Qualified Immunity Has Gone Too Far

[Ken Anderson]

Like most people here, I suspect, I strongly support law enforcement and policing. However, qualified immunity has gone too far. This is not a one-time incident. We had a police shooting similar to this a few years ago, and, in nearly every case, the police are cleared of any responsibility for their actions.

In the local case, in a rural area outside of Medway, Maine, someone called 9-1-1 to report loud noises she believed were from a domestic dispute. Since the area was outside of town, the Sheriff's Department responded, but they didn't come until long afterward. Meanwhile, the couple had gone to bed and were asleep when the police began banging on their door. Being that this was a rural area and someone was banging on their door at 3 am or so, the man answered the door holding a firearm. There were no allegations that he was pointing the gun at the police, and no strong reason for him to know that it was the police on the other side of the door. As soon as the deputies saw him holding a gun, they opened fire, shooting him to death.

We cannot reasonably say that citizens have the right to own a weapon for self-protection, while simultaneously giving the police the right to shoot anyone who answers their own door holding a firearm. If the police have the right to shoot anyone found holding a firearm, then we clearly don't have the right to self-defense. This is so wrong, and the doctrine of qualified immunity, which nearly always favors the police, gives them no reason to act responsibly.

Even in a recent case where the police were at the wrong address, shooting the homeowner to death was found to be justified, and this is wrong. If I am legally allowed to possess a firearm, then the police are not justified in shooting me to death because of this.

 

[Marie Miller]

This looks like a very isolated case.
Note to self - do not argue loudly and not let the neighbors know that you made up.

 

[Faye Fox]

Like most people here, I suspect, I strongly support law enforcement and policing. However, qualified immunity has gone too far. This is not a one-time incident. We had a police shooting similar to this a few years ago, and, in nearly every case, the police are cleared of any responsibility for their actions.

In the local case, in a rural area outside of Medway, Maine, someone called 9-1-1 to report loud noises she believed were from a domestic dispute. Since the area was outside of town, the Sheriff's Department responded, but they didn't come until long afterward. Meanwhile, the couple had gone to bed and were asleep when the police began banging on their door. Being that this was a rural area and someone was banging on their door at 3 am or so, the man answered the door holding a firearm. There were no allegations that he was pointing the gun at the police, and no strong reason for him to know that it was the police on the other side of the door. As soon as the deputies saw him holding a gun, they opened fire, shooting him to death.

We cannot reasonably say that citizens have the right to own a weapon for self-protection, while simultaneously giving the police the right to shoot anyone who answers their own door holding a firearm. If the police have the right to shoot anyone found holding a firearm, then we clearly don't have the right to self-defense. This is so wrong, and the doctrine of qualified immunity, which nearly always favors the police, gives them no reason to act responsibly.

Even in a recent case where the police were at the wrong address, shooting the homeowner to death was found to be justified, and this is wrong. If I am legally allowed to possess a firearm, then the police are not justified in shooting me to death because of this.

I agree that some police need to be better trained to access a situation. A good rule I use is to never answer the door late at night or early morning. I see who it is on my Ring, and then if the police, ask what they want. If you decide to open the door, certainly don't have a gun in your hand. If you feel you need a gun in your hand, then answering the door isn't a good decision.

What isn't included in your story is a critical point. Did the police go to the door with guns drawn? This puts the a different light on the topic, since if not they would have to unholster their revolver, aim and shoot. The man answering the door would have time to put his gun down, seeing it was the police.

It is a second amendment right to own a gun, but not to use it in a threatening way. If police are at your door and you have any weapon in your hand, then that is just bad judgement. If you have no way of seeing who is at your door, then make a way. That is just good sense in this day and time.

Your statement is correct that the police have no right to shoot you just because you own a gun, but they do if they fear you may use it to shoot them and it is in your hand and all it takes is pulling the trigger.

 

[Ken Anderson]

As a citizen, I am held to a much higher standard when it comes to using a firearm than the police are, and no amount of "support the blue" will change that. There is no point whatsoever in having a firearm for protection if you're not allowed to have it in your hand. In neither of the incidents I mentioned was there even an allegation that the soon-to-be victim was pointing the gun at the police. If they were, that would certainly be a part of their story. The police should be held to a higher standard when it comes to gun violence than citizens are, not to almost no standard at all.

 

[Ken Anderson]

I came across someone carrying a rifle while trespassing on my land up north. When I came across him in my woods, it startled me. If I had shot him, claiming "citizen safety" reasons, that wouldn't go far. I'd be in prison unless I could show that he was pointing the gun at me. Someone who thinks he needs to shoot everyone carrying a firearm, even in his own house, shouldn't be entrusted with a badge and a gun. Citizen safety needs to mean at least as much as officer safety, particularly when they are intruding on the citizen's property.

 

[Faye Fox]

I would have to disagree that police, in general, are not held to reasonable standards and that citizens are held to a higher standard than police. There is no doubt this has happened, but it isn't a rule that applies to the entire country. We can hold police to higher standards and then the result is a noticeable increase in police being killed.

Since many citizens that have guns are not all that responsible or use good judgement, then all citizens get held to higher standards because of their poor judgement.

If you get stopped by the police, put your hands on top of the steering wheel. This isn't a law, but is certainly good judgement that puts the officer at ease. Answering your door with a gun in your hand even pointing down, is not something that puts an officer at ease. I don't see answering your door with a gun in hand as exercising your right for protection. Anyone that needs to answer their door with a gun in hand, has bigger concerns than just basic home protection.

