[any one know what protocol is for police and this situation?]

9 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Am I the only one that thought she was going more for the shoulder not the neck? (don't get me wrong, neck would make more sense, but the video clips I saw she was going for the shoulder, other girl was kicking her away. 

TBH I don't think she was aiming for any part of the body in particular. She was simply looking to make contact.

[any one know what protocol is for police and this situation?]

1 minute ago, ktgrok said:

 

I'm not sure that a knife fight with MORE weapons is less dangerous than with only one armd person?

 

The difference is you aren't trying to figure out how to protect a single unarmed person on the verge of being stabbed. If a group of idiots is fighting you can hose them down, barrage them with rubber bullets, or whatever.  

[any one know what protocol is for police and this situation?]

Just now, kokotg said:

I am genuinely interested in finding out what the protocols are for law enforcement in the UK facing similar situations. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. That the protocol is to let people die? That it's so rare there simply aren't any protocols? That you have no idea but you're positive they haven't come up with anything better? Like, I'm not debating whether the cop in THIS situation did the right thing or not; I'm actually wondering what a cop faced with the same situation in country with a very different attitude toward policing would do. 

I am saying sometimes there is nothing that can be done with nonlethal means. If you can't get close enough to someone to stop them then you can't.

[any one know what protocol is for police and this situation?]

Just now, kokotg said:

okay. but the idea here is the police action DID prevent a homicide. When I googled to see how the police would handle such a situation in the UK, I did find multiple accounts of police present at and breaking up knife fights, but I couldn't find any details on HOW. Clearly it wasn't by shooting people, though.

Breaking up a "knife fight" is different than preventing someone from stabbing an unarmed person.  I would be surprised to find out police in the UK (or anywhere else) have a special tactic which allow them to cover 10-15' instantaneously. 

[any one know what protocol is for police and this situation?]

1 minute ago, kokotg said:

Maybe. But whatever the police are doing differently here isn't leading to a lower homocide rate even just for knives (of course it's massively higher here for guns): https://www.euronews.com/2018/05/05/trump-s-knife-crime-claim-how-do-the-us-and-uk-compare-

Police aren't present at most homicides or attempted homicides in any country so I wouldn't think protocols would affect homicide rates much if at all.

[any one know what protocol is for police and this situation?]

1 minute ago, ktgrok said:

How is that true, if the knife is less than half the length of the baton?

I think 1-2 steps away would reasonably be considered within knife range.

Depending on the scenario tasers would often be a better choice with two officers present. Protocol in a situation like that is usually one engages with the taser while the other covers with a firearm.

Of course that is not relevant to a situation like this where someone is actively attempting to harm someone else with the knife.

[any one know what protocol is for police and this situation?]

1 minute ago, Murphy101 said:

For a theoretical start -  have they done training on how to handle knife scenarios without shooting?  If he had had a minute or two - did he have gear and training other than a gun to stop the threat?  For example if the only weapon a cop has is a gun - that means there’s pretty much zero chance of him using anything but deadly force to defend himself or others.

My issue is not with this cop at this scene. 

My point is we need to stop asking if the cops are following protocol and start asking why don’t cops have better protocols and training and tools (literally and figuratively) to do their job less violence.

But you said *this* cop should sue.  Given the exact scenario 1.) there is no way he can disarm Bryant before she stabs the other woman, 2.) I believe he had a taser (based on pics I saw) but it wouldn't be effective in this scenario. Police will sometimes have to make very quick, very serious decisions.  This is one where there was decision that would have a great outcome (shoot - someone is likely dead; don't shoot someone is possible dead).  I don't see where additional training or equipment changes that 10 seconds.

[any one know what protocol is for police and this situation?]

1 minute ago, kokotg said:

I don't know who most of these new/old posters are, but police killings sure do motivate people to make new accounts and start posting again. Weird.

I no longer had access to my old email.  I have been reading now and then for some time.  I actually have experience with self defense laws and jury consulting so sometimes I feel compelled to correct the comments of certain posters,

[any one know what protocol is for police and this situation?]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Oh look, the woman who’s never seen a police killing she didn’t approve of. 🙄These revised SYG statutes are too new to allow that level of certainty WRT to their application. OH’s version is only 7 years old and whether the deceased was aware that LEO arrived would have been for a jury to sort out. No one said SYG applied to the officer.

