jharry3 said:Peace officers are supposed to be there to stop fights. Not to win fights.
Incorrect. The police have no Constitutional duty to protect you. Warren v. District of Columbia, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, possibly others. What it boils down to in practice most of the time is that the purpose of police is to arrest people who have already broken the law.
Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:out of pure curiosity, I found the following article.
That statistic includes suicides as firearm deaths. Which is fine, but the numbers change for many states when suicides are taken out and only violent crime is considered.
In reply to KyAllroad (Jeremy) (Forum Supporter) :
You missed the part in the statute "are unlawfully, riotously or tumultuously assembled"
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Once a gathering goes from being a peaceful assembly to a riot it is no longer a protected activity. Now when that exact moment happens is open for debate, conjecture, and media spin one way or another.
Without getting so far off topic of the original scenario. These are not the first riots/unrest in US history. George Washington had the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791. Colorado Coalfield War 1914, Bonus Army 1932, Battle of Athens 1946 are just a few more.
Everybody talking about tear gas used for Riot Control- It's a banned weapon under the Geneva Convention.
I'm not saying I don't disagree with it's use as a crowd dispersal tool, considering it's way better than many of the other options, but there's plenty of room for debate around if it should be used or not. I think that's a worthy conversation to have provided it stays evidence based, but like so many of the other conversations around just about any topic, that only works when all sides don't already have their minds made up.
In reply to KyAllroad (Jeremy) (Forum Supporter) :
I think we both know that is not correct or even remotely accurate. We all know when a protest becomes a riot. When the people protesting start to intentionally damage property and injure others, that is no longer a protest and has now become a riot. If you are not situationally aware enough to see those signs before they happen and leave, what happens then is on YOU.
In reply to Brett_Murphy (Forum Patrón) :
The same could be said of the protesters/rioters using lasers as lasers meant to cause vision loss are also banned by international warfare treaties. The Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, Protocol IV of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons,
Shining a laser in someones eyes that can cause vision loss meets the definition of great bodily harm therefore meeting the threshold for a deadly force response.
To get real technical the Geneva Convention, Hague Convention, and Geneva Protocols technically only apply to the signatories of the treaties but are pretty universally applied for good reasons.
In reply to bobzilla :
Recently here in Kentucky a peaceful protest was boxed in by police until night fell at which point they were "breaking curfew" and the authorities moved to arrest everyone.
I assume there are bad actors on all sides, but the ability of the powers that be to unilaterally change the rules on the fly bothers me. It should bother anyone who values their freedom, not simply willing to accept what is given to them.
bobzilla said:In reply to KyAllroad (Jeremy) (Forum Supporter) :
I think we both know that is not correct or even remotely accurate. We all know when a protest becomes a riot. When the people protesting start to intentionally damage property and injure others, that is no longer a protest and has now become a riot. If you are not situationally aware enough to see those signs before they happen and leave, what happens then is on YOU.
I'm not sure that is entirely accurate. I agree with the premise, I personally wouldn't be at a protest (almost any protest, honestly) if I thought that it had any chance of escalating to a riot... But things can go from 0 to 100 so quickly that innocent bystanders absolutely have the chance of being caught in the crossfire.
bobzilla said:In reply to KyAllroad (Jeremy) (Forum Supporter) :
I think we both know that is not correct or even remotely accurate. We all know when a protest becomes a riot. When the people protesting start to intentionally damage property and injure others, that is no longer a protest and has now become a riot. If you are not situationally aware enough to see those signs before they happen and leave, what happens then is on YOU.
And what happens when this is done by a counter-protestor, such as a man with links to white supremacist groups breaking stuff at a George Floyd protest? Does that change it from a protest to a riot?
bobzilla said:We all know when a protest becomes a riot.
It might be obvious to you, but it is not to me. So please, educate me. At exactly what percentage of the gathering becoming non-peaceful does it stop being a protest and suddenly become a riot? If there is 1,000 gathered and 1 person becomes non-peaceful while 999 remain peaceful, is that when it becomes a riot? If 10 people become non-peaceful while 990 remain peaceful, is that when it becomes a riot? If 100 people become non-peaceful while 900 remain peaceful, is that when it becomes a riot?
