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. 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.
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.
In America, automatically sue them civilly by the State for lost wages, mercenary healthcare costs, any permanent impairment risks; everything.
Your "good Samaritan with a gun" (read: dude who failed his cop exam for reasons) needs to get some insurance or his life will get very different if he maims someone with his civilian-level firearms training.
Fuck it. Charge the vigilantes with a crime if they even draw their firearm (manacing) or fire it (noise/assault/threatening/attempted murder) so they Get It.
civilian-level firearms training
You're implying the cops are getting better training. Hint: they don't
Lived next door to a cop, and down the street from another while growing up.
My dad, who only went with his father, trained more often and more rigorously then they did. How do I know? Cops talk a lotta shit, and their kids are sick of fascism already. This was only up until like 6th grade even.
Cop down the street was known for beating his wife, and was probably dirty as hell with the drive by attempt. Thankfully none of the kids were hurt. No one else was either, but even then I wouldn't have shed a tear for a pig.
The only thing that will stop a bad sovereign citizen with a gun is a good sovereign citizen with a gun.
A pity that there are no sovereign citizens that should ever be trusted with anything as dangerous as a pair of arts and crafts scissors for kindergarteners
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"
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.
Except they dont say "gunfire exchange" so the headline def means to slant towards sovcit being the victim
You have to read more than the headline:
"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."
Im just commenting on the clickbait and slanted headline and its intended effects.
I did read the article and thats how I came to see the slant, and why I chose to comment on it.
the headline def means to slant towards sovcit being the victim
Or lazily slanting towards "ACAB".
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.
They aren't. And often don't. If they stopped everyone who violated a traffic law they'd have to invest too much time and effort for little effect. That's why there's usually a threshold most of us know we can get away with speeding a certain amount. Cops have to use their discretion on which offenses to persue and which to ignore
Since it doesn’t mention it I’ll assume it was the cops.
It's quite possible they don't know who shot the bystander and won't until after some investigation. Not a huge amount, but just reviewing any footage, seeing where people were when they were shooting and shot, probably looking at the bullets.
The first bit is because sovereign citizens believe they can opt out of the law, and police will have to let them violate the law with impunity.
When you hear Harris County shot a white man, you know they tried all other options first.