Closing your garage door is now an executable offense in America

[Underseer]

https://splinternews.com/family-of-black-man-killed-by-white-cop-awarded-just-4-1826446883

Although your executioner might have to pay a $4 fine.



Guess the race of the victim. Go on, guess!

 

[Toni]

I read about this. Mixed emotions: not sure whether to scream, punch something or just weep.

I’m white so I have those choices.

 

[barbos]

$4 "compensation" is not cool, even if jury knows something we don't.
Anyway, I am glad I don't drink and not black.

 

[laughing dog]

WTF? How is closing a garage door such a threat that it necessitates opening fire?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

WTF? How is closing a garage door such a threat that it necessitates opening fire?

He had a gun on his own property. The police officer who shot him said he had the gun out but it may have been found in his pocket. Either way, it was his property, his garage. And he went to close the garage door after having opened it. I posted about this in the black privilege thread because we have people who will say it was black privilege for the family to receive $4 while not looking at the event holistically.

 

[laughing dog]

WTF? How is closing a garage door such a threat that it necessitates opening fire?

He had a gun on his own property. The police officer who shot him said he had the gun out but it may have been found in his pocket. Either way, it was his property, his garage. And he went to close the garage door after having opened it. I posted about this in the black privilege thread because we have people who will say it was black privilege for the family to receive $4 while not looking at the event holistically.

The idea that receiving a jury award is "privilege" of any sort is ridiculous.

 

[Trausti]

When deputies were called to the area at about 3 p.m. Tuesday, officials at a school across the street from Hill's home were complaining about his loud music. Deputies went to his home and when Hill opened the garage, he had a gun in his hand, Mascara said. Despite orders to drop the weapon, he raised it instead while simultaneously closing the garage door.

link

Why oh why did the OP and the article linked in the OP leave this out?

 

[laughing dog]

When deputies were called to the area at about 3 p.m. Tuesday, officials at a school across the street from Hill's home were complaining about his loud music. Deputies went to his home and when Hill opened the garage, he had a gun in his hand, Mascara said. Despite orders to drop the weapon, he raised it instead while simultaneously closing the garage door.

link

Why oh why did the OP and the article linked in the OP leave this out?

That links agrees the garage door was closing and the police fired through the closing garage door. Why oh why did not you focus on that closing door? Hmmm.

But according to the OP article

When officers knocked on his front door, Hill opened the garage door, saw the police, and began closing it again. At that point one of the deputies opened fire through the door, striking him twice in the body and once in the head. Police later found an unloaded gun in his back pocket, and determined his BAC had been nearly five times over the legal limit.

So, if that is true, then the claims of the police are pretty hard to believe.

 

[Trausti]

According to the OP article

When officers knocked on his front door, Hill opened the garage door, saw the police, and began closing it again. At that point one of the deputies opened fire through the door, striking him twice in the body and once in the head. Police later found an unloaded gun in his back pocket, and determined his BAC had been nearly five times over the legal limit.

So, if that is true, then the claims of the police are pretty hard to believe.

Um, the OP link is a from a Gawker-type site with an obvious bias. The link I posted from was from the local news station. Which of the two articles do you think is from direct sources and which is simply meant to inflame?

 

[laughing dog]

According to the OP article

When officers knocked on his front door, Hill opened the garage door, saw the police, and began closing it again. At that point one of the deputies opened fire through the door, striking him twice in the body and once in the head. Police later found an unloaded gun in his back pocket, and determined his BAC had been nearly five times over the legal limit.

So, if that is true, then the claims of the police are pretty hard to believe.

Um, the OP link is a from a Gawker-type site with an obvious bias. The link I posted from was from the local news station. Which of the two articles do you think is from direct sources and which is simply meant to inflame?

Irrelevant to the issue of the facts. As anyone who was interested in the facts would know. Do you have any reports that contradict the "gawker" report?

Both sources report that the garage door was closing and that an officer fired through the closing door and killed the suspect. There is no report by any source that the victim fired through the garage door. In fact, there is no report that the suspect pointed anything towards the police. One would think that information would lead to the reasonable conclusion that this victim was not a threat to anyone but himself. Or are you arguing the police fired to save that man from injuring himself?

 

[Trausti]

This may better explain the result of the trial than any demagogue effort to inflame.

Finally, the jury awarded Hill's relatives $1 for funeral expenses and $1 for each of Hill's three children. That $4 was then reduced to 4 cents — or 1 percent, representing the sheriff's liability. The other 99 percent was blamed on the dead man, under a Florida law that enables such decisions if a victim was under the influence of alcohol.

link

768.36 Alcohol or drug defense.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Alcoholic beverage” means distilled spirits and any beverage that contains 0.5 percent or more alcohol by volume as determined in accordance with s. 561.01(4)(b).
(b) “Drug” means any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111 or any substance controlled under chapter 893. The term does not include any drug or medication obtained pursuant to a prescription as defined in s. 893.02 which was taken in accordance with the prescription, or any medication that is authorized under state or federal law for general distribution and use without a prescription in treating human diseases, ailments, or injuries and that was taken in the recommended dosage.
(2) In any civil action, a plaintiff may not recover any damages for loss or injury to his or her person or property if the trier of fact finds that, at the time the plaintiff was injured:
(a) The plaintiff was under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug to the extent that the plaintiff’s normal faculties were impaired or the plaintiff had a blood or breath alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher; and
(b) As a result of the influence of such alcoholic beverage or drug the plaintiff was more than 50 percent at fault for his or her own harm.

