Current Events > Police show up to black man's house, he excercises his legal rights and get shot

(+) Yeah! (+)

darkprince45 posted...

youre Just excusing a man bringing a gun and attempting murder

There should be a circumstance in which it's just okay to shoot a cop -- you can think of that scenario though since I imagine saying there is absolutely no circumstance in which that would ever be applicable would seem dishonest

---

Disgusting. Guy did nothing wrong. Cops needed to fuck off and leave. But they never do. Their ego forces them to escalate minor issues into life or death situations

Also lmao at darkprince thinking a call about him being a reckless driver means anything.

If dude was reckless, how is he now at his home and no one in danger?

Better do what now? Arrest him for artiving home safely? Wtf is this idiocy

WingsOfGood posted...

Police were told to leave his property. They had no rights to be on it. They refused to leave.

He had the right to defend his property from armed tresspassers.

not if an officer has probable cause for an investigation which he did. I dont know why you cant understand this . Is that why you make such a statement like defending his property from armed trespassers. Like no. This is resistance to a lawful investigation

and your next post is even more ridiculous. The crime doesnt just stop because you made it home. The same thing as calling in a drunk driver. Oh well hes home! In most states, reckless driving is a more serious charge than drunk driving even

---

RedJackson posted...

There should be a circumstance in which it's just okay to shoot a cop -- you can think of that scenario though since I imagine saying there is absolutely no circumstance in which that would ever be applicable would seem dishonest

I know Pac managed it once, but they were off-duty and there were witnesses who saw the cops start the conflict.

If you ever shoot a uniformed cop, even in self-defense, theyll just send an endless stream of backup like you 5-starred in GTA, until youre dead.

---

WingsOfGood posted...

If dude was reckless, how is he now at his home and no one in danger?

You do realize the majority of drunk drivers make it home right? That doesn't mean they aren't a danger. They deserve to be arrested. I'm of the opinion that they should have backed off, but that's an entirely different point from him possibly having driven dangerously.

Nemu posted...

You do realize the majority of drunk drivers make it home right? That doesn't mean they aren't a danger. They deserve to be arrested. I'm of the opinion that they should have backed off, but that's an entirely different point from him possibly having driven dangerously.

no they don't. if there's no proof of driving drunk they didn't do anything wrong in the eyes of the law.

---

I'm generally a wait for the facts type of guy because I'm not an asshole, but it sounds like the police shouldn't have escalated it by shooting him with the beanbag.

The guy that was shot seemed to be a huge prick and I am happy that the cops didn't immediately go to deadly force, but this sounds like it was only a marginally better solution. Do better.

Also that press release by the police is pretty disgusting

---

I got ignored :(

---

limp-bizkit-89 posted...

I got ignored :(

by whom

---

catboy posted...

by whom

I dont mean ignore list. I meant my question (for DP)

---

darkprince45 posted...

not if an officer has probable cause for an investigation which he did. I dont know why you cant understand this . Is that why you make such a statement like defending his property from armed trespassers. Like no. This is resistance to a lawful investigation

and your next post is even more ridiculous. The crime doesnt just stop because you made it home. The same thing as calling in a drunk driver. Oh well hes home! In most states, reckless driving is a more serious charge than drunk driving even

He's well within his right to tell the police he doesn't want to speak with them and to ask them to get off of his property unless they actually witnessed him committing a crime and he's either under arrest or being detained.

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

He's well within his right to tell the police he doesn't want to speak with them and to ask them to get off of his property unless they actually witnessed him committing a crime and he's either under arrest or being detained.

One of the flaws in our justice system is how many street-level enforcers are completely ignorant of the law.

---

Wonder if Dark is fine with Swatting also. One phone call, they kick down the door and execute the innocent person inside. Lethal force first, questions later, that's how our boys in blue do!

---

limp-bizkit-89 posted...

I dont mean ignore list. I meant my question (for DP)

Sorry, dumb posts started coming out.

Solid Snake07 posted...

