Homeowner had 'a right to resist'

[LedJedi]

yeah, that's pretty much what I figured. I'm not really ever inclined to do anything like that. Have a lot of respect for LEOs as I seriously considered it as a career choice. Just wondering what my rights were.

[LedJedi]

I have a question for you guys concerning the physical limitations/disabilities of someone you may wish to arrest/detain.

I have a fairly severe rotator cuff problem that prevents me from moving my arm past my centerline (at hip) without experiencing quite a lot of pain.

If for some reason....an officer were to arrest/detain/control me, and I informed him of this condition beforehand, can you imagine that "some" might choose to disregard that info and place me in a position where I would incur injury from having my arm put behind my back.

I can assure you that I will "resist" (to the degree necessary) in that event.

I can see this happening if Joe Citizen runs into the occasional LE that is a bit "badge heavy". And please don't tell me they do not exist, I ran into one about 30 yrs. ago in Austin...and if his partner had not reined him in, it was going to turn bad (for everyone).

Anyway, I appreciate your participation, your viewpoints, and your willingness to take a little heat in order to share with us your perspectives.

I will watch for your answer.

Thanks, Flint.

good question man. I'm a very large guy with very broad shoulders. I could easily be cuffed in front, but I've often wondered what would happen if for some reason i was ever arrested/cuffed and the cop insisted on cuffing behind my back. I literally don't bend that way. I would definitely sustain some injury from that.

When I was a guard we had a few inmates that had the same issue. We had a policy of using leg irons as handcuffs on those guys. I can only assume that departments probably have a policy about that too.

I have to say i would have to resist arrest (as politely as possible) if someone tried using standard cuffs on me behind the back and might take a beating because of it. I guess it would all come out in court, but that would suck.

[txinvestigator]

I have a question for you guys concerning the physical limitations/disabilities of someone you may wish to arrest/detain.

I have a fairly severe rotator cuff problem that prevents me from moving my arm past my centerline (at hip) without experiencing quite a lot of pain.

If for some reason....an officer were to arrest/detain/control me, and I informed him of this condition beforehand, can you imagine that "some" might choose to disregard that info and place me in a position where I would incur injury from having my arm put behind my back.

I can assure you that I will "resist" (to the degree necessary) in that event.

I can see this happening if Joe Citizen runs into the occasional LE that is a bit "badge heavy". And please don't tell me they do not exist, I ran into one about 30 yrs. ago in Austin...and if his partner had not reined him in, it was going to turn bad (for everyone).

Anyway, I appreciate your participation, your viewpoints, and your willingness to take a little heat in order to share with us your perspectives.

I will watch for your answer.

Thanks, Flint.

good question man. I'm a very large guy with very broad shoulders. I could easily be cuffed in front, but I've often wondered what would happen if for some reason i was ever arrested/cuffed and the cop insisted on cuffing behind my back. I literally don't bend that way. I would definitely sustain some injury from that.

When I was a guard we had a few inmates that had the same issue. We had a policy of using leg irons as handcuffs on those guys. I can only assume that departments probably have a policy about that too.

I have to say i would have to resist arrest (as politely as possible) if someone tried using standard cuffs on me behind the back and might take a beating because of it. I guess it would all come out in court, but that would suck.

Then get prepared for a beating and additional charges, as no cop is going to cuff you in front. You might as well NOT be cuffed.

Officers are taught proper techniques for you big boys to secure you behind your back.

[Wildscar]

I have a question for you guys concerning the physical limitations/disabilities of someone you may wish to arrest/detain.

I have a fairly severe rotator cuff problem that prevents me from moving my arm past my centerline (at hip) without experiencing quite a lot of pain.

If for some reason....an officer were to arrest/detain/control me, and I informed him of this condition beforehand, can you imagine that "some" might choose to disregard that info and place me in a position where I would incur injury from having my arm put behind my back.

I can assure you that I will "resist" (to the degree necessary) in that event.

I can see this happening if Joe Citizen runs into the occasional LE that is a bit "badge heavy". And please don't tell me they do not exist, I ran into one about 30 yrs. ago in Austin...and if his partner had not reined him in, it was going to turn bad (for everyone).

Anyway, I appreciate your participation, your viewpoints, and your willingness to take a little heat in order to share with us your perspectives.

