Police Misconduct Catch All Thread

[Gospel]

Why are you (and others) so reluctant to acknowledge that Fortson should not have answered the door while clutching a gun?

My personal feelings, like yours, are irrelevant to the legality of his actions. There is no law in Florida that supports your stance, sir.

 

[Gospel]

Clearly, it doesn't take perfect vision to see that the officer made a mistake. There is no law prohibiting someone from answering their door with a firearm. In fact, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution supports the right to own and bear arms within one's home, including at the door. Simply possessing a firearm does not constitute an immediate threat, and the individual did nothing that could be considered threatening.

The second amendment is nowhere near that detailed. And, as I told Patooka, it's funny how quickly y'all turn into 2nd Amendment absolutists.

I wasn't quoting the Second Amendment verbatim; I was sharing my opinion. Thanks for making me waste keystrokes to explain the obvious. The Second Amendment states, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' The 'bear arms' part is precisely what the gentleman was doing when he was shot. Your personal opinion adds the element of a threat when being in possession of a firearm is a legal right and not a threat.

 

[ZiprHead]

Clearly, it doesn't take perfect vision to see that the officer made a mistake. There is no law prohibiting someone from answering their door with a firearm. In fact, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution supports the right to own and bear arms within one's home, including at the door. Simply possessing a firearm does not constitute an immediate threat, and the individual did nothing that could be considered threatening.

The second amendment is nowhere near that detailed. And, as I told Patooka, it's funny how quickly y'all turn into 2nd Amendment absolutists.

Sorry, no. We are just dealing with a situation that happened under the present interpretation of the 2nd amendment. That doesn't make your straw man about absolutists any less of a straw man.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've seen the video but I have not located it to post here. The airman has the gun in his hand at his side.

Who answers the door with a gun? Especially when the knocker identifies himself as being from the Sheriff's office.

Reportedly, he didn't understand the words.

I think there's plenty of blame for both sides here.

The police are following anti-ambush procedures that also interfere with the people inside verifying that it's the police.

And the idiot for opening the door with a gun in hand. If you think the situation outside warrants a gun then you shouldn't be opening the door in the first place!

 

[Gospel]

That is merely an opinion and is not supported by any existing laws. I challenge you or Derec to present a law that makes it illegal to answer the door with a firearm. While you are entitled to your opinion, whether you believe it was a good or bad decision is entirely irrelevant.

 

[marc]

So we might as well just get rid of the 2nd amendment. If the police can just kill you for bearing arms, without consequences, then you don't actually have a right to bear arms do you? Over time, with less guns in the country then maybe the police will stop treating every encounter at someone's home as a raid on a terrorist camp.

 

[Gospel]

If the police can just kill you for bearing arms, without consequences, then you don't actually have a right to bear arms do you?

Two users here seem to believe that the right to bear arms has limitations. I suspect these limits are based more on the individual's identity rather than their actions. The reason I say this is because, in this case, I see nothing that the individual did that isn't supported by the Second Amendment.

 

[ZiprHead]

I've seen the video but I have not located it to post here. The airman has the gun in his hand at his side.

Who answers the door with a gun? Especially when the knocker identifies himself as being from the Sheriff's office.

Reportedly, he didn't understand the words.

I think there's plenty of blame for both sides here.

The police are following anti-ambush procedures that also interfere with the people inside verifying that it's the police.

And the idiot for opening the door with a gun in hand. If you think the situation outside warrants a gun then you shouldn't be opening the door in the first place!

I can see being suspicious. Someone outside claims to be a cop but you cannot confirm through the peephole because the person is intentionally evading it.

Plainclothes cops have had the same issue.

 

[marc]

If the police can just kill you for bearing arms, without consequences, then you don't actually have a right to bear arms do you?

Two users here seem to believe that the right to bear arms has limitations. I suspect these limits are based more on the individual's identity rather than their actions. The reason I say this is because, in this case, I see nothing that the individual did that isn't supported by the Second Amendment.

I agree.

The police reaction to a gun, or even perceived gun depends more on the person's identity then the reality of the situation. Such as John Crawford, shot for holding a BB gun in a walmart that sold them, in an open-carry state. Countless people shot who were not armed at all. And all this goes directly against the idea the extreme gun rights crowd have of no restrictions acceptable on their guns... but funny enough those people hardly ever call out police shootings.

As for my views, their is a national right to guns, and should be better national standards like universal background checks. Then there are state/local level regulations that see to the needs of the area. If you live in an area where your next door neighbor's house is over a mile away, then having a rifle can practically be a necessity. Live in a major city, then a lot more restrictions are likely appropriate.

