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

(+) Yeah! (+)

shnangyboos posted...

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

I mean, it's not my fault your country decided that having shitty and shittier as the only 2 options was the ideal way to go.

---

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?

He wasn't doing any of it because he was scared. He was the one threatening them and disobeying numerous lawful orders to stand down and put his gun down.

This narrative that any encounter with police should be resisted is only going to feed more situations like this.

---

shnangyboos posted...

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

Biden told black people theyre not black if they dont vote for him.

I dont know if that helped or not, but he did win.

---

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.

Very well said. More people need to see this.

The question is, do I want to read through this topic to see how pathetic the cop sympathisers are yet again?

Nah, probably not

---

darkprince45 posted...

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

So can everyone get scared, or no one? Civilians should definitely be the ones if we have to pick.

This is the part where you imply I think cops should get murdered by awful criminals, when I'm clearly just pointing out a double standard that puts the onus on the less trained and stable party in most situations.

---

lol @ darkprince

Look at how he phrases the context of the video, the man is fired upon and returns fire therefore he is the jittery one

even though 3 cops showed up at his house to accost him

---

sad that darkprince will defend the cops no matter what at all costs, even with video evidence

---

ncsonic posted...

sad that darkprince will defend the cops no matter what at all costs, even with video evidence

Video evidence that contains zero wrong-doing on the part of the police? Yeah, I would defend them in that case, too.

---

ncsonic posted...

lol @ darkprince

Look at how he phrases the context of the video, the man is fired upon and returns fire therefore he is the jittery one

even though 3 cops showed up at his house to accost him

fired upon once with a beanbag means take out a gun and start shooting? If so lol at you then

---

pinky0926 posted...

The question is, do I want to read through this topic to see how pathetic the cop sympathisers are yet again?

Nah, probably not

Pretty pathetic to defend a man pulling out a gun shooting cops because he was beanbagged for being violent, after being detained of suspicion of drunk driving

imo, but I know the gimmick of blind cop hate is real here

---

It seems fairly unlikely that he knew they were shooting beanbags. From his perspective the cops shot first and he shot back

---

eston posted...

It seems fairly unlikely that he knew they were shooting beanbags. From his perspective the cops shot first and he shot back

But thats wrong. Regardless. You cant shoot cops during a lawful investigation. Like thats it. Thats the point. Theres no self-defense case. Thats what this board doesnt understand. This isnt, armed burglars are inside your house stealing your shit. This is police investigating you for suspicion of drunk and reckless. You cant resist with a firearm

---

eston posted...

It seems fairly unlikely that he knew they were shooting beanbags.

He absolutely knew they were telling him to stop making threats and calm down, though. It's not like he was in a split-second situation where he was caught by complete surprise and had no chance to think his actions through.

He made the conscious choice to escalate the encounter by stepping off his porch against instructions. He was hit with a beanbag, then he just started shooting.

Why are you defending this man for making every wrong decision?

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

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.

@Gobstoppers12 lmao did you see the 1/6 attackers and the GOP lawmakers defending them? Its not a stereotype its a reality


---

darkprince45 posted...

But thats wrong. Regardless. You cant shoot cops during a lawful investigation. Like thats it. Thats the point. Theres no self-defense case. Thats what this board doesnt understand. This isnt, armed burglars are inside your house stealing your shit. This is police investigating you for suspicion of drunk and reckless. You cant resist with a firearm

they shot first, therefore it's self-defense. did he make a motion to attack? you seem to think just walking forward is attacking so your opinion seems invalid in this case

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Why are you defending this man for making every wrong decision?

