# Controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians - the omnibus thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 10, 2014, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942 "2014-10-10T07:35:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 612
**Author:** ![UCBearcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/77aa72/32.png) [@UCBearcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UCBearcats)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2018, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12222 "2018-01-06T23:34:22Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Yeah, except that’s not what happened. Martin came back to find Zimmerman after Zimmerman had lost sight of him, and attacked him. Zimmerman then defended himself. > > I have no idea where you get the idea that Zimmerman was stalking Martin from. No one that I’ve ever heard has claimed that they met before that day. It’s possible you mean “harassing”, but the actual facts of the case, as revealed at trial, rather than the biased and incomplete story in the media, show that that is also false. > > More and more places are getting stand your ground laws. Protecting people like Zimmerman ships why they’re necessary, and hopefully everywhere will eventually have them. You shouldn’t have to fear attack for trying to keep yourself and your neighbours safe, and you _certainly_ shouldn’t have to fear jail if you kill someone in self defence. > > Zimmerman was absolutely, provably the victim in this case. You are absolutely, provably victim blaming if you say he should be in jail. Yes it is what fucking happened. He was told by 911 to back the fuck off. If the wanna be cop listened Martin would not be dead. Zimmerman did not have to follow Martin any longer. Zimmerman did not have to get out of his vehicle. This is not standing his ground, it is provoking the situation. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2018, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12223 "2018-01-06T23:37:45Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > You don’t consider leaving your vehicle with your gun, and following a teenager behind and between buildings to be stalking? If Martin had shot Zimmerman, then that would have been self defense, as it was zimmerman that was following martin. > > Zimmerman following Martin, while armed, ended with the teenager shot to death. Zimmerman was not the victim, he was the instigator, he was the escalator, and he was the one who fired the gun that ended a teenager’s life. > > You have some fucked up notions of the definition of victim. No, stalking is a pattern of behaviour over a long period of time. And you are factually wrong about what happened. Zimmerman and Martin list sight if each other, Martin returned and attacked Zimmerman - who until that point had done nothing either illegal or threatening - at which point he defended himself. You seem to be under the impression that following someone is illegal or a threat of imminent attack. It isn’t. That, by the way, is not an opinion, it’s an observation. Did you follow the Zimmerman trial? Do you know what actually happened? Of are you relying on the media reports to make your statements? If it’s the latter, your opinion is all but irrelevant, as the reports bear little resemblance to what actually happened. I know just from reading this board that I’m not the only person who originally assumed Zimmerman was guilty, only to change my mind when I saw the actual facts. It’s from then that I’ve become extremely sceptical of claims that someone wasn’t acting in self defence, and plenty of times the investigation and trial have shown that scepticism was justified. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2018, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12224 "2018-01-06T23:49:38Z")
> [@UCBearcats](#): > > This is not standing his ground, it is provoking the situation. That’s factually incorrect. Claiming otherwise is just silly, really. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2018, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12225 "2018-01-06T23:57:54Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Yeah, except that’s not what happened. Martin came back to find Zimmerman after Zimmerman had lost sight of him, and attacked him. Zimmerman then defended himself. …I’m well aware of what Zimmerman claimed happened. > [@](#): > > I have no idea where you get the idea that Zimmerman was stalking Martin from. From Zimmerman’s own words? > [@](#): > > No one that I’ve ever heard has claimed that they met before that day. It’s possible you mean “harassing”, but the actual facts of the case, as revealed at trial, rather than the biased and incomplete story in the media, show that that is also false. Learn the english language you piece of shit. “of or relating to the act of pursuing or harassing” > **[Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/stalking)** > > The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years! > [@](#): > > More and more places are getting stand your ground laws. Cite? Do you have stand your ground laws where you live? Where is it you live exactly? How likely are the laws going to change in your country or state? > [@](#): > > Protecting people like Zimmerman ships why they’re necessary, and hopefully everywhere will eventually have them. You shouldn’t have to fear attack for trying to keep yourself and your neighbours safe, and you _certainly_ shouldn’t have to fear jail if you kill someone in self defence. You shouldn’t have to fear dying from merely walking home. **Trayvon Martin should not have died that night**. If Zimmerman had not decided to be a fucking hero Martin would not only still be alive but the gated community he was walking through would still be as safe as it was at the time of the shooting. You \*\*should \*\*have to fear