Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-21-2017, 11:45 AM
OCEquestrian's Avatar
OCEquestrian OCEquestrian is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 404
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default 9th circus guts ability of LEO's to use guns on the job...

"A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Seattle police can only use force “proportional” to the threat they face, seriously damaging the Seattle Police Department’s ability to use firearms."

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/20/fe...rce=site-share


In my opinion, ... the Law enforcement community's embrace of liberal democratic politicians in exchange for unsustainable pay and benefits is coming back to bite them... Law Enforcement Officers are reaping what they allowed their union leaders to sow...

The democrats are tuning law enforcement actions and self defense against criminals into a "fair fight" and it should never be
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-21-2017, 11:51 AM
GlockN'Roll's Avatar
GlockN'Roll GlockN'Roll is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: SOUTHERN CAL
Posts: 2,341
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The 9th needs to be completely disbanded...
__________________
Carry Daily, Safely, Discreetly
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-21-2017, 11:55 AM
superdave50 superdave50 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Central valley
Posts: 140
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

OC said it... support stupid candidates, get stupid laws
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-21-2017, 12:42 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 4,975
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCEquestrian View Post
"A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Seattle police can only use force “proportional” to the threat they face, seriously damaging the Seattle Police Department’s ability to use firearms."

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/20/fe...rce=site-share


In my opinion, ... the Law enforcement community's embrace of liberal democratic politicians in exchange for unsustainable pay and benefits is coming back to bite them... Law Enforcement Officers are reaping what they allowed their union leaders to sow...

The democrats are tuning law enforcement actions and self defense against criminals into a "fair fight" and it should never be
You really need to resist the temptation to get sucked in by a heavily biased article.

The decision by the Ninth Circuit does absolutely nothing to change the rules regarding the use of firearms. Nothing.

The requirement that law enforcement officers use only the level of force that is objectively reasonable has been in effect since 1989 (refer to Graham v Conner) and was unchanged by this ruling.

That does not mean that the suspect is entitled to a fair fight, nor does it require that the force used by the officer must be equal to that used by the suspect. The officer is entitled to use sufficient force to ensure that they win the fight. They're not allowed to go into "overkill" mode.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-21-2017, 12:49 PM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,377
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
You really need to resist the temptation to get sucked in by a heavily biased article.

The decision by the Ninth Circuit does absolutely nothing to change the rules regarding the use of firearms. Nothing.

The requirement that law enforcement officers use only the level of force that is objectively reasonable has been in effect since 1989 (refer to Graham v Conner) and was unchanged by this ruling.

That does not mean that the suspect is entitled to a fair fight, nor does it require that the force used by the officer must be equal to that used by the suspect. The officer is entitled to use sufficient force to ensure that they win the fight. They're not allowed to go into "overkill" mode.
So, are you saying the 9th got together and made a nonsense ruling?

I'm not saying your wrong, but you leave me confused.

Since we can't trust the article please tell us what was the lawsuit about and what did the 9th rule?
__________________
We stand for the Anthem, we kneel for the cross


We already have the only reasonable Gun Control we need, It's called the Second Amendment and it's the government it controls.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-21-2017, 1:05 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 4,975
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 71MUSTY View Post
So, are you saying the 9th got together and made a nonsense ruling?

I'm not saying your wrong, but you leave me confused.

Since we can't trust the article please tell us what was the lawsuit about and what did the 9th rule?
No, the Ninth Circuit did not make a "nonsense" ruling. Their ruling didn't really change anything.

The case arose when the Seattle Police Department made changes to it's use of force policy. The new policy provided greater detail of the requirements of the Graham v Conner decision. The police union sued effectively claiming that the new policy violated the Second Amendment rights of officers.

The Ninth Circuit found no violation of the Second Amendment. The rules governing the use of force remained the same as existed from the 1989 Supreme Court decision in Graham v Conner.

Here is a link to the full decision: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...9/14-35970.pdf
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-21-2017, 1:56 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 856
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
You really need to resist the temptation to get sucked in by a heavily biased article.

The decision by the Ninth Circuit does absolutely nothing to change the rules regarding the use of firearms. Nothing.

The requirement that law enforcement officers use only the level of force that is objectively reasonable has been in effect since 1989 (refer to Graham v Conner) and was unchanged by this ruling.

That does not mean that the suspect is entitled to a fair fight, nor does it require that the force used by the officer must be equal to that used by the suspect. The officer is entitled to use sufficient force to ensure that they win the fight. They're not allowed to go into "overkill" mode.
well actually Seattle PD is under a settlement agreement that requires all cops to adhere to ROA that is much less than what Grahmn allows for after Obama's DOJ sued them for alleged civil rights violations and the progressive city counsel did not want to fight the lawsuit
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-21-2017, 7:26 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,036
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
You really need to resist the temptation to get sucked in by a heavily biased article.

The decision by the Ninth Circuit does absolutely nothing to change the rules regarding the use of firearms. Nothing.

