barefootskater said:damning? Maybe, but not on the part of law enforcement. Pretty clearly the protestor willfully approached an armed officer. I'd say that if she had been shot she would be the only one to blame. Looks more like she wanted someone to take a picture of police aggression.
If they were pointing that shotgun at her torso instead of her face, I'd be a little closer to hearing you on this. But they're not.
ok... we're going black and white I see. Have fun in the echo chamber. I'm out.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
So much for checking out.
Fair, what I said wasn't the best choice of words, and conveyed a message I don't condone.
I'll rephrase.
approaching an officer who doesn't appear to have any desire to find a peaceful solution is either asking to be martyred or posing for a photo op.
In reply to bobzilla :
you bring up a good point.. it isn't always black and white.. it never is.
How about when police fire on what is clearly a TV crew reporting on a protest on police violence?
https://abc13.com/tv-crew-shot-news-with-pepper-balls-wave-at/6221562/
Why did we become ok with police departments becoming occupying forces?
barefootskater said:
approaching a criminal/ a maniac/ a school-shooter/ anyone who doesn't appear to have any desire to find a peaceful solution is either asking to be martyred or posing for a photo op.
Unfortunately I don't like giving law enforcement the option of 'not having the desire of finding a peaceful solution'.
I have a hard time thinking that an unarmed person who walks up to an armed officer is the one to blame if they get shot. Surely that represents a response of excessive force. A trained officer should have plenty of other ways to deter or secure an unarmed individual.
I certainly wouldn't say that approaching anyone who has a weapon leveled at you is smart.
In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :
I'm with you 100%. I'm not trying to defend the guy. Hard to communicate very effectively online. I'm completely behind requiring more accountability from LEO. But I'd like to know how much destruction/vandalism/harassment happened before the cops were told to show up. Hold that guy accountable. But blindly condemning one side of a situation because of a picture is not ok.
In reply to KyAllroad (Jeremy) (Forum Supporter) :
So I have a question about self defense and law enforcement. If someone is exercising their first amendment right to protest and are peacefully doing so: if shot (no matter what sort of munition you're shot with) what is your legal recourse?
I saw an article yesterday in which a medic was shot in the chest with a tear gas canister. As a combat medic I'd be returning fire at that point, but legally what does the law say about what "civilians" may or may not do when assaulted by "authorities".
(and please stay on topic without delving into the political issues surrounding the moment)
In that situation, if everything lined up exactly in your favor, you may be legally justified. You probably would never know the answer, because you would likely be dead. But let’s say you defended yourself and lived to face the legal consequences. A legal peaceful protest can turn into an illegal violent mob very quickly, and it can’t be both at once. You might be a peaceful protester, but if your fellow protesters cross the line to angry mob, they drag you along with them. That is a risk in aligning yourself with a bunch of upset strangers. Your protest is cancelled, and no longer legal. Time to leave. Stick around anyway, you are now officially part of the mob. Defend yourself against the police while part of the mob and survive to face charges? Good luck in court. All they would have to prove is that the protest became a mob before you were hit. You would need to show that the police fired into a peaceful protest unprovoked. Also- a peaceful protest with armed protesters and field medics ready to treat the wounded? That would make it harder to argue that it was planned as a peaceful protest.
The best answer, like almost all disagreements with the police- tell it to the judge. Take it to court, don’t argue it out/ fight it out in the street. Much like running from a traffic stop or arguing on the side of the road isn’t the best way to fight a speeding ticket.
In reply to barefootskater :
and I'm with you 100% on that!
Mr_Asa said:An obviously unarmed girl approaching 30+ cops, and they decide to point a bean bag loaded shotgun at her point blank? Yeah, that is 100% damning.
Arrest her, I agree that she's being stupid. Point a shotgun at her? Nah, man. I don't see it
I only see one that could be pointed at her, the man on the wall with the tree branch close to him. The others are pointing downrange. The officer that looks to be pointing directly at her head is not on the same plane (x axis) as her. If he fired, it would go over her left shoulder.
mtn (Forum Supporter) said:Antihero (Forum Supporter) said:I won't flounder the thread too much but I can say that in a state that us very gun friendly...the police are much more cautious and excerise much more self control plus there's very little gun violence.
Not to flounder either... But that is a pretty sad thing. The police should be exercising the same self control and caution for EVERYONE.
You are definitely right.
All I can say is up here,police are used to people with guns. I see multiple people everyday carrying guns since you can legally carry almost everywhere without a permit as long as you can legally own a gun. Having a gun doesn't equal violence too, and that's a culture that a lot of the rest of the world doesn't have.