jail if you kill someone. That’s one of he basic tenets of living in a civilised society. Killing people is bad. Killing people should be avoided at all fucking costs. Merely claiming self-defense should not be a “get out of jail” card. > [@](#): > > Zimmerman was absolutely, provably the victim in this case. You are absolutely, provably victim blaming if you say he should be in hail. Absolutely fucking not. He would be rotting in jail in my country, and based on your words I’m guessing he would be rotting in jail in yours as well. > [@](#): > > You don’t think the police should start from the \*\*assumption \*\*that someone who claims to be the victim of a crime is actually one? That, obviously, should be how policing works. Someone who had to kill in self defence deserves sympathy and support, not suspicion and attacks. Don’t think I didn’t notice the shift from “presumption” to “assumption” you disingenuous piece of shit. The police shouldn’t make assumptions. They shouldn’t assume that “clean-cut lawyer in a nice suit and tie” didn’t beat up his wife just because he claimed he didn’t. And they shouldn’t assume somebody that is “claiming self defense” was actually defending themselves. Because in the absence of testimony from the deceased the crime scene will often tell the same story **regardless of the claims of the shooter**. The police are perfectly capable of expressing “sympathy and support” as well as not presuming innocence at the same time. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2018, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12226 "2018-01-07T00:09:05Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …I’m well aware of what Zimmerman claimed happened. Are you aware that the prosecution’s maintenance witness, who was on the phone with Martin as this happened, said the same thing > [@](#): > > Cite? Do you have stand your ground laws where you live? Where is it you live exactly? How likely are the laws going to change in your country or state? No, sadly I don’t, and people get locked up where I live for defending themselves. I doubt I’ll ever be able to afford to move to Texas, but that would be the dream. > [@](#): > > You shouldn’t have to fear dying from merely walking home. **Trayvon Martin should not have died that night**. If Zimmerman had not decided to be a fucking hero Martin would not only still be alive but the gated community he was walking through would still be as safe as it was at the time of the shooting. You \*\*should \*\*have to fear jail if you kill someone. That’s one of he basic tenets of living in a civilised society. Killing people is bad. Killing people should be avoided at all fucking costs. Killing should not be avoided if the cost is serious harm to yourself. Zimmerman had already been injured by Martin at the time of the shooting, so this isn’t a hypothetical threat either. If Martin had not attacked Zimmerman he’d still be alive today. Zimmerman’s actions were foolish, and he was attacked and hurt because of them. Martin’s were violent, and he died because of them. His death was his own fault, no one else’s. Had he simply walked to where he was going (not home) he would be alive today. That he was not going home is also relevant. He was not a resident of the private, gated community he was visiting. It was nor unreasonable to question whether he had the right to be there. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2018, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12227 "2018-01-07T00:17:04Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Don’t think I didn’t notice the shift from “presumption” to “assumption” you disingenuous piece of shit. The police shouldn’t make assumptions. They shouldn’t assume that “clean-cut lawyer in a nice suit and tie” didn’t beat up his wife just because he claimed he didn’t. And they shouldn’t assume somebody that is “claiming self defense” was actually defending themselves. Because in the absence of testimony from the deceased the crime scene will often tell the same story **regardless of the claims of the shooter**. The police are perfectly capable of expressing “sympathy and support” as well as not presuming innocence at the same time. However, you are correct that I should have said presume, not assume. It was a mistake rather than an attempt to mislead or whatever. However, if someone claims to be the victim of a crime, they should be treated as such until the evidence proves otherwise to whatever is the relevant standard. If the evidence from the crime scene does prove that, there is no problem - but I’m talking about cases where it doesn’t. Such as one where someone shows signs of a recent injury, consistent with being attacked, and had previously called the police about a suspicious person. There was no good reason to doubt Zimmerman’s claim he was attacked and defended himself at the time, and the subsequent evidence failed to prove he didn’t. The case should, in my opinion, never have gone to trial, and it went there not because of the evidence and likelihood of conviction but solely because of the outcry by a misinformed public. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2018, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12228 "2018-01-07T00:21:19Z")
