It Ain’t Just About Guns, You Know

| December 17, 2018 | 133 Comments

Gadsden flag

Early in November this year, the Anne Arundel county police went to a private home at 5AM to serve a gun seizure order on a 61-year-old man, under Maryland’s newly-minted “red flag law”. https://www.capitalgazette.com/news/for_the_record/ac-cn-red-flag-folo-1106-story.html

“The Anne Arundel County police chief defended Maryland’s new “red flag” protective law Monday, just hours after a 61-year-old man was shot and killed while officers were trying to serve a court order requiring him to surrender his guns.

Chief Timothy Altomare said the fatal shooting in Ferndale was a sign that the law, which went into effect Oct. 1, is needed. There have been 19 protective orders sought in the county since then, tying Harford County for the most in Maryland, according to a report on the first month. Statewide, about half of the 114 orders sought have been granted.

“If you look at this morning’s outcome, it’s tough for us to say ‘Well, what did we prevent?’ ” he said. “Because we don’t know what we prevented or could’ve prevented. What would’ve happened if we didn’t go there at 5 a.m.?”

Altomare said the two investigating officers, who he did not identify Monday, “did the best they could with the situation they had.” One of them fatally shot Gary J. Willis at his Linwood Avenue home. – Article.

According to the article, Mr. Willis did put the gun down on the floor.  If so then, why was it necessary to shoot him, and why did those cops go there at 5AM and wake him up? Per the article, Linwood became agitated and picked up the gun and a struggle ensued. So why was it necessary for either cop to pull out a gun and shoot him, instead of calling for back up and putting him on the floor?  Is Anne Arundel County turning into Chicago?

And who called the cops on him, anyway? Was it family or a disgruntled neighbor? Apparently, it was a family member, but why aren’t these people responsible enough to get him to counseling if he’s agitated about something?

Regarding this incident in Marylnad, which is now a “red flag law” state, there are many questions left unanswered. I’m hoping they will be answered, because this is bizarre, from my point of view.

As you may or may not know, red flag laws allow someone to make a call to the police and say you’re some kind of threat, even if you are not.  If this by itself does not smack of Stalin’s era, then what is it? Someone likened it to “Minority Report”, a “gag me with a spoon” movie with that midget actor TCruise. (N.B: if Scientology has so much influence, why isn’t he more famous and more taller?)

There are states that already have those laws in place. I think in Florida, there is also the Baker Act. Here’s the list:

Such orders are known as “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” (ERPO) in Oregon, Washington, Maryland, and Vermont; as “Risk Protection Orders” in Florida; as “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” in California; as “risk warrants” in Connecticut; and as “Proceedings for the Seizure and Retention of a Firearm” in Indiana. After the Parkland school shooting, more states enacted such laws: Florida, Vermont, Maryland, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts, and Illinois.

In Illinois, jumping through all those hoops to comply with state legislation has been tested several times now. As you may recall, the Mayor of Deerfield, IL, was slapped by the court for violating the “unlawful search and seizure”, “due process” and all those other cautionary measures, in addition to violating the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. That sparked the Sanctuary County movement which is ongoing and becoming wider spread in the state of Illinois. (Hey, how about some Sanctuary States?)

I’d like to point out the obvious here. In the Florida Parkland school shooting, there were calls reporting the shooter and the police did absolutely nothing. He didn’t have a “collection”, which is something that is kept in order and looked after. He just had a big pile of guns. He did make threats because he didn’t fit in at school and was bullied. The school did nothing about it. The people he lived with did nothing about him. And, finally, the police did nothing about his threats, even with the backup of the Baker Act, so there was  nothing that stopped him from his rampage.

We must remember, too, that nothing stops cops from being jackasses either, which has a lot to do with what happened to Mr. Linwood.  The Chicago cop who shot LaQuan MacDonald shot him in the back 16 times, instead of in the leg to disable him. The Chicago cop who beat up a female bartender half his size because she wouldn’t serve him any more liquor is another example. When the police do these things, they make the rest of us doubt their sanity.

And remember: we were subjected to Piglet and His Friend Pooh in Parkland, making their grandstanding appearances during their attention-whoring day or two.

So when someone goes in to a panic attack over “red flag laws”, my response would be that he file a public complaint that a law like that does not comply with the US Constitution, does not allow due process or follow that part about ‘unreasonable search and seizure’. You have to sometimes stand up for your rights if you want to keep them.

That it is Nazism and Stalinist KGB/NKVD stuff at its worst, that it specifically follows those practices that led to concentration camps and gulags – those are all true, but has any of that come to pass? Use whatever legalities you can come up with, but keep it calm and assertive. Go through the courts and get that crap overturned.  At my age, if I’m not allowed to have a gun on me when I’m on the trails with a camera, in the odd but possible event that I may or might run into a rabid coyote (they never get their shots), I want to know why.

You can file a complaint pro per or get the help of law students, and all of them need a shake-up now and then to rattle their complacency. They also need the real-world experience of dealing with something that they may not agree with, but which is still legally and constitutionally valid and/or invalid, and they are required to do some real legal work in some states. Good practice for them.

Seriously, if someone really wants to be Gestapo, shouldn’t they at least wear the armbands and the insignia so we know who they are?

