Police Officer sneaks up & grabs legal OCer's holstered gun

[VMI77]

A couple of drunk hotheads. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's apparent the surviving brother is a liar.

He definitely screwed up. OTOH, it's my business if I want to get my truck out of a ditch full of water. Calling it a "high water rescue" attempt is a really big stretch. I don't quite buy E's contention that OC isn't a factor either since seeing the gun was apparently part of the justification for using deadly force. I also don't think the cop with the attitude was acting very professionally....he seemed very intent on imposing his authoritah....but the video doesn't show what proceeded the attitude so maybe it was justified.

First it's not your business when someone would have to go get you out if needed rescue. You may not think that it should be anyones business but it's settled law. That and when you add in that they were on a public road which law enforcement can and do control usage of that road, well, you are obligated to comply.

It is my business if I'm the one supposedly being rescued and don't want to be. These guys didn't need to be "rescued" --the "rescue" claim is clearly a pretext for involvement. Controlling a public road, ok, that could be a legitimate justification...if being in a ditch on the side of the road presented a danger to motorists or was obstructing traffic. I drive by plenty of roadside ditches where my presence attempting to retrieve my vehicle would harm no one, represent no danger to anyone, and would not obstruct or impede traffic. And btw, it's also "settled law" that the police have no duty to protect any individual. So unless these guys represented a danger to other people they had no duty to "rescue" them, especially if they didn't want to be "rescued."

In many of your comments you seem to be tremendously impressed by whether something is "settled law" or what some court said, regardless of how it intrudes on individual liberty. We can also say that it's "settled law" that the DEA can approach you on a train and rob you since they've been doing it for a least a decade. The fact that the government presides over a legal system that ratifies its violations of moral law and civil liberties is irrelevant to me. I may have to obey the law but I don't have to agree with it. I flatly reject your legalism as legitimizing the exercise of authority. Something being legal does not equal that something being moral or being right.

All you're really saying when you excuse government conduct as "settled law" is that the government can make up whatever rules it wants and impose them at gunpoint, and to a point, I agree: it obviously has both the means and the power to impose its will at gunpoint and does so. The difference in our positions appears to be that you believe authority exercised in this way confers legitimacy while I judge the conduct independently from how it is rationalized and labeled.

You misunderstood my point. Sure they didn't want to be "rescued" and were not. However if there was a problem and they, or you, started to get in trouble them all of you would be screaming for help and the troopers or local responders would have to risk themselves to help. That means it is the States business.

There you go making false assumptions and assertions....I don't even consider help from the authorities a possibility. Where I live, should I need to be "rescued" from a deadly or dangerous situation in all likelihood I'd be dead before anyone could even show up. Should I need saving, my neighbors might save me if they could, but no, I've never screamed for help of any kind from the government. In fact, the government often obstructs those who are perfectly capable of saving others from doing so.....under the phony mantra of "safety." I've never called the police for help and can't imagine any scenario where doing so would "rescue" me from anything. In fact, the whole basis of this board is people providing for their own defense because we don't have any expectation that the police will be around to "save" us.

So, no, I didn't "misunderstand" your point. You believe the government is here to "help" us and simply stated, I don't. Furthermore, I don't want the government to "help" me.....they've done enough already. Right now they're working very hard to "help" me into poverty. I want the State to leave me alone.

[VMI77]

A couple of drunk hotheads. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's apparent the surviving brother is a liar.

He definitely screwed up. OTOH, it's my business if I want to get my truck out of a ditch full of water. Calling it a "high water rescue" attempt is a really big stretch. I don't quite buy E's contention that OC isn't a factor either since seeing the gun was apparently part of the justification for using deadly force. I also don't think the cop with the attitude was acting very professionally....he seemed very intent on imposing his authoritah....but the video doesn't show what proceeded the attitude so maybe it was justified.

First it's not your business when someone would have to go get you out if needed rescue. You may not think that it should be anyones business but it's settled law. That and when you add in that they were on a public road which law enforcement can and do control usage of that road, well, you are obligated to comply.

It is my business if I'm the one supposedly being rescued and don't want to be. These guys didn't need to be "rescued" --the "rescue" claim is clearly a pretext for involvement. Controlling a public road, ok, that could be a legitimate justification...if being in a ditch on the side of the road presented a danger to motorists or was obstructing traffic. I drive by plenty of roadside ditches where my presence attempting to retrieve my vehicle would harm no one, represent no danger to anyone, and would not obstruct or impede traffic. And btw, it's also "settled law" that the police have no duty to protect any individual. So unless these guys represented a danger to other people they had no duty to "rescue" them, especially if they didn't want to be "rescued."

