This could be interesting

Seattle police are suing the DOJ, The City of Seattle, Seattle Mayor, Seattle Chief of Police, and others about restrictions on their use of force and the right of self-defense protected by the Second Amendment:

When a police officer is confronted with threatening behavior, he or she has the fundamental, individual right of self-defense under the Second Amendment, consistent with every other citizen, to protect himself or herself, and others, from apparent and immediate harm. As the Court has long recognized, the rules that define and determine self-defense are of universal application and are not affected by the character of a person’s employment.

This could be far more interesting than one might first guess. If the courts accept this argument then not only is the right to carry in public by private citizens bolstered but the rights of people to carry while at work is given support as well.

H/T to Dave Workman. See also the Seattle PI article.

20 thoughts on “This could be interesting

  1. Depends on how arguments go in the court, I’d think. They are not acting in their private capacity as a citizen to defend themselves, they are acting as an agent of the government, which is totally different.
    IFF, as you say, this is upheld, then it would also apply to… teachers, and other government employees.
    As you say, “veeeerrry innnnteresting….”

  2. What stuck out to me was the term, “consistent with every other citizen”. I like it because it posits a universal right. The cops may not like it so much if it were taken fully to heart, depending on what it is, exactly, that’s “consistent with every other citizen”. Are we now to arrest cops for having NFA weapons without a personal tax stamp, or are we to assume that anything a cop can have “every other citizen” may have with no more encumbrances that would be placed on a cop?

    In fact, a cop IS any other citizen. If that alone were generally understood we’d be a lot farther along than we are now.

    There is a bit of a problem with, “individual right of self-defense under the Second Amendment”. The 2A protects the keeping and bearing of arms. The right to self defense is and has been assumed and recognized pretty widely, but it’s not mentioned in the 2A beyond “the security of a free state”.

    I read the PI piece and this stuck out like a sore thumb;
    “Officers say their Fourth Amendment rights to perform reasonable searches and seizures are violated under the new policies.”

    Cracker please!

    So the fourth amendment protects a right of POLICE to search and seize OUR property. I see, so when they’re talking about the second amendment, I very much doubt that they’re referring to the second amend we all know. If their second amendment is anything like their fourth amendment, then it’s only a protection of a cop’s “right” to kill people.

    I don’t know, Man; when communists are fighting Nazis, or Cryps are fighting Bloods, I don’t cheer for either side. This whole thing smells like a big steaming turd.

    In general, I would say to cops and prospective cops that if you aren’t willing to place yourself in danger and be polite and respectful while doing it, then stay the fuck out. I wouldn’t want your shitty job for any money, mostly because you’re expected to enforce unconstitutional laws, becoming a tool of tyranny. What kind of person WANTS to be in that situation?

    The problem that seems to be getting into all of this is that so many people at all levels are corrupt as hell. You have Holder’s DOJ telling you how to behave? Man, you’re fucked. Right there. So if you’re an honest cop you’re between a rock and a hard place. You can’t win. You’ll have to be either corrupted or destroyed.

    Now; What would Rooster Cogburn do?

      • Maybe, but against whom and in what capacity? My thought is that he would throw his badge on the mayor’s desk and resign, being unwilling to serve a corrupt city government that’s also taking direction from a corrupt U.S. DOJ. He would of course then become a target, beset from all directions– Common criminals, his former fellow police officers, and city, state and federal government would all have him in their crosshairs, figuratively and literally. Many of the regular citizens would also hate him for ever having been part of the corrupt establishment, and his obvious personal failings and crude manners would cement that hatred. Between a rock (or several rocks) and a hard place, as I said. In the end of course, his inability to stand idle, in the face of suffering and evil, would triumph.

        Come to think of it, that would make an excellent movie.

    • “I don’t know, Man; when communists are fighting Nazis, or Cryps are fighting Bloods, I don’t cheer for either side. ”

      I cheer for both sides and pray for a long war. The only down side is when someone wins.

  3. Maybe this means that the Hughes Amendment will no longer apply to us, huh?

  4. Along with the cop is any other citizen if we could get people really grasp that The People have rights and The State has powers but zero rights; we’d be nearly all the way there.

    Even farther if we’d get understanding that the powers of the state are the powers of the people and if we can’t do it, we can’t hire someone to do it.

    • Indeed. Every time you read a court opinion in which the word “rights” is used applied to a government (especially when accompanied by “balancing” of those “rights”) you know you’re dealing with the writings of someone who has no clue what the Constitution is all about.

      Unfortunately, there are several supreme court justices in that category.

    • No, no, no No, no, no — governments _do_ have rights. . . in two very circumscribed situations:

      1. Governments have rights enforceable against other governments. States against other states, states against the federal government. Since the states are co-equal to each other, and the federal government was formed by the individual sovereign states, the concept of “rights” is real and appropriate — note that the federal government does not have “rights” in relation to the states or the people (aside from the #2, below). The same thing for states – they do not (other than #2) have “rights” in relation to the people. (Just as the states formed the federal government, the people formed the states – thus the people are superior to the states, and the states are superior to the federal government; it is only by the consent of the superior that the inferior has specific authorities and powers explicitly granted.)

      2. Governments have property rights for government-owned property. That’s why you can’t just stroll into the police parking lot and pick out your next new ride. This is essential for the same reason that artificial entities like corporations have property rights – otherwise, every transaction or transfer would require consent of EVERYONE, because each individual would have a discrete (although minute) property interest in any collectively-owned (i.e., goverment owned) property.

  5. Pingback: Big self defense case... | The Gun Feed

  6. Given this is Seattle PD and this is fallout from their getting smacked by the DOJ to live within the rules I’m torn.

    Last I checked if I as a citizen shoot someone else in self-defense an independent third party comes in to investigate. If they cannot reach a conclusion it goes to trial and they decide. Often times the state protects it’s own and us who aren’t in law enforcement do not get those protections. Quite often the mere act of exercising your rights is cause for Seattle PD to ruin your day.

    If qualified immunity and the other piles of garbage that get extended to law enforcement are destroy I’m game. Currently the way I’m looking at this is a bunch of spoiled children are throwing a tantrum because their parent showed up and said you can’t keep bullying these people anymore.

    • There are some interesting comments in some of the news articles about this, about the guy from the holder DoJ misusing funds and getting caught, and the “reforms” he demanded were punitive to SPD about not going along with a coverup. I don’t know about the truth of such allegations, but it certainly adds another level of “fire ’em all and start over” temptation.

  7. Wonder if this would apply to a citizen that is confronted by a corrupt, abusive cop? Can we defend ourselves against their abuses?

  8. friends:

    i believe the police rank and file advance a very sound argument. this based on 25 years of law practice.

    always argue the basic facts, and the basic principles that apply. then look for specific precedent. but, never forget the basics.

    john jay

    • The best lies, the best ruses, the best deceptions, the best scams, always have a noticeable amount of truth in them, presented up in our faces so as to put us off the game.

      On the very outer surface I thought it looked really good, but dig a little deeper, and know something of Western Washington & Seattle politics, and it begins to stink like rotten food– It looks really appetizing from a distance, and so you want to eat it up, and it therefore becomes all the more disgusting when you finally smell it for what it is.

      It COULD be that the Seattle police are suddenly going all teaparty and libertarian, but I sure wouldn’t bet on it. Nor would I bet on pigs suddenly flying out of my ass, though in theory maybe it COULD happen in some way that would not violate the laws of physics. Let’s not let our wishful thinking cloud our vision.

Comments are closed.