Who Knows More About McKinney: An Eyewitness, or Sean Hannity?

Police responsibly.



Sean Hannity thinks he has a better grasp of the McKinney situation than a girl who witnessed Officer Eric Casebolt's improper actions. He invited the girl and her father onto his show last night only to tell them that they were wrong. Casebolt's brandishing of his gun was justified because of the apparently threatening manner in which two teenage boys approached him. "Seems as if they are provoking him," said Hannity:

"When I look at this video, when we slow down this video, the police officer did not pull out the gun on this girl in the bikini here. It was two young men," Hannity said. "It seems as if they are provoking him."

One of Hannity's guests, the father of one of the party attendees, protested Hannity's comment and noted that the officer still pulled out his weapon.

"If you're asking for someone's career to be over, it's important that we see the facts here," Hannity said, pointing out that the two teenagers were in the cop's face and were "mocking him."

"What difference does it make if it was pointed at a girl or boy?" the father of one of the partygoers asked Hannity. "He pointed a gun at an unarmed teenager."

"I value all life, but I also value the lives of police officers, and when two people behind him are provoking him, he doesn't know what's happening there. He doesn't know if those guys have a weapon," Hannity responded.

"It seems as if they are provoking him," Hannity claims. But mere provocation is not justification for an officer to draw his weapon, and the "seems" qualifier is especially weak.

I suppose no police officer can ever be 100 percent certain that other people aren't carrying guns and intent on causing harm. But we expect law enforcement officers—who are paid to keep us safe, and trained to exercise good judgment—to be less, um, panicky, than the average person. When I watch the video, I see an officer being far too rough with a bikini-clad girl. He grabs her hair and drags her to the ground; her head comes pretty close to the concrete. It looks just as likely to me—more likely, in fact—that the boys are merely rushing to the aid of the girl. To expect that they are about to pull a gun on a police officer—in broad daylight, with other officers around—is to expect that they are committing suicide.

Casebolt has resigned; my sense is that some conservatives would like to treat him as a martyr who lost his job because of public sensitivity toward racial issues, i.e. #BlackLivesMatter. But that's a bad take on the situation. Conservatives should not shy away from demanding that public employees be held accountable, especially when video evidence overwhelming supports a verdict of reckless behavior.

Hat tip: Talking Points Memo

NEXT: CIA to Citizens: No, You May Not See Osama bin Laden's Porn. If He Had Any.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Conservatives really need to knock off the cop sucking.

    Even Mark Fuhrman said the cop should not have pulled out his gun and that his doing so could have led to a tragedy.

    1. Is there a link?

      1. Can’t find the exact quote, but it was on this show


        Note this video has been edited to highlight a durogator comment by furhman.

    2. Libertarians really need to be more upfront with how causally they now view private property. the libertarian response to this has been extremely revealing. Race baiting has taken precedence of property rights and freedom of association.

      1. That’s what I hate about the stories of police abuse that break through and get major media coverage. There’s always a race angle and the victim is always some kind of criminal.

        The stories of innocent people brutalized and killed by cops get buried.

        Why do you suppose that is?

        1. Because Balko’s career was set back 15 years by his ill-advised move to HuffPo?

        2. Because libertarianism is a movement dominated by childless urbanites and a few super-wealthy neither of which live in the kind of suburbs where these incidents often occur. And the left hates suburban whites and adores minorities while Reason craves left-wing approval so it’s inevitable that their sympathies aren’t going to lie with the Other.

          It’s the same reason why Reason loves federalism (except on abortion and dealing with illegal immigrants) ,which devolves power to state governments which are often dominated by urban representatives, but not localism, which might gasp let suburbanites set standards that aren’t amenable to peak permissiveness.

          1. SH, you have posted here before and should be better informed about libertarians than what you have written in this post. You appear to be fighting with a libertarianism of your own definition, ie a man of straw.

            1. SH, you have posted here before

              That’s an understatement. SH is Tulpa, just FYI. Respond accordingly.

              1. But he says he’s not!

                1. Youd make a good cop. Sarge he claims he wasn’t anywhere near the crime scene he must be guilty.

              2. Was this proven? Tulpa’s socks in my experience tend to be insufferably arrogant and pedantic, Sam just seem really really angry all the time.

