Black Adder LXX
Member
Truly sad. What is up with my state?
2 dead students, police refused assistance
- Thread starter Lucky
- Start date
- Status
Curious that an aquaintance was denied a CCW with the sheriff stating in writing it was "law enforcements job to protect you, so call 911".
Unless you ARE law enforcement. 6 doors down from me is a leo that obviously made someone mad and has had 24/7 surveillance on his home for the past 3 weeks. I asked one of the officers about it and he said all is fine and not to worry because they were here
I no longer allow my kids out front to play and avoid that end of the street if at all possible.
In Texas, what the perp said (before the actual assault) would be a weak case of Terroristic Threat, a misdemeanor, with a very low bond; easy to get out of jail within hours, and of course, really angry. NOW WHAT? It is still up to the individual to arrange for his own safety. A protection order, restraining order, etc., is just a piece of paper, not a suit of armor. There are private bodyguard services, if you are wealthy. Otherwise, just like with home repair, it is do-it-yourself time.
Lucky said;
She lives in Florida, she could have had a GAU-17 Minigun for self defense if she wanted. Government did not forbid her from having the tools to defend herself with.
Only if they had enough evidence to charge him. How did he tap into her bank account? Do you know? The article doesn't say. Did they live together? Was it a joint account? Did he have an ATM card or check writing privileges?
Does Florida have a law against making threats? If it does, what court decisions have been made that establish exactly what constitutes a threat? How are cases like that handled by the local prosecutor and judges?
All of those tings matter in the real world.
It's real easy to sit in Canada and judge what kind of a case officers in Florida were given by the complainant based on a news report....
No one said it wasn't absurd. But it's the way things are. I explained exactly why the police didn't tell her that. You know what, the dead couple were college students. So we must assume that they were intelligent enough to gain admittance.
Here are some things to think about when you assign blame:
They were college students, so they were intelligent enough to score high enough on either the ACT or SAT to gain admittance to college.
They were American citizens, presumably raised here in our media culture. At some time even if they barely watched TV or never went to the movies, they must have been exposed to the concept of someone defending him/herself with a firearm. They must have known that guns are available and used for self defense.
They lived in Florida. Florida led the nation into the age of shall issue concealed carry laws. Florida allows it's citizens to own any weapon they desire as long as Federal law is followed. The government in Florida made it easier then in almost any other state for them to have a firearm to defend themselves with.
Yet with all of this, they chose to remain unarmed, and you want to blame the government. Are you the same Lucky who posts here about personal responsibility and keeping government interference out of our lives? If so, what changed your mind and made you decide that there was a government solution to everything? That's just exactly what you are doing when you blame the government for this. These two had all kinds of options open to them and I refuse to believe that they were unaware that people could own and carry guns for self defense. They made the choice to remain unarmed and maybe they died for making that choice. But then again maybe they would have died anyway, because a gun is not some magic talisman that wards off evil by it's mere presence. You have to be able to use it and use it effectively. Why don't you blame Allred for killing them instead of the police for not arresting him before he could?
Your placing of blame on the police for this murder is as flawed as the antis blaming crime on my AR15.
Jeff
She lives in Florida, she could have had a GAU-17 Minigun for self defense if she wanted. Government did not forbid her from having the tools to defend herself with.
Only if they had enough evidence to charge him. How did he tap into her bank account? Do you know? The article doesn't say. Did they live together? Was it a joint account? Did he have an ATM card or check writing privileges?
Does Florida have a law against making threats? If it does, what court decisions have been made that establish exactly what constitutes a threat? How are cases like that handled by the local prosecutor and judges?
All of those tings matter in the real world.
It's real easy to sit in Canada and judge what kind of a case officers in Florida were given by the complainant based on a news report....
No one said it wasn't absurd. But it's the way things are. I explained exactly why the police didn't tell her that. You know what, the dead couple were college students. So we must assume that they were intelligent enough to gain admittance.
Here are some things to think about when you assign blame:
They were college students, so they were intelligent enough to score high enough on either the ACT or SAT to gain admittance to college.
