You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Shooting in defense of property... potential problems
- Thread starter MLeake
- Start date
Fulton county and each of the "OFFICERS" involved need to open their collective check books.
How can you make a man whole after suffering the trama of an incident of this nature.
His record, Marine, Vietnam Vet, Purple Heart reciepent and by VA definition a PTSD sufferer make him extremely vulnerable to this incident.
This incident will increase the effect of PTSD. A man who struggled to make a marginal living and not be a burden on the Nation he served will probably be unable to function at other than a basic level.
I do not like to use the word owe, but in this case this man is owed more than what anyone can pay.
Perhaps the individual(s) who shot him should be required to forfeit a kidney. If this were possible then some good could come of this incident.
How can you make a man whole after suffering the trama of an incident of this nature.
His record, Marine, Vietnam Vet, Purple Heart reciepent and by VA definition a PTSD sufferer make him extremely vulnerable to this incident.
This incident will increase the effect of PTSD. A man who struggled to make a marginal living and not be a burden on the Nation he served will probably be unable to function at other than a basic level.
I do not like to use the word owe, but in this case this man is owed more than what anyone can pay.
Perhaps the individual(s) who shot him should be required to forfeit a kidney. If this were possible then some good could come of this incident.
hermannr, while I think the police may have shot too quickly, I am not sure what you mean by "illegal operation."
They were responding to multiple shots fired within city limits. Nothing illegal about running to the sound of the guns; on its own, that is actually admirable.
They then saw an unarmed guy on the ground, and a semi-nude guy with a rifle, who had apparently fired those shots in the direction of the guy on the ground.
(Edit: on the ground as in not shooting down from the house, not lying in a pool of blood. Shots fired had been warning shots, to that point.)
I haven't seen the video, but apparently its audio has about one second between the order to drop the gun, and the first shots fired by the police. So they did give the order first, then shoot, even if the gap wasn't great.
OTOH, if I were taking a handgun against an M1A, I probably would not be inclined to give the rifleman too much chance to bring up the rifle, either.
(Edit: I am not sure if the officers only had handguns, or also had a patrol carbine; I think one article I encountered may have indicated that at least one officer had a rifle of some sort. Even so, an M1A is a serious threat at any reasonable distance.)
The angle the bullet followed when it hit the rifle proves nothing. Surprise could very well have caused Sturdivant to start turning toward the officers, to see who was yelling at him; he could easily have thought the burglar's friends had arrived.
I don't think the officers were necessarily wrong in how they reacted, based on the way the situation would have appeared to them. I definitely don't think their actions were criminal.
That doesn't mean I couldn't see the city or county trying to cover their collective butts, though, as there probably is a lawsuit here.
Now, if you were referring to the bait car operation as being somehow illegal, that doesn't really bear on this incident. It's merely the reason the officers and camera crew were in a position to hear and respond to the shots fired.
They were responding to multiple shots fired within city limits. Nothing illegal about running to the sound of the guns; on its own, that is actually admirable.
They then saw an unarmed guy on the ground, and a semi-nude guy with a rifle, who had apparently fired those shots in the direction of the guy on the ground.
(Edit: on the ground as in not shooting down from the house, not lying in a pool of blood. Shots fired had been warning shots, to that point.)
I haven't seen the video, but apparently its audio has about one second between the order to drop the gun, and the first shots fired by the police. So they did give the order first, then shoot, even if the gap wasn't great.
OTOH, if I were taking a handgun against an M1A, I probably would not be inclined to give the rifleman too much chance to bring up the rifle, either.
(Edit: I am not sure if the officers only had handguns, or also had a patrol carbine; I think one article I encountered may have indicated that at least one officer had a rifle of some sort. Even so, an M1A is a serious threat at any reasonable distance.)
The angle the bullet followed when it hit the rifle proves nothing. Surprise could very well have caused Sturdivant to start turning toward the officers, to see who was yelling at him; he could easily have thought the burglar's friends had arrived.
I don't think the officers were necessarily wrong in how they reacted, based on the way the situation would have appeared to them. I definitely don't think their actions were criminal.
That doesn't mean I couldn't see the city or county trying to cover their collective butts, though, as there probably is a lawsuit here.
