No, being poor isn’t necessarily a requirement. Since the cops generally assume that bit, it doesn’t really matter either way.
1 Like
Don’t worry folks, it’s just a few bad apples.
7 Likes
Like many other dangerous predators in the past, how long before we start offering a bounty for their pelts? Clearly they’re too unpredictable and dangerous to allow to co-exist with the human population at large?
We almost wiped out bison and grey wolves (amongst others) with this tactic, certainly it can work with this undesirable species of vermin?
1 Like
It’s an absolute disgrace. A) Policing is by consent. It’s worth enforcing laws against walking in the road on a busy freeway, where there is some danger to the pedestrian and the traffic. But on a rural suburban road with no sidewalk it’s absurd. How does the officer not understand this? Is it racism? It could be, but it’s almost too blatant.
The rigid uncomprehending application of rules speaks to the quality of the individuals who become police officers in Florida. It displays a classic lack of competence in the McClelland sense. Being incompetent isn’t a crime in itself, but the state can’t put weapons in the hands of those people. Fire that cop or reassign him to a role where he can’t cause any harm… I hope that lady wins compensation in a civil suit. It would be richly deserved.
7 Likes
Why is it that a black “criminal” will go to jail and a white “criminal” gets paid administrative leave?
1 Like
I’m against stand your ground laws in general. I think that if there’s a means to escape a dangerous situation, then you have a responsibility to leave, rather than escalating the situation.
But I also believe that should only apply in public spaces. If you have an obligation to retreat, then your home is your keep, and I support everyone’s right to blow the head off of an unexpected, unannounced intruder.
Is that logically consistent? I mean, I don’t own the street, so I don’t really have a right to defend my place on it, whereas I do own my house, and I’ll be damned if I’ll let myself be defenseless in my own stronghold.
I mean, if the cops offer to show me the warrant, then I at least have a chance to comply with the law. But I shouldn’t have to expect any fucker busting in my window to be doing it with lawful intent. If they want to bust into my place, they better announce who they are and read off their badges and such.
4 Likes
To a point - I think there should be a requirement to use the minimum force necessary, to give that ‘intruder’ a chance to de-escalate.
You can use force to protect your life in your home, but a guy busting in your window is mainly a risk to your property. Jumping straight to blowing his head off is still unreasonable.
3 Likes
Yeah. You’re definitely right there. How about: You have an obligation to warn someone trying to break in that you’ll kinetically remove their face if they continue. Then if they continue, you can take off their face with some accelerated metal.
It’s just gonna be a matter of time before the cops pull some shit like this and find themselves out gunned and not a single witness to what happens. Dollars to cop donuts that prick who tased the woman is getting lots of support from his buddies in blue. How can people not hate the bastards?
3 Likes
You have said that well!
I don’t believe cops breaking down my door in the wee hours deserve any better protection than baddies who want to to rob me.
Damn me, but I find your rhetoric attractive!
Well… They at least have to announce they’re cops. I have yet to encounter a convincing argument that shows no-knock warrants are worth the constitutional violations they impose. If you’re going to storm the place, you absolutely must give the people inside a chance to comply. I don’t care if the baddies are gonna flush their shit, or get their weapons. It’s not the constitution’s or the law’s job to make police work efficient, easy or safe. It’s to provide a standard set of rights that apply to everyone. Or at least that’s the ideal we should aspire to. No knock warrants are essentially entrapment, and executing them denies the suspect of any pretense of due process.
7 Likes
Because that whole fracas that started in 1861 is NOT done.
Very well said! I can’t add to your excellent points, except to affirm them.
EDIT: This deserves special attention!
3 Likes
1661 was confusing as hell, but I had faith in you.
Sorry about that, I really meant 1861.
Although, 1661 was plenty horrible.
Puritans.
2 Likes
Because we’re not done working out this horrible inequity.
/me has a mega sad
Just because you own it doesn’t mean it’s worth killing for.
I have not yet viewed the video, my current setup does not allow me to view it.
We need to get away from training police officers to instantly react to perceived threats. Or more atrocities are sure to follow
1 Like
