“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.
AA5B@lemmy.world 1 day ago
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.
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It is a crime. Cops are effectively above the law.
tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
There are some laws that even cops can’t ignore, such as the law of gravity when a brick is in the air.
fnrir@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 hours ago
I’d say Newton’s 1st is more applicable here