Now, if you were referring to the bait car operation as being somehow illegal, that doesn't really bear on this incident. It's merely the reason the officers and camera crew were in a position to hear and respond to the shots fired.
therealdeal
New member
Very Good points, ltccc...not to mention how the PTSD can be affected when he feels th epolice can't help him w/the 'shadows in the night"(the real shadows I might add).
Just so I have this straight...
The police can't be bothered to patrol to keep Sturdivant's property from getting stolen, his house burned, and his yard turned into a dump, but they can find time to film reality TV shows?
And they criticize citizens who take the law into their own hands?
The police can't be bothered to patrol to keep Sturdivant's property from getting stolen, his house burned, and his yard turned into a dump, but they can find time to film reality TV shows?
And they criticize citizens who take the law into their own hands?
American Made
New member
I can't believe the police shot this man. We have this same issue all over this country - where the hiring procedures of departments are placing honest people at risk.
You simply can't hire someone without "real life" experience, expecting them to handle "real life" problems. The new model Law enforcer is squeaky clean, perfect credit, never been in any fist fights, perfect grades, etc.
This wasn't me, so I was turned away. On the plus side, my brother works for the State police. And he tells me the same story: The newer officers go by the "letter of the law" not the " spirit of the law". So, if you're driving four over down the road, you're getting a fine...period. All the issues around my area with law enforcement... involve younger officers.
This is from my area of Idaho.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAfLm7Q8Ork
This is the standard complaint by older officers.
You simply can't hire someone without "real life" experience, expecting them to handle "real life" problems. The new model Law enforcer is squeaky clean, perfect credit, never been in any fist fights, perfect grades, etc.
This wasn't me, so I was turned away. On the plus side, my brother works for the State police. And he tells me the same story: The newer officers go by the "letter of the law" not the " spirit of the law". So, if you're driving four over down the road, you're getting a fine...period. All the issues around my area with law enforcement... involve younger officers.
This is from my area of Idaho.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAfLm7Q8Ork
This is the standard complaint by older officers.
Last edited:
therealdeal
New member
interesting video
More an more I am seeing hostility by the police toward citzens. I think this is a part of the increased emphasis on tactical training with less emphasis on serving the community.
Police have allways been isolated to some degree, in Urban environments they are allmost totally seperated from the communities they allegedly serve.
This isolation is not good for the Law enforcement community nor for the citzens they are sworn to protect.
Police have allways been isolated to some degree, in Urban environments they are allmost totally seperated from the communities they allegedly serve.
This isolation is not good for the Law enforcement community nor for the citzens they are sworn to protect.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
^^^ This.tyme said:Just so I have this straight...
The police can't be bothered to patrol to keep Sturdivant's property from getting stolen, his house burned, and his yard turned into a dump, but they can find time to film reality TV shows?
And they criticize citizens who take the law into their own hands?
You have it straight. Welcome to the new reality of life in the (formerly) United States.
Here's how the whole thing appears to me: Did Sturdivant display poor judgement? Yes, he probably did as warning shots are generally a bad idea outside of limited circumstances such as an animal attack. However, given that the DA decided to drop all charges, it does not seem that Sturdivant actually did anything illegal, just something unwise. Sturdivant never denied firing shots, so if he had done so illegally the DA would have a pretty strong case an no reason to drop charges. Alexander's previous and current legal troubles and the way he behaved when confronted tells me that Sturdivant's suscpicions were most likely spot on in that Alexander had every intention of robbing him. I suspect that the only reason Alexander was not charged in this particular incident was that he was confronted by Sturdivant before he had the opportunity to act on his intentions.
I do, however, think that the police acted negligently, recklessly and displayed just as poor if not poorer judgment than that of Sturdivant. I also think that Sturdivant has good grounds and should pursue a lawsuit against the department in order to help recoup some of the damages he's suffered. Not only did the police shoot a man who'd apparently broken no law, but the comments from the video suggest that they shot a man that they weren't even sure was armed. Now, before I get accused of cop-bashing, I realize that a police officer has a stressful job, that mistakes are easy to make in the heat of the moment, that hindsight is 20/20, and that to err is human. None of that, however, absolves the police of their responsibility, and also liability, for the hardships they've caused in the life of a man who has broken no law.
