2nd Amendment/Open Carry vs Police “I feared for my life”
Supporters of Open Carry and ‘Must Issue’ Concealed Carry insist that no one should be afraid of someone exercising his or her 2nd Amendment Rights whether that be in some public park or the aisles of your local Wal-Mart. Yet right along side that we have a doctrine that everyone should comply with every request made by a Peace Officer without question and without hesitation and if refusal to comply ends up with the application of force up to and including deadly force then a sufficient defense is “I feared for my life”.
Rarely have those two doctrines collided so openly as in North Carolina this week. North Carolina is an Open Carry State. Anyone has the right to carry a handgun in or out of a holster as long as they are not actively threatening someone. Which you think at a minimum would mean pointing the weapon at someone with some apparent hostile intent. But instead a man who was NOT the subject of the particular police search action stepped out of his car while visibly armed and after a disputed set of events was gunned down. Because police “feared for their lives”.
In another incident a man was gunned down in disputed circumstances by a woman police officer, also in fear for her life. But somewhat disturbingly a police officer in a helicopter, who oddly enough was the spouse of that shooting officer, described the shooting victim as “looks like a big bad dude”. From 500 feet in the air. Was he also “in fear for his life” and if so on what grounds? This man was not even visibly armed.
On balance I am a 2nd Amendment supporter, mostly because I am from a gun family and everyone but me owns at least one (well maybe not my 87 year old Mom). But if you are going to support Open Carry it has to apply equally to the guy wearing camo and carrying an assault rifle in a Luby’s in Texas and wearing a Gadsden flag on his hat and a Confederate flag on his vest and to some guy wearing a Black Lives Matter T-Shirt and carrying a pistol in a Church’s Chicken in North Carolina. We just can’t have a society be one where a cop just decides he is more scared of “big bad dude” than “good ol’ boy”.
Pick a side.
“North Carolina is an Open Carry State. Anyone has the right to carry a handgun in or out of a holster as long as they are not actively threatening someone.”
That is incorrect.
———————————————————————-
§ 14-277.2 Weapons at parades, etc., prohibited.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person participating in, affiliated with, or present as a spectator at any parade, funeral procession, picket line, or demonstration upon any private health care facility or upon any public place owned or under the control of the State or any of its political subdivisions to willfully or intentionally possess or have immediate access to any dangerous weapon.
———————————————————————-
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/pdf/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_35.pdf
Warren once again I followed your link and that section is quite specific as to location and event. There was no parade, funeral (as yet anyway), picket line or demonstration in progress at either a private health care facility or public place. So this specific prohibition did not apply. Plus the law is explicit that one can carried concealed on one’s own property. See: 14.269(A1)(1) And this gun wasn’t concealed in any case.
And please don’t insult my intelligence by claiming that you just zeroed in on this particular section of code because you knew it by heart. This was sourced to you.
Apparently, there also a “common law offence” called “Going Armed to the Terror of the People”: http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/going-armed-to-the-terror-of-the-people/
Clear violation of the 2nd Amendment. What part of “Right to bear arms” is unclear? If you ask the NRA.
And do you actually READ the links supplied to you by who knows who, who knows where? Can we define that offence:
A pistol is not an “unusual” weapon or per the NRA by nature “dangerous”.
The man was not on the highways or with any identifiable “purpose” to terrify
There were not “people” around to terrify. Except fully armed police.
And last I knew a Class 1 Misdemeanor is not in most jurisdictions a capital offense subject to immediate execution. It is not like they gave the guy a ticket.
More to the point, police officers can’t kill people because they are “scared”.
Much more to the point they don’t actually have to be “scared”. I learned this when I was a County employee taking a department wide class in ‘Self Defense Awareness’ (I guess you would call it) from two City cops. Among some other standard advice about how to keep yourself safe they discussed using force against an attacker and the possibility that it would result, by intention or not, in deadly force. One of my colleagues asked what you do if you accidentally kill someone in the course of defending yourself. And the answer was “Just tell the officers ‘I was in fear for my life’ and stick to it” And it didn’t take much for me to grasp that this was also lesson one that veteran cops taught would-be rookies at the Police Academy.