                1. Not angry just disdainful of what libertarianism in this country has become due to Cosmotarian take over.

                  1. Why would you even care, if you’re admittedly not a libertarian?

              3. So Tulpa was a socon Texan. I have trouble believing that. The only person I’ve ever seen on here defending social conservatism in addition to myself is GKC. This mania you and even more obsessed Homomatriarch have with proving that Im tulpa is weird. Guys whatever meaning fighting the evil Tulpa added to your lives is gone. Let it go.

              4. I don’t remember Tulpa being quite this combative or direct. He had a trace of subtlety. But memory distorts sometimes.

            2. Yesterday the Brown lady wrote a column complaining that Georgian abortion laws were more protective of babies than federal laws and we know what Reasonids think about AZ and AL’s anti-illegal immigration bills. On the same day they worried that OH’s potential weed legalization Bill might be subverted by federal laws. So that dispenses with that part yoir critique. What else do you take issue with?

        3. Why do you suppose that is?

          Because a story on which everyone agrees doesn’t generate any ratings, which means it doesn’t generate any controversy, which means it doesn’t generate any revenue. Even when there’s a possible race angle, like the Tamir Rice story, the media is uninterested unless there’s a potential controversy (that story wasn’t even a blip nationally until the #BlackLivesMatter thing months after the fact, and it’s still been dwarfed by the Baltimore and Ferguson cases). Nobody in their right mind is going to defend the cop in the Tamir Rice case. No protests, no punditry, no footage at 11.

          1. I’ve seen plenty of people defend the cops in the Rice case, as well as the Crawford case (and Garner for that matter). I agree that those cases aren’t as controversial as the Ferguson case, or the Martin case (though that wasn’t a cop), but there is a significant amount of people in this country who will defend cops in almost any circumstance.

            1. I’ve seen plenty of people defend the cops in the Rice case, as well as the Crawford case (and Garner for that matter).

              Well, I did say “in their right mind”. There’s always somebody who’s going to take a minority position just to be a provocateur if nothing else. But those cases aren’t nearly as divisive to the general public.

              1. My point was that it wasn’t just a few nutjobs. Even a few people I talked to in real life thought it was a tragic, but understandable reaction by the cop and that he shouldn’t be punished. I agree they’re not as controversial as the other ones, but there are more than just a few whack jobs who reacted the way I describe (not to mention all the people who thought it was bad, but just an isolated incident).

          2. Bou Bou Phonesavanh is a person of color, and undeniably innocent. Yet that case has received almost no attention.

            1. Bou Bou Phonesavanh is a person of color

              Yes but not the right color. He wasn’t brown enough. Maybe someone should start a #YellowLivesMatter hashtag.

        4. Do you think police abuse is only a problem when it happens to completely “innocent” (whatever that means, I don’t think there’s anyone over the age of 5 in this country that hasn’t committed a crime at some point) people? I don’t think it’s surprising that a large number of people involved in police encounters are some sort of criminal and that these people will be disproportionately represented among police abuse victims.

          That said, controversy sells, so the more controversial a story is, the more attention it gets.

          1. Nope,

            It’s all because of the lefty media pushing their bullshit narrative to help the democrats.

      2. Reason does not believe in property rights or freedom of association, that is why they say people have a right to movement without acknologing that this right is only for property they own and does not exist on other peoples property

        1. I agree with you DJF but that is something of a subtle argument and you always get shouted down by “bomb them where they live” toxic Canadian cytotoxic. Here their disregard for property rights and freedom of association is manifest.

          1. WTF are you talking about now? DJF gets shouted down by anyone with a brain ie not you.

        2. DJF, it’s not as straightforward as you make it seem. Immigration presents a conflict between individual rights of movement and property rights. Many here come down on the rights of individuals to move about and are for open borders. I am in the minority (it seems) in that I believe that property rights extend to commonly held property – roads, parks, government buildings, etc. – to which access can be granted or denied to non-owners at the whim of the property owners, through their representatives in the government(s).

    3. I notice this a lot in “conservative” circles (which I frequently revolve in). They’ll take the side of the police without asking Qs, just…I don’t know, because. AFAICT it started 50 yrs. ago w the race riots & antiwar demos, wasn’t a factor earlier. Apparently “conservatives” felt embattled & assumed the Establishment would always be on their side…even when manifestly it’s not.

  2. This is a cop who invoked the name of the Deity, but since he did it in a blasphemous and not a respectful manner, he gets a pass.

    Imagine if he’d said – “in the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity, I demand that you disperse!” What a violation of the separation of Church and State (TM)!

