submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/news

Seconds later, a shout rang out: "He's got a gun!"

Body cam.

all 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] testfactor 184 points 1 month ago

Yeah, I don't think I'm gonna defend the guy who got shot here. According to the article he was a real piece of work, and it seems like he was a credible threat to the life of the officer he put in the headlock.

I don't think the officers did anything wrong in this one. Broken clock twice a day and all that.

[-] disguy_ovahea 88 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I agree. Although it is pretty interesting how quickly they were able to release the bodycam footage.

[-] SkyezOpen 48 points 1 month ago

Funny how it's out the next day when it exonerates the cop of any wrongdoing. That's why I assume the worst when they don't release immediately. Oversight is good for everyone, including police.

[-] Passerby6497 35 points 1 month ago

Well yeah, they didn't have to go to the writers room to come up with a narrative, or dig through his rap sheet to see if he ever looked at a marijuana.

[-] Reddfugee42 14 points 1 month ago

I forget what video it was where the cop pulls the old "oh you're recording? So am I." routine and the guy instantly responds "yeah, but my recordings don't magically disappear" 😂

[-] [email protected] 22 points 1 month ago

It's just digital files, any police department can release body cam footage quickly. They just don't want to.

[-] [email protected] 43 points 1 month ago

I think that was the point he was trying to make

[-] [email protected] 30 points 1 month ago

When cops shot a hostage in California it took them 2 years to release it. I think that was their point, footage is released quickly when the cops are in the right, it suddenly becomes a problem if it makes them look bad.

[-] Passerby6497 8 points 1 month ago

I just assume malicious intent in those cases. Not sure I've ever been wrong.

[-] Reddfugee42 4 points 1 month ago
[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Yep that's what they were saying

[-] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)


I mean, I'm not gonna get too worked up either, but just to be clear, California's bar for use of deadly force is that it has to be to protect against expected severe bodily injury or death.


(c)(1) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a peace officer is justified in using deadly force upon another person only when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary for either of the following reasons:

(A) To defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person.

(B) To apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. Where feasible, a peace officer shall, prior to the use of force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts.

(2) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger that person poses to themselves, if an objectively reasonable officer would believe the person does not pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or to another person.

So that's the bar that a court is gonna expect the male officer to need to meet. I imagine that it's not impossible that a court could find that that didn't meet the bar. The article doesn't say that the guy who got shot actually attempted to pull the weapon.

That being said, the guy was hiding a weapon and was attempting to overpower an officer, and I imagine that a court is gonna be (not-unreasonably) inclined to give the benefit of the doubt in a situation like that.

[-] SkyezOpen 8 points 1 month ago

This won't go to court.

[-] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago

Cant they use their tazer?

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

Genuine question, how accurate are Tazers? If the partner was in a headlock, was there any risk of tazering the wrong person while the gum was more accurate?

The real problem here is that Americans just keep arming everyone, so then you have crazies with the guns.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Genuine question, how accurate are Tazers? If the partner was in a headlock, was there any risk of tazering the wrong person while the gum was more accurate?

Speaking independently of the story- Not very by comparison to firearms. Something like 50% less accurate. There's also the issue that tasers will not always incapacitate someone. That's a gamble if someone has a weapon and the range to use it.

Part of the rationale in using a firearm is the need to body someone before they can use a weapon where non lethal methods are just not as effective.

Of course, when you investigate yourself you will always find that you used your firearm in the appropriate situational context.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

As an outsider, the whole thing seems insane.

[-] Valmond 1 points 1 month ago

A gun isn't that precise either I guess. So when you are under stress of getting shot you'd pick the gun option instead of a less lethal one because you feel threatened. Who wouldn't. Guessing wildly here, and as usual everyone having guns isn't like makeing the place more safe.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

as usual everyone having guns isn't like makeing the place more safe.

If anything it's more like injecting an unknown number of dangerous wildcards into an already dangerous situation.

[-] littlebluespark 2 points 1 month ago

you have crazies with the guns.

Thafuq do you think the cops are‽

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

You make it sound like I don't put American cops in the same group as Americans.

The cops are armed because everyone else is armed. Demilitarisation of the police force can only come in when you can have a sensible conversation about your gun ownership.