 

[Gospel]

As for my views, their is a national right to guns, and should be better national standards like universal background checks. Then there are state/local level regulations that see to the needs of the area. If you live in an area where your next door neighbor's house is over a mile away, then having a rifle can practically be a necessity. Live in a major city, then a lot more restrictions are likely appropriate.

In my opinion, inconsistent standards exacerbate bias and discrimination and have led to confusion for both law enforcement and citizens who travel between different areas. The law should be impartial and applied uniformly across the board. No citizen's right to bear arms should be easier or more difficult to exercise based on their location within the country.

In my opinion, we have an adequate number of laws, but the issue in America seems to lie in the execution. Decisions often depend on the preferences of local authorities and communities, leading to inconsistent application and enforcement. The very nature of relying on humans and our inherent biases to apply the law is fundamentally flawed & the only way it can be done at that.

 

[lpetrich]

Officer who killed Breonna Taylor has been hired by a nearby police department : NPR - April 24, 2023 11:36 AM ET

Chanelle Helm, the lead organizer of Black Lives Matter Louisville, said Cosgrove's return to the police force showed the impunity often afforded to law enforcement.

"The way in which he can go and get a job in the same field should be illegal. For a typical citizen, we aren't able to re-enter certain fields, if we're fired from them. That carries with you," she told member station WFPL.

Cop Who Killed Breonna Taylor Slams His Cruiser Into A Truck, Points Gun At Bystanders - October 23, 2023

Myles Cosgrove, the former Louisville police officer who shot and killed Breonna Taylor in 2020, is in trouble again for doing something really shitty. Cosgrove, who is now a sheriff’s deputy in Carroll Country, Kentucky, rammed someone’s truck with his police cruiser and then pointed a gun at its owner and several bystanders, according to The Courier Journal.

Witnesses say Cosgrove drove at a high rate of speed into the Happy Hallow Private Resort Park trailer park without his emergency lights on. He then struck William Joshua Short’s pickup truck with enough force that the vehicle was sent “flying” into a building, breaking off two cinder blocks, according to those who were there. His cruiser then hit another vehicle and damaged it.

Officer fired for death of Breonna Taylor cleared after on-duty traffic collision - Oct. 27, 2023 at 3:10 PM PDT

Former LMPD detective's firing upheld by Kentucky court | whas11.com - 6:39 PM EDT May 19, 2024 - "Three years after he was fired for excessive use of force in a botched raid that killed Breonna Taylor, the Kentucky Court of appeals has upheld Cosgrove's firing."

 

[Gospel]

Good fucking grief.

 

[bilby]

If the cops could turn up to your house unannounced, and billet some millitiamen there; And if, when this was challenged, they could shoot you dead, and avoid any and all sanction by saying "I thought he might have a spare room!"; Then it would be bloody obvious to all that the 3rd amendment to the constitution was not being upheld.

Yet, somehow, noticing that a homeowner might be exercising their rights under the 2nd amendment, is supposed to be a complete and total defence against their summary execution by police; And people say dumb things like "If he didn't want to be shot he should have just allowed the millitiamen to stay shouldn't have answered the door while bearing a firearm!" as though describing the exercise of constitutional rights is sufficient to demonstrate their invalidity.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is merely an opinion and is not supported by any existing laws. I challenge you or Derec to present a law that makes it illegal to answer the door with a firearm. While you are entitled to your opinion, whether you believe it was a good or bad decision is entirely irrelevant.

It's a very stupid thing to do in most cases. A defender is expected to not head into danger without good reason. I can see it as a reasonable precaution if you need to verify if something is as it appears. But an unknown? Talk through the door or ignore it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've seen the video but I have not located it to post here. The airman has the gun in his hand at his side.

Who answers the door with a gun? Especially when the knocker identifies himself as being from the Sheriff's office.

Reportedly, he didn't understand the words.

I think there's plenty of blame for both sides here.

The police are following anti-ambush procedures that also interfere with the people inside verifying that it's the police.

And the idiot for opening the door with a gun in hand. If you think the situation outside warrants a gun then you shouldn't be opening the door in the first place!

I can see being suspicious. Someone outside claims to be a cop but you cannot confirm through the peephole because the person is intentionally evading it.

Plainclothes cops have had the same issue.

I see a system problem here. The officer was doing as he was supposed to, I don't think he's substantially at fault. The system set up a problem, I hope they lose big in the lawsuit to follow.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the police can just kill you for bearing arms, without consequences, then you don't actually have a right to bear arms do you?

