13 ms·

I have to admit that stories like this evoke a really strong, visceral reaction in me. The depiction of police (allegedly) escalating the situation with threat

I have to admit that stories like this evoke a really strong, visceral reaction in me. The depiction of police (allegedly) escalating the situation with threat of deadly force, especially with kids present, literally (not figuratively) got my adrenaline going. I'd be interested in hearing both sides of the story with supporting evidence.

SulfurHexaFluri 6y ago
>I'd be interested in hearing both sides of the story with supporting evidence. The thing is this story is not at all surprising or unusual for the US. This kind of stuff is constantly happening on an almost weekly basis and after all the evidence is collected the result is "Yes this all did happen and no we are not going to do anything about it"
- nojvek 6y ago
  This not happens frequently but innocent people also are either permanently injured/traumatized/dead. US law enforcement has very little oversight on their use of force.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    No oversight. Police departments are not required to report how many citizens they kill nationally, and they’re shielded from legal liability in virtually every case. Even when charges are brought, judges parse the law to an insane degree, to the point where sending attack dogs against a surrendering suspect in the woods is illegal, but not if they’re in a “grassy ditch”. I’m not being hyperbolic, that’s an actual case where cops got off because there was no clear and specific precedent that what they were doing was wrong. And since they got off, they didn’t make new precedent to stop it in the future. Of course.
- cardamomo 6y ago
  Along those lines, I recommended listening to a recent Radiolab episode that dissects US police departments' lack of legal responsibility to ensure people's safety. https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/no-special-duty https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/no-sp...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
giantg2 6y ago
"I'd be interested in hearing both sides of the story with supporting evidence." Me too. Coming in guns drawn is not that uncommon in that scenario. You have a suspect refusing to answer the door for 20 minutes, so you don't know if they are preparing an ambush or other danger.
- malcolmgreaves 6y ago
  Why did you decide to take the Police's story as truth? Do you actually believe that this person, a scientist with zero criminal history, decided to not answer the door for 20 minutes as cops were banging on it and yelling? How does that make sense to you?
  - giantg2 6y ago
    The article has statements from her in there. Did she deny at any point that she didn't wait 20 minutes? Seems odd that she wouldn't deny that part. But true, for all we know, none of the facts have been corroborated. To get the warrant, a judge would have to sign off on it with evidence meeting a probable cause standard. Also, this is the journalist's story, not necessarily one of either party.
    - aspaceman 6y ago
      “Yes you see. It made sense for me to point a gun at a child because I was made to wait for 20 minutes” If I was a better writer, I’d adapt these things to prose and write up some Alice in Wonderland style story. People will go to the most ludicrous lengths to defend the most incredulous actions by police. Was the kid gonna throw his Tonka truck at him?
      - giantg2 6y ago
        I didn't see anything ludicrous in this article. The father was supposedly in the house too, so could be more than Tonka trucks.
      - Chris2048 6y ago
ciarannolan 6y ago
> The depiction of police (allegedly) escalating the situation with threat of deadly force, especially with kids present [...] Not "allegedly". There is video: https://twitter.com/GeoRebekah/status/1336065787900145665 https://twitter.com/GeoRebekah/status/1336065787900145665
- moron4hire 6y ago
  Jesus, that second cop is going to pop himself in the face if he actually fires his gun doing that Call of Duty cosplay like that.
ryanmarsh 6y ago
It’s trivial to pick someone up when they leave the house for literally anything. You’re isolated and trapped in your vehicle, if it’s done properly you have no means of running. They have a patrol car pull you over like a normal traffic stop, officer asks you to exit the vehicle and the two agents you didn’t see place you under arrest. Easy. It’s done in murder cases all the time. This person clearly was not a fugitive and I’d be surprised if she or her family posed any threat but they chose to enter her home guns drawn. Why?
- no-s 6y ago
  >>It’s trivial to pick someone up when they leave the house for literally anything. Yes, but it costs more and the potential hazard justifies it. Of course, if there are innocents involved the police might go in anyway, and they will allege such danger in the request for the warrant. Obviously Rebekah presented a suspected danger of continued cybercrime unless her alleged activity was interrupted immediately. Looking for the warrant...? All laws implicitly carry the premise of enforcement by deadly force. What you see on the video is just stock procedure embodying that premise. This is the product of calling the police "Law Enforcement Officers".
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  To intimidate. That’s why.
purrplexed 6y ago
Sort of maybe... I feel like you've never visited Florida. I can't imagine a scenario where she is in the wrong, just that she didn't comply. Florida is full of authoritarian nut jobs. DeSantis is a literal plague.
PartiallyTyped 6y ago
> I'd be interested in hearing both sides of the story with supporting evidence. I am not. As much as 'anti-intellectual', or 'plain wrong' it may be it may be, I am not interested in seeing evidence produced by the state or local police. The US has regressed to a fascist state. Neither the police, nor politicians, nor federal judges can be trusted at this point. The whole system reeks of corruption at every level.
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  You can also apply hyperbole to the victim’s account of the story. Doesn’t make it a valid reason to discard it.
  - PartiallyTyped 6y ago
    There is a difference between the two bodies. One is a state with a history of escalating violence, blatant fascism, utter disregard for human lives and history of manufacturing evidence. The other is a person who as far as I know can still be given the benefit of the doubt.
    - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
      I get your point about the state, and I largely agree, but there's also been enough stories of individuals manufacturing outrage to their advantage. So I wouldn't give either party the benefit of the doubt here.
      - PartiallyTyped 6y ago
        I get your point as well, it is not the right way to see things, but at this point, I am tired with the whole situation and I don't really see a way out of the situation for the States. I am lucky enough that I don't need to deal with this, but sitting here idle isn't really comforting either.