And probably good advice whatever the circumstances. For example I would tell civilians there are only two tried and true things to say to a cop if you are stopped in a car or on the street. One “I want to speak to an attorney” and “Am I free to go?” Whether you are actually guilty or not these individually or in combination can keep you out of the hoosegow. And in the years since that self defense training session I have seen reported dozens of examples of cops ‘explaining’ “I was in fear for my life”. And Internal Affairs types seemingly going “Well alrighty then! If you put it that way!! Here is your badge and gun”.
(Another good one is “He made a furtive move”. Because only the cop involved is in a position to define ‘furtive’. And “I thought it was a gun”. Because no investigator can really determine WHAT you thought. All good tools for your Cop Tool Belt.)
Ah come on now it is very clear what happen and the reason it happened. An African-American had a gun and a Police Officer with a gun got scared. Why, years of GOP propaganda and terror tales from other GOP propagandized older police officers. Thus any African-American with or without a weapon to these fear brainwashed Police Officers is a threat to them.
“a police officer in a helicopter, who oddly enough was the spouse of that shooting officer”
Are you sure about that? Seems a bit too odd. Perhaps you are confusing something Terence’s twin sister said, repeating those words “big, bad dude.”
Nope not sure. Guy in helicopter was reported as saying “big, bad dude”. So there is that.
And then there is this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/22/it-s-not-just-terence-crutcher-tulsa-s-policing-problems-run-deep.html
“Officer Shelby, 42, can be heard almost going hoarse when she screams, “Shots fired!” into her police radio. The officers at the scene left Crutcher in the road, failing to render medical aid for at least a minute, footage shows.
All the while, Shelby’s husband, fellow Tulsa officer and Iraq War vet Dave Shelby, was in the police helicopter circling above the deadly encounter.”
and then this:
“Her husband up in the sky was concerned but also apparently in no hurry to come to his wife’s aid.
When asked if he wanted to land the helicopter prematurely, Shelby’s husband is steadfast.
“We can go back if you need to,” his partner states as heard on the audio recording from the chopper following the fatal shooting.
“Big girl, man. I’ve got my job to do too,” Shelby’s helicopter pilot husband Dave Shelby said. “After we land I’ll go check on her.”
I put two and two together. But it could have been the other officer.
Here is my side.
If you own a gun and do not need it for your job and/or use it to hunt legal game, you have a huge self esteem problem. And more than likely need a lot of therapy.
My side.
Perhaps I misunderstood the situation — there is no link in the original post. Exactly what incident in North Carolina are we referring to? I though this post was about an open carry incident during the riots in Charlotte.
There was an episode that triggered those riots to start with. Perhaps you could have acquainted yourself with the bigger picture. Or STARTED by asking the question.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/21/keith-scott-shooting-charlotte-police-drop-gun
My post was by design more general. Over the last years and decades we have had two different national narratives that have largely played out in isolation.
One is that of 2nd Amendment Absolutists, generally but not always in the South and Southwest, who have been pushing for unlimited Open Carry, even in places like college campuses and bars and parks where children frequent. A very common mantra is that no one should be afraid of someone carrying a weapon that routinely can take a magazine of 30 rounds and if one likes can take a drum magazine of 100. A solid subsection of this group makes a point of carrying open in grocery stores and the like mostly for demonstration purposes, few actually expressing the need to carry that particular weapon in that particular place. As opposed to say wearing a sidearm.
The second narrative, one largely playing out in urban areas in the North and in suburban areas in the Border States and Atlantic Coast States, has been one of police involved shootings of people, mostly male black people, who are perceived to be dangers to the public or themselves and definitely to responding police, often simply because they are carrying something that might be a firearm. Or make a movement towards a place that might conceal a firearm. Like a pocket. A typical public response to these shootings is that after all the person had a gun, or might have had a gun, and in any case had an absolute obligation to comply with any and all orders given by the Police officer.
The question, which did not have specifically to do with the Scott case, but actually was originally spurred by the Tamir Rice one, is whether all Americans share an equal right under the 2nd Amendment to openly carry firearms or whether any police officer anywhere can simply make the determination that Jim Joe Bob with the AR-15 and the 100 round drum is just exercising his rights whereas Tamir Rice carrying a toy gun that had its orange tip removed is subject to summary execution. Even though in Ohio it would have been legal for him to openly possess a real gun in that park under those circumstances.