Because I believe the police made a lot of wrong decisions in this situation, and criticizing them does not mean I think the homeowner did everything right

---

KnightofShikari posted...

they shot first, therefore it's self-defense. did he make a motion to attack? you seem to think just walking forward is attacking so your opinion seems invalid in this case

Dude. There is no self defense case. If police use less lethal force on you, you cant start grabbing a gun and shooting backed holy fuck. Why does nobody understand. Ive explained it multiple times. Thats not an opinion its a fucking law

as said earlier please look up use of force models. In my department, it would be approved to use a beanbag or taser if a subject would simply ball his fists up and say Im gonna fight you and then took a step forward like that, the INTENT to commit the crime hes saying is currently being committed

---

darkprince45 posted...

Dude. There is no self defense case. If police use less lethal force on you, you cant start grabbing a gun and shooting backed holy fuck. Why does nobody understand. Ive explained it multiple times. Thats not an opinion its a fucking law

how does one determine in a split second if they are using less lethal force? how much training does a civilian need to determine between a bean bag round and a regular round? please tell me how police can be allowed to escalate a situation so poorly and yet still have so many defenders

---

KnightofShikari posted...

you seem to think just walking forward is attacking

After making threats and defying instructions while holding a weapon, walking forward is definitely an act of aggression.

---

KnightofShikari posted...

how does one determine in a split second if they are using less lethal force? how much training does a civilian need to determine between a bean bag round and a regular round? please tell me how police can be allowed to escalate a situation so poorly and yet still have so many defenders

do you know what the answer is? To realize you were followed home driving reckless and possibly drunk. So cooperate with officers calmly?


---

darkprince45 posted...

do you know what the answer is? To realize you were followed home driving reckless and possibly drunk. So cooperate with officers calmly?

dodging the question i see

---

KnightofShikari posted...

dodging the question i see

What was you question? Its irrelevant. Whatever he was hit with does not give him the legal right to start a Wild West shoot out. Thats what you keep failing to understand and why hes charged with 3 felonies

---

KnightofShikari posted...

how does one determine in a split second if they are using less lethal force?

If it gets to this point, you already fucked up. It's definitely not the time to draw your gun and try to take the officers down with you, even if you think you've been shot. If you think you've been shot with a gun, fucking surrender and ask for medical attention.

He clearly had some kind of death wish. Or too much testosterone. Something is definitely wrong when you get hit with a beanbag round and your reaction is to start shooting in retaliation.

---

I thought this was called in. Why would the police follow a suspected drunk driver back to his house instead of pulling him over?

Or for that matter, why would you knock on the man's door to "investigate" reckless driving?

---

darkprince45 posted...

What was you question? Its irrelevant. Whatever he was hit with does not give him the legal right to start a Wild West shoot out. Thats what you keep failing to understand and why hes charged with 3 felonies

you specified that you can't fire back when being attacked by less lethal rounds. is there a reason you had to specify that? is there a reason you think that you can't defend yourself from cops who may be in the wrong?

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

If it gets to this point, you already fucked up. It's definitely not the time to draw your gun and try to take the officers down with you, even if you think you've been shot. If you think you've been shot with a gun, fucking surrender and ask for medical attention.

He clearly had some kind of death wish. Or too much testosterone. Something is definitely wrong when you get hit with a beanbag round and your reaction is to start shooting in retaliation.

i'm sure with all the past events that have surrounded black men and cops that shot them, they'll be sure to give stop firing right away and get them medical attention in a timely manner. sure sure sure

---

Also I would just like to point out that our resident cop's "guilty until proven innocent" approach to this entire topic is very alarming

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

If it gets to this point, you already fucked up. It's definitely not the time to draw your gun and try to take the officers down with you, even if you think you've been shot. If you think you've been shot with a gun, fucking surrender and ask for medical attention.

He clearly had some kind of death wish. Or too much testosterone. Something is definitely wrong when you get hit with a beanbag round and your reaction is to start shooting in retaliation.

Reminder that they thought this man was drunk when they started shooting at him

---

KnightofShikari posted...

you specified that you can't fire back when being attacked by less lethal rounds. is there a reason you had to specify that? is there a reason you think that you can't defend yourself from cops who may be in the wrong?