Unless we take the old bullshit by the horns, the bullshit can and will bury us deep. We must always pay attention to our AO.

The Bad Guys are out there in the darkness…. And they want Your Guns. (Snerrkkkk!)

Well, they DO!

Category: "Teh Stoopid", "The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves", Gun Grabbing Fascists, Guns, Legal, Liberals suck, Reality Check

Comments (133)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. If All You See… » Pirate's Cove | December 18, 2018
  1. JacktheJarhead says:

    From what I have heard, he was objecting to the way a family member was being cared for. So the person he was complaining about called the cops. Now, no more complaining relative and back to draining Uncle Joe’s bank account.

    I see this being used to settle family and neighbor squabbles. They never go after the person that truly needs to be jacked up. As Ex-PH2 said, the Parkland Asswipe had so many complaints against him and nothing was done. Wonder why that was?

    • desert says:

      This is all leftist BULLSHYT! The left hopes this happens when they put in these chicken shyt laws…hoping someone will say F.U. and get shot, then the leftists can say, “see what that dirty old gun did”?

  2. 5th/77th FA says:

    What the gun grabbers can’t do at the federal level, they will get done at the state or local level. May be more to this story than we are seeing. He put the weapon down and was still shot? Bang on my door at 0500, I’m meeting you with a weapon too. Did the relative have an inside friend at the popo? Who was going to benefit by his death?

    False accusations? We’ve seen them, even in the national news. It’s a fight on other fronts too. Forty years ago a father had very few rights in a divorce/child custody case. You could have all types of evidence that the female was an unfit parent and judges/society would still give custody to the Mother. Little bit better now. Fathers are parents too.

    Seeing the picture of another one of the snakes that slithered out of my final ex-wife’s head reminded me of the false accusations that got me 3 nights and 4 days at the local LEO gray bar hotel. Nine months and $15K later, charges were dropped.

    Eternal Vigilance for local, state and federal gestapo. After they get your neighbor, they’ll come for you.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      The article does say that the two cops reported that he picked up his gun, and that’s what got him shot. But why go at 5AM in the first place?

      The head of the county police used the term ‘trained cops’. Shooting someone does not sound like ‘trained’ to me. It sounds like amateur behavior.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        You’re off base on this one, Ex-. Whatever the other parts of the story, once he bent down to pick up the gun he had put down, he made himself a justified target.

        • Jus Bill says:

          Then why not whack him over the head to render him unconscious? I’m thinking excessive force. Especially if he was bushwhacked from behind.

        • Robert D Ries says:

          SCOTUS says it’s perfectly legal to resist violation of Constitutional Rights with lethal force.

          • 2/17 Air Cav says:

            Funny. A comment by Pave Pusher at the bottom reads,”SCOTUS says it’s perfectly legal to resist violation of your Constitutional Rights with lethal force.” What a coincidence! And my reply was to that and to this, “It’s perfectly legal for a police officer to use deadly force if he reasonably perceives that his life or that of another is in imminent danger.”

          • LCpl Rhodes says:

            What the fuck is this shit doing here? Don’t fucking pick up a gun when the police are in your fucking house and you won’t get shot. You don’t have a Constitutional Right to threaten cops. Maybe if you can’t keep your hands off your gun while the police are questioning you, you shouldn’t have the right to own a gun in the first place. Your place to debate the police is in a court of law, not with a gun in your own home. You will pretty much always lose that fight.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        I just think they reacted too quickly, but we have only their report on what happened (not included in the article), then there is no way of knowing if he threatened to use it.

        Bur J.R. says below that they shot him in the back, I’ll stand by what I said.

        • 2/17 Air Cav says:

          Yeah, a shot if the back is pretty much guaranteed when someone bends over to pick something up. In any event, the time for verbal commands was gone. He was given them, he obeyed, and then he changed his mind. The luxury of time in these confrontations isn’t available. Hindsight is wonderful stuff but when someone goes for a gun and you have one, you use it.

          • LCpl Rhodes says:

            No shit. These are some dumbass arguments I’d expect from a bunch of anti-authority Libertarian teenaged dipshits, not rational adults who should clearly place self-preservation over trying to make a statement against an armed policeman.

      • SFC D says:

        I’m not a LEO, never have been one… But it seems to me that if you’re planning to confiscate a citizens guns, wouldn’t it be far more prudent to detain this citizen where the guns AREN’T? Of course, he could be carrying, but it seems to be bad tactics to confront the guy where the weapons are.

        • Mason says:

          Two things here. First, which also answers Ex’s question as to the time of day, is that you want to get ahold of the person. So you go when you know he’ll be there. Even the criminals are usually home by 0500 and the tax payers are heading off to work by 0700. So that’s the window if you want to find someone at home, with reasonable certainty he’ll be there without knowing his schedule.

          Second, the guns are at the house. One way or the other, you’ll have to go to the house, where the guns are. In the vast majority of these situations, the person is compliant and cooperative.

      • 3E9 says:

        Wrong, as well as a few other statements in the article.
        1. He picked up the weapon, he got shot. Yep that’s what cops are trained to do is eliminate the threat.
        2. The reason the Chicago cop didn’t shoot that kid in the leg is no one is trained to do that and that’s a ridiculous argument. You shoot center mass when you shoot, not for extremities. Shooting a fleeing subject in the back is almost always wrong, but there are some limited exceptions. It was a bad shoot.
        3. You go to people’s houses at 5:00 AM because they aren’t likely to be awake and looking out the window so they can get the drop on you. It’s called the element of surprise.

