You can debate the need to arrest, but creating a ruse that ends up with the man being shot several times?

  • Doug Holland@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    From everything else in the article, there’s no indication of anything necessitating a plainclothes operation of the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, local police department, and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, all with a made-up ruse to get the man out of his house. What’s the point, unless they simply wanted violence?

    Dude has every right to point a gun at plainclothes cops attacking his brother, cops who haven’t even said they’re cops. Kinda surprised he didn’t squeeze the trigger.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yep. And yet they plugged (or shot at) him at least ten times. No walking for you, buddy.

      This is in the richest nation in human history. We could care for every citizen. We choose not to.

    • VioletRing@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      10 months ago

      I wonder how much money the 4 agencies involved in the raid spent. Like how many months of rent would that equal? At what point would it just be better to send a single officer with a voucher for a months rent? Would cost the public far less and give the family a months relief, allowing them time to save money and get back on their feet.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      10 months ago

      Most people will do anything not to shoot. Even most cops.

      I agree their ruse wasn’t needed and needlessly escalated the situation.

      That’s the shit I’m beyond fed up with. The needless escalation of shit.

      They wanted to feel all undercover.

    • mob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      Do most articles explain why police officers are plain clothed? And does confront always mean attack?

      This story is weird, since everyone is making up their own version and finding justification for outrage

      • 520@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Plainclothes officers are supposed to be deployed in situations where the suspect’s knowledge of cops in the area could have an adverse effect (eg: destruction of evidence, fleeing suspect).

        What business a plainclothes has in a national park is questionable; in donning plain clothes you also lose some of the social protections that come with the uniform. For instance, unless you outright show you’re a cop, other people think you’re a civvie. Escalating situations as a civvie rarely goes well.

        If someone is doing something shady out in the national parks, even a wandering civvie can spook them, so the advantage of plainclothes is moot.

        Unless the uniform poses a danger specifically with regards to wildlife, the officers made a bad call to go in as plainclothes.

        Confront doesn’t always mean attack but it does usually mean hostilities, and often escalation.