As for the numbers.....221 deaths by gun in 2016 according to that link. Another site says that 87 percent of gun related deaths in Idaho are suicide. Using those numbers Idaho had 29 gun related deaths that weren't suicide. I literally cannot remember the last time there was gun related violence in my area. There was one officer related shooting roughly 3 years ago that involved a semi famous person.
In reply to KyAllroad (Jeremy) (Forum Supporter) :
Legally, You should be good to defend yourself.
Personally speaking, If someone shot at me, The Law and The Fear of it leaves the room.
barefootskater said:In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :
I'm with you 100%. I'm not trying to defend the guy. Hard to communicate very effectively online. I'm completely behind requiring more accountability from LEO. But I'd like to know how much destruction/vandalism/harassment happened before the cops were told to show up. Hold that guy accountable. But blindly condemning one side of a situation because of a picture is not ok.
Well if it is like the protests that have happened here. Absolutely zero destruction/vandalism. The cops show up to a peaceful protest with no one blocking the road. Just holding signs and chanting on sidewalk. The cops show up tell people to leave then start firing tear gas. I thought there was a first amendment right to protest.
There is a natural right to self defense, recognized in most jurisdictions in the USA. There is generally a "reasonable person" standard in the related laws about what the person who used force believed to be the danger.
This right applies to people protesting in a legal matter.
It also applies to police officers.
DrBoost said:Mr_Asa said:An obviously unarmed girl approaching 30+ cops, and they decide to point a bean bag loaded shotgun at her point blank? Yeah, that is 100% damning.
Arrest her, I agree that she's being stupid. Point a shotgun at her? Nah, man. I don't see it
I only see one that could be pointed at her, the man on the wall with the tree branch close to him. The others are pointing downrange. The officer that looks to be pointing directly at her head is not on the same plane (x axis) as her. If he fired, it would go over her left shoulder.
There are multiple angles of the same event. He is pointing at her.
In reply to slantvaliant (Forum Supporter) :
There is a natural right to self defense, recognized in most jurisdictions in the USA. There is generally a "reasonable person" standard in the related laws about what the person who used force believed to be the danger.
This right applies to people protesting in a legal matter.
It also applies to police officers.
This is correct, and an interesting way to look at it. Tear gas, rubber bullets, etc. are non lethal or less lethal tools, depending on who you ask. The purpose of them is to restore order and enforce compliance while minimizing harm. Many argue that minimizing harm is not good enough, and that used incorrectly, either accidentally or on purpose, these tools can constitute lethal force. So some places have taken these tools away from law enforcement. Now in those places, people are attacking the police with what could also be considered potentially lethal objects- bricks, bottles, explosives. The police that have been attacked haven’t shot anyone yet that I know of, but according to the quote above, it sounds like they would be justified? How much can you try to hurt someone, before they can legally shoot you?
Appleseed said:Are tears canisters really that accurate? Cylinders aren't very aerodynamic. Unless you were 10 feet away, I think it would be hard to prove you were bopped in the chest intentionally. More than one, however, it becomes exponentially harder to claim it was accidental.
Tear gas canisters are supposed to be shot at the ground to roll/slid into the crowd, not at the people. A hit in the chest means that is not what was done.
Mr_Asa said:DrBoost said:Mr_Asa said:An obviously unarmed girl approaching 30+ cops, and they decide to point a bean bag loaded shotgun at her point blank? Yeah, that is 100% damning.
Arrest her, I agree that she's being stupid. Point a shotgun at her? Nah, man. I don't see it
I only see one that could be pointed at her, the man on the wall with the tree branch close to him. The others are pointing downrange. The officer that looks to be pointing directly at her head is not on the same plane (x axis) as her. If he fired, it would go over her left shoulder.
There are multiple angles of the same event. He is pointing at her.
Not having seen any of the other angles, I'll assume you are 100% correct. That means 2 of the few dozen may be trained on her. I have no idea what the protocol is, but if I approach a group of cops that already have guns trained down range, I don't expect them to put them away because I don't appear to be a threat. She doesnt' appear to be a threat, nowhere to hide a gun, but there's a lot of stuff in the cops' field of view we dont' see. The real question is, what happened after that pic was taken? Did they shoot her unprovoked? That would be terrible and unconcienable. Did she get 3" from their faces and berate them, and they didn't flinch one bit and she eventually stopped her tantrum and walked away, as we've seen many times? Then no harm, no foul.
The city didn't deploy a few dozen heavily armed cops to confront one woman holding a phone. The cops, in the poses they are in, with the funs they have, are not in response to one woman holding a cell phone.
