Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NorthernLitUp t1_jeax5nj wrote

Not much to say about this until the full story comes out. Someone being threatened with deadly force (knife) has the right to use deadly force to defend themselves, but it's unclear at this point if that's what actually happened.

74

mennobyte t1_jebau82 wrote

So you're saying that if someone is subject to a no knock raid they have a right to use deadly force to defend themselves and will be legally protected?

−47

NorthernLitUp t1_jebaza3 wrote

And the relevance to this article is......?

38

mennobyte t1_jebbfo1 wrote

The relevance is that the argument "you have the right to defend yourself if threatened" isn't one that exists as universally as you imply.

Also, it's reasonable to expect officers to have better trigger discipline than to knee jerk "they had a knife so their life is forfeit" as excuse for anything that happens.

−31

Stak215 t1_jebfu8j wrote

Or here's a crazy thought, don't fucking pull a knife out on someone who is trying to evict you for not paying your rent to the tune of $8,000 after you already went to court and were ordered by a judge to leave the apartment.

You play stupid games you win stupid prizes.

40

mennobyte t1_jebgasw wrote

Read the article again. It didn't say the person shot had a knife. It said there was a scuffle involving a knife (they claim) but not who the scuffle was between or who was holding it.

−24

Stak215 t1_jebnkvx wrote

Okay, keep living in that fantasy world of yours. The bottom line is, the people should have vacated the property as ordered by a judge instead of trying to figure out a way to screw over the landlord even more and creating issues and getting aggressive with the officer whose job is to evict them since they won't do it themselves.

They fucked around and found out and you want to somehow turn this around into it being the eviction officers fault.

14

mennobyte t1_jebqi5z wrote

The article literally says that there is no statement that the person who was shot had a knife.

And it was not an officer, as the article also made clear, it was an armed private contractor in civilian clothes.

If anyone is living in a fantasy world, it's not me.

8

Stak215 t1_jeca9lg wrote

The headline literally says landlord tenant OFFICER. That is his title to which I referred to him as. Then goes on to say allegedly the woman had a knife so my comments stand until the article is updated to say it was proven there was no knife.

You have a good night.

6

minze t1_jecdjuj wrote

From the article: >Landlord-tenant officer shoots woman in head during eviction, police say
>A Philadelphia deputy landlord-tenant officer shot a woman...
>The incident took place inside the Girard Court Apartments in Sharswood shortly after 9 a.m. Lt. Jason Hendershot, of the Police Department’s officer-involved-shooting unit said ...
>Philadelphia courts rely on a private attorney, appointed by Municipal Court’s president judge and known as a landlord-tenant officer...
>This attorney deputizes private security contractors...

Not sure which article you are reading to say "it was not an officer, as the article also made clear, it was an armed private contractor in civilian clothes". Yes it was a private contractor but yes, they are an officer, deputized and all...as the article made abundantly clear

−2

mennobyte t1_jecf1if wrote

They are not law officers (police) they are mall cops. They don't have the training, I'd say they're not accountable but neither are the police.

Saying officer confers them the status of being law enforcement. They were not anymore than blackwater is the us military

7

minze t1_jeevkls wrote

Agreed but they are recognized officers. there are many different types of officers that are deputized. Law Enforcement Officers are the ones we most commonly refer to but they are not the only types of deputized officers. Hell, we have multiples types of those around as well, Septa police officer, Temple police officer, but there are also non law enforcement officers around. Correctional officers, Court officers. So the blanket statement of "And it was not an officer" is totally incorrect. They are officers. they are not law enforcement officers (i.e. police).

1

themadcaner t1_jed9ooz wrote

You cannot read. Lt. Jason Hendershot works for the Police Department and made a statement regarding the incident - he is not the person involved in the shooting.

2

minze t1_jeeuw46 wrote

and that is exactly where reding comprehension comes in. Which department does Lt. Jason Hendershot work for? He works for the...the Police Department’s officer-involved-shooting unit.

No, he is not involved in the shooting. His department, the one that investigates officer involved shootings, is the one handling this. I knew it would be missed so I bolded that statement but apparently it wasn't enough for people to understand.

You are literally arguing that the person is not an officer because the department that is investigating it is the one that handles officer involved shootings.

Reading comprehension my man. reading comprehension.