    But using the name of the Lord in vain is a minor matter.

    But that’s OK, may this cop be accompanied by angels wherever he goes, and I’m totally not referring to the angels described in Matthew 25:41, no, I’m referring to his guardian angel and all the good angels.


      /sarc re: comments the other day

    2. He’s a cop so he is an angel.

      1. Well, given that demons are just angels that rebelled…

  3. “Provoking” him? Is Hannity admitting that cops are just dangerous animals who can’t control themselves? Anyone who doubts that the statist left and the statist right are one and the same needs to look at their use if identical buzzwords.

    1. Someone on the other thread called them Lawful Neutral. I think that’s a pretty accurate characterization.

    2. Humans can’t be provoked? Provoked in general usage almost uniquely refers to humans. Animals are generally baited or taunted.

      1. Tulpa, you don’t quite rise to the level of human.

    3. Seriously. They talk as if they’re gorillas or polar bears. Retarded.

  4. What floors me about people like Hannity is that they don’t even listen to what the cop’s own department chief said. “The actions of Eric Casebolt are indefensible,” Police Chief Greg Conley said, calling the officer “out of control during the incident.” (as cited from KHOU-TV).

    I’d say that’s pretty cut-and-dried.

    1. It doenst work like this. Either you take cops at their word, or pigs are always lying to advance their interests. It’s not remotely credible that cops are only telling the truth when their comments support Cosmotarian sensibilities.

      1. It’s not at all hard to believe both groups are lying. In fact it’s provable:

        Multiple teens claim the white parent started the fight with an provoked slaps. But the fight video clearly shows when the slaps occur the teen is already pulling the hair of the other adult. the slaps are to get the teen to let go.

      2. This is a false choice. One can believe that cops may sometimes tell the truth, and may sometimes lie – like anyone else.

  5. The cop didn’t know what was going on. That’s the whole problem.
    Instead of jumping into the middle of things and waving his gun around, he might have taken the time to, you know, get a clearer picture of the situation.
    Some of those kids were undoubtedly trespassing; however, they may have “reasonably believed” they had been invited via the jungle telegraph (sue me- I love that term).

    1. invited via the jungle telegraph


      *points at P Brooks and screeches like Donald Sutherland in Body Snatchers*

  6. Newsflash – Sean Hannity is a blithering, fucktarded, copsucking idiot. Duh.

    This is why he’s on my list of People I Will Literally Change the Station or Turn Off the TV/Radio When They’re On. Cause I cannot stand to hear his voice any more, and I’m afraid it will make me retarded, too, if I listen to his drooling.


    1. This is literally Not Okay

    2. You’re a great American, Almanian.

      Now hear that sizzle.

    3. The only individual with greater “make me change the channel just by the sound of their voice” power is Obama himself.

      1. This is Obama’s useless superpower.

        /This comment known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.

        1. /This comment known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.

          Since you posted it here on purpose, this must mean you intended it as a true threat. SUBPEONA!!!

          1. Are you threatening me?! You will give me TP for my bunghole. You must face the wrath of my bunghole.


    4. Yeah, Hannity has always struck me as unusually stupid, even for a TV/radio commentator.

      His is one of the many voices that I will reflexively tune out.

    5. Someone needs to remind Al we’re being monitored.

      With that out of the way, Hannity is a slut AND a cunt.


  7. I think we’ll need at least a few dozen more articles before we can all go back to not giving a shit

  8. A bevy of eye witness have completely rejected this girl’s version of events. This girl was good friends with the instigator of the mass trespassing that occurs. So really it’s Sean Hannity and a bunch of disinterested witnesses versus the spiel of a highly compromised witness.

    1. It seems to me that Sean Hannity is as disinterested as you are objective.

  9. before we can all go back to not giving a shit

    trolling with a different type of bait.


  10. But we expect law enforcement officers?who are paid to keep us safe

    They keep us safe? From what? Cops don’t keep anyone safe. They investigate crime after it has happened. They don’t prevent murder. They investigate it. They don’t prevent robbery. They investigate it. When they’re not busy going after non-violent druggies that is, which occupies most of their time. Keep us safe? Yeah. Right. If anything the opposite is true, since your chances of being assaulted or worse increase dramatically when there’s a cop nearby. Because the cop can do whatever he wants. Who’s going to stop him? The cops?

