CT Cop to Gun Owning Patriot: “I Cannot Wait to Get the Order to Kick Your Door In”

http://freedomoutpost.com ^ | march 8, 2014 | tim brown

[Respond Code Three]

"The orders would be illegal clueless."

If the Department gets a signed search warrant, and the supervisor gives the order to serve the search warrant, and it was necessary to break the door down to gain entry, the order would be legal. Cops have to work in the real world, they can't follow rules as believed by posters at Free Republic.

[Respond Code Three]

In my world there is a huge difference between doing something and saying you hope to do it. The statement made by the cop was some time ago. To date, there is no information that I am aware of that he carried out his wishes. Therefore, he did nothing, and he has done nothing.

[Respond Code Three]

Until he actually express a wish to harm Cinque, a statement about wanting to kick his door in is not the same as saying he wishes to harm him.

[Respond Code Three]

I read his three books on the Gulags many years ago and I agree with him on what the citizens should have done instead of cowering in fear. I think you have missed something too though, so please read Post #40.

[Respond Code Three]

Once the name calling and general silliness began I decided to end my participation on this thread. But because I have a high regard for your sense of humor and your intelligence, I will be back for a while.

Here is my basic position on this:

1. I neither like nor support what the cop said to Cinque.

2. I would like for Cinque to be pro active, and not wait for the cops to do something. I want him to take the fight to them, but by legal means.

Is that in conflict with your views?

[Respond Code Three]

"How do you see this thing playing out in Connecticut?"

I can't predict. (I know, that makes me a troll)

If orders are given to the police to confiscate guns, I expect the police to follow their orders. If the people resist by means of deadly force, I support their right to do so.

[Respond Code Three]

"It is called a Terroristic Threat."

In the court of Free Republic, yes it is a terrorist threat. In the real world of laws, it isn't.

[Respond Code Three]

He told Cinque he wanted to kick his door down, but he qualified it by saying he would so under orders. That disqualifies it as an immediate threat or a terrorist threat.

[Respond Code Three]

"Why should I prove a damn thing to a cop?"

You don't have to prove that the officer does not have the right to go home safe. You have the right not to have to post anything. Use it.

"He should have kept his mouth shut."

I agree.

"You should think of a second career as a tap dancer."

It's a bit late for that. Perhaps in my next life I will consider it.

[CodeToad]

” a statement about wanting to kick his door in is not the same as saying he wishes to harm him.”

By that logic, if someone kicks in your door and you shoot them a court will convict you of murder? Nonsense. Courts have routinely upheld that kicking in someone’s door is an act of violence and a direct threat of harm.

[CodeToad]

“He told Cinque he wanted to kick his door down, but he qualified it by saying he would so under orders. That disqualifies it as an immediate threat or a terrorist threat.”

Not so when the terrorist is the government. You wrongly assume any and all orders given by a government employee are correct and not a terrorist threat.

[CodeToad]

“If the Department gets a signed search warrant, and the supervisor gives the order to serve the search warrant, and it was necessary to break the door down to gain entry, the order would be legal.”

That wasn’t the context of the threat. The context was that the police would be illegally confiscating firearms and he wanted to do it. Not all orders by a government are legal or within the desires of those governed.

[Respond Code Three]

"What was wrongful is that the cop singled him out personally for maximum aggression, instead of expressing enthusiasm for enforcing this particular law fairly and generally in the most peaceful possible way."

The cop should have said nothing. But if he had expressed support for enforcing the law, even by peaceful means, the resulting outrage would have been the same.

"Those two issues - personal focus and maximum endangerment, turn the statement into a terroristic threat outside of the bounds of his authority."

Once he qualified the statement by saying he would do so under orders, the statement became null as a personal or terrorist threat.

[Respond Code Three]

"Just leave him be folks."

Your post is not congruent with your advice.

[Respond Code Three]

" Perhaps you want to list your address where the door kick in will get whimpers."

Wrong.

[Respond Code Three]

"Plenty of time to waste."

From your posts, that becomes obvious.

[devolve]

- CT STATE POLICE LT. VANCE :

- ….I am the master!




- After WWII many German officers said "I was only following orders!"

They are not hanging around anymore……...

[Respond Code Three]

In post 221, I was not addressing the context of the “threat.”

[Respond Code Three]

"You wrongly assume any and all orders given by a government employee are correct and not a terrorist threat."

You mistakenly assume what I assume.

[Respond Code Three]

"By that logic, if someone kicks in your door and you shoot them a court will convict you of murder?"

If my house were on fire and the person who kicked my door in was a fireman, then yes, I would probably be convicted of murder.