Two users here seem to believe that the right to bear arms has limitations. I suspect these limits are based more on the individual's identity rather than their actions. The reason I say this is because, in this case, I see nothing that the individual did that isn't supported by the Second Amendment.

I agree.

The police reaction to a gun, or even perceived gun depends more on the person's identity then the reality of the situation. Such as John Crawford, shot for holding a BB gun in a walmart that sold them, in an open-carry state. Countless people shot who were not armed at all. And all this goes directly against the idea the extreme gun rights crowd have of no restrictions acceptable on their guns... but funny enough those people hardly ever call out police shootings.

Open carry means carry. It doesn't mean to point it at people! His actions would have been brandishing a firearm if it had been a real weapon.

I would like to see considerably stronger laws on realistic fakes--outside controlled (or isolated) conditions you should not be allowed to do things with them that you couldn't with a real gun.

 

[laughing dog]

I've seen the video but I have not located it to post here. The airman has the gun in his hand at his side.

Who answers the door with a gun? Especially when the knocker identifies himself as being from the Sheriff's office.

Reportedly, he didn't understand the words.

I think there's plenty of blame for both sides here.

The police are following anti-ambush procedures that also interfere with the people inside verifying that it's the police.

And the idiot for opening the door with a gun in hand. If you think the situation outside warrants a gun then you shouldn't be opening the door in the first place!

I can see being suspicious. Someone outside claims to be a cop but you cannot confirm through the peephole because the person is intentionally evading it.

Plainclothes cops have had the same issue.

I see a system problem here. The officer was doing as he was supposed to, I don't think he's substantially at fault. The system set up a problem, I hope they lose big in the lawsuit to follow.

It is truly a fucked up world if police are supposed to shoot anyone holding a firearm without shouting a warning.

 

[marc]

If the police can just kill you for bearing arms, without consequences, then you don't actually have a right to bear arms do you?

Two users here seem to believe that the right to bear arms has limitations. I suspect these limits are based more on the individual's identity rather than their actions. The reason I say this is because, in this case, I see nothing that the individual did that isn't supported by the Second Amendment.

I agree.

The police reaction to a gun, or even perceived gun depends more on the person's identity then the reality of the situation. Such as John Crawford, shot for holding a BB gun in a walmart that sold them, in an open-carry state. Countless people shot who were not armed at all. And all this goes directly against the idea the extreme gun rights crowd have of no restrictions acceptable on their guns... but funny enough those people hardly ever call out police shootings.

Open carry means carry. It doesn't mean to point it at people! His actions would have been brandishing a firearm if it had been a real weapon.

I would like to see considerably stronger laws on realistic fakes--outside controlled (or isolated) conditions you should not be allowed to do things with them that you couldn't with a real gun.

Oh JFC!!! He was not pointing it at people, he was not brandishing it, he was talking on the fucking phone. When he was shot it was pointed at the ground, and he immediately dropped it! Could hear the gunshots on the video, but didn't hear the police yelled out any orders to him, and I rather doubt any were given.

The asshole who called it in told the dispatcher he was pointing it at people, but in later interviews said he wasn't.

 

[bilby]

The officer was doing as he was supposed to, I don't think he's substantially at fault.

He killed a person, and his sole justification for doing so was that he observed that person exercising a right that is enshrined in the US Constitution.

How can you possibly describe that as "doing as he was supposed to"? Is a police officer not supposed to uphold the law? Is the US Constitution not the most important element of the law? Does he not have a duty to serve and protect law abiding citizens? How does gunning down someone, who isn't breaking any laws, fit the description of "doing as he was supposed to"??

How twisted does your ability to reason need to be for you to conclude that he is not substantially at fault?

 

[ZiprHead]

As for my views, their is a national right to guns, and should be better national standards like universal background checks. Then there are state/local level regulations that see to the needs of the area. If you live in an area where your next door neighbor's house is over a mile away, then having a rifle can practically be a necessity. Live in a major city, then a lot more restrictions are likely appropriate.

In my opinion, inconsistent standards exacerbate bias and discrimination and have led to confusion for both law enforcement and citizens who travel between different areas. The law should be impartial and applied uniformly across the board. No citizen's right to bear arms should be easier or more difficult to exercise based on their location within the country.

In my opinion, we have an adequate number of laws, but the issue in America seems to lie in the execution. Decisions often depend on the preferences of local authorities and communities, leading to inconsistent application and enforcement. The very nature of relying on humans and our inherent biases to apply the law is fundamentally flawed & the only way it can be done at that.

If neither the victim nor the cop had a weapon in their possession like in Britain this never would have happened.