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."

 

[Mary Stetler]

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

Police would react in a non calming way to that.

 

[Mary Stetler]

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 possressing 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."

I definitely don't think police should be able to shoot anyone with a gun. But we have had police shot to death here which might make them worry.
Banging on a quiet, dark house in the middle of the night is not a good idea. These days some people identify themselves as police when they are not. And sometimes police break into houses scaring the occupants to death. We are supposed to be able to defend our homes under the castle doctrine but if we shoot someone, chances are we will end up in jail
The world is a bit off.

 

[Faye Fox]

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."

Well Ken, you are taking a few instances of cops with bad judgement or maybe even a case of a crazy killer cop and wanting to make all cops lose their edge, one that is necessary in order for them to protect themselves.

The second amendment is clear that the right to bear arms is to establish a well regulated militia. It didn't specify that citizens have the right to protect their homes, but that is an accepted reasonable assumption of why a militia is necessary. In no way does the 2nd amendment give one the right to infringe on others rights.

Answering a door with a gun in hand is for one reason and one reason only. They intend to shoot whoever is at the door if they deem them a threat. As I have said before, you cannot disregard the fact that anyone can come to your door at three in the morning and knock on it. That isn't against the law unless you have it legally posted. Answering your door with a gun in hand, shows intent. Anyone that feels the need to have a gun in hand while opening their door, is looking for trouble. As I said before, never answer your door if you feel the person at it is a threat.

Opening your door with a gun in hand, you say is for your protection, makes you an easy target if the person at the door is there to kill you. They will start firing the second you open the door. Answering your door with a gun in hand, is the epidemy of stupid. Such a person is not a responsible gun owner.

So, the discussion isn't about police having special rights to shoot citizens, because they don't and they are held to a higher standard, so the idea that police have immunity and can shoot anyone answering their door wielding a gun, is nothing more than an attempt to call for police reform and further handcuff the police to where they are less respected than they are. Where were the police rights when rioters damaged and burned their cars or police stations? They didn't have the same rights as a citizen to respond and defend public property. Police have to tolerate crazed paid protesters spitting in their faces, throwing rocks at them, idiots yelling at them, pushing them, threatening their families, etc..

So the idea, that the cop that shot an idiot that answered his door wielding a gun, and that the shooter cop wasn't judged by the same standards as a citizen neighbor would be that knocked on this guys door and seeing he had a gun, pulled their gun out and shot him, doesn't mesh. The reason is cops do have special privileges in order to investigate possible crimes, but not immunity. Carrying a gun is part of their job. A neighbor has no right to go confront another neighbor while carrying a gun. That is the purpose of the police. Police are in no way given immunity to shoot someone unless that someone is wielding a gun. Again, very important is the fact that a holstered gun is a warning and a gun in hand is a threat. This is the reason police don't go around wielding their guns, they keep them holstered.

No where does the constitution give a citizen the right to stand in his yard, holding a gun in hand, making neighbors and others uncomfortable. That can be seen as an infringement on their rights, but even if the law doesn't directly prohibit such, we get into the the discussion of what was the owners reasoning for wielding a gun.

The idea that I and others here think that police should have the right to go around shooting anyone wielding a gun, isn't right Ken. I believe they should have that right, just as any citizen does, if they feel the gun wielding person poses a threat to them or others. Police are never given automatic immunity, they undergo an investigation and in many cases, a court trial, before a jury.

 

[Ken Anderson]

I definitely don't think police should be able to shoot anyone with a gun. But we have had police shot to death here which might make them worry.
Banging on a quiet, dark house in the middle of the night is not a good idea. These days some people identify themselves as police when they are not. And sometimes police break into houses scaring the occupants to death. We are supposed to be able to defend our homes under the castle doctrine but if we shoot someone, chances are we will end up in jail
The world is a bit off.

Exactly, and compounding this are the increasingly common "no-knock" police raids, where in at least one case, they had the wrong address, and shot the armed innocent homeowner to death, yet were absolved. In that case, at least one of the cops was on breast cam questioning whether they were at the right place.

 

[Ken Anderson]

Well Ken, you are taking a few instances of cops with bad judgement or maybe even a case of a crazy killer cop and wanting to make all cops lose their edge, one that is necessary in order for them to protect themselves.

In those comparatively few instances, the police are nearly always absolved of consequences for their actions, and that is wrong. Qualified immunity should not protect them from wrongdoing any more than it would any of us. If I shoot someone whom I wrongly think is threatening me, I'm going to prison. It wouldn't matter that I feared for my safety.

 

[Marie Miller]

In those comparatively few instances, the police are nearly always absolved of consequences for their actions, and that is wrong. Qualified immunity should not protect them from wrongdoing any more than it would any of us. If I shoot someone whom I wrongly think is threatening me, I'm going to prison. It wouldn't matter that I feared for my safety.

You are over generalizing these situations. There is a lot more involved. Fear for my life? Please shoot. And PD is not very often absolved.