Posted on 01/02/2014 6:27:59 AM PST by Zakeet
That’s what I was thinking.
Any self respecting police agency would have immediately investigated that address after a call like that.
This day and age there should be a way for all cameras like that to be hooked in to a police department and when something like this starts to happen push a button and it shows up at the police station showing address and owner info also. More jobs, yeah!
Way too loud. You'll go deaf in a closed space. An 1100 fps(or even a subsonic load around 900fps) with a 125 grain will open like a can opener and shred organs and will not over penetrated like a fast 158 grain will
sounds like Memphis
The operator clearly understood that it was a robbery, because she said so...
“And you’re being robbed”
There’s no excuse for not immediately responding to a call about a robbery in progress.
Mmm... I need me one of them :)
This happened back in May — I wonder what has happened since and if the police found the other perps.
That you do, my fine feathered FRiend. That. You. Do.
“14,200 feet per second”
Maybe an anti-aircraft gun, not a hand gun. That would rip your arm off.
Police using lawful gun ownership as an excuse for “No Knock” home invasions
by Coach Collins
by Doug Book, editor
Texas courts have ruled that because legally owned firearms represent “a threat of physical violence” to police, officers may ignore the 4th Amendment rights of Texas residents by treating ALL legally issued warrants as “No Knock” warrants, even if the issuing judge has made it clear that officers “...must knock on the door and announce their identity and purpose before attempting a forcible entry.”
In August of 2006, police in Collin County, Texas obtained a warrant to search the home of John Quinn based on information that Quinn’s son might be keeping a controlled substance on the premises. Although the warrant “...did not authorize police to enter the residence without knocking and announcing their entry,” the County SWAT Team broke through Quinn’s door unannounced, “...based solely on the suspicion that there were firearms in the Quinn household.” Not aware of who had broken into his home, the suddenly awakened Quinn was shot by officers as he grabbed a nearby gun for the purpose of defending his life, family and property. All firearms in the home were legally owned by Quinn. Police discovered less than 1 gm of cocaine on the premises.
When Quinn took the Collin County SWAT Team to court for ignoring the terms of the search warrant by turning it into a “No Knock” warrant, the court ruled that “...because police had information that guns were present at the residence, they were justified in making a forced and unannounced invasion into Quinn’s home.” In short, a judge decided John Quinn represented a criminal danger based upon the legal exercise of his 2nd amendment rights.
The Rutherford Institute has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the Quinn case, writing to the Court that:
“...in the absence of any evidence of actual danger to police, the legal possession of a firearm, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is not sufficient to justify allowing police to override the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unannounced “no-knock” home invasions when executing warrants.”
The Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that law enforcement may NOT look upon the free exercise of constitutionally protected rights as an inference of guilt. For example, police may NOT presume that because an individual asserts his right to remain silent or speak with an attorney, he is deserving of additional suspicion of guilt.
Should Americans who exercise their God given, constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms be refused the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures? The suggestion by law enforcement, courts or lawmakers that the exercise of one constitutionally protected right should somehow render an American ineligible for the free exercise of—or protection guaranteed by—another right is despicable, disgraceful and a thoroughly unconstitutional assault on each of us.
Law enforcement has been given the “legal” authority to view Texas gun owners as potential criminals and to treat them accordingly. Every armed Texan is therefore presumed guilty until proven innocent. Does this mean police may legally gun down the holder of a Concealed Carry license on sight, based on the belief that being armed makes such a person likely to kill an officer?
Courts have dramatically weakened our 4th Amendment protections during the past several decades. If this trend is not reversed, open warfare will eventually become the only means of reclaiming lost liberty.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Additional reading:
http://www.examiner.com/article/government-violations-of-4th-amendment-tsa-airport-procedures
Oh. Maybe I was thinking of a peregrine falcon.
If this had happened in Houston, the guy would still be waiting for the police to show up.
Critics Question DPD Explanation for 911 Delay
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Critics-Question-DPD-Explanation-for-911-Delay-206691811.html
One of the many reasons "gun registration" is a flawed procedure.
I’m not sure I’d want to fire a .357 with a 14,200 fps muzzle velocity. That might be just a bit much for me to handle comfortably. :=) On second thought, it might be fun to try - once.
Not good enough. I need something that travels at 0.97 C.
I want increased mass and Doppler blue-shift.
I would love to see the expansion of a 135gr JHP and the wound cavity at 14k fps!
That’swhatI’mtalkin’’bout.
Actually, I underestimated the speed I’d need. I’d need it to travel at .9999999999999999 C, at which time, an 11.7 gram bullet would weigh 641 tons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.