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.

22 of 447 comments (clear)

  1. just how? by quonsar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    how the hell does one get in contact with facebook anyway?

  2. FB should did it by arbiter1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On facebook people were reportedly egging her on telling her no to give up and fight til the end. Pretty much pushing her to try to kill cops. Police have asked FB to keep a record of it all pending a warrant later.

    1. Re:FB should did it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A smarter move by police would have been to de-escalate by saying "ok, lady, have it your way," and rather than shooter her dead, simply ended the stand off by going away. Then they could have arrested her without incident the next time she actually went anywhere, because its likely she would have left her shotgun behind. Who walks around with a shotgun? This woman should still be alive, but the police seem to have no ability to understand this. Its madness how many people police have killed "cleanly" when the more ethical choice would have been to back off, come at them later when a low value, low risk suspect least expects it. Trying to arrest someone who is upset has a lot more drama and risk attached than arresting someone that doesn't see them coming. Police, by and large as a group, lack wisdom, and once a gun is involved, it immediately reduces the value of a suspects life. It doesn't need to e that way.

    2. Re:FB should did it by ravenshrike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hey look, a proper example of incitement to violence not protected by the first amendment. Bravo sir.

    3. Re:FB should did it by frovingslosh · · Score: 4, Funny

      But she might have posted a video before they got her. Clearly she had to be put down immediately.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    4. Re:FB should did it by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    5. Re: FB should did it by stevedog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm a huge believer that police often overstep boundaries, but no, that is exactly what they should not have done. Then you go from having 0.1% of arrests going badly, because someone became violent and police had to counter that with force, to more like 20%, because "holy shit I might be able to actually WIN!" This isn't Game of Thrones: we can't allow Trial by Combat - if we do, even legit nonprejudiced cops (however many of those there are) will get hurt, good people who feel like "I just can't afford to be put in jail, it's worth a shot" will get hurt or killed... or more likely, both will happen, often in the same incident.

    6. Re:FB should did it by dwillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
    7. Re:FB should did it by danbert8 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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?
    8. Re: FB should did it by jmcvetta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In recent years I've met only two kinds of people:

      1) affluent boot lickers who think law enforcers only brutalize working class and poor people

      2) folks who are absolutely scared shitless of American law enforcers

      I'm white, middle aged, clean cut, and don't hang out with crooks. Law enforcer brutality is not a race issue, no matter how hard the financialist media try to make it into one. It's an issue of cops, as a caste, holding the common people in open contempt.

      Nationwide, law enforcers are rampaging out of control - almost always with the consent of their masters in the judicial oligarchy. Our once-free country is headed down a bad road. I fear things may get much worse before they get better.

    9. Re:FB should did it by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When she started to resist, the police gained justification in escalation of force.

      Only in the legal sense that they won't be tried for murder.

      In every moral sense, they had an obligation to deescalate the situation. She was not a threat to anybody but the cops, and the video proves it.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    10. Re: FB should did it by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why not just wait outside the house for a few days? Nobody had to die.

      Because she's a danger to the public and an armed combatant resisting arrest.
      If they wait too long, she's more likely to take unexpected actions.

      Also, they'll be tying up more law enforcement resources for a longer period; which can compromise the
      safety of the public due to reduced resources elsewhere.

      Somebody else can die, because the officers are too busy at this scene: response time is increased.

      In these situations, the officers are expected to take the steps to best ensure safety of the public,
      including establishing control of the situation expeditiously.

      In a standoff, she is at risk of shooting her kids, shooting herself, or firing off stray bullets that accidentally hit
      neighbors.

      Protecting public safety in the situation entails taking down the offender, using any means necessary,
      as soon as an opportunity presents itself to minimize the risk to others besides the offender.

      After 4 hours worth; it's pretty obvious that the offender is not backing down, and waiting more hours only serves
      to increase risk and disruption and interference with their neighbors and the rest of the public.

    11. Re: FB should did it by Pfhorrest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm also white, in my mid 30s, no criminal record, don't hang out with scumbags, etc, and I have four stories about the cops in my small hometown in the coastal mountains of California to share:

      First, a decade and a half ago, I was walking down the street when a cop drove by and waved me over as they parked their car. They asked if my name was John. It isn't, and I told them so, and they left. Then turned around and asked for ID, confirmed it, and left. I was left confused. What the hell just happened?

      Next, a little over a decade ago when I had just moved out of town to the nearest slightly-bigger city, and used to come back to my home town to visit my girlfriend a few times a week, every single time I was leaving town I would be tailed by cops, pulled over just before I left town, wait 15-20 minutes as they double-checked to make sure I still didn't have any warrants out since two days ago (I never have, I have no criminal record besides minor traffic violations from years before), one time actually calling another officer who "heard" that someone with my (unusual) first name had a warrant out for him to come look at me and say "nope, not him" (AFTER running my license already). I have no fucking idea why they did this, just to harass me it seems but why me, some random nobody? Did they do this to lots of people, out of boredom? This sounds just like the kind of thing that would be called a "DWB" if I weren't white. (I've mostly had bad experiences with traffic cops before too, but mostly just the usual "money-making" kind of traffic cop behavior, only occasionally accompanied by blatant lies from them).

      Then a few years ago I was assaulted by some teenagers in a nearby park after pointing out they're not allowed to smoke there (also, they're underage and can't smoke at all, but that part hadn't even crossed my mind). I called the police and lead them to the punks still nearby on the other side of the park and wanted to press charges. They said "we'll just talk to their coaches" and sent me away. No fucking justice I guess, even in the face of the most blatant of crimes? One of the kids tried to scare me with a "do you know who my father is" (I told him I didn't care), so maybe they were some of those privileged elites I hear about? (Also, they were also white, and neonazis apparently, as they called me a "white nigger" and "race traitor", what the fuck does that have to do with anything?)

      Earlier this year I had a complete fucking meltdown in my house from an overload of work- and family-related stress, and the neighbors called in a noise complaint, twice, over the sound of my screaming and bawling. The cops came to my door, and just wanted to make sure I was OK, and said that they were happy to have gotten to meet "one of the good citizens", me, instead of the "kind of people [they] usually have to deal with". I was shocked, absolutely shocked at how unbelievably nice and police they were, when I expected "cops are here, that means I'm in trouble".

      I just don't know what to think about police anymore.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  3. Missing any details? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Like that her supporters on Facebook were egging her on?

    That she was pulled over for having a cardboard license plate.
    That she was one of those "free range Americas" that have opted out of the government and believe its law does not apply to them.
    She refused to go to court because she did not recognize its power over her.

    There is only so much a Police Officer can do.

  4. Re:No video, no evidence. by Gorobei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Like, "shut down the printing press because the letters to the editors page might have information that might cause the editor to behave unwisely"?

    Even Russia didn't try to justify their actions with an excuse that stupid.

  5. A long time ago... by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:Well that was fast by ravenshrike · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  7. Re:Interesting... by ravenshrike · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?

  8. Re: Wait for it... by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Because she had mental issues? Because she thought that if they served a warrant against her, she'd lose her children. I don't know, and it doesn't matter. Nobody was in danger until the police came. The police killed someone, rather than backing off. The "crime" was a traffic stop. No spin. Yet no reason for the cops to rush in. White people get hours, and teargas. Black people get bullets.

  9. Re:No video, no evidence. by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Obviously the police killed her AFTER SHE SHOT AT THEM WITH A 12 GAUGE.

    She shot at the police after the police stormed her home. Yes it's unwise to fight the police, but there was no reason to storm in. She was a danger to nobody, until the cops came. She would have been a danger to nobody after the cops left. Executing her for a traffic stop doesn't seem a reasonable outcome. But fighting was the only option she saw when they broke in and charged her with guns up, threatening her and her child.

  10. Hang on officer, Let me check reddit.... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 4, Funny

    "In retrospect, I feel that I was foolish to checking to see how I was trending in my social media while engaging in an armed standoff with all the collective tri-state SWAT teams. I think I will be more focused, and I will definitely be on my 'a' game next week when I have a stand off with the ATF agents at my fortified compound."

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  11. Re:No video, no evidence. by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You have to understand that when a judge issues a constitutionally sound warrant and execution order, the police are obligated to serve it.

    Nope. The cops have sued in court that they have no duty to stop a crime in progress, prevent a planned crime they have the details, or take any action that may put them in any kind of risk. I don't think the judgements specifically included or excluded serving a warrant, but they would imply inclusion.

    They have no choice in the matter

    Cops have complete discretion. There are millions of unserved warrants in the US. Cops are under no duty or obligation to serve them all by next Tuesday.