5 ms·

I suspect it won't matter to you, but there's clear footage now of officers having removed the gun from the suspect long before he was shot. He was pinned and

by ajross 9mo ago

I suspect it won't matter to you, but there's clear footage now of officers having removed the gun from the suspect long before he was shot. He was pinned and prone when he was executed. Claiming this was "defensive" is just a lie.

jbullock35 9mo ago
I've watched four videos but haven't seen any footage (clear or otherwise) of gun removal. Can you post a link to clear footage of the removal? One video [1] shows someone walking away from the scene with a gun a fraction of a second before the shooting begins. But I can't see that the gun was removed from the protester. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1qlvpbr/footage_of_the_grey_coat_officer_retrieving_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1qlvpbr/footage_of_the...
- ajross 9mo ago
  https://x.com/rgoodlaw/status/2015144869497311275 https://x.com/rgoodlaw/status/2015144869497311275
  - jbullock35 9mo ago
    Thanks. The link is to a Bellingcat analysis. They did great work on the Renee Good shooting, but in this case, they're describing stills from videos, and I can't see what they're seeing in the photos. The photos are just too fuzzy---at least for me, and I suspect for most other viewers. I don't mean to diminish the importance of the shooting, which is horrific no matter what one makes of the photos.
    - dekhn 9mo ago
      I think it's factually correct to say that none of the videos give a truly clear view of the order of events (specfically with regards to whether the protestor could possibly have wielded their gun while being restrained by agents, or whether he is disarmed by the gray-jacketed agent, or what caused the agents to fire when they did). It might be clearer if the agents were wearing bodycam videos and that footage was released.
      - ajross 9mo ago
        [flagged]
        zahlman 9mo ago
        > but by engaging in this kind of framing you're essentially saying that all [state] violence is excusable by default I disagree that it has that effect. With the assumption of good faith, comments like GP aren't fishing around for an excuse; the point is to highlight what's legally relevant and where there is room to disagree with the interpretation of video. I don't think it's plausible that defense for the agents would clutch for a straw like "maybe he had a second weapon". That seems sarcastic and not interested in engaging with the argument seriously. I've seen a couple different videos now (not from any links ITT) and the most commonly shown one seems to have something obscuring the camera at a critical moment. Nevertheless, it seems highly probable that the man is indeed disarmed well before the first shot. But there will still be more that matters: * Was the first shot fired by an officer who knew that the weapon had already been taken? In particular, could there have been any miscommunication between the officers? * Did the victim know the weapon had been taken? I don't think it would be likely to succeed in court, but to my understanding the defense could raise the argument that one or more officers perceived that the victim still intended to draw and fire it. Ultimately, it boils down to establishing whether there was a reasonable perception, on the part of any officer that fired (I can't tell from the video I've seen who fired or how many shots or anything like that), of a threat from the victim meeting the legal standard to respond with lethal force. This is based on "totality of the circumstances" (as in things the officers knew leading up to the moment of shooting), but specifically based on what a reasonable officer would have been able to deduce in the moment (a high-pressure situation), without the benefit of hindsight. Most analyses I've seen thus far agree that there was not any solid defense here. Certainly it seems much more likely that someone is going to prison for this than in the Renee Good case. The DHS says they will be investigating.
        TimorousBestie 9mo ago
        > (I can't tell from the video I've seen who fired or how many shots or anything like that) You can’t count the number of gunshots? Huh. And here I thought your handle meant zahl + man.
- wqaatwt 9mo ago
  How is this relevant regardless? Concealed carry is not illegal and even in places where it might be its usually not grounds for a summary execution.
zahlman 9mo ago
[flagged]
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- queenkjuul 9mo ago
  And everyone else is annoyed by the fact that for some reason you still act like DHS isn't just continuously lying, repeating their statements as if they reflect what we all saw happen on video.

by ajross 9mo ago

jbullock35 9mo ago

I've watched four videos but haven't seen any footage (clear or otherwise) of gun removal. Can you post a link to clear footage of the removal? One video [1] shows someone walking away from the scene with a gun a fraction of a second before the shooting begins. But I can't see that the gun was removed from the protester. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1qlvpbr/footage_of_the_grey_coat_officer_retrieving_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1qlvpbr/footage_of_the...

ajross 9mo ago
https://x.com/rgoodlaw/status/2015144869497311275 https://x.com/rgoodlaw/status/2015144869497311275
- jbullock35 9mo ago
  Thanks. The link is to a Bellingcat analysis. They did great work on the Renee Good shooting, but in this case, they're describing stills from videos, and I can't see what they're seeing in the photos. The photos are just too fuzzy---at least for me, and I suspect for most other viewers. I don't mean to diminish the importance of the shooting, which is horrific no matter what one makes of the photos.
  - dekhn 9mo ago
    I think it's factually correct to say that none of the videos give a truly clear view of the order of events (specfically with regards to whether the protestor could possibly have wielded their gun while being restrained by agents, or whether he is disarmed by the gray-jacketed agent, or what caused the agents to fire when they did). It might be clearer if the agents were wearing bodycam videos and that footage was released.
    - ajross 9mo ago
      [flagged]
      - zahlman 9mo ago
        > but by engaging in this kind of framing you're essentially saying that all [state] violence is excusable by default I disagree that it has that effect. With the assumption of good faith, comments like GP aren't fishing around for an excuse; the point is to highlight what's legally relevant and where there is room to disagree with the interpretation of video. I don't think it's plausible that defense for the agents would clutch for a straw like "maybe he had a second weapon". That seems sarcastic and not interested in engaging with the argument seriously. I've seen a couple different videos now (not from any links ITT) and the most commonly shown one seems to have something obscuring the camera at a critical moment. Nevertheless, it seems highly probable that the man is indeed disarmed well before the first shot. But there will still be more that matters: * Was the first shot fired by an officer who knew that the weapon had already been taken? In particular, could there have been any miscommunication between the officers? * Did the victim know the weapon had been taken? I don't think it would be likely to succeed in court, but to my understanding the defense could raise the argument that one or more officers perceived that the victim still intended to draw and fire it. Ultimately, it boils down to establishing whether there was a reasonable perception, on the part of any officer that fired (I can't tell from the video I've seen who fired or how many shots or anything like that), of a threat from the victim meeting the legal standard to respond with lethal force. This is based on "totality of the circumstances" (as in things the officers knew leading up to the moment of shooting), but specifically based on what a reasonable officer would have been able to deduce in the moment (a high-pressure situation), without the benefit of hindsight. Most analyses I've seen thus far agree that there was not any solid defense here. Certainly it seems much more likely that someone is going to prison for this than in the Renee Good case. The DHS says they will be investigating.
        TimorousBestie 9mo ago
        > (I can't tell from the video I've seen who fired or how many shots or anything like that) You can’t count the number of gunshots? Huh. And here I thought your handle meant zahl + man.
wqaatwt 9mo ago
How is this relevant regardless? Concealed carry is not illegal and even in places where it might be its usually not grounds for a summary execution.

zahlman 9mo ago

[flagged]

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
queenkjuul 9mo ago
And everyone else is annoyed by the fact that for some reason you still act like DHS isn't just continuously lying, repeating their statements as if they reflect what we all saw happen on video.