News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Headline is kind of funny, but I wanted to know what he shot at
Funny again...
Nope, he was trying to kill someone handcuffed in the back of his squad car and had already been searched for weapons.
Cop should at least be facing reckless endangerment, if not attempted murder.
He also yelled "I'm hit" while unloading on his own vehicle.
Same as when they think they're doing on fentanyl...
Cops are constantly terrified because of their training, so they panic and mistake a panic attack for something else.
Being a cop sucks so much (because of their own leadership and culture) that good qualified people do t want to be a cop. So we end up with these fragile snowflakes that shouldn't be allowed to carry at all. Let alone be a cop
good people get fired as cops because they hesitate to shoot unarmed people and won't lie for officers doing questionable things.
My goodness what a fucking snowflake. Maybe you shouldn't be in the profession if you're "scared shitless" 99% of the time. But we all know that's a cover for them. They love killing people.
Yeah but deputy tacticool has holo sights. Not wasted on him at all.
Poor Durango.
Training? What training?
"It hit my vest" and "I feel weird". Them be signs that his fat ass has coronary artery disease. Fucking Okaloosa County. Good riddance. Don't miss it.
Is he trying to use the South Park ‘He’s coming right for us’ defense?
Aren't they all?
I deal with PTSD vets every day so I understand the snap buuuuut.... No one else gets to get away with a slap on the wrist because of their mental illness so fuckem
Yeah. The "having PTSD" part isn't what should be punished, it's the "and yet still carrying a gun while putting yourself in a position to have your PTSD triggered like this" part that's egregious.
Well, Philip Brailsford, the murderer who murdered Daniel Shaver, claimed PTSD for murdering Daniel so he could draw on his pension and retire early. Because he murdered someone and it hurt his fee-fees.
Fuck that.
Indeed fuck that, but I don't see what it has to do with what I said.
I was making the point that even the “has PTSD” is egregious when it comes to cops.
I mean. Being in combat and being a cop are two different things.
Maybe this guy was in a shootout and has PTSD, maybe this is the only time he's ever fired on duty and he's just a coward who panicked.
Oh wow. Good for him. I'm honestly surprised.
Many times cops retire to avoid being investigated and move to a different department.
Yeah at this point we should assume the worst until proven otherwise.
And most of us would still wait for an actual target in a built up area.
No where in the article does it mention PTSD.
See I'm like, I don't even think you could qualify most of the things you would do to this guy as being punishment. Preventing this guy from being a cop forever (pretty unlikely, but could happen), isn't really a punishment. If he's discharging his firearm into his own car, he's obviously just unfit to be an officer and that's a pretty clear safety concern. If you sent him to prison, that might be more of a "punishment", but that's also, you know, what cops do basically their whole careers, is send people to prison, and we still have all the same problems with the prison system as we've always had, so, you know, I'm like. I dunno. That doesn't seem like a clear "win", to me, both in terms of improving society and in terms of helping him out if he's mentally ill which, you know, seems to clearly be the case, here.
You could also maybe think, hey, this guy goes to an asylum or something for mental illness, but that kind of has the same problems as sending someone to prison, it's not usually a helpful system.
The review board found his conduct was not reasonable; so, it'll be up to the prosecutor (which I'm sure in FL is an office eager to go after cops). The other officer, who began shooting after the officer wearing the bodycam in the OP began shooting, was found to have acted reasonably.
Essentially, you can't think an acorn is a bullet and get away with shooting at a detained and secured civilian. But, if another officer on scene thinks, even unreasonably so, that an acorn is a bullet and starts shooting at a detained and secured civilian, you can too. If this doesn't make a lot of sense to you, take that as reassurance that your critical thinking remains, at least partially, intact.
Nah, it kind of makes sense for the second guy.
Remember, he's not getting triggered by the acorn, he's reacting to his coworker yelling that they've been shot and actual gunfire. That's a justified reason to pull out your weapon IMO
Granted, he should've tried to take control of the situation and de-escalate so he could "save" his panicked coworker, but that kind of calmness "under fire" would take actual training
It does mean that the assisting officers aren't required to actually confirm their target, though.
What if this was real. If a 3rd party shot at them. 1st officer fires, blindly assuming it's the perp in cuffs in the car. 2nd cop shoots and kills perp in car because he saw that's what his partner was shooting at. When, in this hypothetical scenario, it was really a 3rd party that wasn't identified yet, which would be the only plausible source of a gun shot anyway since the perp was already searched and cuffed.
That doesn't make sense to me, but that's how they're trained. Ride or die with their comrads. Once the first shot is fired, it's shoot first and ask questions later for all additional officers.
That's not good policy. That's not good for civilians.
It's not a great policy, but it's a decision that, you know, has ups and downs either way. On one hand, if you have a particularly sharp officer who can peep out someone shooting at them, locate where that person is, and then fire back and understand exactly what they're shooting at. It would be better if that officer was able to also get their partner to follow their instructions, rather than relying on their partner, who, you know, being part of the police, might not be a sharp, and might not really be able to understand what's going on or what to do without external instruction.
That's if you have it as a kind of top down encompassing training thing, but that's really kind of the stupidest way to handle it. It's why the military has rank, and specialists, and roles, you can have a more clear chain of command where the more capable can, at least theoretically, rise to the top and be able to give those instructions. But then, none of this really prevents the person above you snapping randomly, and deciding to shoot a detained and searched person because of an acorn. Of all of what I've said, cops have a very mild amount of ranks and shit, too, but they're obviously subject to much less training, have more uniform ranks, and, like the military, they're very insular and have very little faith in anything but themselves. So more often than not they're just going to all collectively default to kind of whatever will keep them the "safest", which is going to be killing everyone around them that twitches kind of weird. Internal to the police, the life of every cop is worth infinitely more than the life of a criminal, and even the life of your average civilian, or, better put in their terms, potential criminal. When realistically it should be the opposite, but yeah.
I dunno, I kind of think sometimes that, I dunno if it's just a lack of news reaching over here from other countries, but I never hear about police brutality from other countries nearly as much. Maybe in britain, and france, and places where I can kind of think, oh, yeah, the power structure above them is kind of fucked up, america style, but maybe a little less so. But, so, I kind of wonder if police corruption is really it's own internal thing, and we should just abolish the police, like everyone says, or if it's really just every overarching power structure that's actually fucked up, and if we were like, finland, everything would be fine, cause I've not really heard a lot about the police of finland being super corrupt. Basically, I wonder if we target the symptom, and not the problem, because the police are obviously the slammer, you know, they're the pog which gets thrown by the long arm of history to flip everything over, they're the direct force that anyone who's doing any political action, or anyone who's a victim of the government, they're who they interface with. But is that because they're intrinsically a problematic institution, or is that because they're just the face, just the tool? I dunno. I find myself wondering that, in the face of, you know, so much evidence that the police is full of like, fucking morons.
IIRC Sympathetic Fire seems to be insta-forgiveness (by other police and the courts) whenever it comes up.
As one example, I think it played a role in the Daniel Shaver case, but it's been a long time since I read all those details and I really don't want to dive into that pool of anger and sadness again to verify.
Keep in mind, this is Florida. It is perfectly legal to murder anybody if you can prove that you felt threatened.