Let me put this in the way the news reports have seemed to me over the last few years:
1) brown or black kid playing with a toy gun that MIGHT be real – shot dead (California and Ohio)
2) black man suspiciously walking, driving, selling loosies who MIGHT have a gun – shot dead during struggle
3) white man wearing camo and ballistic armor walks into Luby’s (site of a major shooting a couple decades back) and loudly announces his right to carry and the fact that anyone who has a problem can just shut up – cops respond and thank him for his courtesy
OK, Bruce, so your post WAS more general, and I pointed out where your generality was incorrect. That’s all.
Is there racism? Yes.
Is a Black man in a police encounter more likely to be shot than a White man? No.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/26/study-finds-blacks-are-not-more-likely-to-get-hurt-after-police-stops/
BTW — Google found those links for me. I think all State and federal laws are online now.
Google is an excellent servant. And a terrible master. You can’t just accept that their algorithm is really throwing up results THAT AFTER ANALYSIS will make your point. I don’t know what search terms you used that pulled up such things as restrictions on open carry at a parade or demo at a medical clinic or public owned property. But it didn’s support your straight out claim that I was wrong. In such things you seem to be a Ready, Fire, Aim kind of guy.
For example an alternate reading of your “more likely to be shot” claim stemming from the article you cite that in turn starts as follows:
“Black and Hispanic people are more likely to be injured by police than whites are because police are more likely to stop them, according to a new study.
The research, published Monday by the journal Injury Prevention, did not, however, find that police were more likely to injure blacks and Hispanics than whites after they were stopped.”
but we also find this:
“The rates of hospitalization and death per stop and arrest did not vary by race. However, police were twice as likely to stop or arrest Latinos compared to whites and three times as likely to stop or arrest African Americans, so members of those groups were also more likely to be seriously hurt or killed.”
We cannot from this exactly figure out the percentage of black vs white people that police ENCOUNTER while on the roads but on a national basis it is certainly more likely to be a white person in a passing car than a black one. So if cops are stopping three times more blacks than whites we could suggest that their actual percentage of “good stops” were better for whites (because not just being pulled over for nothing) and therefore that the cops chance of actually encountering a bad guy are better as a percentage of stops. So the fact that whites and blacks in that situation are hurt (not shot) at the same rate might in fact mean there was still persistent anti-black bias in place.
Without a lot of deeper analysis of the numbers than you would get in that article you just can’t make the simple claim that you do.
A more restrictive interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would not resolve the problem of police officers shooting unarmed people who have not been behaving in an aggressive manner. Better trained police officers would be a good start and prosecution of egregious violations of good police practices in such situations would be a clincher in reducing such behavior among active duty police officers.
Fewer guns in the hands of the general public isn’t a bad idea, but it won’t protect innocent people from bad police behavior. And no, I don’t mean to imply that all police officers behave badly. It took the hackneyed wisdom of Antonin Scalia and his conservative cohorts to proclaim that an individual right was intended of an amendment that doesn’t include the word individual, nor any singular form of the word person. One description of Scalia’s written opinion in the Heller case as follows, “….meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention,…” Which again supports the too many words theory of obfuscation. That is, when facts and logic can’t be applied to support one’s position then bury your opponent with so many words about the issue that the absence of facts and logic becomes undescernible.
Google brought up the actual North Carolina legal code. So tell me, what source told you, “Anyone has the right to carry a handgun in or out of a holster as long as [he is] not actively threatening someone”?
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/open-and-concealed-gun-carry-laws-north-carolina.htm
North Carolina protects the right to bear arms under Section 30 of the state constitution, but this does not mean that everyone may carry a gun, or that you may always carry a gun wherever you like. While you may openly carry a weapon without a permit, North Carolina requires a concealed carry permit to carry a weapon concealed on (or near) you body or vehicle unless you are on your own premises. (N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-269.) For more information on permitting laws, see Gun Permit Laws in North Carolina.