1

NorthernLitUp t1_jebc1uq wrote

What Does Stand Your Ground Law Allow

Provided that you are not engaged in criminal activity and you are not in possession of an illegal firearm, the Stand Your Ground law authorizes the use of deadly force to protect yourself from threats of force or bodily injury without being required to first try to escape.

In Pennsylvania, any person “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force, including deadly force if . . . (he) believes it is immediately necessary to do so to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, or sexual intercourse by force or threat.” See 18 Pa.C.S. § 505(b)(2.3) for the entire statute. The law further provides that in order to be allowed to “stand your ground” instead of retreating, the attacker against whom you are going to use deadly force must have a firearm or other lethal weapon that is visible at the time when you use deadly force.

11

mennobyte t1_jebcq2x wrote

I am well aware of what the law says. I am equally aware that when it is attempted to be used by citizens to defend themselves from the law, it is not applicable even if that person is a legal owner of a firearm and NOT the subject to the raid in question. Heck the cops can have the WRONG HOUSE and still punish the people defending their home. There's been quite a few high profile cases about this.

7

NorthernLitUp t1_jebd0v9 wrote

Ok but this is not that unless other information comes out. There are forums here for political discussion but that's not what this is.

12

mennobyte t1_jebdcxh wrote

I mean, you're the one who made the implication that the person who was killed was holding a knife. The article in question very specifically does not say that and explicitly says that information is not clear.

If we wait for information to come out, we wait for information to come out, but "That murder by a private citizen of another private citizen is a-ok" isn't really that decent of a default to take

11

Ultimating_is_fun t1_jedjo9d wrote

Cops get to go home to their families when their shift ends.

There's a fuck ton of issues with policing, but using deadly force when faced with somebody coming at them with a knife, for example, is not one of them.

0

mennobyte t1_jee5il1 wrote

It wasn't a cop.

And we don't know if the person shot was holding the knife.

And yes, using deadly force, even in that situation of it was correct, is a huge problem.

1

Ultimating_is_fun t1_jefpgcs wrote

>And yes, using deadly force, even in that situation of it was correct, is a huge problem.

You know how I know you don't work in a setting that might get dangerous?

1

mennobyte t1_jefpv8v wrote

you know how I know you don't know the stats for cause of death for most on-duty officers or the average amount of time lapsed between when an officer initiates in an encounter and resorts to lethal force?

1

BasileusLeoIII t1_jebcsn4 wrote

yes, their actions would likely constitute self defense

that won't be much solace to their loved ones though, because the police officers will turn them into swiss cheese

5

mennobyte t1_jebdlu5 wrote

I mean its not. When this has been tested they've lost that right to self defense pretty consistently. And the fact that the officers are not then charged with murder for killing someone who is exercising their lawful rights is kinda the problem

5

boytoy421 t1_jeblesh wrote

Iirc breeona Taylor's boyfriend wasn't charged for that exact reason

5

gereffi t1_jec3kk9 wrote

They should be, yeah. Are you saying they should be but are also upset about what this officer did?

2

mennobyte t1_jec47zx wrote

All we know is that the mall cop shot someone and claimed there was a knife but there is no news about who had the knife or even evidence there is a knife.

0

phillycheeez OP t1_jeaxsf5 wrote

Agreed, we don’t have the full story. That headline is crazy though. Pay your rent or get shot in the head!

−84

NorthernLitUp t1_jeay81i wrote

People don't get shot in the head for refusing to pay rent or leave a place they're being evicted from. If that's what actually happened, that would be a headline for sure, but the story suggests there was some type of altercation which left the landlord-tenant officer with injuries. The headline seems like a deliberate attempt to stir up anger before anyone knows what actually happened.

84

CockercombeTuff t1_jeb2qvo wrote

It is definitely intentionally incendiary, but that's most media including the Inquirer. It wouldn't surprise me if the Inquirer wouldn't blink in rewriting the story to favor the officer under a certain set of circumstances, even if the important known details were entirely the same. That I don't have confidence in them (among many others) writing a dispassionate and just-the-facts news story is what frustrates me about them.

22

Away_Swimming_5757 t1_jebiu6c wrote

Sensational take... The more accurate way to state it would be: Pay your rent or get evicted.

23

phillycheeez OP t1_jebkm4s wrote

It wasn’t even a “take”, just a comment on the headline. You folks lit my ass up. I normally know when I’m going to get downvoted but definitely didn’t see it coming on this one.

−18