Police Abuse

Sheriff's Deputies Shoot Pregnant Single Mother While Performing 'Wellness Check'

Say they found her with a handgun and shot her

|

Facebook

Two sheriff's deputies in Washington state arrived at the house of 23-year-old Renee Davis after the single mother texted someone to say she was in a "bad way" and that person called 911 to tell law enforcement, according to Davis' foster sister.

The deputies said they saw her with a handgun and, according to a release from the King County Sheriff's Department distributed to local media, both deputies fired at Davis, killing her. The release does not appear to suggest that Davis had pointed the handgun at the officers.

The shooting occurred on Muckleshoot tribal lands on Friday evening. The deputies, who have not been identified, were placed on paid leave—one has reportedly worked for the department for eight years and is assigned to the tribal lands while the other worked for the department for three years.

There were two children, aged two and three, at the house. Davis also had a five year old staying at a friend's house and was five months pregnant. The department says it's investigating the shooting but has not indicated that any outside agency was or would be involved in that investigation.

"It's really upsetting because it was a wellness check," Davis' foster sister told the Seattle Times. "Obviously, she didn't come out of it well." She says she does not know whether Davis owned a handgun but says Davis had a rifle and was an avid hunter.

Davis was Native American. Native Americans are killed at the highest rate of any racial group in the United States. With 13 killed through August, the number in 2016 is set to be twice as high as it was in 2015.

NEXT: Anti-Trump article excluded by Jerry Falwell Jr. from Liberty University's official newspaper as 'redundant'

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. The shooting occurred on Muckleshoot tribal lands on Friday evening.

    Ruh-roh. The tribe can make a shitload more trouble for the deputies than your average schmoe, if it wants to.

    The deputies said they saw her with a handgun

    Did she have one? Was the one “recovered” one that anyone else had ever seen her in possession of?

    1. See below for my question about Indian lands. Can’t the tribe extradite the deputies and try them in tribal court?

      1. Pretty much no.

        If the *Sheriff’s deputies* were patrolling tribal land its because the had a sharing agreement with the tribal government. Out where I live the local tribal police are contracted to augment my town’s police force – basically the opposite situation.

        So these guys were acting as agents of the state.

        Plus – tribal cops can be really defensive when it comes to outside police pursuing or investigating crimes committed by tribals who’ve managed to slip back over onto the reservation (some of them would do beer runs from a friend of mine’s convenience store – local cops couldn’t touch them when the crossed the border and tribal cops didn’t care – he solved it by banning them from the store) they tend to fold in the face of any concerted State law enforcement effort no matter how much it infringes on the rights of their citizens.

        I saw reports of state cops raiding reservation stores (when I was living up in CT) because they sold cigarettes without paying and displaying the state tax markers – which they are not obligated to do since the reservation is not State land – and the tribal police wouldn’t intervene (too much chance of bloodshed I guess).

        1. Thanks for the additional info.

    2. Also – who cares? Why is simply holding a firearm now enough to justify the police murdering you?

      You have a right to carry a firearm in this country. For better or for worse. If you’re a cop, you should expect people to be carrying firearms. If you are too afraid to be out dealing with people who are doing things they have a legal right to do, you have the wrong job.

      1. “Also – who cares? Why is simply holding a firearm now enough to justify the police murdering you?”

        Because FYTW.

        1. You joke, but FYTW isn’t why at all. It is a part of their training, and that is what has to change. These guys likely followed their training and procedures in killing this distraught mom. That is much worse than FYTW.

          When I was a kid, there was an expectation that the police wouldn’t shoot someone who had a gun unless they were using it to threaten someone. (they may have shot an unarmed fleeing felon with impunity, but not someone holding a gun).

          Then the SWAT training began. At first it was specialized units. But it became pervasive. And the number one message was – you have to go home to your family at night. So a mantra that was perhaps acceptable when training a squad for situations where an armed group has taken a bunch of hostages suddenly becomes the base idea for all police everywhere.

          So now they are trained to yell “GUN!” and draw their weapon immediately, firing at the first hint of danger. And the system backs them up on this. Merely having a gun in proximity is enough to justify shootings these days. (Remember the Miami Beach Urban Spring Break shooting… police shot 5 bystanders and executed a guy on video, but they found a gun in the back seat, so it’s all good)

          Add video-game-ethics training with “back your man to the hilt” accountability and you’ve got a recipe for disaster.

