Posted on 01/30/2007 1:12:56 PM PST by FreedomCalls
You are completely irrational. I knew you were a "libertarian".
you're confusing posters...that wasn't me.
A related question, is would or should someone believe them, especially considering so many cop impersonators.
I have had detectives come to my door to gather information. I would ask for ID and every time I would be handed a business card. Some became hostile when I would ask for a police ID.
The dead gentleman in question was doing none of these.
The cops were doing their jobs in arresting people
They were "doing their job" impersonating drug dealers.
Grandpa drew down on the wrong guys.
What a disgustingly callous statement. They quite easily could have identified themselves, since clearly they weren't dealing with a "target".
This story makes me completely, totally ill.
Just because the cops were (presumably) on this guy's property, does that give the resident the right to shoot them in all circumstances? What if the resident came out, yelled at them and then started blazing away? It seems to me pretty clear that there aren't enough facts here to draw conclusions but that doesn't stop some people, obviously.
"Irrational"? What is "irrational" about saying that he was shot by the drug squad? Are you seriously saying that he died of natural causes or that he isn't actually dead?
You're right.
"What if."
What if the resident came out, yelled at them and then the undercover police started blazing away?
"What if's" don't work very well in arguing either side of this.
The issue here is whether the police were justified in shooting the guy. Stop playing grubby dishonest games.
It's called a hypothetical question. Sane intelligent people use this device frequently in logical discussions. You are completely unmoored here.
What if the resident came out, yelled at them and then the undercover police started blazing away?
While this is not true, of course, what IS true is that there are never any consequences for those mistakes. The cops lie (or maybe don't even have to lie), the internal "investigation" clears them, and they're free to make more mistakes with guns.
Trust me on this one RY...the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office does NOT deserve benefit of the doubt.
"Another grandpa dead because of an undercover drug squad." The issue is excessive police force against innocent citizens which results in their death.
It would depend on the rest of the facts. The resident was apparently brandishing a gun. It is possible to do this in a way that is illegal and threatening and would give the cops the legal right to shoot first in self-defense. Possible, I say. I have no idea whether that is what happened in this particular case, but neither do any of the others on this thread who are condemning the officers.
Once in a while we get lucky.
The Sherrif's son was allowed to leave without consequences a couple of years ago after he got caught beating a confession out of an innocent kid one third his size.
Maybe it's something new, a parenthetical conjunction.
I understand that some law enforcement agencies are dysfunctional and that some cops are criminals. I'm not intending to give these or any other cops the benefit of the doubt, but rather I am reserving judgement altogether and encouraging others to do the same. Often when there is a police shooting the initial articles provide few facts and feature unsupported accusations by the deceased's next-of-kin like this article does. Often when such articles are posted on FR the "libertarians" show up on the thread and make cynical, irrational accusations against the cops and all who refuse to join in prematurely condemning the cops. I think this kind of "libertarian" activism is bad for FR, bad for conservatism and bad for America. Therefore I consider it a public service to try to throw some cold water on irrational, dishonest cop-hating.
"Good question. I don't think that undercover officers are above the law. If they didn't have a warrant, would they be trespassers? If the elderly gentleman thought they were a threat, was he within his rights to use deadly force (point a gun at them) to make them leave? (Think Castle Doctrine in Fla.) If they were criminally trespassing, did they even have a right to self defense? (I thought that one generally didn't have a right to self defense if one was committing a crime and that crime lead to violence).
Finally, in the end, could these cops be looking at manslaughter charges? If they didn't have a right to self defense, that sure looks like a possibility.
I think that at the least, a humongous civil suit might be filed against the city.
Any legal eagles got any answers to these questions?"
Well, I am no legal eagle but these two undercovers are likely the only witnesses to how they approached the house and were asked to leave before the shooting started. I assume they will stick together, such charges as manslaughter carry heavy prison sentences and of course, let's not forget that these men probably saw how the Border Patrol agents were treated...
Undercover Officer = Secret Police maybe the cop should have been carrying a badge and LEFT the man's property when ordered to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.