    1. They prevented in this case a mob of tresspassers from annexing for their own uses facilities that didn’t belong to them. The property owners that have spoken out are unanimous in their support of the officers and their disgust with the racial-oppurtunists that cosmotarianism has gleeful dropped to its knees for.

      1. And it certainly could have been accomplished without assaulting a teenage girl and pulling a gun on a couple teenage boys.

        1. Really, how would you get these people off of private property?

          1. No one would have known that this incident had occurred had the cop not assaulted that girl for being mouthy.

            1. No one would have known if there had been no incident of people using private property without proper authority of the owners

              1. *WHOOSH*

                That was the point going over your head.

            2. So unless sarcasmic knows about it trespassing has no victims. This is the real forgotten man fallacy. In the rush to create a victim of police behavior cosmotarians completely hand-wave away they actual victims of malfeasance.

              1. That’s a whole lot of stupid, there, Sam. You should patent that.

                1. Ha it’s ok I wasn’t expecting you to have a counter-argument either.

                  1. You have to have an argument to counter. All I see is a bunch of stupid.

          2. Loudspeaker: “This is the police. The party is over. Everyone go home”.

            1. Admittedly, them saying it without the loudspeaker didn’t result in what the property owners wanted, as many just said “Fuck you!”, in word or in deed. Some did disperse, others didn’t.

              This isn’t my approval for the actions of the (former) Corporal; just saying that verbal commands only don’t seem to have got the job done.

      2. Unanimous in that you ignore any who disagree, conveniently.

        1. So you can of course point out one of these accounts that I am ignoring. Of course not.

      3. They prevented in this case a mob of tresspassers from annexing for their own uses facilities that didn’t belong to them.

        You know who else annexed that which didn’t belong to him for his own uses?

        1. The US Attny of NY?

    2. They almost never investigate a crime after it has happened – that only happens if a crime is particularly egregious, if the victim is influential, or if the case is open and shut enough to require little to no police-work. When I was a poor college student, for example, my apartment was burglarized and the cop, upon hearing that I didn’t have renter’s insurance, told me that there probably was no point in even filing a report. I made her take one anyway, because that was her job, and we shouldn’t just pretend that crime doesn’t exist, but the point was clear: “nobody is ever going to look into this…”

      1. When my apartment was burglarized, the cops who showed up ran me for warrants, asked to search the place for drugs (I did not give consent), and then left when they didn’t have an excuse to arrest me. They didn’t even ask a single question about the smashed window and stolen property.
        Same deal when I was assaulted by a drunken neighbor, and another time when I was robbed at gunpoint.

        Yet people wonder why I have nothing but contempt for the police.

        1. They say a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. A libertarian, I guess, is a conservative who’s been mugged and called the cops afterwards.

      2. I had a car stolen. When it was recovered, we saw that the punks who took it actually dropped a school picture inside the car. And by “we”, I mean Mrs. Dean and I after we got it back from the cops. Yes, a photo of either one of the perps or one of their friends was in the car, and the cops missed it. We gave it to them, and you know what?

        Nothing Else Happened.

        1. You mean they didn’t dust for prints and run one of those lights all over the car looking for blood/sweat/semen so they could get a DNA sample?
          TV lied to me again!

          1. They did dust for prints.

            Considering what they did with an actual photo of an actual perp or friend of the perps, it was all for show.

            1. You’re lucky you just got your car back.

    3. So why does crime go up when cops have a work slowdown as Baltimore is experiencing right now? Suddenly incentives don’t matter?

      Don’t let completely deserved disdain for how cops operate lead you into ridiculousness.

      1. Crime always goes up when the weather warms up.

      2. Why didn’t crime go up when the NYPD threw its temper tantrum and had a work slowdown?

        Perhaps because they made the mistake of staging it in the winter/early spring, when crime generally doesn’t go up anyway?

      3. Crime has gone up in every major city over the last couple months. I don’t think the work slowdown has anything to do with it.

        1. Baltimore had its most murders in a month since the 70s. Some increases are bigger than others.

          1. Correlation is not necessarily causation.

        2. No it hasn’t. “The Ferguson Effect” is a lie.

      4. The crime in Baltimore has other causes than the pigs’ temper tantrum.

      5. It didn’t. Crime had been increasing since the winter.

  11. You can see Robbie’s working too hard. He lambastes Hannity with “Who Knows More About McKinney: An Eyewitness, or Sean Hannity?”