Because you cant escalate being with a beanbag to Im going to start a gun Wild West shoot out.. Um, BECAUSE YOU CANT IN THIS CASE. Every case is different, if a random cop just started blindly shooting in a mall trying to kill people, yes you can apply self defense.

Theres such thing as self defense when you are a violent aggressor being detained by a police officer conducting an investigation on YOU

reads like this
law that prohibits resisting arrest and obstructing police from carrying out their duties. Resisting police is a felony if firearms or other dangerous weapons are used.

---

KnightofShikari posted...

i'm sure with all the past events that have surrounded black men and cops that shot them, they'll be sure to give stop firing right away and get them medical attention in a timely manner. sure sure sure

Regardless of your steaming-hot takes regarding the lawfulness of returning fire against the police, you have to understand that it is absolutely never the right call to use a weapon against the officers trying to arrest you.

There is roughly a zero percent chance that you're going to win the shootout, for starters. This means that using your gun nearly guarantees that you're going to wind up in the hospital or dead. Even if, by some miracle, you win the shootout, well then you've just murdered 3+ police officers and you're fucked on charges anyway.

There is absolutely no good outcome in this situation. If you attempt to justify "self defense" on behalf of a reckless driver who waved a gun and threatened police, then I will be forced to write you off entirely from this argument, because that is patently absurd.

---

eston posted...

Reminder that they thought this man was drunk when they started shooting at him

You mean they thought he was drunk when he was armed and walking toward them? Yeah, I would imagine that's an excellent reason to deploy a beanbag round to try to dissuade him from coming any closer. You never know what a crazy person is going to do next. You want to try to stop him from doing something stupid--you know, something stupid like firing a handgun at the police.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

You mean they thought he was drunk when he was armed and walking toward them? Yeah, I would imagine that's an excellent reason to deploy a beanbag round to try to dissuade him from coming any closer. You never know what a crazy person is going to do next. You want to try to stop him from doing something stupid--you know, something stupid like firing a handgun at the police.

Good to see that you missed the point entirely

---

darkprince45 posted...

Because you cant escalate being with a beanbag to Im going to start a gun Wild West shoot out.. Um, BECAUSE YOU CANT IN THIS CASE. Every case is different, if a random cop just started blindly shooting in a mall trying to kill people, yes you can apply self defense.

Theres such thing as self defense when you are a violent aggressor being detained by a police officer conducting an investigation on YOU

reads like this
law that prohibits resisting arrest and obstructing police from carrying out their duties. Resisting police is a felony if firearms or other dangerous weapons are used.

still trying in vain to say the cops were in the clear when they escalated the situation well before they should have. did he raise his gun? no. all he did was walk ONE DAMN STEP FORWARD. did he have his gun in his hand? NO. unless they thought he was quick draw mcgraw and could shoot all the rounds from his big iron in less than a second he was no threat to the cops at that moment. but the cops FIRED upon him when he wasn't a clear threat

---

Saying you have a gun, threatening violence and then walking towards cops after doing such. Means a beanbag he was shot with is completely justified. Already explained this he very clearly is a threat, bizarre you think otherwise. Did you watch the video?

---

eston posted...

Good to see that you missed the point entirely

I don't think the point you're making is the point you think you're making. When somebody is acting in a threatening manner and with disregard for lawful orders while armed with a gun, it isn't the time to de-escalate. Crazy people do crazy shit, and they do it quickly. It isn't like a movie where there's a writer who's meticulously putting the pieces into place so that the story works out well for everybody in the end--reality doesn't work that way.

In reality, a guy with a gun who makes threats sometimes just explodes at complete fucking random and starts carrying the threat out. Officers can be shot within one second of a subject drawing his gun. It is literally life or death every single second when an unruly suspect is armed with a weapon. In that context, any act of aggression warrants an immediate response.

Being drunk doesn't make somebody harmless. It removes their inhibitions. It often makes a person much more dangerous. Why should his state of intoxication have any bearing on whether or not the police take appropriate measures to detain and subdue him?

