At this point, I firmly believe that the reason for the botched police intervention and cover-up is that the officers who were there minutes after the first shots made use of their renowned trigger discipline and us-vs them training and shot some of the kids fleeing the massacre.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t some of the surviving student attest to this fact… that they heard and some even saw the cops kills some of the victims… being hearsay, the media wrote it off as rumors, but the parents of these students and the students themselves have never chamged their accounts of what they say they heard and saw?
The governor of Florida and presidential hopeful said looters will be shot on sight. So no, it’s not where we’re headed because we’ve passed that destination and it’s normal. Property is firmly above people.
There’s a reason why Militech and Arasaka are the biggest players in the cyberpunk rpg universe. Once corporatocracy reigns supreme and public funding is gone they reap profits off private security, as intended. We’re just now seeing the horizon of “defund the police” becoming “hire a PMC as your ‘police force’”
Oh lol I’m totally aware. There was a time in history where striking didn’t mean you’d be fired but instead fired upon. Just sucks to see it now coming back full circle
Yes. To get back to normality, we must pass through this extreme, which is the necessary counter to defunding and demonizing the police as opposed to holding only the bad ones responsible for their actions. We’ll be in this state until we remove qualified immunity. So it will probably take a while.
Oh yeah, sure, they increase prices because of “theft.” They’re honest corporations who would never increase prices for another reason like greed or price gouging.
Yeah, harming them employee salaries. What a noble concept!
Awwwww, did I piss off the retards who got r/shoplifting banned? You can justifying stealing all you want but you’re ultimate assholes for harming the stores.
properly ran companies have insurance and also factor theft into their loss for the year. People need to eat to survive and corporations are literally tearing our world apart.
So again if you see someone shoplifting, especially necessities, no you didn’t.
(Also this is a Kroger, it’s a giant supermarket chain. If you stole full shopping cart everyday it would still affect no one monetarily)
You’re the dumb fuck here because there’s been many stories and accounts of people who’ve survived gunshots and not died. What do you have to say to those, you stupid fuck? Huh? Not going to sound so smart then, aren’t you?
I just checked out your post history. Holy shit do you need more help than I know how to provide. Tell a psychiatrist the shit you’re able to admit online, I dare you.
Goddamn, the United States really is a shithole country, isn’t it? It’s obvious that shooting was the homeowner’s first resort, because this was a drunk guy who thought that it was his own house. Any sign that it was not, like lights going on, or yelling, would have at least made him pause in confusion.
But yeah, Americans be like killing somebody before even issuing a threat is totally justified.
Drunk guy who broke the window trying to get in. Maybe it wasn’t clear this person was probably harmless and they panicked. Not sure why the people asleep in their home world be expected to flash the lights or whatever you are thinking is a normal middle of the night response to someone breaking into your home.
IDK, I don’t like guns for this exact reason. Too easy to end a life out of panic. But the drunk has the bulk of the responsibility here IMO.
From the article, it’s clear that their first resort was to call the police when he was banging and kicking on the door. The woman was on the phone with the police when he broke the window and attempted to open the door through the broken pane.
While the woman was on the phone with police, Donofrio broke a glass window on the front door “and reached inside to manipulate the doorknob,” at which point the male resident fired the shot through the broken window, striking Donofrio in his upper body, police said.
I am sorry but … if I am at home with my wife and kids and drunk stranger aggressively bangs and kicks the door, doesn’t stop when asked, smashes a window and reaches in to get in - I will probably also have my gun ready if the police doesn’t show up fast enough. Some people get super aggressive when drunk - some get confused and silly. There is definitely a difference.
Not American, I live in Europe. No I am not right wing.
Yeah, because drunk, unarmed people are such a threat, that you have to just shoot him.
As if in every other country we don’t have drunks…
Especially drunk people are mostly no threat. Even my grandma always said “oh, a drunk man has no strength”
It kinda sounds hyped up and hysterical from the outside, to be honest
Edit: ah, missed that you aren’t from the US. but still, you would shoot a drunk guy, just because you feel threatened?