 

[Ken Anderson]

@Faye Fox, oh, I see. As long as every cop isn't involved, then there's nothing to see here. It happens way too often and it's rare that a shooter with a badge is ever held responsible. "Officer safety" covers all their sins.

Most cops can work their entire career without ever killing anyone, but that doesn't excuse those who are so afraid of a citizen with a legally possessed firearm that they feel the need to shoot anyone who is armed. Citizens, on the other hand, would have to prove (somehow) that the other person was actually threatening them. Anyone who believes that a citizen with a firearm is such a threat to their safety that they feel the need to shoot someone who's not pointing the weapon at them should be in prison, not driving a police car.

 

[Marie Miller]

I would have to disagree that police, in general, are not held to reasonable standards and that citizens are held to a higher standard than police. There is no doubt this has happened, but it isn't a rule that applies to the entire country. We can hold police to higher standards and then the result is a noticeable increase in police being killed.

Since many citizens that have guns are not all that responsible or use good judgement, then all citizens get held to higher standards because of their poor judgement.

If you get stopped by the police, put your hands on top of the steering wheel. This isn't a law, but is certainly good judgement that puts the officer at ease. Answering your door with a gun in your hand even pointing down, is not something that puts an officer at ease. I don't see answering your door with a gun in hand as exercising your right for protection. Anyone that needs to answer their door with a gun in hand, has bigger concerns than just basic home protection.

Faye, common sense is not so common anymore.

 

[Faye Fox]

@Faye Fox, oh, I see. As long as every cop isn't involved, then there's nothing to see here. It happens way too often and it's rare that a shooter with a badge is ever held responsible. "Officer safety" covers all their sins.

Perhaps the solution is passing laws holding police to higher standards and more training, but that will only lead to good cops leaving the force since they have to make judgement calls in micro seconds and now if that is being taken away and they are bound by a delay time restraint so they can think it out or perhaps back off and have a group therapy meeting, they are sitting ducks for ambush. The other alternative is sending cops that may have made a bad judgement call to prison for years, making them a criminal. Such is a discouragement for any good person to become a cop, but it will attract criminals to be cops. A good cop fears prison, but bad cops don't.

Every gun wielding citizen needs to ask themselves, does their right to do so, over ride others rights to feel safe and not threatened? To me this discussion is about exercising good judgement, but of course I was raised on a ranch and have lived in western ranch country my entire life., where one rights are sometimes self denied because good judgement overcame fear or false courage.

When I lived in the mountains by myself with the nearest neighbor about a mile, I always had a firearm handy. I never answered my door at night if I didn't recognize the person or vehicle. I had several view points of both doors. If I answered the door or went out to see what someone wanted, I had my Colt single action, holstered. I never felt the need to go out with gun in hand even if it was pointing at the ground. Any ranch person will tell you a gun in hand is a threat, but a gun in holster is a warning.

Can you outdraw Faye, well can you punk? Now they could but not in those days. No one tried and no one died!

 

[Marie Miller]

Perhaps the solution is passing laws holding police to higher standards and more training, but that will only lead to good cops leaving the force since they have to make judgement calls in micro seconds and now if that is being taken away and they are bound by a delay time restraint so they can think it out or perhaps back off and have a group therapy meeting, they are sitting ducks for ambush. The other alternative is sending cops that may have made a bad judgement call to prison for years, making them a criminal. Such is a discouragement for any good person to become a cop, but it will attract criminals to be cops. A good cop fears prison, but bad cops don't.

Every gun wielding citizen needs to ask themselves, does their right to do so, over ride others rights to feel safe and not threatened? To me this discussion is about exercising good judgement, but of course I was raised on a ranch and have lived in western ranch country my entire life., where one rights are sometimes self denied because good judgement overcame fear or false courage.

When I lived in the mountains by myself with the nearest neighbor about a mile, I always had a firearm handy. I never answered my door at night if I didn't recognize the person or vehicle. I had several view points of both doors. If I answered the door or went out to see what someone wanted, I had my Colt single action, holstered. I never felt the need to go out with gun in hand even if it was pointing at the ground. Any ranch person will tell you a gun in hand is a threat, but a gun in holster is a warning.

Can you outdraw Faye, well can you punk? Now they could but not in those days. No one tried and no one died!

The sound of a 12 gage pump ratching can have a calming effect on the person behind it.

 

[Shirley Martin]

"someone called 9-1-1 to report loud noises she believed were from a domestic dispute. Since the area was outside of town, the Sheriff's Department responded, but they didn't come until long afterward. Meanwhile, the couple had gone to bed and were asleep when the police began banging on their door. Being that this was a rural area and someone was banging on their door at 3 am"

Since this was in a rural area outside of town, the domestic violence must have been pretty violent and loud for the neighbor to hear it. The most dangerous call out for law enforcement is a call to a domestic dispute. Several LEOs have been killed in NC recently during calls to domestic disputes. If a person opens the door with a gun in hand, is the LEO supposed to give him the first shots? I think this was a tragic misunderstanding.

I have some friends in law enforcement and I'm pretty sure they don't just get up one morning and say," Well, I think I'll go out and kill somebody today."

 

[Ken Anderson]

I must say that I am shocked to find that I am the only one here who doesn't think the police should be able to shoot anyone they encounter with a firearm, even if they are in their own home. What is the point of the 2nd Amendment if possessing a firearm is justification for the death penalty?

"As an American, you have every right to bear arms, but we'll shoot you to death if we see you with one."