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

(+) Yeah! (+)

WingsOfGood posted...

You literally have no concern that if a shootout occurs the witness civilian might get shot in the crossfire.

Blame falls on the suspect for that. He was the one who made it a firefight. He clearly wasn't hurt badly enough by the beanbag to hinder him at all. It was practically a warning shot. He stood there, contemplated, and made a conscious decision to start a firefight. He even went for his truck to get behind it and shoot from cover. It wasn't some desperate attempt to preserve his own life; he was angry and wanted to kill a police officer.

The video linked in the reddit post also has qualifying text written on it that is clearly, clearly biased in favor of the suspect. It isn't an objective assessment of the situation in any way, shape, or form.

---

Blame falls on those who could have just left when the man obviously wasn't going to answer any questions.

Infact, if this went the other way it would have gone like this:

1. Man screams, says go away

2. Cops sit there for awhile screaming back

3. After an hour man just turns and steps into his house

4. Police have to get a warrant anyways.

See, there is no reason to sit there as a cop. Either the man is just gonna go in the house and you need to get a warrant anyways, or it will turn into a firefight.

Why stay when the dude repeatedly said he will not cooperate?
You really think he just gonna change his mind?

But yea, he is also to blame for not stepping in the house, but cops really need to be held to a higher standard. Even with this, bigger blame is theirs.

But see, firefight option was absolutely stupid seeing there is a witness who followed him and wife in the house.

WingsOfGood posted...

Blame falls on those who could have just left when the man obviously wasn't going to answer any questions.

"Darn, he doesn't want to talk. I guess that's that."

Even if they paused to get a warrant, they would still stake out his house and make sure he didn't leave. And there's a reasonable chance they could pursue without a warrant if they believed he was a threat--which, in the case of his threats and shouting, he definitely could have been seen as a threat to himself or others.

I took this off a random law firm website just for reference:

"They may be able to make a warrantless arrest if there are circumstances that make getting a warrant impractical. Known as exigent circumstances, these situations can involve:

1. A police officer in pursuit of a suspect who enters a home or apartment

In this case, the officer wouldnt be able to get a warrant in time. They would need to stop the chase, which would allow the suspect to get away. The police must be in hot pursuit of the suspect. In other words, the police must follow the suspect into the home.

2. An officer believes someone inside a home is in danger or that evidence will be destroyed

This is referred to as exigent circumstances. If someone inside a home is in imminent danger, a police officer shouldnt have to wait for a warrant. In order to prevent immediate harm, the law allows the officer to enter the home and arrest the suspect. This can also be applied to a situation where evidence might be destroyed.

3. Someone lets the officer into the home

Although its unlikely for a suspect to welcome a police officer into their home, someone else in the residence could do so. In this situation, the officer does not need a warrant. The person inviting the officer into the home must have the legal right to do so."

---

DP already said they won't break down his door, they need a warrant.

But my point is, they saw the gun, he said "yep i got a gun, get off my property don't fuck with me"

At this moment it should not have been protect ourselves and our authority but to deescalate to get the witness out of the fire line and consider the wife too.

And the way to deescalate was clear. Leave as the man requests. If needed, return with a warrant when the witness is not there in the line of fire.

WingsOfGood posted...

But my point is, they saw the gun, he said "yep i got a gun, get off my property don't fuck with me"

At that point, he's a danger to himself or others because he's making threats. That's when you absolutely do not leave the scene. Leaving the scene after somebody has made a threat with a weapon is just asking for something bad to happen once you take your eyes off him.

---

And another thing. If they had left due to his request, highly possible his mood change not just because a different time, but he sees they respect his rights enough to take this route and come back later.
Also, warrant might mean more to the man who whether you wanna argue about it or not, thinks he is on his own property and has the right to tell them to leave.
But warrant says that he cannot anymore and he likely be more cooperative.

But again, this takes a highly trained person.

WingsOfGood posted...

But warrant says that he cannot anymore and he likely be more cooperative.

You really think a guy screaming at the police from his porch is going to be more cooperative when they come at him with a warrant?

