Cont: The behaviour of US police officers - part 2

[Stacyhs]

Or the kid who was abandoned in Philadelphia by her mom because the police took her away and beat the mom, then paraded the kid in front of cameras to show how great they were.

What is wrong with you? A man stole a car with a 9-year-old child inside, the police find the car with the thief still inside. And you just make up a crap story out of whole cloth. Stop being dishonest. Your three posts do nothing to support you argument and only damage your credibility.

That is a problem going by police press releases.

Is it? At this point, I can't believe anything you say as you've shown you just make things up.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Who has said that? Certainly not me..

But it's inherent in your argument. If most cops aren't bad then merely covering up for a coworker isn't bad. Evidence indicates most cops do it, and they certainly all know which of their coworkers revel in the violence.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What is wrong with you? A man stole a car with a 9-year-old child inside, the police find the car with the thief still inside. And you just make up a crap story out of whole cloth. Stop being dishonest. Your three posts do nothing to support you argument and only damage your credibility.



Is it? At this point, I can't believe anything you say as you've shown you just make things up.

Oh great now you deny facts, not surprising really.

Thank God this never happened

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/rickia-young-sues-police-union-facebook-post-toddler-son-rcna2057

That would be horrible but thankfully it isn't true apparently.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's such a shame that whenever there is a chance for a good cop to stand up to the bad ones there is never a good cop around only other bad ones.

 

[3point14]

NM

 

[catsmate]

Wow. Ok.

 

[catsmate]

Ohio police recommend LGBTQ+ organizers cancel drag event, organizers refuse


These people have every right to organize and run this event! Maybe the fascist police should do their jobs instead of siding with other fascists!

USAian police have no actual obligation to protect people, remember?

 

[catsmate]

You work for an the Irish police force, not an American police force.

A minor point. No multitudes of separate agencies.

 

[shemp]

New Mexico police fatally shoot resident after responding to wrong house: "A very dark day"

Police in New Mexico fatally shot a man Wednesday night after responding to the wrong house during a domestic violence call, authorities said, in what the police chief described as a "chaotic scene."

The shooting took place shortly before midnight on Wednesday as officers from the local Farmington Police department responded to the call, according to a statement released by the state's Department of Public Safety. The statement said the New Mexico State Police Investigations Bureau had been asked to investigate the incident.

"Once on scene, officers mistakenly approached" the wrong address and knocked on the door. The statement from the state public safety authority said the officers identified themselves as police, but no one answered.

The statement said officer body camera video shows that as the officers backed away from house, the homeowner opened the screen door armed with a handgun. One or multiple officers fired at least one round, striking the homeowner, who police identified as 52-year-old Robert Dotson.

 

[Darat]

New Mexico police fatally shoot resident after responding to wrong house: "A very dark day"

Was it legal for the victim to have owned a handgun?

ETA: Yes it is - it's an "open carry" state.

So then why was someone coming to the door with a gun a trigger for the police? Do they usually shoot people for coming to the door with legally owned items? In such states I can't see why the police are able to use the sight of a gun in someone's hand as a reason to shoot them.

 

[bruto]

Was it legal for the victim to have owned a handgun?

ETA: Yes it is - it's an "open carry" state.

So then why was someone coming to the door with a gun a trigger for the police? Do they usually shoot people for coming to the door with legally owned items? In such states I can't see why the police are able to use the sight of a gun in someone's hand as a reason to shoot them.

I am guessing that the police, presuming without double checking that they were at the right house, could not imagine any situation other than the one they were locked into. Anyone who appeared, gun or not, would be an enemy. The vaunted concept of a "good guy with a gun" doesn't come into effect if the police enter the situation sure that they are the only good guys around. I think in such situations there's a momentum that becomes very difficult to deter.

We can't know, but it seems not unlikely that if the person had opened the door, no protest would have kept them at least from threatening him, pinning him to the floor, or the like, before knowing they were at the wrong house, and arresting him for resisting arrest even after knowing, and not entirely unlikely that if he had appeared at the door without a gun they'd have shot him anyway.

I mean, the headline "Cops go to wrong place and kill the occupant" is not exactly an everyday occurrence, but it's become surprisingly unsurprising.

 

[Suddenly]

So then why was someone coming to the door with a gun a trigger for the police? Do they usually shoot people for coming to the door with legally owned items? In such states I can't see why the police are able to use the sight of a gun in someone's hand as a reason to shoot them.

Is this rhetorical?

Our gun laws are logically unworkable. "Everyone can carry a gun openly" and "if you are the least bit scared because you see a gun you can shoot to defend yourself" aren't a great combo.

I mean, you can not carry a gun and avoid being legally executed, but who knows if those other people carrying guns in public are going to start shooting random people because they think tap water is making children gay so who knows.

 

[quadraginta]

Is this rhetorical?

Our gun laws are logically unworkable. "Everyone can carry a gun openly" and "if you are the least bit scared because you see a gun you can shoot to defend yourself" aren't a great combo.

I mean, you can not carry a gun and avoid being legally executed, but who knows if those other people carrying guns in public are going to start shooting random people because they think tap water is making children gay so who knows.

Or you could be carrying something which apparently to an unfortunate number of cops 'looks like a gun'.

A cellphone, for example. Or a toy truck. It's rather amazing how many things can 'look like a gun'.

And also, of course, they might 'look like they're reaching for a gun', which removes the need for mistaking any unsimilar object for a gun.

 

[Aridas]

Is this rhetorical?

