5 ms·

Perhaps preparing for conflict is the natural response to interacting with the police in the US, because that is what the police do before barging into your hom

Perhaps preparing for conflict is the natural response to interacting with the police in the US, because that is what the police do before barging into your home and interacting with you. I'd lose my mind if some swine pointed a gun at my child. A message to police: don't do that, and you won't have a reason to be armed around me.

Mirioron 6y ago
>I'd lose my mind if some swine pointed a gun at my child. I wonder if things like this are what honor duels were about in the past? A way to semi-legally call out someone personally with potentially severe consequences. Pointing a gun at a kid in a situation like this seems like it should be punishable by itself.
- SauciestGNU 6y ago
  We need to codify a right to self defense against the police. Too many situations like this exist where the police place others in mortal danger. In a situation like this were the armed party not police it would be unquestionably legal for the victim to respond with deadly force. Police no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt and they deserve no special legal protections when they run around assaulting people with deadly weapons.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    Of course they do. There are plenty of developing and underdeveloped countries where that’s how it works. Go see how well that works out for them.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      > There are plenty of developing and underdeveloped countries where that’s how it works. My impression of developing countries was that police are vicious, brutal, and corrupt by default. As opposed to the US where bad cops are the exception. And they have very little oversight. Which countries are you talking about where that's not the case?
  - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
    An alternative is to eliminate or reduce qualified immunity.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Who was in mortal danger? The video showed no evidence of a gun being aimed at anyone, simply up the stairs. It's also not assault unless there's motive. Without a physical or verbal act indicating unlawful use or potential use of violence, it would be hard to prove assault. (You might be surprised when you look up case law on this) Your civilian scenario isn't exactly congruent because you are missing the legal authority point. If you are a civilian with the authority to search a building (your house when you hear a noise at night for example), then you you would be justified in clearing the building in the same way the police did. The response of deadly force depends on if there are alternatives to that use of force (and greatly varies by state). In this case, the alternative to the occupant using deadly force is to comply with the warrant, and if necessary, sue in court for any damages.
thepasswordis 6y ago
>I'd lose my mind if some swine pointed a gun at my child. How to avoid this: 1) When they show up at your house with a search warrant, let them execute it. That's it.
TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
> I'd lose my mind if some swine pointed a gun at my child. I understand the sentiment. I really do. But that is the wrong response when someone is pointing a gun at you. That’s how’s your child loses their father or mother. Don’t forget that police are trained to shoot to kill. There is no training for “shoot to injure” ... the logic being that if you are injured, you can reach into your clothes and pull out a gun, potentially killing the officer who shot you.
- giantg2 6y ago
  Yep, the correct response is comply, document everything, hire a civil lawyer. Cities spend 10s to 100s of millions to settle police lawsuits every year. Might as well get your cut.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Most police (and self-defense) training is "shoot to stop".
  - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
    That’s a euphemism.
    - Ancapistani 6y ago
      I understand where you’re coming from, but it really isn’t. Most training is to shoot “center of mass”. That often kills, yes, but if the goal was to kill (or even kill quickly), tactics like the “Mozambique drill” - two shots center of mass and one shot to the head - would be standard. It’s not. It’s specifically used as training for exceptional circumstances.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        Exactly. Law enforcement or self-defense training does not train to put a security round into the head of a downed subject (shoot to kill training), but rather to summon/render medical aid once the threat has been stopped (shoot to stop training).

Mirioron 6y ago

>I'd lose my mind if some swine pointed a gun at my child. I wonder if things like this are what honor duels were about in the past? A way to semi-legally call out someone personally with potentially severe consequences. Pointing a gun at a kid in a situation like this seems like it should be punishable by itself.

SauciestGNU 6y ago
We need to codify a right to self defense against the police. Too many situations like this exist where the police place others in mortal danger. In a situation like this were the armed party not police it would be unquestionably legal for the victim to respond with deadly force. Police no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt and they deserve no special legal protections when they run around assaulting people with deadly weapons.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  Of course they do. There are plenty of developing and underdeveloped countries where that’s how it works. Go see how well that works out for them.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    > There are plenty of developing and underdeveloped countries where that’s how it works. My impression of developing countries was that police are vicious, brutal, and corrupt by default. As opposed to the US where bad cops are the exception. And they have very little oversight. Which countries are you talking about where that's not the case?
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  An alternative is to eliminate or reduce qualified immunity.
- giantg2 6y ago
  Who was in mortal danger? The video showed no evidence of a gun being aimed at anyone, simply up the stairs. It's also not assault unless there's motive. Without a physical or verbal act indicating unlawful use or potential use of violence, it would be hard to prove assault. (You might be surprised when you look up case law on this) Your civilian scenario isn't exactly congruent because you are missing the legal authority point. If you are a civilian with the authority to search a building (your house when you hear a noise at night for example), then you you would be justified in clearing the building in the same way the police did. The response of deadly force depends on if there are alternatives to that use of force (and greatly varies by state). In this case, the alternative to the occupant using deadly force is to comply with the warrant, and if necessary, sue in court for any damages.

thepasswordis 6y ago

>I'd lose my mind if some swine pointed a gun at my child. How to avoid this: 1) When they show up at your house with a search warrant, let them execute it. That's it.

TedDoesntTalk 6y ago

> I'd lose my mind if some swine pointed a gun at my child. I understand the sentiment. I really do. But that is the wrong response when someone is pointing a gun at you. That’s how’s your child loses their father or mother. Don’t forget that police are trained to shoot to kill. There is no training for “shoot to injure” ... the logic being that if you are injured, you can reach into your clothes and pull out a gun, potentially killing the officer who shot you.

giantg2 6y ago
Yep, the correct response is comply, document everything, hire a civil lawyer. Cities spend 10s to 100s of millions to settle police lawsuits every year. Might as well get your cut.
sokoloff 6y ago
Most police (and self-defense) training is "shoot to stop".
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  That’s a euphemism.
  - Ancapistani 6y ago
    I understand where you’re coming from, but it really isn’t. Most training is to shoot “center of mass”. That often kills, yes, but if the goal was to kill (or even kill quickly), tactics like the “Mozambique drill” - two shots center of mass and one shot to the head - would be standard. It’s not. It’s specifically used as training for exceptional circumstances.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      Exactly. Law enforcement or self-defense training does not train to put a security round into the head of a downed subject (shoot to kill training), but rather to summon/render medical aid once the threat has been stopped (shoot to stop training).