        Anyone who thinks these cops did something wrong has never served a warrant and has probably watched way too much TV. At least based on what I’ve read. They were serving lawful (whether you think it is or not doesn’t matter until it’s proven to be not) process signed by a judge. They were doing their jobs. The guy picked up a gun and they shot him. Stupid game, stupid prize.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          IN re: #2 – the police officer who shot McDonald in the back was charged with murder and has been tried and sentenced. Shooting McDonald in the thigh once or twice should have been sufficient to stop him, even though he was stoned. But he was shot SIXTEEN TIMES, not just once or twice.

          In regard to your #3, there are people who have early shifts and get up at 4AM to get to them. Others may have just come home from a late shift between 4AM and 6AM, as my neighbor does in the winter.
          I used to get up at 4:30AM to get dressed for skating practice and was out the door by 4:50AM. I am no exception to that schedule, either, so your response is a false assumption on your part as it does not allow for any variables.

          • Mason says:

            If it was illegal to shoot McDonald (which a jury has found that it was!), then it doesn’t matter where he was shot. It was illegal to shoot him in the back, the leg or anywhere else. The quantity of rounds shot is entirely meaningless.

            As to your rebuttal on 3E9’s point #3, of course there are a wide variety of schedules. The point is, MOST people are home around 0500. So if you want to find someone there, that’s when you look. Drug, weapon, and gang warrants are all served at this time of day for the reasons 3E9 outlined.

          • 11B-Mailclerk says:

            Ex-Ph2

            Homework assignment: anatomy

            Please look up a reference on the structures of the upper leg. Note especially the Femur, Femoral Artery, and Femoral Vein.

            A 9mm that breaches the blood vessels is a 60-120 second fatal event. The Femur is almost as deadly, as it will bleed like crazy, being a major bone marrow area.

            Commentary;

            Discharging the gun into a sandbag during violent encounters is “deadly force” most places I have inquired.

            The leg is much smaller than the torso, so missing is far more likely. Who else gets hit by the botched shot?

            You have advocated that “shoot to disable” thing more than once. Please desist. It is not helpful and quite bad advice.

            It is like someone advising sandpaper as lens cleaning media. Did you just flinch? Yeah.

      • desert says:

        PH2, that is bullshyt too, why didn’t they move in and secure the weapon when he dropped it? This sounds like a false flag bit of bullshyt to me!

    • J.R. Johnson says:

      What the original story said, was the suspect initially put his gun down but changed his mind and picked it back up. That is when the cops shot him (in the back). He may or may not have been putting it away.
      What the Maryland law states is the complainant must be related or living in the same house. They get to see a judge and explain, so it does not happen over night, but the suspect does not get to know about it until they are served (no due process)

      • 3E9 says:

        Bad argument. Saying he is denied due process in this situation is the same as saying a suspect should be able to argue against the signing of an arrest or search warrant prior to it being signed.

      • timactualt says:

        The man was not a “suspect”. He was a law-abiding gun owner who had no reason to expect a legitimate 0500 wakeup call. Perhaps if the police had come by in the afternoon or evening, when most legitimate social or business calls are made, he would not have answered the door with a gun. Perhaps the police could even have asked the “close” family member who turned him in about his personal habits, so they could approach him at a more neutral time and/or place.

        Naaaah. We’re the police, we do what we want when we want.

        • Mason says:

          Whoever filed the initial report was obviously scared of this person possessing weapons, which is what started the whole thing. So asking that person to help seize the weapons is a little ridiculous. Would you ask a rape victim to go into the rapist’s house to help find the stained pants he was wearing? Of course not.

          This was not a social or business call. They weren’t stopping by to say “Hey, what’s up?” They were coming to deprive him of potentially deadly weaponry. So yeah, they’re going to use the element of surprise and the cover of dark to do it.

          • OWB says:

            There is nothing obvious about the person filing the initial report other than that the person was willing to file the initial report. We have no way of knowing if the entire story was a lie or if that individual actually had fear of something bad happening. None. And that is why an investigation should be made of the claim. Was it credible? How would anyone know without an investigation? Was there one? The law doesn’t seem to require one.

          • timactual says:

            ” So asking that person to help seize the weapons is a little ridiculous”

            Almost as ridiculous as claiming I said anything like that.

            ” So yeah, they’re going to use the element of surprise and the cover of dark to do it.”

            Then they really should be prepared for the likely response of an armed, dangerous, person surprised in the dark.

  3. NHSparky says:

    This story was covered here a while back (no, I’m not gonna look it up right now, yes, I’m fucking lazy) but didn’t go into the issues other states are ramming down their throats.

    NJ has a pure shitshow on their hands when they’re so fucking stupid (because they’re NY’s “simple” cousin) when they can’t even carve out a magazine exemption for LEO’s. Even as fucked up as the SAFE Act was, legacy Governor Cuomo at least had the sense to recognize something was fucked up (besides the very existence of the law itself) and sorta fixed the problem.