In many of your comments you seem to be tremendously impressed by whether something is "settled law" or what some court said, regardless of how it intrudes on individual liberty. We can also say that it's "settled law" that the DEA can approach you on a train and rob you since they've been doing it for a least a decade. The fact that the government presides over a legal system that ratifies its violations of moral law and civil liberties is irrelevant to me. I may have to obey the law but I don't have to agree with it. I flatly reject your legalism as legitimizing the exercise of authority. Something being legal does not equal that something being moral or being right.

All you're really saying when you excuse government conduct as "settled law" is that the government can make up whatever rules it wants and impose them at gunpoint, and to a point, I agree: it obviously has both the means and the power to impose its will at gunpoint and does so. The difference in our positions appears to be that you believe authority exercised in this way confers legitimacy while I judge the conduct independently from how it is rationalized and labeled.

You misunderstood my point. Sure they didn't want to be "rescued" and were not. However if there was a problem and they, or you, started to get in trouble them all of you would be screaming for help and the troopers or local responders would have to risk themselves to help. That means it is the States business.

As for me being impressed by settled law. You want to make some abstract point that has little or no basis in the real world then go ahead. I can think something, law or policy, is wrong and stupid and still acknowledge the practical realities of the situation. And as far as the at gun point argument. It's a false analogy. Settled law would not be referring to whatever someone with a gun makes you do. There are other terms for that. No I would be referring to law that have been on the books for a length of time without any significant challenge.

This is going a bit South guys. I agree with both of you on different aspects. I believe in personal freedom in the aspect, that the truck is their property and they are trying to retrieve it. I never stopped somebody from doing it, unless they were a seriously obvious danger to themselves or others. I'm the guy that always stops to help anyway.

There are legal aspects though.

A trooper tells you to stop for any reason, assuming there is legal justification somewhere, you ought to comply. Not doing so would be ill advised, as we have learned from the story.

Lets continue with the niceties now.


(Note: I have no idea how the formatting messed up earlier, but it's fixed now!)

Oh, I agree. I might not like it, but I have no desire to be arrested. I have even less desire to be dead. These guys didn't just refuse to comply though, one of them attacked a trooper, which is suicidal. And as a practical matter in the moment it doesn't really matter if there is legal justification for the police action....arguing the legality with an officer in such a situation is not going to be productive and it may lead to disastrous consequences.

[Charlies.Contingency]

A couple of drunk hotheads. " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's apparent the surviving brother is a liar.

He definitely screwed up. OTOH, it's my business if I want to get my truck out of a ditch full of water. Calling it a "high water rescue" attempt is a really big stretch. I don't quite buy E's contention that OC isn't a factor either since seeing the gun was apparently part of the justification for using deadly force. I also don't think the cop with the attitude was acting very professionally....he seemed very intent on imposing his authoritah....but the video doesn't show what proceeded the attitude so maybe it was justified.

First it's not your business when someone would have to go get you out if needed rescue. You may not think that it should be anyones business but it's settled law. That and when you add in that they were on a public road which law enforcement can and do control usage of that road, well, you are obligated to comply.

It is my business if I'm the one supposedly being rescued and don't want to be. These guys didn't need to be "rescued" --the "rescue" claim is clearly a pretext for involvement. Controlling a public road, ok, that could be a legitimate justification...if being in a ditch on the side of the road presented a danger to motorists or was obstructing traffic. I drive by plenty of roadside ditches where my presence attempting to retrieve my vehicle would harm no one, represent no danger to anyone, and would not obstruct or impede traffic. And btw, it's also "settled law" that the police have no duty to protect any individual. So unless these guys represented a danger to other people they had no duty to "rescue" them, especially if they didn't want to be "rescued."

In many of your comments you seem to be tremendously impressed by whether something is "settled law" or what some court said, regardless of how it intrudes on individual liberty. We can also say that it's "settled law" that the DEA can approach you on a train and rob you since they've been doing it for a least a decade. The fact that the government presides over a legal system that ratifies its violations of moral law and civil liberties is irrelevant to me. I may have to obey the law but I don't have to agree with it. I flatly reject your legalism as legitimizing the exercise of authority. Something being legal does not equal that something being moral or being right.

All you're really saying when you excuse government conduct as "settled law" is that the government can make up whatever rules it wants and impose them at gunpoint, and to a point, I agree: it obviously has both the means and the power to impose its will at gunpoint and does so. The difference in our positions appears to be that you believe authority exercised in this way confers legitimacy while I judge the conduct independently from how it is rationalized and labeled.

