Police state of Floradad: From the Freedom Outpost web site. Please tell me again we are not living in a police state controlled nation with un-Constitutional Judges and politicians.

Onelostdog Loc: Restless Oregon

From the Freedom Outpost web site.
Please tell me again we are not living in a police state controlled nation with un-Constitutional Judges and politicians. Welcome to the new Islamic C*******t nation of the USSA. Every act and action these so called cops did is illegal and un-Constitutional along with the Judges who are now making up their own words and terms.

Court Rules in Favor of Police Who Pounded on Wrong Door, Didn't Identify Themselves, Then K**led Innocent Man for Holding a Gun
John Whitehead — March 27, 2017

According to a federal appeals court, police will not be held accountable for banging on the wrong door at 1:30 am, failing to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shooting and k*****g the innocent homeowner who answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense. Although 26-year-old Andrew Scott had committed no crime and never fired a single bullet or lifted his firearm against police, he was gunned down by police who were investigating a speeding incident by engaging in a middle-of-the-night “knock and talk” in Scott’s apartment complex.

In ruling in favor of qualified immunity for police, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has given law enforcement agencies further incentives to engage in aggressive “knock and talk” practices, which have become thinly veiled, warrantless exercises by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors in the middle of the night.

“Government officials insist that there is nothing unlawful, unreasonable or threatening about the prospect of armed police dressed in SWAT gear knocking on doors in the middle of night and ‘asking’ homeowners to engage in warrantless ‘knock-and-talk’ sessions,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “However, as Andrew Scott learned, there’s always a price to pay for saying no to such heavy-handed requests by police. If the courts continue to sanction such aggressive, excessive, coercive ‘knock-and-shoot’ tactics, it will give police further incentive to terrorize and k**l American citizens without fear of repercussion.”

On July 15, 2012, Deputy Richard Sylvester spotted a speeding motorcycle while on patrol in Lake County, Florida. Sylvester pursued the motorcycle in his patrol car but lost sight of it. Subsequent reports caused Sylvester to believe that the motorcyclist might be armed, was wanted by another police department, and had been spotted at a nearby apartment complex. Arriving at the complex around 1:30 a.m., Sylvester and three other deputies began knocking on doors close to where a motorcycle was parked, starting with Apartment 114, where a light was on inside. Apartment 114 was occupied by Andrew Scott and Amy Young, who were playing video games and had no connection to the motorcycle or any illegal activity.

Assuming tactical positions surrounding the door to Apartment 114, the deputies had their guns drawn and ready to shoot. Sylvester, without announcing he was a police officer, then banged loudly and repeatedly on the door, causing a neighbor to open his door. When questioned by a deputy, the neighbor explained that the motorcycle’s owner did not live in Apartment 114. This information was not relayed to Sylvester. Unnerved by the banging at such a late hour, Andrew Scott retrieved his handgun before opening the door. When Scott saw a shadowy figure holding a gun outside his door, he retreated into his apartment only to have Sylvester immediately open fire. Sylvester fired six shots, three of which hit and k**led Scott. A trial court subsequently ruled in favor of the police, ruling that Scott was to blame for choosing to retrieve a handgun before opening the door.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Sylvester was protected by “qualified immunity,” reasoning that the use of excessive force did not violate “clearly established law.” Four judges dissented with the majority’s ruling, likening the “knock and talk” to a “knock and shoot” and rejecting the idea that Scott caused the shooting by exercising his Second Amendment right through his possession of a firearm.

Click here to read the ruling in Amy Young, et al. v. Gary S. Borders, et al.

Article posted with permission from The Rutherford Institute.

Big dog

Onelostdog wrote:

From the Freedom Outpost web site.
Please tell me again we are not living in a police state controlled nation with un-Constitutional Judges and politicians. Welcome to the new Islamic C*******t nation of the USSA. Every act and action these so called cops did is illegal and un-Constitutional along with the Judges who are now making up their own words and terms.

Court Rules in Favor of Police Who Pounded on Wrong Door, Didn't Identify Themselves, Then K**led Innocent Man for Holding a Gun
John Whitehead — March 27, 2017

According to a federal appeals court, police will not be held accountable for banging on the wrong door at 1:30 am, failing to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shooting and k*****g the innocent homeowner who answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense. Although 26-year-old Andrew Scott had committed no crime and never fired a single bullet or lifted his firearm against police, he was gunned down by police who were investigating a speeding incident by engaging in a middle-of-the-night “knock and talk” in Scott’s apartment complex.