**Steophan** likes to lie about a lot of things. One of his favorite lies is when a young black man or black boy dies – he goes far beyond presumption of innocence… the dead black boy must necessarily be guilty and his death must be his fault. It’s not enough for **Steophan** that Tamir Rice’s killers should be presumed innocent, their reports must also be assumed to be true, even when it’s not consistent with the video. It’s not enough that Zimmerman should be presumed innocent, his testimony must be necessarily true, and everything he said about Martin must be true, even if the only evidence for it is the testimony from his killer (no, not everything Zimmerman said was corroborated by other evidence). Even Jordan Davis, unarmed kid shot dead in an SUV, was a “thug”, according to **Steophan** , presumably for playing loud music (and then being shot). [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17110452&postcount=81](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17110452&postcount=81) Most everyone on this board knows **Steophan** to be a repeated liar, but it’s more than that – when a young black man or black boy dies, they deserved it, according to **Steophan**. Their killers must always be trusted. Not just presumed innocent, but the dead are presumed guilty, as long as they’re young, black, and male. According to **Steophan** the liar. No real point in engaging with him. At best he’s trolling because he enjoys pissing people off. Or he just is totally fine when young black men and boys are killed, no matter the circumstances. Either way, he’s not worth spending time engaging. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2018, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12229 "2018-01-07T00:30:50Z")
Just for posterity, here’s **Steophan** ’s “thug” post. An unarmed black kid was shot dead in an SUV, and here’s **Steophan** ’s response: > [@Can we please not do this again (Zimmerman media circus)?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-please-not-do-this-again-zimmerman-media-circus/681289/81): > > Yeah, I’m quite happy when sterling moral lawful gun owners get to shoot people that threaten them and get away with it. > > I’m also happy when nutjobs who shoot at a truck that’s driving away from them get locked up for decades. > > I can’t really be upset about what’s happened here. Thug got killed, nutjob got locked up, self defence laws are affirmed and Florida is slightly safer for everyone who lives there. “Thug got killed”. For playing loud music (if he even did that). And **Steophan** ’s absolutely fine with it. That really tells you what you need to know about **Steophan**. All his other lies since then are just icing on the cake. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2018, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12230 "2018-01-07T01:03:10Z")
To quote a wise man, “deserves got nothing to do with it”. Neither has race. There’s is overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman is innocent, and video evidence that supports the cops in the Rice case. Those are facts, not opinions, and then I’m somehow a liar? That’s another unsupportable statement that certain people hope repeating will make true. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2018, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12231 "2018-01-07T02:22:38Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Are you aware that the prosecution’s maintenance witness, who was on the phone with Martin as this happened, said the same thing …I’m well aware there were a number of witnesses and a shit-ton of evidence that was produced at trial. > [@](#): > > No, sadly I don’t, and people get locked up where I live for defending themselves. I doubt I’ll ever be able to afford to move to Texas, but that would be the dream. So just to be clear here: when you are talking about “self defense” in this thread: you are not talking about how that would apply in the context of most everywhere else in the world, but you are applying it in the context of a handful of states in a country that you don’t live in? You aren’t talking about “a person may use reasonable force in the defence of himself or another”, but “you have the right to stand your ground?” > [@](#): > > Killing should not be avoided if the cost is serious harm to yourself. Zimmerman had already been injured by Martin at the time of the shooting, so this isn’t a hypothetical threat either. If Martin had not attacked Zimmerman he’d still be alive today. > > Zimmerman’s actions were foolish, and he was attacked and hurt because of them. Martin’s were violent, and he died because of them. His death was his own fault, no one else’s. Had he simply walked to where he was going (not home) he would be alive today. > > That he was not going home is also relevant. He was not a resident of the private, gated community he was visiting. It was nor unreasonable to question whether he had the right to be there. In any reasonable society you should be fearing jail for killing somebody. You should be held responsible for engineering a situation where somebody ends up dead. > [@](#): > > However, if someone claims to be the victim of a crime, they should be treated as such until the evidence proves otherwise to whatever is the relevant standard. If the evidence from the crime scene does prove that, there is no problem - but I’m talking about cases where it doesn’t. Such as one where someone shows signs of a recent injury, consistent with being attacked, and had previously called the police about a suspicious person. The police arrive and body and a man standing over it with a smoking gun. Should the police presume the man is a victim or perpetrator? The man claims he shot the other man in self defense. Should the police presume the man is a victim or perpetrator? They take the man to hospital. He’s got a few bruises but he’s okay. Should the police presume the man is a victim or perpetrator? They interview the man. There are inconsistencies to the story. Should the police presume the man is a victim or perpetrator? They investigate his story. His story pans out. Should the police presume the man is a victim or perpetrator? The body is autopsied. The injuries are consistent with both the theory of self defense and the theory of pre-premeditated murder. Should the police presume the man is a victim or perpetrator? The police decline to put the case through for prosecution. What should the police presume now? It is only when the “case is closed” the police