Rusty hasn't minded throwing out a lawsuit of his own when he was hurt in the line of duty. Supposedly hurt his back while chasing a poacher then sued the landowner.

A little off topic, but what would have happened to the youth, in theory, had they forcfully resisted being detained by this retired officer? Say, had they told him to move his truck from in front of the gate, and after his refusal, they rammed his truck out of the way, whipped his azz/got the keys/moved it themselves, etc?

In other words, what obligation are we under as average citizens to submit to an attempted physical detention by a person who is not acting in official capacity as an LEO? Would these youth have been within their right to have physically resisted being detained? If any hypothethical efforts to avoid forceful detention had ended up resulting in property damage or injury to this retired officer, a) what theorectical legal consequences lied in store for them, and b) what in practice normally happens? (I suspect I know).

My point being, since retired officers may view their employment history as a lifetime appointment with privileges of physically dealing with the public ... are we average citizens simply at their mercy as stroll through society deciding on a whim when to capture their fellow citizens?

If he produced no badge or identification as a law officer, I would probably treat it as a kidnapping attempt.

People us fake badges AND also claim to be LEOs all the time. I wish 1 of those kids had kicked his azz!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=...6494&type=3

Statement from Rusty's facebook page..about Steve Pinson shooting.

People are quick to judge and have no concept of the law that protects you. Stupid,uninformed statements like some of these post show just how nieve people are in todays society. Don't second guess Mr.Pinsons actions unless you've been there yourself and I truely suspect you haven't been. The witnesses that have posted show that Mr.Pinson was within his right to protect hisself. Being stupid and nieve could get you killed, so don't be too quick to judge Mr.Pinson.

Just read the opinion authored by CJ Roy Moore.

WE SHOULD ALL BE VERY THANKFUL that we have a member of the Alabama Supreme Court like Roy Moore. He is a true conservative constitutionalist and a true American patriot - unlike the 4 RINO Business Council cronies who dissented from what is in reality a no brainer legal decision.

Just imagine if the court's majority had ruled otherwise??? The state of Alabama law would be that merely being in a vehicle, with the lights on with a gun inside the passenger compartment, whether loaded or not, = night hunting/attempted night hunting!!!!!!!

Stuart, Shaw, Bolin and Main are a disgrace to the bench. so are the Court of Criminal Appeals judges who rubberstamped the convictions.

KUDOS to JWC for fighting the good fight and never giving up!!!

About the only potential avenue for relief would be the State Board of Adjustment. But I would not hold my breath on that one if I was JWC.

There is also the possibility of a malicious prosecution lawsuit vs. that Rusty Morrow character - but it would have to be filed in.......Lowndes County. Regardless, I would file that in a heart beat and let the chips fall where they may. I presume the Morrow guy is white and it would be easy to get an all black (pro plaintiff) jury in Lowndes County.

In todays society you would be a fool to do this unless you knew the guy and what his intentions were. If a complete stranger rolled up and started this it would get ugly real quick. To many folks running around doped up and out of their mind to take a chance trying to build a case for the future.

What if they would have got out to confront him and the old man decides he doesn't want to fight anymore, and shot them in "self-defense"? There's endless what-ifs that this story could have turned out. It's pretty scary to think about..

If it happens to me and no badge is produced he'd better be bulletproof because I'm not gonna take a beating and if I'm in the process of leaving I'm gonna leave.

Lots of what if's in this story...

These boys were raised to respect the law. This man identified himself as a Reserve Deputy. They did ask to see a badge in which he promptly responded that he did not have to show them shucks!

Even after this they were still unsure if he was really a reserve deputy or not. It was night time, they are being screamed at by this LARGE man who they don't know. They had not done anything wrong so they complied in hopes that he would just go away.

The ONLY thing I wish they had done differently was take out those phones they all carry and RECORD! They did take pictures but they did not record.

There is so much that the trial transcripts cannot convey. Demeanor, language, threats etc...

We do have pictures of him parked directly in front of the gate blocking them in. He was dressed in regular clothes in his personal truck.

We have pictures of the front and back of the stop sign that he originally accused them of shooting... no holes !

We also have pictures from the road at the front of Rusty's house looking back to the stop sign. 140 yards is a long way.. especially when it is dark and there are trees.

We have checked and I don't believe the charge would be kidnapping but Unlawful Imprisonment.

I agree with you, that's why I posted the question (not because I necessarily think escalating the situation is always the wisest course of action).

Fundamentally ... If I decide I don't feel like being held in one spot and I'm going to leave, I'm I compelled to continue being held hostage if a non-LEO physically stands in my way? What is the fallout I legally face if I decide "by God I'm about to be on my way ... and you better not try and stop me"?
To me, what angers me most about this case is that potentially innocent youth were physically detained by someone who had zero right to do so. That seems clear based on what I understand so far. What isn't clear is what options they legally had to do something about it at that very moment?

What if one of us is faced with a similar situation when attempting to drive away from our hunting lease one night and some kook decides you shot past dark/messed with his dogs/don't have rights to hunt his granddaddy's old place/etc etc etc.? What if you think he's an old kook and act accordingly and it turns out he's some old codger retired sherif type who is turkey hunting buddies with the DA?

I agree. I would like to know as well for future reference. Would like to hear your opinions

Great news, JWC. I'm glad to hear the Supreme Court ruled in the boys favor. No telling how many people have been screwed by those yahoos!!

While everybody on here is giving Ole Rusty hell, me included, let's remember one thing. It was due to his truthful testimony that the case went out the door. He could have easily lied and said he saw a muzzle flash and it would have buried those boys. He didn't though, he told the truth and in essence admitted reasonable doubt.

Not patting him on the back, but pointing out that while apparently wrong, he was still truthful about it. A lot of people and officers (or former officers, as it would be) would have gone into CYA mode and lied.

IMO, the biggest fault in this lies at the judges feet. He convicted on speculation and what he thought happened, when there is clearly reasonable doubt.

While everyone is talking about Impersonating a Police Officer, I think the more appropriate criminal avenue to look into is Unlawful Imprisonment.

While I'd agree that the appropriate avenue would be Unlawful Imprisonment, I wouldn't discount Impersonating a Police Officer...OP has a letter from the APOSTC clearly stating that the man was NOT a police officer, and he not only claimed to be to the boys, but testified under oath, according to the transcript, that he'd told the boys he WAS a police officer, as he was unlawfully detaining them.

My guess is that he is a bully.
He knew full well that he was dealing with juveniles and acted accordingly.
I would be willing to bet that his actions would have been a LOT different if it had been grown men!

And, for the record, I do not like bullies!

But they weren't juvies. He signed warrants on them. You can't sign warrants on juveniles.

They were granted youthful offenders.....teenagers!

Youthful offender can be applied to age 21 or 22 I believe.