TMF

I was thinking the same thing when I first saw this story... figured I'd see him on the news at some point being rolled up in an airport restroom.

I thought the same thing when I saw this story the first time, "what if that was my house?" I would hope that in that unlikely event of mistaken identity the police would identify themselves before/during entry. Even then I don't know what I'd do since I would not have any proof that they were actually law enforcement. I believe that's why we have warrants in the first place so that they are presented to the owner of the property and executed. If LE agencies are going to execute "no-knock" warrants they'd better get their crap together. I'm sure they do many of these without hitting the wrong house, but the margin for error is enough that they should only reserve these for cases that warrant it, and, when they do, make sure to know the friggin' address! Putting things in perspective: I have an alarm system on my home which is activated before I put my head down at night. If that alarm system (which is quite loud) was to wake me up in the middle of the night I know the state I would wake up in; combat mode. Unfogging your head at that point is impossible, especially with a 130 db of alarm going off. Add that to the sound of somebody trying to make forced entry into my home... well, I don't think I'd have a choice at that point. I wouldn't know who they were, I would just know that they had intent to do me harm. (I've actually had to do this before when the alarm went off due to the garage door being ajar, then swinging open from the suction of my HVAC a few hours after falling asleep thus activating said alarm. I had cleared two floors before even realizing I was completely naked. My wife had a good laugh at that one... still does.)

I'm sure it was a "quickie" saw, not an actual chainsaw. Quickie saws are used all the time for entry and they are absolutely awesome at it. The reporter probably jacked it up for the same reason that all rifles are "AK-47s" and all pistols are "Glocks".

I would say that's a pretty good guess. I don't think the outcome would have been different if he had stopped, but clearly this displays a BIG problem, and if it's true he shouldn't be wearing a badge anymore. The DA cleared him a while back, which I assume is because the medical examiner determined the speeder died on impact. As far as the officer giving chase, well I hate the idea of armchair quarterbacking that stuff. Leaving it to the discretion of the officer I think is best. I remember a case down in Florida about 10 years ago where a woman was carjacked/kidnapped. The criminal was spotted speeding in the interstate by FHP and the officer chased. At the time the vehicle wasn't reported stolen or the woman missing yet. The criminal fled and the Trooper disengaged because it was their policy not to chase speeders. It was later determined that she was still alive inside the vehicle at the time. The criminal later murdered her. Leaving it in the hands of the officer to make that decision whether or not to chase is the best way, in my opinion.

^^^^^^ This is the single most important thing...INTENT Shooting someone with the intent to kill is murder. There really is no way around that. Shooting someone with the intent of stopping a percieved threat is justifiable. The phrase "shoot to kill" suggests intent. Shooting to stop a threat isn't a "wink, wink and nod".... it is what it is; to stop a threat. It just so happens that it is acceptable to aim center mass in SD, which could result in death, but if the intent was to kill vs. stop then it is murder. Proving intent may not be so easy based on forensic evidence, but certainly expressing intent publically here would make a prosecuter's job very, very easy. I really hope for your sake that you don't have to use your weapon in a SD shoot because you'd be screwed. Besides, your goal shouldn't be to kill. I'm not saying that you don't defend yourself, but when you say your goal is to kill the threat that suggests that you're doling out a punishment for home invasion rather than protecting yourself and your family. In your mind it may be simple as verbage, but in reality the verbage means everything.

Well it's Arabic, which tells me that he is most likely some entitled piece of garbage who's parents made the long trip from the Middle East so that their kids could grow up in a free society only to have said kid complain about how the land of opportunity hasn't laid out that opportunity on a silver platter. Sounds like he needs a one way ticket to Syria so he can see how they do protests there.

Since we're taking it in that direction, most countries I've been to you can purchase just about any prescription med over the counter. So what? People abuse them either way the same way they huff just about anything that comes in an aerosol can, but I shouldn't need a note from a painter to buy spraypaint. Why are we tying police up with this or using it as a justification for searches? The "for the children" plea is BS. It doesn't sound any better when the libs use it.

It says something about "we will not..." can't read the rest since it's obscured... you can fill in the rest: "we will not attempt to get jobs" or something to that effect. His arm say "salam" which means "peace".

Wow, that is some logic there. I guess I never thought about it like that, but a competent TSA would be a helluva lot scarier than the incompetent one we have. I still hate the TSA. I'm having to fly again in a few days and am not looking forward to it.

That sounds like an occupational hazard one accepts when becoming a LEO. I empathize, I really do, but I don't think that means every person gets treated as a criminal; it should mean that LEOs are cautious and maintain situational awareness. That doesn't mean that the 4th Amendment is just a suggestion. I support LEOs too. My father has been one for 30 years not counting his years as a MP. I don't have a problem surrendering my weapon for an LEO to run the numbers if he asks nicely. I have nothing to hide. But that isn't really the point here. The point is that taking personal property for the purpose of a theft investigation should require PC; it just doesn't pass the sniff test. Just because I'm okay with it doesn't mean that everyone is, and that is their right not to be. If an officer wants to disarm me because he feels threatened somehow, well okay. I'm not a threatening person or present much of a combative personality to LE, but if it makes him more comfortable then fine. I don't know what his perception of me is at all. Maybe he's been shot at before and is a little skiddish... hell, in that case I'd want him to disarm me so he doesn't get nervous on me.

