Federal police shot a homeless man living on national forest land. He's now suing.
Federal police shot a homeless man living on national forest land. He's now suing.
A Idaho family's violent eviction is one of the most egregious cases of unhoused people facing hostility from police for having nowhere else to go.
You can debate the need to arrest, but creating a ruse that ends up with the man being shot several times?
From everything else in the article, there's no indication of anything necessitating a plainclothes operation of the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, local police department, and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, all with a made-up ruse to get the man out of his house. What's the point, unless they simply wanted violence?
Dude has every right to point a gun at plainclothes cops attacking his brother, cops who haven't even said they're cops. Kinda surprised he didn't squeeze the trigger.
Yep. And yet they plugged (or shot at) him at least ten times. No walking for you, buddy.
This is in the richest nation in human history. We could care for every citizen. We choose not to.
I wonder how much money the 4 agencies involved in the raid spent. Like how many months of rent would that equal? At what point would it just be better to send a single officer with a voucher for a months rent? Would cost the public far less and give the family a months relief, allowing them time to save money and get back on their feet.
Most people will do anything not to shoot. Even most cops.
I agree their ruse wasn’t needed and needlessly escalated the situation.
That’s the shit I’m beyond fed up with. The needless escalation of shit.
They wanted to feel all undercover.
Do most articles explain why police officers are plain clothed? And does confront always mean attack?
This story is weird, since everyone is making up their own version and finding justification for outrage
Plainclothes officers are supposed to be deployed in situations where the suspect's knowledge of cops in the area could have an adverse effect (eg: destruction of evidence, fleeing suspect).
What business a plainclothes has in a national park is questionable; in donning plain clothes you also lose some of the social protections that come with the uniform. For instance, unless you outright show you're a cop, other people think you're a civvie. Escalating situations as a civvie rarely goes well.
If someone is doing something shady out in the national parks, even a wandering civvie can spook them, so the advantage of plainclothes is moot.
Unless the uniform poses a danger specifically with regards to wildlife, the officers made a bad call to go in as plainclothes.
Confront doesn't always mean attack but it does usually mean hostilities, and often escalation.
Why is America so obsessed with shooting first?
Last year we had an indigenous person kill a cop in Canada and then run into a field with his gun. Cops arrested him without shooting him, despite him killing a cop, and being in a group that police have dislike towards.
Then, he complained about having pain, and the police called an ambulance to check him out before arresting him.
I heard all of this live on police scanner.
Do better, America. Holy shit.
Dont get all high and mighty. The United States is an amazing country! We have to deal with all this 'woke justice' every day bringing down our country. Once they are finally purged them we can finally have our fascist utopia rich straight white men will finally have all the power again, as demanded by the bible (which I hear is a great book, but honestly who has time to read these days)
Had they not pulled their ruse, most likely there would not have been an issue. This is a case where the cops were trying to be cute and someone ended up being shot.
Why is America so obsessed with shooting first?
It is literally what our cops are taught in training. Look up "Killology" if you haven't heard of it. And no, despite the ridiculous name, I'm not joking; that is what a big part of their training is actually called.
Go back to Reddit if you’re willing to write a paragraph about an article you didn’t read.
“The shooting occurred after Roberts, who had a .22 revolver with him, pointed his weapon at the two plainclothes officers after they confronted his brother.”
Pointed, not fired. In the other posters example, the person killed a cop, and still was arrested without being shot. They’re asking why American cops can’t do that.
This "go back to reddit" nonsense from all the kids (maybe you're an adult, but it makes you seem like a kid) who read comments they don't like is getting really tedious. Maybe you ought to go back to reddit?
In Europe, specially in the EU, these "law enforcement officers" would have been immediately arrested and subsequently charged with attempted murder. And definitely would be convicted. These situations very but very rarely happen here. And when they do, the perpetrators are brought to justice.
