And The Moron Of The Day Award Goes To........... - Page 2 - Chit-Chat - Long Island Firearms

Jump to content


Welcome to Long Island Firearms, Long Island's premier source for news and education!

Welcome to Long Island Firearms, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of Long Island Firearms by signing in or creating an account. You also have the ability to login with your facebook or twitter account. See the icons in the upper right hand corner.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates
  • Get your own profile and make new friends
  • Customize your experience here
Get the latest facts on the new NY SAFE gun laws that effect you!

Photo

And The Moron Of The Day Award Goes To...........


  • Please log in to reply
257 replies to this topic

#21 leftjammer

leftjammer

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 2643 posts
  • LocationNew Hyde Park

Posted March 23 2017 - 01:39 PM

I thought all the stupid people were from Floriduh......but these two potty mouth fools from Michigan take the cake.



# Advertisement

Advertisement

Posted A minute ago



#22 zzrguy

zzrguy

    That Guy

  • Administrators
  • Others: Club LIF Member

  • 11492 posts
  • LocationIn a dark corner in the center of my happy place.

Posted March 23 2017 - 02:47 PM

I thought all the stupid people were from Floriduh......but these two potty mouth fools from Michigan take the cake.

Funny how the moron from Maine is now a genius compared to thes two jagoffs.



#23 Parashooter

Parashooter

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 11553 posts

Posted March 24 2017 - 07:57 AM

take cover and assess the situation.

 

  Mask.

Body Armor.

Rifle.

 

Once I've seen that all the assessment is done....    And you're ASSUMING there is someplace to take cover....  (business owners, take note - evaluate your place for possible cover - glass display cabinets -'no', floor gondolas - 'no', sheetrock walls - 'not really'....)


  • ProGodProGunProLife likes this

#24 ProGodProGunProLife

ProGodProGunProLife

    Gun Guru

  • LIF Site Moderator
  • Others: Club LIF Member

  • 7035 posts
  • LocationSuffolk

Posted March 24 2017 - 08:48 AM

  Mask.

Body Armor.

Rifle.

 

Once I've seen that all the assessment is done....    And you're ASSUMING there is someplace to take cover....  (business owners, take note - evaluate your place for possible cover - glass display cabinets -'no', floor gondolas - 'no', sheetrock walls - 'not really'....)

 

 

I agree.  When we watch these morons in the video, we already know they are just a couple of morons who think they are making some sort of "point".  But, from the perspective of the cops or a store owner who had these yahoos walk in like that, the only logical assumption is that they are a serious threat.  They weren't going in, in good faith, just "open carrying".  They were intentionally trying to get a reaction from the police and dressed and equipped themselves in the manner that some nutjobs or terrorists who wanted to kill a bunch of cop would.  

 

There is no logical reason, for an ordinary person with no bad intentions to show up at a police station, carrying a rifle, and wearing body armor and a mask.  


  • Parashooter likes this

#25 boosti

boosti

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 11199 posts
  • LocationStrong Island

Posted March 24 2017 - 08:57 AM

the cops would have a very hard time explaining why they shot a guy who didnt have his hand on any weapon.  the rifle on a sling is no danger at that moment. they should have gotten the best cover, and take it from there.

Bro, Street Survival and terrorism training taught to LE, would clearly show that these guys wanted to be smoked or cause a DPF situation. Body Armour, Loaded AR and ski mask inside the lobby of a Police Department.
I have to agree with other cops who have seen this. I will praise the officers for using restraint, however, DPF was justified once you heard these knuckleheads not drop the weapons on command.
  • Parashooter and ProGodProGunProLife like this