should be making any sort of presumptions. And even then: the police may still hold the belief that the man may have murdered the other man, but think they don’t have enough evidence to prove the case. Because the police are well aware that witness testimony is subjective, not objective. That people can tell the truth, they can be mistaken, or they could be lying, and sometimes they could be doing all three in a single sentence. Somebody claiming to have killed someone in self-defense should not be “presumed innocent” or “presumed guilty.” > [@](#): > > There was no good reason to doubt Zimmerman’s claim he was attacked and defended himself at the time, and the subsequent evidence failed to prove he didn’t. In a “stand your ground” state Martin had every right to stand his ground against an attack. The prosecution did have good reason to doubt Zimmerman’s claims which is why they proceeded to trial. I think that OJ Simpson is a murderer. That the prosecution failed to get a conviction doesn’t change my belief in his guilt. The statement “OJ Simpson did not kill his wife” is not objective truth. > [@](#): > > The case should, in my opinion, never have gone to trial, and it went there not because of the evidence and likelihood of conviction but solely because of the outcry by a misinformed public. But it would have gone to trial where you live. And it would have gone to trial not because of a misinformed public, but because your country does not have stand your ground laws. > [@](#): > > Neither has race. If you could kindly do everybody here a favour and watch the documentary “The 13th” by director Ava DuVernay. The documentary opened my eyes. I cannot look at race and the justice system in America the same way as I did before watching it ever again. If you don’t live in America (as I don’t, and as I suspect you don’t) then you are severely lacking context of the discussion that is taking place here. I live in a country where the police are governed by a central authority, where we’ve had a treaty between the crown and tangata whenua as our founding document, where our police generally don’t have sidearms. America is a country with 18,000 different police departments, federal, state, local. Where people with no law enforcement background can get elected to sheriff. Where there is no overall regulatory oversight, where procedures will vary from department to department, county to county, state to state. Where not only the police are armed. Where black people only effectively got the “right to vote” a generation ago. Where the “war on crack” meant “lock them up” but opioids is a “crisis” and should be treated as a “public health emergency.” We can’t have this discussion without talking about race. You are welcome to dismiss it. But you don’t dismiss it because “it isn’t an issue”: but you dismiss it because you are a position of privilege: you live in another country, with different laws, attitudes, and life experiences, and you don’t know any fucking better. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2018, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12232 "2018-01-07T04:29:30Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > In the swatting case, where we know for a fact the victim was innocent, unarmed, and not threatening the police. And we know that a reasonable person wouldn’t feel threatened because not a single other person at the scene felt the need to shoot, should we assume that the police officer who killed that innocent unarmed man was actually the victim of a violent crime? Hell no. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2018, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12233 "2018-01-07T04:31:30Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > No, I want them to **lose the right to lie about it**. We have seen evidence that they have been doing this for a few years. Evidence that has not been previously available. Evidence that suggests a long-standing pattern of behavior, going back at least several decades, probably more. > > Without this clear evidence, the police will back up the word of an officer. It is a club, that closes ranks around its own. For some people, this will never really be a problem. For others, if the police take a dislike to you for whatever reason, you stand a fair chance of ending up FreddyGrayed. > > **That** is what is unjust. The above is why so many police were and still are dead set against anyone taking video of them. They will even lie and tell you it’s illegal and try to take it away fro you. Without video, many of the cases we have been seeing would be simply swept away and covered up. It is these videos that show us just how BAD some of these guys are. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2018, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12234 "2018-01-07T04:34:09Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > No, you fucking idiot, victim blaming would be to say that it was the dead guy’s fault for the officer feeling threatened. > > You have some fucked up ideas of who a victim is, if you consider the victim to be the guy who just killed an unarmed civilian. This. Especially when (as I just said) there is a video record of what really happened. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2018, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12235 "2018-01-07T04:36:30Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …no: to do “anything else” is not victim blaming. > > Of course there should be compelling evidence before someone is arrested and charged. Who the fuck is arguing otherwise? Do you think that people think police are so special that the law needs to treat them differently? People are arguing the exact opposite. > > There was plenty of compelling evidence that indicated George Zimmerman should have been arrested immediately. If he did what he did in another jurisdiction he most likely would have been arrested, charged and convicted. If he did what he did here in NZ he’d be in jail. And if you don’t live in Florida and did what George Zimmerman did where you live you’d be rotting in jail right now as well. Trayvon Martin would have loved to have invoked “self defense” in this case. Unfortunately he can’t, because he’s fucking dead. > > So here’s a friendly tip for you. If you live somewhere that doesn’t have “stand your ground” laws: don’t stalk your neighbours, continue stalking them when the police tell you to stop, chase your neighbour when he runs away from you then shoot him dead when he understandably tries to defend himself. Because it won’t end as well for you as it did for Zimmerman. It should also be noted that this piece of filth Zimmerman has “a history” of his own. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2018, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12236 "2018-01-07T04:49:25Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, quite the opposite. You have no right to shoot a cop who is doing their job, because not only are they not a threat to you, they are making you safer. The guy in Wichita wasn’t a threat to anyone either. Therefore, defending oneself, which you claimed was a fundamental right, isn’t predicated on the existence of an actual threat, according to you. So if cops with guns are acting squirrely right outside your door, everyone has a fundamental right to shoot them in self-defense, according to your words. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2018, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12237 "2018-01-07T04:55:51Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > It should also be noted that this piece of filth Zimmerman has “a history” of his own. “Having a history” doesn’t negate the right to self defence, or the right to the presumption of innocence. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2018, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12238 "2018-01-07T05:01:50Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > The above is why so many police were and still are dead set against anyone taking video of them. They will even lie and tell you it’s illegal and try to take it away fro you. > > Without video, many of the cases we have been seeing would be simply swept away and covered up. > > It is these videos that show us just how BAD some of these guys are. I’ve repeatedly said I’m in favour of police body cams, and noted that when they’re used the amount of complaints about police behaviour go way down - whether because of a reduction in police misconduct, a reduction in false complaints, or most likely both. However, I’m not arrogant or stupid enough to believe that I can tell everything that happens in a particular incident based on a few seconds of video, especially when an investigation or trial - where people see all the evidence, not just the fractions the media choose to reveal - come to a different conclusion. As for filming the police not being illegal, you are correct, but that doesn’t mean the police can’t tell you to move away, either for your safety or to prevent interference with the police action. Some, but by no means all, of the complaints I’ve seen about the police preventing filming have actually been about that. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2018, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12239 "2018-01-07T05:04:33Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, quite the opposite. You have no right to shoot a cop who is doing their job, because not only are they not a threat to you, they are making you safer. So the right to defend oneself only applies if one had a reasonable fear, without mistakes- well, no, you can be mistaken about whether someone is armed or is a genuine threat, bit if you think it’s a thug and it’s actually a cop, you lose that right? A. You feel threatened by some guy. You shoot him, he had no gun, was no threat, but you felt av reasonable threat. Right to self defense. B. You feel threatened by some guy. You shoot him, he was armed, but also had a badge. You felt a reasonable threat. No right to self defense. Right? Eta: you may… presume… all other factors and circumstances are identical. ---
**Author:** ![UCBearcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/77aa72/32.png) [@UCBearcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UCBearcats)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2018, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12240 "2018-01-07T15:05:11Z")
Here is another first-class douche nozzle. Pedophile, dirty-cop, and idiot. Great combination. Hopefully 20 years will help correct him. > **[Police Chief Charged With Trying To Solicit Sex From A 14-Year-Old Who Was...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/police-chief-charged-with-trying-to-solicit-sex-from-a-14)** > > Leechburg police Chief Michael Diebold — a local hero who lost his arm in a fireworks accident — was arrested Friday for soliciting sex from another cop posing as a teenage girl. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2018, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/12241 "2018-01-07T15:28:28Z")
> [@UCBearcats](#): > > Here is another first-class douche nozzle. Pedophile, dirty-cop, and idiot. Great combination. Hopefully 20 years will help correct him. > > [Police Chief Charged With Trying To Solicit Sex From A 14-Year-Old Who Was Actually An Undercover Cop](https://www.buzzfeed.com/salvadorhernandez/police-chief-charged-with-trying-to-solicit-sex-from-a-14?utm_term=.uud2DwJZ8G#.uud2DwJZ8G) I live maybe five miles away from the guy. Never met him, but have seen him around. Felt bad about his arm being lost to fireworks. Fucking scum. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=611) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=613)