An armed law enforcement agent in most countries of the EU can only draw its gun in very restrict conditions, mainly only if own or others life is in clear and immediate danger, not perceived danger but justifiable and objective danger, and can only shoot to prevent loss of life. Also the measure of force has to be similar to the one used by the threatening party, cannot be greater. For example, shooting someone who is at distance, alone, armed with a knife is not justifiable, since the measure of force of a gun is greater in this situation (longer reach). Only if the individual with the knife was very close and capable of causing death is the shooting justifiable.
Oh, and there isn't anything like qualified immunity here. There are some specific laws governing law enforcement powers and actions, but in general same laws apply for all.
While some trigger happy EU cops do get charged with homicide, you are way off.
"no-one disputes that refusing to stop at a traffic control is a serious offence, and that it happens too frequently. But on 13 occasions last year occupants of cars in such situations were shot dead by French police"
Most of those cars are check points weren't life threatening driving that justifies lethal force. But keep pretending it's so different in EU
If read carefully, what does not happen is "law enforcement officers" getting away with impunity that often in these situations. France always has had problems with their ex-colonies citizens and non-citizens, but these 13 cases are exceptional. And please do compare the numbers of people killed or shot by the police in France (or even in the E.U.) to the numbers of the U.S., even taking in account the difference in size of populations. Then come tell me I'm pretending.
Edit: Just for reference, thought it lacks lots of European countries. Please order by Region and compare Europe to the U.S.A., and check the span of time also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_by_law_enforcement._Rates_and_counts_by_country
I'm not in love with the concept of proportionality wrt weapons. If a cop sees someone with the knife to the throat of my kid vs again to the head, I don't really care.
This isn't a defense of cops.
It is a critism of delineating by tools instead of outcomes.
Edit: This scenario was clearly explained and I apparently can't read.
The shooting occurred after Roberts, who had a .22 revolver with him, pointed his weapon at the two plainclothes officers
Combined with
An armed law enforcement agent in most countries of the EU can only draw its gun in very restrict conditions, mainly only if own or others life is in clear and immediate danger,
Tells a justification story
EU police can operate very very differently because of the rarity of guns. It's a completely reasonable assumption that virtually everyone you encounter doesn't have a gun. In America it's the complete opposite. And this situation is a a direct example, the dude was armed and brandished a gun.
As cities and states across the country pass ordinances cracking down on camping and homelessness…
Homelessness should only be a crime if houses are provided to everyone wherever you desire to live and then you chose to then be a public nuisance and sleep blocking a sidewalk or a street.
Until then, this is just disgusting. Our society is fucked.
The shooting occurred after Roberts, who had a .22 revolver with him, pointed his weapon at the two plainclothes officers after they confronted his brother. He did not fire, police body camera footage shows. After seeing Brooks Roberts' gun, officers unleashed a storm of gunfire on him, the footage shows. Since Idaho is an open carry state, Roberts was within his rights to be holding the weapon.
Within his rights to have the weapon on him, yes, but pointing a gun is not carrying a gun, it's brandishing, and brandishing is a no-no no matter how you slice it. Speaking as a gun owner, if you point a gun at something, that means you have intention to kill it, otherwise you shouldn't be pointing your gun at it. Too many people watch TV and Movies and think that after you point the gun to let people know that you're really, really serious, you stop and give them a chance to rethink their choices. That's not how it is; if you're drawing a gun, you have the intention to use it (at least as far as the law is concerned), so the gun should only ever come out when you've already committed to the belief that this situation requires deadly force in order to preserve the life of yourself or others and it's time to act. Otherwise, the gun stays put. That's it, there's no middle ground there, either you have to act with deadly force to save yourself and others or you don't. Anyway, brandishing in and of itself is a crime basically everywhere, IIRC. But in so many words, regardless of how they may have provoked and mishandled the situation, it's likely that any reasonable court is going to find that the officers' response to the weapon being brandished was entirely reasonable within the expectations of their job.
So, pro-tip, if you're going to introduce a gun to a situation, it had best be because you're about to use deadly force for a justifiable reason. Otherwise, just leave that shit right where it is. In point of fact, there are people who have (unknowingly) shot cops because they believed that they were acting to protect their life or someone else's, and got off with it. In all fairness, people are held accountable for it way more than they should be; cops getting shot doing no-knock raids on the wrong house (for example) is a predictable consequence, and well, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The cops should take their licks on that and, rather than lock people up for not having the ESP to know it was the cops, maybe take a moment to wonder if they're really making smart choices here.
