Even if that was true (which I doubt), the victim of this shooting was not even a suspect in the first place.
2 Likes
But even in that case having a gun didnât improve your interaction with the police officers.
Carrying a gun to increase your odds of having a positive outcome with a mugger I can understand, even if it could just as easily make things worse (i.e. an armed mugger who would merely rob an unarmed victim might shoot an armed victim). But improving your odds of surviving a tense confrontation with police? Not in any case Iâve ever heard of.
It was late at night, and I didnât have a phone on me. I literally had to stand over this joker and wait for someone to walk by so I could ask her to call the police. As soon as she saw my gun, she came unglued but I managed to convince her that i was the one who needed help. I assumed that the police werenât going to get a detailed story.
When the first cop showed up, all she probably knew that there was an incident involving two people and a gun. She jumped out and unholstered, screaming for me to put the gun down. Arguing would have been incredibly stupid, so I put the gun down and did everything that she told me without a fuss. A lot more cops showed up, and I spent a lot of time handcuffed in the back seat before they got to my side of the story.
I stayed calm during the entire incident, answered all of their questions, and once they saw that the evidence matched my story, I was finally allowed to go to the hospital. I donât know why, but a couple of them asked me if I was a cop somewhere. I was tempted to say that I wasnât fat enough, but I figured I shouldnât screw up a good thing.
Yes, we have our share of dishonest and trigger-happy police officers in Portland, too, but there are some good ones out there.
1 Like
As I recall, a lot of the Panthers ended up shot to death by police, one or two at a time. (And a number ended up killing each other in internal feuds and assassination.) I wouldnât say that worked out well for most of them.
At what point is it legal to shoot a cop out of self-defense? With US copsâ eagerness to kill unarmed people, shouldnât every citizen realistically consider every cop a threat?
1 Like
Formally, the charters of US police departments are to âprotect and serveâ - only the municipality, not the individual. The PR version says that they are doing things for the security and safety of the average person, but this is a deliberate deception, and always has been. Their purpose is to maintain âorderâ at any cost, which in practice means protecting government and business from individuals. So the rights of the average person for self-defense and physical safety are quite tenuous.
Where there is room for defense is attacking the extremely minimal burden of proof police need to provide to get away with what they do. For example, I had a cop threaten to kill me once when I witnessed him in a careless traffic accident. And when I tried reporting it, the department told me that I must have been mistaken, because no real cop would have ever said such a thing to me. So they refused to take my report. No doubt they would have made up a different excuse if I restrained the cop as an impersonator.
2 Likes
I donât think this is actually true. Iâm pretty sure manufacture became heavily constrained, and I bet any realistic estimate of the output of the illicit liquor industry during prohibition would be a small fraction of the output of the licit liquor industry before or after.
The price increased enough that some people were willing to take the risk of manufacturing an illicit substance because the reward was so great. That is also the case with drugs today â I suspect there would be a great deal more marijuana being grown in gardens and greenhouses and for the street price to drop considerably if it was not illegal.
The idea here is to prohibit the manufacture of weapons. Reasonably, this would seem to make it more difficult to obtain one either legally or illegally (a large number of illegal acquisitions are âstraw purchasesâ). This would make it more difficult for people with very little money to obtain one, likely decreasing the incidence of gun violence over all by removing people with less money from the pool of people who can obtain a gun.
The relevant questions are whether this decrease in availability of guns would be significant, how significant, what impact it would have on the level of gun violence, whether that decrease in violence justifies the deprivation of liberty in the form of reduced access to firearms of who would otherwise be legal gun owners, and whether the overall cost justifies any money spent on the program, reduced tax receipts from weapon sales, etc. Impact on the economy should be factored in as well â shuttering gun manufacturers would mean a lot of layoffs.
if you have the legal right to do a thing and someone tries to stop you from doing that thing, even if he has a badge, you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. Exercising that right on police does have the drawback of the police having the right to kill you and get some relaxing paid vacation.
God. Damn. It.
Everyone stop fricking shooting each other. Is it that fricking difficult?
2 Likes
I believe it is legal, butâŚ
Unfortunately, it didnât result in exoneration; he still got manslaughter and 10 years. Which was the same thing Ryan Frederick got. Weird how doing something legal still results in a conviction, just because the wrong gang is against you. It is a sad commentary that most people feel they got as good a deal as can be expected, since of course law enforcement and their boot lickers wanted death.
2 Likes
To be fair, the police needed to reach their quota of shooting down unarmed people in the suburbs.
They do have an image to maintain, after all.
1 Like
Unfortunately Goosie, what heâd have to testify to is the utility of a powerful MSHA â the regulatory agency that oversees mining. I donât think todayâs Congress is interested in hearing about it.
One of the things that helps, and particularly helps with self-policing in mining IMHO, is the well codified reporting requirements we have to comply with after injuries & especially, fatalities. They are much more stringent & complete across the industry than anything our municipal or county police forces need to contend with.
If every police force in the nation had a few months of Fatalgrams tacked to the bulletin boards in their break rooms, we would see a considerable improvement in practices over a few years. Of course, when we see a Fatalgram posted itâs always about one of us, not some civilian âotherâ.
1 Like
The officer shot the man â identified as 48-year-old Walter DeLeon â in the head after the man flagged down the officer's patrol car and then pointed his arms at the officers. One of DeLeon's arms was covered with âsome type of piece of cloth,â according to Smith. He said it was not a towel, as reported earlier.
I wonder if guy could have been having some sort of medical problemâŚ
The officers left their patrol car and ordered him to drop a gun they believe he had.One of the officers shot DeLeon, 48, when he didnât comply, police said.
DeLeon was in critical condition at a hospital.
His son, William DeLeon, told the Los Angeles Times that his father regularly walks with a rag because he sweats a lot. He said he was shocked when he learned police shot his father.
âI didnât understand why, because I know my dad wouldnât do anything to provoke it,â he told the Times.
He said he and his family were at his fatherâs bedside most of Monday and that he hadnât yet awoken.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