Something tells me you're approaching this from the position of an optimist who thinks that drunk people are just talking to talk and don't actually ever do anything dangerous. It would be nice if that were the case, but it isn't.

---

eston posted...

I thought this was called in. Why would the police follow a suspected drunk driver back to his house instead of pulling him over?

Or for that matter, why would you knock on the man's door to "investigate" reckless driving?

This isn't a game of tag. Just because someone got home doesn't mean they are free from criminal investigation.

---

KnightofShikari posted...

how does one determine in a split second if they are using less lethal force? how much training does a civilian need to determine between a bean bag round and a regular round? please tell me how police can be allowed to escalate a situation so poorly and yet still have so many defenders

... It wasn't a split second. The dude got hit, drew his gun, yelled at police, walked around his car while his wife pleaded with him not to. Total time was something like 8 or 9 seconds. Then the real shooting starts.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Something tells me you're approaching this from the position of an optimist who thinks that drunk people are just talking to talk and don't actually ever do anything dangerous. It would be nice if that were the case, but it isn't.

You said a whole lot words just to make excuses for the police needlessly escalating an already tense situation. I am approaching this conversation from the position of an optimist who thinks our police can and should do better than this.

---

Police showed up, kept a pretty damn far distance for safety. Utilizing cover and concealment. Spoke calmly to the guy the entire time. Until the suspect finally started to act on his threats. Then police used a less lethal option first. Police actually did well and restrained themselves from a violent person

---

Monolith1676 posted...

This isn't a game of tag. Just because someone got home doesn't mean they are free from criminal investigation.

But at that point what are you investigating? Even if the guy answers the door shitfaced drunk, it's not illegal to be drunk in your home and they can't prove he was driving in that state. It makes no sense they would go to a man's home to "investigate" reckless driving, that's nonsense

---

eston posted...

I am approaching this conversation from the position of an optimist who thinks our police can and should do better than this.

What would you have proposed? Just wait and see what he did after stepping off his porch making threats and challenging the officers? If it were anything other than a life or death situation, maybe you'd have a point. Do you understand that everybody involved is a human being and only has one life to live?

I don't understand why you think the police should put themselves at the mercy of a potentially drunk guy with a gun and a bad attitude. We already know he was willing to die in a shootout with the police, because his first reaction to being hit with a beanbag was to open fire. He was ready and willing to murder those officers.

---

eston posted...

But at that point what are you investigating? Even if the guy answers the door shitfaced drunk, it's not illegal to be drunk in your home and they can't prove he was driving in that state. It makes no sense they would go to a man's home to "investigate" reckless driving, that's nonsense

you can 100 percent make an arrest. Especially if a witness saw him. What happened is police got there as he was pulling up and quickly got out the car and tried to go in his house. So its even better case for police

i had a guy drive drunk and leave his car on the curb he clipped and run home. One witness saw him. I showed up to his house, talked him, and eventually developed probable cause to arrest him. The crime just doesnt disappear because youre home safe

---

eston posted...

it's not illegal to be drunk in your home and they can't prove he was driving in that state.

You can prove somebody was driving without catching them in the car. Witness testimony, surveillance footage, the suspect's own words, etc.

Investigations exist for a reason. Why do you so badly want people to get away with dangerous behaviors like drunk driving and armed menacing?

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

What would you have proposed? Just wait and see what he did after stepping off his porch making threats and challenging the officers?

Leave and get a warrant if that option was even possible.
If it wasn't too bad.

And ironically the same is said of the man. Had he just went in his house this likely never happened.

Why did he do this? I bet he has been harassed before.

WingsOfGood posted...

Why did he do this? I bet he has been harassed before.

Why did he do it? Because he was unstable. Whether in the moment or all the time, he felt like being a 'badass' and threatening the police. If it's 'harassment' to be investigated for a crime, then maybe he should stop putting himself in compromising positions to be investigated. One thing is for sure--if the police show up to investigate you, you're definitely not doing yourself any favors by making threats. There is no excuse for it. I don't care how many times you've been 'harassed' (which seems like a weird red herring for you to throw into the debate), it is never the correct move to threaten and belligerently disobey the police.

