you are making shit up and assigning it to him to make your point SEEM more valid, only NO. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By BCPVP: The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C) 790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms. If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. The only logical purpose of answering a door with gun in hand and visible is to threaten the person on the other side. That it turned out to be a cop on the other side of the door who was probably on alert given the nature of the call was bad luck for the airman. ETA: Nothing he did was rude threatening or careless, you are making shit up and assigning it to him to make your point SEEM more valid, only NO. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:38:13 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By stoner63a: You can. Back when I was a fine tuned up implement of law enforcement, I could draw from holster, put 2 rounds in the 10 ring at 10yds in 0.6 seconds. The criminal knows what he is going to do before he does it, he just works himself up to do it or waits for an opportunity to do it, then does it. The victim's brain takes a few seconds to react. Also goes back to the "knife drill". A criminal armed, at 7 yards away, 21 feet, can advance and attack you faster than an average person or cop can draw. (Especially considering the differences between the thumb strapped Level 2 retention holsters used on LE duty belts and regular person CCW with IWB, OWB or groin carry combined with seasonal clothing) Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By stoner63a: Originally Posted By SmilingBandit: And a guy can draw from a holster and shoot someone before the other person can react. Don't make me show the math*. * - The math is just some numbers with no math. The criminal knows what he is going to do before he does it, he just works himself up to do it or waits for an opportunity to do it, then does it. The victim's brain takes a few seconds to react. Also goes back to the "knife drill". A criminal armed, at 7 yards away, 21 feet, can advance and attack you faster than an average person or cop can draw. (Especially considering the differences between the thumb strapped Level 2 retention holsters used on LE duty belts and regular person CCW with IWB, OWB or groin carry combined with seasonal clothing) Thanks. So there's no practical difference between a holstered gun and one held the victim's hand in a non-threatening manner. Either can be just as deadly before the target has a chance to react. For those that say this an excusable, justifiable, whatever synonym of good you choose: Would the shooting be equally so if the victim had the gun open carried in a holster? If yes, why? |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:38:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: jDrexler]
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: On the contrary, interacting with a wild, dangerous type of animal would definitely justify having a gun in hand. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By jDrexler: It's sad when you guys don't even realize that you are basically arguing that us regular joes should interact with police with the same caution we would a wild animal. Whoosh. You also seemingly completely misunderstand what I’m saying. Trained professional LEO are given a massive breadth of conduct in which their mistakes are deemed expected and acceptable. The untrained people they interact with are expected to not make any mistakes or else it’s their fault and “what else would you expect to happen?”. Hypothetically speaking, if the Airman had recognized the imminent threat to his life in that moment and defended himself, would you be giving the same level of leeway to him, and simply write it off as “well maybe you shouldn’t draw on people in their homes” I doubt it. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:39:31 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: Are you under the impression that the only way a gun can be said to be "brandished" is if it's pointed at someone? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By BCPVP: The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C) 790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms. If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. The only logical purpose of answering a door with gun in hand and visible is to threaten the person on the other side. That it turned out to be a cop on the other side of the door who was probably on alert given the nature of the call was bad luck for the airman. ETA: Nothing he did was rude threatening or careless, you are making shit up and assigning it to him to make your point SEEM more valid, only NO. In Florida it requires that the weapon be exhibited in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:41:57 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TresOsos: i wouldn't call what I saw on video as Brandishing, thats a big stretch. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TresOsos: Originally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By BCPVP: I can't think of any tactical/safety benefit to opening your door with a gun in hand but at your side. If you're concerned, why are you opening the door in the first place? If you're not concerned, why are you answering with a gun in hand on full display? The only reasons that make any sense are if you plan to shoot the person on the other side of the door or you want to make them think you will/might. Don't really understand the pushback on this. WI is an open carry state but that doesn't mean I can walk around town with a gun in my hand, even if I don't point it at anyone. Likewise, being on my property doesn't mean it's impossible for me to brandish a gun. Because the kid was doing nothing wrong. Opening the door with a pistol in your hand is perfectly legal. He was in his own fucking home, minding his own fucking business. And now he is dead. Due to a situation created entirely by the presence of a police officer, and justified by the uniform he was wearing. You don't understand the problem with this? i wouldn't call what I saw on video as Brandishing, thats a big stretch. Maybe homosexuals and heterosexuals have different interpretations of “brandishing”? Because the heterosexuals don’t believe this to be brandishing:  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:43:34 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: On the contrary, interacting with a wild, dangerous type of animal would definitely justify having a gun in hand. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By jDrexler: It's sad when you guys don't even realize that you are basically arguing that us regular joes should interact with police with the same caution we would a wild animal. Exactly! Therefore the airman was prudent answering the door with a gun. It’s unfortunate he did not appreciate the level of danger he was in. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:45:32 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: Do you have case law to support that position or is that your feelings on the subject? I suspect this cop is never charged. Maybe the sheriff let's him go or disciplines him for not waiting for back-up? But that would be for violating policy, not the law. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:45:33 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: A gun in hand, on display, for no other purpose. Opening the door with the gun indicates that the victim did not have a subjective fear of what was outside. No person with functioning survival instincts would give up the safety of staying inside if they truly believed there was a threat. Which leaves the only other motivations as being to shoot or intimidate the person knocking. Since he didn't have the gun pointed when he answered, that really just leaves intimidation. Which is not lawful. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By BCPVP: I can't think of any tactical/safety benefit to opening your door with a gun in hand but at your side. If you're concerned, why are you opening the door in the first place? If you're not concerned, why are you answering with a gun in hand on full display? The only reasons that make any sense are if you plan to shoot the person on the other side of the door or you want to make them think you will/might. Don't really understand the pushback on this. WI is an open carry state but that doesn't mean I can walk around town with a gun in my hand, even if I don't point it at anyone. Likewise, being on my property doesn't mean it's impossible for me to brandish a gun. Define brandish. Please. 790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms. If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. The only logical purpose of answering a door with gun in hand and visible is to threaten the person on the other side. That it turned out to be a cop on the other side of the door who was probably on alert given the nature of the call was bad luck for the airman. What was the threatening, careless or angry manner? Is being prepared for self defense, in your own home, not a logical purpose? Which leaves the only other motivations as being to shoot or intimidate the person knocking. Since he didn't have the gun pointed when he answered, that really just leaves intimidation. Which is not lawful. Absolute nonsense. It is well known and commonly accepted that criminals pose as delivery men, and cops to gain entry to rob and kill normal people. I have opened my door for people, with a gun in my hand, for this reason. SCOTUS has regularly affirmed the right to keep and bear arms. The most tested, proven and supported RTKBA is using a pistol in defense of self in the home. If the FL law of brandishing were appropriately applied as you describe, then it would be an unconstitutional law. Given the above, plenty of normal people regularly open the door ready to kill attackers. There are self defense trainers who teach to do that. Arguing that constitutes brandishing is complete nonsense. It's reasonable to assume that's what this guy did. Opened the door to see what someone claiming to be a Deputy wanted. He assumed the Deputy would not shoot him by taking up a defensive posture. The Deputy illegally shot him anyway. At no time did this guy show any aggression or intent to harm the Deputy. He kept his weapon pointed away and raised his off hand in a clear sign of submission. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:46:01 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: A gun in hand, on display, for no other purpose. Opening the door with the gun indicates that the victim did not have a subjective fear of what was outside. No person with functioning survival instincts would give up the safety of staying inside if they truly believed there was a threat. Which leaves the only other motivations as being to shoot or intimidate the person knocking. Since he didn't have the gun pointed when he answered, that really just leaves intimidation. Which is not lawful. This is quite the stretch of yours, Body Composition Program Vice President! Question for you: if a man is carrying his AR across the house with the lights on, blinds open, and it's dark out, can an officer driving by the house light him up? He is "brandishing" after all. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:49:35 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: In Florida it requires that the weapon be exhibited in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: Originally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By BCPVP: The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C) 790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms. If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. The only logical purpose of answering a door with gun in hand and visible is to threaten the person on the other side. That it turned out to be a cop on the other side of the door who was probably on alert given the nature of the call was bad luck for the airman. ETA: Nothing he did was rude threatening or careless, you are making shit up and assigning it to him to make your point SEEM more valid, only NO. In Florida it requires that the weapon be exhibited in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:51:09 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: On the contrary, interacting with a wild, dangerous type of animal would definitely justify having a gun in hand. That cop is a wild, dangerous type of animal |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:52:55 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TAG_Match: Exactly! Therefore the airman was prudent answering the door with a gun. It's unfortunate he did not appreciate the level of danger he was in. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TAG_Match: Originally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By jDrexler: It's sad when you guys don't even realize that you are basically arguing that us regular joes should interact with police with the same caution we would a wild animal. Exactly! Therefore the airman was prudent answering the door with a gun. It's unfortunate he did not appreciate the level of danger he was in. What danger would the airmen have likely faced if he had opened the door with no gun in hand? I guess you think the cops are always out hunting young black men for sport so the very existence of an officer at his door was a lethal threat? BLM-level thinking going on in this thread. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:53:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Missilegeek]
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TAG_Match: Maybe homosexuals and heterosexuals have different interpretations of “brandishing”? Because the heterosexuals don’t believe this to be brandishing: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/583190/40104ADD-976E-402E-85B5-355CE3851CE4_jpe-3211762.JPG Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TAG_Match: Originally Posted By TresOsos: Originally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By BCPVP: I can't think of any tactical/safety benefit to opening your door with a gun in hand but at your side. If you're concerned, why are you opening the door in the first place? If you're not concerned, why are you answering with a gun in hand on full display? The only reasons that make any sense are if you plan to shoot the person on the other side of the door or you want to make them think you will/might. Don't really understand the pushback on this. WI is an open carry state but that doesn't mean I can walk around town with a gun in my hand, even if I don't point it at anyone. Likewise, being on my property doesn't mean it's impossible for me to brandish a gun. Because the kid was doing nothing wrong. Opening the door with a pistol in your hand is perfectly legal. He was in his own fucking home, minding his own fucking business. And now he is dead. Due to a situation created entirely by the presence of a police officer, and justified by the uniform he was wearing. You don't understand the problem with this? i wouldn't call what I saw on video as Brandishing, thats a big stretch. Maybe homosexuals and heterosexuals have different interpretations of “brandishing”? Because the heterosexuals don’t believe this to be brandishing: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/583190/40104ADD-976E-402E-85B5-355CE3851CE4_jpe-3211762.JPG Clearly, the faggots consider that "threatening" because anyone but them having a gun is a threat. If we were to apply that same gay standard, I could just draw my CCW and legally shoot any cop I see on the street, for brandishing a gun that I feel threatened by. Obviously I would never do that, because for one that's not how the law works anywhere. And two, I am not a faggot who feels immediately threatened by another man possessing a gun in a non threatening manner. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:53:47 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: I understand that. Lug1 doesn't seem to because he's hung up on the fact that the gun was pointed downward being proof that it's not brandishing. Watch the video. Its manslaughter. Open and shut. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:55:47 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: I understand that. Lug1 doesn't seem to because he's hung up on the fact that the gun was pointed downward being proof that it's not brandishing. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By SmilingBandit: Originally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By BCPVP: The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C) 790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms. If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. The only logical purpose of answering a door with gun in hand and visible is to threaten the person on the other side. That it turned out to be a cop on the other side of the door who was probably on alert given the nature of the call was bad luck for the airman. ETA: Nothing he did was rude threatening or careless, you are making shit up and assigning it to him to make your point SEEM more valid, only NO. In Florida it requires that the weapon be exhibited in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense. Still waiting for you to back up your claims of brandishing, by explaining how any of those conditions were met in this instance? |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:56:52 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Still waiting for you to back up your claims of brandishing, by explaining how any of those conditions were met in this instance? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Originally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By SmilingBandit: Originally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By BCPVP: The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C) 790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms. If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. The only logical purpose of answering a door with gun in hand and visible is to threaten the person on the other side. That it turned out to be a cop on the other side of the door who was probably on alert given the nature of the call was bad luck for the airman. ETA: Nothing he did was rude threatening or careless, you are making shit up and assigning it to him to make your point SEEM more valid, only NO. In Florida it requires that the weapon be exhibited in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense. Still waiting for you to back up your claims of brandishing, by explaining how any of those conditions were met in this instance? I assume it’s simply a matter of “I’d have shot him too” |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 3:57:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Notcalifornialegal]
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Still waiting for you to back up your claims of brandishing, by explaining how any of those conditions were met in this instance? "Brandishing" 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 4:00:19 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: Absolute nonsense. It is well known and commonly accepted that criminals pose as delivery men, and cops to gain entry to rob and kill normal people. I have opened my door for people, with a gun in my hand, for this reason. SCOTUS has regularly affirmed the right to keep and bear arms. The most tested, proven and supported RTKBA is using a pistol in defense of self in the home. If the FL law of brandishing were appropriately applied as you describe, then it would be an unconstitutional law. Given the above, plenty of normal people regularly open the door ready to kill attackers. There are self defense trainers who teach to do that. Arguing that constitutes brandishing is complete nonsense. It's reasonable to assume that's what this guy did. Opened the door to see what someone claiming to be a Deputy wanted. He assumed the Deputy would not shoot him by taking up a defensive posture. The Deputy illegally shot him anyway. At no time did this guy show any aggression or intent to harm the Deputy. He kept his weapon pointed away and raised his off hand in a clear sign of submission. Amazon delivery driver rings the doorbell and you show up with a gun visible to them in your hand? Be fucking honest for a moment: if you saw it was a cop at your door, you're still going to answer it with a gun in your hand, on the off chance it's actually an criminal posing as a cop? Andrew Branca of the LawofSelfDefense.com is planning on discussing this case in further depth come Monday, but from the twitter responses I've seen so far, he recognizes this as lawful. I trust his evaluations far more than anyone on this thread. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 4:04:10 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Notcalifornialegal: Watch the video. Its manslaughter. Open and shut. 2nd degree murder. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 4:05:16 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Notcalifornialegal: "Brandishing" https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/219476/1000008360-3211775.jpg Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Notcalifornialegal: Originally Posted By Missilegeek: Still waiting for you to back up your claims of brandishing, by explaining how any of those conditions were met in this instance? "Brandishing" https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/219476/1000008360-3211775.jpg Fails to meet any of the following elements, much less the two necessary to be brandishing. exhibited in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense. Let's do a quick thought experiment for those of you who think this is brandishing. 1. Do homeowners have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms? 2. Does that right include self defense in the home? 3. If both #1 and #2 are yes, how and why do these rights end, when an unidentified person knocks on your door and you answer? Thanks for playing |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 4:06:45 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AK-12: This is quite the stretch of yours, Body Composition Program Vice President! Question for you: if a man is carrying his AR across the house with the lights on, blinds open, and it's dark out, can an officer driving by the house light him up? He is "brandishing" after all. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AK-12: Originally Posted By BCPVP: A gun in hand, on display, for no other purpose. Opening the door with the gun indicates that the victim did not have a subjective fear of what was outside. No person with functioning survival instincts would give up the safety of staying inside if they truly believed there was a threat. Which leaves the only other motivations as being to shoot or intimidate the person knocking. Since he didn't have the gun pointed when he answered, that really just leaves intimidation. Which is not lawful. This is quite the stretch of yours, Body Composition Program Vice President! Question for you: if a man is carrying his AR across the house with the lights on, blinds open, and it's dark out, can an officer driving by the house light him up? He is "brandishing" after all. My turn: Suppose a man lives in an open carry state. He's driving down the road and is pulled over by police. The officer asks the man to step out of the car. He steps out with a gun in his hand. What do you think happens to the guy? What do you think (legally) happens to the cop? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 4:10:49 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mikhail_86: That cop is a wild, dangerous type of animal Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mikhail_86: Originally Posted By BCPVP: On the contrary, interacting with a wild, dangerous type of animal would definitely justify having a gun in hand. That cop is a wild, dangerous type of animal Wild animals are unpredictable and you can't necessarily know what actions might cause an attack. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 4:11:17 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: A gun in hand, on display, for no other purpose. Opening the door with the gun indicates that the victim did not have a subjective fear of what was outside. No person with functioning survival instincts would give up the safety of staying inside if they truly believed there was a threat. Which leaves the only other motivations as being to shoot or intimidate the person knocking. Since he didn't have the gun pointed when he answered, that really just leaves intimidation. Which is not lawful. You have misjudged a large portion of the human race. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 4:11:34 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Notcalifornialegal: Watch the video. Its manslaughter. Open and shut. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Notcalifornialegal: Originally Posted By BCPVP: I understand that. Lug1 doesn't seem to because he's hung up on the fact that the gun was pointed downward being proof that it's not brandishing. Watch the video. Its manslaughter. Open and shut. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 4:13:39 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: Really? This whole situation went down extremely predictably. The guy appears in front of the cop armed with a gun and he got shot. If you recognize that it's dangerous to suddenly appear to have a gun in your hand, at close range, with a cop that's trying to interact with you, you can work backwards to figure out a smarter, safer way. Like, not answering the door with a gun in hand. Wild animals are unpredictable and you can't necessarily know what actions might cause an attack. Holy shit. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 4:15:04 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: Are you under the impression that the only way a gun can be said to be "brandished" is if it's pointed at someone? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By BCPVP: The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C) 790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms. If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. The only logical purpose of answering a door with gun in hand and visible is to threaten the person on the other side. That it turned out to be a cop on the other side of the door who was probably on alert given the nature of the call was bad luck for the airman. ETA: Nothing he did was rude threatening or careless, you are making shit up and assigning it to him to make your point SEEM more valid, only NO. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 4:15:45 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: Doesn't seem like it was very prudent, was it? What danger would the airmen have likely faced if he had opened the door with no gun in hand? I guess you think the cops are always out hunting young black men for sport so the very existence of an officer at his door was a lethal threat? BLM-level thinking going on in this thread. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By TAG_Match: Originally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By jDrexler: It's sad when you guys don't even realize that you are basically arguing that us regular joes should interact with police with the same caution we would a wild animal. Exactly! Therefore the airman was prudent answering the door with a gun. It's unfortunate he did not appreciate the level of danger he was in. What danger would the airmen have likely faced if he had opened the door with no gun in hand? I guess you think the cops are always out hunting young black men for sport so the very existence of an officer at his door was a lethal threat? BLM-level thinking going on in this thread. Dude, shootings like this are EXACTLY why some believe that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 4:15:57 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jackslack: You have misjudged a large portion of the human race. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jackslack: Originally Posted By BCPVP: A gun in hand, on display, for no other purpose. Opening the door with the gun indicates that the victim did not have a subjective fear of what was outside. No person with functioning survival instincts would give up the safety of staying inside if they truly believed there was a threat. Which leaves the only other motivations as being to shoot or intimidate the person knocking. Since he didn't have the gun pointed when he answered, that really just leaves intimidation. Which is not lawful. You have misjudged a large portion of the human race. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/11/2024 4:15:59 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: I understand that. Lug1 doesn't seem to because he's hung up on the fact that the gun was pointed downward being proof that it's not brandishing. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By SmilingBandit: Originally Posted By BCPVP: Originally Posted By Lug1: Originally Posted By BCPVP: The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C) 790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms. If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. The only logical purpose of answering a door with gun in hand and visible is to threaten the person on the other side. That it turned out to be a cop on the other side of the door who was probably on alert given the nature of the call was bad luck for the airman. ETA: Nothing he did was rude threatening or careless, you are making shit up and assigning it to him to make your point SEEM more valid, only NO. In Florida it requires that the weapon be exhibited in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