In ruling in favor of qualified immunity for police, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has given law enforcement agencies further incentives to engage in aggressive “knock and talk” practices, which have become thinly veiled, warrantless exercises by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors in the middle of the night.

“Government officials insist that there is nothing unlawful, unreasonable or threatening about the prospect of armed police dressed in SWAT gear knocking on doors in the middle of night and ‘asking’ homeowners to engage in warrantless ‘knock-and-talk’ sessions,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “However, as Andrew Scott learned, there’s always a price to pay for saying no to such heavy-handed requests by police. If the courts continue to sanction such aggressive, excessive, coercive ‘knock-and-shoot’ tactics, it will give police further incentive to terrorize and k**l American citizens without fear of repercussion.”

On July 15, 2012, Deputy Richard Sylvester spotted a speeding motorcycle while on patrol in Lake County, Florida. Sylvester pursued the motorcycle in his patrol car but lost sight of it. Subsequent reports caused Sylvester to believe that the motorcyclist might be armed, was wanted by another police department, and had been spotted at a nearby apartment complex. Arriving at the complex around 1:30 a.m., Sylvester and three other deputies began knocking on doors close to where a motorcycle was parked, starting with Apartment 114, where a light was on inside. Apartment 114 was occupied by Andrew Scott and Amy Young, who were playing video games and had no connection to the motorcycle or any illegal activity.

Assuming tactical positions surrounding the door to Apartment 114, the deputies had their guns drawn and ready to shoot. Sylvester, without announcing he was a police officer, then banged loudly and repeatedly on the door, causing a neighbor to open his door. When questioned by a deputy, the neighbor explained that the motorcycle’s owner did not live in Apartment 114. This information was not relayed to Sylvester. Unnerved by the banging at such a late hour, Andrew Scott retrieved his handgun before opening the door. When Scott saw a shadowy figure holding a gun outside his door, he retreated into his apartment only to have Sylvester immediately open fire. Sylvester fired six shots, three of which hit and k**led Scott. A trial court subsequently ruled in favor of the police, ruling that Scott was to blame for choosing to retrieve a handgun before opening the door.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Sylvester was protected by “qualified immunity,” reasoning that the use of excessive force did not violate “clearly established law.” Four judges dissented with the majority’s ruling, likening the “knock and talk” to a “knock and shoot” and rejecting the idea that Scott caused the shooting by exercising his Second Amendment right through his possession of a firearm.

Click here to read the ruling in Amy Young, et al. v. Gary S. Borders, et al.

Article posted with permission from The Rutherford Institute.

From the Freedom Outpost web site. br Please tell ... (show quote)

Shoot first and ask questions later ? Sounds like a police state to ME.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

Onelostdog wrote:

From the Freedom Outpost web site.
Please tell me again we are not living in a police state controlled nation with un-Constitutional Judges and politicians. Welcome to the new Islamic C*******t nation of the USSA. Every act and action these so called cops did is illegal and un-Constitutional along with the Judges who are now making up their own words and terms.

Court Rules in Favor of Police Who Pounded on Wrong Door, Didn't Identify Themselves, Then K**led Innocent Man for Holding a Gun
John Whitehead — March 27, 2017

According to a federal appeals court, police will not be held accountable for banging on the wrong door at 1:30 am, failing to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shooting and k*****g the innocent homeowner who answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense. Although 26-year-old Andrew Scott had committed no crime and never fired a single bullet or lifted his firearm against police, he was gunned down by police who were investigating a speeding incident by engaging in a middle-of-the-night “knock and talk” in Scott’s apartment complex.

In ruling in favor of qualified immunity for police, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has given law enforcement agencies further incentives to engage in aggressive “knock and talk” practices, which have become thinly veiled, warrantless exercises by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors in the middle of the night.

“Government officials insist that there is nothing unlawful, unreasonable or threatening about the prospect of armed police dressed in SWAT gear knocking on doors in the middle of night and ‘asking’ homeowners to engage in warrantless ‘knock-and-talk’ sessions,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “However, as Andrew Scott learned, there’s always a price to pay for saying no to such heavy-handed requests by police. If the courts continue to sanction such aggressive, excessive, coercive ‘knock-and-shoot’ tactics, it will give police further incentive to terrorize and k**l American citizens without fear of repercussion.”