    The mayor of Pittsburgh is trying to enact a ban on mags, so-called assault weapons, and other bad/scary things, but for the time being, PA law says he can’t enact any laws that are stricter than what the state already has. We’ll see how that goes.

    Oh, and for Joe the rock climbing douchebag, Lars, et al, read up on your history. 1774–Brits ban import of muskets. 1775–Brits try to confiscate said muskets.

    I think we all know what happened with that.

  4. timactual says:

    Thanks(?) to the internet we can see and read about all those police shootings. There certainly seem to be more than I would have thought possible. It’s starting to look like we citizens are in more danger in an encounter with the police than the police are in an encounter with an unknown citizen. Even being unarmed and cooperative is no guarantee of surviving the encounter.

    Perhaps some Geneva Convention training for police is needed, just like I got in the Army.

    • Mason says:

      Cops spend endless hours on learning the intricacies of constitutional law, state law, and court precedence. The cases you’re seeing where the cops are in the wrong are the vast minority of cases.

      You’re hearing about police shootings now because it’s the “in” thing to report on. Like every few years the media latches on to shark attacks and makes it seem like fish are biting thousands when it’s the same number as in years past.

      Literally millions of people across the country encounter thousands upon thousands of police officers and come out just fine.

      • Fyrfighter says:

        The stories also come from predominantly demonrat controlled areas, where affirmative action hiring is the order of the day… which explains a lot.. most often, standards are lowered to ridiculous levels to allow “preferred” candidates to pass the tests.. which allows people of all shades and genders that are incapable of doing the job to get hired..

        • UpNorth says:

          Exacta-mundo, FF. You hit that one outa the park.

        • timactual says:

          Horseshit. Aside from that Somali buffoon all the shooters I have seen in videos were white.

          • timactual says:

            PS

            This has been going on for years, even in Rep. places. Plenty of time to correct the situation.

          • Mason says:

            What’s your personal knowledge of the field?

            The last couple of decades there has been an enormous push by agencies, especially big cities, for “diversity”. Look into it. You’ll see cities choosing to change vendors for their psychological evaluations because they were saying too many minorities were unfit for duty. You’ll see academy instructors who repeatedly report being told to lower standards to allow certain groups to pass more easily. Field training officers and supervisors are similarly told (if not outright, then with a wink and a nod) that if someone is in a protected class that they get special treatment.

      • timactual says:

        “Literally millions of people across the country encounter thousands upon thousands of police officers and come out just fine.”

        It works both ways. Police have to be a little less trigger happy. Perhaps a few police officers sent to jail will get the message across.

        • Mason says:

          If cops were trigger happy, you’d see a LOT more shootings. The truth of the matter is cops as a whole show an unbelievably remarkable sense of restraint in dealing with violent people on a daily basis.

  5. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    Idiot picked the gun back up. That’s that. I would have shot him too.

  6. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    So much for all the boot licking statists who claimed the cops would never enforce grabbing…cops are going to do what they’re fucking told to do by their masters just like they’ve always done.

    There’ll be plenty of cops only to happy to shoot old men, young men, and women and kids if they’re told to.

    That’s why the sheep dog analogy is used so often, because the government (your owners) and the cops (the sheepdog) believe you’re simply product to be fleeced when and how they see fit, you really are a sheep if you think cops and the government view you as an equal. You’re not an equal in any sense of the term.

    But no doubt they’ll be some boot lickers along to explain how wrong I am because I don’t trust cops or my government.

    “Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.”

    • 2/17 Air Cav says:

      VOV. I agree. Of course the police would enforce gun confiscation. Some would take to it eagerly and others reluctantly, but no one is going to risk his job and pension by refusing to do what is required of the job. As I have said more than once before, we are only a generation or two removed from some of the greatest atrocities man has committed and those who did it were scientists, milkmen, mailmen, and factory workers, to name a few.

      • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

        There was an extremely interesting show on Nat Geo Channel about the workers at an extermination camp…old color films and photos of people smiling and picnicking or dancing and drinking with the backdrop of starved jews waiting to be killed by these very same people in the next few days…

        I’ve always explained to my kids that the problem with monsters is they never actually look like monsters, they just look like your neighbors.

    • NHSparky says:

      Sounds like a lot of Americans never bothered to 1–pick up, 2–read, 3–UNDERSTAND what Solzhenitsyn wrote about I The Gulag Archipelago.

      And how we’ll burn in the camps later, indeed.

      Then again, Ayn Rand nails it here, too:

      “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”

      • Thunderstixx says:

        Try being a nurse.
        The saying is a felony a day.
        And that’s pretty close to the truth.
        Nursing homes are now more regulated than the nuclear power industry.
        There are more regulations on nursing homes than are followed by the people that keep nuclear warheads on submarines, at landlocked US Air Force bases, US Army duty stations and US Navy duty stations.

      • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

        This has long been my complaint with modern education we pretend those things didn’t actually happen and those who wrote about them become minor figures in modern education because their true stories don’t fit the narrative that the commie bastards were just a different political system instead of a murderous regime that preyed on its own people.

      • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

        Here’s another cool tidbit NHS….