    But the dispute is with the father who is not an eyewitness.

    Pick it up Robbie.

    1. Tiresome pedant is tiresome.

      1. The status of “eyewitness” was crucial to Robbie’s criticism. It’s hardly pedantry to note it’s wrong, douchbag.

    2. The father isn’t, but the daughter is. And the father is repeating what she told him.

      1. And Hannity is basing his argument on a video, so both are arguing second-hand. If anything his source is more reliable since the girl is on the ground facing the other direction. How could she know what other people were doing without looking at the video?

        Your excitement over a chance for a cheap shot got the better of you.

        1. No, Hannity is interpreting a video in a retarded way. “Acting provocatively” is not a justification for drawing a gun.

          1. Yes Hannity is misinterpreting the issue, which is why the “eyewitness” point is misplaced. Eyewitnesses provide evidence about facts. They’re no better than anyone else at interpreting them.

            Hannity is an idiot. That isn’t the issue.

  12. I suppose no police officer can ever be 100 percent certain that other people aren’t carrying guns and intent on causing harm.

    It’s furtive gestures all the way down!

  13. I think now would be a good time for cosmos to take the next step and openly praise Mugawbe’s land reform movements. After all I’m sure all those Brits that flocked to Rhodesia and built succesful farms were probally not nearly as down with blacks as Robby “I’ve got black friends if you count doormen as friends” Soave. If a few over eager natives poured onto those farms and took over ownership of the farms I would be in bad taste to evict them.

    1. Wow, Tulpa is so desperate for attention now he’s mixing in accusations of racism with his normal non sequiturs.

      1. Wow Hetero is so desperate for conversation he keeps accusing me of being someone who I don’t know. I’m sorry you miss your fiend but unlike him I’m not really interested in have a back and forth with you. You kind of suck.

        1. You kind of suck.

          More projection than a drive-thru theater

  14. Hannity is an idiot, and Casebolt was clearly unprofessional and out of control. That being said, a close look at the slowed video shows the teen male closest to the camera moving his hands towards his waistband a couple of times in what could arguably be described as a reaching motion. It’s hard to say whether Casebolt saw the motion or not, but right or wrong, reaching for one’s waistband during an interaction with a cop has been used successfully by cops as justification for the use of deadly force. This situation could’ve turned out far worse.

    Parents of teen boys need to talk with them about cops and reality…

    1. Really, we need to outlaw cell phones. They have been mistaken for guns, and raching for your cell phone is a proven “furtive gesture”.

      Cell phones make cops feel unsafe. And their feelings are more important than your life, and certainly more important than whether you have a cell phone.

      1. And remote controls. Cops have been known to mistake those for guns as well.

        1. Don’t get me started on these new vapes that look a lot like derringers.

    2. Boomer, I got the impression that the cop sensed he was becoming surrounded and could well have felt in danger for that reason. No excuse for his earlier rough and un-called for tactics. Pulling the gun was not the worst thing he did, IMHO. He should not have taken a combative posture and been handcuffing the kids. And, of course, throwing down and kneeling on that girl was completely over the line.

      1. Pulling the gun was not the worst thing he did, IMHO.

        Agreed. He was solely responsible for creating the situation in which he felt threatened enough to pull his gun. I don’t condone in way, shape or form how he behaved, but when you’re dealing with an armed person, especially one who likely believes every encounter with the public is likely to result in his death (based on the way the media is hyping violence against cops these days), you have to be ultra cognizant of how your behavior and movements might be interpreted.

        The sad and infuriating part is even that may not prevent you’re being shot…

        1. I haven’t seen this addressed by anyone, but the guy moving around behind the cop and probably making the cop skittish is probably accurately described as a matter of weapon retention. If I’m correct about that, then what he could have done is simply put his hand over the gun (more than likely his holster is a triple-retention setup), and told the guy(s) to stay back.

          He didn’t have to draw, and could have shown he was ready to keep possession of his gun IF those guys were actually trying to go for it.

          Robby made a good point that it doesn’t make much sense to expect that they were trying to do this, but, no everyone thinks clearly, or behaves rationally in these situations.

    3. The kid in the tan shorts slips in the grass.

      1. That sounds like a koan.

  15. Hannity said. “It seems as if they are provoking him.”

    Oh really. Hannity? What did they do? Did they fail to assume the fetal position and respect his authoritah quickly enough? Fuck off, slaver.

    1. “””What did they do?”””

