Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Baffler]

The fact that they stand around playing Simon Says for an extended period of time instead of arresting him isn't exactly a mark in their favor either.

[helmacon]

Honestly, I've been on the anti police side for most major indecents up until now, but I don't see the point in this one.

They told the guy exactly what would happen multiple times, and confirmed he understood. The face down hands out legs crossed is standard fare. The only odd thing was having them crawl towards them, but seeing as they didn't know who was in the room, and didn't want to expose themselves I can kinda understand it, even if it was handled poorly. The gave the guy multiple chances, and he kept fucking up. If you can't follow simple instructions, what the fuck are you supposed to do? To me, this just seems like the application of a Darwin award.

[Jopax]

Yes, following simple instructions is so damn easy when you have five heavily armed guys pointing guns at you and shouting orders. Guys who belong to an organization that has been known in recent years to shoot unarmed civilians like yourself dead. The dude is begging for his damn life, how capable is he of controlling his body in a situation as stressful as that?

[Maximum Spin]

More importantly, who fucking cares, because the police aren't actually legally allowed to force you to follow arbitrary orders under threat of being shot?

[helmacon]

This isn't a beat cop, these guys were SWAT responding to reports of a guy waving a gun out of a window. Yes they can tell you what to do.

[Baffler]

The dude is quite drunk. And anyway they spend a minute or two standing around outside the door standing around and fumbling with the lock after shooting that guy (I'll see if I can find the full video to link, the one I watched initially seems to've disappeared), so if they perceived a threat on the other side of that door they clearly didn't think too much of it. No, it's pretty clear that we're just watching a power-tripping manlet spoiling for a very one-sided fight and creating a reason for one when the dude didn't supply it on his own.

Also worth mentioning is that no weapon was ever found.

[helmacon]

No weapon was found on his person, but 2 pellet guns were found in the room. That dosent matter anyways, because they received a report of a weapon and were acting on the assumption that one might be present, because if you don't do that, you could get shot.

And anyway they spend a minute or two standing around outside the door beating their dicks and fumbling with the lock after shooting that guy

That's purely subjective right there. They move up to the door and try the keycard multiple times, but it dosent work. Then they switch out the guy that just shot someone, because maybe that had something to do with his "fumbling"?

And in the video they ask him if he is drunk at the beginning and he says no, so they proceed assuming he is not drunk.


Video link:
https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/939014159726870530

[Maximum Spin]

This isn't a beat cop, these guys were SWAT responding to reports of a guy waving a gun out of a window. Yes they can tell you what to do.

Practically, sure. Legally or morally, no.

[helmacon]

This isn't a beat cop, these guys were SWAT responding to reports of a guy waving a gun out of a window. Yes they can tell you what to do.

Practically, sure. Legally or morally, no.

I don't know where you are from, but in the U.S. non-compliance with an officer is a misdemeanor offence. If the officer is also executing a high risk warrant, there is a good chance you could get shot as well. Yes it's legal for them to shoot you in a high risk situation if you do not comply with orders.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/n/noncompliance/

[Baffler]

-snip-

If you see something different from me from the same footage, there's not really much I can say besides that I think you're wrong. I will say though that if this dude was in fear of his life as his defense says in that situation I would recommend he be committed for psychological treatment.

[Maximum Spin]

I don't know where you are from, but in the U.S. non-compliance with an officer is a misdemeanor offence. If the officer is also executing a high risk warrant, there is a good chance you could get shot as well. Yes it's legal for them to shoot you in a high risk situation if you do not comply with orders.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/n/noncompliance/

Who told you this? Also, that legal definition is unrelated - it's talking about regulatory noncompliance and noncompliance with precedent by judges. The police don't actually have any legal right to shoot people for not complying with their commands, even while executing a high-risk warrant, although they do usually get away with it.

[helmacon]

I don't know where you are from, but in the U.S. non-compliance with an officer is a misdemeanor offence. If the officer is also executing a high risk warrant, there is a good chance you could get shot as well. Yes it's legal for them to shoot you in a high risk situation if you do not comply with orders.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/n/noncompliance/

Who told you this? Also, that legal definition is unrelated - it's talking about regulatory noncompliance and noncompliance with precedent by judges. The police don't actually have any legal right to shoot people for not complying with their commands, even while executing a high-risk warrant, although they do usually get away with it.

Noncompliance is the failure or refusal to obey. When a person is unwilling to comply with something this would amount to noncompliance. Noncompliance with law, legal rules and regulations by persons would result in a crime or a civil wrong. Legal precedents are also to be complied with. When judges does not comply with a legal precedent, the court should provide reasonable reasons justifying the noncompliance.

It's talking about both. And yes, the police can shoot you. Legally. It would be stupid to have a police force that could not legally do anything. Thankfully, we are not quite that stupid.

[helmacon]

In the United States, the use of deadly force by sworn law enforcement officers is lawful when the officer reasonably believes the subject poses a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to themselves or others. The use of deadly force by law enforcement is also lawful when used to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon when the officer believes escape would pose a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to members of the public.

I will say though that if this dude was in fear of his life as his defense says in that situation I would recommend he be committed for psychological treatment.

Have you seen some of the shit cops deal with? It was very plausible that someone in that situation was going to have a gun, so yes they were scared and rightfully so.

[Maximum Spin]

Noncompliance is the failure or refusal to obey. When a person is unwilling to comply with something this would amount to noncompliance. Noncompliance with law, legal rules and regulations by persons would result in a crime or a civil wrong. Legal precedents are also to be complied with. When judges does not comply with a legal precedent, the court should provide reasonable reasons justifying the noncompliance.

It's talking about both. And yes, the police can shoot you. Legally. It would be stupid to have a police force that could not legally do anything. Thankfully, we are not quite that stupid.

That's not what that means. Noncompliance with law means "doing something that is against the law", not "not complying with commands by law enforcement officers". The "legal precedents are also to be complied with" refers to judges complying with precedent in their orders, not random people. The police can legally shoot you in self-defense, if they are in "reasonable" fear for their lives, and also if you are fleeing in some circumstances, but not for any other reason.

[Baffler]

-snip-

So you're saying with a straight face that a blubbering fat man crawling toward him on the man's own orders was rightly perceived as a deadly threat? Again, if he honestly thought so, then Short Man syndrome here shouldn't be allowed to handle a fork, let alone his bubba'd out tactikewl AR along with essentially free rein to use it. And again, why the Simon Says bullshit instead of just cuffing them as quickly as possible while they were on the ground like literally every other SWAT team in America is trained to do?