They were American citizens, presumably raised here in our media culture. At some time even if they barely watched TV or never went to the movies, they must have been exposed to the concept of someone defending him/herself with a firearm. They must have known that guns are available and used for self defense.
They lived in Florida. Florida led the nation into the age of shall issue concealed carry laws. Florida allows it's citizens to own any weapon they desire as long as Federal law is followed. The government in Florida made it easier then in almost any other state for them to have a firearm to defend themselves with.
Yet with all of this, they chose to remain unarmed, and you want to blame the government. Are you the same Lucky who posts here about personal responsibility and keeping government interference out of our lives? If so, what changed your mind and made you decide that there was a government solution to everything? That's just exactly what you are doing when you blame the government for this. These two had all kinds of options open to them and I refuse to believe that they were unaware that people could own and carry guns for self defense. They made the choice to remain unarmed and maybe they died for making that choice. But then again maybe they would have died anyway, because a gun is not some magic talisman that wards off evil by it's mere presence. You have to be able to use it and use it effectively. Why don't you blame Allred for killing them instead of the police for not arresting him before he could?
Your placing of blame on the police for this murder is as flawed as the antis blaming crime on my AR15.
Jeff
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
No. The man who killed them is at fault. They died because they entrusted their safety to somebody who didn't have a real stake in the final outcome...or they tried to anyway. They learned that they were responsible for their own safety...but that understanding came too late to do them any good.
Cosmoline
Member
Well in a perfect world that might be the way things work, but it's never been that way on this planet. The state can and does restrict your ability to defend yourself while refusing to accept any liability for your murder. That's just the way it is. And beyond that, even if the state WANTED to protect you, it has no way of doing so short of 24/7 armed secret service.
But in any event, this was in Fla so they weren't prohibited from having tools of self defense. Neither am I, and I view calling the police as an evidentiary or tactical matter not as a matter of personal safety. In other words I do not expect them to save my bacon. I came to this realization about the same time my view on the RKBA flipped around--during criminal law class. That was one heck of an eye-opener.
Regolith
Member
That's what credit cards are for.
I'm 21, and a college student. I don't have much money, but I do have a credit card with a $2100 limit. The balance on it almost never exceeds 20% of that limit, and I pay it off every month. The reason I never have much on it is that for the most part, that card is for emergencies. Its for contingencies where I may NEED to purchase/pay for something, but don't have the money for it. Things like being stranded away from home with a broken down car, needing to rent a hotel room for whatever reason, etc. This situation would fall under that.
Had it been me in that situation, and I was not armed, the first thing I'd have done was gone out and bought a shotgun on that credit card, and ammo to go with it. Being in debt is better than being dead. I can pay off the credit card. Its exceedingly difficult to come back from the dead.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
A New England Arms 12 or 20 gauge single-barrel shotgun and a 5-round box of buckshot can be had for about 125 bucks out the door. Throw in a 25-round box of cheap field loads for familiarization...add 12 dollars...and they'd have had a much better chance than with a cell phone and a prayer...
Firearms need not be expensive to serve a singular purpose. Like the man bent on suicide said: "It only has to work once."
Firearms need not be expensive to serve a singular purpose. Like the man bent on suicide said: "It only has to work once."
fireflyfather
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2006
- Messages
- 807
Jeff, with all due respect, he committed at least two counts of assault. Last time I checked, making death threats IS a crime. Whether or not some people would berate police officers for arresting over DEATH THREATS, the dude committed two crimes prior to his actual attack, either one of which is arrestable. In fact, since the threat was made over the phone, he was probably also violating FCC/California telephone regs/laws regarding harassing phone calls (probably not arrestable, but certainly actionable).
If I tell a police officer that someone THREATENED TO KILL ME, and sends me a picture of myself with bullet holes photoshoped to it, and the cop does nothing substantive, he hasn't done his job. We're not talking about a non-specific "you better watch your back", or heavy breathing type phone call. We're talking about a threat on someone's life. I don't hink anyone would bat an eye if the cop made an effort to find the dude and let him know the cops knew what was up. I think they might have been able to arrest, but maybe not. Still, not even TRYING to contact the dude was negligent, provided the officer wasn't responding to multiple armed roberies at the time.