North Carolina is a traditional open carry state. You MAY open carry in a motor vehicle. However, localities may regulate the carrying of firearms under certain circumstances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_North_Carolina
Open carry[edit]
Open carry is also legal throughout North Carolina.[26] In the town of Chapel Hill, open carry is restricted to guns of a certain minimum size, under the theory that small, concealable handguns are more often associated with criminal activity. No permit is required to carry a handgun openly in North Carolina. In the court case of State v. Kerner(1921) the defendant ended up getting into some type of confrontation with another man. The defendant proceeded to walk back to his place of work, get his gun, and then return to the scene to fight. The defendant ended up being charged with, “carrying his pistol of the premises unconcealed,” which violated a local act applicable to Forsyth County and ended up being a misdemeanor. The defendant was taken to trial and the trial judge then dismissed the charge as unconstitutional. The state then appealed, and the supreme court affirmed. During court, the court stated at the beginning that the Second Amendment did not apply, because “the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are restrictions on the federal authority and not the states.” Therefore, with that being said, it focused more on the state constitution. The state constitution states that: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The court viewed the provision as protecting the right to carry arms in public. Forsyth County’s local act was condemned and seen as distasteful, because it ended up putting a restriction on a persons right to carry a pistol, more so an unconcealed pistol. Although, the case of State v. Kerner helped/made more clear the allowance of openly carrying a pistol, it does not preclude all regulations regarding the carrying of firearms.[27]
Warren under the ordinary rules of discourse a person has no obligation to cite a source for every positive declaration. So I didn’t.
On the other hand if that discourse becomes to some degree adversarial it is certainly acceptable to ask the party of the first part to provide a source. Which you did and which challenge I accepted.
With the caveat that the wise person should know that the party of the first part is actually wrong prior to that challenge, say by establishing positive knowledge. Otherwise the party of the second part risks just looking like an asshole contrarian.
Lets just say you are not showing yourself to be wise here.
In short — you made it up, and I cited sources laws saying you were wrong.
In short you are a moron.
Open Carry has since 1921 been ruled as protected under the North Carolina Constitution. As such it does not have to be restated in common law. If you read through a section of law controlling the carrying of weapons and it ONLY discusses SPECIFIC restrictions on open carry while more widely discussing restrictions on concealed carry then someone who knows shit will conclude that IN GENERAL open carry is protected. That shit knowing person might THEN double check through reputable secondary sources to see that this interpretation of law is in fact correct.
Your sources are NOT “saying (I am) wrong”. You screwed up and are continuing to screw up in your interpretation and understanding. Do you have ANY reason to dispute opencarry.org? Do you think that criminaldefenselawyer.com is REALLY likely to have biffed this whole thing here? Are you claiming that the Wiki article is ACTUALLY misstating and misunderstanding the import of State vs Kerner (1921)? Are you saying that the table in the Wiki article is FLAT OUT WRONG?
Longguns/Handguns
Owner license required? No No
Carry permits issued? No Yes North Carolina is a “shall issue” state for Concealed Handgun Permits. N.B. The individual must inform a Law Enforcement officer when addressed he/she is carrying a concealed handgun n. (Gen Stat. § 14-415.12A) [4]
Open carry permitted? Yes Yes Open carry is not specifically limited by State law, but some local governments may have ordinances against openly carried weapons. Whether these local ordinances violate the State’s firearm preemption laws has not been tested in North Carolina’s courts.
Warren you are wrong and I am right. Words which used to drive my little brother crazy when I was a kid. But which apply here. You don’t even understand your own sources.
Bruce:
It should be illegal to feed the trolls . . .
I know but historically I attract them. Apparently I am like an unsecured dumpster at Yellowstone, next thing you know big hairy beasties are rummaging around and strewing garbage everywhere.
But my deal with the Head Park Ranger here is that I am not supposed to just put them down all on my own, instead I get buy in from him and the other Senior Rangers. Like you. But I am about ready to swap out the trank shots from my gun with the lethal rounds. Because after awhile those cute bear cubs grow up to be serious menaces who clearly can’t be trained to stay away from the poor AB campers. Who just want to have a policy picnic. And not some recreation of fricking Revenant on a daily basis between Ranger Bruce and Troll X.
The source you cite starts as follows:
SUBCHAPTER IX. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PUBLIC PEACE.
Article 35.
Offenses Against the Public Peace.
§ 14-269. Carrying concealed weapons.
This would seem to imply that open carry is NOT an “offense against the public peace”. Or it would be called out as such.
