Replies

Interesting questions.

“people to make these decisions and the shooter became a danger to himself and the cops. If he had fought it in court rather than in his living room, it might have been different. He’d be alive.”

If he had not threatened the cops with a weapon when he opened the door, he wouldn’t have been shot. And according to news reports local, the first shot came from his gun when the cops were protecting themselves after being threaten by him brandishing it. No gun, no threat.

“Sometimes it is better to work with the law rather than physically resist. They weren’t there to arrest him, just relieve him of his first line opportunity to harm himself or others as determined by a court from family and/or medical pros.”

It requires a court action and order to accomplish this confiscation task. It is an act of protection of the public and not a criminal act. As I said in another post, the sheriff deputies have served over 100 of these court orders since October 1 when the law went onto effect. Until this one was turned into a gunfight according to CBS, it was nothing out of the normal.

“Somewhere along the line, he proved himself dangerous. I wouldn’t want him to own or carry a gun either. It’s one thing to get the determination changed for the legal action. It’s another to cause your death by physically resisting. That in itself raises a red flag.”

I am in my late 60’s now, and I have never answered the door to police officers with a gun in hand. Have you? This has to indicate that Willis was more than in question about the ownership and use of a firearm. No one said he broke a law. The court said he was questionable in having access to a firearm. He could have got them back if he can prove his capabilities of owning one. And he would have gotten his day in court to do so and another day to collect on the suing he would have filed against the state. Not now.

rwood