        A spokeswoman for the Maryland Judiciary denied a request to see any and all requests for protection orders made at the residence on Linwood Avenue, citing the law, which states that anything related to an order is confidential unless the court rules otherwise.

        Secret court orders that you aren’t allowed to see as a member of the public. The government is increasingly secretive as it continues to limit the Bill of Rights. Whatever happened to the public knowing what’s being done in the name of the public good?

        What that law says to me is that a frivolous complaint can be filed, your weapons seized and you have no way of answering the charge because you can’t face your accuser or defend yourself from a “confidential” seizure.

        The SCOTUS finding on Timbs vs Indiana can’t come soon enough to restore some power to the people. When you can lose your property without due process and we all suffer.

        Fuck the government over reach on our Bill of Rights and fuck those “just following orders” who happily enforce the corruption.

  7. OWB says:

    What sane person would not defend their domicile when it is threatened at 5am? That said, we can hope that the popo had enough sense to identify themselves loudly before proceeding with breaking and entering.

    Most/many/some/all of us would make an effort to protect what is ours when it is attacked. If hearing a door breaking is what wakes us, probably a good number of us would end up dead if the popo follow through, sounding like thugs to still half-asleep citizens.

    Sad, just sad. Killed without a hearing. We can’t seem to get rid of most murderers, but law abiding citizens are fair game.

    • 2/17 Air Cav says:

      He was not shot when he answered the door. He was not shot when his gun was seen. He was not shot when he put it down. He was shot when he decided to go for his gun against police he knew to be police. Now, if the facts change, if the evidence doesn’t match what the police said happened, then we get to revisit this matter. Until then, he wasn’t defending himself or his house under the circumstances described.

      • OWB says:

        Understand – this case well may have been a completely justified police shooting. My angst is about entries/seizures in general without due process. What kind of warrant is issued? Any investigation at all to verify the anonymous claims? Scary stuff.

        • 2/17 Air Cav says:

          Yeah, I’m with you on that. The so-called Red Flag laws are ripe for abuse, and the bases for obtaining those warrants will grow until an appeals court stops them.

          • 11B-Mailclerk says:

            We will never know what he was thinking. Was he just having the feared rage attack, or did he decide “Live Free or Die! Molon Labe!”

            Was he a crazy or a martyr?

            Propagandists will fill in the blank to suit whatever they prefer, I suppose.

            We only know of the 300 Spartans because Leonidas sent out a messenger with their story, and the Greeks won the overall war. Otherwise they would have been just some bat-poop crazy Greeks who defied King Xerxes on his way to conquering them.

        • Mason says:

          Stuff for the courts to settle, which of course will take years. With conflicting circuit court rulings before it goes the SCOTUS. So expect some clarification around 2030.

      • SaraSnipe says:

        I was not there to see what happened either.

        • 2/17 Air Cav says:

          Well, it’s like this, Sara Snipe. If one relies only on one’s personal experience to validate or to discuss a given topic, that’s not a very good or useful standard. We read history and we read current events, such as this account, and we do the best we can with the information provided.

  8. USAFRetired says:

    Up until about 2 years ago I guarantee if you knocked on my door at 0500, when I answered it I would have answered it with my sidearm in Condition 1. Nowadays, my 95 pound German Shepherd answers the doorbell regardless of the time of day.

    After he announces his presence with authority and I identify who is on the other side of the door, then I can make a judgement about whether to have firearm in hand or just holstered.

  9. Stwvw1371 says:

    Just more of the same. More taxes, less freedom. Happens every time the legislature meets.

  10. Steve1371 says:

    Just more of the same. More taxes, less freedom. Happens every time the legislature meets.

  11. PavePusher says:

    SCOTUS says it’s perfectly legal to resist violation of your Constitutional Rights with lethal force.

    • 2/17 Air Cav says:

      It’s perfectly legal for a police officer to use deadly force if he reasonably perceives that his life or that of another is in imminent danger.

      • Thunderstixx says:

        And it appears to be legal to shoot a baby’s Mother when she is holding said baby.
        Also it’s legal to burn men, women and children when you disagree with their religious beliefs…..
        There’s a lot of legal things that make one wonder just how much we are supposed to take before the lid blows off…
        The Bundy Ranch standoff is a prime example of fighting back against the government.
        Agree with the Bundy’s or not, you gotta admire the nearly 1000 people that stood outside that ranch and pushed the government back on an outright massacre.
        I watched that on TV.
        The operator on the telephone told the higher ups in DC that if they wanted them to start a war with the Bundy’s, they had better come out and do it themselves.
        I know that they were pushing for an armed takedown but the people on the ground saw the handwriting on the dirt and told DC that they weren’t about to become a part of it. You could see it in the manners and body language of the operator on the phone….
        Now I still wonder about the Waco Twin Peaks massacre.
        There were snipers on the roofs all over the place.
        The government also had the asphalt replaced within a couple of week if not a couple of days…
        So how much will it take ???

        • 2/17 Air Cav says:

          Your approach is quite like that of the gun grabbers. That is, despite the legality of the 2nd A, they consistently look at separate instances of gun violence, aggregate them, and ask, “So how much will it take?” or words to that effect. This most unfortunate incident should never have happened but for the egregious Red Flag law. But, thanks to it, and a complaint, a warrant was issued and police attempted to serve it. But for the fact (as it stands now) that the man attempted to get hold of a gun he had all ready put down, he would be alive.

