A gun rights group sued New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) and other state officials on Saturday over an emergency order banning firearms from being carried in public in Albuquerque.
The National Association for Gun Rights, alongside Albuquerque resident Foster Haines, filed suit just one day after Grisham announced the public health order temporarily suspending concealed and open carry laws in the city.
The group argued that the order violates their Second Amendment rights, pointing to the Supreme Court’s decision last year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Cops are less likely to be arrested and convicted for using force because they are trained on the specific laws governing the use of force. The travesty isn’t that the cops get away with using force. The travesty is that the government provides this training only to police, and not to the general public. The public is woefully and dangerously misinformed as to when the law says they can use force. The only training most of us receive is from employers, and they don’t teach the law: they teach a corporate policy designed not to protect people, but to shield themselves from liability.
For example, the corporate policy during an armed robbery is almost always “appease the robber”. Give them everything they demand. Do nothing to protect yourself, the business, the money, etc. Robbers have taken this to mean that carrying a gun will ensure employee compliance. The lesson they learn is that the more they escalate, the less resistance they will face.
The law does not have this same “appeasement” strategy. The law considers an armed robbery to be a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm to every customer and employee present. Anyone receiving or observing such a threat is fully justified in using lethal force to stop the threat. The person who decided on a “career” in armed robbery after learning corporate policies doesn’t even realize that they have placed themselves in grave danger from anyone who understands the law.
We should be learning the law governing use of force in school, so every last one of us realizes that armed robbery is suicidal behavior.
Easily.
I don’t think you understand how high the rate of domestic violence is among the general populace. Cops are less likely to commit DV, but much more likely to be reported by their victims. The stereotype arises from this selection bias.
Assuming you are not committing a violent crime, you are far safer next to the carrier than the random persons. It’s not even close. The violent crime rate among the general population is an order of magnitude higher than among concealed carriers, and most of that violent crime is committed by individuals who are not carrying firearms.
However, If you are committing a violent crime, you are in extraordinary danger from that concealed carrier.
You need to remember that “general population” doesn’t include just you and your neighbors. It includes all the people living in those boarded up, abandoned homes located in that nearby urban area that you don’t dare stop in after dark. The “concealed carrier” cohort excludes all the criminals in those areas that make the place unsafe.
It also includes the various degens that happened upon a badge and a gun because we hardly vet our police forces and legally avoid cops that are smart enough to disregard unjust laws.
Just out of curiosity, what “unjust” law should cops disregard?
I mean, the idea is rather problematic. You’re arguing that cops should deliberately not follow certain laws; that they should specifically break some. I’d need to know which ones you’re talking about.
One question I do have: why don’t you simply repeal these “unjust” laws, or at least challenge them in court? Then we don’t need officers deciding which laws to follow and which ones to break.
Again, the largest problem is that the government only provides legal training on use of force laws to police. Everyone else is learning it from corporations, Hollywood, or (in the case of concealed carriers) from private instructors. It should be taught in high school.
You aren’t wrong (necessarily).
Drug laws are the biggest one to me. People should have the right to destroy themselves if they are witting and prepared.
Cops already disregard the law depending on their own opinion. Going 5 mph over the speed limit is either a deduction on your license or a fine , depending on the cop.
What would be considered a lawful use of capital punishment is dependent on the cop, defending their evaluation of self-defence.
Cops have the legality and opportunity to alter their decisions, which means cops choose to enforce laws that disregard social normality or morality.
Also: This is America.
Half the country considers abortion murder and police violence as retribution. I wish we could simply change the way we do things to fit my or the average person’s opinion, but we’re a big country with a lot of people.
That’s an example of my point: your statement demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the laws governing use of force. The government has trained police on these laws, but they have not trained you.
First off, referring to it as “capital punishment”: the only entity authorized to mete out capital punishment is a judge and jury. Police are not at all involved in anything that can be described as “capital punishment”.
Police may only use lethal force in the same circumstances that you or I may use it. The law does not grant police any additional authorization to use lethal force. Such force may only be used to stop a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm to an innocent person. The only difference between you shooting someone and police shooting someone in an identical situation is that the government has expressly trained them on the law, and they have not trained you. So, when you articulate your reason for shooting, your explanation is very likely to miss some important requirement, while the cop’s explanation is fully consistent and compliant with the law. Your neighbor could be involved in an identical shooting, remain silent, and have his lawyer offer an explanation. I could be involved in an identical shooting, and articulate my justification the same way as the cop. Everyone of us - except you - would be deemed justified. But you, not having been trained on the laws governing use of force, could blurt out some irrelevant comment like “he needed to die” and be charged, because that comment suggested you had a mindset inconsistent with self defense.
The cops aren’t the problem here. The problem is that the government has not provided you with the proper training on the laws governing use of force, so you don’t understand the ramifications of what you say.
More importantly, because the government has not trained you on the laws governing use of force, you cannot accurately distinguish between a justified and an unjustified use of force. A cop, a lawyer, a juror, or someone else who has been trained in the laws can look at the situation and make an informed decision on whether the shoot was justifiable or not. You cannot. You can only make a decision on what “feels” right.
You need to be able to identify the law in question, and articulate your opinion on a use of force in terms of that law for your opinion to be sufficiently informed.