Brett_Murphy (Forum Patrón) said:jharry3 said:Peace officers are supposed to be there to stop fights. Not to win fights.
Incorrect. The police have no Constitutional duty to protect you. Warren v. District of Columbia, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, possibly others. What it boils down to in practice most of the time is that the purpose of police is to arrest people who have already broken the law.
I don't disagree with your statement but its comparing your apples to my oranges. Stopping fights is not arrest free. The fighters probably did break laws. But I have first hand knowledge of LEO's who have goaded people "who looked at them wrong" into a fight and then beat the crap out of them. Some during a lawful arrest because the perp "pissed them off" and some just "because". LEO's who I knew and who bragged about doing it with their partner sitting right there grinning and nodding about it how they did it. It was "safe" to tell me since I was a reserve deputy at the time. LEO's like that were the reason I quit. Recourse attempted would have resulted in the infamous "static on the radio" trick..
Most LEO are good professionals, IMO, caveat is I don't like their speed tax collector role. But that tiny percentage of bad ones are really bad and have lots of rules & laws to protect them if the wagons are circled.
mtn (Forum Supporter) said:bobzilla said:In reply to KyAllroad (Jeremy) (Forum Supporter) :
I think we both know that is not correct or even remotely accurate. We all know when a protest becomes a riot. When the people protesting start to intentionally damage property and injure others, that is no longer a protest and has now become a riot. If you are not situationally aware enough to see those signs before they happen and leave, what happens then is on YOU.
I'm not sure that is entirely accurate. I agree with the premise, I personally wouldn't be at a protest (almost any protest, honestly) if I thought that it had any chance of escalating to a riot... But things can go from 0 to 100 so quickly that innocent bystanders absolutely have the chance of being caught in the crossfire.
While things do change quickly, if you are paying attention and watching the crowd you're going to sense that shift. Then again, being at any protest goes against the grey man principle so.... YMMV I'd rather watch from afar.
Driven5 said:bobzilla said:We all know when a protest becomes a riot.
It might be obvious to you, but it is not to me. So please, educate me. At exactly what percentage of the gathering becoming non-peaceful does it stop being a protest and suddenly become a riot? If there is 1,000 gathered and 1 person becomes non-peaceful while 999 remain peaceful, is that when it becomes a riot? If 10 people become non-peaceful while 990 remain peaceful, is that when it becomes a riot? If 100 people become non-peaceful while 900 remain peaceful, is that when it becomes a riot?
that first brick is thrown, you should be out and so should everyone else that doesn't want any part of a riot. Period.
KyAllroad (Jeremy) (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to bobzilla :
Recently here in Kentucky a peaceful protest was boxed in by police until night fell at which point they were "breaking curfew" and the authorities moved to arrest everyone.
I assume there are bad actors on all sides, but the ability of the powers that be to unilaterally change the rules on the fly bothers me. It should bother anyone who values their freedom, not simply willing to accept what is given to them.
IF you know there are bad actors on your side, why are you there? That's a problem in itself. With that said, I've never and will never say that all police are angels because NO group of more than 0 people are all angels.
The difference may be that I respect the police and those that serve and can't begin to fathom the choices they are faced with everyday. The fact that they all haven't walked off the jobs because the E36 M3 is too crazy is remarkable.
bobzilla said:Driven5 said:bobzilla said:We all know when a protest becomes a riot.
It might be obvious to you, but it is not to me. So please, educate me. At exactly what percentage of the gathering becoming non-peaceful does it stop being a protest and suddenly become a riot? If there is 1,000 gathered and 1 person becomes non-peaceful while 999 remain peaceful, is that when it becomes a riot? If 10 people become non-peaceful while 990 remain peaceful, is that when it becomes a riot? If 100 people become non-peaceful while 900 remain peaceful, is that when it becomes a riot?
that first brick is thrown, you should be out and so should everyone else that doesn't want any part of a riot. Period.
