The shooting occurred after Roberts, who had a .22 revolver with him, pointed his weapon at the two plainclothes officers after they confronted his brother. He did not fire, police body camera footage shows. After seeing Brooks Roberts’ gun, officers unleashed a storm of gunfire on him, the footage shows. Since Idaho is an open carry state, Roberts was within his rights to be holding the weapon.
Within his rights to have the weapon on him, yes, but pointing a gun is not carrying a gun, it’s brandishing, and brandishing is a no-no no matter how you slice it. Speaking as a gun owner, if you point a gun at something, that means you have intention to kill it, otherwise you shouldn’t be pointing your gun at it. Too many people watch TV and Movies and think that after you point the gun to let people know that you’re really, really serious, you stop and give them a chance to rethink their choices. That’s not how it is; if you’re drawing a gun, you have the intention to use it (at least as far as the law is concerned), so the gun should only ever come out when you’ve already committed to the belief that this situation requires deadly force in order to preserve the life of yourself or others and it’s time to act. Otherwise, the gun stays put. That’s it, there’s no middle ground there, either you have to act with deadly force to save yourself and others or you don’t. Anyway, brandishing in and of itself is a crime basically everywhere, IIRC. But in so many words, regardless of how they may have provoked and mishandled the situation, it’s likely that any reasonable court is going to find that the officers’ response to the weapon being brandished was entirely reasonable within the expectations of their job.
So, pro-tip, if you’re going to introduce a gun to a situation, it had best be because you’re about to use deadly force for a justifiable reason. Otherwise, just leave that shit right where it is.
It may not have been legal since he was on federal land. He wouldn’t have pulled a gun on them if they had not played silly games (Most likely) I state the most likely since we don’t know much about him, but there is no indication he was a hardened criminal ready to fight law enforcement. I don’t like when law enforcement creates scenarios where people feel the need to defend themselves because they’re confused as to what is going on.
Had they just walked up and identified themselves, I do not think anyone would have been shot.
That is my issue. It is like a no-knock warrant where they kick in the door at 2am and kill the home owner.
I am not 100% against no knock warrants but they should be rare. I have read many stories where they ended up someone being dead over something more trivial that could have been dealt with during daylight hours and just talking to the person in public.
It is why I support reform. I am not anti-law enforcement at all but I am against bad law enforcement.
Within his rights to have the weapon on him, yes, but pointing a gun is not carrying a gun, it’s brandishing, and brandishing is a no-no no matter how you slice it. Speaking as a gun owner, if you point a gun at something, that means you have intention to kill it, otherwise you shouldn’t be pointing your gun at it. Too many people watch TV and Movies and think that after you point the gun to let people know that you’re really, really serious, you stop and give them a chance to rethink their choices. That’s not how it is; if you’re drawing a gun, you have the intention to use it (at least as far as the law is concerned), so the gun should only ever come out when you’ve already committed to the belief that this situation requires deadly force in order to preserve the life of yourself or others and it’s time to act. Otherwise, the gun stays put. That’s it, there’s no middle ground there, either you have to act with deadly force to save yourself and others or you don’t. Anyway, brandishing in and of itself is a crime basically everywhere, IIRC. But in so many words, regardless of how they may have provoked and mishandled the situation, it’s likely that any reasonable court is going to find that the officers’ response to the weapon being brandished was entirely reasonable within the expectations of their job.
So, pro-tip, if you’re going to introduce a gun to a situation, it had best be because you’re about to use deadly force for a justifiable reason. Otherwise, just leave that shit right where it is.
So was he just holding it, or pointed it at them? Those seem like two very different scenarios
It may not have been legal since he was on federal land. He wouldn’t have pulled a gun on them if they had not played silly games (Most likely) I state the most likely since we don’t know much about him, but there is no indication he was a hardened criminal ready to fight law enforcement. I don’t like when law enforcement creates scenarios where people feel the need to defend themselves because they’re confused as to what is going on.
Had they just walked up and identified themselves, I do not think anyone would have been shot.
Agreed. It’s likely that the cops set the conditions for this to happen; maybe not consciously, but still.
That is my issue. It is like a no-knock warrant where they kick in the door at 2am and kill the home owner.
I am not 100% against no knock warrants but they should be rare. I have read many stories where they ended up someone being dead over something more trivial that could have been dealt with during daylight hours and just talking to the person in public.
It is why I support reform. I am not anti-law enforcement at all but I am against bad law enforcement.
Yeah, but that doesn’t mean you can point it at cops.
How would he know they were cops?
What if it’s just two guys and they haven’t said anything about being cops and from what you see they’re roughing your friend up.
OK to draw on two non-police who are roughing up your brother?