There are so many possibilities to defend yourself, I can’t see a gun to be necessary - or even justified
As explained - there ar silly drunks and very aggressive drunks. The chance of this happening here is absolutely non existent and very theoretical. But yes if a very aggressive drunk is forcing his way into my home and not reacting to warnings and I determine him to be a threat to me or my family I totally would shoot him to protect my family - no question. Armed or not - - if he poses a threat the idea is not to be on the same level as him and fight fair …
If it’s just a silly non threatening drunk we can’t even see straight and poses no threat obviously not. This situation is not as easy as my fellow Europeans make it out to be - guess it’s just easier to flame the US.
You clearly are an idiot. I mean like you have zero understanding of anything other than cyberpunk paid expansions. You are a hate filled individual and you have only been here for 3 weeks? My lord are you alone? scared about who and what you are? A big sad fat turd?
To anyone saying she tried to run over the officer, please watch the body cam footage. She is turning the wheel as much as possible to steer the vehicle away from the officer. On top of that, she pulled forward very slowly. If you were trying to run someone over, you would not give them every opportunity to avoid being hit by the vehicle.
If they are US routes or interstates then yes. If they are state or county/township roads than probably not. Though if I recall correctly if a local road has an over/underpass of an interstate federal funds could be used to help maintain or rebuild those bridges. That part I'm fuzzy on though so could be wrong.
They define a mass shooting as a shooting incident where 4 or more people, excluding the shooter, are shot. They have 498 mass shootings recorded so far this year.
When you use a website that has a purpose of further a narrative, yes that’s absolutely biased. That’s like people using NRA stats to argue in favor of guns. So until you can use actual data without spin, your arguments are irrelevant. Your website gets its data from somewhere, what’s the source and do the numbers still line up to your claim?
The guy was trying to break in, having smashed a window and was working and lock from the inside. He wasn’t just drunkenly banging on the door.
According to previously unreported details that police released about the incident Wednesday, Donofrio repeatedly knocked, banged and kicked on the front door “while manipulating the door handle” in trying to enter the home.
A female resident called 911 as Donofrio kicked the door, while a male resident went to retrieve a firearm elsewhere in the home, the news release says. The homeowner owned the gun legally, “for the purpose of personal and home protection,” police said.
While the woman was on the phone with police, Donofrio broke a glass window on the front door “and reached inside to manipulate the doorknob,” at which point the male resident fired the shot through the broken window, striking Donofrio in his upper body, police said.
If it’s not obvious those rules are in place to punish women. Not to protect. They will never ever be applied in a protective way. That’s not what they were made for.
Because as we have access to human reasoning combined with data, it can be seen that these events regularly occur throughout the world with far lesser routine brutality and death as the outcome.
The existence of data sets restricted by country are a natural dataset that can shine a light on outliers. When it comes to certain types of brutality, when a country becomes notable, is it unreasonable to ask questions? I would say that it is completely reasonable to do so.
What I would say is unreasonable to do, is to look at the event with a microscope when such macrosropic data exists. Or to express surprise that people wouldn’t expect extrajudicial execution of a mother and child. It shines the light back on the asker of the question, “Are they unaware, ignorant, or more-commonly, willfully ignorant.?”
The willfully ignorant are often trying to bend the world to their conception of the world instead of seeing it as it is, because that would require a call to action. We would have to identify a problem and fix it and this type of data is inconvenient, but I don’t know you, so I can’t be sure of your intentions. I hope you are able to receive this as well as it was intended, and perhaps empathize with people who still feel surprise when executions occur without trial.
Do you want to live in a world where such executions are no longer surprising, but instead a routine occurrence?
With all of these women being charged with murder for abortions, are we going to see these police punished for killing an innocent bystander (the baby)?
The mother was not innocent in this. A vehicle is a deadly weapon. She fucked around, and found out. I do feel sorry for the unborn child though. I wish there were a way they could have stopped the car non-violently that didn’t violate our freedoms. Vehicle immobilizers that police could use seem a ham-fisted solution – If she was let go, and running from the police as she clearly intended to do, she could have easily harmed someone or killed someone else. Just because you’re ready to jump on the “Poleece bad mkay” train…at least look at this further than just the incident at hand. She was fleeing, and probably panicking. She was a harm to others and stopping her was probably the right call. How else are you supposed to stop someone with a 3000lb death machine in a parking lot full of pedestrians?
