What Will Gun Controllers Do When Americans Ignore an ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban?

As well as a vivid imagination

 

That doesn't mean these incidents can't be analyzed after the fact.

 

I agree.

 

You are not Interested in facts or people that have walked in anyone's shoes, you merely want pointless, fruitless circular arguments that lead to naught but contentious blathering.

 

Both you and will have to agree to disagree on this thread.

 

You do whatever you want, it is indeed your Right, however, I am not bound by your palaver to anything, So Why don't you prove your point ?

 

Lack of capacity to do so.

 

He knows we are right.

 

Police officers and government agents are the only ones authorized to use deadly force as a first response in carrying out their duties, that being enforcing united states law. They are under no legal obligation to engage in accuracy when they are discharging their weapons, because they almost never face consequences when bystanders are hit, or private property is damaged as a result.

Comparatively, private citizens are held responsible for each and every round that is discharged, and whatever degree of damage occurs as a result of their actions. Ergo private citizens have far more motivation to be well practiced and experienced than law enforcement.

 

If what you say is true, then what is their legal obligation when they are discharging their weapons?

Do you feel that this is just?

 

Discharging of a firearm in a law enforcement capacity usually involves one scenario, that being elimination of a potential threat to the safety of a police officer, even if that risk is nonexistent under the given circumstances. Those who consider themselves reasonable individuals would point out that a dog in a kennel, or a suspect who is fleeing from the scene, poses no threat to the responding police officer, and does not warrant deadly force in response. However the courts have held that the use of deadly force was objectively reasonable because the police officer claimed it was reasonable, and they feared for their lives.

Comparably, a private citizen cannot make the same claim under the same circumstances, and expect it to work.

What is or is not felt is of no relevance to the discussion. It does not change the fact that it is how the system works, and will continue to work regardless.

 

And Gun Ban lovers are not well trained, and Members of the Gun Grabbers Organized Militia.

 

dear, both posse and well regulated militia may not be Infringed when helping execute the law for their county or State.

posse duty is an obligation, like jury duty. gun lovers would not be subject to silliness, by simply clamoring for a posse or militia relationship with the State or county.

 

The unregulated militia can't be infringed either. You still didn't answer my question. What specific laws you want passed?

 

When a member of the Public shoots someone in self defense, the parameters of most shootings have similar parameters, the circumstances determine the outcome, one learns to only shoot, ROE, If absolutely necessary, then there are no charges, and everything is OK.
It gets complicated sometimes, however, previous law enforcement experience comes in handy as far as what to say, and how NOT TO TELL THE STORY !
I learned this lesson and taught it to others when taking Statements from Fellow Officers and correcting errors in their statements.

Your best help is your States penal code, it defines every circumstance where it is Legal to use Lethal force.
Read it, memorize it, it is your best friend, I taught it in CCW classes.

 

None of which changes the fact that police officers are held to a much lower standard of review in the use of deadly force than the members of the general public. Police officers are allowed to shoot individuals in the back who are in the act of fleeing the scene, and justify it as being afraid for their lives, whereas members of the public cannot.

 

you need to read Tennessee V Garner cause you are dead wrong.

 

You may wish to reread the Garner ruling yourself. The supreme court did not rule it unconstitutional for police officers to use deadly force to prevent a suspect from fleeing the scene. They merely specified that the police officer must have probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to others if they are allowed to flee.

As other cases have shown, police officers will claim probable cause exists even when there is none in order to justify their actions, and it is difficult if not impossible to prove otherwise. Police officers have routinely claimed probable cause and reasonable suspicion to justify a search without a warrant after the property owner has refused them permission to carry out a search of said property, leaving the owner with no recourse but to comply or face arrest.

Illinois v Gates ruled that probable cause is met simply if the officer believes there is a fair probability of criminal activity occurring. That amounts to a low threshold that must be met before deadly force can be used.

 

I do not remember it ever being that way, it took weeks of observation and video surveillance and undercover drug buys and building up a solid case, to get a search warrant for a known drug house, then TNT and ESU and a lots squads would block off the streets, and execute the warrant, a major operation.

People do not realize how easy it is for a case to be dismissed by a Judge.

Federal Court after a major Drug seizure, 200 kilos of Cocaine, numerous full auto M-16s, other weapons and Marijuana, plenty of other contraband.

The Pre-trial motions, they are only going to prosecute the Drug charges, not any weapons charges.
I notice the accused is smiling like the Cheshire Cat.

Then suddenly the warrant is questioned, turns out, the warrant was for apartment 10A, and this guy had legally joined two apartments, 10A and 10B, and all the contraband was in 10B !!!!

The case was dismissed.

 

Which does what to address the facts of the discussion? Police officers are held to a much lower standard of review than private citizens when it comes to the usage of deadly force against an individual. A police officer is allowed to claim they were in fear of their life when shooting a fleeing suspect in the back, whereas a private citizen cannot do the same.

 

Yes, they can, and, not Only that, they are specifically subject to the police power of a State, simply for being gun lovers who don't love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.

What do you think of posse duty registration as the Only form of registration for gun lovers.

 

They are only subject to being a law abiding citizen. There's no obligation to be attached to any government agency.

That's fine if its not mandatory.

 

Posse duty is like jury duty.

 

You Gun Ban Lovers are a strange lot.

 

How so? Very few individuals will ever actually serve jury duty, due to most cases being resolved with plea bargains rather than trials. In most circumstances, juries are theoretical constructs of thought rather than something that physically exists.