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?
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
Sure, but then the conservatives would be bitching about handouts.
Trump's entire presidency was hand outs for billionaire banks and corporations anyway that ended up destroying the economy.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tcja-2-years-later-corporations-not-workers-big-winners/
Just zero handouts to his stupid base.
"Buncha pinkos, I tell ya," and oh yeah, "Bootstraps!"
Sounds beautiful to me — kindness instead of cruelty, life instead of death, and a huge savings in expense.
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.
in GRIZZLY territory too of course they need a small firearm. jesus help these folks jeez
in GRIZZLY territory too of course they need a small firearm.
.22 is just gonna piss off a grizzly. I'd say .357 Magnum or larger.
As someone who has lived in grizzly country, .357 magnum is the usual recommendation.
You're better off crouching and covering your head than shooting them with a .22.
The .22 is for if you survive the attack
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.