Washington Ruby Ridge lite

[Alexx1401]

So then once the crime was committed of pointing a gun directly at the deputy occurred, was he not supposed to tell his superiors and were they supposed that just let him slide? Again, if he killed someone, or even himself, the liability would then fall back on the SO, and the family would be screaming, "why didnt they stop him?"

Boy would they ever. If family calls and tells LE they think the guy has "problems" and they are worried, LE does nothing and kook then kills? The same family screaming now would be screaming for some lawyer to get them millions.

 

[Alexx1401]

The courts have confirmed multiple times that LEO have no liability, no duty to protect. Therefore they would NOT be held liable. Morally speaking, sure maybe it was there duty to investigate, but morally (from my view) they should also have been able to let the dude slide.

You can't have it both ways, no duty to protect, but a duty to investigate where no crime has been comitted does not compute.

They had a duty to investigate and were supposed to let it go when he pointed a gun at them? Really? If they let that go, and it ever got out that they did? Then kook killed someone even if he went to another place to do it the lawyers would be all over the LE for allowing the said kook to do it.

 

[Geardo]

Boy would they ever. If family calls and tells LE they think the guy has "problems" and they are worried, LE does nothing and kook then kills? The same family screaming now would be screaming for some lawyer to get them millions.

They can scream all they want, they won't get a penny. This has been proved in the courts multiple times.

The cops have no legal duty to investigate something like this. They could have just ignored the original call, and I think we can all agree the family were idiots for sending the police in this situation.

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.

 

[Alexx1401]

They can scream all they want, they won't get a penny. This has been proved in the courts multiple times.

The cops have no legal duty to investigate something like this. They couod have just ignored the original call.

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.

I know they have lost when some tried to sue for the LE not protecting them but I very much doubt no fault would be found when they just ignored a call like this. So someone calls 911 says "this guy is unstable and has a gun", so Cops are supposed to just ignore the call. Sure, I can see that would go over well. Or they go and the kook points a gun at them so they just get in the car and leave to never come back? Again that would go over real well too. This in a world were people sue and win for taking the hair dryer in the shower with them huh.

 

[Geardo]

I know they have lost when some tried to sue for the LE not protecting them but I very much doubt no fault would be found when they just ignored a call like this. So someone calls 911 says "this guy is unstable and has a gun", so Cops are supposed to just ignore the call. Sure, I can see that would go over well. Or they go and the kook points a gun at them so they just get in the car and leave to never come back? Again that would go over real well too. This in a world were people sue and win for taking the hair dryer in the shower with them huh.

I agree the majority of civil cases are freaking BS, and I can see where you are coming from, but please find me a court case where LEO have been found liable for not protecting or not investigating. I am not being snarky, honest question and I am open to changing my mind.

 

[Mooseman]

When you see "To Serve and Protect" on the side of Law Enforcement vehicles just remember this... That Does NOT mean to serve and protect citizens , it means to serve and protect THE LAWS !!!
Think about that....

 

[Alexx1401]

I agree the majority of civil cases are freaking BS, and I can see where you are coming from, but please find me a court case where LEO have been found liable for not protecting or not investigating. I am not being snarky, honest question and I am open to changing my mind.

Not a lawyer and often when I read "legal decisions" they leave me wondering what language they were written in as they go over my head. Not to mention that even when someone "wins" a judgement it means little as it can go on for years.
I have "heard" of cases where someone tried to sue the local LE for not stopping a crime and the courts said no. If the locals got a call that someone was a "danger" to themselves and others and just ignored it, then the kook went off the deep end? I would be shocked if the insurance did not pay just to not have it end up in front of a jury. I don't know though maybe this is how it's done? In any case I can not see the cops ever just "forgetting it" if they show up to check on someone and they point a gun at them. At that point I would be shocked to hear any of them would just shrug and let it go.

 

[American123]

Philosophically speaking, I get your point and agree with you to some extent, but right now, the reality is that it is a role of LE to sometimes enter private property. If a family member asks for them to check on a possibly suicidal individual, that is a legitimate role of LE. If they didnt go check on him and he killed his wife, then himself, that could open up other liability issues.

So then once the crime was committed of pointing a gun directly at the deputy occurred, was he not supposed to tell his superiors and were they supposed that just let him slide? Again, if he killed someone, or even himself, the liability would then fall back on the SO, and the family would be screaming, "why didnt they stop him?"

I understanding what you are saying, however, as other members have already pointed out. It has been ruled by the court differently, and this starts to tie into all the red flag bologna as well. If a family member says "they feel that the police should go check up on someone," where is the crime? Isn't that the exact bologna we are fighting when talking about red flag laws. Someone "feels" uneasy about someone else despite no crime being committed, so the police show up and confiscate all firearms without due process because of someone's feelings who called the police.

I think we are generally on the same page, don't point guns at other people and you'll probably be ok, however, since the guy hasn't broken any law prior to police showing up on his private property. I view the police involvement as the catalyst in this that resulted in a man dead who previously otherwise seemingly would not have been.

I don't quite understand the role of police in this instance, so a woman calls police saying please go check on him because I haven't heard from him in a while, BFD maybe he didn't want to talk to her and didn't answer the phone, right?