#26 slowryder

slowryder

    Gun Guru

  • Donated Member
  • 1448 posts

Posted March 24 2017 - 10:17 AM

Michigan State Police update Oct. 2010 includes Open Carry as will as Brandishing a firearm
Open carry of firearms
In Michigan, it is legal for a person to carry a firearm in public as long as the person is carrying the firearm with lawful intent and the firearm is not concealed. You will not find a law that states it is legal to openly carry a firearm. It is legal because there is no Michigan law that prohibits it; however, Michigan law limits the premises on which a person may carry a firearm.
MCL 750.234d provides that it is a 90 day misdemeanor to possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:
 A depository financial institution (e.g., bank or
credit union)
 A church or other place of religious worship
 A court
 A theater
 A sports arena
 A day care center
 A hospital
 An establishment licensed under the Liquor
Control Code
The above section does not apply to any of the following:
 The owner or a person hired as security (if the
firearm is possessed for the purpose of providing
security)
 A peace officer
 A person with a valid concealed pistol license
(CPL) issued by any state
 A person who possesses on one of the above
listed premises with the permission of the owner or owner’s agent
Officers must be aware of the above exemption for valid CPL holders as many of the citizens
who openly carry firearms possess valid CPLs. An individual with a valid CPL may carry a non- concealed firearm in the above listed premises.
A CPL holder is not required by law to carry a pistol concealed. A CPL holder may carry a pistol concealed or non-concealed.
Brandishing firearms
MCL 750.234e provides that it is a 90-day misdemeanor for a person to knowingly brandish a firearm in public. Brandishing is not defined in Michigan law and there are no reported Michigan cases that define the term. Attorney General Opinion No. 7101 provides guidance and states, “A person when carrying a handgun in a holster in plain view is not waving or displaying the firearm in a threatening manner. Thus, such conduct does not constitute brandishing a firearm....”

#27 slowryder

slowryder

    Gun Guru

  • Donated Member
  • 1448 posts

Posted March 24 2017 - 10:23 AM

But I concur once given an order by Police to put down his firearm he must comply. Period
The SCOTUS has ruled many time in favor of LEOs that safety in securing any scene or scenario they are in is paramount, before investigating or any other interaction they may have with the public, comes first. That why you see them put handcuffs on people and then release them as soon as they are satisfied that the area they are operating in is secured.

#28 Steyr AUG man

Steyr AUG man

    Newbie

  • Junior Member
  • Pip
  • 0 posts

Posted March 24 2017 - 11:04 AM

Bro, Street Survival and terrorism training taught to LE, would clearly show that these guys wanted to be smoked or cause a DPF situation.

we see from their history and arraignment that they clearly DID NOT WANT to be smoked or do suicide by cop. that was surely not their intention. they wanted to make a political point, although very stupidly. If that is the training being given, they are evidently wrong.

 

Body Armour, Loaded AR and ski mask inside the lobby of a Police Department.
I have to agree with other cops who have seen this. I will praise the officers for using restraint, however, DPF was justified once you heard these knuckleheads not drop the weapons on command.

 
you do whatever you feel comfortable doing. i have been through yearly deadly force and justification training. if the rifle is on a sling, pointing down or up or whatever, with his hands off of it, and pistol in the holster, there is no justification to shoot him.
 
you can do whatever legal contortions you want to justify it. see if you feel confident that it is more likely that a grand jury will apply the law and find that you are justified in using deadly force, than it is likely that a guy with no weapon in his hand making a stupid political point is an immediate threat and needs to be killed.
 
These cops were professionals and acted as such. if they blew away the guy, there would certainly be some issue for whomever shot.
 
if a guy walks into a bank in New York and pulls a note job or whatever, and has a gun in his waistband without ever touching it in your presence, can you legally shoot him?  If you answer "yes", you need retraining. If you think you can use deadly force against someone doing commercial robbery, who has no weapon in his hand as in this situation, in keeping with the penal law, you are mistaken.

Would your actions pass the two pronged test in NYS? (From the NYS jury charging instructions)

 

The determination of whether a person REASONABLY BELIEVES deadly physical force to be necessary to defend himself/herself [or someone else] from what he/she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force by another individual requires the application of a two-part test.

That test applies to this case in the following way:

First, the defendant must have actually believed that (specify) was using or was about to use deadly physical force against him/her [or someone else], and that the defendant’s own use of deadly physical force was necessary to defend himself/herself from it; and

Second, a “reasonable person” in the defendant’s position, knowing what the defendant knew and being in the same circumstances, would have had those same beliefs.