WingsOfGood posted...

But again, this takes a highly trained person.

You keep saying things as if you have some kind of expertise or experience with the issue, but you really don't seem to understand how these situations work. You think that your assessment is the true and correct one, and that the police "need more training" to meet your standards of behavior...but actually, you're just wrong and you're playing the role of criminal apologist.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

You really think a guy screaming at the police from his porch is going to be more cooperative when they come at him with a warrant?

So you made it in your head he would not cooperate.
What then does shouting back at him do? The intent is to sit on his property until ???
Until what? What is the end goal when it is clear he refuses to cooperate and can just take one step and be beyond your reach.

Sounds like a waste of time.

WingsOfGood posted...

So you made it in your head he would not cooperate.

You made it in your head that he would. Evidence suggests he would not, given he grew more and more combative, not less, over time.

WingsOfGood posted...

Until what? What is the end goal when it is clear he refuses to cooperate and can just take one step and be beyond your reach.

The idea is to ask him questions and conduct the investigation. Maybe they hoped his wife/girlfriend/whoever would help to calm him down, maybe they thought he would come to his senses after a bit. But once he started making threats, it was no longer an option to just leave him be. That's a crime, you know.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

You made it in your head that he would. Evidence suggests he would not, given he grew more and more combative, not less, over time.

I did not.
I said he might. But it is obvious dude constantly shouting go away in that moment isn't cooperating and he has the right of silence so....

people would respond much better to the police if they stopped overreaching. they produced no warrant and the owner asked them to leave. reckless driving? that man was home. what proof did they have? if they had caught him driving recklessly, they should have pulled him over on the road. now they're on his property talking about alleged traffic infractions, lolololol.

the smart thing for the man to do would be just to close and lock the door, BUT he was within his Rights still. dumb but not wrong. Officer Ego P. Overreach should have respected that man's wishes and honored his Rights.

reminds me of that video where a man was standing on his own porch and the police drew their guns on him and demanded he go in the house. Rights are Rights, bottom line. the police don't get to void your Rights on a whim and people who cherry pick are pieces of shit.
---

darkprince doing God's work

---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

BUT he was within his Rights still.

You never have the right to start making threats of violence against the police. A lot of people in this topic are forgetting that.

WingsOfGood posted...

But it is obvious dude constantly shouting go away in that moment isn't cooperating and he has the right if silence so....

He has the right to remain silent. He does not have the right to resist arrest or make threats.

---

Mr Hanky, can you quote the threat?
---

Due to police tendency to shoot, probably best to just g9 inside and lock the door until they leave.

Idk if can call the cops on cops

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

people would respond much better to the police if they stopped overreaching. they produced no warrant and the owner asked them to leave. reckless driving? that man was home. what proof did they have? if they had caught him driving recklessly, they should have pulled him over on the road. now they're on his property talking about alleged traffic infractions, lolololol.

Yep

remember back in the day traffic violations got you a citation? now they're making home visits. Hell, they might as well give rides to the court house for the hearing if they're doing that. why show up just to show out? Lol be useful.
---

The thing that gets me is that after all is said and done, it does not appear he was charged with any traffic crime. So where did that crime go? Isn't that what this whole thing was about?

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Mr Hanky, can you quote the threat?

"This ain't a *bleep* you wanna *bleep* with. You can pull up with all the cops you want. This is not a *bleep* you wanna pull up."

While the officer is telling him to put his gun down, "Nah, nah, I ain't putting *bleep* down."

Then he starts stepping off the porch, gesturing, making demands. He's told to get on the ground. He refuses. Consciously he refuses. Then his wife comes out and wants to know what's happening, and he starts yelling and clapping "You *bleep* with the wrong *bleep* people."

He is kind of hard to understand after that, but he seems to be yelling about how he's going to "tear your *bleep* up."

After that, there's a conspicuous edit that cuts him off. Presumably he said something the uploader didn't want us to hear. He starts to clap again, then there's another edit. We don't know what he says there, either. I assume based on the biased text in the corner that it was another thing the uploader didn't want us to hear.

Then he starts screaming and pointing. "Shut up. Shut yo white *bleep* up." So he's a racist, too, which is a lovely trait. Really a five-star individual you're all defending here. His wife is telling him to calm down. At this point he's fucking screaming at the police to get off his property. And then he steps off the porch. Keep in mind he has a gun on his person at this time.

The officers fire a few beanbag rounds at him to try to keep him from approaching. At which point he moves behind his truck while his wife starts screaming and runs inside. He opens fire on the police, still making belligerent comments about how he's "not a mother*bleep*er you wanna deal with." He was fully aware of his actions. There was no panic.

He was taking up a tactical position to try to commit murder of a police officer. He was duly hit by several rounds, and then the officers on the scene administered medical attention and had him taken to the hospital.

---

Yep, violent mentally unhinged person all the way. Crazy what this board defends to just stick it to the cops in some ill perceived moral victory

---

darkphoenix181 posted...

The thing that gets me is that after all is said and done, it does not appear he was charged with any traffic crime. So where did that crime go? Isn't that what this whole thing was about?

They tend to drop lower charges, well, once you got 3 other felony charges lol

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Mr Hanky, can you quote the threat?

"This ain't a *bleep* you wanna *bleep* with. You can pull up with all the cops you want. This is not a *bleep* you wanna pull up."

While the officer is telling him to put his gun down, "Nah, nah, I ain't putting *bleep* down."

Then he starts stepping off the porch, gesturing, making demands. He's told to get on the ground. He refuses. Consciously he refuses. Then his wife comes out and wants to know what's happening, and he starts yelling and clapping "You *bleep* with the wrong *bleep* people."

He is kind of hard to understand after that, but he seems to be yelling about how he's going to "tear your *bleep* up."

After that, there's a conspicuous edit that cuts him off. Presumably he said something the uploader didn't want us to hear. He starts to clap again, then there's another edit. We don't know what he says there, either. I assume based on the biased text in the corner that it was another thing the uploader didn't want us to hear.

Then he starts screaming and pointing. "Shut up. Shut yo white *bleep* up." So he's a racist, too, which is a lovely trait. Really a five-star individual you're all defending here. His wife is telling him to calm down. At this point he's fucking screaming at the police to get off his property. And then he steps off the porch. Keep in mind he has a gun on his person at this time.

The officers fire a few beanbag rounds at him to try to keep him from approaching. At which point he moves behind his truck while his wife starts screaming and runs inside. He opens fire on the police, still making belligerent comments about how he's "not a mother*bleep*er you wanna deal with." He was fully aware of his actions. There was no panic.

He was taking up a tactical position to try to commit murder of a police officer. He was duly hit by several rounds, and then the officers on the scene administered medical attention and had him taken to the hospital.

making demands to leave one's property =/= a threat. failure to do so implied the police were there to escalate.

telling police that he's not interested in interacting with them =/= not a threat. he communicated his point clearly. further attempts with this man only serves to escalate.

warning police that he's not to be messed with =/= not a threat. he's lawfully standing his ground.

the police threatened to shoot him and the man demanded they leave. he's clapping his hands with clearly nothing in them when they fired.

the man relocated positions and returned fire.

presumptions =/= proof.

FOH with your BS shitposting.
---

Wow post 373 is ass

---

darkprince45 posted...

Wow post 373 is ass

your gimmick is ass.

not just your gimmick though.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

your gimmick is ass.

not just your gimmick though.

The gimmick of being informed on laws and Supreme Court decisions and not my biased uninformed opinions and emotions . Yee
qq

---

the gimmick of bootlicking and swine-related cosplay.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

warning police that he's not to be messed with =/= not a threat

Even though that definitely constitutes a threat under the circumstances, I notice how you neglected the part about how he was going to "tear their *bleep* up"

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

he's clapping his hands with clearly nothing in them when they fired.

the man relocated positions and returned fire.

They fired a beanbag*. He relocated positions and opened fire with lethal ammunition.

Please don't try to dodge the details with vague implications to make your case seem stronger. You're selectively leaving out the most damning parts of the story and trying your absolute hardest to convey this violent man as nothing but a victim of circumstances. He's clearly got a personal vendetta against the police, and seemingly against white people too, hence "shut yo white *bleep* up."

So...at what point is it a threat? Is threatening to 'tear their *bleep* up' not a threat? Is refusing to drop his weapon after a lawful order not a threatening behavior? The police told him to disarm, and he refused. At that point he's dangerous. They told him to get on the ground. He refused again. At that point he's even more dangerous. He made the situation volatile by refusing to cooperate. He made hostile advancements and was screaming at the absolute top of his lungs before the beanbags were fired.

Then, even after checking himself and seeing that he wasn't really hurt, he just couldn't tolerate the wound to his pride so he decided to try to commit murder. The officers are lucky he was such a bad shot.

---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

the gimmick of bootlicking and swine-related cosplay.

pigs are smart animals and are cute

and I dont have to cosplay. Ive been injured from a car accident so Ive been plain clothes

---

no bigger details have been "dodged" outside of the fact that they're at this man's home, harassing him over an alleged traffic violations. let's not conveniently forget the root cause just so you can make a bad faith, intellectually dishonest "argument."

why were they at his home making unlawful interactions in the first place. start there.
---

he makes another good point. Everyone keeps saying, A SPLIT SECOND REACTION HOW IS HE SUPPOSED TO REACT.

The dude laid there, checked himself, saw he wasnt actually shot. Got up, took cover behind for a bit. Willingly pulls out a gun and starts blasting. All while his wife tells him multiple times to stop.

real self defense

---

Its already been said its not unlawful. You can 100 percent investigate drunk and reckless driving on someone at their drive way. Why do you keep saying this?

---

darkprince45 posted...

Its already been said its not unlawful. You can 100 percent investigate drunk and reckless driving on someone at their drive way. Why do you keep saying this?

where's the proof that he was reckless? you keep saying this with nothing to verify it with.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

unlawful interactions

Since you clearly don't understand what constitutes an 'unlawful interaction,' I am going to assume that you have no idea what constitutes a threat, nor a justifiable use of force. So at this point I have nothing to gain by continuing this argument with you.

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

no bigger details have been "dodged"

Is saying "I'm gonna tear your *bleep* up" not a threat? Is refusing to disarm yourself after a lawful order from a police officer not an escalation? Is saying "shut your white *bleep* up" not a racist statement? Address those things specifically if you want to be taken even remotely seriously here.

Also, remember to specify that the first shot was a beanbag round, not a lethal round. The first bullet fired was by the suspect, not an officer.

---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

where's the proof that he was reckless? you keep saying this with nothing to verify it with.

I guess you dont read a topic. He was called in as a drunk and reckless driver by a witness. The person reporting followed him home, police show up as hes in the driveway.

police have established at the BARE MINIMUM reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or will be committed. So are legally and lawfully able to attempt to conduct an investigation

the investigation never got anywhere because immediately the suspect goes bezerk. And why did he? Most likely because he is drunk.

if he wouldve been calm and talked to police. An actual investigation couldve taken place to determine what really happened

---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

let's not conveniently forget the root cause just so you can make a bad faith, intellectually dishonest "argument."

---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

let's not conveniently forget the root cause just so you can make a bad faith, intellectually dishonest "argument."

The root cause is that there was a witness who reported him for driving recklessly. That's a lawful reason to conduct an investigation, and it's not the silver bullet you seem to think it is. But, again, you don't seem to understand what you're talking about, so I don't think it's worth debating with you until you can come up with a coherent argument.

---

Why is this topic still a thing?

40% of the people replying ITT would defend the cops even if the other guy had been in a coma for the last 2 years and they showed up and said lets have some fun shooting him lol.

40% of the people replying ITT would have blamed the cops even if they had been rescuing a kitty stuck on a tree and the guy had said behold, I am here to shoot people and began shooting away.

that leaves the rest of us, the 20% absolutely puzzled and disgusted on how blindly people take teams and will defend certain stances no matter what

---

If you really read these clickbait topics and video. 99 percent of the posts here just go off on that nothing else without doing research.

So every 20 posts a typical user like pinky shows up to be mad that cops shot another unarmed person with a gun. Then we have the same question and answer with a different posters because nobody reads

---

limp-bizkit-89 posted...

Why is this topic still a thing?

40% of the people replying ITT would defend the cops even if the other guy had been in a coma for the last 2 years and they showed up and said lets have some fun shooting him lol.

40% of the people replying ITT would have blamed the cops even if they had been rescuing a kitty stuck on a tree and the guy had said behold, I am here to shoot people and began shooting away.

that leaves the rest of us, the 20% absolutely puzzled and disgusted on how blindly people take teams and will defend certain stances no matter what

the problem is.. I actually present case law, Supreme Court decisions, use of force policies, as to why everything was legal and lawful.

the other party is shutting their ears off without any proof or research and just screaming the cops are racist and unlawful

---

limp-bizkit-89 posted...

that leaves the rest of us, the 20% absolutely puzzled and disgusted on how blindly people take teams and will defend certain stances no matter what

Yeah...

limp-bizkit-89 posted...
your opinions are not exactly respected here anyway, I got you tagged as MAGA, nuff said.

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

Yeah, real unbiased there. Definitely not picking teams or anything.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Yeah, real unbiased there. Definitely not picking teams or anything.

interesting you assume the MAGA team are in one side necessarily.


---

"Police shouldn't try to detain and question potential criminals if the criminal might get violent".

Brilliant line of reasoning. I'm sure when you're driving on the road and someone blows through a stop light and nearly hits you, you're thinking "I sure hope police don't try to arrest that man because he might be violent!"

You don't fucking have a right to be violent with police. Police have a legally codified right to detain and question people. They did not violate a god damn right of this man. They stood on the sidewalk and tried to talk with him. Instead, the suspect tried to fucking kill them because he was angry at them for confronting him about his driving.

The absolute hypocrisy. If a person threw a rock at police you would be in an outrage if the police killed them. When someone gets shot with a beanbag for threatening police with a firearm, suddenly murder is fair game. Fucking psychopaths. Every single time a cop confrontation occurs, you people CONSISTNENTLY demonstrate that you don't give a shit if an officer lives or dies. It's not even a part of the calculus in your reasoning. It's like a fucking black hole where you train of thought disappears then reappears 2 minutes later. You don't consider police people. Some of you will even say that bluntly then pretend you have a moral position. I'm sure the entirety of humanity's history of dehumanization is lost on you, but it's never a good thing. Dehumanizing a huge swath of people for certain qualities you don't like is the behavior of gross, revengeful, spiteful, hateful, pathetic people. And every single one of them had their own way of justifying, so don't give me your bullshit excuses.

---

darkprince45 posted...

If police use less lethal force on you, you cant start grabbing a gun and shooting backed holy fuck.

And yet when it's the other way around and the police empty the clip into a completely unarmed person who posed no threat, "I was afraid for my life" is a perfectly valid excuse? Curious...

---

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

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

A cop would use lethal force to shoot a civilian if they shot a beanbag at them tho

---

My favorite about these incidents is when start saying what ifs and what abouts. Or trying to compare this situation to a hypothetical

---

darkprince45 posted...

My favorite about these incidents is when start saying what ifs and what abouts. Or trying to compare this situation to a hypothetical

Civilians aren't allowed to get scared or act irrational around cops without deserving to be shot, but somehow cops should be allowed to?

A cop shoots a unarmed person when they so much as breathe wrong and it's "Welp need to stay calm around cops. They're only human."

---

He shot at police.

When will you guys understand that cops have the right to be on your property and ask you what you are doing with probable cause?

Dudes lucky to be alive and I'm glad no one from both sides isn't dead. Everyone goes home to their families. He should be charged though. Put the police through a stressful and traumatic situation

hockeybub89 posted...

A cop shoots a unarmed person when they so much as breathe wrong

I think this guy did a lot more than breathe wrong. And he was armed. So what argument are you making about this case?

---