Our gun laws are logically unworkable. "Everyone can carry a gun openly" and "if you are the least bit scared because you see a gun you can shoot to defend yourself" aren't a great combo.

I mean, you can not carry a gun and avoid being legally executed, but who knows if those other people carrying guns in public are going to start shooting random people because they think tap water is making children gay so who knows.

Unworkable? Bah. You sound like one of those people who refuse to listen to reason when it comes to your opposition to murder dinos.

 

[lobosrul5]

Was it legal for the victim to have owned a handgun?

ETA: Yes it is - it's an "open carry" state.

So then why was someone coming to the door with a gun a trigger for the police? Do they usually shoot people for coming to the door with legally owned items? In such states I can't see why the police are able to use the sight of a gun in someone's hand as a reason to shoot them.

I'm sitting in Melbourne intl airport omw back home and seriously questioning if I really want to. Saw this one on my reddit feed, as I live in NM and was going to post it here.

Police can't even be bothered to get the right house and of course it's legal for the homeowner to blast away and legal for the cops to.do the same. What a wonderful place.

ETA doesn't matter that is an open carry state in this instance. And actually we only are outside of city limits anyways.

 

[Jim_MDP]

Was it legal for the victim to have owned a handgun?

ETA: Yes it is - it's an "open carry" state.
...

"Open carry state" is likely unimportant here, though once he opened the door and was in public view "brandishing" becomes a possibility.
The local laws are ever changing and always confusing here, but...
Barring a tight state like Massachusetts (maybe) or large cities like Chicago or especially NYC where legal ownership of a handgun is nigh impossible, you could walk around your residence with it on your hip and be perfectly legal. In fact you could walk around your yard as well as long as, in either case, the "public" has no direct view.

"Carry", open or concealed, refers to being armed in public.

Waiting on being schooled here on some state I hadn't considered... like I said, "confusing". [emoji3]

 

[bruto]

"Open carry state" is likely unimportant here, though once he opened the door and was in public view "brandishing" becomes a possibility.
The local laws are ever changing and always confusing here, but...
Barring a tight state like Massachusetts (maybe) or large cities like Chicago or especially NYC where legal ownership of a handgun is nigh impossible, you could walk around your residence with it on your hip and be perfectly legal. In fact you could walk around your yard as well as long as, in either case, the "public" has no direct view.

"Carry", open or concealed, refers to being armed in public.

Waiting on being schooled here on some state I hadn't considered... like I said, "confusing". [emoji3]

Not that I doubt the "brandishing" charge could be brought, but it would be ridiculous to do so when the man is standing in his own house, responding to a perceived threat. Brandishing is defined as displaying a gun in the commission of a crime, or as an act of intimidation. But self defense is not intimidation, obviously, or the use of a gun would instantly nullify self defense, turning it into the crime of brandishing. New Mexico is a "castle doctrine" state. I think the only way brandishing could be invoked would be if the cops were able to assert that the man was aware that they were police and intended to scare them away despite that knowledge.

 

[Jim_MDP]

I'd probably like to see the cam vid before agreeing. I was going on the snippet in shemp's post...

"Once on scene, officers mistakenly approached" the wrong address and knocked on the door. The statement from the state public safety authority said the officers identified themselves as police, but no one answered."

Example: whipping open the door with a gun down at your side, to scream at the noisy kids in the street, or even ones cutting across your lawn (suburban neighborhood sort of thing) would, well certainly could, be cited as brandishing.

Doing it when there are cops on the other side... priceless. [emoji15]

 

[bruto]

I'd probably like to see the cam vid before agreeing. I was going on the snippet in shemp's post...

"Once on scene, officers mistakenly approached" the wrong address and knocked on the door. The statement from the state public safety authority said the officers identified themselves as police, but no one answered."

Example: whipping open the door with a gun down at your side, to scream at the noisy kids in the street, or even ones cutting across your lawn (suburban neighborhood sort of thing) would, well certainly could, be cited as brandishing.

Doing it when there are cops on the other side... priceless. [emoji15]

Sure, it could, but that's not what happened. The man apparently came to the door after hearing someone knocking or calling out, but not immediately. He did not open the door to them with gun drawn. We do not know whether he was awake or asleep (it was after midnight), whether he understood who was at the door, or, of course these days, whether the police were telling the truth. I notice that in the statement linked, we are told that the video shows Dotson coming to the door armed with a gun, but does not say that Dotson brandished, pointed, or fired the gun. He came to the door with it, and was shot. His wife then opened fire but put down the gun and complied when the police identified themselves to her. Note that last bit. She, apparently, also did not know initially who they were. Whatever those cops say they did to identify themselves, neither occupant of the house seems to have known who they were.

Now of course we know there are plenty of trigger-happy idiots out there who are ready to shoot first and ask later, and a house in which both occupants have guns at the ready does not look too encouraging, but I think there's more info to come. We'd better wait for the video.

 

[Jim_MDP]

Whoa, whoa... we're heading into the weeds.

I didn't mean to say the guy was aggressive or whatever and deserved what happened (that was snarkily poor phrasing on my part).
Just a response to your comment on brandishing and an example of how behavior can affect context.
And I haven't seen the vid nor read any articles so I'll have to hold off deciding what happened. Though the Mrs. getting shots off... and surviving, is a new wrinkle. Surprised it didn't turn into a standoff. [emoji15]
But we agree... 'shoot first, ask questions later' is crap policy. This outcome is far too common here.