TexasCHLforum.com

speedsix wrote:...Keith B, he stopped, was not resisting nor had he done ANYTHING that resembled a crime...why did the officer need to have him on his knees...and why did he change his mind...and tell him not to move...I believe from what we read that the officer was all flustered and angry...NOT in any kind of fear for his safety...the officer was violating law and his department policy without any reason to believe this man was a threat...their following conversation showed not that they felt that he'd committed or was about to commit a crime, but that he was doing something they thought he shouldn't...I hope he sues the department and the officers...if the facts are as they were written in the linked account, the officer handled it all wrong and so did his backup...even if the guy's a jerk and intended to make a test of this...their initial stop/conversation were handled all wrong...I'd have argued, too...why should I ruin my knees and suffer humiliation just because of an ignorant, bigoted cop?...Many officers across the country have handled open carry folks MUCH more professionally than this...it wasn't necessary...and if the officer'd shot him for not following his orders...it'd have been murder...according to the account, he didn't make one motion or say one thing to justify being shot...at least I taught my rookies not to kill a man with empty hands...

Keith B wrote:

Winchster wrote:Question for the LEO's on the board... When told not to move AND told to get on your knees, which should you do?

You follow the orders. As long as they are not directing you to do something that will further endanger you or cause you or someone else harm, you best listen. Otherwise, your family could be the ones fighting your wrongful death suit against the city if for some reason the officer panics or misinterprets a move you make. It happened in Las Vegas.

Winchster wrote:

Keith B wrote:

Winchster wrote:Question for the LEO's on the board... When told not to move AND told to get on your knees, which should you do?

You follow the orders. As long as they are not directing you to do something that will further endanger you or cause you or someone else harm, you best listen. Otherwise, your family could be the ones fighting your wrongful death suit against the city if for some reason the officer panics or misinterprets a move you make. It happened in Las Vegas.

I think you may have misunderstood me. According to the recording he was given simultaneous conflicting orders. My perspective is to ask which is it, don't move or get down on my knees which requires movement?

Keith B wrote:

speedsix wrote:...Keith B, he stopped, was not resisting nor had he done ANYTHING that resembled a crime...why did the officer need to have him on his knees...and why did he change his mind...and tell him not to move...I believe from what we read that the officer was all flustered and angry...NOT in any kind of fear for his safety...the officer was violating law and his department policy without any reason to believe this man was a threat...their following conversation showed not that they felt that he'd committed or was about to commit a crime, but that he was doing something they thought he shouldn't...I hope he sues the department and the officers...if the facts are as they were written in the linked account, the officer handled it all wrong and so did his backup...even if the guy's a jerk and intended to make a test of this...their initial stop/conversation were handled all wrong...I'd have argued, too...why should I ruin my knees and suffer humiliation just because of an ignorant, bigoted cop?...Many officers across the country have handled open carry folks MUCH more professionally than this...it wasn't necessary...and if the officer'd shot him for not following his orders...it'd have been murder...according to the account, he didn't make one motion or say one thing to justify being shot...at least I taught my rookies not to kill a man with empty hands...

I never said he was doing anything illegal. The officer was totally out of line and wrong. BUT in this case, the guy should have followed orders, right or wrong. How many people have you seen die because they had the right of way and took it because they were legal, but the big truck didn't stop? Same scenario IMO; I was right and died proving it.

Do as he says and fight it later. If you comply and follow what they say, your case looks a lot better as you were not argumentative or challenging to the cop.

speedsix wrote:...we're not talking about a big truck with no reasoning powers...we're talking about a public servant who is trained and supposed to be professional...who is restricted in the use of his powers by law...now back to the cop...he had no reason to draw down on the citizen...the article doesn't say he got a scary call from a citizen...I don't want to live in an America where I can be obeying the law and find myself looking down a cop's gun barrel, being made to kneel or prone out in the dirt, be cuffed and thrown into a paddy wagon...if we DON'T vigorously, lawfully protest such "police action" when it's like this...those things will become a way of life...and as far as being afraid that he'll murder me...I'm just not...he didn't challenge the cop, he just told him he was acting within the law...which he was...if I'm going to bang my head, it's going to be because folks think we have to roll over for abusive authority...and the charges added later are clearly trumped-up to try to head off a lawsuit...which they will surely lose...prolly allowing them to go after his carry permit...the whole thing smells like old fish...it's an embarrassment to decent law enforcement...

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:In posts above, there have been 2 references to filing legal motions under
the 1983 Civil Rights Act.

Can someone give a thumbnail sketch as to what this law covers, and why
it might be applicable to the LEO/CHL confrontation?

TIA / SIA

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983
Prev | Next § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:In posts above, there have been 2 references to filing legal motions under
the 1983 Civil Rights Act.

Can someone give a thumbnail sketch as to what this law covers, and why
it might be applicable to the LEO/CHL confrontation?

TIA / SIA

philip964 wrote:When a police officer tells you to get on your knees, you get on your knees.

carlson1 wrote:

philip964 wrote:When a police officer tells you to get on your knees, you get on your knees.

Not me I can't, so now what?

Hoi Polloi wrote:It sounds like you're all discussing if this was a case of entrapment in reverse!

I've edited a blurb from the wikipedia page on entrapment to replace "government agent" with "man with a gun" and vice-versa the person accused of the crime is the police officer.

Entrapment holds if all three conditions are fulfilled:
The idea for committing the crime came from the man with the gun and not from the police officer.
Man with the gun then persuaded or talked the police officer into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime.
The police officer was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the man with the gun.

Based on that, I'd say the officer was not entrapped. While we might not be thrilled with the man's actions or think they were the wisest, the argument that his walking around with gun and tape recorder means he was looking for trouble doesn't rise to the level of providing defense for the officer. I didn't listen to the tape, but find it interesting that in the article account, the officer says both to get on his knees and to not move otherwise he'll be shot. I'd be pretty scare to move a hair at that point. They might get livid, but they aren't likely to shoot if you are frozen stiff. Obeying orders to move might get you shot, though.