41–50 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, the situation in the video goes like this: (1) police had reason to believe that the man was armed and (2) man made a movement that was looking like he was reaching for a firearm. Now, what police should do in a situation which combines data points (1) and (2)?
Verify the firearm and attempt a non-lethal solution.
How far do you take this? For example, suppose you hear someone down the street yell, "My baby!", look up, and see a man shove a woman to the ground, take a baby from a stroller, get into a car with the baby, and drive quickly up the street, leaving behind the woman screaming "He took my baby! Help!". They pass you, and a block farther up turn left onto a freeway on ramp. 30 seconds later a police officer drives by,…
It's a matter of the risk you're willing to take. Sometimes refusing to answer a simple question is going to get you arrested. As long as you're willing to risk arrest and expensive lawyers, don't say anything.
Lawyers are not automatically expensive. In fact, a decent lawyer can often save you money. It does require that you have the resources to pay for the lawyer in advance, and if you cannot then you have my sympathy, but my default position is yes. I get a lawyer for everything, even simple driving violations.
In the kidnapping scenario described above, I would definitely have tried to help the responding officer by describing what I saw and where the person fled, but anything beyond a very cursory exchange and it's 'I would like to help you but I have no further comment without speaking to a lawyer first'.
Is the hidden motive here to sell lawyer services? This is a lawyer on a long and powerful rant about how you shouldn't do X without a lawyer. I'm not saying that this makes the point less valid, but beware that people are always better equipped to make powerful arguments when that argument aligns with their source of income.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a matter of the risk you're willing to take. Sometimes refusing to answer a simple question is going to get you arrested. As long as you're willing to risk arrest and expensive lawyers, don't say anything.
> Sometimes refusing to answer a simple question is going to get you arrested This is not true. To arrest someone (in theory sure a rogue cop can do anything) police need probable cause. Probable cause is not 'refusing to answer questions'. If they have enough to arrest you answering questions is not going to make them decide to not arrest you. Why? Because why would they believe just what you say verbally if there i…
You might call this excessively cynical but it has a point. If a police officer wants to arrest you there isn't much to stop him.
So don’t talk to the police. Yet the same people promoting that are against concealed carry and the castle doctrine. So how does one defend themselves and their property if we assume we aren’t supposed to cooperate with police. It’s a serious question — we are supposed to be opposed to self defense because ostensibly police exist to protect us, but then we aren’t supposed to actually talk to police? How does that wor…
Even if concealed carry and castle doctrine laws didn't exist, you'd still be able to arm yourself against intruders. What they will teach you in CHL classes is, if you shoot someone, to call the police and say "There was a shooting. Please send police and ambulance" and then hang up. You're not admitting anything, and asking for the ambulance is important because it displays concern for the person shot.
Won't the police show up expecting an active armed gunman? Is there anything you can say to show that there is no new danger of violence without implicating yourself?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, the situation in the video goes like this: (1) police had reason to believe that the man was armed and (2) man made a movement that was looking like he was reaching for a firearm. Now, what police should do in a situation which combines data points (1) and (2)?
easy. the kid was pinned down, face down, from the very start of the video. officer 1 advances to cuff, officer 2 covers. so fucking simple.
Oh, and I completely forgot the fact that a decision like this should be taken in a VERY short span of time - you can't turn on intelligence for this, it HAS to be trained.
For me, algorithm adds "possible weapon", "suspect understands that we're pointing guns at him" and "arm reaching down" and automatically goes to "open fire" is the only possible one.
I keep rewatching this video every now and then, very recommended if you're from the U.S. I wonder how much does all this information apply to other countries (for instance, in the EU).
I keep rewatching this video every now and then, very recommended if you're from the U.S. I wonder how much does all this information apply to other countries (for instance, in the EU).
In countries with rights, all of the same applies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a matter of the risk you're willing to take. Sometimes refusing to answer a simple question is going to get you arrested. As long as you're willing to risk arrest and expensive lawyers, don't say anything.
> As long as you're willing to risk arrest and expensive lawyers, don't say anything. Lawyers are not automatically expensive. In fact, a decent lawyer can often save you money. It does require that you have the resources to pay for the lawyer in advance, and if you cannot then you have my sympathy, but my default position is yes. I get a lawyer for everything, even simple driving violations. In the kidnapping scenar…
Obstruction of justice? Failing to comply with a LEO instructions? Failing that the dude’s got a gun and he’s not going to be afraid to use it.
I don’t know if you’ve read the article but body cams or no, they will shoot you dead and get away with it.