WingsOfGood posted...

Leave and get a warrant

You don't really know how these things work, do you? You don't need a warrant if there's probable cause. A warrant and probable cause essentially serve the same purpose in an investigation. It's the difference between collecting evidence which leads you to a conclusion (hence getting approval to make an arrest based on collected evidence) or having enough information right in front of you to make the arrest on the spot.

In this case, even without any reckless driving added in, the menacing and disorderly conduct charges should be plenty to make an arrest.

---

They need a warrant if he goes in the house. He was at his doorstep and told them to go away.
Should been obvious he wasn't going to answer any questions and he even has a right to silence.

So even a cop who thinks this is a legal detainment should realize the best case scenario for everyone is to obey the property owner's request to leave and get a warrant if indeed there was actual reason to question and detain him.

Problem is this was basically like two idiots in high school with wounded pride. Leaving when someone is yelling at you and you feel you are in the right takes a big and intelligent man.
Police should be trained to be that kind of man and yet we find they are not.

In the end this was bad for both parties as both got fired upon.
Both parties had an easy way out but the irony is the blame is put on a citizen and not highly trained police.

Infact, the "witness" being there in the line of fire was very bad, and yet the cops escalated by firing a bean bag while that "witness" was there.
Absolutely ignorant.

WingsOfGood posted...

Should been obvious he wasn't going to answer any questions and he even has a right to silence.

He has a right to silence, but he doesn't have the right to actively impede an investigation. He definitely doesn't have the right to shout orders from his porch.

WingsOfGood posted...

obey the property owner's request to leave

Yeah, because somebody who's under suspicion of a crime should be the one deciding when the police leave the property or not. I don't know the sort of people you deal with on a regular basis doing whatever it is you do, but in my area, if somebody's telling the police to leave, it's because they have something they need to hide.

WingsOfGood posted...

Leaving when someone is yelling at you and you feel you are in the right takes a big and intelligent man.
Police should be trained to be that kind of man and yet we find they are not.

So what you're saying here is that police should always back down when a suspect tells them to back down? What kind of environment would this create? "Be the bigger man, let me destroy the incriminating evidence before you come back."

WingsOfGood posted...

but the irony is the blame is put on a citizen

The guy got hit with a beanbag, looked around, realized he wasn't hurt, then went on the attack with his gun in hand. He had every opportunity to calm down and address the situation like a reasonable human being, but he decided to get more and more agitated and aggressive until he just said "fuck it, I'm okay with dying over this shit."

It's on him. Only on him. He had an obligation to obey lawful orders and refused. He then made things much, much worse. His wife/girlfriend/whoever was trying to get him to calm down, but he ignored her.

---

All your post reeks of is wounded pride.

A calm and calculating mind that didn't care about his authority being challenged but rather what is the best case for all involved would absolutely have left.

The wife even came out to prove it was the man's house. And the door being open he only had to take one step and the cops needed a warrant anyways.

So him standing there one foot away from being out of their reach saying he isn't gonna cooperate with answering questions, he has a gun, don't mess with him, there being an innocent in the line of fire if things go sour...

For the police, they absolutely should heed his request to leave his property. If there was a reason to get a warrant do so and come back and the man could even be in a better mood then.

But this takes actually considering the situtation and not getting upset when your authority is questioned.

But notice what makes you dislike this

Gobstoppers12 posted...

doesn't have the right to shout orders from his porch.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

should be the one deciding when the police leave the property or not.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

So what you're saying here is that police should always back down when a suspect tells them to back down?

You literally have no concern that if a shootout occurs the witness civilian might get shot in the crossfire.
Infact the wife in the house is at risk as well when cops shoot. Might even be kids.

But oh my, he told us what to do!!! Can't have that!