What if those that want out are not able to get out? I've seen/heard lots of situations where that is the case.
bobzilla said:IF you know there are bad actors on your side, why are you there? That's a problem in itself. With that said, I've never and will never say that all police are angels because NO group of more than 0 people are all angels.
Because people want to see actual change in this country.
In the Breonna Taylor situation....they burst in the home in the middle of the night, not even uniformed. Man opens fire to protect him and his, cops fire back. Kill Breonna and her boyfriend gets charged with attempted murder of a police officer because he was defending himself. Charges get dropped, thankfully. None of the police involved are charged with anything. Even though they were in the wrong and they killed someone.
Mind you before they broke into their house, the suspect they were looking for was already found.
Police shouldn't be going into a residence using tactics so aggressive without actually presenting themselves as the police. And expect people to not treat them as a threat. What are they CIA operatives in Afghanistan? No.
I find it interesting I can walk down the street minding my damn business and a police officer can just beat my ass based on an assumption. And its basically illegal or a deathwish to defend myself or resist in any manner. I basically gotta let them beat my ass, throw me in jail, and wait to speak to a judge?Meanwhile, he still in the streets getting his story together and herassing others.
Police shouldn't be scary to the people they swore to protect and serve. But, they're scary as berkeley.
bobzilla said:KyAllroad (Jeremy) (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to bobzilla :
Recently here in Kentucky a peaceful protest was boxed in by police until night fell at which point they were "breaking curfew" and the authorities moved to arrest everyone.
I assume there are bad actors on all sides, but the ability of the powers that be to unilaterally change the rules on the fly bothers me. It should bother anyone who values their freedom, not simply willing to accept what is given to them.
IF you know there are bad actors on your side, why are you there? That's a problem in itself. With that said, I've never and will never say that all police are angels because NO group of more than 0 people are all angels.
The difference may be that I respect the police and those that serve and can't begin to fathom the choices they are faced with everyday. The fact that they all haven't walked off the jobs because the E36 M3 is too crazy is remarkable.
If police know there's bad actors on their side why don't they just leave? Because, they have a duty to fufill. Just like protesters have a duty to protest for change.
I too respect police officers as fellow humans, not because of their job though. They do not have authority over me or anyone. They're citizens just like us. They shouldn't treat us as if we should have blind submission to them. Certain fields of work need high quality work and the people doing that job should be evaluated on their ability to do their job, physically and mentally.
yupididit said:I find it interesting I can walk down the street minding my damn business and a police officer can just beat my ass based on an assumption. And its basically illegal or a deathwish to defend myself or resist in any manner. I basically gotta let them beat my ass, throw me in jail, and wait to speak to a judge?Meanwhile, he still in the streets getting his story together and herassing others.
Police shouldn't be scary to the people they swore to protect and serve. But, they're scary as berkeley.
A good recent example of this
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/broke-wrist-police-sued-taking-wrong-man-71547953
bobzilla said:Driven5 said:bobzilla said:We all know when a protest becomes a riot.
It might be obvious to you, but it is not to me. So please, educate me. At exactly what percentage of the gathering becoming non-peaceful does it stop being a protest and suddenly become a riot? If there is 1,000 gathered and 1 person becomes non-peaceful while 999 remain peaceful, is that when it becomes a riot? If 10 people become non-peaceful while 990 remain peaceful, is that when it becomes a riot? If 100 people become non-peaceful while 900 remain peaceful, is that when it becomes a riot?
that first brick is thrown, you should be out and so should everyone else that doesn't want any part of a riot. Period.
And in a large (short visible range and noisy) crowd, how is one supposed to know when the first brick is thrown if it doesn't happen right in front of them and everybody in the immediate vicinity is still peaceful?
Mr_Asa said:yupididit said:I find it interesting I can walk down the street minding my damn business and a police officer can just beat my ass based on an assumption. And its basically illegal or a deathwish to defend myself or resist in any manner. I basically gotta let them beat my ass, throw me in jail, and wait to speak to a judge?Meanwhile, he still in the streets getting his story together and herassing others.