      Did you miss the story, they entered private property without authorization from the owners

      1. So the only way to remove people from private property is to assault teenage girls and pull a gun on unarmed teenage boys?

        1. Apparently, all those rowdy parties I attended as a teen whose denouement was nearly always pissed off neighbors calling the cops, 75% of the teens bolting (and the cops letting them run), the remaining drunken 25% being herded to the station to have their parents come collect the miscreants, all without drawing guns or assaulting teenage girls never happened, or worse ARE STILL GOING ON!!!!

          /This comment known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.

        2. This.

          When I was a teenager, we were always doing things like this, no harm meant. We met up with the cops on several occasions and never once did a cop ever pull a gun on anyone or start beating on anyone. It was always, you boys get out of here and don’t do this again, or something to that effect.

          1. No harm is meant by restricting illegal immigration either. Guess you are on board with that to I guess. Guess what this officer probally thinks no harm meant either. No harm meant is the antithesis of a succesful libertarian ethos. Fuck your intentions Stalin didn’t mean any harm either.

            1. I don’t think “intentions don’t matter” is a libertarian premise. In some instances, perhaps, but that same logic would punish someone who accidentally ran someone over the same as someone who intentionally shot someone in cold blood. Intentions don’t absolve anyone of responsibility for harms they cause, but they’re certainly relevant to a situation under any rational libertarian system. There’s a wide gap between “Only intentions matter (and so it doesn’t matter if this policy is harmful, because it’s trying to do good)” and “Intentions don’t matter.”

              1. But there is no question here that the actions of the party-goers were intentional.

                1. Your comment was a response to Hyperion.

                  It’s not clear how many people knew ahead of time that they weren’t allowed, but that’s besides the point. Intending to tresspass on a neighborhood swimming pool doesn’t means it’s ok for cops to play Rambo throwing people to the ground and pulling guns when the situation does not call for that. Every other cop there disagreed with his actions by the fact that they did none of those things and clearly tried to calm him down when he did, and even his own chief refused to defend him. One doesn’t have to defend tresspassing to think that the cop in this situation did not respond properly.

            2. I think pulling a gun (which means threatening someone with instant death) is clearly ‘meaning harm’. Especially given how many black kids have been gunned down by cops in the past couple of years AND NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED. And pulling a gun on folks who were generally wearing bathing suits was completely unnecessary. Give me a break.

              1. In my mind so is trespassing. It tells me you have no interest in my property rights and will if confront likely lash out. And the gun was pulled on a man in regular clothes.

                1. It tells me you have no interest in my property rights and will if confront likely lash out.

                  This tells me you’re either a mendacious cunt who won’t address people’s actual positions or a retarded cunt who can’t understand them.

            3. No harm is meant by restricting illegal immigration either.

              Congrats Tulpa you’ve gone Maximum Over-tard.

            4. Butthurt much?

      2. And that is what they did to provoke the cop? Are you a moron, DJF?

  16. To expect that they are about to pull a gun on a police officer?in broad daylight, with other officers around?is to expect that they are committing suicide.

    Because teen males never do anything suicidally stupid with armed police? *cough* Michael Brown *cough*

    I find it annoying that Reason writers, who are generally fine with the 2nd Amendment, often seem to fall for the superficial trope of “He pulled a gun on an unarmed person/mob!!” There’s no law or rule that says one can only defend oneself with a perfectly matched response. To go along with that simplistic construction is to subtly undermine the right of self defense.

    (I consider this incident a bit of an edge case, because I can see how the cop might well have felt threatened enough to draw his gun. That doesn’t excuse his earlier over-reaction(s), but I won’t pillory him for drawing a gun when people are rushing towards him while he’s struggling with someone. It looked like he kept his finger off the trigger and soon reholstered it.)

    1. It does seem like cosmos might add a qualifier in occasionally during their inveterate “why can’t our cops be like European cops (but not our healthcare system that should be different by flying sphaghetti monster)” laments admitting that unlike the police departments of Western Europe our police departments haven’t worked to disarm our populace. But then again it quite clear from where the elites of the libertarian movement congregate that gun ownership is kind of right for rubes to be humored. I doubt their are many Reasonoids that wouldn’t trade legal pot for outlawing handguns.

      1. I doubt their are many Reasonoids that wouldn’t trade legal pot for outlawing handguns.


        1. That’s because he’s a fucking retard on the level of Lyle.

    2. He doesn’t even pull out the gun until the guys are backing away and he is walking after them. When they actually made the “threatening approach” all he does is put his hand on his holster. Did you watch the video?