Thus, under our law of justification, it is not sufficient that the defendant honestly believed in his own mind that he was faced with defending himself/herself [or someone else] against the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. An honest belief, no matter how genuine or sincere, may yet be unreasonable.

To have been justified in the use of deadly physical force, the defendant must have honestly believed that it was necessary to defend himself/herself [or someone else] from what he/she honestly believed to be the use or imminent use of such force by (specify), and a “reasonable person” in the defendant’s position, knowing what the defendant knew and being in the same circumstances, would have believed that too

 

Anyone who is not intimately familiar with this should not be carrying a firearm for self defense in NYS.



#29 boosti

boosti

    Gun Guru

  • Topic Starter
  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 11199 posts
  • LocationStrong Island

Posted March 24 2017 - 11:18 AM

we see from their history and arraignment that they clearly DID NOT WANT to be smoked or do suicide by cop. that was surely not their intention. they wanted to make a political point, although very stupidly. If that is the training being given, they are evidently wrong.
 

 
you do whatever you feel comfortable doing. i have been through yearly deadly force and justification training. if the rifle is on a sling, pointing down or up or whatever, with his hands off of it, and pistol in the holster, there is no justification to shoot him.
 
you can do whatever legal contortions you want to justify it. see if you feel confident that it is more likely that a grand jury will apply the law and find that you are justified in using deadly force, than it is likely that a guy with no weapon in his hand making a stupid political point is an immediate threat and needs to be killed.
 
These cops were professionals and acted as such. if they blew away the guy, there would certainly be some issue for whomever shot.
 
if a guy walks into a bank in New York and pulls a note job or whatever, and has a gun in his waistband without ever touching it in your presence, can you legally shoot him?  If you answer "yes", you need retraining. If you think you can use deadly force against someone doing commercial robbery, who has no weapon in his hand as in this situation, in keeping with the penal law, you are mistaken.

Police Don't Move...Get down on the ground. They should hit the ground fast.

#30 Phoenix69

Phoenix69

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 25672 posts
  • LocationA little place I like to call "you"ll see".

Posted March 24 2017 - 12:46 PM

The title of this post should be made into a "sticky".



#31 zzrguy

zzrguy

    That Guy

  • Administrators
  • Others: Club LIF Member

  • 11492 posts
  • LocationIn a dark corner in the center of my happy place.

Posted March 24 2017 - 05:28 PM

I agree.  When we watch these morons in the video, we already know they are just a couple of morons who think they are making some sort of "point".  But, from the perspective of the cops or a store owner who had these yahoos walk in like that, the only logical assumption is that they are a serious threat.  They weren't going in, in good faith, just "open carrying".  They were intentionally trying to get a reaction from the police and dressed and equipped themselves in the manner that some nutjobs or terrorists who wanted to kill a bunch of cop would.  

 

There is no logical reason, for an ordinary person with no bad intentions to show up at a police station, carrying a rifle, and wearing body armor and a mask.  

Oh wait they had ski masks on thoes officer showed incredible restraint 


  • Parashooter likes this

#32 Mycher

Mycher

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 1414 posts
  • LocationBehind enemy lines in Newyorkistan

Posted March 24 2017 - 07:51 PM

Oh this can be a new daily thing....I nominate this idiot for Moron of the Day.

Attached Thumbnails

  • Paul Ryan Idiot.jpg

  • Phoenix69 likes this

#33 TJ Ironhorse

TJ Ironhorse

    Gun Guru

  • Donated Member
  • 2461 posts
  • LocationNorth Massapequa

Posted March 24 2017 - 08:47 PM

$50,000 cash bond. Wow. Thats a whole lot. Hegot exactly what he deserved. Makes us all look bad.

Edited by TJ Ironhorse, March 24 2017 - 08:47 PM.


#34 m1lk

m1lk

    former ak builder

  • Donated Member
  • 2574 posts

Posted March 24 2017 - 10:52 PM

This one is almost as stupid but I think you got me with sheer stupidity.

