Philly police take woman's gun

[Integraholic]

Philadelphia woman hears knock, shows she's armed, police confiscate gun | Philadelphia Daily News | 09/03/2010

 

[lashicoN]

Wow, this story is messed up. Police came in, pointed guns at her kids, held her for 12 hours, took her Ruger and her license.

Sounds like the officers should also be charged with "Simple Assault" when they pointed their guns at her kids.

Not to sound like a greasy politician, but hopefully the NRA jumps all over this one, since she isn't the average looking gun owner. They could pander to the paranoid people who think everyone in the NRA is also in the KKK while protecting the 2nd Amendment.

Lastly, she should have fired. We didn't let them take our arms at Lexington.

 

[RichardR]

I am assuming that all 3 witnesses claimed that she did in fact actually point the firearm at them, thus making it a "three said, she said" scenario.

Besides she was wearing a ninja outfit so she's obviously dangerous, I hope the police took her blowgun & throwing stars too!

 

[GARANDGUY]

I would have the jobs of all involved!!! I would call a lawyer and own the cable company and be rich from the lawsuit against the officers and the dept.! I also agree someone should do something to them for their role in violating her rights!

 

[Bendrx]

Should have told the cable guys "NO" the second time and, then complained to the company. That is some BS from the sound of it, I hope some cable installers are suddenly unemployed in the very near future. And assuming she kept the muzzle down the whole time, then It'd be nice to see some charges brought up about making false accusations. Somebody banged on my back door around 9 at night a while ago. I just ignored it, when they presisted I had a .45 ready to rock in roll in my hand, but I kept it out of sight. It was some guy wanting to buy my beat up Cirrus that didn't have a for sale sign, because it's not for sale.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Should have told the cable guys "NO" the second time and, then complained to the company. That is some BS from the sound of it, I hope some cable installers are suddenly unemployed in the very near future. And assuming she kept the muzzle down the whole time, then It'd be nice to see some charges brought up about making false accusations. Somebody banged on my back door around 9 at night a while ago. I just ignored it, when they presisted I had a .45 ready to rock in roll in my hand, but I kept it out of sight. It was some guy wanting to buy my beat up Cirrus that didn't have a for sale sign, because it's not for sale.

Fortunately, it doesn't seem like we have to be too concerned about a similar situation occurring in most of Indiana. Even though I live in a pretty decent neighborhood, if someone comes to my door after dark (and sometimes during the day, as well) I block my door when I open it and have my Glock ready incase it's a home invasion.

 

[Aszerigan]

Do we know that she didn't point the firearm at the workers? Seems like an important detail to me. They said she did, she said they didn't. Who knows? If she did, then she deserved what she got.

 

[Lucas156]

The police knocked on the door and she answered it? Did she have a legal obligation to do so?

 

[00BlasterResto]

So I gotta ask though,,, What if she did point it at them and intruct that they GTF off her private property??
If you knock on my door and I do not know you, ESPECIALLY 3 of you, there is a better chance than not you'll get an eye full of mine. Is this breaking the law??? I'm lost here! and Sorry but thats Bull Crap.
I personally would have it as she said she did "holding it behind her" but I honestly just thought that was a courtesy.

 

[DarkLight]

Do we know that she didn't point the firearm at the workers? Seems like an important detail to me. They said she did, she said they didn't. Who knows? If she did, then she deserved what she got.

I think to truly answer that question we need to verify if the workers did indeed continue work in her yard between the time of her opening the door and the police arriving. Because let us be honest here, if you go and knock on some stranger's door and they go about pointing a gun AT you and you feel you need to call the police about it, you probably won't continue working in that person's yard.

Also, what in the heck are the cops doing if they get a call and then show up THREE ******* hours later? The whole thing smells fishy to me. What happened to the good old protect and serve? I'm very much against suing people, but this is one case where I feel it would be justified.

 

[CarmelHP]

Keystone Kops, at your service. This is typical for the Philadelphia Police.

 

[downzero]

Considering the fact that the people were trespassers for being on her property in the first place after she told them not to be by the back door, I highly doubt that this case will go anywhere. I can't imagine a trespasser can claim he was assaulted.

 

[Booya]

Maybe I'm playing devils advocate here, but I agree with most of the statements above, this sounds a bit fishy. I'm guessing based on the pic in the article that there is probably some discrimination involved as well.

 

[serpicostraight]

its all about officer safety. one less honest citizen they have to worry about. they are probably expecting a thank you note because she didnt ride the lightning.