      1. I did watch the video. Yes, he seemed to have a bit of a slow reaction, but regardless, I think it was more of a muddled and possibly threatening situation than many seem to believe.

        1. “Yes, he seemed to have a bit of a slow reaction”

          That’s one way of putting it I guess.

          “I think it was more of a muddled and possibly threatening situation than many seem to believe.”

          And it was a situation where none of his fellow cops, nor his chief felt that drawing a gun was even close to a reasonable response. Not to mention that this was a situation he created by needlessly assaulting a girl. It shouldn’t be a surprise that her friends didn’t just timidly sit to side at a distance and watch while their friend was getting abused.

    3. This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, fucktard. It was an agent of the state, not an individual, and it wasn’t self defense.

      1. Being an agent of the state does not mean the right of self defense disappears. I just don’t like the construction of “OMG a gun was pulled on an unarmed person!!” because that’s often justified. If Robby meant “an agent of the state should never pull a gun on an unarmed person” he should have written that.

        And gee, thanks for the “fucktard.” As I was saying on Bloomberg, it’s funny and sad that around here I can agree with people 90%+ of the the time, but when I see some nuance and politely disagree, all too often I become an evil moron and have abuse hurled at me. No wonder H&R comments have the reputation they do….

        1. No wonder H&R comments have the reputation they do….


          You do take a lot of abuse here, but playing the “all the cool kids were right about you!” card isn’t going to win you any points.

    4. I’d say that his prior overreactions and the “struggling with someone” were both his fault, and people moving to help a friend/acquaintance under attack are the ones acting reasonably. Had he not engaged in his bad behavior, he wouldn’t have been struggling with anyone. None of the other cops at the scene were having that particular issue, were they?

      Behaving badly, then getting even worse when people react poorly to your bad behavior, seems like doubling down on the stupid to me.

      1. I agree, but that argument works both ways. If that girl hadn’t had an unauthorized pool party and invited far more people than are allowed at such things (even when authorized), this would never have happened in the first place. Like many accidents and tragedies, it was multi-causal.

        1. Was this the same girl who threw the party? Just curious, if so, I must have missed that.

          I don’t think the argument works both ways. If we’re discussing the cop’s reaction in the exact situation (pulling a gun on people who approached him while he was struggling with a girl) I think the reason he was struggling with the girl (that he was needlessly assaulting her) is a lot more relevant than why she was there in the first place or why he had attention on her. Her friends’ reactions to the struggle are a lot more reasonable than his reaction to her mouthing off. It’s a false equivalence to suggest they’re equal.

          1. I didn’t mean to imply that bikini girl was the party-thrower. I have no idea if they are the same person.

            I wasn’t saying the situations are exactly the same, just saying that the basic argument is: “If X hadn’t done Y, X wouldn’t be in this situation,” which also applies to the people abused by the cop. When I use that same construction here to point out that lots of police abuse could be avoided by people not acting like idiots, I get attacked. So I noted that the same basic argument was used on the cop, and I think that argument has merit in many cases.

    5. “He pulled a gun on an unarmed person/mob!!” There’s no law or rule that says one can only defend oneself with a perfectly matched response.

      Actually, there are laws against brandishing weapons in public when self-defense is not justified.

      Now, did this cop reasonably believe that his life or the lives of others was threatened? Hard to say “yes”, since none of the other cops who were there felt the need to throw down.

      1. None of the other cops had people rushing up to them as they struggled with someone.

        Again, I am not saying the cop was justified in everything he did. It seemed like he charged into the scene like it was a robbery in progress or something. But the gun-pulling is getting more emphasis than I think is justified.

        1. “None of the other cops had people rushing up to them as they struggled with someone.”

          Again, he doesn’t even pull the gun until the guys are running away from him. I don’t think that even matters, none of the other cops or his chief felt his actions were justified, and while they might not have been in that exact situation at that moment, I’m sure they’ve been in threatening situations before. A gun is lethal force. It’s not something a cop (or anyone else) should cavalierly pull out anytime they might feel slightly threatened.