Hopefully, Mr. Sturdivant has insurance that will help him get back on his feet. Tragically, however, much if not most of what Sturdivant has lost is irreplacable regardless of how much money he might get from an insurance policy or legal settlement.
As for the people that stole and vandalized Sturdivant's property while he was unable to defend it, my thoughts about them are not fit for polite conversation. I also find it odd, to say the least, that given Sturdivant's prior issues with theft from his property that the police couldn't be bothered keep a closer eye on his property to prevent the humanoid vultures from doing what they did.
I do, however, think that the police acted negligently, recklessly and displayed just as poor if not poorer judgment than that of Sturdivant. I also think that Sturdivant has good grounds and should pursue a lawsuit against the department in order to help recoup some of the damages he's suffered. Not only did the police shoot a man who'd apparently broken no law, but the comments from the video suggest that they shot a man that they weren't even sure was armed. Now, before I get accused of cop-bashing, I realize that a police officer has a stressful job, that mistakes are easy to make in the heat of the moment, that hindsight is 20/20, and that to err is human. None of that, however, absolves the police of their responsibility, and also liability, for the hardships they've caused in the life of a man who has broken no law.
Hopefully, Mr. Sturdivant has insurance that will help him get back on his feet. Tragically, however, much if not most of what Sturdivant has lost is irreplacable regardless of how much money he might get from an insurance policy or legal settlement.
As for the people that stole and vandalized Sturdivant's property while he was unable to defend it, my thoughts about them are not fit for polite conversation. I also find it odd, to say the least, that given Sturdivant's prior issues with theft from his property that the police couldn't be bothered keep a closer eye on his property to prevent the humanoid vultures from doing what they did.
Justice06RR
New member
We need to have the right to defend what we have worked hard to obtain. When someone steals from me, he steals not only a thing, he also steals however much of my LIFE was expended in earning the money to buy that thing. I no longer think it immoral to use deadly force to protect MY property.
I can agree to this, although some may think its not reasonable. Any criminal who has decided to steal your possesions has broken the law, and who's to know if they won't do it again to someone else, and possibly injure or kill an innocent person in the process?
In the case of the original story, it seems the justice and law enforcement system has failed to do its job properly and left this man on a limb. I'm not sure of all the details, but IMO you don't treat a Veteran like that (all factors considered of course).
I don't think the DA would have had much of a case with his star witness having such a record. I think the DA was bluffing all along hoping the guy would take the lesser charges. The DA thought he had a slam dunk till the story got out.
My question is what would this Alexander fellow have done if he had not been armed? He has a criminal record. He must have been intent on something because a person in their right mind doesn't hang around after being fired at.
He had no intention of killing the guy. If he had wanted to do that he could have done it on the first shot at that range.
It wouldn't have taken me long to come up with a verdict in that case If I had been on the jury.
I see the shooting is till being investigated....
My question is what would this Alexander fellow have done if he had not been armed? He has a criminal record. He must have been intent on something because a person in their right mind doesn't hang around after being fired at.
He had no intention of killing the guy. If he had wanted to do that he could have done it on the first shot at that range.
It wouldn't have taken me long to come up with a verdict in that case If I had been on the jury.
I see the shooting is till being investigated....
therealdeal
New member
I see the shooting is till being investigated....
I hope you are right.
Shooting to protect property, and not life, is usually an iffy situation, at best.
So true, in MN this is a no go. If a guy is walking out with your 50" plasma TV, you gotta let him go. If you can claim you felt you or your families lives were threatened, now you can use deadly force (although if his hands are full with your TV then that might be hard to do). So bottom line is if it's happening outside your house, you don't begin to be able to justify a shooting.
Sadly in today's society so often the rights of the criminals out way the rights of the victims.
therealdeal
New member
So true, in MN this is a no go. If a guy is walking out with your 50" plasma TV, you gotta let him go.
I won't shoot him in that situation, but I'll bust him up in the head before he walks away w/my TV. If he escalates, that is on him.
I can also have him put down my TV nicely while at gunpoint.
IMO there is a difference between someone stealing from your home and from your "land".