I will watch for your answer.

Thanks, Flint.

good question man. I'm a very large guy with very broad shoulders. I could easily be cuffed in front, but I've often wondered what would happen if for some reason i was ever arrested/cuffed and the cop insisted on cuffing behind my back. I literally don't bend that way. I would definitely sustain some injury from that.

When I was a guard we had a few inmates that had the same issue. We had a policy of using leg irons as handcuffs on those guys. I can only assume that departments probably have a policy about that too.

I have to say i would have to resist arrest (as politely as possible) if someone tried using standard cuffs on me behind the back and might take a beating because of it. I guess it would all come out in court, but that would suck.

Then get prepared for a beating and additional charges, as no cop is going to cuff you in front. You might as well NOT be cuffed.

Officers are taught proper techniques for you big boys to secure you behind your back.

If you are as big as ye claim then I'm sure there is going to be more than one officer there and they know how to daisy chain handcuffs together to make them long enough. Heck some officers will carry more than one pair on there persons and keep additional spares in there car. And if that dont work they can intoduce you to the nifty new plastic zip ties.

[Hamourkiller]

First of all hi to all on the forum. I have been reading for several days now and am pleased with the forum and how it is managed.

This issue bothers me a lot (When to resist cops with deadly force).

I never thought any thing would beat ole Humpy Parker up in San Jac county, but the actions of the New Orleans Police, Out of State LEO's and the Out of State National guards sickened me.

Were the whole sale door kicking weapons searches and confiscations for no other offense than being alive in your home, by men with body armor and machine guns legal grounds for shooting them as they kicked the door in?

With the Castle doctrine and defense of others would it be legal to snipe the illegal confiscaters at range as they did neighbor hood house to house searches, so the threat to your home is reduced before they can carry out thier stated goal of "Disarming all people"?

When do cops stop being cops and start being any other well armed gang using superior numbers and firepower to carry out illeagal intentions?

I am getting sick just thinking of what was done and what I will be forced do in the same circumstances.

God help us all if our national political system ever crumbles so completely.

[LedJedi]

First of all hi to all on the forum. I have been reading for several days now and am pleased with the forum and how it is managed.

This issue bothers me a lot (When to resist cops with deadly force).

you have some valid points in your scenario (referring to the situation in New Orleans). I found myself wondering what I would do if police were just no-holds-barred confiscating weapons from everyone. I thought about it a LOT and it gets to a deep issue with me.

I can honestly say, I don't even like the thought of resisting a LEO. I believe and generally know that most of them are great folks and are sacrificing for the greater good. I have seriously considered becoming a LEO myself but decided not to for family and financial reasons. Nothing but the utmost respect for what they do.

However, I believe that in that situation (confiscating guns from innocent civilians) they are in-essence operating as a tyrannical force serving an oppressive government (define that as you will) whether they realize they are or not.

Bottom line. I'm guaranteed the right to bear arms. Someone tries to take that away from me in a manner that I deem unjustified then I will resist. I'm not sure to what extent, but it will be to the extent necessary to prevent said confiscation. If that means turning my guns on a LEO (seriously, lord forbid the world ever coming to that) then I think I would have to do it. I honestly cringe at the thought, but in that scenario I can't allow them to do that and will use EVERY non-lethal method of resistance possible to prevent that, but in the end i wont be deprived of my rights.

Their duty to carry out orders does not supersede my right to bear arms. I honestly like to think a lot of LEOs would agree with that and frankly I'm shocked that the cops in New Orleans actually followed those orders. I know a lot of them had to disagree with that order.

am i making sense here or am i just talking out of my keister?

[phddan]

Their duty to carry out orders does not supersede my right to bear arms. I honestly like to think a lot of LEOs would agree with that and frankly I'm shocked that the cops in New Orleans actually followed those orders. I know a lot of them had to disagree with that order.

am i making sense here or am i just talking out of my keister?

I have no doubt that given the order, most, not all, but by far most leo would comply to disarm whoever they were told to. They will not risk their jobs and retirement.

Dan

[LedJedi]

Their duty to carry out orders does not supersede my right to bear arms. I honestly like to think a lot of LEOs would agree with that and frankly I'm shocked that the cops in New Orleans actually followed those orders. I know a lot of them had to disagree with that order.

am i making sense here or am i just talking out of my keister?