 

[barbos]

This may better explain the result of the trial than any demagogue effort to inflame.

Finally, the jury awarded Hill's relatives $1 for funeral expenses and $1 for each of Hill's three children. That $4 was then reduced to 4 cents — or 1 percent, representing the sheriff's liability. The other 99 percent was blamed on the dead man, under a Florida law that enables such decisions if a victim was under the influence of alcohol.

link

768.36 Alcohol or drug defense.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Alcoholic beverage” means distilled spirits and any beverage that contains 0.5 percent or more alcohol by volume as determined in accordance with s. 561.01(4)(b).
(b) “Drug” means any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111 or any substance controlled under chapter 893. The term does not include any drug or medication obtained pursuant to a prescription as defined in s. 893.02 which was taken in accordance with the prescription, or any medication that is authorized under state or federal law for general distribution and use without a prescription in treating human diseases, ailments, or injuries and that was taken in the recommended dosage.
(2) In any civil action, a plaintiff may not recover any damages for loss or injury to his or her person or property if the trier of fact finds that, at the time the plaintiff was injured:
(a) The plaintiff was under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug to the extent that the plaintiff’s normal faculties were impaired or the plaintiff had a blood or breath alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher; and
(b) As a result of the influence of such alcoholic beverage or drug the plaintiff was more than 50 percent at fault for his or her own harm.

It does not explain $4.

 

[laughing dog]

This may better explain the result of the trial than any demagogue effort to inflame.



link

It does not explain $4.

Nor the 99% responsibility.

 

[Derec]

$4 "compensation" is not cool, even if jury knows something we don't.
Anyway, I am glad I don't drink and not black.

That jury should have decided the Korryn Gaines case. That case really needed an "FU" from the jury ..

 

[Derec]

we have people who will say it was black privilege for the family to receive $4 while not looking at the event holistically.

Do we? No, what is privilege is when the family of a woman who threatened police with a shotgun gets $37 million awarded to them.

 

[bleubird]

I live in a state with a lot of guns and a big alcohol problem.We do see this kind of thing a lot.Wonder what the difference is? Maybe we have better police?

 

[laughing dog]

we have people who will say it was black privilege for the family to receive $4 while not looking at the event holistically.

Do we? No, what is privilege is when the family of a woman who threatened police with a shotgun gets $37 million awarded to them.

Your outrage is not a logical argument. Ms. Gaines was killed and her 5 year old son was injured. She was not shot immediately after she threatened anyone with a shotgun.  Shooting_of_Korryn_Gaines indicates that the police did not use de-escalation protocols.

Perhaps the jury award was in error, and maybe it was not. But you have not presented an iota of evidence or a rational argument that the award is an example of "privilege".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

$4 "compensation" is not cool, even if jury knows something we don't.
Anyway, I am glad I don't drink and not black.

It's almost certainly a deliberate insult. The jury didn't like the case.

- - - Updated - - -

WTF? How is closing a garage door such a threat that it necessitates opening fire?

He had a gun on his own property. The police officer who shot him said he had the gun out but it may have been found in his pocket. Either way, it was his property, his garage. And he went to close the garage door after having opened it. I posted about this in the black privilege thread because we have people who will say it was black privilege for the family to receive $4 while not looking at the event holistically.

Gun plus BAC approaching .4. Doesn't matter if it's your own property, that's still not legal.

 

[Derec]

Your outrage is not a logical argument. Ms. Gaines was killed and her 5 year old son was injured.

Due to her own actions. She ignored her citation resulting in the initial warrant. She chose to escalate the situation by threatening the officers with a shotgun. And she chose to put her son in harm's way.

She was not shot immediately after she threatened anyone with a shotgun.  Shooting_of_Korryn_Gaines indicates that the police did not use de-escalation protocols.

They tried for six hours. In any case, the shooting is on her. All she needed to do to deescalate was to drop the gun and surrender. The shooting is on her, and the county should not have faced any liability.
And even if county had liability, $37 million is not based on any real damages.

Perhaps the jury award was in error, and maybe it was not. But you have not presented an iota of evidence or a rational argument that the award is an example of "privilege".

It was definitely a wrongful verdict. And it is an example of privilege because the whole case was based on race from the beginning to end. Or can you name a similar case where a white idiot who threatened police with a firearm got many millions of dollars?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Um, the OP link is a from a Gawker-type site with an obvious bias. The link I posted from was from the local news station. Which of the two articles do you think is from direct sources and which is simply meant to inflame?

Irrelevant to the issue of the facts. As anyone who was interested in the facts would know. Do you have any reports that contradict the "gawker" report?

Both sources report that the garage door was closing and that an officer fired through the closing door and killed the suspect. There is no report by any source that the victim fired through the garage door. In fact, there is no report that the suspect pointed anything towards the police. One would think that information would lead to the reasonable conclusion that this victim was not a threat to anyone but himself. Or are you arguing the police fired to save that man from injuring himself?

Why do you assume no threat? This guy had a long rap sheet and was going back to jail if he survived. (Probation, felon in possession.) He responded to the police by going for cover, not surrendering or disarming.