Hardtarget
Member
What I see is these young people did EXACTLY what the police/politicians/gun grabbers always say..."call the poilce". It was even ahead of time, not as the guy was crashing in the door. So, yes, they should have gotten themselves armed and mentally hardened to kill their attacker. Then call for body bags and recount in court their efforts to get the LAW to stop the event before it happened.Then sue his family in civil court to get compensation for pain and suffering...and lawyer fees and anything else that comes to mind.
Mark.
Mark.
PennsyPlinker
Member
Just a few comments here.
1. The cops are not going to protect you or anyone else. They are there to enforce laws that have been broken. Laws apparently were broken with threats, but my experience with cops both good and bad are that they are not going to do more than they have to in a situation like this. I had a neighbor threaten to "blow my head off with a shotgun" last year. The cop told me it was "excitable language" and not a threat. Translated, he did not want to fill out paperwork.
2. Restraining orders are about as worthless as those gun free zone signs. Beyond establishing a legal trail, they are a waste of time. If the person who needs to be restrained is going to do you harm, a piece of paper is not going to slow him down.
3. Learn to defend yourself. No one else is going to do it. Even if someone else wants to, there is no guarantee that person will be there when you need him/her. It is too bad these kids did not understand that, but their attitude is a product of our society.
1. The cops are not going to protect you or anyone else. They are there to enforce laws that have been broken. Laws apparently were broken with threats, but my experience with cops both good and bad are that they are not going to do more than they have to in a situation like this. I had a neighbor threaten to "blow my head off with a shotgun" last year. The cop told me it was "excitable language" and not a threat. Translated, he did not want to fill out paperwork.
2. Restraining orders are about as worthless as those gun free zone signs. Beyond establishing a legal trail, they are a waste of time. If the person who needs to be restrained is going to do you harm, a piece of paper is not going to slow him down.
3. Learn to defend yourself. No one else is going to do it. Even if someone else wants to, there is no guarantee that person will be there when you need him/her. It is too bad these kids did not understand that, but their attitude is a product of our society.
Do you know what she gave the police as evidence of this? Do you know what standard the court in that jurisdiction uses in those cases? I don't. I agree that they can arrest for those offenses. But did she present the police with enough information to make the arrest?
In a perfect world the police would have went out and picked the guy up and everything would have been ok, till he made the probably $100 bond on the misdemeanor charges and then violated the conditions of his bond by going and killing them anyway. Here in Illinois, under the uniform bond act, he wouldn't even have had to see the judge. $100 plus whatever the jail charged for admin fees (usually $15-25) and he's out. Sometimes they leave the jail before the officer who brought them in. So even in your perfect world, the result probably would have been the same.
Sorry this was not a failure of the system. Allred killed them. They weren't aware enough to attempt to protect themselves. That's it, end of story.
Jeff
Cosmoline
Member
All he has to do to do his job is fill out a brief report indicating that a complaint was made. He's under no obligation to go and investigate and he's certainly under no obligation to arrest anyone. Courts in all fifty states have rejected efforts by survivors to sue cops who failed to act. They have no legal duty to protect individuals, other than those individuals in their custody.
Negligence requires a duty, and they have no such duty.
Officers'Wife
Member
OK, I told myself I wouldn't get in to any of these potential "cop-bashing" threads but I'm an opinionated ***** and just can't let this pass.
Just what are the police supposed to do? In states with a terrorist statute they could hold the perp for maybe 48 hours then he would be free on bond. If the police had advised the two to arm themselves it is quite possible they would have opened the county and their department up for civil litigation later on down the line.
In the end the police did just as the statute allows them to do. Fill out the forms post facto and take pictures of the bodies. Because like it or not in the end we all have to "saddle your own horse, polish your own boots and kill your own snakes." In this instance- I cannot say the police are at fault.
Selena
Just what are the police supposed to do? In states with a terrorist statute they could hold the perp for maybe 48 hours then he would be free on bond. If the police had advised the two to arm themselves it is quite possible they would have opened the county and their department up for civil litigation later on down the line.
In the end the police did just as the statute allows them to do. Fill out the forms post facto and take pictures of the bodies. Because like it or not in the end we all have to "saddle your own horse, polish your own boots and kill your own snakes." In this instance- I cannot say the police are at fault.