 

[ocsdor]

The cable guys had the police come and take her guns so it would be a safer robbing environment once the cable guys got off their shift that night. All though, let's face it; the cable company is already robbing her.

note: I didn't read the article nor click the link. Others do it, I figured I would try it too.

 

[Bill of Rights]

So I gotta ask though,,, What if she did point it at them and intruct that they GTF off her private property??
If you knock on my door and I do not know you, ESPECIALLY 3 of you, there is a better chance than not you'll get an eye full of mine. Is this breaking the law??? I'm lost here! and Sorry but thats Bull Crap.
I personally would have it as she said she did "holding it behind her" but I honestly just thought that was a courtesy.

"Is this breaking the law", you ask? I don't know about PA, but in Indiana, possibly.

IC 35-47-4-3
Pointing firearm at another person
Sec. 3. (a) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties or to a person who is justified in using reasonable force against another person under:
(1) IC 35-41-3-2; or
(2) IC 35-41-3-3.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally points a firearm at another person commits a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm was not loaded.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

[...]

She was prepared to use force. That is not in dispute nor is it problematic in Indiana. That said, though, they were not using unlawful force, doing anything to threaten serious bodily injury to anyone, nor was their entry upon her property unlawful. (She had asked others with the same company not to use her back door again. If they failed to relay the message, the second group coming to the door may not have been notified.) Given the same situation as happened in PA, in Indiana, yes, I'd think it conceivable that this would be a violation of the law. IANAL, TINLA.

Considering the fact that the people were trespassers for being on her property in the first place after she told them not to be by the back door, I highly doubt that this case will go anywhere. I can't imagine a trespasser can claim he was assaulted.

See above. Does notice to one (or other small number of) employee(s) of a company constitute notice to an entire company? If I go in to McDonald's and tell the person taking my order that I'm allergic to pickles and I need my Big Mac without either pickles or secret sauce, and the next time I go in, those items are on my sandwich, do I have grounds for a legal action?

If the same installers returned to her back door, it might qualify as trespass, but I don't know that that would apply to all of them, especially given that she granted permission for use of her yard. As to trespassers claiming assault (or in IN, "attempted battery"), if a robber can file a civil claim for injuries sustained while unlawfully entering a building, I put nothing outside the realm of possibility.

This will, as said, come down to "three said/she said" but I'd imagine her attorney could claim collusion on their parts or even that one (anti-gun-rights) "eyewitness" convinced the (gun-neutral or anti-gun-rights) others of something none of them actually saw.

Again, standard legal disclaimers apply, IANAL and TINLA, but placed in that situation, those are the arguments I think I'd pursue.

I'm reminded of the case of the late Melanie Hain, rest her soul, the so-called "gun-toting soccer mom" from late 2008, who had her pistol OC at a soccer game, so the sheriff (of Harrisburg, PA) rescinded her CCW permit. As OC is lawful in PA without any form of permit required, all he did was force her to choose to OC all the time. She sued and won. Hopefully, Ms. Sutton will do likewise.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Bill, I understand what you're saying, but I'd say if three strangers came to my door, I'd consider that enough of a "threat" (potentially three-against-one) that I would be prepared to use force to defend myself until it proved to be unnecessary. Trespass wouldn't necessarily enter into the situation. I wonder if that would suffice as a defense?

 

[Ramen]

Bill, I understand what you're saying, but I'd say if three strangers came to my door, I'd consider that enough of a "threat" (potentially three-against-one) that I would be prepared to use force to defend myself until it proved to be unnecessary. Trespass wouldn't necessarily enter into the situation. I wonder if that would suffice as a defense?

If you had an informed jury it probably would...

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill, I understand what you're saying, but I'd say if three strangers came to my door, I'd consider that enough of a "threat" (potentially three-against-one) that I would be prepared to use force to defend myself until it proved to be unnecessary. Trespass wouldn't necessarily enter into the situation. I wonder if that would suffice as a defense?

As I might as well. Answering my door happens with my sidearm in hand, but behind the door. It's not seen unholstered.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Beau]

As I might as well. Answering my door happens with my sidearm in hand, but behind the door. It's not seen unholstered.

Blessings,
Bill

I keep it out of sight too if unholstered.

I wonder though if they could find something to charge with in a situation like this.

One time there was a late at night knock on the door. I was not expecting anyone. At the time I did not keep a round in the chamber and the person on the other side of the door heard me chamber a round. I answered the door with pistol out of sight. The guy was visibly shaken and the first words out of his mouth were "don't shoot, I'm just sellin magazines".

Now if he had called LE do you think they could have charged me with something?

Note: This happened in IN.