Oh look - the woman who doesn't accept facts which do not fit her preconceived narrative.  This is a new account so I haven't had time to block your ignorance yet. Consider it done.

And unlike you, I have read Ohio's statute and it still requires a reasonable belief of imminent death or seriously bodily harm. If you honestly think that applies to someone standing several feet away holding a small dog I am not sure what else there is to say.

 

[any one know what protocol is for police and this situation?]

22 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Seriously. What I would like to see is the cop sue his precinct.

Because of his lack of training and gear - he has to live with the knowledge that they put him in a situation where his only option was to shoot and the result is he killed someone.

Cops need to start saying that blue lives matter enough to deserve better gear and better training so they can be better cops in their communities. 

What training or gear do you believe he lacked?

[any one know what protocol is for police and this situation?]

Stand Your Ground does not apply here as the Bryant is not facing any criminal charges.  If she were alive and facing charges,  her SYG claim would be weak (based on the video evidence we have) as she is physically engaging with someone who does not pose an immediate threat.  While it is possible the person did previously, *generally* the defense is going to be difficult to use when the person you stab is unarmed and not engaging you. With no video evidence it would come down to witness testimony where Bryant would stand a better chance of acquittal. Police arriving on the scene would also eliminate the justification for SYG in most cases except in rare occurrences where the other party is armed and still engaging when the police arrive. (Think of a simple fist fight scenario.  While you may be within your right to defend yourself with a punch, you aren't allowed to punch the guy you were fighting with 5 minutes after the cops arrive and claim you were still acting in self defense.)

The SYG claim is not relevant to the officer as he can only react to what he sees in the 10 seconds before the shooting.  Based on the body cam we see a violent confrontation in progress, and he then observes someone charging at an unarmed person with a knife.  He gave multiple verbal instructions to all and then saw someone attempting to use deadly force against an unarmed person.  The attempted use of deadly force by Bryant meets the standard criteria for the officer responding with deadly force.  Based on the body cam he seems to be too far away to intervene physically before the assault can occur, and he is likely outside of or just on the edge of effective taser range.  However, in general when protecting someone else from deadly force a taser would not be used due to its ineffectiveness at times.  Discharging his weapon is a reasonable response to prevent someone from being potentially stabbed in vital organs.  Contrary to the nonsense being displayed on twitter, he is not expected to allow the victim to be stabbed just because she is more likely to survive a stabbing than Bryant is a gunshot.

Anyone trying to compare this situation to the Martin case has very limited knowledge of that trial.

 

[armed protesters at protest Michigan]

10 minutes ago, kand said:

Sometimes it is illegal. Intentionally exposing someone else to HIV for example. I know recently it’s been downgraded from a felony to a misdemeanor in some locations, but this would be similar. At least HIV has effective treatment now and can be managed. If someone has a high risk condition, contracting Covid-19 may be more likely to be a death sentence than contracting HIV. Just saying. Not sure why anyone would justify someone shouting right in someone’s face right now. 

Regarding HIV, you could only be charged if you knew were HIV+ and engaged in sexual activity with someone without informing them or intentionally attempt to infect someone via bodily fluids (ex. spitting, dousing someone with fluids, etc.).  Generally these laws have been HIV or STD specific and do not apply to other diseases.

 

[armed protesters at protest Michigan]

37 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Well, here at least that would be under illegal exhibition of a firearm - exposing a fire arm while angry, or in an intent to create fear. So yeah, he could be arrested. 

 

Once again you are misunderstanding Florida law.  Openly displaying a firearm in Florida, except for limited acts around legal transportation, hunting, camping, and target shooting.

FL 790.053

1. Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.
2. A person may openly carry, for purposes of lawful self-defense:
   • (a) A self-defense chemical spray.
   • (b) A nonlethal stun gun or dart-firing stun gun or other nonlethal electric weapon or device that is designed solely for defensive purposes.
3. Any person violating this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775

-----------

The person in your example would likely be correctly cited for brandishing in Florida and Michigan, depending on the exact nature of the obscenities and if threatening behavior occurred. The person in Florida could be charged absent any threats or similar behaviors under 790.053.  Brandishing and illegal exhibition are separate and distinct charges.

[armed protesters at protest Michigan]

32 minutes ago, TCB said:

Maybe but can you honestly say that if that group had been a group of PoC things would have been exactly the same? It’s hard for me to imagine that.

Based on past protests by groups of PoC carrying firearms, yes.  I can't recall any armed protestors being fired upon by law enforcement in any state.

[armed protesters at protest Michigan]

41 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

It does in most places, but in concealed carry states (the majority of states i think) there is a reason they are not to be visible. In my state showing the gun because you are angry or want to create fear is illegal. I get that it isn't illegal in MI, but it still has the same effect. i don't think humans stop being afraid of guns carried by angry people when they cross state lines. This is my state - " the accidental display of a firearm (such as one’s shirt briefly lifting and displaying the gun) or a brief, temporary display (such as when one is moving the gun from a concealed holster on one’s person to a carrying case in a car) is not a violation of Florida law, but you cannot show the firearm because someone has angered you or you want to put the other person in fear."

It was about protestors threatening or attempting to intimidate the legislators. Guns do that, so does sprewing germs inches from someone's face during a pandemic. 

 

Michigan brandishing statute: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(tieu2ukilizycwfgwydfgwhv))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-234e

750.234e Brandishing firearm in public; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.

Sec. 234e.

  (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not willfully and knowingly brandish a firearm in public.

  (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to either of the following:

  (a) A peace officer lawfully performing his or her duties as a peace officer.

  

  (b) A person lawfully acting in self-defense or defense of another under the self-defense act, 2006 PA 309, MCL 780.971 to 780.974.

  (3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.

 

Florida brandishing statute: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.10.html

790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.—If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

-----------------------------

Due to Michigan having an open carry statute, simply having a firearm visible is not considered a threat.  In Florida there till must be something beyond the weapon being visible for the crime of brandishing to occur.  You are applying a personal definition of a threat (visible firearm) that would not correctly lead to a charge of brandishing in either state.

In Michigan, had the protesters made direct threats in reference to the firearms, pointed them, or done something more than simply carry them, they could be charged with brandishing. In Florida these same protesters would also not be charged with brandishing, but would (correctly) be charged with illegal open carry.

 

[armed protesters at protest Michigan]

10 minutes ago, kand said:

Whether screaming guy has a gun or not, If he is carrying coronavirus, he very likely would have infected both those officers in that moment. Not okay.

I confused by your point. Do you actually think POC are not treated differently by law enforcement, or are you just being argumentative for argument's sake?

My point is that armed protesters appear to be treated consistently regardless of race.  The protesters in Michigan were treated correctly according to Michigan law, and there is no evidence that other protest groups would have been treated differently, despite frequent claims to the contrary.

[armed protesters at protest Michigan]

2 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Sigh.

My kid looks like some of the men in the photos designed to show 'black men get away with it too'.

Ethnically ambiguous, but not white.

There is a whole spiel he gets from me before he goes on any kind of (peaceful, non-armed protest) that involves reminding him that racist cops exist, that his behaviour could be judged differently to his clearly white friends, and that if he loves his mama, he will NOT get anywhere up near a police officer's face (and I trust our police officers, generally, to be restrained at protests).

We sometimes march with a group that exists to promote Aboriginal rights. Guess when the flags come down and the chanting stops? When our part of the march hits a section where protesters are close to police. Nice, polite, quiet behaviour till we are well past..shouting about black deaths in custody is a thing white church groups get to do. 

Holy heck, I'm even concerned about ds doing something now legal in our state, which is visiting his sister via train - because I'm worried about him being hassled by transport police. 

It's just silly to suggest that the concerns white protesters have (and what white protesters get to do without thinking about it,  including getting up in the police's face) are the same things not-white protesters worry about (and what they get to do about their worries without thinking about it).

And ya know, that's from someone who's kid is just 'not white'. Not the mom of a black boy.

 

 

Fact: non-violent protesters generally face no issues with the police in the U.S., regardless of color. 

[armed protesters at protest Michigan]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

First off, please quote where I said ANY protest by armed PoC would be met with violence. You can't. I said it wouldn't be consequence free. Consequences take many forms. Second of all, THERE WERE NO DEMANDS. holding a protest in response to an untimely death doesn't mean they're presenting a list of demands, waiting with baited breath to see if the police officers are going to deliver. THAT is what happened at the capitol. Girl please. Consider it refuted. Have a nice day.

Oh, so we are going with unnamed consequences?  Okay, chief.

[armed protesters at protest Michigan]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

No, I'm not. I'm speaking, as is my habit, in generalities. EVERYTHING has an exception to the rule. The fact remains this was 2015 and they were demanding exactly bubkus from anyone. They were also in their own damned neighborhood and police came to them. This is not an act of aggression. I didn't say bringing guns to a protest was new. I said it's not OK. I said it doesn't have the same consequences for PoC and white people. You've not refuted a single aspect of that by posting this video. The people in it don't come anywhere near shouting in the faces of those LEOs. They aren't approaching them either. Get a grip. This isn't grade school. If you read ANY of my posts on the subject you know I've never supported this behavior from anyone but don't insult people's intelligence by suggesting the consequences and context are identical or comparable. They're not.

The second video was at a protest regarding Sandra Bland. Hard to argue nothing was being demanded.

I just showed multiple videos with POC carrying weapons at protests. EXACT same consequences as whites carrying guns at protests.  Unless you can show where armed POC protestors were treated differently then I consider your point refuted.

[armed protesters at protest Michigan]

5 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Voter intimidation is a thing. Now, legally, it may not apply to legislators voting, rather than citizens voting in an election, but it is an acknowledged thing. 

And in my state, brandishing a weapon (which means letting it be seen) is illegal precisely because it is acknowledged as intimidation, and an implied threat. I don't think that once you cross into Michigan no one sees it as intimidating all of a sudden. 

Hell, by your standards, stalking someone is okay too. If a guy I was dating is made I broke up with him, and he's standing outside my house with a gun, screaming obscenities, the police will make him leave, as they should. I don't see why it becomes less threatening when it involves politicians. 

 

FWIW "brandishing" has a specific legal meaning and is illegal in Michigan.  I am not sure of any state where someone simply seeing a firearm = brandishing, as there generally has to be intent to commit the act.

[armed protesters at protest Michigan]

14 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

It would actually be comparable if they were demanding something from LEOs...which they're not. It would ACTUALLY be comparable if they were working to subvert democracy and intimidate duly elected officeholders. It would ACTUALLY be comparable if this were a commonplace occurrence. Oh wait...it's not. Dredging something up from 2015 to demonstrate what? A pattern? There isn't one and you know that. The pattern is all on the other side. False equivalency is unbecoming.

 

Shenanigans.  The claims above were that any non-white group protesting while armed would be met with violence.  You are moving the goal posts when the facts don't match your narrative.

And the point of bringing up something from 2015?  1.) it happened (and has happened since - see other videos I posted) 2.) the act of bringing guns to protests isn't new.  Open carry laws allow this to go on, and radical groups take advantage of it.  It may shatter your world view to find out that it's not only whites doing this foolishness, but here we sit.

[armed protesters at protest Michigan]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

I was specifically referring to bringing arms INTO THE CAPITOL to threaten legislators. You already know these two things are NOT comparable. This was done within the black community (b/c you KNOW MLK Boulevard doesn't exist in white neighborhoods). You know who's not there? Anyone who might see black skin as a threat. These people were bearing arms but not using them to intimidate others into acting in their preferred manner. They're not yelling at people, covering their faces, or spitting on LEOs. And, yeah, brandishing weapons just because you can is stupid regardless of who does it.

Legally open carry is open carry, and as far as I can tell Michigan doesn't restrict open carry in all public buildings.

As far as the rest of your post, I suggest you review the video below.  Standing off with police officers and chanting "oink, oink, bang, bang" would seem comparable, right?

(Should be noted the covered faces in Michigan is required right now, but you know that.)

 

[armed protesters at protest Michigan]

Of course the "protesting with guns" foolishness by any party could be cleared up by ending open carry laws, which sadly won't happen in some states.  Fortunately there are many states where this behavior is illegal.

[armed protesters at protest Michigan]

20 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Because you can’t impose your (increasingly) minority view without violence or the threat thereof.  The ONLY people who can engage in this foolishness without consequence are white men and women.

 

[armed protesters at protest Michigan]

On 5/1/2020 at 2:59 PM, YaelAldrich said:

Can y'all imagine the march over Selma Bridge with MLK, etc all carrying (even unloaded) guns?  I cannot help by falling over in laughter.  Forget dogs and water cannons; it would been a bloodbath.

We all know why they were allowed to do this. 

While I think carrying guns at a protest is ridiculous, I wish this tired trope of "only white men" could get away with it would go away.  Firearms at protests is not new, and isn't just done by white militias. It's time for it to end but we need to be honest about it.