Selena
While we are all so rapid to place blame for this tragedy, we have yet to blame what I consider the worst offenders (with the exception of the actual murderer.)
I can think of a few parties that share in the "responsibility" for this tragedy.
First, It is socially progressives and organizations that support that agenda. News organizations no longer report the news but instead editoralize it. Pro-RKBA viewpoints are rarely given equal time, and are often on the air as a token counter-point.
By the socially progressives, I mean those that believe that society can become a kinder, gentler place if only we didn't have the TOOLS to do harm. You know what I mean.
Second, Politicians speaking in soundbytes based upon opinion-polls rather than principles own some responsibility. PACs funnel dollars into campaigns with cue cards for talking points attached to the check.
Third, as campy as it sounds, Society itself owns responsibility. We all own it because so many have swallowed the media messages without for a second using their brains. People have become accustomed to thinking in terms of what they BELIEVE will be accepted by their peers rather than actually speaking and believing from conviction.
Finally, We as Gun Activitists own some responsibility. We own some responsibility because we haven't placed well-documented and easily-read position statements on our Congressmen's desk. We haven't followed that up with a call (and another, and another, until they actually TALK TO you.)
We haven't sent letters to the editors on EVERY single anti-RKBA or anti-Self-Defense article written. We have not systematically made a list of advertisers in the worst offending publications and written those advertisers and informed them that you will not be using their product/services. We have not informed said advertisers that their advertising with said publications has been brought to the attention of Pro-gun groups that have also commited to a boycott.
Does that work? Well, the NY Times' stock price is at a 10 year low when the market is still relativly hot. People are starting to realize what thier game and agenda is, and it is slowly making a difference. If this continues, a shareholder revolt is inevitable.
BBC recently had to admit that it has a liberal slant and grudgingly promised to make an effort to represent more accurately both sides.
We are responsible because we are so willing to "let sleeping dogs" lie when some idiot makes anti-RKBA statements in public. We see examples of this on threads here all the time. (The one about CCW at a movie theater comes to mind.)
It is past time that society starts to truly think. It is past time that we gunowners work to change the conventional wisdom that admiting gun ownership is a social taboo. It is past time that companies and advertisers feel economic pain for the stance they choose or the associations they keep.
-- John
fireflyfather said:
Not in Florida, it's not.
Unless the officer personally witnesses this assault take place, you have to prove all three elements of this crime:
1. The threat was made
2. The person making the threat had the ability to carry it out
3. It made you fearful.
Regarding phone threats, you have to have taped the threat in such a way that the person making the threat knows he was being taped, or you run afoul of the wiretapping laws. Court rulings have made it clear that the threat has to me imminent... like the threatening person has to be right there, on his cell phone, able to carry out the threat right NOW.
Other than a couple of street-wise copes having a nice quiet back-alley conference with this guy, I don't see anything else they could have done. Yes, it's sad. Unfortunately, it's statutes like this that we peons have little hope of changing. And, thinking about how the statute may be abused if the strictions were eased up a bit, I'm not sure I'd change it if I could.
What we need is a more streamlined way to provide court protection, along wiht the officer's ability to make an instant arrest if they're shown a restraining order and proof of it's being violated.
thexrayboy
Member
While compared to the national average a 5 minute response is pretty good, the point of the matter is unless the squad car is just outside the front door when 911 is called a lot of people can get real dead real fast before LEO can arrive.
In this case I really don't see how the police could have arrested the accused for his violent propensities without further evidence. I wonder what the time frame was between his stealing money from the victim and the actual murder. This may have been the key, if the police had been able to nab him for questioning about the theft of funds it might have derailed his
rage driven escapade. We will likely never know. Just a another example of
how we are truly on our own in regards to personal safety.
Orthonym
Member
Oh yeah, and FL is one of those states in which both parties to a conversation must agree, before one of them may record it.
fireflyfather
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2006
- Messages
- 807
Look, there were failures here at all levels, starting with the nitwit who thought it was a good idea to kill his ex, and including the ex and friend who didn't do squat to protect themselves. Nobody is denying the fact that the person at fault for the murders is the perp, and that the victims made some seriously poor choices. Hell, they had to be idiots (or just young and inexperienced), to not know that they should find a safer place to be, and maybe get a longarm (18 for longarms, folks, not 21).
