▲ 609 ▼ Officers shoot rubber bullet at reporter for "9 News Austraila" reporting in downtown LA (lemmy.ml) submitted 1 year ago* by FreeWilliam@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml 35 comments fedilink hide all child comments https://files.catbox.moe/9g12l4.mp4
[–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 199 points 1 year ago (6 children) How is this not assault with a deadly weapon? She's there working, clearly not a threat. That cop should be prosecuted. permalink fedilink source hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Signtist@bookwormstory.social 101 points 1 year ago It is. But do you see any other cops moving to arrest the shooter? This is why people say ACAB. Sure, some of them probably really do want to make positive change, but they don't actually take the actions against other officers required to allow for that change. They instead fall in line, which makes them just another part of the problem. Law enforcement finds it more important to show a united front, even if that front is squarely against the people, and even the law itself. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FreeWilliam@lemmy.ml [S] 58 points 1 year ago Cops merely protect the ones giving orders rather than the people, so it's not a big surprise. This is why anarchists believe that they should be abolished. permalink fedilink source parent [–] rustydrd@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 year ago* Don't worry. They will conduct an internal review, which will identify the officer at fault and punish him by having him go on paid vacation. permalink fedilink source parent [–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 1 year ago (1 child) he saw something on the other side of her and he only hit her because of poor aim - most likely results of investigation if that even happens permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) So that's reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon and incompetence instead. The shooter should still be prosecuted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 year ago Should but our police force is amazing at finding ways to make obvious assault and wrong doing as vital to their jobs. permalink fedilink source parent [–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago (1 child) Qualified immunity; because there is no explicit guidance against police “shooting blonde, female Australian news reporters live on the air while covering an LA protests against ICE on a weekend” - he will be let off with a stern talking to, and a wink. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) "Immunity" being the immunity of the sovereign. I do not understand how we can embrace this concept as a country 250 years after breaking free of monarchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (1 child) As a non-American, I find that whole concept absurd - and that’s before learning of its ties to monarchy! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago Yes, and I'm not being hyperbolic. If you read early American caselaw explaining the rationale of sovereign immunity, the logic is that in monarchies it drives from the divine right of the sovereign. When we became independent we kept that legal concept, but the judges said that it derived from the will of the electorate rather than the divine right of the sovereign. Of course, the functional outcome was the same.... permalink fedilink source parent [–] IttihadChe@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Um actually is a "less deadly" weapon so it's perfectly fine to shoot at whoever you feel like! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) So we can shoot back at cops if they're rubber bullets, paintballs, or some other "less lethal" ammo? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Eyedust@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago No, that would be assault with a deadly weapon. Everything is deadly in the hands of anyone who's not a cop, remember. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Signtist@bookwormstory.social 101 points 1 year ago It is. But do you see any other cops moving to arrest the shooter? This is why people say ACAB. Sure, some of them probably really do want to make positive change, but they don't actually take the actions against other officers required to allow for that change. They instead fall in line, which makes them just another part of the problem. Law enforcement finds it more important to show a united front, even if that front is squarely against the people, and even the law itself. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FreeWilliam@lemmy.ml [S] 58 points 1 year ago Cops merely protect the ones giving orders rather than the people, so it's not a big surprise. This is why anarchists believe that they should be abolished. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rustydrd@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 year ago* Don't worry. They will conduct an internal review, which will identify the officer at fault and punish him by having him go on paid vacation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 1 year ago (1 child) he saw something on the other side of her and he only hit her because of poor aim - most likely results of investigation if that even happens permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) So that's reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon and incompetence instead. The shooter should still be prosecuted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 year ago Should but our police force is amazing at finding ways to make obvious assault and wrong doing as vital to their jobs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) So that's reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon and incompetence instead. The shooter should still be prosecuted. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 year ago Should but our police force is amazing at finding ways to make obvious assault and wrong doing as vital to their jobs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 year ago Should but our police force is amazing at finding ways to make obvious assault and wrong doing as vital to their jobs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago (1 child) Qualified immunity; because there is no explicit guidance against police “shooting blonde, female Australian news reporters live on the air while covering an LA protests against ICE on a weekend” - he will be let off with a stern talking to, and a wink. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) "Immunity" being the immunity of the sovereign. I do not understand how we can embrace this concept as a country 250 years after breaking free of monarchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (1 child) As a non-American, I find that whole concept absurd - and that’s before learning of its ties to monarchy! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago Yes, and I'm not being hyperbolic. If you read early American caselaw explaining the rationale of sovereign immunity, the logic is that in monarchies it drives from the divine right of the sovereign. When we became independent we kept that legal concept, but the judges said that it derived from the will of the electorate rather than the divine right of the sovereign. Of course, the functional outcome was the same.... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) "Immunity" being the immunity of the sovereign. I do not understand how we can embrace this concept as a country 250 years after breaking free of monarchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (1 child) As a non-American, I find that whole concept absurd - and that’s before learning of its ties to monarchy! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago Yes, and I'm not being hyperbolic. If you read early American caselaw explaining the rationale of sovereign immunity, the logic is that in monarchies it drives from the divine right of the sovereign. When we became independent we kept that legal concept, but the judges said that it derived from the will of the electorate rather than the divine right of the sovereign. Of course, the functional outcome was the same.... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (1 child) As a non-American, I find that whole concept absurd - and that’s before learning of its ties to monarchy! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago Yes, and I'm not being hyperbolic. If you read early American caselaw explaining the rationale of sovereign immunity, the logic is that in monarchies it drives from the divine right of the sovereign. When we became independent we kept that legal concept, but the judges said that it derived from the will of the electorate rather than the divine right of the sovereign. Of course, the functional outcome was the same.... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago Yes, and I'm not being hyperbolic. If you read early American caselaw explaining the rationale of sovereign immunity, the logic is that in monarchies it drives from the divine right of the sovereign. When we became independent we kept that legal concept, but the judges said that it derived from the will of the electorate rather than the divine right of the sovereign. Of course, the functional outcome was the same.... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IttihadChe@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Um actually is a "less deadly" weapon so it's perfectly fine to shoot at whoever you feel like! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) So we can shoot back at cops if they're rubber bullets, paintballs, or some other "less lethal" ammo? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Eyedust@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago No, that would be assault with a deadly weapon. Everything is deadly in the hands of anyone who's not a cop, remember. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) So we can shoot back at cops if they're rubber bullets, paintballs, or some other "less lethal" ammo? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Eyedust@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago No, that would be assault with a deadly weapon. Everything is deadly in the hands of anyone who's not a cop, remember. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Eyedust@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago No, that would be assault with a deadly weapon. Everything is deadly in the hands of anyone who's not a cop, remember. permalink fedilink source parent