SulfurHexaFluri 6y ago

>I'd be interested in hearing both sides of the story with supporting evidence. The thing is this story is not at all surprising or unusual for the US. This kind of stuff is constantly happening on an almost weekly basis and after all the evidence is collected the result is "Yes this all did happen and no we are not going to do anything about it"

nojvek 6y ago
This not happens frequently but innocent people also are either permanently injured/traumatized/dead. US law enforcement has very little oversight on their use of force.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  No oversight. Police departments are not required to report how many citizens they kill nationally, and they’re shielded from legal liability in virtually every case. Even when charges are brought, judges parse the law to an insane degree, to the point where sending attack dogs against a surrendering suspect in the woods is illegal, but not if they’re in a “grassy ditch”. I’m not being hyperbolic, that’s an actual case where cops got off because there was no clear and specific precedent that what they were doing was wrong. And since they got off, they didn’t make new precedent to stop it in the future. Of course.
cardamomo 6y ago
Along those lines, I recommended listening to a recent Radiolab episode that dissects US police departments' lack of legal responsibility to ensure people's safety. https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/no-special-duty https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/no-sp...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

giantg2 6y ago

"I'd be interested in hearing both sides of the story with supporting evidence." Me too. Coming in guns drawn is not that uncommon in that scenario. You have a suspect refusing to answer the door for 20 minutes, so you don't know if they are preparing an ambush or other danger.

malcolmgreaves 6y ago
Why did you decide to take the Police's story as truth? Do you actually believe that this person, a scientist with zero criminal history, decided to not answer the door for 20 minutes as cops were banging on it and yelling? How does that make sense to you?
- giantg2 6y ago
  The article has statements from her in there. Did she deny at any point that she didn't wait 20 minutes? Seems odd that she wouldn't deny that part. But true, for all we know, none of the facts have been corroborated. To get the warrant, a judge would have to sign off on it with evidence meeting a probable cause standard. Also, this is the journalist's story, not necessarily one of either party.
  - aspaceman 6y ago
    “Yes you see. It made sense for me to point a gun at a child because I was made to wait for 20 minutes” If I was a better writer, I’d adapt these things to prose and write up some Alice in Wonderland style story. People will go to the most ludicrous lengths to defend the most incredulous actions by police. Was the kid gonna throw his Tonka truck at him?
    - giantg2 6y ago
      I didn't see anything ludicrous in this article. The father was supposedly in the house too, so could be more than Tonka trucks.
    - Chris2048 6y ago

ciarannolan 6y ago

> The depiction of police (allegedly) escalating the situation with threat of deadly force, especially with kids present [...] Not "allegedly". There is video: https://twitter.com/GeoRebekah/status/1336065787900145665 https://twitter.com/GeoRebekah/status/1336065787900145665

moron4hire 6y ago
Jesus, that second cop is going to pop himself in the face if he actually fires his gun doing that Call of Duty cosplay like that.

ryanmarsh 6y ago

It’s trivial to pick someone up when they leave the house for literally anything. You’re isolated and trapped in your vehicle, if it’s done properly you have no means of running. They have a patrol car pull you over like a normal traffic stop, officer asks you to exit the vehicle and the two agents you didn’t see place you under arrest. Easy. It’s done in murder cases all the time. This person clearly was not a fugitive and I’d be surprised if she or her family posed any threat but they chose to enter her home guns drawn. Why?

no-s 6y ago
>>It’s trivial to pick someone up when they leave the house for literally anything. Yes, but it costs more and the potential hazard justifies it. Of course, if there are innocents involved the police might go in anyway, and they will allege such danger in the request for the warrant. Obviously Rebekah presented a suspected danger of continued cybercrime unless her alleged activity was interrupted immediately. Looking for the warrant...? All laws implicitly carry the premise of enforcement by deadly force. What you see on the video is just stock procedure embodying that premise. This is the product of calling the police "Law Enforcement Officers".
ashtonkem 6y ago
To intimidate. That’s why.

purrplexed 6y ago

Sort of maybe... I feel like you've never visited Florida. I can't imagine a scenario where she is in the wrong, just that she didn't comply. Florida is full of authoritarian nut jobs. DeSantis is a literal plague.

PartiallyTyped 6y ago

> I'd be interested in hearing both sides of the story with supporting evidence. I am not. As much as 'anti-intellectual', or 'plain wrong' it may be it may be, I am not interested in seeing evidence produced by the state or local police. The US has regressed to a fascist state. Neither the police, nor politicians, nor federal judges can be trusted at this point. The whole system reeks of corruption at every level.

read_if_gay_ 6y ago
You can also apply hyperbole to the victim’s account of the story. Doesn’t make it a valid reason to discard it.
- PartiallyTyped 6y ago
  There is a difference between the two bodies. One is a state with a history of escalating violence, blatant fascism, utter disregard for human lives and history of manufacturing evidence. The other is a person who as far as I know can still be given the benefit of the doubt.
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    I get your point about the state, and I largely agree, but there's also been enough stories of individuals manufacturing outrage to their advantage. So I wouldn't give either party the benefit of the doubt here.
    - PartiallyTyped 6y ago
      I get your point as well, it is not the right way to see things, but at this point, I am tired with the whole situation and I don't really see a way out of the situation for the States. I am lucky enough that I don't need to deal with this, but sitting here idle isn't really comforting either.