That said, the popular public perception (wrong though it may be in a technical sense) of the role of LE is to not only investigate crime, but to prevent crime. The supreme court may have ruled that cops don't have to actively protect individuals(an aberation on the supreme's part, most especially without ruling in favor of 2nd amend rights), but in most people's opinions, good law enforcement involves preventing crimes when possible, without violating people's rights. It's a very fine line, with massive grey areas on both sides. Stipulated. Fine. It's still an implied part of their job, and a matter of the public trust.
I'm sure cops hear this kind of stuff all the time, and far more than half are lies. Fine. But when shown evidence of this, they did nothing. I'm assuming that they showed the cops the picture with the bullet holes. The article seemed to state that part was in the police report. Hell, they gave her no useful suggestions, like going to a women's shelter, getting a hotel room, coming down to the precinct to file a more extensive report/talk to a superior, etc. None of these would open them up to liability or infringe on a conceivably innocent ex-boyfriend's rights. Nobody expects the cops to babysit her all night or arrest the guy without evidence, if indeed there was none available at the time, but did they talk to the guy? No. Did they offer her any meaningful suggestions for protection if the threat turned out to be real (shelter, greyhound, etc)? No.
I don't think it's the job of LE to protect us so that we don't have to. I do think that they have a responsibility, a duty, if you will, protect "civilians" (note quotation marks) from harm when possible, to investigate crimes, and threatened crimes as well. Otherwise, they'd never be able to send the bomb squad out until after the bomb blew up. If the college police here in CA can stop and search a kid and his belongings over an alleged (and FALSE!) accusation of bringing a gun on campus, with no other evidence than some random classmate's word, then I don't see why they can't look this sleazeball over and at least talk to him and let him know the cops are on to his game (might help, might not, but nobody even tried). Furthermore, if they had evidence on this guy, why not actually do something about it?
The supreme court may think otherwise, that cops are merely there to draw chalk lines, but I think they are flat-out wrong. It's unfortunate that the supreme's version is probably the reality of the situation, but ideally, I could carry here in the PRK, AND LE should be watching my back. Suspenders and belt. In this story, both failed.
ETA:
You can't arrest or record, but you CAN get the cops to give you a harassment case# and get the phone company to log the calls.
Also, if the guy left a message for the male victim, and it was reported to police, why did they not attempt to look at/listen to the message? That in an of itself would be evidence.
Maybe Florida law really is that friendly to the perp, or maybe I'm just being an ass, but I never thought I'd be glad to have the protection of California laws (a lot of them make me want to vomit, but if you make death threats here, you CAN get locked up).
That said, the popular public perception (wrong though it may be in a technical sense) of the role of LE is to not only investigate crime, but to prevent crime. The supreme court may have ruled that cops don't have to actively protect individuals(an aberation on the supreme's part, most especially without ruling in favor of 2nd amend rights), but in most people's opinions, good law enforcement involves preventing crimes when possible, without violating people's rights. It's a very fine line, with massive grey areas on both sides. Stipulated. Fine. It's still an implied part of their job, and a matter of the public trust.
I'm sure cops hear this kind of stuff all the time, and far more than half are lies. Fine. But when shown evidence of this, they did nothing. I'm assuming that they showed the cops the picture with the bullet holes. The article seemed to state that part was in the police report. Hell, they gave her no useful suggestions, like going to a women's shelter, getting a hotel room, coming down to the precinct to file a more extensive report/talk to a superior, etc. None of these would open them up to liability or infringe on a conceivably innocent ex-boyfriend's rights. Nobody expects the cops to babysit her all night or arrest the guy without evidence, if indeed there was none available at the time, but did they talk to the guy? No. Did they offer her any meaningful suggestions for protection if the threat turned out to be real (shelter, greyhound, etc)? No.