After the regulations relating to concealed weapons in 14-269 there is a discussion of disposing of confiscated weapons followed by section 14-269,2 which calls out SPECIFIC restrictions on both open and concealed carry at schools and school functions. Once again implying that open carry is NOT illegal at non school locations and functions.
14-269.3 calls out restrictions on open carry in bars
14-269.4 calls out restrictions in court houses
14-269.7 disallows possession of handguns (not firearms generally) by minors
14-269.8 disallows possession of firearms by certain domestic abuse offenders
and then you have 14-277.2 which prohibits weapons at “parades, etc”
What you DON”T HAVE is a SINGLE SUGGESTION that it is not legal to openly carry a handgun in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES NOT OTHERWISE BANNED BY SPECIFIC STATUTE.
Warren stop wasting my time.
Open carry does not mean “in your hand”.
Furthermore, the man in question got back out of his vehicle, with a gun in his hand, after the police told him to get back in his car.
Got a cite for that? Either that Open carry does not mean “in your hand” or for that sequence of events?
Because a lot of Open Carry folk explicitly carry their long arms slung forward with their shooting hand on the butt or grip and trigger finger along or even inside the trigger guard. Like this guy at a rally.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gQAyLSEiS-g/U7m7rehxcMI/AAAAAAAAA1g/7Mnu_hkYAfk/s1600/open+carry.jpg
Granted few people routinely carry their pistol in their hand. Plenty of people make sure their pistol is as close to their hand as possible at all times. And probably would get pissed if you shot them dead when transferring it from their holster to their glove compartment.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/muhKdT-FA4U/maxresdefault.jpg
Partial answer to the second question. Note nothing about being ordered back in his car. He gets out of car twice with gun in hand. Why? Good question. Obviously not the right move, but not obviously criminal either.
“Police said the Metro Division Crime Reduction Unit was searching for a suspect with an outstanding warrant at The Village at College Downs apartment complex.
“Officers observed a subject inside a vehicle in the apartment complex,” police said in the press release. “The subject exited the vehicle armed with a firearm. Officers observed the subject get back into the vehicle at which time they began to approach the subject.”
“The subject got back out of the vehicle armed with a firearm and posed an imminent deadly threat to officers who subsequently fired their weapon striking the subject,” police said.”
Are more African American citizens killed by police in open carry states than in non-open carry states?
Bruce maybe you should send a donation to the Huey P. Newton Gun Club.
Reagan passed gun control the instant Huey Newton and pals started exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights. Perhaps the NRA should be naming him their “Martyr of the Year”.
And I don’t know the answer to your question. What I do know is that there is substantial overlap between people who claim their own right to Open Carry but are quick to justify shootings based on Police “I feared for my life” grounds. Grounds which often have to do with the actual or suspected presence of guns. Are guns dangerous or not? Or only dangerous in the wrong hands? Who gets to judge whose hands are wrong? Any cop anywhere?
Plus I know there are NRA folks that are troubled by this. But all too many people are cheering Trump’s proposal to extend Stop and Frisk even as they scream about Obama coming to take their guns. When the only real purpose of Stop and Frisk in NYC in the first place was to enforce its very draconian gun and knife laws. The exact kinds of local laws that Republican legislatures nationwide are trying to pre-empt.
Eugene Robinson in the WaPo
In America, gun rights are for whites only
Saying pretty much what I am saying. Of particular interest is the photo of a Trump supporter open carrying a hand gun in what I would describe as a tactical holster, forward on his hip and ready for a quick draw.
Has anyone looked at how Scalia interpreted the Heller decision? It is not an open and shut decision and many options were left on the table for Congress and potentially states to choose from in legislation. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/gun-plans-dont-conflict-with-justices-08-ruling.html?_r=0
I suspect that as in other cases Tulsa will settle the inevitable civil suit for a chunk of money in that case.
The problem with criminal prosecution is you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer’s fear was not reasonable to convict.
In the publicized cases I suspect that if the officer is fired no other department would hire the officer because of the uproar it would cause.
Lyle:
I am not sure who has the burden of proof and whether it is the prosecution or the defendant.
