Charlotte "victims" gun IDed

[bud]

.

Edited January 14, 2017 by bud

[n0rlf]

So the bigger question for you 56, Have you done anything to rid society of laws YOU think are unnecessary? So in your mind it is not justifiable to even ask someone why they are in possession of a firearm and a blunt? So if they had merely walked up and confirmed he had a valid permit and was just looking at a new purchase and walked away with noting further there would be no story. Instead dead the dumb stuff decided to not follow the basic ideas of safety and got himself dead.

Now question is why the laws exist? Well as a society there have to be some rules. If you do not like the rules you do have a few choices, one is to move to a place where the rules fit your beliefs better. Second thing is to work at getting them changed. 

Personally I have an issue with someone that complains when a dumb stuff makes a bad decision and dies. Never ending parade of folks complaining that the dead guy was an honest kid, father, brother, son, uncle, aunt, sister, whatever just being a good person. Yeah right! Every once in a great while that does happen. Which is yet another reason we have rules. Follow them and 99% of the time you will be just fine. Break them and pay the consequences.

If the cops had ignored the fact that this guy had drugs and a gun in his car then he wound up shooting a kid can you picture the headlines? Cops ignored man that later killed a 4 year old who was just playing. Hmmmm....Profiling works, it is a hard truth and a fact in our world,. I am for smaller government but let's get the bigger items first then worry about the smaller things. Is this guy dying a smaller thing? In my mind while sad it is indeed a small thing these days.

Lets get the big things (Debt, Crime, terrorists, corrupt politicians, stupid laws) take your pick. 

So to each their own should be a law in my opinion. Less government intervention that way. As long as what you does not bother me and mine I could care less. As long as you afford me the same.

[leroy]

56...

The defininition of holding up a gun and showing it to someone to scare them off is "branishing"...

leroy

[bud]

.

Edited January 14, 2017 by bud

[bud]

.

Edited January 14, 2017 by bud

[56FordGuy]

2 hours ago, n0rlf said:

 

So the bigger question for you 56, Have you done anything to rid society of laws YOU think are unnecessary? 

 

Funny you ask, but just yesterday I had lunch with a group of attorneys to discuss the next steps regarding cannabis legislation here. We're currently getting things in order to make a push to get it on the 2018 ballot. 

 

2 hours ago, n0rlf said:

So in your mind it is not justifiable to even ask someone why they are in possession of a firearm and a blunt?

Until you can show me a victim, no crime has been committed. Until a crime has been committed, law enforcement has no reason to get involved. I don't care if the guy has an open beer in one hand, a revolver in the other and is dancing a jig in his yard. Until you can show me a victim that was caused harm by his actions, no crime has been committed. 

 

2 hours ago, n0rlf said:

If you do not like the rules you do have a few choices, one is to move to a place where the rules fit your beliefs better. Second thing is to work at getting them changed. 

I did #1, and am working on #2.  

 

2 hours ago, n0rlf said:

So to each their own should be a law in my opinion. Less government intervention that way.

In which case, a person simply possessing a firearm and marijuana/ alcohol/ whatever has not broken any laws and law enforcement has no reason to get involved. 

 

1 hour ago, leroy said:

56...

The defininition of holding up a gun and showing it to someone to scare them off is "branishing"...

leroy

Be that as it may, even the police department's own account of events did not mention brandishing or threatening. They simply said they observed him in possession of a firearm and what they believed to be marijuana. I haven't seen any evidence that he threatened anyone, either verbally or by aiming a weapon at them. If that could be proven, it would certainly make a difference. 

[Chucktshoes]

 

This is the mindset I see on display. 

"Freedom! Well, as long as you are freedoming correctly." 

"Don't tread on me! Well, I guess since you have the right uniform it's ok."

"I have the right to live my life! As long as it fits within the arbitrary rules laid out for me by others. I don't agree with them and they don't make a lot of sense, but they are the rules."

[Capbyrd]

4 hours ago, Omega said:

Stupid is as stupid does.  

You are too wrapped up on whether the pot should be illegal or not, bottom line is he died for being stupid.

You still aren't understanding the argument.  The point is, why are we as a society, giving anyone the right to enforce laws by force up to and including the taking of life, where there is no victim other than the state.  The state CANNOT be a victim.  And if there is no victim, there is no crime.   Forget the weed.  Make it a seatbelt violation or going two miles an hour over the speed limit.  It doesn't matter what the "crime" was, because our argument is that there wasn't an actual crime to begin with.  

[Omega]

20 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

You still aren't understanding the argument.  The point is, why are we as a society, giving anyone the right to enforce laws by force up to and including the taking of life, where there is no victim other than the state.  The state CANNOT be a victim.  And if there is no victim, there is no crime.   Forget the weed.  Make it a seatbelt violation or going two miles an hour over the speed limit.  It doesn't matter what the "crime" was, because our argument is that there wasn't an actual crime to begin with.  

You can argue it all you want, until the law is changed there was indeed a law broken, and you are arguing the wrong point.  The argument is whether the shoot was good or not, and with my limited knowledge of the situation I land on it being a good shoot.  He should of just dropped the weapon when told to do so, then both of you could of argued whether pot should be illegal or not.