I have no doubt that given the order, most, not all, but by far most leo would comply to disarm whoever they were told to. They will not risk their jobs and retirement.

Dan

Unfortunately I have to agree with you. That would probably be the situation at that point.

That would put us in a very awkward and dangerous situation.

[Hamourkiller]

To me the issue that takes LEO's from officials to armed gang members is the whole sale nature of the orders. There is no wiggle room for for orders that say kick in all doors and remove all fire arms from all residences in a city.

There is no way you can say these are legal orders. They are directed at the population as a whole and not at individuals!

So when the cops kick down your door, it is not because you did any thing, it is because you are alive, and existing in your house!

My decision is made, and I will soon have the weapons and ammo to make a stand against such lawlessness in the future.

To me, New Orleans proved the biggest danger in a break down of civil authority are the police executing illeagle confiscation orders. Confiscation based upon mere presence in your house and not upon your actions as an individual.

I hope the new State and Federal laws will stop this type of behavior in the future, but I will now have to buy the equipment needed to fend off such activities if repeated in the future. The hard part was and is comming to see police as the BG's in a time of disaster.

Let us all pray we never see such a time again.

[HankB]

I think post-Katrina NOLA was the exception, and not the rule, when it comes to out-of-control LEOs. Remember, NOLA had one of the most corrupt police forces in the nation to begin with, and the collapse of services caused by Katrina didn't help. So the NOLA cops helped themselves to running shoes, DVDs, Cadillac SUVs . . . and guns.

And they ONLY enjoyed the success they did as long as people were surprised.

There was a guy - an attorney, IIRC - who made a public statement that if anyone came to take his stuff " . . . there would be gunfire!!" That drew people's attention to NOLA's crooked cops, and the out-of-state cops' thuggery, and the thefts stopped pretty quickly - because, with advance warning, the guy was right, there would be gunfire.

I don't see unopposed confiscations happening in Texas, or repeated in New Orleans . . . and the "anti-confiscation" laws that states are passing to protect John Q. Public also serve to protect LEOs, who won't be called on to do something foolish and dangerous on the whim of some politician.

[phddan]

Hank,
It wasn't just the NOLA cops who were illegally confiscating weapons, alot of out of town help was in on it to.

I hope the anti-confiscation laws work, but I still have a nagging doubt about those in charge of these situations being able to skirt that law, by claiming extreme circumstances and overriding the law. But I hope your right.

Dan

[CHL/LEO]

also serve to protect LEOs, who won't be called on to do something foolish and dangerous on the whim of some politician.

I know a lot (and I mean a lot) of LEOs that would have never enforced some stupid directive like that. I know I wouldn't - I took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Now that being said, if Martial Law was declared by the proper government authorities (it wasn't in New Orleans) I believe certain protections provided to us by the Constitution would be temporarily suspended during that occurrence. I know we have some lawyers on here that can probably verify the veracity of that. If that was the case then someone might be able to give a legal order to seize weapons. Again, I will wait to hear from a lawyer regarding this. I believe the court ruling that pertained to these seizures had to do with no Martial Law in effect so the full protection afforded by the Constitution was violated by illegal seizures.

Even with Martial Law in place I would still have a hard time seizing weapons from individuals who needed to protect their lives and properties. In fact, you would think the government would provide weapons to qualified citizens to help in a situation like that. Oh well, if it ever comes to a situation that bad I don't think that Texas LE will be seizing guns. Now the feds... that's another story.

[HankB]

Hank,
It wasn't just the NOLA cops who were illegally confiscating weapons, alot of out of town help was in on it to.

Agreed - and I did mention " . . . out of state cops' thuggery . . ." in my post.

IIRC believe it was cops from Kali that assaulted and body-slammed that elderly woman on film . . .

[dukalmighty]

I realise that sometimes LEO over step their legal boundaries sometimes because of ignorance sometimes because they just think they can and will doctor the report to reflect something different after the fact.I will not resist i will let them arrest me and then i will call my lawyer and if they have violated my rights and broken any laws i hope i will be vindicated in court,i hope you never hear me on video yelling don't tase me bro aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa