Slashdot Mirror
Police Asked Facebook To Deactivate Woman's Account During Deadly Standoff (abc7.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from KABC-TV: In the midst of a five-hour standoff that turned deadly, Facebook granted an emergency request from the Baltimore County Police Department to take offline the social media accounts belonging to a woman who wielded a shotgun at officers. Baltimore County Police officers shot and killed Korryn Gaines, 23, after she barricaded herself inside her Randallstown apartment with her 5-year-old son and pointed a shotgun at officers attempting to serve an arrest warrant. Police Chief Jim Johnson said Tuesday that the department made the emergency request to have Gaines' social media accounts suspended after she posted videos online showing the standoff. People who saw the postings, Johnson said, responded by encouraging her to not comply with police. Videos posted on Facebook and Instagram appeared to show Gaines, who was black, talking with police in the doorway to her apartment and to her son during the standoff. The standoff Monday began after three officers went to Gaines' apartment to serve arrest warrants on her and her boyfriend, Kareem K. Courtney, 39, according to police. Gaines' bench warrant stemmed from charges during a March 10 stop, including disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Authorities said she was armed with a 12-gauge pistol grip shotgun that was legally purchased last year and toward the end of the negotiations pointed it directly at an officer and said, "If you don't leave, I'm going to kill you." An officer shot at her and Gaines fired two shots, but missed the officers, who returned fire and killed her, police said. Facebook's policy says that it may grant law enforcement permission to suspend accounts in cases where there is a substantial risk of harm. Facebook has received roughly 855 requests for emergency disclosures of information to government agencies due to the threat of harm or violence between July and December 2015, according to their Government Request Report. About 73 percent of those requests were granted.
A long time ago, a man named Randy Weaver barricaded himself in his remote Northern Idaho cabin against federal agents, who wanted him to infiltrate the Aryan Nations. Weaver had refused, fearing that the Aryan Nations knew he was not a white supremacist and would kill him.
The siege was widely reported in the news media at the time. Police of all stripe described Mr. Weaver as a white supremacist, racist, and all sorts of other names. In reality, Mr. Weaver was opposed to white supremacy and its movement.
During the siege, a helicopter carrying a large object was seen flying towards the cabin. But here's the actual quote from the time:
Mr. Gritz said that he and a local real estate agent were in the area near the cabin. They saw a helicopter approach with a large object hanging from the helicopter -- like one of the fire-fighting helicopters.
Both men were out in the open and Mr. Gritz was sure that they were spotted by the men aboard the helicopter. The helicopter changed direction and left the area.
Mr. Gritz suggested that just possibly the Weaver cabin was about to have a fire -- I can spectulate how it would have been reported -- "White supremacist kills wife, children, and self with arsenal of napalm bombs and flamethrowers! Federal agents look on in horror, wait for rest of arsenal to explode."
I personally remember Mr. Gritz being interviewed at the time on camera by someone famous (perhaps it was Morely Safer), and my memory of his verbal account matches the one quoted above.
I'm uncomfortable with this "turn off all social media" sort of action, because it also turns off the victim's ability to call for help, give their side of the story, and perhaps prevent law enforcement from telling a one-sided narrative.
We've recently seen how law enforcement's version of events don't track with video camera footage of events.
I'm very much in favor of keeping all channels of information open.
It keeps both sides honest.
(*) Weaver was later awarded 3.1 million dollars for the death of his son and wife, and the government admitted no guilt in the matter.
They weren't even really there for her. Serving her warrant was done out of convenience because they were also there for a guy who had an aggravated assault charge at the same address. But then she pulls a shotgun, gets in a several hour long standoff with the cops while using her son as a shield both figuratively and at times literally, regularly telling him the cops are gonna kill him, and then threatens to kill the cops while pointing a shotgun at them short range.
Contempt of Cop is a capital crime, to be punished on site by Judge Dredd. The cops don't walk away from a confrontation, once you've challenged the cops. "de-escalation" isn't a term cops are familiar with. "Escalate at all costs" is the only term they know.
Learn to love Alaska
No, her warrant was a FTA for a traffic stop that included multiple issues, including disorderly conduct and resisting arrest as the components, which unless you think the cops had some Mad Max style of writing traffic tickets going on, happened after whatever they pulled her over for. Moreover, they served her only because they were already there for the guy who had an assault warrant. Her FIRST instinct is to hold her child in her lap while pointing her shotgun at the cops and you think the disorderly and resisting charges were bullshit? What are you smoking and where can I get some?
These are the two most relevant California law on arrests and using force during them. Feel free to research other States, our country, or other countries' laws on this subject. You will find they are similar on a global scale. Notice the citizen has a duty to submit and the peace officer has no duty to deescalate. It isn't the cops who are "escalating at all costs." It is the will of the people which forces escalation. The reason why is obvious to anyone trying to build or maintain a functional society. Encouraging citizens to resist is a surefire way to create more needless shootings.
California Penal Code
834a. If a person has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable
care, should have knowledge, that he is being arrested by a peace
officer, it is the duty of such person to refrain from using force or
any weapon to resist such arrest.
835a. Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that
the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use
reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to
overcome resistance.
A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not
retreat or desist from his efforts by reason of the resistance or
threatened resistance of the person being arrested; nor shall such
officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his right to self-defense by
the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to prevent escape
or to overcome resistance.
Nope, the moment she pulled out the shotgun, she had used deadly force to resist a lawful arrest. Remember they had a warrant, and nobody is claiming there was anything incorrect about the warrant. When she started to resist, the police gained justification in escalation of force. The moment she pulled the shotgun, she justified the use of deadly force, telling them she would kill them further cemented this justification. Who shot first is immaterial, when she pulled a deadly weapon the police gained justification for use of deadly force.
The defensive action argument goes away when committing a crime, as she was when resisting a lawful arrest warrant based arrest. Castle doctrine does not protect you when you are committing a criminal act.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Viewing violence as a means of last resort instead of as a routine tool in the toolbox seems to work for them.
Stephan
Bullshit. The cops frequently empty their magazine or use a ridiculous quantity of ammo to suppress someone who isn't even confirmed to be a threat.
http://www.thewire.com/nationa...
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?