It's not like owning guns actually protects you from bad cops.

[-] littlebluespark -2 points 1 month ago

I prefer to assume any argument is made in good faith until proven otherwise, so please understand that the following criticisms are contextual and not, of course, personal.

The cops are armed because everyone else is armed

Bullshit. That implies that vast majority of interactions cops have with "everyone" else (ignoring the obvious hyperbole) while on the clock are with other armed people, which is not only patently false but dangerously presumptive in a grossly negligent way. In fact, the statement is so irrational that any statistic even comparing fatality rates between armed & unarmed individuals by cops would entirely debunk it; cops are not armed "because" others are, they're armed first and foremost — and have been, since the very concept of a "police force" was first invented, FFS.

Demilitarisation of the police force can only come in...

Considering your failure to grasp the predicating concept, I'm hesitant to trust that you got the key in hand here.

...a sensible conversation about your gun ownership.

Again, this doesn't seem to be in your wheelhouse at the moment.

It's not like owning guns actually protects you from bad cops.

Logical fallacy and bait, not to mention an oversimplification of the actual issues at play.

So, do you want to have an adult conversation or just bark across the pond (where we'll be touching on various police issues y'all have on your island yonder, to be sure), hmm?

[-] [email protected] 59 points 1 month ago

Whether or not he had a gun, you put an officer in a headlock and things will escalate.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago

What, so the police can put anyone they want in a headlock but we can't headlock back? /s

Seriously though, if it's so threatening to get a cop in a headlock, enough that another cop feels they need to use deadly force to stop it, why are cops allowed to continue restraining someone who fights back against a headlock during an arrest?

[-] [email protected] 27 points 1 month ago

Because when a cop is arresting someone, it's not a mutual agreement to be in a fight. It's not a friendly spar or anything like that

[-] FlyingSquid 15 points 1 month ago

"You are under arrest, sir!"

"I disagree, sir!"

"Marquess of Queensbury rules then?"


[-] obelisk 22 points 1 month ago

In this particular situation, the use of deadly force was more so triggered by the fact that the guy was lying about having a weapon and then tries to pull said weapon during a search of his person. The headlock was not the key factor here.

[-] dumblederp 10 points 1 month ago

people are always wrong and cops are always right, duh.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

This implies cops aren't people and honestly I'm OK with that.

[-] ThatWeirdGuy1001 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I mean realistically blue lives don't exist. Not unless you're talking about those folks from Kentucky

Edit: Bootlickers mad.

[-] ChicoSuave -3 points 1 month ago

They aren't and yet no one treats them like the animals they are.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

Deadliest noogie ever.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

This isn't even news. "Some dude was arrested" isn't anything people need to read. It happens all the time. Things like this just make people think the world is a dangerous place.

While you were reading this comment, some dude was arrested. Do you really care about the specifics?

[-] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

Because dude pulled the I don’t have a weapon what’s this my gun and then headlock. That’s an unusual story. I’m anti-cop, but this was new and interesting to me.

[-] OlinOfTheHillPeople 7 points 1 month ago

Copaganda. Also the only time I've seen a working bodycam.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago

Who TF down voted you? That's absolutely 100% accurate

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

The world is a dangerous place though; there's all these armed psychos driving around, shooting and beating people!

Sure, sometimes they arrest someone who deserves it, but that doesn't make me exactly feel safe knowing they're out there...

[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

It isn't dangerous. The world is much safer than it was even 20 years ago. You are much more likely to be attacked by someone you know than "armed psychos" that you don't know.

Look at any crime statistics; they all say the same. Or if you don't like statistics, just watch Dateline or 20/20. It's usually the boyfriend/girlfriend.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

The armed psychos they were talking about aren't counted in the crime statistics, because they never get convicted of crimes. They just get put on administrative leave for a while, and then get brought back when the heat is off. Worst case scenario, they get fired, and move to another town to be an armed psycho there. And that only happens if the armed psycho union doesn't scream bloody murder about it.

this post was submitted on 11 May 2024
151 points (89.1% liked)


21483 readers
4703 users here now

Welcome to the News community!


1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

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.

founded 1 year ago