On July 15, 2012, Deputy Richard Sylvester spotted a speeding motorcycle while on patrol in Lake County, Florida. Sylvester pursued the motorcycle in his patrol car but lost sight of it. Subsequent reports caused Sylvester to believe that the motorcyclist might be armed, was wanted by another police department, and had been spotted at a nearby apartment complex. Arriving at the complex around 1:30 a.m., Sylvester and three other deputies began knocking on doors close to where a motorcycle was parked, starting with Apartment 114, where a light was on inside. Apartment 114 was occupied by Andrew Scott and Amy Young, who were playing video games and had no connection to the motorcycle or any illegal activity.

Assuming tactical positions surrounding the door to Apartment 114, the deputies had their guns drawn and ready to shoot. Sylvester, without announcing he was a police officer, then banged loudly and repeatedly on the door, causing a neighbor to open his door. When questioned by a deputy, the neighbor explained that the motorcycle’s owner did not live in Apartment 114. This information was not relayed to Sylvester. Unnerved by the banging at such a late hour, Andrew Scott retrieved his handgun before opening the door. When Scott saw a shadowy figure holding a gun outside his door, he retreated into his apartment only to have Sylvester immediately open fire. Sylvester fired six shots, three of which hit and k**led Scott. A trial court subsequently ruled in favor of the police, ruling that Scott was to blame for choosing to retrieve a handgun before opening the door.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Sylvester was protected by “qualified immunity,” reasoning that the use of excessive force did not violate “clearly established law.” Four judges dissented with the majority’s ruling, likening the “knock and talk” to a “knock and shoot” and rejecting the idea that Scott caused the shooting by exercising his Second Amendment right through his possession of a firearm.

Click here to read the ruling in Amy Young, et al. v. Gary S. Borders, et al.

Article posted with permission from The Rutherford Institute.

From the Freedom Outpost web site. br Please tell ... (show quote)

So this guy sees a 'shadowy figure holding a gun' outside his apartment and opens the door. Is that even rational? In what universe is it a good idea to open the door to armed intruders? Had he survived the encounter, I would have recommended that he be shot anyway, for the unforgivable crime of being irretrievably stupid. As for the cop; so what? He sees a guy standing in the hallway holding a pistol after he's been primed with the knowledge that his suspect is likely armed and dangerous. Jumpy? Naturally! Who wouldn't be? Of course he shot this fool where he stood. Clearly the cop was rattled, firing six shots and only registering 3 hits at what had to be close range. Would it have been any different had the cop identified himself as a police officer while knocking? Who knows? Anyone can claim to be a cop and get their 'mark' to open the door.

This tragic mess is made much worse by what appears to be a very poorly written ruling on the part of the judicial majority. These people are supposed to be smart, yet they can't generate a ruling that actually reflects a common-sense approach to the law? Citing 'qualified immunity' in this case makes no sense. This guy had every right to be standing in his own hallway with a gun in his hand at any time he felt like it. And specifically when he felt threatened, like in the middle of the night when there's armed shadows hammering on his front door.

There are a few facts that stand out here that I would focus on:

It was late at night.
The homeowner opened the door after seeing armed shadows.
The homeowner was visibly holding a firearm.
The cop had been warned about a dangerous suspect.
If the homeowner pointed the pistol at the cop, lights out, and rightfully.
If the cop shot the homeowner after seeing the pistol and not being threatened with it; at best, involuntary manslaughter.

Unfortunately, there is no mention of those last crucial possibilities, and now we have the claim that any cop can bust your door in, at any time, for no reason, and put bullets in you for trying to defend yourself from an unknown intruder. This, of course, is total bunkum, but the way the ruling is written, it is seen as the law.

Big dog

Larry the Legend wrote:

So this guy sees a 'shadowy figure holding a gun' outside his apartment and opens the door. Is that even rational? In what universe is it a good idea to open the door to armed intruders? Had he survived the encounter, I would have recommended that he be shot anyway, for the unforgivable crime of being irretrievably stupid. As for the cop; so what? He sees a guy standing in the hallway holding a pistol after he's been primed with the knowledge that his suspect is likely armed and dangerous. Jumpy? Naturally! Who wouldn't be? Of course he shot this fool where he stood. Clearly the cop was rattled, firing six shots and only registering 3 hits at what had to be close range. Would it have been any different had the cop identified himself as a police officer while knocking? Who knows? Anyone can claim to be a cop and get their 'mark' to open the door.

