@Murray_N @realcaseyrollins @freemo

"But the might run away or destroy evidence!"

For the first, you surround the place with enough people there isn't a way to escape amd for the second, if you hear or see actions that directly indicate guilt or attempts to destroy evidence, that is probable cause to then barge in.

But that would be more work than murdering people in their beds at 2 am.
Follow

@teknomunk

Agreed, most excuses by police are pretty weak "I have to shoot them the moment they reach cause they could have had a gun and my safety is important so im justified to shoot and kill and ask questions later"....

"Sounds reasonable, we will just give you a pay cut".

@Murray_N @realcaseyrollins

@freemo @teknomunk @Murray_N @realcaseyrollins
> I have to shoot them the moment they reach cause they could have had a gun

that's a real thing. the window of time to determine if someone is about to become a huge problem is very short, definitely nowhere near long enough for a lot of critical thinking to happen. and the cost for getting it wrong is heavy on either decision arm.

@icedquinn

As long as I as a citizen can shoot an officer dead the moment he has a hiccup and that logic is applied equally in both directions its fine with me.

So long as the cops can say "I was scared for my life" and I cant, then we have a problem.

@teknomunk @Murray_N @realcaseyrollins

@freemo @teknomunk @Murray_N @realcaseyrollins amusingly the jury of your peers came from the magna carta but by peers they meant knights that only wanted to be tried by other knights.

because of this exact modern problem of people in martial professions being judged by people who have never been in fights. and people think weird shit like you get to choose a fight or flight response (you don't) and therefore its reasonable to just decide which response ie legal (ex. duty to retreat states.)
@freemo @Murray_N @realcaseyrollins @teknomunk funnily enough i read about the "board of rights" they made for LAPD as a final oversight on police shootings and disciplinary actions. because it was mentioned in The Rookie.

the funny part about it?

its comprised of ex-cops and select civilians. the ex-cops tend to deny appeals based on improper use of force (bad shoots.) the civilians tend to care only about paperwork.
Responsibility falls on law enforcement to make the decision to use a no-knock on a location that could have individuals with firearms; the outcome of doing so, with the wrong house/individual is entirely on them of they got it wrong.

Would they own up to it? Let's be real - 99.99999999% of the time, no.

@freemo @teknomunk @Murray_N

> "I have to shoot them the moment they reach cause they could have had a gun and my safety is important so im justified to shoot and kill and ask questions later

When was the last time any cop said that?

> Sounds reasonable, we will just give you a pay cut

They do this because they basically can't fire their bad cops since they're unionized

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.