This is the ticket. Stock photo of what I use. It's in the bottom console, underneath the top fold-down console (in up position pictured). 12-gauge steel, supposed to be drill-resistant. For a long gun, I use a Pelican Vault with two locks, chained to the underside of the extended cab fold-up rear seats. Not optimum but would require some time and tools to get it out.
An officer must assess the situation before using deadly force in a reckless manner and shooting an innocent person that's exercising his/her right to self-defense.
Again you avoid answering how this is accomplished when an officer arrives at a shooting in progress. I suppose you think that the officer should run into the middle of a gunfight and yell TIME OUT?
Again you fail to say exactly how you do this. Especially when doctrine is to “hunt the shooter and stop the shooting”.
That's pretty easy to say from the cover of your monitor. What makes you think that actions are never assessed. I shouldn't have to point out the often split second time involved in making these decisions.
Show me where a federal court has awarded damages on a Bivens claim after a mistaken shooting.
Okay.
No. It is covered by State laws.
The Bruen decision affirmed our right to bear a gun in public for self-defense.
It shouldn't be a split decision.
Yes, but what constitutes lawful self defense falls under state law.
The Constitution is the law of the land.
Yes, but nowhere in it is self defense mentioned. SCOTUS rulings RE: the right to bear arms mention the natural right of self preservation, buth neither they nor the Constiuiton nor any Federal statues or rulings define or govern self defense. That comes from stat law.
I'm glad you are gifted with the ability to approach an armed person who might or might not be a bad guy and know instantly that he's a good guy when he turns towards you with a gun in his hand. Most mere mortals don't have that ability.
Both Heller and Bruen dealt with our right to lawfully "bear" arms for self-defense.
Why is a police officer approaching?
What part of Heller, McDonald or Bruen states that if you are mistakenly shot by the police during a response to a shooting or an active shooter that it is an unlawful taking under the 4th amendment? Please post the cite from any of those decisions.
Because there was a complaint of an active shooter. In case you don't know, we pay the police to respond to those things.
Show me the cite in any of those cases that says it's an illegal taking while responding to an active shooter? You can't because it's not there and you know it's not there. Federal and state law has always recognized that there will be wrong decisions made in encounters like that and that's why the standard is what the shooter reasonably believed at the time he pressed the trigger. This standard applies to both the police and private citizens and unlike your crazy assertion that Heller and Bruen grant you some kind of right not to be mistakenly shot in an armed encounter with the police, there is tons of case law on only being judged by what a reasonable man would have done knowing only what the shooter knew when he made the decision to shoot.
It's always been that way. My point is that you are claiming that Heller and Bruen established that it was a 4th amendment violation and Heller and Bruen do not address that. And Heller and Bruen also did not establish a right to self defense. That right has always been there. Heller and Bruen established that you have the right to possess and carry a firearm for the purposes of self defense although the carry part and the possession of certain firearms is still being litigated.
Did the officer(s) that shot you even consider that you were acting lawfully, given that private citizens have the right to bear (carry and use) a gun in self-defense in public? If not, then the officer, the agency, and the state are liable for violating your civil rights.
There has been a rather distressing trend over the past couple of decades -- actually, even longer -- where officers have shot people taking cell phones or wallets out of pockets, fired shots at subjects holding what appear to be weapons when video later reveals that there was no immediate danger to the officers, further, it's clear, that many of these incidents occurred without officers employing any verbal orders. The more amped up the officers are, the quicker to guns and the less likely clear verbal commands are given.