He's well within his right to tell the police he doesn't want to speak with them and to ask them to get off of his property unless they actually witnessed him committing a crime and he's either under arrest or being detained.

false. At the BARE MINIMUM. They have reasonable suspicion on him. Meaning they are able to conduct a lawful investigation on him. Up to 60 minutes. Please look up the Supreme Court case Terry Stop. When I said your were wrong last post. He is being detained. What you are watching is him being detained. But because of his nature they stood at a reasonable distance. The cops did it right. You answered your statement


---

Shablagoo posted...

One of the flaws in our justice system is how many street-level enforcers are completely ignorant of the law.

>ignorance of the law is no excuse
>pigs regularly ignorant of the law arresting people

---

MabusIncarnate posted...

Wonder if Dark is fine with Swatting also. One phone call, they kick down the door and execute the innocent person inside. Lethal force first, questions later, that's how our boys in blue do!

this is such a stupid post you thought this was a good one. Do you actually know how many swatting calls happen a year in the country. I do. Do you know how many are lethal first question later dur!! Your heads gonna explode when you realize thats an extremely rare occurrence


---

darkprince45 posted...

false. At the BARE MINIMUM. They have reasonable suspicion on him. Meaning they are able to conduct a lawful investigation on him. Up to 60 minutes. Please look up the Supreme Court case Terry Stop. When I said your were wrong last post. He is being detained. What you are watching is him being detained. But because of his nature they stood at a reasonable distance. The cops did it right. You answered your statement

They never once stated he was being detained, cause they had no lawful cause to detain him. They clearly said "we just want to talk to you about your reckless driving". The police can't just come yank you out of your house and detain you because they got a call that you were driving erratically.

They can conduct their investigation, you're under no obligation to aid them. I don't know what's so hard about that for you to understand.

Now, this guy excersized this right like a jackass and nearly got himself killed for it. When he should have just gone inside his house and told them they can come back with a court order.

---

darkprince45 posted...

not if an officer has probable cause for an investigation which he did.

How?

1. There is no reckless driving to investigate. There is no investigation that can be conducted

2. Dude actually asks the officer about this. The officer does not recite any probable cause as he had none.

3. I can call and say you are driving 90mph in a 50 zone and cops will show up to arrest you? BS
They won't.

@darkprince45

Solid Snake07 posted...

They never once stated he was being detained, cause they had no lawful cause to detain him. They clearly said "we just want to talk to you about your reckless driving". The police can't just come yank you out of your house and detain you because they got a call that you were driving erratically.

They can conduct their investigation, you're under no obligation to aid them. I don't know what's so hard about that for you to understand.

Now, this guy excersized this right like a jackass and nearly got himself killed for it. When he should have just gone inside his house and told them they can come back with a court order.

1. you dont have to say youre being detained to detain someone
2. they didnt yank him. He was outside and they conversed outside
3. hes not obliging hes under lawful investigation
4. correct. He shouldve just gone inside. Instead decided to charge police and then shoot at them

---

WingsOfGood posted...

What would you do if a trespasser with a gun stood on your property and refused to leave?

Release the hounds.

---

WingsOfGood posted...

How?

1. There is no reckless driving to investigate. There is no investigation that can be conducted

2. Dude actually asks the officer about this. The officer does not recite any probable cause as he had none.

3. I can call and say you are driving 90mph in a 50 zone and cops will show up to arrest you? BS
They won't.

@darkprince45

Stop the logic, clearly this man was wrecklessly driving in his home and had to be stopped.

darkprince45 posted...

this is such a stupid post you thought this was a good one. Do you actually know how many swatting calls happen a year in the country. I do. Do you know how many are lethal first question later dur!! Your heads gonna explode when you realize thats an extremely rare occurrence

"It doesn't happen that often so it's fine"

---

darkprince45 posted...

1. you dont have to say youre being detained to detain someone
2. they didnt yank him. He was outside and they conversed outside
3. hes not obliging hes under lawful investigation
4. correct. He shouldve just gone inside. Instead decided to charge police and then shoot at them

Please timestamp this "charge at police" because i've watched this 3 times now and saw no instance whatsoever of him charging anyone. If you are referring to when he took a single step off his porch, and you are calling that a "charge" then you are as low and dirty as the rest of them looking for the tiniest reaction so you can open fire. Please, please show me when he charged at them.