This tragic mess is made much worse by what appears to be a very poorly written ruling on the part of the judicial majority. These people are supposed to be smart, yet they can't generate a ruling that actually reflects a common-sense approach to the law? Citing 'qualified immunity' in this case makes no sense. This guy had every right to be standing in his own hallway with a gun in his hand at any time he felt like it. And specifically when he felt threatened, like in the middle of the night when there's armed shadows hammering on his front door.

There are a few facts that stand out here that I would focus on:

It was late at night.
The homeowner opened the door after seeing armed shadows.
The homeowner was visibly holding a firearm.
The cop had been warned about a dangerous suspect.
If the homeowner pointed the pistol at the cop, lights out, and rightfully.
If the cop shot the homeowner after seeing the pistol and not being threatened with it; at best, involuntary manslaughter.

Unfortunately, there is no mention of those last crucial possibilities, and now we have the claim that any cop can bust your door in, at any time, for no reason, and put bullets in you for trying to defend yourself from an unknown intruder. This, of course, is total bunkum, but the way the ruling is written, it is seen as the law.

So this guy sees a 'shadowy figure holding a gun' ... (show quote)

Right, he should never have opened the door. And if the cops broke in they would be legal targets for the resident.

Onelostdog Loc: Restless Oregon

Larry the Legend wrote:

So this guy sees a 'shadowy figure holding a gun' outside his apartment and opens the door. Is that even rational? In what universe is it a good idea to open the door to armed intruders? Had he survived the encounter, I would have recommended that he be shot anyway, for the unforgivable crime of being irretrievably stupid. As for the cop; so what? He sees a guy standing in the hallway holding a pistol after he's been primed with the knowledge that his suspect is likely armed and dangerous. Jumpy? Naturally! Who wouldn't be? Of course he shot this fool where he stood. Clearly the cop was rattled, firing six shots and only registering 3 hits at what had to be close range. Would it have been any different had the cop identified himself as a police officer while knocking? Who knows? Anyone can claim to be a cop and get their 'mark' to open the door.

This tragic mess is made much worse by what appears to be a very poorly written ruling on the part of the judicial majority. These people are supposed to be smart, yet they can't generate a ruling that actually reflects a common-sense approach to the law? Citing 'qualified immunity' in this case makes no sense. This guy had every right to be standing in his own hallway with a gun in his hand at any time he felt like it. And specifically when he felt threatened, like in the middle of the night when there's armed shadows hammering on his front door.

There are a few facts that stand out here that I would focus on:

It was late at night.
The homeowner opened the door after seeing armed shadows.
The homeowner was visibly holding a firearm.
The cop had been warned about a dangerous suspect.
If the homeowner pointed the pistol at the cop, lights out, and rightfully.
If the cop shot the homeowner after seeing the pistol and not being threatened with it; at best, involuntary manslaughter.

Unfortunately, there is no mention of those last crucial possibilities, and now we have the claim that any cop can bust your door in, at any time, for no reason, and put bullets in you for trying to defend yourself from an unknown intruder. This, of course, is total bunkum, but the way the ruling is written, it is seen as the law.

So this guy sees a 'shadowy figure holding a gun' ... (show quote)

Gee and the neighbor who came out telling the punk cops that this guy didn't own a motorcycle and that they had the wrong house was not listened to by the moron Swat team. Also why would any PD send out a Swat team for a speeding ticket at that time of the morning. Sorry but all of this is completely wrong on the side of the PD and the phony liberal judge. If there were a next time for this poor guy I would suggest a shot gun blast through the door instead of opening it but like you said why in the hell did this i***t even open his door in the first place?

Onelostdog Loc: Restless Oregon

Big dog wrote:

Right, he should never have opened the door. And if the cops broke in they would be legal targets for the resident.