Police shouldn't be scary to the people they swore to protect and serve. But, they're scary as berkeley.
A good recent example of this
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/broke-wrist-police-sued-taking-wrong-man-71547953
Imagine if he decided to defend himself.
I was in San Francisco the night they won their first Super Bowl. My buddies and I went out into the streets after watching the game in a bar. I think we were on the edge of Union Square. Whatever name it had - there were 100's of other people showing up too and the crowd was growing. Everybody was happy and cheering. We were on the edge of the square. A family was trying to drive down a street in their car and got caught in the rapid swelling of the crowd. I'm pretty sure they were not sports fans and probably weren't even aware of the Super Bowl. They were just minding their own business trying to drive down the street.
Suddenly some guy jumps up on their car hood and starts yelling. Was he yelling at them or was he yelling for joy at the victory of his team? The driver of the car looked scared. Then more people started rocking the car and jumping on it. The occupants got out of the car and ran. We were no more than 50 feet from this car. More people from the crowd (none of whom could have possibly known one another) started rolling the car over. This all happened in 3-5 minutes. The minute that car went over a weird vibe flowed over the surrounding crowd. I've never felt that weird vibe before or since. It was (in my opinion) some kind of primal energy flow that we're no longer aware of in our daily lives.
And just like that... a riot broke out.
A bunch of parked cars started getting attacked. We turned around and ran away from that area of town and got clear of the square and were safe. In spite of being young and drunk I guess we were also a little bit smart. But we were on the edge of the crowd so we could leave as we wished. Somebody in the middle of the square would have had a difficult time getting out and away. The next day the news said the riot escalated into a serious thing with police, fires, arrests etc.
When I see protesters on the news and read the things we are discussing in this thread I always think about that night in San Francisco and how quickly us male homo sapiens can go to the dark place and become violent for nothing. That riot did not start out of a protest or a political rally or a march for anything. It. Just. Started. And in 2020 I also think about how easy it would be for someone who knows about the dark vibe, to be at the scene of a protest and ready to exploit it. And I also think about how all those LEOs, with all their gear and technology and comms - are still basically a bunch of male homo sapiens with the riot/violence pixie just waiting to be let loose.
yupididit said:In the Breonna Taylor situation....they burst in the home in the middle of the night, not even uniformed. Man opens fire to protect him and his, cops fire back. Kill Breonna and her boyfriend gets charged with attempted murder of a police officer because he was defending himself. Charges get dropped, thankfully. None of the police involved are charged with anything. Even though they were in the wrong and they killed someone.
Mind you before they broke into their house, the suspect they were looking for was already found.
Police shouldn't be going into a residence using tactics so aggressive without actually presenting themselves as the police. And expect people to not treat them as a threat. What are they CIA operatives in Afghanistan? No.
I find it interesting I can walk down the street minding my damn business and a police officer can just beat my ass based on an assumption. And its basically illegal or a deathwish to defend myself or resist in any manner. I basically gotta let them beat my ass, throw me in jail, and wait to speak to a judge?Meanwhile, he still in the streets getting his story together and herassing others.
Police shouldn't be scary to the people they swore to protect and serve. But, they're scary as berkeley.
I agree with all of this. The n-knock warrants need to stop or at the VERY least be used as an absolute last resort.
In reply to Sparkydog :
That vibe is what I'm talking about. I experienced similar (but MUCH smaller scale and activity) back in college. When you feel it, you need to be moving.
The thread title is wrong on its face. It's not self-defense if your adversary is law enforcement. If you have been misunderstood, now is not the time to assert yourself. Comply. The nice officer is doing his job. Resisting arrest or otherwise failing to comply is just going to escalate the situation. Testosterone and self-righteousness is not your friend here.
There are some bad cops. I won't try to refute that. But I really don't think people have any clue as to what things would be like without police. Think about it.
You'll need to log in to post.