        2. None of the other cops had people rushing up to them as they struggled with someone.

          … because they didn’t charge in like Jack Bauer and start confronting people. Even if the guy did feel threatened, he bears a large part of the responsibility for needlessly putting himself into a threatening situation where he was outnumbered. The context is important. If this had been a riot or a gang beating and he was rushing in to save someone at the mercy of the mob, we’d hail his one-man assault as heroic. In this particular situation, especially considering that no other officer on the scene reacted in the same way, it’s not quite the same.

        3. None of the other cops had people rushing up to them as they struggled with someone.

          No, but they saw the whole thing, and you can be sure that if they thought there was a threat to another cop, they would have pulled on the crowd.

          But they didn’t.

    6. SHOOTING STANCE /conservative retard

  17. ” people moving to help a friend/acquaintance under attack are the ones acting reasonably”

    On a playground, maybe, but not when a cop is doing it. Had there been no other cops present, this out of control dude may have shot the two guys who tried to help the girl. Until cops are put under reasonable rules for using force, we need to listen to the demonstrators: “Hands Up, I surrender, don’t shoot, what sir do you want me to do?” Anything less, and it is clear you may be spitting out teeth, knocked unconscious, or worse.

    1. we need to listen to the demonstrators: “Hands Up, I surrender, don’t shoot, what sir do you want me to do?”

      Of course, raising your hands could be taken as a furtive or threatening gesture, justifying putting you in the dirt.

      1. Raising your hands sure justifies being “killed by gunfire” in Salt Lake City, but there they are only putting people in Heaven–like in an Islamic State. It’s not simple or black-and-white, but much more nuanced.

    2. Someone else’s unreasonable actions don’t make my actions unreasonable. Inadvisable? Possibly. Less than ideal? Sure. Unreasonable? No. Had this out of control cop shot the two guys, he would have been, IMNSHO, guilty of murder. Not that anything would have happened (well, maybe in this case it would have), but he would have been guilty of causing the altercation, escalating it to force, and employing deadly force. As it is, he’s only guilty of the first two this time, thankfully. And while I expect, as someone suggested above, that he’ll have another police job ASAP, I hope (beyond hope?) that no other PD will hire him after this, and that he finds a career better suited to his personality.

  18. Judge Andrew Napolitano also said the cop acted criminally and was a hothead who is easily provoked. http://insider.foxnews.com/201…..as-hothead

    1. The fact that Nap is on Fox gives me hope.

  19. Really, how would you get these people off of private property?

    Nothing short of a minigun would suffice. When the police arrived, the clubhouse was in flames, all men over the age of ten had been beheaded, and the rapes were in full progress.

  20. Now, all you cosmotarians git offn muh lawn, before I cut loose with this hyar 12 gage coach gun.

  21. Funny how Sam and Marshal show up just like PB and Bo used to.

  22. Given how recently this comes after all that “Hands up, don’t shoot” nonsense in Ferguson was disproved by the forensics, someone with a greater-than-room-temperature IQ would avoid the argument that an “eyewitness account” by someone who wants to go on television in a racially-charged incident is worth anything, Mr. Soave.

    Hannity is an idiot of long standing, but so is anyone making your particular argument against him in this case.

  23. I was channel surfing and inadvertently became a victim of this interview.

    Hannity was worse than is usual blow-hardic self.

    I couldn’t take it for long.

  24. Another way to look at this =

    What if the “pool party” was a “Drown the Effigy of Muhammad-Contest“?

    Think about it.

  25. I couldn’t agree more. Hannity paints himself as someone who despises and fights against governmental overstepping and abuse of power, but lately the conservatives just don’t take it far enough. I can understand a very public figure wanting to de-escalate the situation in the media, and preferring instead to play devil’s advocate, but at some point he, and others like him, will have to concede the fact that cops are not to be trusted. They are now agents of the state and will do anything they are ordered to do. This means that they have absolutely no problem violating the rights of American citizens and even attacking them whenever the mood strikes them. Cops are not our friends and we should not support them or trust them. Every action that we witness from a cop should be viewed with suspicion and with every new situation they are in we should assume that they are to blame until proven otherwise. They should not be associated with or ever given any information about anything unless they can legally compel us to do so.

  26. –“If you’re asking for someone’s career to be over, it’s important that we see the facts here,” Hannity said, …

    Maybe Hannity ought to try his hand at convincing universities that it’s OK for elderly Nobel Laureates to utter a stupid comment once in a lifetime. If he can convince teevee watchers it’s OK for cops to point loaded guns at and manhandle boisterous children, it may be worth that old college try.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.