Is the .45 someone’s compensation for......you know? - Page 27
Page 27 of 27 FirstFirst ... 17252627
Results 261 to 264 of 264
 
  1. #261
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    It's not legal for a convicted felon to exit their home armed with a ar15.
    No, but you have to KNOW that the man is a convicted felon, before, or at least when, you shoot or arrest him for the crime. Curry, apparentlly did not have such knowledge.

    I see that you are unfamiliar with how the law works. So, let me enlighten you. In order for Curry's actions to be justified, he would have to be facilitating an arrest, in which the suspect was resisting with deadly force, or was under attack, with deadly force, or reasonably believed that such an attack was imminent. The key word here is reasonably. Now, as Curry did not know that the men were committing any crime, nor was he attempting to question them concerning any crime, then he has to fall back on a reasonable belief that they were attempting an imminent attack upon him. So, under the circumstances prevailing, at the time of the shooting, would a reasonable LEO believe that a deadly force attack was imminent and could only be prevented through the use of deadly force? That is the question that has to be answered by the investigators, the SA and possibly a Grand Jury. Curry's claim is one of self defense and is subject to the laws on use of deadly force in self defense.

  2. #262
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    No, but you have to KNOW that the man is a convicted felon, before, or at least when, you shoot or arrest him for the crime. Curry, apparentlly did not have such knowledge.

    I see that you are unfamiliar with how the law works. So, let me enlighten you. In order for Curry's actions to be justified, he would have to be facilitating an arrest, in which the suspect was resisting with deadly force, or was under attack, with deadly force, or reasonably believed that such an attack was imminent. The key word here is reasonably. Now, as Curry did not know that the men were committing any crime, nor was he attempting to question them concerning any crime, then he has to fall back on a reasonable belief that they were attempting an imminent attack upon him. So, under the circumstances prevailing, at the time of the shooting, would a reasonable LEO believe that a deadly force attack was imminent and could only be prevented through the use of deadly force? That is the question that has to be answered by the investigators, the SA and possibly a Grand Jury. Curry's claim is one of self defense and is subject to the laws on use of deadly force in self defense.
    Are you serious? You mean American citizens have a right to own, possess and carry firearms on their own property and PCSO deputies can't just drive by and shoot at them 18 times and kill them? Even of they are carrying them in the normal way with the butt of the gun facing backwards and the barrell facing forward because that's the way that everybody caries them? And the PCSO doesn't really have the right to claim that the guns are "pointed at them" even though the people carrying the guns on their own property are walking towards them?

  3. #263
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Are you serious? You mean American citizens have a right to own, possess and carry firearms on their own property and PCSO deputies can't just drive by and shoot at them 18 times and kill them? Even of they are carrying them in the normal way with the butt of the gun facing backwards and the barrell facing forward because that's the way that everybody caries them? And the PCSO doesn't really have the right to claim that the guns are "pointed at them" even though the people carrying the guns on their own property are walking towards them?
    Got it in one. I refer you to FSS 790.25(3)(n) and the SCOF decision in Peoples v. State, 287 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1973). In Peoples, in which Peoples was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon, was based upon Peoples openly displaying a firearm outside the building. The court ruled that a person had the right to possess a firearm on the property belonging to the property in which he resides or where he is employed. The exception is the common area of a multifamily residential site. As far as I know, Peoples have not been reversed. Now, in 790.25(3)(n), says that the provisions of 790.053 [0pen carry] do not apply to person possessing firearms at his o her home or business. LEOs have to actually know and understand the laws that they enforce.

    Now, a LEO would be justified in approaching a person openly carrying a firearm in the yard of a private residence and request proof that the person was the resident. But, in order to justify actually using force, especially deadly force, against a person unless there is clear evidence that the person is actually threatening the LEO, or another, with the firearm. In other words, the LEO has to effectively articulate that the weapon was being used in a threatening, menacing or reckless manner., before he can take any action. And, he has to successfully articulate that the manner in which the firearm was being displayed reasonably justified his belief that he was in danger of an imminent attack using the firearm.

  4. #264
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Got it in one. I refer you to FSS 790.25(3)(n) and the SCOF decision in Peoples v. State, 287 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1973). In Peoples, in which Peoples was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon, was based upon Peoples openly displaying a firearm outside the building. The court ruled that a person had the right to possess a firearm on the property belonging to the property in which he resides or where he is employed. The exception is the common area of a multifamily residential site. As far as I know, Peoples have not been reversed. Now, in 790.25(3)(n), says that the provisions of 790.053 [0pen carry] do not apply to person possessing firearms at his o her home or business. LEOs have to actually know and understand the laws that they enforce.

    Now, a LEO would be justified in approaching a person openly carrying a firearm in the yard of a private residence and request proof that the person was the resident. But, in order to justify actually using force, especially deadly force, against a person unless there is clear evidence that the person is actually threatening the LEO, or another, with the firearm. In other words, the LEO has to effectively articulate that the weapon was being used in a threatening, menacing or reckless manner., before he can take any action. And, he has to successfully articulate that the manner in which the firearm was being displayed reasonably justified his belief that he was in danger of an imminent attack using the firearm, IF HE CHOOSES TO USE DEADLY FORCE AGAINST THAT PERSON.
    I added the part of the last sentence in caps, above. I left it out of the previous post. Sorry.

Page 27 of 27 FirstFirst ... 17252627

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •