A justified killing?

[Quartermaster]

I'm sure you've all heard of the story of the Katrina refugees who were trying to leave NO, but got turned back by some small town law enforcement and also had their food stolen. I am wondering, would it be justified for the civilians to open fire on police in this case?

I personally go for yes. Saying they (the refugees) might be looters is BS, b/c they are innocent until proven guilty in the justice system. They were having their property stolen (or unreasonably seized) and being sent back into a dangerous situation by people who were supposed to be guardians of the common good.

Thoughts? Yays? Nays? Different scenarios?

[NERD]

Police are there to maintain law and order- though what happened in NO is stupid, it doesn't give civilians the right to open fire to the police. While some small town law enforcers stopping people and taking their food is not right and leaves tarnishes the public opinion about the police, civilians attacking the police is a major crime and would lead to more policemen being deployed to dispatch the armed civilians.

Besides, though there are quite a lot of beanheads who work at law enforcement, there are also a lot of hard working people trying to uphold peace and order.

[PopCulturePooka]

Hello that ain't a justified killing.

Thats one of the worst examples I've ever seen of a justified killing.

The police are there to protect order, especially in their town/jurisdiction. If they thought not letting the Ref's in was the way to keep order and safety then so be it. Yes, the reports that they stole supplies is terrible, but there is NO justification for those police to be killed.

[stillbornsinger]

In that case?

No... perhaps justified protest, sit in, maybe even riot if they are on the brink of starvation. I don't know what their exact situation was. If they were to kill a police officer it would only reenforce the idea that they don't belong there, and it would make being a refugee harder on others. It wouldn't be productive in any way.

In other cases, of course, I believe there are many reasons for justifiable violence. Thats unfortunant but sometimes its your only option.

[Kusoyaro]

The old arguments about power have been manifested once again in this scenario ("power corrupts," "...who polices the police," etc). The Police are not absolute. the ingrained notion of Police and the Law being absolute is so flawed and misconcieved it's a onder that it hasn't been challenged. People just swallow the crap that Citizens must follow the Law no matter what. What the hell? Law is the humaninterpretation to the closest possible system that executes Justice, NOT a system of supression of rights and freedoms. The right to bear arms against those who oppress you are one of the fundemental human rights, and there is a subsection that deals with government agencies, but another that deals with corrupt government, as this clearly was.
The fact remains that while they (the citizens) would have been brought on charges as it is against the law, it would have been the right thing to do. I make no distinction between a person who does wrong and an authority that does wrong merely because it says so in the Law. Any law that doesn't allow for such obvious interpretations is not Law (again, an interpretation of Justice) at all, merely a form of oppression, as it denies argument and leniancy.

[Quartermaster]

Hiya yes it is.

There was no reason the police could not have simply held off the crowd and then contacted federal authorities, other than the fact they were dips. Even if the feds/National Guard decided to take them back to the Superdome, the refugees would have at least found that temporary safety/protection in the company of the Guard as they were lead or airlifted back. If the Feds decided to help them finish their journey somehow, they would've saved a bit of time and effort.

By sending them back into a dangerous situation, the police were not fufilling their duties. By firing their weapons into the air, they were threatening the lives of anybody who did not comply with their unreasonable demands.

I believe it was right when the police fired their weapons would be when shooting would be justified. Before the police took the first step, before they even threatened to shoot, the shooting would not be justified because there was no threats on the refugees lives. Continuing to walk after being told to go back would count as civil disobedience.

[NERD]

Again, the police who threatened the civilians and took the food are dipshits. But the civilians opening fire is not justified, and please do consider the consequences.

Civilians open fire at the policemen. Some of them get injured, maybe killed, even. The policemen call for reinforcement in an area where there were not enough policemen to go around as they are trying to restore order in the ravaged places throughout NO. Eventually, either they get more policemen or someone like national guards are called in for and search for the civilians who opened fire. The encounters between law enforcement and the civilians may come to an violent end. While the innocents are terrified and threatened by other armed civilians.

[Quartermaster]

The action, by itself, is justified, however the consequences raise some good questions too. I won't ask any (yet) because it's late and I don't want to.

[ZMarie]

The action, by itself, is justified

Simplify this. A security guard is working at, say a mall. Some homeless guy comes up and wants to stay there for the night. The security guard sends him on his way and takes something from him because he thinks he might have stolen it. You're saying that the vagrant has the right to shoot the security guard for this?

Life shouldn't be disregarded that easily, in my opinion.

[Killuminati]

Lol, you guys ever been to New Orleans? They got some crooked cops/political figures over there. I was the victim of a crooked cop in New Orleans. Spent the night in OPP Orleans Parish Prison.

[Chuplayer]

Shooting the cop for taking your stuff and sending you back to a dangerous place? No.

Beating him up a little for taking your stuff and sending you back to a dangerous place? Yes.

[Kass]

Nah, justice is those oficers being tried, convicted and sentenced to jail where they can spend time inthe general population with all the felons they put in jail. They can have a nice prison beat down and be Bubba's new wife.

[zell583]

to kill...NO! but if a cop would try to take my food from me after what those went through to get to where they got and was chased away, i would bite the cop's hand off if s/he tried to take the food from me!

[Killuminati]

There were a ton of rumors man. The helicopter shooting was a rumor. The murders in the dome were a rumor. The rapes were a rumor. So watch out what you hear.

[NERD]

Anyway, Kass is right, those police officers being punished for their actions is the right way to go. No such things as justified killings here.

The area stretching from Alabama-Mississippi-New Orleans probably have one of the most crooked and racist cops in the entire country. I am not too keen to travel these routes, especially Alabama and Mississippi as a minority. Alabama/Mississippi on particular don't seem to be that far from the Jim Crow south.

[more cheerios]

What happened is a lot of chaos. Things are a little wonky down there right now, but we shouldn't permit anarchy.

[Quartermaster]

Simplify this. A security guard is working at, say a mall. Some homeless guy comes up and wants to stay there for the night. The security guard sends him on his way and takes something from him because he thinks he might have stolen it. You're saying that the vagrant has the right to shoot the security guard for this?

Life shouldn't be disregarded that easily, in my opinion.

If the guard thinks the homeless guy stole it, then that'd be tough shit. The homeless guy is innocent until proven guilty. He would be proven guilty or innocent in a courtroom, and either way the security guard would have no right to simply take the mans stuff without regard to the law. If the security guard brandished and fired his weapon, the homeless man could fear for his safety and fire back. The guard would have no reason to do such a thing.

This analogy doesn't work because the refugees weren't trying to stay at an unreasonable area such as people's/the officers homes, their main priority was to get away from a disastor zone. The officers could have kept them traveling thru instead of hosting them anywhere, and the refugees could have stayed at a motel.

There's actually no mention of where, exactly these refugees got turned back or what town it would've been (or if there is, I haven't found it yet).

[ZMarie]

This analogy doesn't work because the refugees weren't trying to stay at an unreasonable area such as people's/the officers homes, their main priority was to get away from a disastor zone. The officers could have kept them traveling thru instead of hosting them anywhere, and the refugees could have stayed at a motel.

That's why I said a security guard at a mall. A mall isn't a private residence and the general population can go there.

And brandishing guns and shooting someone are two completely different things. I still say regardless of whether or not the police were first class idiots/racists/redneck idiots (take your pick), taking their lives too extreme.

The homeless guy is innocent until proven guilty. He would be proven guilty or innocent in a courtroom

So you would grant the refugees a fair trial, but they, instead should take law into their own hands (to use a term) and just shoot the policemen?

I don't understand that reasoning.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Self-defense is only justified when your life is in immediate danger, and you are still only allowed to respond to a threat with equivalent force.

In other words, you can't blow someone away with a shotgun who's threatening to mug you with a butter knife. It ain't self-defense. It's manslaughter at best.

Furthermore, in this case you'd have to prove that your life was in danger from a POLICE OFFICER, who is charged witth enforcing the law. Police officers are given the right to command others to follow the law, and ignoring a police command can get you arrested to begin with.

Yes, police officers are fallable, and that's why there are a bunch of safeguards in the judicial systems. There are censures, civil suits, and a variety of other things that you can do to police officers who abuse their power. Shooting them is not one of them.

Using your logic in this thread, if I were a police officer, I could shoot you, because I would be afraid that your posting suggestions like this will get me killed by someone who thinks they have the right.

[CNagy]

Firing a shot off into the air is a warning shot. Where I'm from, at least, that means the next shots won't be warnings. So in a very real sense, those people could assume that their life was in danger if they refused to follow the commands to turn around and head back.

While the police officer can order you to turn around, there are no laws supporting that action. If they had probable cause, they could have held the entire crowd at gunpoint until backup arrived. By confiscating supplies, they are committing theft. None of the proper procedures vesting them with the rights to perform that kind of crowd control, and incidently, curtailing the groups right to assembly on public land assuming it does not interfere with the rights of others had been followed, to my knowledge... this combined with a weapons discharge would definitely put the police in the wrong, in this situation. A man firing on the police would be found "not guilty" in these circumstances, if the jury wasn't biased, because the police made the situation dangerous, angered the crowd through their theft, and were perpetrating rights abuses. Of course, all this would be moot if they hadn't fired warning shots, thus demonstrating the will (or at least the appearance of the will) to open fire on the crowd.

When the government, or in this case representatives of the government, do not hold the interests of the people first, it is the people's duty to overthrow the government, or in this case pacify or otherwise remove said representatives. It's an ideal, of course, and not very practical, but the point is that this isn't about a bunch of police officers doing their jobs, it is about police officers discarding the law and taking matters into their own hands.

[Marblehead]

you can do whatever you want, if you can get away with it.

[Trump]

Self-defense is only justified when your life is in immediate danger, and you are still only allowed to respond to a threat with equivalent force.

In other words, you can't blow someone away with a shotgun who's threatening to mug you with a butter knife. It ain't self-defense. It's manslaughter at best.


Not exactly true, that depends where you are.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-shoot1oct01,0,33725.story?coll=la-home-nation

Basically, if someone comes into your home, you can shoot them regardless of whether they have an M16 or a butter knife. Granted, we've got a Bush for state governor =/

[mediocre]

In florida you've been able to kill a man who is in your home for quite some time in this state. Which nearly every state in the land agrees with.
This law just extends the 'castle' principle.


Your comments are ignorant, unsupported, and needless.

[more cheerios]

Actually, if someone comes onto your property without a weapon, you are not allowed to attack them with a weapon. You can beat them with your fists, yeah, but you're not allowed to blow them away with a rifle.

[history1me]

just plant a gun afterwards. His word against yours.

[Trump]

Your comments are ignorant, unsupported, and needless.

Speaking of unsupported and needless... you are also a hypocrite.

I posted that article because it was explaining a little bit about the law which moves things from the manslaughter category back to the self defense category. Many people outside of this country probably aren't familiar with them.

[Annorax]

Justice would be those cops losing their jobs and getting max sentences for the stolen food. Shooting them would do no good.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Are you kidding me? Fired, maybe. Civil suit, maybe. Prison time? Hell no. Is this likely to happen again? No. Did they do something bad? Yes. Is getting stuck in a prison with people you put there a just punishment? Fuck no.

As far as the self-defense is concerned, you are NOT allowed to, for instance, fire upon a Mormon who comes by to convert you. Yes, he's on your land, but without any clear or present danger, regardless of the 'castle principle' or whatever, it'd be called homicide.

If there is an intruder in your home, you are allowed to shoot them if you feel yourself or your family to be in immediate danger. If you know they don't have a weapon, however, you may have charges pressed against you for using excessive force. It would be hard to prove in a court, because the only witness that would try for the prosecution is dead, but legally you've done wrong.

The Florida law states that people have the right to defend themselves, rather than flee, but that doesn't mean they are allowed to do anything the Hell they want to people on their property. Excessive force still reigns supreme over the right to defend yourself, otherwise fist fights ending in someone getting stabbed wouldn't be tried.

[CNagy]

Louisiana does not have a "Duty to Retreat" rule (along with Florida) that requires a person to only use lethal force in self defense if they cannot somehow escape the situation.

That said, the police were acting outside of their duty; curtailing the civil liberties of the crowd, committing petty theft. Their use of warning shots escalated the situation to one where lethal force is permissable, as the degree of lethal force used in a conflict cannot exceed the level of the threat (bringing a gun to a knife-fight, for example.)

As the crowd had no duty to retreat in the face of a threat of lethal force, they could have legally gunned those police officers down and the case would be dismissed by any competent judge. This, however, is one of those "once in a decade" kind of situations, and one with further extenuating circumstances. The crowd could additionally assert that the police officers' forcing them to return to New Orleans were essentially handing some of them a death sentence, considering both the crime of the area and the state of emergency. Even if Louisiana had a duty to retreat in the face of a lethal threat, they could argue that they had no means of retreat, as there was a very real threat behind them in New Orleans.

In summation, this does not mean someone can just gun down a cop whenever he feels justified. Generally, justification is a hindsight issue, and in this case, those citizens were legally justified beyond any shadow of doubt to do whatever necessary to remove the threat that the police posed. Behind the badge is a mortal man and, even when in uniform, if he is breaking the law then he is a criminal. If he fires off his weapon while breaking the law, he is an armed criminal.