          • timactual says:

            ” But for the fact (as it stands now) that the man attempted to get hold of a gun he had all ready put down,”

            That event is the culmination of a chain of events. It is perfectly rational to criticize any of the preceding links in that chain. Sometimes people are sent to jail because of a preceding link.

          • 11B-Mailclerk says:

            Plenty of comments on other threads where the common advice is “don’t resist the cops violently or you will get shot”.

            Folks, if you violently resist the police, particularly with a firearm, it is very likely they will kill you.

            They are unlikely to suffer any great sanction if your game is ” violent and open defiance”.

            It won’t matter much to the system if your cause is just and your intentions noble. If they have “gone fascist” for real, your side won’t even be mentioned.

            The above is the logical consequence of “Molon Labe” and “Liberty or Death”.

            The other side answers “OK. will do.”

            That is the deadly dilemma. Is it time to fight? That depends on -enough- also fighting.

            Better we settle this in court, if possible, because when the wheels come off, so to speak, there is going to be a whole bunch of innocent blood spilled, as well as that of “Tyrants and Patriots”

            Lots and lots of blood.

            And that sort of thing -rarely- ends in the “more liberty” column. 1775-1783 being something of a near-unique event.

            Not time yet, I think.

      • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

        Except some cops have claimed a 12 pound dog scared them enough into shooting the dog.

        “I feared for my life” is the new get out of jail free card for cops. They are well trained in the use of the term and the required follow up language to justify any killing they commit.

        When the cops can kill citizens anytime they “fear” for their lives we the people have to ask whether that’s the kind of policing we want. The government isn’t supposed to own and rule us, they are supposed represent us and our wishes thus providing the consent of the governed.

        No one has conceded their hard fought freedoms than the American people over the last 50 years. Every day that passes a new law or regulation limits your ability to live free in this country and those who are just following the orders of the government are now pretty much free to kill or beat anyone who doesn’t immediately respond to their commands….when your betters in the thin blue line tell you to kneel, you better get down and bow and scrape like the fucking peasant you are before they beat your ass and shoot you for daring to think you were a free man who had every right to ask why.

        There’s a storm coming, and there’s 100 million people with guns at least…the military and cops combined are a fraction of that….I might end up on the coroner’s slab, but I won’t be alone.

        Die on your feet or live on your knees bowing and scraping to your betters…that’s diametrically opposed to every notion of why this country revolted in the first place.

    • rgr769 says:

      That sounds great, in theory, until you are on a slab in the coroner’s office, after the cops killed you exercising your 2A Constitutional rights.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        I have to winder how many folks stocking up guns and ammo for “Liberty or Death” have an up to date will, life insurance that pays out for deliberate acts leading to death, have stashed off-books money for the family, have left an “in the event of my demise” last letter to loved ones, and have asked key friends to step in and support the family “in the event”.

        Because it may well be “death” versus “liberty”, “and” versus “or”.

        The Boston Massacre is known to us because a bunch of folks made it a major point of anti-British propaganda. Otherwise, it would have been a minor footnote, some idiots throwing snowballs at armed annoyed soldiers.

        Don’t squander your Life or Liberty on -pointless-gestures. Making a dramatic exit -count- requires planning and/or allies. And remember always Patton’s dictum on dying for ones cause.

    • MCPO NYC USN Ret. says:

      Say again! That was garbled and made no sense.

      Deadly force can meet only deadly force, serious bodily injury and or other situations such as rape …

      If someone is violating my CON Rights, I have the go to court.

      I can not use lethal force as you call it.

      I can use deadly force if permitted under local, state and or federal law.

  12. Tallywhagger says:

    Where was the urgency? The guy went home after the family meeting. He could have been “watched” instead of “bushwhacked”. The police could have called him and asked if thus-and-so is his relative and given an opportunity to bring his own story to light.

    IF the man left the house, without his firearm, he probably had no intention of doing anything with this firearm.

    If their was some sense of urgency I suspect that it was on the part of the police being very gung-ho to invoke some new authority.

    • 2/17 Air Cav says:

      When a warrant is issued, neither the place to be searched nor the person or things to be seized are to be revealed. A police officer doesn’t call ahead. Depending upon the circumstances, two officers or SWAT may do the job. As for the officers being gung-ho, I doubt it. On the contrary, they most likely said, “WTF kind of warrant is this?” And then did what they are paid to do. Police don’t enjoy shooting people. Nor do bthey enjoy being shot.

      • Tallywhagger says:

        Understood but where was the urgency?

        I have no idea what the decedent actually said that was sufficiently persuasive for a judge to issue a warrant.

        The “suspect” was clearly at home, apparently asleep, when the warrant was served.

        I have been gone from the metro area for 18 years. During the 25 years I was there, PG County was dealt with somewhat differently than Anne Arundel, Howard or Montgomery counties. Having a firearm for self protection, in PG County, was well advised. Anne Arundel, not so much.

        If there is a villain in the story, and I think that are several, the cousin or whatever relationship they may have been bears the burden.

        It is a truly awful law from the perspective of invoking governmental force into a civil matter.

        • Mason says:

          These red flag laws are all centered around urgency. The whole point is that someone close to this person has reported they are armed and a danger to themselves or others. That’s the urgency. Once this is reported and the warrant is signed, it is now on the state if they lollygag on serving it and he does something with those weapons.

          • Poetrooper says:

            Had a drug-crazed sister-in-law call the cops on me which brought my previously friendly, small-town, congenial police department banging on the door yelling, “Police, open up!”

            When I did, I was shouted down into a chair by cops I knew, unable to make any explanation other than to respond, “No,” when asked repeatedly if there were any guns in the house. I learned later the bitch had called the police department and said in a little girl voice that there were guns in the house and she felt threatened. She had learned from her druggie daughter that those were the magic words to generate an immediate police response.

            Well, fuck her! Fearing just such a move by the drug addled bitch, I had moved all of my firearms out of the house into my Wrangler a few days previously and the cops never asked about the vehicles.

            The movie-quality beautiful ending to the story was the crazy bitch walking away from the house along the golf course fairway with her suitcase in hand, never to return.

            She was a mean, vicious woman who would have seen me jailed if possible for absolutely nothing other than having guns in the family home. This is exactly what we have to fear from the gun control zealots–those who will use the more stringent laws unjustly to further their own personal ends.

          • timactual says:

            ” this person has reported they are armed and a danger to themselves or others.”

            All the more reason to carefully evaluate and plan the warrant service. If this individual had truly been a danger to others he might have shot down the two officers immediately.

            • 2/17 Air Cav says:

              Police do not go in blind. Before going on a job like this one, they would run the subject for priors to see what they might have to be ready for and what sort of numbers they might need. It’s not helter-skelter, what the hell, let’s go get’em and book ’em Dano stuff. I can say much more but I’m not at all certain it will matter. The idea that the man was shot due to poor planning is w/o any foundation whatsoever. The idea that showing up at 0500 is somehow a bad tactic is just silly. Out.

              • timactual says:

                I would be more reassured if events like the one below didn’t continue to happen without consequences to the police involved.

                https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/05/raid-of-the-day-bruce-lav_n_3390584.html

                I know it’s Huffington, but I was living in NH at the time, and the article is accurate (to the best of my recollection).

                Actually, as I remember from contemporaneous accounts, the 4 apartment building had been under surveillance from the outside only. The police observed drug traffic going in and out of the building, but not which apartment. Nonetheless they decided to raid one, and got the wrong apartment.

                ” I can say much more but I’m not at all certain it will matter.”

                Me too. I guess we look at the issue from different ends of the gun.

  13. Roh-Dog says:

    Mylar bags, oxygen absorbers, silica gel, an iron, sturdy cases, a shovel, a spot where no one will disturb in your lifetime.
    Some assembly required.
    It ain’t getting better and I’ll be damned if I’m caught short.

  14. rgr769 says:

    Ex-PH2, actual Gestapo did not wear armbands on regular duty. They wore civilian clothes, so the regular citizen did not know they were Gestapo, which stands for Geheim Statz Polizei (Secret State Police).

  15. Tallywhagger says:

    Is there any information about the specific firearm, i.e., revolver, pistol, caliber, loaded, or not? If the firearm had been surrendered, as described, would it not be reasonable to drop the mag, open the cylinder or otherwise clear the weapon?

    Who knows, maybe it all transpired in a matter of seconds, less than a minute. Given that the police were already within the domicile, by his own action, my take is that he should have accepted the situation for what it was.

    God only knows but he probably had no idea that some arbitrary person could invoke such government sponsored malevolence against him or anyone else.

    Just imagine if someone had been able to save Dan Bernath from himself 🙂

    • Mason says:

      If you’re holding a gun and the guys in uniform tell you to drop it, you should drop it. No messing with is, dropping mags, whatever. Any of those gestures could reasonably be misinterpreted.

      You’re right that this probably transpired in seconds, most police shootings do.

  16. Poetrooper says:

    There is only one time to ignore an order from a law enforcement officer and that is when you have decided your miserable existence isn’t worth continuing. If you have reached that point, it would be far better if you just stuck the damned barrel in your mouth or ear and saved the police officers all the damned hearings and investigations they’re going to undergo if they do your suicide for you.

    Man up for once in your life!

  17. OWB says:

    Seems like charges against those who file a false report would be in order in these cases. Sure, there would be a LOT of he said, she said, but at least there would be some due process involved, and a loud signal to those who would make false claims that they will be held responsible for same.

  18. David says:

    This reminds me of when “no-knock” raids were the next big good thing… until a few casualties made it obvious that some procedure modification was in order. The dead guy should not have reached for his gun, but it sure sounds like some poor police work too. A simple “Sir, you know we are uniformed police – could you please step outside and speak with us?” could have defused the situation and disarmed the guy at the same time. Maybe I am a Polyanna, but I’d rather take an extra 5 seconds to try and determine if the guy is a legit threat during the talking part rather than in the shooting part. Dead is irrevocable.

    • timactual says:

      I remember those “no-knock” laws. I also remember saying “I told you so” after a few innocent civilians were killed. Strangely, I don’t remember any repercussions to the police who killed the innocent civilians.

  19. MCPO NYC USN Ret. says:

    “So why was it necessary for either cop to pull out a gun and shoot him, instead of calling for back up and putting him on the floor?”