So was he just holding it, or pointed it at them? Those seem like two very different scenarios
It may not have been legal since he was on federal land. He wouldn't have pulled a gun on them if they had not played silly games (Most likely) I state the most likely since we don't know much about him, but there is no indication he was a hardened criminal ready to fight law enforcement. I don't like when law enforcement creates scenarios where people feel the need to defend themselves because they're confused as to what is going on.
Had they just walked up and identified themselves, I do not think anyone would have been shot.
Idaho is an open carry state, Roberts was within his rights to be holding the weapon.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean you can point it at cops.
How would he know they were cops?
What if it's just two guys and they haven't said anything about being cops and from what you see they're roughing your friend up.
OK to draw on two non-police who are roughing up your brother?
Our world is a literal nightmare.
This whole story seems like an outlier there aren't homeless people living in campers all over the US. It does seem sketchy about being plain clothes and the ruse they used. The largest factor though is as many people have pointed out on both sides, is he pulled and pointed a gun. You can argue all day that he didn't shoot and he was just defending his brother. Any person with any firearms training knows you don't point a gun unless you are willing to fire at whoever or whatever that is. A gun is a deadly weapon so as soon as someone points a gun at a person then they are threatening them. End of debate about that. Like I said the lead up to it is questionable but he would not have been shot if he didn't pull a gun which would imply he intended to shoot them. Just like most "questionable" police shootings. Why did the person pull a gun? They intended to use it. I'm so sick of the police brutality speech. Are there incidents of police brutality yes. They are actually few and far between. The vast majority are people with criminal records and then they pull a weapon on the police. It's amazing this is actually a story since he's white. Every year there are more white people shot by police than any other race but funny enough you don't hear about that. This obviously wasn't about race it was just a series of mistakes. In conclusion if you pull a weapon on police let alone a gun then why are you surprised you got shot.
Had the police shown up in uniform and acted professionally this man wouldn’t have been shot.
The behavior of the police led to the shooting. The man thought he was in danger and pulled a firearm to protect his brother and himself.
This will take time but the cops will be charged over this.
Oregon you don't dispute the fact that he pulled his gun and that's why he got shot. So say the police already had their guns pulled then would he be justified if he had shot them? I already acknowledged the whole set up with the plain clothes thing was sketch. It doesn't matter if you are in a uniform or you are in a shirt and shorts. If you pull a gun on someone the intention is that you are going to use it so that's that.
Rule 2 reminder: If you're here to support the police, you're trolling. Please exercise your right to remain silent.
The shooting occurred after Roberts, who had a .22 revolver with him, pointed his weapon at the two plainclothes officers after they confronted his brother. He did not fire, police body camera footage shows. After seeing Brooks Roberts' gun, officers unleashed a storm of gunfire on him, the footage shows. Since Idaho is an open carry state, Roberts was within his rights to be holding the weapon.
He was within his rights to carry but not within his rights to point a gun at a police officer. I had a lot of sympathy for him until I read this, how fucking dumb is this idiot?
If you point a gun at a police officer, they are 100% within the law to shoot you
You must have missed this part.
The attempt to arrest the Roberts family in May escalated because authorities snuck up on the family and pretended to be members of the public, the tort claim says.
"I thought he was being carjacked and that they either could have stabbed or shot him. I thought they were carjackers," he said.
Indeed I did
The earth belongs to God and He allowed man to freely live on it. The government has NO RIGHT to tell anyone to leave any piece of land not owned by anyone.
They can't use the excuse that it's owned by the government because the government is not a person and never paid for the land. In fact the government killed millions of Indians who were already living on the land and stole it from them.
Now they want to tell you it's their land. Pure evil.
I don't subscribe to your world view at all but I agree with you.
Did you even slightly think that through, and how that would work?
So if government is not a person, then who are "they"?