You misunderstood my point. Sure they didn't want to be "rescued" and were not. However if there was a problem and they, or you, started to get in trouble them all of you would be screaming for help and the troopers or local responders would have to risk themselves to help. That means it is the States business.

As for me being impressed by settled law. You want to make some abstract point that has little or no basis in the real world then go ahead. I can think something, law or policy, is wrong and stupid and still acknowledge the practical realities of the situation. And as far as the at gun point argument. It's a false analogy. Settled law would not be referring to whatever someone with a gun makes you do. There are other terms for that. No I would be referring to law that have been on the books for a length of time without any significant challenge.

This is going a bit South guys. I agree with both of you on different aspects. I believe in personal freedom in the aspect, that the truck is their property and they are trying to retrieve it. I never stopped somebody from doing it, unless they were a seriously obvious danger to themselves or others. I'm the guy that always stops to help anyway.

There are legal aspects though.

A trooper tells you to stop for any reason, assuming there is legal justification somewhere, you ought to comply. Not doing so would be ill advised, as we have learned from the story.

Lets continue with the niceties now.


(Note: I have no idea how the formatting messed up earlier, but it's fixed now!)

Oh, I agree. I might not like it, but I have no desire to be arrested. I have even less desire to be dead. These guys didn't just refuse to comply though, one of them attacked a trooper, which is suicidal. And as a practical matter in the moment it doesn't really matter if there is legal justification for the police action....arguing the legality with an officer in such a situation is not going to be productive and it may lead to disastrous consequences.

Exactly.

I don't really like it either, we both see it the same way. I can't speak for everybody, but I understand what you're saying.

[Charlies.Contingency]

Thankfully the officer was not shot or that the fisherman wasn't shot when he started to reach for his gun.

I wonder if the officer would think it's a valid exercise to have the same thing done to him.

If I was that officer's boss, he just showed inherently bad judgement.

I surely hope that was a staged picture!

[EEllis]

There you go making false assumptions and assertions....I don't even consider help from the authorities a possibility. Where I live, should I need to be "rescued" from a deadly or dangerous situation in all likelihood I'd be dead before anyone could even show up. Should I need saving, my neighbors might save me if they could, but no, I've never screamed for help of any kind from the government. In fact, the government often obstructs those who are perfectly capable of saving others from doing so.....under the phony mantra of "safety." I've never called the police for help and can't imagine any scenario where doing so would "rescue" me from anything. In fact, the whole basis of this board is people providing for their own defense because we don't have any expectation that the police will be around to "save" us.

So, no, I didn't "misunderstand" your point. You believe the government is here to "help" us and simply stated, I don't. Furthermore, I don't want the government to "help" me.....they've done enough already. Right now they're working very hard to "help" me into poverty. I want the State to leave me alone.

Then you couldn't be in that ditch. I'm sure as you were being washed away you would tell the cops or firefighters to not to help and to let you die because you hate the "Guverment" . And I hope you are wrong about the "reason" for this board.

[VMI77]

There you go making false assumptions and assertions....I don't even consider help from the authorities a possibility. Where I live, should I need to be "rescued" from a deadly or dangerous situation in all likelihood I'd be dead before anyone could even show up. Should I need saving, my neighbors might save me if they could, but no, I've never screamed for help of any kind from the government. In fact, the government often obstructs those who are perfectly capable of saving others from doing so.....under the phony mantra of "safety." I've never called the police for help and can't imagine any scenario where doing so would "rescue" me from anything. In fact, the whole basis of this board is people providing for their own defense because we don't have any expectation that the police will be around to "save" us.

So, no, I didn't "misunderstand" your point. You believe the government is here to "help" us and simply stated, I don't. Furthermore, I don't want the government to "help" me.....they've done enough already. Right now they're working very hard to "help" me into poverty. I want the State to leave me alone.

Then you couldn't be in that ditch. I'm sure as you were being washed away you would tell the cops or firefighters to not to help and to let you die because you hate the "Guverment" . And I hope you are wrong about the "reason" for this board.

Seriously? If the police are going to be around to save you then you don't need a gun at all, much less a CHL. Surely you jest.

As far as the rest goes, now you're just making stuff up. You have no idea if I "hate" the government, and I don't, since I"m not an anarchist. I also don't love the government since I'm not an authoritarian or Statist, I just see it for what it is as opposed to what it should be. Furthermore, your hypothetical scenario is ridiculous because if there was any danger of being washed away I wouldn't be in the ditch in the first place. Your entire argument there is based on the assumption that everyone who isn't employed by the government is too stupid to know what's good for them.

[cnielson79]

I'd have grabbed cop's arm and broke it! I'd simply say, I didn't know who was trying to grab my gun