Short answer. The decision to criminally prosecute comes from the State and bears the burden of “beyond a reasonable doubt”
The decision to sue comes from the Plaintiff and requires the burden of “preponderance of evidence”.
That is both the incentives vary between State prosecutor and the Plaintiff who believes they suffered a tort so too do the standards put to the juries.
This is why Cities pay millions and cops walk.
State law varies. Ok a prosecutor decides to prosecute. The defense still has a choice of defense. What defense is chosen may change the burden of proof.
Dependent upon type of defense a defendant may choose the burden of proof does shift until such point as the defendant makes his case and the burden will shift again. It is not quite as simple as you believe it may be. State law does vary. Many states do not allow diminished capacity defense and would force you into an insanity plea in which case you have the burden of proof. A diminished capacity defense might be sleep walking or the use of Ambien causing a lack of cognitive abilities. If you do not have an evil mind (form an evil thought cognitively), how can one perform an evil act and/or be guilty? Many states negate this concept which is unconstitutional.
This is a reach on my part. It is besides your point and you are correct.
Lyle exactly right. Or mostly.
Because in my mind the bigger problem is that we allowed ‘Force Protection’ rules that already flirted with normalizing war crimes to be brought back to this country from Iraq War II.
In the early days of the war we had repeated cases of U.S. military people just lighting up targets such as civilian cars that were no conceivable real world threat. With no punishment ever no matter how egregious.
An early example had two U.S. pilots flying their planes a couple thousand feet below their assigned altitude that saw muzzle flashes coming from the ground. Now even though they were way below where they should have been they were still high enough that even directed small arms fire from the ground wouldn’t have reached them. But they rolled in anyway and dropped some bombs. Take that RAGHEAD!
Oops except that they bombed Canadian troops involved in a scheduled life fire exercise clearly indicated on the maps they were issued that day (these have a particular name that escapes me). But despite all that there was no real punishment. After all those muzzle flashes MIGHT have meant something real to follow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farm_incident
F-16 pilots Major William Umbach and his wingman Major Harry Schmidt were returning to their base after a 10-hour night patrol. While flying at 23,000 feet (7,000 m), they reported surface-to-air fire. The fire was actually from a Canadian Forces anti-tank and machine-gun exercise, which was taking place on a former Taliban firing range.
Maj Schmidt descended a few thousand feet to take a closer look, and asked for permission to ”lay down some 20 mike-mike,” or spray the area with 20-millimeter cannon fire, but was told to stand by. Major Umbach cautioned his wing man to wait, as well. ”Let’s just make sure that it’s, that it’s not friendlies, is all,” he said.
At 9:25, the pilots’ AWACS controller ordered them to ”hold fire” and asked Major Schmidt for more information on the surface-to-air fire. But a minute later, after seeing another firing plume from an antitank weapon, Major Schmidt reported seeing ”some men on a road, and it looks like a piece of artillery firing at us.”
”I am rolling in in self-defense,” he said.
After Major Umbach reminded him to unlock his weapons, Major Schmidt called ”bombs away.” Twenty-two seconds later, he reported a direct hit. Ten seconds later, the controller ordered the pilots to disengage, saying the forces on the ground were ”friendlies Kandahar.”[2]
Major Schmidt’s testimony at his Article 32 hearing was that he believed his flight leader, Major Umbach, was under attack. The radio logs show that Major Schmidt requested permission from flight control to fire his 20 mm cannons at what he said to be an anti-aircraft or Multiple Launch Rocket System below.
(snip)
During the Article 32 hearing, five F-16 pilots testified, including one who had led the US Board of Inquiry. All five pilots agreed under oath that the dropping of the bomb by Schmidt was not an unreasonable action. Michael Friscolanti summarized their comments in his book Friendly Fire:
Major John Milton: A reasonable fighter pilot could have believed he was trapped in a threat envelope and had no choice but to drop a bomb. It was Maj. Schmidt’s right to roll in self-defense, even after the “hold fire” order.
Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Viets: Rolling in would be a reasonable response because Maj. Schmidt was reasonable to believe that he was already in the threat envelope of a rocket-based weapons system.
Colonel David C. Nichols: A reasonably prudent F-16 pilot might have done the same thing. “Combat aviation is not a science. It’s an art.”
