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

(+) Yeah! (+)

WingsOfGood posted...

It was not lawful and you are not the arbiter of what is or is not.

No, but based on whats publicly available, the details of the call that you can pull up. The SUPREME COURT says their investigation is legal. Thats why hes being charged with 3 crimes and the DA is going forward with it.

NOT wingsofgood on gamefaqs yelling like a baby that its unlawful


---

ThePieReborn posted...

Without having read much, I am going to come in for the following legal drive-by regarding post 240:

One, those cases are from several different circuits, which are not a unified jurisdiction and do have differences in case law and interpretation. They also do not account for individual state differences re: Fourth Amendment analogues.

Second, Fourth Amendment cases are so heavily fact dependent that, outside of broad principles of law set forth, they are not of much, if any, individual value as "binding precedent," especially when issued from an intermediate appellate court.

Can't wait to see the response to this one.

---

I would say that whether something is legal or not does not mean it is correct and should be legal. This is one of those cases. If I was followed home and harassed by the cops because of this I would also be very upset. Good to know this is a thing that exists, so I can vote to have it removed when given the chance or protest it. I could see certain people targetting others if they know about this like ex-cops who see a black person doing something they dislike.

darkphoenix181 posted...

I would say that whether something is legal or not does not mean it is correct and should be legal. This is one of those cases. If I was followed home and harassed by the cops because of this I would also be very upset. Good to know this is a thing that exists, so I can vote to have it removed when given the chance or protest it. I could see certain people targetting others if they know about this like ex-cops who see a black person doing something they dislike.

witnesses calling the police is never going away


---

darkprince45 posted...

witnesses calling the police is never going away

I feel a road incident is quite different than a man on the street saying he thinks that guy robbed the house or whatever. I have had instances where people on the road tried to run me off and they could very easily have followed me home and lied about this kinda stuff. Infact, some have tried to follow me. My guess is they didn't know they could call the cops and they would actually show up. I certaintly would have never thought that as it is really illogical and against human behavior. But I guess it might be a good way to carch drunk drivers. Nevertheless, it is seems alot of potential for abuse and in this case it seems clear it was abused.

ThePieReborn posted...

Without having read much, I am going to come in for the following legal drive-by regarding post 240:

One, those cases are from several different circuits, which are not a unified jurisdiction and do have differences in case law and interpretation. They also do not account for individual state differences re: Fourth Amendment analogues.

Second, Fourth Amendment cases are so heavily fact dependent that, outside of broad principles of law set forth, they are not of much, if any, individual value as "binding precedent," especially when issued from an intermediate appellate court.

So you are supposedly a lawyer?

@ThePieReborn

Just some things to note here.

1. Telling police you are "not someone to fuck with" then taking your gun out and putting it on display is criminal menacing. In Texas, it would at least fall under probable cause to arrest under Deadly Conduct or Aggravated Assault. This is an unprovoked escalation from the suspect. No, police conducting a legal investigation into a reckless driving call is not "escalation". They have a legal right to conduct their investigation.
2. It looks like police remained on the sidewalk until the suspect took out his gun. It's also probably about this point when the police grabbed the bean bagger.
3. Inconspicuous edit at 2:02 where some exchange just seems to vanish. Doesn't seem particularly transparent of the video uploader.
4. Police did try to de-escalate. They tried to ask him his name, they tried to tell him they just wanted to talk, ect. They kept a calm tone and a safe distance. They did not start shooting when they first saw the gun and calmly told him to put it down.
5. Another inconspicuous edit at 2:20 right when the suspect begins to yell at the police again. Hmm. I'm guessing they didn't edit out sections where the suspect is trying to reasonably explain himself. If he is making actionable threats to police during these edited periods it would mean the justification for an Aggravated Assault charge is a sure thing.
6. There is several seconds after the suspect gets shot with a bean bag where he is clearly aware he was not shot with a bullet, then draws his gun, says again "I'm not a motherfucker you want to fuck with", and starts approaching them with his gun drawn. Several seconds. This was not a "bang-bang" situation. The suspect did not try to retreat. The suspect did not obey police orders. The suspect approached police officers with a gun with the obvious intent to shoot at them while his wife pleaded with him not to.
7. Being shot with a bean bag by police does not give you a legal right to self-defense against police. You do not have a legal right to self-defense against police except under the absolutely most specific circumstances. This is not one of them. Police are clearly detaining this man for questioning. After he begins to criminally menace, they are allowed to order him to drop the weapon and put his hands up, then arrest him. You have to cooperate with police. Does that make your skin tingle? Guess what, you have to do all kinds of things in society. It's just how it works. We draw the lines at certain things and call it "freedom". The right to criminally menace with a firearm then disobey police after is not one of those things.
8. As an aside, drawing a gun on police is always the worst thing you could ever do. Even if you are in a shoot out with police. Even if you have already been shot by police. It is never the right move. Your gun does not make you safe. Asking civilians not to draw guns on police, attack police, or run away from police is not asking for a higher standards from civilians. It's literally asking for the bare minimum. And I can't stress this enough. It's literally the bare minimum standards not to shoot at, attack, or run away from police. No, that doesn't justify every police shooting. But it is an indictment into how absolutely fucking stupid you need to be to try this. It doesn't work. You will get hurt or die or go to prison for 20 years, and also lose any right to compensation through our justice system. Your fate is always going to be worse than if you just comply. Stop encouraging this kind of behavior. Stop treating these people like heroes. It does a disservice to those who lose their life to blatant police abuse and it encourages more fool-hardy idiots to try the same thing.

