I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.mojo84 wrote:I just can't get my mind around the idea of one defending themselves against an attacking dog on the person's property being considered a crime.
This may vary from city to city, but it is my understanding that discharging a firearm within the city limit is a crime. That crime may later be determined to be justified by circumstances such as defending oneself.
So yes, as I understand it, the man had already told the 911 operator that he had committed a crime and an officer was sent to invetigate. So despite whatever may have happened, the officer was certainly justified in disarming a person he was sent to investigate for a crime involving shot(s) fired.
Even though the idea that the guy committed the crime of discharging a firearm within city limits may be minor compared to the main story of him defending himself against a dog attack, from the LEO perspective - Man fired a gun. Man may be violent. May have been defending himself or may have been on a rampage against neighbor's dog. Don't know. DO know, man fired a gun and here he is with a gun.
I don't like police disarming citizens for no apparent reason. But in this case, I can find no fault with the officer attempting to disarm this man.
Could it have been handled better? By the officer? Maybe, probably. By the home owner? Certainly.
I do not believe that 911 operator telling him anything, such as leaving the gun inside, is the same as a lawful order from an LEO. It may be good advice, but not something someone must follow. [Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.]
The officer asking for the firearm was a lawful order. Different thing. Maybe not relevant here, but just sayin'.
This brings up some questions I have about when an LEO may disarm you on your property, but this thread is already long and rather than go off on a tangent, perhaps I should start a new thread. Stay tuned.