The Occupy movement ABSOLUTELY endorses big government. They want absolute government control over our economy... businesses that are run by the government to make sure everything is "fair". Every Occupy "leader" I've seen parade themselves across the TV had said the same thing. They are all skirting around the idea of Communism without actually saying the "C" word.

While I support his position, I understand why his team (and even the fans) might take offense. He's not invited there for his political beliefs or to somehow promote the President, he's there to represent his team/city. Not a big deal in the grand scheme, but I can understand how folks might be upset at his decision. I think I'd be a little pissed if the Preds got an invite to the White House while Bush was in office and one of the players refused to go because he was a flaming liberal... ya know?

I'd have to say the line would have to be drawn at a police officer making a young man into an ugly woman....eeeeesshh. And the Navy wonders how they become the butt of so many gay jokes... pun intended.

I don't think anyone here is advocating criminals... not one bit. We're talking about balance. If police didn't have to abide by the rules and were "let off the leash" there would most likely be a dramatic drop in crime, but at what cost? As was mentioned by a previous post, it doesn't have to be one way or the other. Just because I believe that the 4th Amendment should be adhered to more strictly than it is doesn't mean I'm advocating criminal activity or somehow am a bleeding heart. To say that is to use the same argument the gun-grabbers use: "If you don't support gun control than you support gun crime."

So have I, but I didn't lay a hand on the enemy until such time as the objective was secure. Up until that point the bastard gets to bleed while someone covers him. I have watched someone bleed to death because we didn't have adequate personnel to provide medical aid without dropping security... guess what? I sleep just fine when my head hits the pillow. He chose to fight and he lost. With that in mind, my house isn't a combat zone. My wife isn't a trained soldier capable of providing adequate security while I perform first aid. My two children can't strong point the house to prevent the possibility of more bad guys (who knows if he's alone) from entering and finishing the job. I have no legal obligation to provide first aid, and any moral obligation to give life saving treatment is trumped by my duty to ensure the safety of my wife and kids. The second I drop security to render first aid I'm putting them at risk for the sake of my own conscience. He chose to victimize my family and he lost. B. His medical care is the duty of the responding personnel.

Same here, wife never notices and often forgets until she puts her arm around me and feels it there.

Well hopefully now in the age of iPhones and YouTube overstepping officers will think twice before choosing to harrass innocent folks just to spite them for invoking their rights under the 4th Amendment. I don't have any reason to refuse a search, but when I'm traveling with the kids (both still in car seats) I'm not taking them out of their seats on the side of the road and I'll be damned if I'm going to be treated in such a manner just because an LEO doesn't believe I have a right to say "no". Better believe the camera is rolling and will be made public.

I had a bunch of FA Sterlings in Iraq. They were fun little plinkers since the rate of fire was a little slower. Probably a fun gun for a collection, but these are like the British version of the grease gun. Fun, but not much to it... but still cooler looking than a hipoint carbine I guess.

You'd be surprised how much stuff joe will buy on the open market just to sell off to pay the bills. Mostly that portion of the website looks like a CID wet dream, but I do see military items (to include body armor) that aren't military issue.

My DL is issued by the state and isn't my personal property. I would say that committing a traffic offense is within the realm of probable cause to check my DL information. I don't see how that makes someone a suspect for burglary/robbery... I just don't. Through the front window of my house you can clearly see a big flat screen TV. You might, on occassion, see me in front of it cleaning a weapon. Is this PC to come into my home, confiscate my weapon, check the s/n on it and my TV? The inside of my home is just as much my property as the inside of my vehicle and it's contents.

I agree. Maybe the best way to mitigate that would be to release facts about the case so citizens could be secure in the knowledge that our government officials aren't as corrupt as we accuse them of being.

Sounds to me like he got a self-inflicted punishment. I'd say he's learned a lesson he won't soon forget. As much as the act was stupid, it'd be unfortunate for him to lose his license and livelihood over it at this point.

Rog, I would think this would fall into the same category as anything that matches the description of a stolen item... for example, if you're driving around in a vehicle that matches a description of a stolen vehicle that would be enough to be pulled over and have the VIN run. It just seems to me whenever there is a thread regarding a stop a few people will chime in on how their weapon was taken and s/n run. Just didn't seem like it would be okay to do that unless there was a good reason. On scene there isn't anything I'd do, but I'd certainly be ticked enough to pursue complaints with the department until such time as a satisfiying response from them was made to me. It's not about having something to hide, but more about being treated with the appropriate respect as a citizen with rights.

Ugh, I think you're missing the question altogether. This isn't about trying to play the "FU copper" game. This is simply a law abiding person getting stopped for a traffic violation. I'm not suggesting lying to police or "a how to guide" of a 4A defense. I'm simply questioning whether an LEO can just take a weapon (rifle or pistol) without the consent of the owner, and run numbers on it. I'm looking it at this perspective: I'm a law abiding citizen. I don't have a record; I don't fit the profile of someone that is predisposed to criminal activity; and the last moving violation I had was a decade ago. Now, if I get pulled over and an officer sees I have a laptop on the passenger seat and asks to take it to see if it's stolen I can say "no". Replace "laptop" with "rifle case" and play the same scenario. That doesn't pass the sniff test. Period.

If I didn't already have a 1911 this would be what I would buy. Very nice and doesn't break the bank.