woman bystander shot... They can't fucking just shoot each other and leave everyone else out of it.
Hopefully it brings consequences. Every time a bullet is fired, it is required (and I guess that must be in quotes for police officers...) that you be responsible for that bullet's consequences. If you shoot at a legitimate threat, but hit the bystander, you should get charged. Cop, not-cop, firefighter, good samaritan with a gun, whatever. Charge them.
yes, should.
This, however, is America.
Land of the free policeman. Home of the not brave policeman.
Hopefully it brings consequences.
I'm sure it will. The cops will be put on paid leave and then given medals. Something like that. That's what usually happens when cops kill innocent people.
In many jurisdictions if anyone is hurt related to a crime, the criminal is legally responsible for all damages.
So for a situation like this, the criminal would be responsible for all damages stemming from their initial crime when they chose to run. Any damage in the chase or subsequent actions until they are killed or in custody.
Yes, and that should be the case. However, cops (and everyone for that matter) should be responsible for every shot they fire. They should make sure their background is clear. If some freak accident happens, like a ricochet that shouldn't be expected, then it should be fine, but they should have to make an attempt to be safe with firearms. You know a civilian would have to.
It is more likely that she be arrested for obstruction because she intercepted the bullet.
A man was shot and killed while exchanging gunfire with Harris County Sheriff’s Office deputies following a traffic stop in north Houston Sunday.
He wasn't shot because he was a Sovcit idiot, he was shot because he was shooting at police. Why even mention he was a Sovcit idiot? It doesn't change the story at all.
The site might as well have: "Man with blue pants shot, killed during exchange with Harris County deputies"
FTA:
Deputies conducted a traffic stop on the vehicle with expired tags and a broken taillight on FM 1960. Sheriff Ed Gonzalez said the man refused to exit his vehicle and identified himself as a sovereign citizen.
Deputies engaged the man in conversation for over an hour in an attempt to remove him from the vehicle, Gonzalez said.
Refusing to comply with their demands, he drove away from the scene and engaged in a brief pursuit with deputies before his vehicle was brought to a stop on the corner of FM 1960 and Ella Boulevard.
After stepping out of his vehicle, the man, armed with a pistol, began shooting at deputies. They exchanged gunfire and the man was shot dead. No deputies were injured during the exchange, Gonzalez said.
Ahem…
He wasn’t shot because he was a Sovcit idiot…
Oh, yes he was.
…he was shot because he was shooting at police.
His “ideology” dictated a pathology that led to a predictable outcome. The article is a clear and concise description of the standard sovcit idiot playbook, however cops are usually successful in arresting the dopes before it gets shooty. Not always.
An hour of talking to the man. Must been white because a black man would not get this treatment if asked to exit vehicle. Matter of fact they probably wouldn't have asked.
Either way, refusing to get out of your car when a cop tells you to is never going to end well for the driver, regardless of race. Especially in Texas, and doubly so when you try to take off on them. Cops don't tend to like people flouting their authority.
You know what amazes me, is that there are black sovcits. I saw video one of them shot lately, and honestly I appreciated the cops being as boundedly patient with him as I've seen them be with white sovcits, but holy shit I do not get how black people are willing to play that particular game given all of the times the cops have, in very genteel language, failed to uphold professional standards when interacting with someone with more than a minimal amount of melanin.
Sovereign citizen is an extreme delusional fantasy that only the whitest idiots are entitled enough to indulge.
I say we indulge them and take that to its logical conclusion.
Sovereign citizen? Ok so not a citizen of the United States. Do they have a Visa to be in the country? No? Then they're here illegally and should be deported. Process them like any other illegal immigrant.
In the meantime, we all know they're actually US citizens, but if they keep claiming they aren't a citizen then they obviously must have stolen that citizen's identity. Process it that way.
They'll very quickly admit they are actually a US citizen, and thus must comply with US laws, when they're looking at being deported to a country they know nothing about and losing everything they have here for fraud and identity theft.
Black dudes are "Moors". SovCit for black people. Separate but equal.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/moorish-sovereign-citizens
I misread your post, but the prima facie is that he drew a weapon on law enforcement, that as a result.of being a sovcit idiot.
Chorine in the gene.pool. What a bitch.
It's providing the motive.
the man refused to exit his vehicle and identified himself as a sovereign citizen. Deputies engaged the man in conversation for over an hour in an attempt to remove him from the vehicle.
It's obviously relevant context. This situation wouldn't exist if he wasn't a sovidiot.
Why did he open fire on the cops?
Meth? Personal grudge? Former cop whistleblower fighting for his life? Just hates cops and shoots at people all the time? Suicidal? It’s part of the Who What Where Why When formula.
It’s a valid question, and valid to include in the story and, yes, in the headline.
The article says he may have had felony warrants.
Probably not the first time this yoyo thought laws don't apply to him. Special little snowflake, that one.
The fact that he was a SovCit idiot prompted him to shoot at the cops. It's relevant background.
That would be like describing 9/11 as "Man flies plane into building, twice". I imagine the cops screamed at him to submit, he refused then violence.
Because they had a conversation for an hour and a half talking to the guy before he drove off on them. That's an hour and a half of sovcit circle talk bullshit.
I don't know what his last words were but I know they were something stupid. Maybe:
'You can't shoot me, I have a form!'
I don't consent to bleeding out
"I'm the entity, not the individual! People can die, but ideas live forev
sovereign citizens be handing a judge the "get out of jail free" monopoly card and thinking "this is real"
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR INTENT!
Does that make this an intranational incident?
He probably should have stayed in his own country
Our deputies are not required to allow anyone to violate the laws.
Wut?
It also doesn't mention anywhere who's shot hit the woman in the summary blurb. Was it the cops or the dude who began shooting at the cops that was shot dead?
Our deputies are not required to allow anyone to violate the laws.
Wut?
It's a response to the "sovereign citizen" thing. Sovcits believe that the law does not apply to them.
It reads like they are not required to stop someone violating the law. They can if they want, but they could also just let the crime happen.
And they can. It's sometimes framed as prosecutorial discretion. It's the reason why if you're driving with the "flow" of traffic that is speeding, you can get pulled over and no one else. They aren't legally required to pull over any of them, let alone the "first" offender.
Passive language, "was struck"= the cop shot her
Since it doesn’t mention it I’ll assume it was the cops.
When you hear Harris County shot a white man, you know they tried all other options first.
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.