Where are the people suggesting what could have been done better here? Because I don’t see them. I see stupid platitudes of “oh you could have let her go and arrested her at her house”…come on. She was a danger to the pedestrians in the parking lot there. If she was allowed to just try and race home, how many other people could have been put at risk because of her panic?
It’s not police policy to kill fleeing suspects, plenty of jurisdictions even choose not to pursue. So the answer to those questions is that yes, they absolutely could have let her drive away, as some other police forces already do without issue.
Aside from that, even if they decided to pursue, it is not police policy anywhere to use deadly force to stop a fleeing subject unless it becomes an acute danger to the public. A fleeing subject who has yet to break 10 MPH does not fall under that description, not here, not anywhere.
And here’s a question, if it was such a deadly situation for this officer, how did he not get injured? He was already safely out of the way of the vehicle by the time any of his bullets had an effect. Because he’s not a fucking invalid and can side step a car, which he put himself in front of to begin with, pulling out of a parking spot.
Do you feel safer today because this woman is dead? Does anyone?
Yes, those policies refer to fleeing suspects who pose no danger to the public. Fleeing in a vehicle poses a danger to the public. That’s why they pit-maneuver vehicles fleeing on the highway.
Great, they didn’t allow her to break 10mph, it means they did their job.
The deadly situation doesn’t apply JUST to the officer – they are meant to protect the public. It’s just like computer security, someone good at their job doesn’t have anything happen. They stop the problem before it becomes a problem. You’re not good at your job because you LET the system get infected first.
Ditto for policing, you don’t wait for them to hurt others in order to justify stopping them after - they were already being detained. If you begin driving off with pedestrians around and the police want you out of your vehicle, they have a legitimate reason to stop you using whatever force is necessary.
If she is just running away? Hell no, the force isn’t justified here. It’s her being in the car that causes the force to be justified. Same with if a person had a gun, or a knife, she has a weapon…the car.
So you plan on volunteering to be hit between a car and a wall at 10mph to show how not-deadly it is? Because I’ll concede my point if you do. If you don’t want to do it, ask yourself why… it’s probably because a 3000lb object traveling at 10mph can be deadly; despite your protests to the contrary.
Nothing that you’ve stated here can objectively determine that these police officers did anything wrong, your political biases are at play here rather than a good neutral look at reality.
A pit maneuver isn’t an attempt to kill the driver.
There is no evidence she was a danger to anyone in that parking lot. None. Zero. Pulling out of a parking spot does not make you a deadly threat. There’s no amount of imagination of what could go wrong that makes it so.
Have the police even used the threat to the public as justification for this shooting? If not, why are you making that argument for them? The only issue I’ve seen them raise was the danger to the officer who fired the shot.
There’s no such thing as objective right and wrong, we’re not discussing a measurable experiment here. I’m biased against the unnecessary loss of life. I’m biased against police murdering pregnant women (or anyone, of course). I’m biased against our police being far more violent than any of our contemporaries. If that makes me “politically biased” in your eyes, so be it. I’d much rather be on that end of bias than the other.
I’m biased against the unnecessary loss of life as well, which is why I make decisions that limit the opportunities for it to happen. To place all of the blame on the police here is shortsighted and makes no effort into holding the person accountable for their actions as well.
So in short. She made decisions that led to her own demise. She could have made better ones, and she didn’t. Her death, was a result of the choices she made. The police were within the guidelines they are permitted to act upon. I don’t see anything they did here that could have been done objectively better. I’d have preferred they taze her, but it looked like the window was up in her vehicle. I would have loved for this whole thing to turn out differently, but it didn’t.
I’m just not simply going to place the blame on the police in this situation, as I don’t see them as having overstepped any lines.
Police do terrible, horrible shit every damn day. But I’m not going to blindly react to every public interaction with police in a demonizing manner without looking at the objective reality. The reality of the situation here is that she made the wrong decision and ultimately paid for it. I wish it wouldn’t happen, but I’m not going to fault the police officers for this one. There are many worse incidences to point out, and claiming that this one was one of the bad ones just dilutes the argument when police truly do something out of line.
What do you suggest be done otherwise that would have objectively stopped this woman? What other manner of detainment was available here? Does your solution put others at risk? How can we move towards implementing solutions for police that doesn’t ultimately also put their life at risk when encountering people who would otherwise disregard their own safety?
I don’t see anything they did here that could have been done objectively better.
He could have not jumped in front of the car for starters.
There was no risk to anyone in letting her drive home. Fuck right off with all your deadly weapon bullshit that’s already been called out. Take her license plate, let her drive home, and deal with the accusations later. No one gets hurt, problem solved.
Yeah, because that’s what we do when someone is criminally resisting, we…let them go! Are you listening to yourself objectively right now?
Oh there’s a guy who just robbed a bank and shot 2 tellers? Don’t shoot him, just let him go. We’ll just put out a warrant for his arrest and pick him up later!
Wut…
There was risk in letting her drive home. That part is clear. She was already willing to attempt running over an officer. Your argument is that the officer shouldn’t have stepped in front of the car? Seriously? She was told to get out of the car. Not to leave. The idea behind stepping in front of the car is that most people would have the sense enough NOT to try and run someone over with that car. She didn’t. She suffered those consequences.
If a police officer told you to step out of the car and they had someone in front, would you attempt to run him over? I sure as fuck wouldn’t. But because he’s a police officer and you’ve already made up your mind about him, you don’t mind excusing HIS life, and you’ll make all sorts of arguments for hers.
It’s pretty clear that this argument isn’t in good faith from you. You’re not willing to use logic and a baseline of morality on a level playing field across all actors in this event. You’ve discounted her actions, and aren’t willing to even budge on the argument that she shouldn’t do what she did.
Life lesson kids: If you don’t want to get killed by a police officer…don’t attempt to run over them with your car.
But again. It isn’t policy to always immediately go after a fleeing person. You are ignoring that she steered away from the officer and he deliberately put himself in front of her. You are ignoring that she went incredibly slowly. The cops, plural, as in other cops who could have gotten in their cars and created a barricade, were also present. There were numerous things they could have done rather than murder her. But I guess it’s only the murder victim who did anything wrong and the cops are perfect.
Listen to yourself right now. Not only are you putting words in my mouth with the “cops are perfect” shtick, but you’re completely dismissing the womans actions. You’re making an excuse for literally everything she did. Meanwhile in my replies, I’ve mentioned and even suggested ways police could have done things better.
All cops are bad. I agree with that. But I don’t agree with “All cops are bad all the time in every situation whatsoever”.
Nobody called her a bitch, first off. Second off, I agree that it’s stupid that as a citizen, we’re expected to keep calm and act rationally in these kinds of situations. It sucks but it is what it is. My wife got arrested for “DUI” but she and I don’t drink or do drugs – she didn’t try and run away, she complied with the officer, got taken to jail, bailed out, and we solved it in front of a jury of her peers. That’s how this shit works.
Additionally, nobody knows if this woman was innocent or not. Claiming that she IS, or ISN’T is bullshit either way.
If she IS, we should be discussing why our people feel the need to steal in order to survive.
If she ISN’T, we should be discussing how to keep people calmer during these types of police interactions.
The facts here are though, that she evaded police with a vehicle that was a potential harm to others, and the police stopped it.
Good to know that if the police murdered your wife for not exactly following their orders you would still be defending them since I assume you are not a total hypocrite.
My best friend was shot and killed for trying to break into a neighbors lawn trailer. Initially I was mad at the guy (what person wouldn’t be?) - but over time, I realized that he had made those decisions on his own, and he suffered the consequences of them.
If my wife had done the same thing and gotten herself killed - I’d do the same thing probably. Probably be mad at police initially, then mad at her for choosing to do something so stupid. But in the end, I wouldn’t blame the police unless they did something unreasonable. My wife was having a medical episode at the time, and genuinely probably needed to be taken to the hospital instead of being arrested, but the fact of the matter is she was swerving in and out of traffic so their pulling her over ultimately was a good thing. She could have gotten my son that was riding with her killed.
