Fourth Circuit: A Person has a Right to Come to the Door with a Firearm

[kalash]

Fourth Circuit: A Person has a Right to Come to the Door with a Firearm

On March 30, 2022, the Fourth Circuit held a person has a right to come to the door with a firearm. A person holding a firearm in their home is not sufficient cause to justify qualified immunity.

www.ammoland.com

Pretty interesting precedents here

 

[chuckules]

Indeed interesting, but in the article:
“This case only applies to the Fourth Circuit.”
Virginia(s), Carolina(s), Maryland

I doubt any Northeastern court (at any level) would make such strong findings in favor of the rights of homeowners…

 

[June4th]

Shotgun Joe approves.

 

[Welder1]

Fire two blasts

 

[safetyfirst2125]

Interesting case.

2032:

Bang Bang Bang!: “open up! We have reports of insurrectionists living here!”

Joe gun owner coming to door with gun: “Who are you?”

Thought police: “GUN!!!” (200 rounds turn Joe gun owner into hamburger)

Thought police supervisor: “Thankfully none of our officers were hurt by this terrorist, and justice was served!”

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

Interesting case.

2032:

Bang Bang Bang!: “open up! We have reports of insurrectionists living here!”

Joe gun owner coming to door with gun: “Who are you?”

Thought police: “GUN!!!” (200 rounds turn Joe gun owner into hamburger)

Thought police supervisor: “Thankfully none of our officers were hurt by this terrorist, and justice was served!”

the thin blue line crowd will then line up...."thank you for your service"

 

[In God We Trust]

On the rare occasions I would get a late night knock, I always had a gun in my hand out of sight behind the door. Never cared about the legality of it. Had it been cops, I just would have talked through the window.

 

[kalash]

Not gonna lie, it's really obvious by the comments who read the whole article vs just the headline.

 

[APFSDS]

So, keep one in the chamber I guess. Ol' Deputy McTriggerHappy would not have been the wiser if the home owner hadn't racked the shotgun.

 

[namedpipes]

Not gonna lie, it's really obvious by the comments who read the whole article vs just the headline.

Article?

I just read stuff for the centerfolds.

 

[Individualist]

Scary to think it is not already law that requires LE to announce and show proof before opening fire on someone inside their home, if they are not being fired upon.

As one of the commenters said - what about the deaf?

With violent crimes increasing why wouldn’t a homeowner investigate a disturbance or break-in on their property in the middle of the night armed to protect their self or their family.

Like I said, scary that proper identification is not already law. The allowed use of qualified immunity is much too liberal IMHO.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

Not gonna lie, it's really obvious by the comments who read the whole article vs just the headline.

Platinum Level: spend the 4 hours needed to read all the opinions and court filings.

 

[Jason Flare]

It’s being appealed the the Supreme Court.

Maybe.

I skimmed it.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Scary to think it is not already law that requires LE to announce and show proof before opening fire on someone inside their home, if they are not being fired upon.

As one of the commenters said - what about the deaf?

With violent crimes increasing why wouldn’t a homeowner investigate a disturbance or break-in on their property in the middle of the night armed to protect their self or their family.

Like I said, scary that proper identification is not already law. The allowed use of qualified immunity is much too liberal IMHO.

First off the court findings would never fly in MA and probably most of the New England states.

Secondly and most important, video & audio of the murder of the guy under the blanket holding a gun with finger not on the trigger points out that multiple people all shouting things is like "mud", I couldn't clearly make out the words "police, we have a warrant, etc." from that shouting match. Yet, MA DAs and courts allow that to stand as "proof that they identified themselves". I'm a retired cop and there is no way that I could defend that sort of event the way it went down.

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

"The mere possession of a firearm by a homeowner is not sufficient to justify the use of deadly force by officers"

"Mere verbal announcement, without visual confirmation, is not sufficient to gain qualified immunity"

The fact that this isn't common sense is startling. But good for it to be recognized. No home owner should be executed simply because he went to the door with a gun in his hand.

