What training and instruction have you had on the laws governing use of force in defense of self or others?
Why were cops there in the first place?
Because the family reported that he was attacking them.
He had a fucking gardening tool.
Yes. It appears to be a hoe. A hoe that is perfectly capable of causing death or grievous bodily harm when swung at the unprotected head and neck of an individual.
That “fucking gardening tool”, when wielded in this manner, is a deadly weapon. I certainly believe you would make such an argument were I to attempt to strike you with such a weapon.
I stand by my assertion: there is no reasonable argument to be made that this was unjustified. This use of force was reasonable in the circumstances.
If there is any fault here, it is on the fact that the kid was not institutionalized after a previous incident.
I have trained in quite a bit of self defence with various different martial arts.
The hoe could be lethal in a very unlucky scenario, as you say, if it struck an exposed neck, or major artery. However it is a very ungainly weapon. It is significantly less dangerous than a knife, for example. Police in the UK are not equipped with guns, yet they deal with knife attacks all the time with just a baton.
It seems to me like the cops in the US are far too reliant on their firearms. Dealing with a poor weapon like a hoe should be quite easy to someone who is suitably trained. With all long weapons like this hoe, baseball bat, etc, anything that needs to be swung, you have to get in close, quickly. Then the assailant cannot hit you anymore. Then it should be quite straightforward to make the situation safe in a non lethal manner. This sort of response is completely ridiculous and should not be normalized.
I have trained in quite a bit of self defence with various different martial arts.
What training and instruction have you had on the laws governing use of force in defense of self or others?
The hoe could be lethal in a very unlucky scenario, as you say, if it struck an exposed neck, or major artery.
Is it reasonably capable of causing “grievous bodily harm”? Being rendered unconscious or otherwise unable to defend oneself, or losing an eye or other significant organ would qualify as “grievous” in these circumstances.
Would a person reasonably fear either “death” or “grievous bodily harm” from an individual wielding a hoe as a weapon?
I am not interested in the nitty gritty of the legality of what the cop did. I don’t think he should have done it, and to me speaks of a lack of training (and the fact that they are reliant on their firearms)
I am aware of the principle of proportional response, and I know the line is generally; if you fear for your life then it is legally acceptable to maim the assailant. But to kill them I think is a step too far.
I do not think the hoe is “reasonably capable of causing “grievous bodily harm””. I think it is reasonably capable of causing injury, sure, such as cuts, lacerations, blunt trauma. I think GBH would be a very unlikely outcome and if confronted with that as a weapon I would not be preparing myself to kill or even maim them. It is a pretty easy weapon to disarm.
am not interested in the nitty gritty of the legality of what the cop did.
Then there is no discussion to be had. The law is the foundation of officer training and policy. To discuss the officer’s actions, we must first understand the legal climate under which he acted. He knows it: he has been trained on the law.
if you fear for your life then it is legally acceptable to maim the assailant. But to kill them I think is a step too far.
Under US law It is never acceptable to act with intention to kill or main the assailant. Having the intention of maiming the assailant is not self defense: it is aggravated battery. Having the intention of killing the assailant is not self defense: it is attempted murder.
The only intention contemplated by the laws governing the use of defensive force is “stop the threat”. The only valid purpose any imperiled person or other defender can have is “stop the threat”.
If they have time to decide between “killing” or “maiming” the attacker, the attack is not sufficiently imminent to justify any use of force. Their imperfect use of defensive force then qualifies as criminal. That they were attacked is only a mitigating factor; it does not exonerate the criminality of their actions.
I do not think the hoe is “reasonably capable of causing “grievous bodily harm””.
I think training that attitude into police would be a monumental mistake. Prideful, cocky, and overconfident in their own abilities,
Unless said person is a small child, very old, or unaware, no I don’t think it’s reasonable to fear even moderate injury from a teenager welding a hoe.
I fucking haaate the police. 100% ACAB. But yeah I’m with you on this one. Somebody charging at me full speed about to swing a 4 foot long anything is getting deadly force.
The cop on the defensive isn’t even the one that fired. He tried to outrun the kid. One of his homies did the shooting and possibly saved his head from getting split.
I’m sure we could dig into these officers’ history and find something to be pissed about but this isn’t it.
I read or heard a report that both officers fired. I believe the first officer was trying to run away as he fired, and the camera was on his chest. It didn’t see his gun arm outstretched behind him.
The position he was in was kinda like a driver aiming at the back, passenger-side seat: the body cam would only see the steering wheel.
I attempted to point out the hipocracy in the US stance on TikTok and got bangers like “ohh, poor chinese companies, won’t anyone think of the chinese companies!”
There aren’t many people on Lemmee who can think much deeper than what FOX tells them. :[
Granted, TikTok is a privacy violation nightmare – if we’re going to implement rules for them, we need to implement them across the board. Personal data aggregators such as Reddit, TikTok, Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, et. al. need to have new laws created which fence off their collection of personal data, and more importantly their ability to share it without warrants to police and government.
The article makes it clear that the intent of the legislation was more positive, albeit fraught, than many seem to think from the text here alone. However, it is clear to most that it is misapplied in many cases. It also goes on that there is recently introduced, currently pending legislation to improve the situation. Let’s hope it succeeds.
They released the drone video. The massacre happened before the Israelis showed up with gunmen shooting at the crowd. Seems like IDF is getting wise to the propaganda game and getting the videos out quickly now.
Not that any of that matters with headlines like this.
With all the videos on the ground, it’d be interesting to see one showing attack helicopters and planes if that happened.
Funny how people act like only China does this sort of thing and that the US is just a little guy who is far behind on cyber warfare and astroturfing and only does this kind of thing in self-defense. Pointing out how silly that is gets you mass downvoted and being called a shill/wumao.
This sounds awesome. Here’s what I wanna know though:
What stops your boss from then saying “You better stop at 31.95 hours or you’re in trouble.” Because they don’t wanna pay overtime? They already do this in a lot of jobs.
So, you’d need additional pay to compensate for less hours, but now you have a two-pronged battle because that just sounds way too lovely.
And I’m guessing a lot of the “exempt” office workers that grind themselves into dust the hardest won’t be affected?
I mean hey, I’d rather it just passes and we see what happens, and keep fixing it as it goes, at least it’s something! But the hardest part is blocking your bosses from weaseling around laws and screwing you anyway.
Correct. But that’s the issue right now. People look at the equation all wrong and say “I just wish I could get more hours!” instead of fighting for reasonable pay. If hours go down but pay doesn’t go up to compensate, a ton of people will actually get hit really hard by this and their lives will get worse instead of better.
Companies can use that tired, stupid line that “Washington says you don’t have the eagle-screeching-freedom-right to WORK! How dare they!” and people will buy it.
We don’t want that, because it’ll turn workers against worker-friendly politics, and that would be a Very Bad Thing, given the level of job-simp-indoctrination we’re already combating! :O
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.