His name is Brett Lee Canada, you’re welcome to look it up. It happened in Lake County, FL. I don’t know what they do with police records of people who are deceased, but that information is there if you want to confirm my honesty.
The lawsuit went forward and the gentleman was found to have been within his rights to have shot Brett.
The other incident occurred about 3:30 a.m. Nov. 19 on Spring Hill Avenue in Sorrento, where Brett Lee Canada, 23, was shot and killed by homeowner Shane Biel, who recently had installed an alarm system to deter thefts.
Biel, 41, who previously reported thefts of commercial lawn equipment from his property, confronted a man inside a fenced area who was wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and gloves. Biel told deputies he fired when the man moved aggressively at him.
Canada, a convicted burglar, had served about two years in prison for property crimes.
No, maybe not, but I’m not sure “she fucked around and found out” is any better of a way to refer to a woman that was just murdered.
Second off, I agree that it’s stupid that as a citizen, we’re expected to keep calm and act rationally in these kinds of situations.
So then why was the woman at fault for getting scared and trying to flee? “She fucked around and found out”, huh?
If she ISN’T, we should be discussing how to keep people calmer during these types of police interactions.
No, regardless of if she were guilty of the extremely heinous and dangerous crime of shoplifting (the horror!), what we SHOULD be discussing is why the cop felt the need to draw his gun and point it at the woman for such a small crime (of which he had zero evidence I might add) that could have been handled a million other ways. Drawing a gun on somebody is a direct threat on their life. You may as well yell “obey or die”. Under no circumstances should a gun be used so freely. She had every single right to be scared out of her mind and try to escape at that moment.
Even if we go with your opinion of her being a threat to the public, the officers are directly responsible for that and never should have let it get to that point in the first place over a god-damned shoplifting accusation. I mean fucking hell, the victim does not actually start driving forward until the cop is pointing his gun at her and screaming at her to get out of the car. Stop blaming her for the extremely excessive threat (and execution) of a police officer.
I do feel sorry for the unborn child though. I wish there were a way they could have stopped the car non-violently that didn’t violate our freedoms.
This is unacceptable. Ohio won’t have exceptions for incest and the health of the mother, but they will have exceptions if the mother allegedly commits a crime and is innocent until proven guilty under our legal system?
Anyone who is pro life and not furious about this is a fucking craven hypocrite.
I’m not “pro-life”. Hell, I don’t value human life at all for the most part. Most people are fucking idiot trash. But I do believe that if we’re passing laws that put women on murder charges for aborting, police should be held to that same standard. If they kill a child due to their enforcement actions, that should be considered killing an innocent bystander and should be held accountable for that. (And let’s be fair, the only reason they want to keep people from aborting is because you’re not producing another wage-slave for the nation to work to death)
Also, obviously I wish this situation turned out differently. I don’t want police everywhere to have short-range vehicle immobilizers, because like anything, police WILL abuse any power put into their possession. But on the same hand, I think to myself that maybe if they did have immobilizers, police chases, people running over others with vehicles, etc would be a much more solvable problem. Many police interactions involving cars become dangerous quickly.
Everyone here on lemmy is so caught up in their own preconceptions that they aren’t replying to have a discussion - they’re replying to issue their rebuttal because they’re caught up in an emotional reaction.
Ideally this whole incident could have gone better – but I don’t know of a solution that would give the police the ability to detain this woman with the actions she was willing to take. Except obviously my idea of short-range vehicle immobilizers. But if you give that ability to the police, others will find it and hack it, abuse it, etc. So I don’t think in the long run it would work.
You could maybe equip them with some sort of tire-destroying vehicle immobilizer, something that permanently stuck into the tire - but given how tough tires are, it’s not something that could easily be carried around.
The MOST reasonable idea here was that the police shoot her tires out - but I don’t know the dynamics between bullets and tires so I’m unsure if that would be dangerous to bystanders or not.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.