---

WingsOfGood posted...

So you are supposedly a lawyer?

@ThePieReborn

*looks at J.D., bar association number, and current employment as state appellate judicial clerk*

Supposedly, or so I've been led to believe.

---

gamer167 posted...

Fuck that guy.

Got the cops called on him for reckless driving. Acts like an aggressive hot head and you can literally hear the cops tell him at :50 to put the gun down because he pulls it out of his waistband to maneuver it like a moron.

Tells them hes Not the one to mess with. Then aggressively starts walking towards an officer for stepping on his lawn.

Yeah 10/10 times your getting shot in that situation. Once you start brandishing a firearm and acting aggressive youre not gonna get the benefit of the doubt. Youd be a fucking moron to just let a guy like that approach you.

If he didnt have a firearm this would be a totally different story, but once he starts showing off his gun he dug his own hole.

---

ThePieReborn posted...

*looks at J.D., bar association number, and current employment as state appellate judicial clerk*

Supposedly, or so I've been led to believe.

Might want to not reveal anything personal here. There are some real nut jobs floating around.

---

ThePieReborn posted...

*looks at J.D., bar association number, and current employment as state appellate judicial clerk*

Supposedly, or so I've been led to believe.

lmao you got a JD and work as a clerk?

its like having an MD and working as a patient caretaker

---

Yeah, that's about as far as I'm willing to go on that. I ain't gonna do some SMAL shit and post a paystub or something.

---

limp-bizkit-89 posted...

lmao you got a JD and work as a clerk?

its like having an MD and working as a patient caretaker

I draft opinions for the judge I work for, which requires me to do the bulk of the research and writing for drafts that are then sent to the panel to vote on. It's also a temporary job/resume padder before I go off on my own. While not as glamorous as, say, clerking for SCotUS justices, it looks good for future employers.

---

ThePieReborn posted...

I draft opinions for the judge I work for, which requires me to do the bulk of the research and writing for drafts that are then sent to the panel to vote on. It's also a temporary job/resume padder before I go off on my own.

this is internship level stuff dude, not bar exam passing, JD having attorneys lol


---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

ThePieReborn posted...

*looks at J.D., bar association number, and current employment as state appellate judicial clerk*

Supposedly, or so I've been led to believe.

Might want to not reveal anything personal here. There are some real nut jobs floating around.

this.

on top of that, most of these people aren't in a position to be trying to criticize anybody. too many people love taking shots at their betters.
---

limp-bizkit-89 posted...

this is internship level stuff dude, not bar exam passing, JD having attorneys lol

Walk it back anytime, dude. You're making yourself look bad.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Walk it back anytime, dude. You're making yourself look bad.

walk what back? Lol

your opinions are not exactly respected here anyway, I got you tagged as MAGA, nuff said.

if that other dude were saying liberal stuff youd be making fun of him

---

I do say liberal stuff though.


---

limp-bizkit-89 posted...

I got you tagged as MAGA, nuff said.

This sort of mindset isn't healthy.

---

I didn't know you had a legal right to shoot at the police. I guess you learn something new every day.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

This sort of mindset isn't healthy.

Nah, with people like you who never argue in good faith (the case for all MAGAs) the tag is a great idea

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

This sort of mindset isn't healthy.

said the guy who follows a cult ideology that would rather root for foreign athletes than American ones if the latter are liberals or people of color

---

Will_VIIII posted...

Nah, with people like you who never argue in good faith (the case for all MAGAs) the tag is a great idea

I'm arguing in good faith in this topic. I'd like for you to point out the issue with any of my arguments.