I can think of multiple women that if they ever call me they go straight to voicemail or their number got blocked because they weren't worth the trouble, should those women be able to send the cops to my address to "check up on me" because they haven't got a return call, boy would that be scary.

Not trying to be a jerk, but we're also not professional psychologists, if a family member tried to claim someone else was possibly suicidal, a lawyer could chew that person up in court asking what their professional, clinical experience was that allowed them to diagnose someone as potentially suicidal.

"Dangerous freedom" as a term exists because the concept of freedom doesn't allow the law to go around policing people for what they might do. If that were the case, all of us gun owners would be imprisoned because according to some looney left politicians, the fact we own firearms makes us all potential murderers.

I don't necessarily believe the LEO were in the wrong on this, but also as I said previously, it's hard to fault a homeowner who is killed by police who previously to them being on his private property, was apparently not breaking the law.

 

[slimmer13]

Hopefully the rest of the details are released soon which should clear some more things up.

 

[revjen45]

1) All the cops went home safe. That's all that matters.
2) "Welfare check" @ midnight? WTF? I would answer the door armed too.
3) "But I'm pretty convinced that when a perp has been aggressive towards law enforcement he is assigned a whole different level than a non-dangerous citizen would be."
Like shoot on sight? (ref. Horiuchi, Lon)
4) You will be on Camera, you will be lit up by security lights and you will be looking square at a big Wolf Dog before you ever get out of your vehicle.
1st thing the cops will do is shoot the dog.
5) "If I can't pee in my yard and carry a gun holstered or not in my own yard then we have lost our freedom to life , liberty, and the pursuit of happiness !"
I like to whizz in the yard while armed. I'm sure the Dems in the WA legislature will be banning that next.
6) "But in none of those conversations with cops am I admitting to illegal actions, talking about armed insurrection, talking about my deepest fantasies, being belligerent or any other kind of hot-headed talk."
When talking to the cops it is best to say as little as possible. Period.

Gotta go @ page 7. Time for brekkus.

 

[Jcon268]

"...he had pointed a gun at a deputy during a welfare check that was conduct a day earlier."
A DAY earlier!
They were not in a hurry to "protect the society" from "dangerous armed predator".

Agreed. From an outside standpoint, a person who lives on rural property doesn't expect many people to be coming to their property at midnight. It's likely dark and difficult to see. I don't find it strange that the man may have had a weapon pointed at what he believed could have been anyone looking to harm him. Now again, I don't know it all went down. Maybe yelled out "F*** the police!" or something. Sometimes minor details can be the difference... but just having a gun ready to go when someone is on your secluded property at a strange and dark hour doesn't seem out of place nor unjustifiable.

 

[2ndtimer]

The first duty of an officer is to go home safe. Period. Protect and serve does not mean to foolishly get dead.

If you truly believe that, then you must also believe that former Broward County Deputy Sheriff Scott Peterson was merely staying true to his "first duty of an officer", when he chose not to enter the Parkland Florida High School and engage Nikolas Cruz.
I hope you didn't mean that. I believe that a LEO's first duty is to protect the public, and the public's s duty is to cooperate with law enforcement, so that everyone gets to go home safe. (Of course for criminals convicted of felonies, it might be a long time before they get to go home safe. )

 

[Geardo]

I don't necessarily believe the LEO were in the wrong on this, but also as I said previously, it's hard to fault a homeowner who is killed by police who previously to them being on his private property, was apparently not breaking the law.

Well said.

 

[Sandaholic]

We decided if L.E. ever comes to our door during non-daylight hours we will tell them we aren't opening the door to them at night for our family's safety. Obviously depending on the situation. If I am being told they are going to breach and it will put my family at risk then maybe. But it needs to be over something real.

Case in point. My brother is an avowed communist/socialist. I don't think he would, but potentially he could be a person that could initiate one of these welfare check/red flag calls (on his enemy.......). We no longer have any contact with one another. He is still my brother and I love him as such, but I realize he could get L.E. to show up on my doorstep if he wanted to. I would not do that to him, but I can't say what a commie will do.

Now I have no reason to point firearms at anyone who is not threatening my family or other innocents. But if you show up to disarm my family and leave us defenseless, well that is threatening my family. And the instance I laid out above is not a real reason to disarm my family, haul me away and leave them unprotected.

If they show up with a warrant for my arrest for an actual crime......being a reasonable person, I would submit myself to our LEGAL system. But I'm with the few on here that are saying this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue if L.E. isn't showing up to investigate people who are not commiting a crime.

And to add it wouldn't have to be a commie. It could just be someone that has a beef with you.

I did not read the whole thread. Does anyone know if the original deputy had his red and blue lights flashing when he first showed up? Reason I ask is if a vehicle pulls up on my property in a rural area in the dark with no red and blues lit up, and I confront the trespasser while armed, and then am told to drop my weapon by someone claiming to be an L.E.O..........I mean I could see how the guy would just storm off cussing. I know in today's day and age you can't leave the situation like that though.