 

[paul73]

Fourth Circuit: A Person has a Right to Come to the Door with a Firearm

On March 30, 2022, the Fourth Circuit held a person has a right to come to the door with a firearm. A person holding a firearm in their home is not sufficient cause to justify qualified immunity.

www.ammoland.com

Pretty interesting precedents here

i do not get what is the point of the ruling. like, you still will be gunned down by trigger happy fecking cops and remain dead - but the moral victory will be yours now?

"It is disputed whether the shotgun was pointed at Deputy Momphard or not. Momphard fired numerous shots, killing Knibbs."

 

[AHM]

Indeed interesting, but in the article:
“This case only applies to the Fourth Circuit.”
Virginia(s), Carolina(s), Maryland

I doubt any Northeastern court (at any level) would make such strong findings in favor of the rights of homeowners…

Yahbut OTOH do they want to create a circuit split?

Article?

I just read stuff for the centerfolds.

My (Southern Baptist-raised) friend said he read Playboy for the articles.
We got him this for Christmas:

Don't recall how he explained it to his mother.

First off the court findings would never fly in MA and probably most of the New England states.

That's a quantitative judgement.

Some SJC pro-RKBA rulings can (but needn't) be viewed as
not so much "pro-gun" as "anti-cop".

It may just be that everyone mopes around on NES
feeling like the government's always against them.
And so we are incapable of appreciating it when courts throw us a bone.

Could a pro-2A ruling be the court's legit concerns for civil rights?
Could it be the SJC's fear of being reversed by the First Circuit/SCOTUS?
Could it just be a blind squirrel's luck?
We may project so much that we lack the perspective to divine the truth of those matters.


Historical question:
Are there any notable Mass state court rulings aprés Heller/McDonald
which show they got the Fear of God for even a fleeting moment?

 

[enbloc]

Fourth Circuit: A Person has a Right to Come to the Door with a Firearm, and leave in a body bag...​

FIFY

 

[Garys]

If it is being appealed (which I expect) it will be interesting to see if they grant cert. There have been a lot of attacks on qualified immunity of late and the Court may determine that the issue is "ripe" for consideration.

Or not.

It’s being appealed the the Supreme Court.

Maybe.

I skimmed it.

 

[AHM]

i do not get what is the point of the ruling. like, you still will be gunned down by trigger happy fecking cops and remain dead - but the moral victory will be yours now?

The Federal circuit court kicked it back down to the state court
and told them they couldn't broom it with "because QA".

If the dead guy's estate wins the suit, it's not gonna result in
some kind of (say) consent degree limiting PDs' ability to (say) conduct no-knock raids
(which this shooting wasn't).
But a big monetary award will be a brush-back pitch against the practice of cops instantly going full kinetic.

Whether the impact would be that their first impulse upon spotting a weapon
becomes to acquire cover/concealment;
or that door knock best practices get a truckload more formality added - I got no idea.

 

[MisterHappy]

Scary to think it is not already law that requires LE to announce and show proof before opening fire on someone inside their home, if they are not being fired upon.

As one of the commenters said - what about the deaf?

With violent crimes increasing why wouldn’t a homeowner investigate a disturbance or break-in on their property in the middle of the night armed to protect their self or their family.

Like I said, scary that proper identification is not already law. The allowed use of qualified immunity is much too liberal IMHO.

Dude.....it's now SOP for cops to go around in black flak vests, with POLICE on the back and a badge-shaped graphic (no number, no name) on the front, with a mask on. Take a look at a lot of the images from the BLM "gatherings" recently.

ID?

One of the posters that used to take the cops' side on here explained that cops going masked was "for their safety." So, that made it OK.

 

[kalash]

i do not get what is the point of the ruling. like, you still will be gunned down by trigger happy fecking cops and remain dead - but the moral victory will be yours now?

"It is disputed whether the shotgun was pointed at Deputy Momphard or not. Momphard fired numerous shots, killing Knibbs."

The cop in the story lost qualified immunity - that's big news.

