Meanwhile in Georgia:
In the Georgia case, the most you can say IMO is that the guy answering the door might not have used the best judgment in the world, practically speaking, but that’s hardly a crime. The DA’s statement there is pretty much saying that the right of police to protect themselves by any means necessary supersedes anyone else’s right to safety. It in effect posits law enforcement as a category of citizen above and beyond normal rules and laws and customs, well in excess of any practical need that might go with the job.
I mean, I don’t own guns any more but I sure as hell understand why some people feel the need to own them. I may not agree entirely with them, but when there is as much to fear from the cops as there is from criminals (“every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints,” said Jagger!), it’s a messed up world. One officer convicted of killing that woman from Australia, another who shot a dude in his own house because she thought it was her house, I mean, really…
Strangely, the DA doesn’t appear to have said what Fleischman says he said. Or, if he did, it isn’t in the passage Fleischman quoted.
After the verdict, Macon Judicial Circuit District Attorney David Cooke sent 13 WMAZ the following statement:
“While we respect the jury’s verdict, we stand by the evidence we presented in this case. Mr. Shaw is fortunate to have his freedom, and that his injuries weren’t more severe after he chose to answer the door holding a gun knowing police officers were on the other side. Our men and women in law enforcement have a right to protect themselves so they can return home to their families each night. Intentionally bringing a gun to greet these officers could have resulted in the loss of multiple lives. I am grateful no one died.”
It’s literally in the article, word for word.
The DA is saying his right to bear arms in his own home doesn’t really exist if the cops show up. And that they shot him for it is completely fine because anything that makes cops feel safe trumps all your rights.
And that mentality goes beyond the 2nd Amendment. If cops kill you for saying things they don’t like, that’s fine too, because they might be scared if they’re scared, by anything, well then your rights cease to exist and your life is forfeit.
This has been the de facto, and in way too many cases de jure, situation in huge parts of America for at least 50 years.
We just didn’t care or notice until a few years ago because terrorizing lower class (and, let’s be real honest, black ) America was a feature, not a bug.
Plausible deniability was also a big part for a lot of people.
Cell phone cameras changed a shitload of minds.
The DA literally says nothing about his rights at all. Nothing. Literally has a meaning.
You’re right saying the cops shooting you in the house because they got scared doesn’t involve your rights in any way. Especially when you remind everyone they can just shoot you cause you’re holding a gun. In your own home. That has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Owning a gun in your home? That’s like… not even a right or anything.
Good to see you’re behind the cops abusing their power and trampling rights as long as it’s the right kind of person.
Well, since we’re getting all pedantic up in here.
lit·er·al·ly
/ˈlidərəlē,ˈlitrəlē/
adverb
INFORMAL
used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true.
“I was literally blown away by the response I got”
Or, it could be that I can disagree with the cops and the DA without mischaracterizing what they said.
Yes, some dictionaries do adopt misuses. Pity, that.
Yeah, some dictionaries do adopt actual usage of words, including how they drift over time. Pity our dictionaries have to be so accurate.
I think it’s more that government overstepping it’s bounds is fine with you if you don’t like those rights.
Which lines up.
But it’s not OK with me. I don’t think cops should automatically shoot people with guns. I think I’ve probably said so a million times, but if not, I’ll say so again. Cops are not supposed to shoot citizens. They are supposed to protect them, to serve them. The modern notion that a cop’s first duty is to protect him- or her-self from harm is insane, a recipe for legal murder, and we are seeing the results of that notion every day. The cops who shot this guy should go to jail, and the DA is a smarmy prick who ought to be voted out by his constituents before he can do any more harm. All of that aside, however, he said nothing about the victim’s gun rights at all.
I really feel like this is the core of our problem today. Cops have been given the absolute right to be free from fear at all times. They’re allowed to shoot first and ask questions later now, and thus have more rights than ordinary citizens.
Look at Amber Guyger. She walks into someone’s apartment and shoots him dead, but there’s still a question about whether she’ll be held responsible. But only because she’s a cop, even though she was off duty and wasn’t there in any official capacity.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/30/us/dallas-botham-jean-911-police-officer-amber-guyger/index.html
The message is clear: if you are a police officer, you may kill anyone who you think represents a threat to your health, at any time, for any reason.
FTFY.
Well, yeah, but it doesn’t hurt to re-emphasize the fact for those who weren’t paying attention in class.
But the DA was making that case that if you have a gun, the cops are going to shoot you.
That was their defense: cops should be allowed to shoot anyone with a gun if they want to.
But somehow that’s not infringing on the 2nd Amendment? What?
That’s the very definition of infringement: officers of the government murdering you for exercising your right.
And the DA offered that as his defense.
So, yes, he very much DID say something about the victim’s gun rights. He pretended they didn’t exist.
I’m not sure on what planet being murdered by agents of the government for doing something is somehow not an infringement on doing that thing.
I mean lets use that logic for equal rights. If the DA said it was fine to just shoot a black dude, it’s fine as long as he says cops get scared sometimes and just want to get home to their families. So he’s not saying black people don’t have the same rights, he’s just saying it’s fine to kill them if you want. Totally different guys.
I don’t think he was, at least not that rigidly. In any event, his statement did not deny the right of ordinary people to bear arms, and his behavior is wrong enough that we shouldn’t need to invent more wrongness on his part. And I don’t say that because I’m sympathetic to him or anti-gun or whatever: I say it because he did not say the thing attributed to him by Fleischman. He didn’t.
Yeah, this is in fact the defense offered by the DA.
He suggested that it was reasonable for police to shoot you while you are engaged in entirely legal activity.
It’s based on an implicit suggestion that there’s something wrong with you answering the door while holding a gun.
I don’t believe there’s any real basis for that implicit belief. It seems like you have the right to hold a weapon in your hands while opening the door to your own home. Now, if you pointed it at the cops, then you might have a problem… but he didn’t do that, right?
Saw the video, and no - he appeared to have it in his hand pointed at the ground.
I say appeared, because it was obscured by the edge of the door. However, the arm wasn’t outstretched because otherwise it wouldn’t have been.