[leroy]

Bud...

Thanks for straightening this ole coot up... i'm a bit smarter now... Now i know about "Brandishing" vs "branishing"...

RE: This....

Quote

....Also, I ask sincerely, did he indeed hold up the gun to scare someone off or just maintain possession? I haven't seen any video...

It doesn't matter (...for him now, anyway...) whether he was doing things to "...scare or maintain possession..."... The police decided he was a threat....  The fact of the matter is that this is, indeed, a tragic mistake; no matter who made it... Nobody will be the same after this... The police reported seein a gun and dope... At the time, their opinion was the only one that mattered... His failure to comply with police commands resulted in his assumption of room temperature... Everybody involved lost on this one; except maybe the citizenry of Charlotte...

leroy

[Capbyrd]

31 minutes ago, Omega said:

You can argue it all you want, until the law is changed there was indeed a law broken, and you are arguing the wrong point.  The argument is whether the shoot was good or not, and with my limited knowledge of the situation I land on it being a good shoot.  He should of just dropped the weapon when told to do so, then both of you could of argued whether pot should be illegal or not.

So still not getting it.  It's a shame that you, and others like you, will just blindly give your right to life away like that.  

[Omega]

8 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

So still not getting it.  It's a shame that you, and others like you, will just blindly give your right to life away like that.  

SMH, it is you that don't get it.  The time to argue or protest a law is when it will actually have an affect.  Whether pot now becomes legal or not will not bring him back to life.  For the record, I think it should be legal; though I no longer have a need/want for it.  After the fact, you can only argue whether everything was done according to the law, and in this case I believe it was.  

[Capbyrd]

See, still don't get it.  I'm not arguing law.  I'm arguing morality.  And morally, whether it is legal or not, has no bearing.  

[Omega]

33 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

See, still don't get it.  I'm not arguing law.  I'm arguing morality.  And morally, whether it is legal or not, has no bearing.  

That's even easier, morally he should not of been smoking pot while armed, in control of a vehicle and then refusing to drop it when confronted about it.

[n0rlf]

I guess I am having a hard time with the no victim no crime thought. So if he is standing there with a gun and drugs and he is a felon that is a crime. Who is the victim? All of us! Makes it harder on those of us that choos to live within the rules. 

Police do more than crime reports, they should be doing crime prevention. It may not be in line with your ideals but a man with drugs and weapons is something I would like the police to look at. Yeah I guess it could be argued that is giving up some freedom and where do you cross the line yada yada yada...In the end I would like to see the four year old grow up. You cannot legislate stupidity! Let Darwin work. But remember what all Darwin Award winners have in common....They took themselves out of the gene pool. Hopefully before harming someone else. 

If you really believe police should do nothing until their is a victim then you in my opinion need some deeper thinking. Crime prevention like safety is everyone's job. Same for gun handling at the range. Should anyone be able to handle a firearm with others down range? Of course not! So if someone does it and no one gets hurt is it still ok? Of course not. Would 99% of shooters scream at someone for handling a firearm with others down range? Of course. So no victim no crime does not fit every situation now does it?

Someone else covered the DUI example so no need to cover that. How about the pilot flying your wife and kids home from visiting Grandma? If he is drunk or high should we just let him go on and fly? Until he flys the plane into the ground their is no victim right? Extreme examples of course but the thought process is the same.

Follow the rules and all is good. If they are stupid rules work to change them. Ignore the reality because you are a "Freedom Lover" and pay the piper! Just remember the golden rule of life, "Play stupid games and win stupid prizes!"

[bud]

.

 

Edited January 14, 2017 by bud

[Sunfish]

Well Well Well,  Once the officer pulled his weapon on the man and commanded him to drop it numerous times they both made their choices. Why does not matter at this point. He couldn't live without the gun and the officer couldn't live with it. Bang bang it's over. Go over in Europe and see how many times they give you a command to drop the weapon before they fire. I promise you one chance is all you get and you better not hesitate. Better wave your pistol and smoke your pot at home.       

[Sunfish]

      

Edited October 4, 2016 by Sunfish

[Sunfish]

  Sorry for multiple posts  

Edited October 4, 2016 by Sunfish

[Sunfish]

Sorry      

Edited October 4, 2016 by Sunfish

[gregintenn]

15 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

See, still don't get it.  I'm not arguing law.  I'm arguing morality.  And morally, whether it is legal or not, has no bearing.  

We are a nation of laws; not of morals. Police are employed to enforce these laws. I can only wish we were a moral nation.

[56FordGuy]

13 hours ago, n0rlf said:

guess I am having a hard time with the no victim no crime thought. So if he is standing there with a gun and drugs and he is a felon that is a crime. Who is the victim? All of us! Makes it harder on those of us that choos to live within the rules. 

 

How? 

[Erik88]

I can honestly understand both sides of the argument here. I hate that a man lost his life over a little bit of weed but I also understand where the officers are coming from when they initiated contact.