As for limp-bizkit-89 and his comment...

said the guy who follows a cult ideology that would rather root for foreign athletes than American ones if the latter are liberals or people of color

None of these things are true about me. Don't state your preconceived misunderstandings as if they're facts.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I'm arguing in good faith in this topic. I'd like for you to point out the issue with any of my arguments.

As for limp-bizkit-89 and his comment...

None of these things are true about me. Don't state your preconceived misunderstandings as if they're facts.

oh youre not MAGA? Come one


---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Just some things to note here.

1. Telling police you are "not someone to fuck with" then taking your gun out and putting it on display is criminal menacing. In Texas, it would at least fall under probable cause to arrest under Deadly Conduct or Aggravated Assault. This is an unprovoked escalation from the suspect. No, police conducting a legal investigation into a reckless driving call is not "escalation". They have a legal right to conduct their investigation.
2. It looks like police remained on the sidewalk until the suspect took out his gun. It's also probably about this point when the police grabbed the bean bagger.
3. Inconspicuous edit at 2:02 where some exchange just seems to vanish. Doesn't seem particularly transparent of the video uploader.
4. Police did try to de-escalate. They tried to ask him his name, they tried to tell him they just wanted to talk, ect. They kept a calm tone and a safe distance. They did not start shooting when they first saw the gun and calmly told him to put it down.
5. Another inconspicuous edit at 2:20 right when the suspect begins to yell at the police again. Hmm. I'm guessing they didn't edit out sections where the suspect is trying to reasonably explain himself. If he is making actionable threats to police during these edited periods it would mean the justification for an Aggravated Assault charge is a sure thing.
6. There is several seconds after the suspect gets shot with a bean bag where he is clearly aware he was not shot with a bullet, then draws his gun, says again "I'm not a motherfucker you want to fuck with", and starts approaching them with his gun drawn. Several seconds. This was not a "bang-bang" situation. The suspect did not try to retreat. The suspect did not obey police orders. The suspect approached police officers with a gun with the obvious intent to shoot at them while his wife pleaded with him not to.
7. Being shot with a bean bag by police does not give you a legal right to self-defense against police. You do not have a legal right to self-defense against police except under the absolutely most specific circumstances. This is not one of them. Police are clearly detaining this man for questioning. After he begins to criminally menace, they are allowed to order him to drop the weapon and put his hands up, then arrest him. You have to cooperate with police. Does that make your skin tingle? Guess what, you have to do all kinds of things in society. It's just how it works. We draw the lines at certain things and call it "freedom". The right to criminally menace with a firearm then disobey police after is not one of those things.
8. As an aside, drawing a gun on police is always the worst thing you could ever do. Even if you are in a shoot out with police. Even if you have already been shot by police. It is never the right move. Your gun does not make you safe. Asking civilians not to draw guns on police, attack police, or run away from police is not asking for a higher standards from civilians. It's literally asking for the bare minimum. And I can't stress this enough. It's literally the bare minimum standards not to shoot at, attack, or run away from police. No, that doesn't justify every police shooting. But it is an indictment into how absolutely fucking stupid you need to be to try this. It doesn't work. You will get hurt or die or go to prison for 20 years, and also lose any right to compensation through our justice system. Your fate is always going to be worse than if you just comply. Stop encouraging this kind of behavior. Stop treating these people like heroes. It does a disservice to those who lose their life to blatant police abuse and it encourages more fool-hardy idiots to try the same thing.

This was a good read.

---

limp-bizkit-89 posted...

oh youre not MAGA? Come one

I would vote for Trump again based on his policies. That does not make me a "cultist," nor does it mean that I am a racist. Painting every Trump voter with a broad brush is reductive and unhelpful.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

limp-bizkit-89 posted...

oh youre not MAGA? Come one

I would vote for Trump again based on his policies. That does not make me a "cultist," nor does it mean that I am a racist. Painting every Trump voter with a broad brush is reductive and unhelpful.

reductive and unhelpful are just two ways to describe Trump voters.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

reductive and unhelpful are just two ways to describe Trump voters.

It definitely describes your post.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I would vote for Trump again based on his policies. That does not make me a "cultist," nor does it mean that I am a racist. Painting every Trump voter with a broad brush is reductive and unhelpful.

You can't genuinely argue in good faith that anyone voting the republican party isn't racist. They do racist things and if you support them through votes you support those racist things meaning you're racist.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

reductive and unhelpful are just two ways to describe Trump voters.