I don't think it's the job of LE to protect us so that we don't have to. I do think that they have a responsibility, a duty, if you will, protect "civilians" (note quotation marks) from harm when possible, to investigate crimes, and threatened crimes as well. Otherwise, they'd never be able to send the bomb squad out until after the bomb blew up. If the college police here in CA can stop and search a kid and his belongings over an alleged (and FALSE!) accusation of bringing a gun on campus, with no other evidence than some random classmate's word, then I don't see why they can't look this sleazeball over and at least talk to him and let him know the cops are on to his game (might help, might not, but nobody even tried). Furthermore, if they had evidence on this guy, why not actually do something about it?
The supreme court may think otherwise, that cops are merely there to draw chalk lines, but I think they are flat-out wrong. It's unfortunate that the supreme's version is probably the reality of the situation, but ideally, I could carry here in the PRK, AND LE should be watching my back. Suspenders and belt. In this story, both failed.
ETA:
You can't arrest or record, but you CAN get the cops to give you a harassment case# and get the phone company to log the calls.
Also, if the guy left a message for the male victim, and it was reported to police, why did they not attempt to look at/listen to the message? That in an of itself would be evidence.
Maybe Florida law really is that friendly to the perp, or maybe I'm just being an ass, but I never thought I'd be glad to have the protection of California laws (a lot of them make me want to vomit, but if you make death threats here, you CAN get locked up).
The threatened couple, had they truly believed the threats were serious, could have taken steps to protect themselves, spent a few nights somewhere else and perhaps enlisted the help of a third party to monitor the movements of the shooter for a few days.
Police are primarily investigative, custodial and reporting agencies. They could have paid the shooter a visit; advising him concerning the complaints, asking him about the threats, reading his reactions, and perhaps advising him of the potential consequences - all without charges or arrest; which might have been enough to make him think twice about it. Laws concerning deadly threats vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. How far "out of their way" a dispatched unit(s) will go to try and defuse something or simply pay a visit to a potential problem person varies much more.
I agree with some others here; your best protector is you. Police agencies have no legal obligation to do it for you.
-------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Police are primarily investigative, custodial and reporting agencies. They could have paid the shooter a visit; advising him concerning the complaints, asking him about the threats, reading his reactions, and perhaps advising him of the potential consequences - all without charges or arrest; which might have been enough to make him think twice about it. Laws concerning deadly threats vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. How far "out of their way" a dispatched unit(s) will go to try and defuse something or simply pay a visit to a potential problem person varies much more.
I agree with some others here; your best protector is you. Police agencies have no legal obligation to do it for you.
-------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
El Tejon
Member
If we wish to blame someone other than the alleged murderer, we shoud blame the parents of the victims. In this sad modern world children are not taught that the world is not a violence-free petting zoo, food does not come from a grocery store and safety does not come from a policeman.
The governments of Washington D.C. and Chicago denied me access to the tools of self-defense. However, I was raised by a father that taught me that my personal safety is not derived from government and when government seeks to hinder my safety, it may be ignored.
The governments of Washington D.C. and Chicago denied me access to the tools of self-defense. However, I was raised by a father that taught me that my personal safety is not derived from government and when government seeks to hinder my safety, it may be ignored.
cambeul41
Member
What LEOs can do and what they must do are not the same.
Yesterday, a Wayne County, Michigan sheriff’s deputy was stationed at my classroom door to guard a student who was being stalked. I have no idea why she rates the special treatment.
I talked guns a bit with the deputy, who approved of CCW – but did think the CCW holders should have to requalify every six months as he said he had to do.
I have e-mailed the student information about self-defense, Michigan CCW laws, and how to find instruction.
Yesterday, a Wayne County, Michigan sheriff’s deputy was stationed at my classroom door to guard a student who was being stalked. I have no idea why she rates the special treatment.
I talked guns a bit with the deputy, who approved of CCW – but did think the CCW holders should have to requalify every six months as he said he had to do.
I have e-mailed the student information about self-defense, Michigan CCW laws, and how to find instruction.
fletcher
Member
I didn't have much money in college either, but I made self-defense a priority, and bought a mil-surp pistol for $160. At worst, even a nagant revolver is better than nothing, and costs $80-$90. Point is, there are inexpensive guns out there that can be had out of necessity.
- Status
