305

Federal police shot a homeless man living on national forest land. He's now suing. (www.yahoo.com)

submitted 1 year ago by wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee to c/thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world

72 comments fedilink hide all child comments

You can debate the need to arrest, but creating a ruse that ends up with the man being shot several times?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Within his rights to have the weapon on him, yes, but pointing a gun is not carrying a gun, it's brandishing, and brandishing is a no-no no matter how you slice it. Speaking as a gun owner, if you point a gun at something, that means you have intention to kill it, otherwise you shouldn't be pointing your gun at it. Too many people watch TV and Movies and think that after you point the gun to let people know that you're really, really serious, you stop and give them a chance to rethink their choices. That's not how it is; if you're drawing a gun, you have the intention to use it (at least as far as the law is concerned), so the gun should only ever come out when you've already committed to the belief that this situation requires deadly force in order to preserve the life of yourself or others and it's time to act. Otherwise, the gun stays put. That's it, there's no middle ground there, either you have to act with deadly force to save yourself and others or you don't. Anyway, brandishing in and of itself is a crime basically everywhere, IIRC. But in so many words, regardless of how they may have provoked and mishandled the situation, it's likely that any reasonable court is going to find that the officers' response to the weapon being brandished was entirely reasonable within the expectations of their job.

So, pro-tip, if you're going to introduce a gun to a situation, it had best be because you're about to use deadly force for a justifiable reason. Otherwise, just leave that shit right where it is. In point of fact, there are people who have (unknowingly) shot cops because they believed that they were acting to protect their life or someone else's, and got off with it. In all fairness, people are held accountable for it way more than they should be; cops getting shot doing no-knock raids on the wrong house (for example) is a predictable consequence, and well, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The cops should take their licks on that and, rather than lock people up for not having the ESP to know it was the cops, maybe take a moment to wonder if they're really making smart choices here.

this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023

305 points (95.8% liked)

THE POLICE PROBLEM

2482 readers

73 users here now

The police problem is that police are policed by the police. Cops are accountable only to other cops, which is no accountability at all.

99.9999% of police brutality, corruption, and misconduct is never investigated, never punished, never makes the news, so it's not on this page.

When cops are caught breaking the law, they're investigated by other cops. Details are kept quiet, the officers' names are withheld from public knowledge, and what info is eventually released is only what police choose to release — often nothing at all.

When police are fired — which is all too rare — they leave with 'law enforcement experience' and can easily find work in another police department nearby. It's called "Wandering Cops."

When police testify under oath, they lie so frequently that cops themselves have a joking term for it: "testilying." Yet it's almost unheard of for police to be punished or prosecuted for perjury.

Cops can and do get away with lawlessness, because cops protect other cops. If they don't, they aren't cops for long.

The legal doctrine of "qualified immunity" renders police officers invulnerable to lawsuits for almost anything they do. In practice, getting past 'qualified immunity' is so unlikely, it makes headlines when it happens.

All this is a path to a police state.

In a free society, police must always be under serious and skeptical public oversight, with non-cops and non-cronies in charge, issuing genuine punishment when warranted.

Police who break the law must be prosecuted like anyone else, promptly fired if guilty, and barred from ever working in law-enforcement again.

That's the solution.

♦ ♦ ♦

Our definition of ‘cops’ is broad, and includes prison guards, probation officers, shitty DAs and judges, etc — anyone who has the authority to fuck over people’s lives, with minimal or no oversight.

♦ ♦ ♦

RULES

① Real-life decorum is expected. Please don't say things only a child or a jackass would say in person.

② If you're here to support the police, you're trolling. Please exercise your right to remain silent.

③ Saying ~~cops~~ ANYONE should be killed lowers the IQ in any conversation. They're about killing people; we're not.

④ Please don't dox or post calls for harassment, vigilantism, tar & feather attacks, etc.

Please also abide by the instance rules.

It you've been banned but don't know why, check the moderator's log. If you feel you didn't deserve it, hey, I'm new at this and maybe you're right. Send a cordial PM, for a second chance.

♦ ♦ ♦

ALLIES

• !abolition@slrpnk.net

• !acab@lemmygrad.ml

• r/ACAB

• r/BadCopNoDonut/

• Randy Balko

• The Civil Rights Lawyer

• The Honest Courtesan

• Identity Project

• MirandaWarning.org

♦ ♦ ♦