 

[Garys]

A big monetary award with both compensatory and punitive damages against individual officers will have a chilling effect on police misconduct. Some will complain that this will make officers hesitate when faced with a threat, but in this particular and similar cases the point is that there was not threat.

The Federal circuit court kicked it back down to the state court
and told them they couldn't broom it with "because QA".

If the dead guy's estate wins the suit, it's not gonna result in
some kind of (say) consent degree limiting PDs' ability to (say) conduct no-knock raids
(which this shooting wasn't).
But a big monetary award will be a brush-back pitch against the practice of cops instantly going full kinetic.

Whether the impact would be that their first impulse upon spotting a weapon
becomes to acquire cover/concealment;
or that door knock best practices get a truckload more formality added - I got no idea.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

A loss of QI may lead to police malpractice insurance. Nobody in their right mind would take a job where one mistake could cost them both their current assets and their future, and which an aggrieved party with a meritless case can force them to pay many tens of $K in legal fees, so such insurance, or professional associated funded representation, would be necessary for the survival of the police ecosystem.

Malpractice insurance for police raises interesting issues:

- Will the threat of increased malpractice rates, or inability to renew the policy, get cops to behave a bit less "immunely"?
- Will settlement summaries be made public like they are with MDs in the DPRM (www.docboard.org)?
- Will settlements or judgments against cops be admissible evidence when trying to impeach their testimony?

So far, we have the Brady List of cops for whom there is credible evidence of testilying (which makes one wonder why they even have a police job), but the closest you can come to seeing it is if your attorney files a motion to check to see if any police scheduled to testify against you are on that list.

Some of this quick to shoot may come from the interactive videos where people in seemingly innocent positions suddenly fire on the police. The videos I've seen tend to have scenarios that can be summed up as "shoot this person just in case or you will be simulated dead", and "no need to be sure, shoot just in case, better to risk killing an innocent than get killed.".

 

[MGnoob]

I have a feeling if the police announce themselves when they knocked on the doors a lot less people would open the door. Not that there’s any requirement to in the first place short of a search warrant

 

[paul73]

I have a feeling if the police announce themselves when they knocked on the doors a lot less people would open the door. Not that there’s any requirement to in the first place short of a search warrant

noble police should upgrade it to a full russian method then - just throw in some grenades, then step in and finish off anything that still crawls inside.
and then announce itself, as fecking liberators of the land of the free in the name of holy dollar.

anything that kicks a door in then steps in and shoots at anything that moves inside is the same exact evil shit, no matter what it calls itself or thinks of itself. and deserves to be dealt in the same exact way.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Mass would would have no problem with this. Going against the homeowner

Read more: Fourth Circuit: A Person has a Right to Come to the Door with a Firearm
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

“Reacting to the sight of Cooper and his shotgun,” and without giving any warning or identifying themselves, the officers shot Cooper. Id.at 156. Accepting this evidence at the summary judgment stage, we held that the officers unreasonably feared for their safety because “the mere possession of a firearm by a suspect is not enough to permit the use of deadly force.”

 

[Parker Schreiber]

The cop in the story lost qualified immunity - that's big news.

That's not quite correct. The Circuit Court reversed the grant of summary judgement on the issue. If not settled, the case now goes to trial and both sides get to present evidence. The jury could still decide that the Momphard acted without the requisite malice and is entitled to qualified immunity.

 

[paul73]

That's not quite correct. The Circuit Court reversed the grant of summary judgement on the issue. If not settled, the case now goes to trial and both sides get to present evidence. The jury could still decide that the Momphard acted without the requisite malice and is entitled to qualified immunity.

No doubt a good jury will take all facts to a consideration and will confirm right of the police to kill anybody anywhere for no reason, as always.

 

[Garys]

The loss of Qualified Immunity is why the case is going to trial.

That's not quite correct. The Circuit Court reversed the grant of summary judgement on the issue. If not settled, the case now goes to trial and both sides get to present evidence. The jury could still decide that the Momphard acted without the requisite malice and is entitled to qualified immunity.