It looks terrible, but it's terrible for different reasons or from different perspectives, depending on your perspective. If you're anti-cop, it looks like oppression. If you're anti-protest, it looks like a great pic. If you're level-headed, it looks like a small part of a much, much larger story.
The militarization of police departments is a terrible thing. If an APC or such is needed, that's what the National Guard is for. They shouldn't dress up like they are going to Fallujah. Police officers shouldn't be trying to intimidate the populace.
Cops are civilians. It seems that many people have forgotten that, especially the cops themselves.
They need better training and to be held to a higher standard. The fact that they can get away with things that are illegal in a war zone is silly.
Short answer: fewer, higher quality officers that realize that being the good guy means that you can't shoot first, despite the risk.
Some Florida Laws (every state is different) for you on riots. Also to add a note in Florida "Stand Your Ground" only covers you if you had a legal right to be there so basically once a riot has been declared and a dispersal order has been made you no longer are there legally.
870.04 Specified officers to disperse riotous assembly.—If any number of persons, whether armed or not, are unlawfully, riotously or tumultuously assembled in any county, city or municipality, the sheriff or the sheriff’s deputies, or the mayor, or any commissioner, council member, alderman or police officer of the said city or municipality, or any officer or member of the Florida Highway Patrol, or any officer or agent of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Department of Environmental Protection, or beverage enforcement agent, any personnel or representatives of the Department of Law Enforcement or its successor, or any other peace officer, shall go among the persons so assembled, or as near to them as may be with safety, and shall in the name of the state command all the persons so assembled immediately and peaceably to disperse; and if such persons do not thereupon immediately and peaceably disperse, said officers shall command the assistance of all such persons in seizing, arresting and securing such persons in custody; and if any person present being so commanded to aid and assist in seizing and securing such rioter or persons so unlawfully assembled, or in suppressing such riot or unlawful assembly, refuses or neglects to obey such command, or, when required by such officers to depart from the place, refuses and neglects to do so, the person shall be deemed one of the rioters or persons unlawfully assembled, and may be prosecuted and punished accordingly.
870.05 When killing excused.—If, by reason of the efforts made by any of said officers or by their direction to disperse such assembly, or to seize and secure the persons composing the same, who have refused to disperse, any such person or other person present is killed or wounded, the said officers and all persons acting by their order or under their direction, shall be held guiltless and fully justified in law; and if any of said officers or any person acting under or by their direction is killed or wounded, all persons so assembled and all other persons present who when commanded refused to aid and assist said officer shall be held answerable therefor.
Here is what would probably happen in your specific scenario posed.
You are hit with a less lethal munition of some type. You utilize a deadly weapon to "return fire" a police marksman/sniper providing lethal cover to the riot officers shoots you. During the massive panic and stampede of people fleeing because actual bullets have started flying you are left to bleed out while EMS/Fire stages due to the unsecured/unsafe scene.
Your family sues due to you being killed 5-7 years from now after going through multiple courts they may get some money that will be mostly taken up by attorney fees.
This is where the often misunderstood Qualified Immunity comes into place. Due to the laws I mentioned earlier (Florida Only) this was a justifiable homicide under those laws along with the legal precedents set forth by USSC cases Graham V. Connor and Tennessee V. Garner. Now if a court says no actually the shooting was unconstitutional because they determined that the laws of the time were actually unconstitutional the Officer can not be personally sued because they made a split second decision in good faith and in accordance with the law of the time.
rotard said:The militarization of police departments is a terrible thing. If an APC or such is needed, that's what the National Guard is for. They shouldn't dress up like they are going to Fallujah. Police officers shouldn't be trying to intimidate the populace.
Cops are civilians. It seems that many people have forgotten that, especially the cops themselves.
They need better training and to be held to a higher standard. The fact that they can get away with things that are illegal in a war zone is silly.
Short answer: fewer, higher quality officers that realize that being the good guy means that you can't shoot first, despite the risk.
This, so so much this. Thank you, I was reading this thread last night and trying to put this thought into words. Well stated.
If I might add along with your points: We need to get the resources in mental health and social services so that the police aren't the last line of defense and dealing with things they're not trained for because no on else will answer the call.
In reply to cabbagecop :
So according to that, the first amendment is only good until anyone with a tin badge (beverage enforcement agent, really?) declares a protest to be a riot. Then the police are above any sort of law. Cool.
I am enjoying this thread and am learning a lot. Thanks to all of you for "playing nice". I'm glad that we can pull this off on the GRM forum and that I can follow along.
You'll need to log in to post.
