3 ms·

But again, that’s not the law (the executive order here). They can’t go enforce things not the law. It’s not like there are armed folks running around that stre

But again, that’s not the law (the executive order here). They can’t go enforce things not the law. It’s not like there are armed folks running around that street making exigent circumstances. Why do you feel the need to defend something obviously indefensible? Edit: just to be clear, given all the huff and puff by police of needing riot gear, armored trucks, giant guns, I haven’t seen any report in Minneapolis of any armed protestors or any cops coming under fire. But that doesn’t stop the cops from shooting (less than lethal) rounds.

microcolonel 6y ago
Dude, last night a federal officer was executed from a van. It wasn't in Minneapolis, but there's no reason to believe it couldn't be there. They gave an order: go inside while we're passing. It is a reasonable order for the few seconds or minutes it takes for the crowd to pass the neighbourhood. Remarkably, reasonable police orders apply to you, even if you are middle class and young.
- xphilter 6y ago
  Where? Do you have a link? Let’s assume that’s true, that a crime was committed across the country. Does that give this group of law enforcement to shoot ltl rounds at unarmed people on private property and in compliance with the law? I don’t understand your reasoning.
  - Mirioron 6y ago
    I disagree with the parent poster, but a Federal Protective Service member was killed last night in Oakland: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-officer-killed-in-shooting-at-california-courthouse/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-officer-killed-in-shoot... I did read that they're unsure whether it was related to the protests though.
    - xphilter 6y ago
      Wow, thanks for posting. That’s really unfortunate and I hope they find who murdered the guard.
    - germinalphrase 6y ago
      One police officer was shot at in Minneapolis (14th and Lake if anyone’s local). They missed and were quickly taken down. The weapon was recovered.
    - microcolonel 6y ago
      > I did read that they're unsure whether it was related to the protests though. Yes, but there's little doubt that the riots are cover.
- vertex-four 6y ago
  Reasonable police orders have to follow the law - the police cannot and should not be allowed to enforce things that are not the law. Of course, there's a presumption that they're in the right when they shoot you after you ignore an illegal order, and apparently you agree with that. Good luck with your freedoms.
- sethammons 6y ago
  That’s where you missed it: it is not reasonable to give unlawful orders, it is not reasonable to order someone on private property to go inside. They can request folks to go inside. They cannot order it until their powers are elevated by law. Might doesn’t make right.
  - xphilter 6y ago
    I agree; but it is possible to have a lawful order to control someone on private property. An example was the Boston bombing manhunt where police were doing door to door searches because there was a specific, articulated threat in a defined geographic area (note, I don’t know that’s the real legal test, but I’m sure it considers factors like that).
    - sophacles 6y ago
      So your argument is that "different situations are different situations?" That is a solid justification for any action in this situation!
      - xphilter 6y ago
        No, I was arguing against the parent comment. In this situation there were no exigent circumstances and so no expansion of what the law enforcement can do. I wanted to clarify that in special circumstances it is possible for a LE to order someone to move inside their house. You need consequences for this bad action so that the police have credibility to use the action in the proper situation.
    - bsanr2 6y ago
      What you're calling for is the suspension of the rule of law. No crisis justifies this unless you're willing to throw the whole thing out permanently. If you have a problem with a lack of police powers to compel house arrest without cause or to search without permission or warrant, write a new Constitutional amendment and get it passed.
      - 6y ago

microcolonel 6y ago

Dude, last night a federal officer was executed from a van. It wasn't in Minneapolis, but there's no reason to believe it couldn't be there. They gave an order: go inside while we're passing. It is a reasonable order for the few seconds or minutes it takes for the crowd to pass the neighbourhood. Remarkably, reasonable police orders apply to you, even if you are middle class and young.

xphilter 6y ago
Where? Do you have a link? Let’s assume that’s true, that a crime was committed across the country. Does that give this group of law enforcement to shoot ltl rounds at unarmed people on private property and in compliance with the law? I don’t understand your reasoning.
- Mirioron 6y ago
  I disagree with the parent poster, but a Federal Protective Service member was killed last night in Oakland: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-officer-killed-in-shooting-at-california-courthouse/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-officer-killed-in-shoot... I did read that they're unsure whether it was related to the protests though.
  - xphilter 6y ago
    Wow, thanks for posting. That’s really unfortunate and I hope they find who murdered the guard.
  - germinalphrase 6y ago
    One police officer was shot at in Minneapolis (14th and Lake if anyone’s local). They missed and were quickly taken down. The weapon was recovered.
  - microcolonel 6y ago
    > I did read that they're unsure whether it was related to the protests though. Yes, but there's little doubt that the riots are cover.
vertex-four 6y ago
Reasonable police orders have to follow the law - the police cannot and should not be allowed to enforce things that are not the law. Of course, there's a presumption that they're in the right when they shoot you after you ignore an illegal order, and apparently you agree with that. Good luck with your freedoms.
sethammons 6y ago
That’s where you missed it: it is not reasonable to give unlawful orders, it is not reasonable to order someone on private property to go inside. They can request folks to go inside. They cannot order it until their powers are elevated by law. Might doesn’t make right.
- xphilter 6y ago
  I agree; but it is possible to have a lawful order to control someone on private property. An example was the Boston bombing manhunt where police were doing door to door searches because there was a specific, articulated threat in a defined geographic area (note, I don’t know that’s the real legal test, but I’m sure it considers factors like that).
  - sophacles 6y ago
    So your argument is that "different situations are different situations?" That is a solid justification for any action in this situation!
    - xphilter 6y ago
      No, I was arguing against the parent comment. In this situation there were no exigent circumstances and so no expansion of what the law enforcement can do. I wanted to clarify that in special circumstances it is possible for a LE to order someone to move inside their house. You need consequences for this bad action so that the police have credibility to use the action in the proper situation.
  - bsanr2 6y ago
    What you're calling for is the suspension of the rule of law. No crisis justifies this unless you're willing to throw the whole thing out permanently. If you have a problem with a lack of police powers to compel house arrest without cause or to search without permission or warrant, write a new Constitutional amendment and get it passed.
    - 6y ago