5 ms·

Are the police legally allowed to assault protesters "with a deadly weapon"? Otherwise, it seems like a countersuit would be in order. "Police claim they were a

by ColanR 6y ago

Are the police legally allowed to assault protesters "with a deadly weapon"? Otherwise, it seems like a countersuit would be in order. "Police claim they were assaulted, therefore they admit to assaulting us."

cmpb 6y ago
Special training would be my guess at the suit defense tactic here. Police are trained to toss the item in such a way that it’s not considered assault, etc. Same reason police are allowed to use the giant screens in their cars while they’re driving.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
rootusrootus 6y ago
Is this really a question? Police are allowed to fire rubber bullets at you. Tasers. Pepper spray. You name it, they have lots of tools to use against citizens that are completely illegal for citizens to use right back.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  That is not correct — it is illegal for anyone to attack you unprovoked, even a police officer. Without cause, they are not allowed to fire rubber bullets at you, nor are they allowed to tase or pepper spray you. The only reason they get away with it is that they are unwilling to enforce the law against themselves.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    And Qualified Immunity protects them from civil action.
    - rootusrootus 6y ago
      As a concept qualified immunity makes sense. The police are expected to do things which would get any other citizen sued or put in jail. So a certain amount of immunity for these actions makes perfect sense. The problem is that it has become an impenetrable shield behind which clear wrongdoing goes unpunished. We probably don't want to eliminate qualified immunity, but we need to drastically increase accountability so it isn't abused.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        You’ve got QI kind of backwards. QI was never meant to alter what cops were allowed to do, it was supposed to shield them from nuisance suits. Think less “cops killing people” and more “suing the clerk over a denied license”. The bounds of acceptable police force is set by law and department policy, not QI. Before QI the police were still legally allowed to arrest people, after all. The problem is that QI rulings are insanely narrow, to the point where minor differences get cops off scot free. The differences can be as minor as the difference between setting dogs on a surrendering suspect in a “wooded creek” vs. in a “shrubby ditch”. And every single time this happens, a specific precedent is denied for future incidents.
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    C'mon, it's not like police are shooting rubber bullets at random citizens. This discussion is in the context of police in a stand-off against protesters that are pushing the line between peaceful and rioting. You may not like their enforcement, and in some cases they are clearly going too far, but there is no real argument on the legality of the tools they are using in the situation. We gave them the right to act as the state's expression of force.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      > C'mon, it's not like police are shooting rubber bullets at random citizens. This discussion is in the context of police in a stand-off against protesters that are pushing the line between peaceful and rioting. If this is your takeaway from the last two weeks, we won't be able to agree. My position is that the police are shooting rubber bullets at random citizens, and that protestors "pushing the line between peaceful and rioting" is a mostly–manufactured narrative to give them post–hoc justification for doing so.
      - rootusrootus 6y ago
        I agree, we probably are talking past each other. I was discussing policy, you were discussing current events. It sounded like you were discussing policy but I misunderstood. Judging from the downvotes, the hive mind feels similarly to you. I'll bow out and have the policy discussion elsewhere.
- ColanR 6y ago
  I thought there was some kind of distinction, where they were required to use weapons that were "nonlethal".
ashtonkem 6y ago
Officially? No. Practically? Yes.
dillonmckay 6y ago
Vehicles can be considered deadly weapons.

by ColanR 6y ago

cmpb 6y ago

Special training would be my guess at the suit defense tactic here. Police are trained to toss the item in such a way that it’s not considered assault, etc. Same reason police are allowed to use the giant screens in their cars while they’re driving.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

rootusrootus 6y ago

Is this really a question? Police are allowed to fire rubber bullets at you. Tasers. Pepper spray. You name it, they have lots of tools to use against citizens that are completely illegal for citizens to use right back.

jakelazaroff 6y ago
That is not correct — it is illegal for anyone to attack you unprovoked, even a police officer. Without cause, they are not allowed to fire rubber bullets at you, nor are they allowed to tase or pepper spray you. The only reason they get away with it is that they are unwilling to enforce the law against themselves.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  And Qualified Immunity protects them from civil action.
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    As a concept qualified immunity makes sense. The police are expected to do things which would get any other citizen sued or put in jail. So a certain amount of immunity for these actions makes perfect sense. The problem is that it has become an impenetrable shield behind which clear wrongdoing goes unpunished. We probably don't want to eliminate qualified immunity, but we need to drastically increase accountability so it isn't abused.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      You’ve got QI kind of backwards. QI was never meant to alter what cops were allowed to do, it was supposed to shield them from nuisance suits. Think less “cops killing people” and more “suing the clerk over a denied license”. The bounds of acceptable police force is set by law and department policy, not QI. Before QI the police were still legally allowed to arrest people, after all. The problem is that QI rulings are insanely narrow, to the point where minor differences get cops off scot free. The differences can be as minor as the difference between setting dogs on a surrendering suspect in a “wooded creek” vs. in a “shrubby ditch”. And every single time this happens, a specific precedent is denied for future incidents.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  C'mon, it's not like police are shooting rubber bullets at random citizens. This discussion is in the context of police in a stand-off against protesters that are pushing the line between peaceful and rioting. You may not like their enforcement, and in some cases they are clearly going too far, but there is no real argument on the legality of the tools they are using in the situation. We gave them the right to act as the state's expression of force.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    > C'mon, it's not like police are shooting rubber bullets at random citizens. This discussion is in the context of police in a stand-off against protesters that are pushing the line between peaceful and rioting. If this is your takeaway from the last two weeks, we won't be able to agree. My position is that the police are shooting rubber bullets at random citizens, and that protestors "pushing the line between peaceful and rioting" is a mostly–manufactured narrative to give them post–hoc justification for doing so.
    - rootusrootus 6y ago
      I agree, we probably are talking past each other. I was discussing policy, you were discussing current events. It sounded like you were discussing policy but I misunderstood. Judging from the downvotes, the hive mind feels similarly to you. I'll bow out and have the policy discussion elsewhere.
ColanR 6y ago
I thought there was some kind of distinction, where they were required to use weapons that were "nonlethal".

ashtonkem 6y ago

Officially? No. Practically? Yes.

dillonmckay 6y ago

Vehicles can be considered deadly weapons.