Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was a hostage situation. Was the 5 year old boy, not a hostage to his crazed, gun-wielding mother in this standoff? I love Monday morning quarterbacks.
Are you saying that I'm Monday morning quarterbacking? I was trying to ask questions and share possible approaches, without saying anything definitively prescriptive. A Monday Morning Quarterback doesn't leave a lot of question or uncertainty. That's the kind of the point. They take potshots post facto and frame what "should've" been done as obvious or what happened as ridiculous/blatantly stupid. I don't see how my…
Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff
111–120 of 123 posts
Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
The negotiator is going to try to work with the suspect. If the suspect is communicating with people online that could undermine the negotiations and make the situation much more dangerous for both.
Indeed, in this specific case the article says "Her social-media followers, police said, were encouraging her not to give in."
Live streaming has amazing potential for keeping law enforcement accountable. With events like the death of Philando Castile it seems many of us have realized this. I think we've been slower to realize what potential live feedback may have.
Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff
#113http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/06/17/man-shot-killed-whil...
Where he was live streaming to Facebook while being shot by police. If the police can prevent streams like these from being seen, it gives them a huge legal advantage. It means the public won't be able to see what happened and can't put political pressure on DAs to prosecute cops. It's much better for them if they can keep that footage internal to Facebook, the police force, and the DA if at all possible.
Very smart.
Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff
#114Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
An alternate explanation is a woman was protecting her child from a threat --real, perceived or otherwise. Poor choice? Probably. But I think you've only explored one side of the story and a lot more information has become available in the last 12 hours.
A shotgun is not a reasonable way to protect oneself from a state. The state probably has more police officers than you have bullets. You'll only make it worse.
Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff
#116I wonder if there was a way to resolve this standoff without her death. I.e. letting her shoot all the shotgun shells she has, or just waiting until she gets tired and slips up, gets hungry, etc. Yeah, it requires a lot of patience but hey, you can save a human life. I don't think she would have harmed her kid so waiting in cover seems like a relatively safe thing to do?
if police are about to shoot, and have good cause to, then it would seem reasonable that they be allowed to use sleep gas or tranquilizer, similar to what doctors use during operation. Seems better than killing them. Downside could be lawsuites against the police for "damages" that the sleep gas caused.
A dose enough to knock out an adult might easily kill a child.
Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone shooting at the police is a clear and present danger to everyone's life and needs to be neutralized as quickly as possible. "Letting her shoot all the shells she had" sounds like a cute scene in a movie, not reality. You don't know what the shells will be able to penetrate, whether bystanders in nearby apartments or on the street are at danger, etc. The preservation of her life stopped being a concern when sh…
You also don't know how many shells someone has when they can buy them by the crate at Wal-Mart.
Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody deserves to die (unless you believe in the death penalty I guess?). However, threatening to kill people, and exhibiting signs of extreme instability and violence, makes someone a danger that needs to be neutralized. If that person pulls a gun on the police during that process, they are not likely to end up in a good spot. Especially with a five year old in the vicinity.
I agree that the outcome could have been predicted, and I would not have acted in the same way she did. But let's have some empathy: she was in her home, and some folks came to her home and attempted to remove her, with threats of violence. She didn't believe they had legal authority to do that. What would you do in that situation, with those beliefs?
Now let's say I disagree that police officers have the right to enforce the law, and that, in fact, the entire legal system doesn't apply to me, and it infringes on my fundamental rights as a human being. I don't need to work through the system, because the system doesn't apply to me! Well, that sucks -- I still live in the United States, where the power of the law is ultimately backed by a large citizenship that does believe that the laws apply to them, and also by an incredible military force and globally connected political powers.
Clearly, saying "the law doesn't apply to me," while I'm living in the US, is about as useful as saying "the rules of physics don't apply to me." In the interest of self-preservation, while pursuing my ideologies, I might abscond to some country that does not have political ties to the US, and obtain citizenship there. Heck, I might just find my own island in the middle of nowhere and live out the rest of my days in the peace of my own personal government. Great! Everyone's happy!
However, essentially declaring war on an institution far more powerful than yourself, while the institution has both the self-interest and ability to enforce its laws isn't so much "exercising your personal ideologies" as it is "a symptom of an insane person with no sense of self preservation"
There are refugees all around the world that are fleeing from the ideologies of their own governments. That's within their rights as human beings. However, it's a symptom of insanity, not personal ideology, to believe that the laws of the country literally don't apply to you while you're there. This is why we don't often see these refugees driving around the streets of their home country, disobeying (relatively) minor laws in an extremely attention-getting way, trying to pick fights, and then threatening to shoot cops. I'm sure there are examples of this, but I'll just say the same thing in those cases -- that's not political ideology, it's insanity. And when insane people wave guns around, they get shot.
Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff
#119Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff
#120> According to a police report from the March stop, which the department released after the shooting, Gaines was stopped when an officer saw that in place of a license plate she had a piece of cardboard on her vehicle. The cardboard declared, “Any Government official who compromises this pursuit to happiness and right to travel, will be criminally responsible and fined, as this is a natural right and freedom.” So she…
It's not gobbledygook to disagree with the government. (Is the Declaration of Independence gobbledygook?) It's only gobbledygook if you expect a police officer or court to be persuaded by your reasoning. Gaines defended her sovereignty with her gun, just like the US and MD government does. Unfortunately for her, the MD government used it's guns more preemptively, aggressively, and effectively.