Chris, Blake, Elliot, I understand your argument and even agree with a lot of it but I feel your condemnation of the "state" is unfairly targeting cops who do not make the laws. If we expect the cops to pick and choose which laws to ignore and which to inforce I feel that is a slippery slope. I don't know whether or not this shooting was justified but it does seem like the victim made a series of really poor decisions which ultimately cost him his life. It's a horrible situation for everyone, especially the dead guy and his family.

Let me ask this, lets pretend the cops just ignored this guy and went about their business and then 10 minutes later the guy gets out of his vehicle and kills his wife and kid in a domestic violence situation. What would have happened to those cops careers or freedom?

I don't have all the answers but it seems this isn't a clear cut case of a cop just walking up and executing a guy for smoking a joint.

[56FordGuy]

1 hour ago, Erik88 said:

Chris, Blake, Elliot, I understand your argument and even agree with a lot of it but I feel your condemnation of the "state" is unfairly targeting cops who do not make the laws. 

We all get to decide between right and wrong. We are all responsible for the decisions we make. 

 

If if you came home and two guys were robbing your house, would you be angry with them? Would you try to stop them? What if they had nice polo shirts with their names on them and Big Jim's Burglary embroidered on the front? "Hey man, we're just doing our jobs. Jim pays us $10/ hour to rob houses. Don't be mad at us, be mad at him!" That's ridiculous, right? The guys doing the robbing know that what they're doing is wrong, even if they are employed to do it. It works the same way for police officers. Enforcing unjust laws is just as wrong as passing unjust laws. 

[JAB]

On 9/30/2016 at 5:49 PM, gregintenn said:

O.k. I'll play along. I'll preface this for the few who don't already know that I don't care for law enforcement personnel. That being said, In your mind, when the police see this thug smoking a doobie and holding a gun, what the hell would you expect them to do?

I think you must have missed my subsequent post where I stated:

"As I said, I am not necessarily supporting the dead dude.  I was simply wondering about the justification for initiating contact.  If, indeed, he was seen rolling a joint and if somehow the observer could tell that it was, indeed, a joint and not a hand-rolled tobacco cigarette and he was, indeed, observed with a gun then absolutely that justified initiating contact.  At that point, not dropping the firearm justified the shooting.  If that is/was the case then I agree - move along, nothing to see, here."

My questions were:

Given that the police could not possibly have known that the individual was a felon nor that he was having 'mental issues' at the time of contact - meaning that his being a felon or having mental problems could have had no bearing at the time,

1. Did the police know, before initiating contact, that it was a joint he was smoking and not a completely legal tobacco cigarette?

2. Did the police know, before initiating contact, that he had a gun?

3. If the answer to #1 and #2 were 'no' then what was the justification for initiating contact in the first place?

As Omega indicated that another article stated that the police (somehow) did know these things before initiating contact I agreed that there was nothing really questionable about the actions taken by the officers.

I simply never take anything police say at face value.  This is not because of some 'unfounded' hatred of police.  This is due to experiences I have had.  Yes, I - who have no police record, have never smoked pot (no, seriously) and have never been in any legal trouble beyond one or two traffic violations have been unjustly pulled over and treated like a low-life criminal by police on more than one occasion in more than one jurisdiction. 

1. One evening, after dark, a cop rode a few feet from my bumper with his bright lights on.  This made it difficult for me to see and created an unsafe driving situation.  When I swerved a little - because I couldn't see - he pulled me over, "because you were swerving a little back there."  He then proceeded to say to my friend who was in the vehicle with me (who has also never been in any kind of trouble,) "Didn't I arrest you last week?"  He had nothing with which to charge us and had to let us go (and obviously wasn't happy about it.)

2. A few years later a different cop also rode just off of my rear bumper causing the same situation and pulled me over for the same bs reason.  His first words to me were, "Didn't I give you a ticket two nights ago?"  My response, "Well, that would have been kind of hard seeing as how I am just returning home from a cruise and I was on a Caribbean Island two nights ago."  He had nothing with which to charge me and had to let me go (and obviously wasn't happy about it.)

3. When I attended UTK and lived at my grandmother's on East Fifth through the week a cop pulled me over. He claimed he was pulling me over because I had a tail light out.  Curiously, he did not issue a citation or even a warning to fix any, such light and it never came up again after he mentioned it initially.  I checked when I got home - as suspected, I did not have a tail light out.   He had no legal reason to cite for pulling me over and his real reason was to ask, "What are you doing in this neighborhood?"  Yes, I have been pulled over for driving while white.

I won't drag this on by citing at least two, other similar instances when I have been pulled over literally for nothing with the only 'probable cause' being things that the cop purposefully created or just flat made up.  Suffice it to say that at this point in my life whenever I hear of a police run in where the probable cause sounds a bit suspicious I don't simply and immediately assume that was how things really happened.  Some cops do lie.  I've experienced it.  Strangely, the two times I have been pulled over and given a ticket for speeding (and I admittedly was) those officers were professional and courteous.  In other words, I came away from interactions when I actually received a ticket with a more positive perception of police than in the multiple occasions when I was pulled over and didn't receive a citation (because they had no justifiable reason to pull me over in the first place, much less cite me for anything.)

Edited October 3, 2016 by JAB