After it got sorted I think there should be apologies given all around. But the person who is viewed as the trespasser would be most in the wrong in my mind. This is why a welfare check at night is a non starter. Especially without the red and blue lights flashing. The red and blues let people know that "the good guys are here". If there is not an actual crime to investigate or knowledge that a crime is occurring then what is the point of doing it at night?

I am no cop hater. To me they are just people doing a job. I think it would be nice if we lived in a society where the presence of L.E. was not required. But that is probably an unrealistic wish.

 

[MDL]

Case in point. My brother is an avowed communist/socialist. I don't think he would, but potentially he could be a person that could initiate one of these welfare check/red flag calls (on his enemy.......). We no longer have any contact with one another. He is still my brother and I love him as such, but I realize he could get L.E. to show up on my doorstep if he wanted to. I would not do that to him, but I can't say what a commie will do.

Off topic: I truly feel for you. I have a similar concern on that subject with a family member...really sucks!

 

[bbbass]

If you truly believe that, then you must also believe that former Broward County Deputy Sheriff Scott Peterson was merely staying true to his "first duty of an officer", when he chose not to enter the Parkland Florida High School and engage Nikolas Cruz.
I hope you didn't mean that. I believe that a LEO's first duty is to protect the public, and the public's s duty is to cooperate with law enforcement, so that everyone gets to go home safe. (Of course for criminals convicted of felonies, it might be a long time before they get to go home safe. )

If you'll read a bit further, you'll see that I wrote I was DONE with this thread. However...

It's a bit more nuanced than what you imply what I wrote represents. I'm sorry folks can't understand and I may not be able to explain it to those that cannot put themselves in an officer's position.

Do you think that the sarge's last words at roll call to his officers are "now go out and get them bad guys" or is it more likely something similar to "come back safe"? IDK, because I've never been to one.

I doubt that today's officers are expected to fall on their swords, IOW to uselessly, recklessly, and needlessly expend their lives. We don't use them like pawns to be sacrificed. We don't throw wave after wave of them up hills they have no hope of conquering.

We expect our officers to confront danger to the public, but to do it in an intelligent way, and the safest way possible, with the risk to the fewest lives. Heck, we even give them ballistic vests and firearms!!

In the world of water rescue, people like me are trained not to knee-jerk respond to what they see. Rather, a quick assessment is needed to determine what is happening and what needs to be done. A good example is a pool lifeguard that jumps in the pool to GRAB a panicked swimmer. Keep in mind that a panicked swimmer can drown a lifeguard and then there are two casualties instead of one. The community loses the swimmer, and loses the resource of the lifeguard. In sea rescue this would mean that additional resources may be expended to save both victims, and on and on. However, nearby there is a long rescue pole and also a life ring flotation that the lifeguard could have used in combination without getting in the water. So what is the best option? In another case from the PNW, a diver/worker was contracted to clean the debris from a siphon. The diver didn't come back so a helper contacted EMS and a pair of rescue divers grabbed their gear and in emergency mode made a dive into the siphon to rescue the initial diver. They didn't come back either. EMS decided that some condition made the dive too dangerous to send additional divers to their deaths. The siphon was subsequently drained and the bodies recovered with the air tanks expended/empty. Turns out they had ALL planned the dives based on the siphon being 10' wide/deep at the mouth when it actually traveled 120' deep... And a tank that lasts 45min at 10'-20' only lasts 10min at 120'... oops. Rush to action caused two additional deaths. In the 1st example, the lifeguard clearly has a duty to protect the swimmers. But does he have a duty to do it safely, instead of contributing to the problem whereby they both die?

Hero syndrome costs lives. Do NOT make yourself an additional victim. We talk about this constantly as it regards concealed carry. We don't get involved in situations we don't understand. We don't shoot needlessly. We don't draw against a drawn firearm. Although the CC holder does not have a duty to protect, is not the safety principle a constant?

Safety first, not cowardice... Do you understand the difference???

Since you used the example of Scott Petersen, allow me a hypothetical:
1. Scott Petersen hears gunshots and goes running into the nearest building, runs to the sound of gunfire, and is shot dead by Nicky boy. Nicky goes on to kill 25 more. Good riddance Scott Petersen, he didn't do anybody any good, but at least he was brave.
OR:
2. Scott Petersen hears gunfire, calls it in on his radio, and tries to detect where it is coming from. He figures it out and does a quick assessment. From the amount of shooting he figures people are dying and he is it for the time being. So he makes a tactical entry. Moving quickly towards the gunfire, but not so quickly that he misses any additional gunmen. As he gets closer, he pinpoints the gunman, clears a corner and gets the drop on Nicky, shooting him dead. Good riddance Nicky. Scott goes home, Nicky doesn't. Additional students saved. Backup finally arrives.

If an officer cannot protect himself first, he cannot protect anyone else. Period. The job often results in an officer's life lost, but not stupidly sacrificed, with no benefit to anybody, no victim saved, no public protected, and good people lost all the way around.

 

[csa_ap_hill]

LOL some awful what if's being said on here. MEH! give the wife all the files in the case and be done with it. Stop shooting people on what is supposed to only! be a wellness check. Stop hiring people who have no place at being a cop.