Lieutenant Colonel Craig Fisher: There were no “significant departures from flight discipline.” A reasonable fighter pilot would have egressed the area, but that doesn’t mean Maj. Schmidt and Maj. Umbach were reckless.
Major General Stephen T. Sargeant: A reasonable pilot never would have believed that the fire on the ground was a threat to his flight. And even if he did, turning, descending, and decelerating was an unreasonable reaction. However, disregarding all the alleged reckless maneuvers Maj. Schmidt made to reach the spot where he invoked self-defense, dropping a bomb at that instant was not unreasonable. In other words, if Maj. Schmidt suddenly woke up at 14,000 feet (4,300 m) and four nautical miles (7 km) away from the mystery fire, it would be reasonable to drop a bomb in self-defense.[8]
This was Afganistan but the same shit happened over and over as we rolled into Iraq. Get too close to an American column, which might mean hundreds of meters, or fail to observe signals, even those given at night withiout actual illumuination (as when we shot up a car with French Special Forces that had just rescued a hostage) and U.S. forces were give carte blanche to open fire. As were private security forces like Blackwater. And rarely if ever did we see any different result than we did with Major Schmidt. It was “reasonable to believe that he was already in the threat envelope of a rocket-based weapons system”. Note this was AFTER he “descended a few thousand feet to take a closer look”.
Cops in the U.S. imported more than armored vehicles. They have seemingly fetishized “reasonable to believe” as applicable to anything at all.
I guess civilian juries have different opinions about “reasonable” than do military juries in courts’ martial (or military investigators more likely). Then too, much as some police would like to deny it, civilian policing is not the same as operating in a war zone.
Jack:
I would sure like to see some of this come down on the side of the injured. Prosecutors may negate evidence in a trial which may impact outcome in the initial trial which is a fairly level playing field. Yes, I agree, police do not have to dress like thugs in black with storm trooper boots and masked faces (saw this down at the border). They are civilians first and police secondarily.
Run,
It’s interesting seeing how the juries. like much of the populace, tend to be conflicted about police violence. With civil standards of proof (more probably true than not true) they find against the police frequently and very rarely with criminal standards (beyond a reasonable doubt). I think they know the civilians have been wrongfully harmed but have empathy for the pressures on the police on the streets.
Jack:
Somewhere, there has to be a marker tossed down where it is said enough is enough. In fear of your life is not a reason to kill or murder as nothing has taken place at the point other than a thought. Not arguing your point. It is just to easy to state to justify the killing of a person. If it happens often enough with one person, then it may be justification for not allowing that person to be a police officer.
OK — forget everything I have said above. It doesn’t matter. The police planted the gun. Watch the video the victim’s wife took, shown on CNN here:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/23/us/charlotte-keith-lamont-scott-shooting-wife-video/index.html
At t=1:48, the gun appears on the ground to the right of the victim. If you step through frame-by-frame, you will actually see the shadow of that gun on the officer’s leg before it is on the ground.
At t=1:56, the officer in red picks up that gun, and t=1:59, another gun drops!
Bruce evades the rather obvious point that only white people have 2nd Amendment rights in the US, not black people.
Because otherwise Wayne LaPierre and the other overpaid weapons company sphincters would be out there protesting with Black Lives Matter..
Problem solved!
Thanks Jon. I would have used the word “invite” rather than “evade”. So welcome to the party!
Funny thing is, the NRA was the first organization in the U.S. established with equal membership rights for Blacks and White. The NRA fought the gun control laws in the South that were designed to keep Blacks unarmed and defenseless against the KKK.
Yes and there was a day where you could easily tell the difference between American Rifleman and Soldier of Fortune magazines. That day sunsetted probably in Nixon’s second term.
Much like there was once a day that the National Chamber of Commerce was just the national clearinghouse for local and state Chambers largely representing Main Street Small Business.
Which was itself not long after the years that there were Eisenhower Republicans earnestly warning America against the Military Industrial Complex. One phrase for this is “institutional capture”. But some of it is just drift, there was already a strong Castle Doctrine/Blow Intruders Away theme in the middle pages of even mainstream NRA mags when I was a kid.
Phil:
Welcome to Angry Bear. Since you are a blog, I am afraid we will be approving your links each and every time. Thank you for the link.