This is only my opinion and will NOT be legal in many states but IMO if you break into my home your life is forfit. It becomes my judgment call if you are a threat to me or my family; If you resist in any way shape of form you may be shot. If I feel threatened the threat will be dispatched period. Here in Illinois believe it or not a homeonwer has some latitude in the use of deadly force so long as they believe it is needed to prevent a forcible felony.
Someone stealing from your property; there is no imminent danger if you are in your home. Yes you should have the right to confront someone stealing from you and use deadly force if threatened; but shooting at a fleeing suspect who is not even fleeing with your property is not the best decision. Even if they have your property; shooting your own car or lawnmower full of holes is pretty counterproductive.
This is only my opinion and will NOT be legal in many states but IMO if you break into my home your life is forfit. It becomes my judgment call if you are a threat to me or my family; If you resist in any way shape of form you may be shot. If I feel threatened the threat will be dispatched period. Here in Illinois believe it or not a homeonwer has some latitude in the use of deadly force so long as they believe it is needed to prevent a forcible felony.
Someone stealing from your property; there is no imminent danger if you are in your home. Yes you should have the right to confront someone stealing from you and use deadly force if threatened; but shooting at a fleeing suspect who is not even fleeing with your property is not the best decision. Even if they have your property; shooting your own car or lawnmower full of holes is pretty counterproductive.
ITC444 said:More an more I am seeing hostility by the police toward citzens. I think this is a part of the increased emphasis on tactical training with less emphasis on serving the community.
Police have allways been isolated to some degree, in Urban environments they are allmost totally seperated from the communities they allegedly serve.
This isolation is not good for the Law enforcement community nor for the citzens they are sworn to protect.
This is nothing new. It started with the advent of the police patrol car.
Officers used to walk a beat in large cities. This allowed them to actually speak to citizens every day, get to know the people in the area - shopkeepers, residents, customers and trouble makers. Putting them in cars to cover larger areas deprived them of this contact.
In the 70's, training began to include tactics and skills to keep you alive against the new breed of criminal -- radicals, crazy political groups and drug dealers. By the 90's, the police were more militarized than ever. Police brass loved the scenes of SWAT team dynamic raids on the news -- showing citizens their police were doing highly dangerous things to "protect the peepul". Now we have SWAT raids for misdemeanor warrants and unpaid student loans.
In the instant case, it would appear that the police failed in almost all their duties and responsibilities. Given the nature of the incident, his injuries and losses, an 8-figure settlement would not be inappropriate.
Now we have SWAT raids for misdemeanor warrants and unpaid student loans.
They did a SWAT style raid against a guy for selling illegally imported fish. It turned out it was the guys teenage son selling the fish for money on the side. Seriously, about 10 guys, geared up with AR's and shotguns raiding a house over illegal fish....what if they had startled the homeowner and shot him...over illegal fish...just saying
Conn. Trooper
New member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFPDeiQFfZs
Thats what could happen when you hesitate and somebody with a rifle shoots you. The gurgling at the end is Trooper Randy Vetter dying. Over a seatbelt ticket.
If the guy points a rifle at police, the outcome should not be a suprise. Did he get suprised by police and turn at them with no intention of shooting? Maybe. I wasn't there, the guy is outside with a gun, they order him to drop it, and then shoot. I don't see the problem here.
Thats what could happen when you hesitate and somebody with a rifle shoots you. The gurgling at the end is Trooper Randy Vetter dying. Over a seatbelt ticket.
If the guy points a rifle at police, the outcome should not be a suprise. Did he get suprised by police and turn at them with no intention of shooting? Maybe. I wasn't there, the guy is outside with a gun, they order him to drop it, and then shoot. I don't see the problem here.
OldMarksman
Staff
Actually, no. Anyone who has decided to steal your possessions and who has taken some specific steps to further the taking of your possessions has broken the law.Posted by Justice06RR: Any criminal who has decided to steal your possesions has broken the law, and who's to know if they won't do it again to someone else, and possibly injure or kill an innocent person in the process?
Before said person can be punished, at least in a civilized society of laws, he or she must be charged, tried, and sentenced. The intended victim does not have the authority do do so. Nor is the death penalty assessed against thieves.
That we do not know that the thief, or that Justice06RR, for that matter, will commit a crime in the future does not justify the use of deadly force against either one.
These are by no means new ideas. They represent the evolution of cnturies upon centuries of careful legal thought.