It definitely describes your post.

that's too bad. I failed in directing you to self awareness, so it must not have been very helpful after all.

oh well.
---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

You can't genuinely argue in good faith that anyone voting the republican party isn't racist. They do racist things and if you support them through votes you support those racist things meaning you're racist.

Vote Democrat or you're racist. A winning strategy.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I would vote for Trump again based on his policies. That does not make me a "cultist," nor does it mean that I am a racist. Painting every Trump voter with a broad brush is reductive and unhelpful.

That's what they all say.....

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I would vote for Trump again based on his policies. That does not make me a "cultist," nor does it mean that I am a racist. Painting every Trump voter with a broad brush is reductive and unhelpful.

lmao

here is an analogy of how our interaction went, @Gobstoppers12 :

me: but you meow and shed hair and have claws
you: no, not at all
me: arent you a cat?
you: yes


---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

would vote for Trump again based on his policies

ah yes, his inclusive, non-racist, not-anti-science policies

---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

You can't genuinely argue in good faith that anyone voting the republican party isn't racist

I absolutely can. Perspective is important here. Also, the exact definition and parameters of "racism."

A policy that affects one group more than another group is not automatically a racist policy, for example, if the policy has merit for reasons other than those pertaining to race.

---

limp-bizkit-89 posted...

me: but you meow and shed hair and have claws
you: no, not at all
me: arent you a cat?
you: yes

This would be true if you were correct about the people you're referring to. What you have actually done is prove that you do not understand the people who voted for Trump and are unwilling to acknowledge any variance within the voting block because you have written them all off as adhering to the most unflattering stereotypes.

---

So does a thread about cops shooting a black man always devolve into being about Trump ?

because Trump fanned the flames of police brutality/overreach, so he'll almost always be referenced at some point.
---

WingsOfGood posted...

So does a thread about cops shooting a black man always devolve into being about Trump ?

Only when a reasonable argument about the law, use of force standards, and rights regarding detainment somehow manages to attract a bunch of people calling me a racist Trump supporter.

Don't look at me. I wasn't the one to change the subject.

---

Second amendment does not mean shit if you're a black man

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

you have written them all off as adhering to the most unflattering

I mean, if you vote for a man who supports neo Nazis and white supremacists... doesn't matter why you're voting for them, you're voting for a racist.

There isn't a "compromise" to be found there.

---

jimbiz posted...

Second amendment does not mean shit if you're a black man

I still don't know how a black person exercising their 2nd Amendment rights is supposed to respond when a cop pulls them over and asks "Do you have a weapon?"

If you tell the truth, you could get shot. Even as you're assuring them you're not reaching for the weapon, even with your hands clearly visible.

If you lie, they end up searching the car, and the find it? Ohh boy.

So what options are there in that situation?

---

Umbreon posted...

So what options are there in that situation?

"Yes, I have a weapon. It is located in (x location), would you please disarm me?"

---

some people will do anything to justify a police killing, especially if the victim is black. not surprised to see who exactly is defending them in here

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

"Yes, I have a weapon. It is located in (x location), would you please disarm me?"

*still gets shot*

---

Why aren't civilians allowed to exercise their rights and act just human around cops?

---

mcpwnia posted...

some people will do anything to justify a police killing, especially if the victim is black. not surprised to see who exactly is defending them in here

1.) He didn't die.

2.) He made threats, he approached the officers with hostility, he was given numerous lawful orders to stop and to drop his weapon, and he was hit with a beanbag round to attempt to neutralize him. He chose to ignore every instruction, then verbally challenged the police, and then started shooting at them.

Do you even know what you're defending, here?

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

1.) He didn't die.

2.) He made threats, he approached the officers with hostility, he was given numerous lawful orders to stop and to drop his weapon, and he was hit with a beanbag round to attempt to neutralize him. He chose to ignore every instruction, then verbally challenged the police, and then started shooting at them.

Do you even know what you're defending, here?

He's just human, man. Humans get scared in high pressure situations. Should he just sit there and wait for cops to kill him?

---

hockeybub89 posted...

He's just human, man. Humans get scared in high pressure situations. Should he just sit there and wait for cops to kill him?

Now now, untrained civilians shouldn't panic just because they're being shot at. Leave the panicking to the people with guns who outnumber you and received training.

They have extra privileges, that means they need less responsibility.

For some reason.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

He's just human, man. Humans get scared in high pressure situations. Should he just sit there and wait for cops to kill him?

When cops get scared its a mockery

dur fear for his life

but its okay to get scared, pull out a gun, and shoot at cops

---