 

"

VIDEO RELEASED OF MEN WALKING INTO POLICE STATION WITH A LOADED GUN AND CAMERA TO TEST OPEN CARRY LAWS"

 

 


this is just over-the-top stupid



#35 NRATC53

NRATC53

    Now an Ex NYer

  • Donated Member
  • 24669 posts

Posted March 24 2017 - 11:45 PM

this is just over-the-top stupid

welcome back


  • m1lk likes this

#36 Steyr AUG man

Steyr AUG man

    Newbie

  • Junior Member
  • Pip
  • 0 posts

Posted March 25 2017 - 05:09 AM

Police Don't Move...Get down on the ground. They should hit the ground fast.


Absolutely right.

#37 slowryder

slowryder

    Gun Guru

  • Donated Member
  • 1448 posts

Posted March 26 2017 - 11:12 AM

FYI
http://law.stackexch...s-in-california

Can a civilian use deadly force in a bank robbery in California?
Assume a bank robbery with one or more armed gunmen, in the City of Los Angeles, such as occur in movies or real life, who arrive yelling demands and brandishing firearms at victims but have not shot anyone. In fact, the robber(s) initially announce that "no one will be harmed if everyone cooperates".

Obviously, any number of bad things could happen to innocent victims if some self-appointed vigilante assaults a robber, takes a robber's gun, or opens fire with their own weapon, say, from a cracked restroom door, or some other position where the advantage of surprise might exist. Or, they could be the hero of the day.

To be clear, this question is limited to the case where the bank robbers have not physically harmed anyone at the moment the heroic civilian decides to be the first to initiate deadly combat. This civilian is not acting out of fear for himself or the lives of others, but simply believes they stand a decent chance of ending the robbery through superior position, tactics, or knowledge of deadly force or perhaps is hyped up on adrenaline and simply wants to "spin the wheel".

How does the modern legal system deal with such a person?
Answer

Note: The question is hypothetical, and I am not currently in California. There are a number of bank robberies there, so precedents may exist in case law.
In California (as in all states) there is a justifiable homicide defense which might be used in such a situation. For the force to be justified, you have to reasonably believe you are in danger of being harmed, that you need to use force to avoid the harm, and you may only use the minimum force necessary to eliminate the threat. It then is a matter for the jury to decide whether those principles were followed in your particular instance. The reason why it's hard to predict the outcome is that it depends on a subjective evaluation by the jury, as to whether the shooter had a reasonable fear and whether lesser force was a viable option.

The jury's decision is guided by instructions to the jury (#506, #506) which focus on relevant distinctions. The jury will be told that "Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be", and that you have to reasonably believe there is "imminent danger of great bodily injury". My evaluation is that that does not describe the scenario in the question. There is some possibility of future harm... but not imminent harm.

People v. Ceballos (1974) 12 Cal.3d 470" states that "the rule developed at common law that killing or use of deadly force to prevent a felony was justified only if the offense was a forcible and atrocious crime" and "Examples of forcible and atrocious crimes are murder, mayhem, rape and robbery", and that could support application of a justifiable homicide defense in a bank robbery. But in the present instance, the bank is being robbed and the shooter is a by-stander. Despite all of the bank robberies in California, there is no relevant case from which one could draw an analogy.

#38 Steyr AUG man

Steyr AUG man

    Newbie

  • Junior Member
  • Pip
  • 0 posts

Posted March 26 2017 - 11:47 AM

We don't use the term "brandishing" in New York law, and I believe brandishing might be like raising your shirt to reveal a firearm in your waistband. Or like in that station house video, a rifle over your shoulder on a sling and pistol in a belt holster. That us not enough to articulate you were in fear of imminent serious physical injury or death. In New York.

#39 covertjy

covertjy

    Gun Guru

  • Topic Starter
  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 3982 posts
  • LocationThe Free World

Posted March 27 2017 - 06:43 AM

bran·dish
ˈbrandiSH/
verb
 
  1. wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.
    synonyms: flourishwaveshakewieldMore
     
     
     
  1.  


#40 Phoenix69

Phoenix69

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 25672 posts
  • LocationA little place I like to call "you"ll see".

Posted April 04 2017 - 09:13 PM

Here is another entry.
http://www.foxnews.c...-challenge.html




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users