|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 10, 2013, 06:30 PM | #26 |
Member
Join Date: July 13, 2011
Location: MD *gah*
Posts: 57
|
Here is an article from the American Bar Association Journal that addresses some of the issues this thread is discussing.
In particular the article discusses the ramifications of the "militarization" of police forces, and their accountability (or lack thereof). Personally, I'm actually as concerned or more about a police raid stemming from bad information as I am about some random burglar breaking in. More, because if I shoot in the former case the likelihood of my survival is almost nil, but I'm actually optimistic about my chances with the burglar. |
July 13, 2013, 01:52 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
ABA Journal article already discussed in this thread --- http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=528194
|
July 13, 2013, 07:30 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 530
|
|
July 14, 2013, 08:39 AM | #29 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
I ask because of this section from your link: Quote:
|
||
July 14, 2013, 11:24 AM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Police officers put all kinds of interesting things in their reports. Sometimes those interesting things vanish when the officer is directly questioned under oath (whether in a deposition or court testimony).
It's highly unlikely that a police report alone would be entered into evidence and no testimony from the officers involved would be taken to bolster/refute it. |
July 14, 2013, 11:28 AM | #31 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
A police report will rarely be admissible as evidence in court. The officers involved will need to personally testify. When an officer is testifying, a report he wrote could be used to refresh his recollection (or to impugn his testimony). A report might also be used to show state of mind. But a police report is hearsay and may only be used under the various exceptions to the general rule that hearsay is not admissible.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
July 14, 2013, 10:09 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,647
|
as I recall police report are written after the fact thus no admissible. A journal written as It happens is admissible. But that was some years ago and my memory could be faulty.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81 |
July 14, 2013, 10:16 PM | #33 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
July 14, 2013, 10:21 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 6, 2012
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 1,670
|
Re: From my neck of the woods...3rd Amendment lawsuit.
Frank, if an officer is called to testify (say the one who wrote the report), and then went completely against what he wrote in his report, would he have committed perjury?
|
July 14, 2013, 10:35 PM | #35 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
July 15, 2013, 01:52 AM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Frank, I don't think it is off-topic.
I think allaroundhunter is suggesting that the police reports included the claims about the Mitchells as a CYA move against possible repercussions for police actions in the case. I think he is asking what additional penalties might attach, should this prove to have been the case; and I think he is asking what, if any, standard of proof would be applied to the report beyond the testimony of the officer in court - considering the officer would be one of the defendants in a civil suit. |
July 15, 2013, 08:14 AM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 530
|
As others have posted, testimony counts. I have used my reports to refresh my memory, but my testimony is what counts. However, I swear to my reports when I sign them. The form we submit has an oath on the bottom that I am swearing to the accuracy and content of the report when I sign it.
I did not believe any part of this story from the very start. It is probably the most bizarre thing I have ever read. None of the complaint made any sense. Just very strange from start to finish. I will be very curious to see how this shakes out. Very odd. |
July 15, 2013, 10:55 AM | #38 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
July 15, 2013, 01:00 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,847
|
Spats McGee wrote:
Wow. I know what the 3A is, but I can't recall ever hearing of another suit filed under it. I have no good idea as to how this case will end, I suspect "settlement" with the payment of some amount of money in the offing. Otherwise, re Spats's comment, there is a first time for everything. Al Norris had an interesting post on this matter too. Last edited by alan; July 15, 2013 at 01:06 PM. |
July 15, 2013, 11:39 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Some questions to ponder:
1. Was there any analog to the present day police force at the time of ratification? 2. Does present day law enforcement substantially occupy any role of founding era soldiers (i.e. to quell unrest, put down insurrections, etc.? Last edited by maestro pistolero; July 16, 2013 at 12:05 AM. |
July 16, 2013, 10:21 AM | #41 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
Quote:
Again, the police --> soldiers conversion doesn't seem like a legal stretch, but quartering? I don't see how that requirement could ever be satisfied (from what little I've read of this case). |
||
July 16, 2013, 12:56 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
There may be other areas of overlap in function, purpose, and duty between founding era soldiers and modern LE . . . or not. I just think it's an interesting area of inquiry if one has a case attempting to resurrect the 3rd amendment.
We know federal troops cannot ordinarily be compelled to fire on US citizens, but I doubt that LE would be restricted from quelling an external threat such as a terrorist attack. That LE is involved and integrated to whatever extent in homeland security, anti-terrorism etc., would seem relevant to any argument that the 3rd amendment applies to LE. Last edited by maestro pistolero; July 16, 2013 at 01:05 PM. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|