    A few these here:

    1. The LEO’s are just that. They were executing a lawful warrant.
    2. Can’t blame the LEO’s for a bad law.
    3. I know of no LEO who would permit, withdraw, retreat and or call back up when a previously compliant subject decides to grab a gun in the presence of such a LEO.
    4. The subject by his own actions caused the LEO to use deadly force.
    5. I can’t imagine the LEO’s showed up to serve warrant thinking “I am going to kill someone today”.
    6. Thank God they acted the way they did … 2 LEO’s could be dead.

    Finally, this law stinks to high heavens. But, again it is not the LEO’s fault.

    It is fairly EASY to critique LEO’s when things go wrong … I might suggest (if you have never been a credentialed LEO) think about how HARD that situation truly was for the LEO’s.

    MCPO OUT
    Former FLEO

    • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

      The whole “just following orders” shit is what leads to government oppression on a grand scale. It leads to a mindset that it’s okay to take property and seize assets without due process. Hopefully SCOTUS puts a lot of that to an end shortly with a Timbs Vs Indiana decision that kills the seizure of property without a trial in most states. Taking a 40,000 car for a crime with a maximum fine of 10,000 seems fucked up on every level, but cops have been doing it for years and getting away with it. Because it was a bad law that benefitted their departments by providing policing for profit. Seize a home for a minor drug charge, seize a car for a similar offense, take someone’s cash because the government has decided that honest folks don’t need to carry more than X dollars in cash…

      Freedom is eroded every day at the hands of those LEOs, who are “just following orders”. They enforce bad laws with the same zeal as “good” laws. Even more so if they make a buck doing it.

      Facebook Police pages are proud of these seizures without due process because there are hundreds of photos of property seized they put on their pages bragging about taking people’s shit.

      We need a sea change in the mindset of this nation with respect to what freedom actually means and what we do or don’t expect from our LEOs.

      And we need a massive purge of the laws of the land.

      And I’ve seen the whole “I feared for my life” bullshit used to justify all manner of action including the shooting of small dogs.

      This guy put the gun down and should have left it, he engineered his own end directly.

      But pretending the government and the LEOs involved are of clean hands is to lie to yourself about what government is and what LEOs role as enforcers of bad law and the restrictions of rights are in our modern society.

      When you kill someone while enforcing bad law you’re not innocent. You might not be guilty either, but that’s not the same as innocent.

      • MCPO NYC USN Ret. says:

        I am not arguing the law, SCOTUS case, or all LEO shootings.

        In this case, the LEO’s were executing a lawful warrant and a guy went for a gun.

        Guy should have complied … PERIOD.

        There are winners!

      • MCPO NYC USN Ret. says:

        “But pretending the government and the LEOs involved are of clean hands is to lie to yourself about what government is and what LEOs role as enforcers of bad law and the restrictions of rights are in our modern society.”

        I am not pretending anything and certainly not lying. Simply put, a bad law is still law until overturned or changed. A LEO’s oath is in part to enforce law within their jurisdiction. This is all they were doing until man decided to change the preferred outcome.

        • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

          I’ve heard that line before my friend, it was a long time ago. It still doesn’t make it right.

          The laws of the land don’t excuse wrongdoing, they only add the cloak of legality to what’s wrong and immoral.

          • MCPO NYC USN Ret. says:

            I respect your opinion.

            • Veritas Omnia Vincitv says:

              Please know the reverse is equally true I read your words and appreciate your experience, and I am friends with a great many LEOs including the chief here in my own small town.

              I understand where you’re coming from, my commentary is more about the larger view of what does a society expect from law enforcement and how much law does a truly free society require that creates civil issues as opposed to criminal issues.

            • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

              And I yours greatly, your experience in the field is extremely valuable. I should add I’m friends with several LEOs as well. Including the chief of police in small town in Western Mass. All good men and women to be sure.

              My view is larger on this, more of an observation on what does a free society actually mean and what laws are required for a truly free society with respect to regularly law abiding citizens.

              I’m more libertarian leaning where the smaller the government and the more responsible we are for own safety and success.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Chicago cop David Burge. Tortured people into confessing to crimes they did not commit… among other things.

        Finally was arrested and spent several years in jail. Now he’s dead. And he’d better stay dead.

    • timactual says:

      I can blame the LEOs for executing the warrant badly. I can blame the judge who issued the warrant on the basis of hearsay evidence by one individual. I can blame the law enforcement leaders for not having procedures in place for safely serving warrants to armed and dangerous citizens.

      This is not the first case of fatal warrant execution. Perhaps if the police spent more time developing better warrant serving procedures and less time on SWAT procedures they could avoid killing civilians.

      Naaah. SWAT is more fun.

  20. Docduracoat says:

    These laws NEVER have penalties for false reports.
    That is a feature, not a bug.
    Want to harass your soon to be ex?
    Mad at your father for grounding you?
    Make a false extreme risk protection call.
    Soon the police and courts will be giving you the revenge you want!

    • OWB says:

      Do these laws need a separate section for penalties of abuse? Maybe, but most states already have penalties outlined for making a false report to law enforcement agencies. Why not use what is already codified into law instead of adding more laws?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *