4 ms·

In fact the almost case is more valuable because the survivor in this case was doing absolutely nothing wrong and lived to tell the tale.

by narak 9y ago

SilasX 9y ago
"Absolutely nothing wrong" is a little bit overstating it. She wasn't doing anything illegal, sure, but it was a bit reckless to arrange the transfer so that the buyer was expected to go alone, onto someone's driveway, to replace the license plates and drive off with the car without talking to the resident or owner. Imagine if you sold your Magic cards to someone and told them, "oh, they're in my bedroom at 123 Elm Street -- just jimmy open the window and fish 'em out. If anyone asks, just give them this handwritten note." Or, "Cool, just pick up the keys from under my office desk. Walk past security, just ignore them if they stop you, and fish them out of the cabinet. Pick the lock if you have to." No. Bad idea. You look like a thief doing that. Could they have handled the situation better? Definitely. But it's a bit much to act outraged that anyone would misinterpret her actions.
- zzalpha 9y ago
  She wasn't doing anything illegal, sure, but it was a bit reckless Only in a world where random folks from the neighbourhood might come out and point a gun at you instead of simply asking a few logical questions and looking at proffered supporting documentation. But it's a bit much to act outraged that anyone would misinterpret her actions. Who's outraged at her actions being misinterpreted? The outrage is at the fact that a panicky cop saw something they thought was suspicious and reacted by immediately pointing their gun at someone (something any good gun owner knows you never do unless you plan to shoot), creating a potentially life threatening situation, and the person on the other end of it was forced to defuse it.
  - LyndsySimon 9y ago
    > Only in a world where random folks from the neighbourhood might come out and point a gun at you instead of simply asking a few logical questions and looking at proffered supporting documentation. Not random folks - a family member. For what it's worth, I likely would have also come out and challenged someone who behaved the same way she did. I would likely have done so with a rifle in my hands and having already called the police. What I would absolutely not have done was point said weapon at her - that's called "assault". The issue isn't that she was challenged, or even that the guy was armed. The issue is that the guy though that it was appropriate to point a firearm at her, which both constitutes a threat of deadly force and greatly increases the chance of an accidental shooting. Then, after it was all over with, the person that assaulted her was not charged with a crime. The bottom line here is that police officers are allowed to use threats of deadly force in situations where it is wholly inappropriate, are trained to do so, and are protected by their departments (at their victims' expense no less) in the exceptional case where they are actually charged with a crime.
  - SilasX 9y ago
    >Who's outraged at her actions being misinterpreted? Anyone characterizing her behavior as doing "absolutely nothing wrong". You can both believe that the son-in-law and officer overreacted without believing the buyer somehow did everything exactly right. It's not either/or. >The outrage is at the fact that a panicky cop saw something they thought was suspicious ... Yes, people are outraged at that too, but they also blur that with the more dubious claim that "she did nothing wrong". I think that's pushing it. Again, not "either/or".
    - zzalpha 9y ago
      Yes, people are outraged at that too, but they also blur that with the more dubious claim that "she did nothing wrong". Let's just admit it: if she were white, it wouldn't have turned out this way She arranged the sale. She had the seller's info. She had the keys. She had the paperwork. Only problem is, she 1) is black, and 2) looked like a guy. Could this situation have been handled differently? Sure. But I struggle to lay more than a small piece of the blame on her. I'd just as soon blame the mother-in-law for not telling her cowboy son that she'd sold the car.
- mindslight 9y ago
  That is certainly much less "reckless" than pointing a gun at someone. IIRC, the first rule of firearms is to only point them at something you intend to kill. If the assailant were spending several months in jail for assault and kidnapping, you might have a point. But failing that, let's concentrate on the more egregious breach of peace first.
- justforFranz 9y ago
  She's probably lucky she started putting the license plates on. Imagine if she tried to immediately drive it away. It's very easy to imagine the officer shooting at her with the intent to kill. That's crazy. C-R-A-Z-Y.

In fact the almost case is more valuable because the survivor in this case was doing absolutely nothing wrong and lived to tell the tale.

by narak 9y ago

In fact the almost case is more valuable because the survivor in this case was doing absolutely nothing wrong and lived to tell the tale.

SilasX 9y ago

"Absolutely nothing wrong" is a little bit overstating it. She wasn't doing anything illegal, sure, but it was a bit reckless to arrange the transfer so that the buyer was expected to go alone, onto someone's driveway, to replace the license plates and drive off with the car without talking to the resident or owner. Imagine if you sold your Magic cards to someone and told them, "oh, they're in my bedroom at 123 Elm Street -- just jimmy open the window and fish 'em out. If anyone asks, just give them this handwritten note." Or, "Cool, just pick up the keys from under my office desk. Walk past security, just ignore them if they stop you, and fish them out of the cabinet. Pick the lock if you have to." No. Bad idea. You look like a thief doing that. Could they have handled the situation better? Definitely. But it's a bit much to act outraged that anyone would misinterpret her actions.

zzalpha 9y ago
She wasn't doing anything illegal, sure, but it was a bit reckless Only in a world where random folks from the neighbourhood might come out and point a gun at you instead of simply asking a few logical questions and looking at proffered supporting documentation. But it's a bit much to act outraged that anyone would misinterpret her actions. Who's outraged at her actions being misinterpreted? The outrage is at the fact that a panicky cop saw something they thought was suspicious and reacted by immediately pointing their gun at someone (something any good gun owner knows you never do unless you plan to shoot), creating a potentially life threatening situation, and the person on the other end of it was forced to defuse it.
- LyndsySimon 9y ago
  > Only in a world where random folks from the neighbourhood might come out and point a gun at you instead of simply asking a few logical questions and looking at proffered supporting documentation. Not random folks - a family member. For what it's worth, I likely would have also come out and challenged someone who behaved the same way she did. I would likely have done so with a rifle in my hands and having already called the police. What I would absolutely not have done was point said weapon at her - that's called "assault". The issue isn't that she was challenged, or even that the guy was armed. The issue is that the guy though that it was appropriate to point a firearm at her, which both constitutes a threat of deadly force and greatly increases the chance of an accidental shooting. Then, after it was all over with, the person that assaulted her was not charged with a crime. The bottom line here is that police officers are allowed to use threats of deadly force in situations where it is wholly inappropriate, are trained to do so, and are protected by their departments (at their victims' expense no less) in the exceptional case where they are actually charged with a crime.
- SilasX 9y ago
  >Who's outraged at her actions being misinterpreted? Anyone characterizing her behavior as doing "absolutely nothing wrong". You can both believe that the son-in-law and officer overreacted without believing the buyer somehow did everything exactly right. It's not either/or. >The outrage is at the fact that a panicky cop saw something they thought was suspicious ... Yes, people are outraged at that too, but they also blur that with the more dubious claim that "she did nothing wrong". I think that's pushing it. Again, not "either/or".
  - zzalpha 9y ago
    Yes, people are outraged at that too, but they also blur that with the more dubious claim that "she did nothing wrong". Let's just admit it: if she were white, it wouldn't have turned out this way She arranged the sale. She had the seller's info. She had the keys. She had the paperwork. Only problem is, she 1) is black, and 2) looked like a guy. Could this situation have been handled differently? Sure. But I struggle to lay more than a small piece of the blame on her. I'd just as soon blame the mother-in-law for not telling her cowboy son that she'd sold the car.
mindslight 9y ago
That is certainly much less "reckless" than pointing a gun at someone. IIRC, the first rule of firearms is to only point them at something you intend to kill. If the assailant were spending several months in jail for assault and kidnapping, you might have a point. But failing that, let's concentrate on the more egregious breach of peace first.
justforFranz 9y ago
She's probably lucky she started putting the license plates on. Imagine if she tried to immediately drive it away. It's very easy to imagine the officer shooting at her with the intent to kill. That's crazy. C-R-A-Z-Y.