Even if less-lethal ammunition were risk free, that should still be a crime. Even in the ideal risk-free case, how is this any different from assault, if the cop came up behind a reporter swinging his baton. There was clearly no justifiable reason, it was clearly assault for fun or intimidation, and any reasonable person would know that.
“non-lethal” Oh, boy! What an infuriating misnomer that is.
This is also a good time to remember nothing here in this context is “non-lethal”. All of these things (sand bags, tear gas, tasers, pepper spray, mace, rubber bullets, batons, shields, tactical holds, etc.) are accurately called “less lethal” because all of them can and will kill under certain circumstances, even when used by trained officers with good intentions. (I know. How often does that happen, right?) It doesn’t take much to cross that line between “not intending murder” and “actual fucking murder”, often something as simple as a common medical condition or simply falling while moving over hard ground like curbs and sidewalks. If a reporter is using the term “non-lethal” in the context of police brutality, that’s a pretty good sign that you are being lied to.
Almost all " non-lethal" munitions are really “less lethal” and capable of killing someone if they get hit in the wrong area. They also easily maim. I saw a pellet from what are called “donkey balls” which are essentially clay-more mines filled with little rubber pellets bounce off a wall fast enough to go through someone’s cheek and exit out the other side of his mouth. TLDR You can really fuck someone up with that stuff. Cops think they are like nerf toys.
There’s a distance at which they stop being “less-lethal”. At 10 meters/30 feet they’re considered extremely dangerous. The “effective range” at which they’re generally considered less likely to penetrate is 20 to 30 meters (65 to 100 feet).
Lenses make estimating distance tricky, but based on the lines in the road, I don’t think she’s 20 meters away from that cop.
These journalists need body armor and helmets if they’re going to be that close to American Police. Back in 2011 an Iraq War vet named Scott Olsen was head shot at a distance of a few feet fracturing his skull and when some protestors tried to rescue him they flashbanged the rescue effort. It’s extremely unsafe to be that close to these guys.
A good time to remind everybody that while rubber bullets are considered “non-lethal,” they can kill.
Back in 2004 a college student in Boston died from a bullet that missed its intended target, hit the ground and ricocheted into her eye.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Victoria_Snelgrove
So, while the shot certainly wasn’t warranted, IMO its worse because of what could have happened because this officer was taking a shot for fun.
Even if less-lethal ammunition were risk free, that should still be a crime. Even in the ideal risk-free case, how is this any different from assault, if the cop came up behind a reporter swinging his baton. There was clearly no justifiable reason, it was clearly assault for fun or intimidation, and any reasonable person would know that.
It is a crime. Cops are effectively above the law.
There are some laws that even cops can’t ignore, such as the law of gravity when a brick is in the air.
I’d say Newton’s 1st is more applicable here
“non-lethal” Oh, boy! What an infuriating misnomer that is.
This is also a good time to remember nothing here in this context is “non-lethal”. All of these things (sand bags, tear gas, tasers, pepper spray, mace, rubber bullets, batons, shields, tactical holds, etc.) are accurately called “less lethal” because all of them can and will kill under certain circumstances, even when used by trained officers with good intentions. (I know. How often does that happen, right?) It doesn’t take much to cross that line between “not intending murder” and “actual fucking murder”, often something as simple as a common medical condition or simply falling while moving over hard ground like curbs and sidewalks. If a reporter is using the term “non-lethal” in the context of police brutality, that’s a pretty good sign that you are being lied to.
Almost all " non-lethal" munitions are really “less lethal” and capable of killing someone if they get hit in the wrong area. They also easily maim. I saw a pellet from what are called “donkey balls” which are essentially clay-more mines filled with little rubber pellets bounce off a wall fast enough to go through someone’s cheek and exit out the other side of his mouth. TLDR You can really fuck someone up with that stuff. Cops think they are like nerf toys.
Those are the things the Jackass guys got shot with in the first movie. The company called it a “Stingmore” mine.
Way too many people are comfortable with utilizing anything referred to as a “mine” against unarmed civilians.
There’s a distance at which they stop being “less-lethal”. At 10 meters/30 feet they’re considered extremely dangerous. The “effective range” at which they’re generally considered less likely to penetrate is 20 to 30 meters (65 to 100 feet).
Lenses make estimating distance tricky, but based on the lines in the road, I don’t think she’s 20 meters away from that cop.
These journalists need body armor and helmets if they’re going to be that close to American Police. Back in 2011 an Iraq War vet named Scott Olsen was head shot at a distance of a few feet fracturing his skull and when some protestors tried to rescue him they flashbanged the rescue effort. It’s extremely unsafe to be that close to these guys.
That and the fact it’s directly attacking your civil rights to free speech and an unprovoked attack. So it’s definitely unconstitutional.