---

darkprince45 posted...

. Please look up the Supreme Court case Terry Stop"

You are citing law involved in a traffic stop to explain why they are on property refusing to go away.
This is not a stop and frisk.
He was not pulled over.

Shablagoo posted...

One of the flaws in our justice system is how many street-level enforcers are completely ignorant of the law.

Well said and demonstrated by our resident officer.

Smh

Glad he lived. Hopefully the cops get their asses sued. Slim chance though.

Collat posted...

Glad he lived. Hopefully the cops get their asses sued. Slim chance though.

Public outrage will have their jobs at least.

WingsOfGood posted...

You are citing law involved in a traffic stop to explain why they are on property refusing to go away.

WHAT. Terry stop is from an armed robbery case and is the basis of all reason suspicious stops.

holy fuck. The amount of confidence you guys have when youre so ignorant

bro you are always so ignorant of every law in police topics. Im 100 percent certain you only operate on Reddit title threads


---

I watched that video. Tbh, I think he kinda wanted to start a shootout.

You see him take that beanbag like a champ and instead of running for cover inside, he goes forward and actually opens fire after hiding behind his truck.

Like, wtf?

---

I must have missed the part when officers witnessed his reckless driving and pulled him over.

The man was going to do so much harm and was causing a lot of danger sitting in his house. He had to be stopped.

---

Remember, civilians must always expertly handle themselves during any interaction with cops and simultaneously cops are allowed to use force if they so much as get spooked by their own shadow.

---

darkprince45 posted...

WHAT. Terry stop is from an armed robbery case and is the basis of all reason suspicious stops.

holy fuck. The amount of confidence you guys have when youre so ignorant

bro you are always so ignorant of every law in police topics. Im 100 percent certain you only operate on Reddit title threads

Wait, so you are now claiming they could search him because he had a firearm....

For a call that was about reckless driving.

No dice. Wow

darkprince45 posted...

1. you dont have to say youre being detained to detain someone
2. they didnt yank him. He was outside and they conversed outside
3. hes not obliging hes under lawful investigation
4. correct. He shouldve just gone inside. Instead decided to charge police and then shoot at them

No, they don't have to announce you're being detained. But they have to have cause to do so, such as they witnessed you commit the crime or infraction they're investigating, which they didn't.

And 100% this was poorly handled by both sides, but they still shouldn't have shot that first shot. His gun was still holstered and him stepping of his front porch isn't a good reason. They should have backed off and continued to try to deescalate the situation. He should have shut the fuck up and gone inside his house.

---

Man legally tells cops to leave his property

Tells them thats he's armed

Cops have no right to be on his property. Weren't at the correct house.

Shoot him first for taking a step.

"He was aggressive"

Cops are cowards.

---

WingsOfGood posted...

Wait, so you are now claiming they could search him because he had a firearm....

WHAT WHO SAID THAT. Dude learn to fucking read. Read terry stop. That doesnt give you the right to search.

it means you an officer that has reasonable suspicion( belief that a crime was committed or about to be) can stop and detain you for up to 60 minutes to conduct a lawful investigation.

this is what just happened at the bare minimum

you sealion so hard lmao

---

MutantJohn posted...

I watched that video. Tbh, I think he kinda wanted to start a shootout.

You see him take that beanbag like a champ and instead of running for cover inside, he goes forward and actually opens fire after hiding behind his truck.

Like, wtf?

Whoever that woman was was still outside at the time, it's not unreasonable to think he was drawing fire away from the front door where she was standing with a towel on, and not wanting to run inside and have the officers kill someone else in the home. Cops don't care who they kill in the crossfire, considering she was a couple feet next to him and they were still fine discharging a firearm that close to an innocent bystander.

---

That guys a moron, dumbass should've listened to his wife

darkprince45 posted...