The requirement that law enforcement officers use only the level of force that is objectively reasonable has been in effect since 1989 (refer to Graham v Conner) and was unchanged by this ruling.

That does not mean that the suspect is entitled to a fair fight, nor does it require that the force used by the officer must be equal to that used by the suspect. The officer is entitled to use sufficient force to ensure that they win the fight. They're not allowed to go into "overkill" mode.
↑ This is the correct answer. Heaven forbid someone read a case or critically examine the 4th and 14th Amendment reasonable seizure and due process life and bodily integrity standards from Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Conner:
Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of "the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests'" against the countervailing governmental interests at stake. Id. at 471 U. S. 8, quoting United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696, 462 U. S. 703 (1983). Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 392 U. S. 22-27. Because "[t]he test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application," Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 441 U. S. 559 (1979), however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. at 471 U. S. 8-9 (the question is "whether the totality of the circumstances justifie[s] a particular sort of. . . seizure").
The common mentality in the general public is its ok for law enforcement to shoot first ask questions later. The 2nd Am. community out of one side of its mouth says "tyrannical government this" and "constitutionalist freedom that" but then out of the other side of its mouth it's- the Bill of Rights is just a bunch of technicalities.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-21-2017, 7:29 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 4,975
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
well actually Seattle PD is under a settlement agreement that requires all cops to adhere to ROA that is much less than what Grahmn allows for after Obama's DOJ sued them for alleged civil rights violations and the progressive city counsel did not want to fight the lawsuit
Wolfwood,

I don't recognize your abbreviation "ROA", I'm assuming that you mean "Use of Force Policy" (UOF) from the context.

You're correct that Seattle PD is operating under a consent decree and that the UOF policy was revised under the terms of that decree.

The police officers union believed that their bargaining rights were ignored when the policy was changed without going through the negotiation process. That seems to be the reason for their lawsuit. I'll let the lawyers here chime in on how the state law employment right to negotiation is affected by the federal court decree. That's a legal area I know little about.

But in comparing the provisions of the revised UOF policy with the Graham v Conner decision, I'm not seeing where the revised policy is more restrictive. Could you please point out an example? The revised policy does impose requirements for officers to consider the reasonableness of force that is applied, and makes an exception for immediate situations where officers may need to act instinctively. The wording seems a little awkward to me, from a line level officer's perspective, but the language does harmonize quite well with Graham.

Please point out an example.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-21-2017, 7:33 PM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,377
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Rick,

Thank you for the more detailed explanation.
__________________
We stand for the Anthem, we kneel for the cross


We already have the only reasonable Gun Control we need, It's called the Second Amendment and it's the government it controls.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-21-2017, 7:34 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 4,975
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 71MUSTY View Post
Rick,

Thank you for the more detailed explanation.
You're most welcome
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-22-2017, 7:19 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 11,067
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCEquestrian View Post
[B]"A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Seattle police can only use force “proportional” to the threat they face
And whom determines that?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-22-2017, 5:18 PM
OCEquestrian's Avatar
OCEquestrian OCEquestrian is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 404
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Wolfwood,

I don't recognize your abbreviation "ROA", I'm assuming that you mean "Use of Force Policy" (UOF) from the context.

You're correct that Seattle PD is operating under a consent decree and that the UOF policy was revised under the terms of that decree.

The police officers union believed that their bargaining rights were ignored when the policy was changed without going through the negotiation process. That seems to be the reason for their lawsuit. I'll let the lawyers here chime in on how the state law employment right to negotiation is affected by the federal court decree. That's a legal area I know little about.

But in comparing the provisions of the revised UOF policy with the Graham v Conner decision, I'm not seeing where the revised policy is more restrictive. Could you please point out an example? The revised policy does impose requirements for officers to consider the reasonableness of force that is applied, and makes an exception for immediate situations where officers may need to act instinctively. The wording seems a little awkward to me, from a line level officer's perspective, but the language does harmonize quite well with Graham.

Please point out an example.

Thank you for the clarification. Are you a LEO, an attorney or did you simply stay at a Holiday Inn Express recently?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-22-2017, 5:38 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 4,975
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCEquestrian View Post
Thank you for the clarification. Are you a LEO, an attorney or did you simply stay at a Holiday Inn Express recently?
No attorney (thank god), though I did a lot of legal coursework while earning my MPA (and judicial admin certificate) at USC, and did a lot of study of international law and law of armed conflict at the Naval War College.

I am a retired LEO (almost 40 years of service) and have served at line, supervisory, and management levels. That time includes a lot of work preparing cases for presentation in court, and that's the experience I speak from.

Never did like the Holiday Inn Express thing. I usually stay on military bases when I have to travel.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-22-2017, 5:42 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,621
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Daily Caller

Super legit
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-22-2017, 6:59 PM
OCEquestrian's Avatar
OCEquestrian OCEquestrian is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 404
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Daily Caller

Super legit
As opposed to what? CNN?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:56 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.