The PD and their Swat team are totally wrong on every aspect of this murder along with the liberal progressive judge. There are laws that state a police officer must identify himself as such or he is just an illegal intruder and should be shot. And why send a Swat team for a speeding ticket all while not listening to a neighbor who clearly stated that this guy didn't own a motorcycle and that the out of control Swatys had the wrong address. Shoot first and ask questions later but for Christ's sake don't open the door to armed intruders no matter who they are.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

Onelostdog wrote:

The PD and their Swat team are totally wrong on ev... (show quote)

Where'd it say that this was a SWAT raid? I didn't see that. I just assumed it was a regular beat cop going door-to-door. They do that some times. As an aside, had it been my door they were banging on, my wife would have been holding the shotgun behind me and I would have been the one answering it, if, and I do mean if, I answered the door at all. Anything happens to me, she lets fly with the 12 gauge. Problem solved.

Big dog

Larry the Legend wrote:

Where'd it say that this was a SWAT raid? I didn't see that. I just assumed it was a regular beat cop going door-to-door. They do that some times. As an aside, had it been my door they were banging on, my wife would have been holding the shotgun behind me and I would have been the one answering it, if, and I do mean if, I answered the door at all. Anything happens to me, she lets fly with the 12 gauge. Problem solved.

Damned right

Onelostdog Loc: Restless Oregon

Larry the Legend wrote:

Where'd it say that this was a SWAT raid? I didn't see that. I just assumed it was a regular beat cop going door-to-door. They do that some times. As an aside, had it been my door they were banging on, my wife would have been holding the shotgun behind me and I would have been the one answering it, if, and I do mean if, I answered the door at all. Anything happens to me, she lets fly with the 12 gauge. Problem solved.

Fay Guht

Heh! I know. Lets do some psychological testing.

Lets see if any of the candidates have emotional problems.

Picked on in high school? Daddy disciplined you too sternly? And you resent and h**e him?
No friends in high school? Ugly, fat girlfriends who tell you what to do? Mommy grounded you? Overt or hidden hostilities? No one recognizes your genius? No one understands you?

Its everyone else's fault that they dont understand you.

Who are they to h**e you!

You, yes YOU, are a genius!

AND YOU'RE HIRED!

Now remember all this....its their fault, h**e them....you'll show them!

H**e them. K**l them. Punish them.

Show them who's boss!

teabag09

And t deputies assumed tactical positions. Didn't say swat but acted like swat. Mike

Larry the Legend wrote:

Where'd it say that this was a SWAT raid? I didn't see that. I just assumed it was a regular beat cop going door-to-door. They do that some times. As an aside, had it been my door they were banging on, my wife would have been holding the shotgun behind me and I would have been the one answering it, if, and I do mean if, I answered the door at all. Anything happens to me, she lets fly with the 12 gauge. Problem solved.

Onelostdog Loc: Restless Oregon

Fay Guht wrote:

Heh! I know. Lets do some psychological testing.... (show quote)

Well OK then Fay wh**ever your name is but the reality here is only Jesus knows who or what your conversing about or to whom the liberal is you speak of. That's why the great advisors here included the quote reply button.

Fay Guht

Understood. An addition to my above:

Then lets take these tested candidates, put 'em in a superhero outfit anonymously, combine em with a lot of other tested "moralists" and send em into citizens homes.

Onelostdog Loc: Restless Oregon

teabag09 wrote:

And t deputies assumed tactical positions. Didn't say swat but acted like swat. Mike

The one mention I found in the article representing a mention of SWAT is here---
“Government officials insist that there is nothing unlawful, unreasonable or threatening about the prospect of armed police dressed in SWAT gear knocking on doors in the middle of night and ‘asking’ homeowners to engage in warrantless ‘knock-and-talk’ sessions,” all while exposing weapons.
I guess the best method here is to do what a great liberal moron has stated in the past and just shoot through the door first then the home owner can ask for a response from whomever is standing outside.

Sons of Liberty Loc: look behind you!

Larry the Legend wrote:

Where'd it say that this was a SWAT raid? I didn't see that. I just assumed it was a regular beat cop going door-to-door. They do that some times. As an aside, had it been my door they were banging on, my wife would have been holding the shotgun behind me and I would have been the one answering it, if, and I do mean if, I answered the door at all. Anything happens to me, she lets fly with the 12 gauge. Problem solved.

Pretty close to what I told my wife to do. If we're in the bedroom, she knows to stay in there with gun in hand aimed at the door til I either announce my return, in which case don't shoot it's me, or someone barges through the door in which case she opens fire. It's just her and I and a couple of dogs, so no kids to worry about unless our 5 year old grand daughter is with us. Of course she'd be in the room with my wife.