WHAT WHO SAID THAT. Dude learn to fucking read. Read terry stop. That doesnt give you the right to search.

it means you an officer that has reasonable suspicion( belief that a crime was committed or about to be) can stop and detain you for up to 60 minutes to conduct a lawful investigation.

this is what just happened at the bare minimum

you sealion so hard lmao

What crime did they believe was committed?

Null_Gain posted...

Remember, civilians must always expertly handle themselves during any interaction with cops and simultaneously cops are allowed to use force if they so much as get spooked by their own shadow.

Apparently civilians have to be better trained in their own time than cops have to be at their own fucking job

---

MabusIncarnate posted...

Whoever that woman was was still outside at the time, it's not unreasonable to think he was drawing fire away from the front door where she was standing with a towel on, and not wanting to run inside and have the officers kill someone else in the home. Cops don't care who they kill in the crossfire, considering she was a couple feet next to him and they were still fine discharging a firearm that close to an innocent bystander.

I guess.

Idk though, man. That beanbag seemed to really just piss him off and then he started shooting which is never a smart move.

Idk why the cops shot him with a beanbag in the first place but he definitely escalated just as much as they did.

---

"We believe some crime has been committed. What crime we don't know and must discover. So we will now tresspass on your property"

That the gist of the police argument?

WingsOfGood posted...

"We believe some crime has been committed. What crime we don't know and must discover. So we will now tresspass on your property"

That the gist of the police argument?

dude, do you read, reckless driving is the crime. Thats what theyre investigating. Its not trespassing if police are investigating a crime. If you really want to get into it. Theyre standing on the sidewalk too which is public property


---

MabusIncarnate posted...

2nd amendment rights mean shit if you can be on your own property, minding your own business, legally possessing a firearm, and an officer shoots you 7 times after stating you are armed while standing on your own porch on your own property. That isn't freedom. Legal or not, it puts a firearm in your hands and all the pig has to say is "he had a gun" and 99% of the time they won't even get a suspension or face any disciplinary action.

Thank god this man survived after taking 7 bullets, even though HE now faces 3 assault charges.

I dont know how he can be charged, he was on his own property, wasnt he defending his property?

---

darkprince45 posted...

dude, do you read, reckless driving is the crime. Thats what theyre investigating. Its not trespassing if police are investigating a crime. If you really want to get into it. Theyre standing on the sidewalk too which is public property

How are they investigating reckless driving when the man is not in a vehicle?

Holy

WingsOfGood posted...

How are they investigating reckless driving when the man is not in a vehicle?

Holy

I already answered this. Do you think the crime just stops because he steps out of the car? Not only was he observed by the caller. The police literally saw him park his vehicle in the driveway. You would know this if you read the actual articles and not just the video

---

darkprince45 posted...

I already answered this. Do you think the crime just stops because he steps out of the car? Not only was he observed by the caller. The police literally saw him park his vehicle in the driveway. You would know this if you read the actual articles and not just the video

You did not answer this.

How will they investigate? Explain.

How must be too big a word tc.

Honestly, the dude started it, sorry.

I know CE gets emotional and those cops were wrong to beanbag him but watching that video, he definitely started a firefight he couldn't finish.

The dude might've been legit drunk and that's why he took the bag so well and then got so pissed.

---

He was in his fucking HOUSE. Do you know the difference between a car and a house darkprince? He was not pulled over for reckless driving. He was not driving at all. How the hell does it go from random phonecall to this guy being shot 7 times in front of his own home?

If a random phone call is enough to create this kind of situation, there is a tremendously disturbing problem that continues to go ignored because pigs defend their sick behavior. Reminds me of the other video recently, kid is detained, cuffed behind his back, stands up, someone yells "he's going for my gun!" with his arms handcuffed behind his back, had 3+ cops pinning him against the wall, can't go anywhere, can't do anything, and random cop walks up and says "You're gonna die my friend" and shoots him in the side of the head and executes him on the spot. I guess that's justified too though because he resisted with both hands locked behind his back.

---