          1. Adam 12 is gone, man, it’s been replaced by Bastard Squad.

      2. Heh, another friend of mine almost got shot by a local sheriff’s deputy a couple weeks ago. He was stopped by a cop for speeding and the cop asked him if he had a gun in the vehicle – my friend said yes as the gun was on the passenger seat next to him. The cop freaked, pulled his gun, called for backup, etc.

        The standard in AZ is that you’re supposed to answer that question honestly and, as long as you are legally posessing the firearm (and it legal to leave it sitting loaded on the passenger seat next to you here) the officer may choose to take possession of the firearm for the duration of the stop – to be returned to you immediately after.

        But this guy had been a cop in CA before and was a recent hire of the local SD – and apparently they don’t go into that sort of detail at the state LETA – so he defaulted to his CA ‘panic at the sight of a gun’.

        We even have trouble with BP cops sometimes – they come from all over the country and most don’t realize that AZ has few restrictions on firearms.

  2. Tribal lands…so, a reservation? Do deputies even have jurisdiction there? We don’t have many indian lands where I live, can anyone out west speak to that?

    1. I think it depends on the tribe. When I lived in eastern Washington I know some of the tribes had their own police forces, but I don’t think the smaller ones did.

      1. Ah. That would make sense.

      2. That’s been my observation as well from living in CO and AZ.

    2. https://leb.fbi.gov/2012/may/indian-country- and-the-tribal-law-and-order-act-of-2010

      1. damn link

        1. Yeah, spaces aren’t allowed in links. Also, H&R has a (fifty-character?) limit on the size of any given plain text word (as defined as a series of characters delineated by spaces), so your link would have probably failed even without the space. That’s why most of us use HTML tags which allows longer links.

    3. From wikipedia:

      The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe contracts with the King County Sheriff’s Office for police services. Deputies assigned to the Muckleshoot reservation include six patrol officers, one school resource officer, and one chief assigned full-time to the reservation.

      1. Hopefully now they realize their mistake.

      2. That’s all the cops for the entire reservation? What if one of them gets hold of some fire water?

        1. For 3000-4000 people, that’s a pretty good number of cops.

          1. You can never have enough cops. If there would have been more, this would have never happened. Cops are just stressed, that’s all. We must have empathy for our heroes. Someone needs to propose some legislation, and it’s a jobs program!

  3. So, how much more will this boost the public’s confidence in cops? Judging by the other cop-related article posted this afternoon, the more random shootings cops perpetrate, the more the public’s trust in them increases.

    Maybe the definition of “trust” has evolved recently. Kinda like the words “bad” and “wicked” took on different meanings over time.

    1. I’m guessing this is good for at least a 10% boost.

      1. When you allow “activists” to frame everything as an us-against-them racism issue, this is what you’ll get. Racism is only tangentially related to the problem of police violence, but it is the only issue under discussion any more.

        So deflection successfully executed, votes successfully secured. Threat to the power of the establishment avoided.

        Good job guys. Well done.

    2. Got this today in response to my inquiry of an acquaintance about the family obligation that’s having her close biz (Rainbow Meadow) for a brief stint:

      Thank you. Unfortunately, it’s a funeral. My nieces death (and her
      partners) made the front page a couple weeks ago. They were hit and
      killed by a state trooper in Arkansas who was doing 70 on city streets
      chasing a speeder. Still not sure of the details on just how he hit them,
      but they finally released the body but the funeral is in Florida. 🙁

  4. So, I wonder if the person who called 911 learned anything or feels any remorse?

    1. Probably no and no. And anyway, the cops are just doing their duty like heroes do. It was a wellness check. They went and saw she had a gun, so obviously she wasn’t well and they had to cure her to protect her from herself. She might have hurt herself otherwise.

      1. like herpes do

        How I read it at first …

    2. As she was being evicted, my ex made comments that strongly implied she was going to kill herself. So, I set about trying to find her a shelter to sleep at.

      Every shelter I called, regardless of affiliation, wouldn’t take her unless she were brought there by the cops. They all told me to call 911. A lady at a local Catholic shelter took 10 minutes to explain to me that I wouldn’t find a single shelter that would take her unless she showed up and asked for help, or was brought there by the cops. And, she said that since my ex was making suicidal comments that I should call the cops since they were the only ones who could help her.

      So, I have a hard time condemning people who call 911 in this situation. In much of this country (if not all of it), if you want to summon social services to help a person in distress, you are forced to call 911.

      1. “since my ex was making suicidal comments that I should call the cops”

        To ensure her success?

        1. To be fair, most suicidal people who have the cops called on them don’t get shot by the cops. But I sure as hell wouldn’t call them unless there was clearly no other option.

          1. Most? Okay, but how many constitutes far too many?

            It seems there are a good 2-3 reports a month of some suicidally depressed person, including whites/teens/elserly, getting gunned down by cops supposedly responding to help.

            In most cases, the person calling them is a family member who presumably wasn’t aware the cops’ plan was to expeditiously fulfill the suicidal person’s death wish.

            I mean, how hard is it to switch over to dispatching paramedics for these types of calls? We’re not talking murder-suicide here. Only people who are considering violence against their own person and nobody else. They need help, not help dying.

            1. It’s definitely too many.

              I’m probably (well, almost certainly) taking Hyperion’s comment too literally. Calling the cops won’t ensure successful suicide. It can increase the odds, though.

      2. So now the cops show up every time you call 911? Or only in certain situations?

        1. I don’t know. I’m not a cop. /spits

        2. That depends – are you in a major city? Out here in the ‘burbs the cops show up every single time. I remember when we had to call 911 because my grandmother was complaining of chest pains and shortness of breath and the cops were on the scene asking questions about drugs for a solid 10 minutes before the ambulance arrived. You know, because it’s super common for frail 84-year-old women to be peddling smack in their spare time.

          1. Yes, I’m in a major city, but in the burbs, and I had to call 911 for someone around 8 years ago. And the cops absolutely did NOT show up, only the ambulance.

        3. I think for suicide threats and attempts it is automatic that the cops show up. Also, domestic violence.

      3. The rescue unit I volunteer with does not respond unless requested to do so by the authority having jurisdiction, which around here is either the county sheriff or fire marshal. If you call us, we have to ask you to call 911. We are not even allowed on the scene until requested.

        1. Why is that? Is it a funding thing? Or a liability issue?

        2. It’s about the liability…

    3. IMO, the person shouldn’t feel any remorse, because you shouldn’t have to worry about the cops shooting your loved one when you call on them for a wellness check. Unfortunately that’s the world we live in, but it shouldn’t be that way and a lot of people don’t know any better. I’m sure they regret the decision in hindsight, but the guilt should lie solely with the cops.

    4. Fuck the 911 caller. The caller is at least somewhat responsible for this.

      Also, what I am wondering – was this poor woman sufficiently dark that there will be protests?

      1. “Also, what I am wondering – was this poor woman sufficiently dark that there will be protests?”

        No, she’s native American. I doubt that BLM gives a shit about her. Have they protested over any whites, asians, or hispanics being shot by cops? No.

        1. Look….. #BLM is about a historically oppressed people. No other group has suffered from such oppression, ever. Native Americans just wouldn’t understand….

          1. “You wanna know how bad the Indians got fucked over?… When was the last time you saw TWO Indians?”

            1. I saw a fight between two Village People cover bands once.

              1. That is awesome.

            2. Well, white man spoke with forked tongue and destroyed the buffalo hunt. Amerindians commit suicide because white man built a parking lot on the hunting ground and there’s no buffalo to be found. Also, fire water.

        2. “or hispanics being shot by cops? No.”

          Actually, yeah. One Hispanic guy. But he was Hispanic AND black, so…

          1. What if he would have been one of those white Hispanics? Good shoot, right? Good thing there’s only one of those dudes around, because he seems a little crazy.

      2. Native Lives Matter is starting to rev up. I would have been more impressed with BLM if they’d shown some solidarity with Native Americans, but I expect there will be protests about this sort of thing if not about this particular murder.

    5. I’ve been in a situation similar to t’s (not an eviction, but someone experiencing suicidal thoughts). It’s a tough call, particularly if one hangs out here and knows how often the cops kill random/innocent people. Since this is not general knowledge among the general public, it is indeed hard to condemn callers. But that does not absolve them of all moral responsibility. They acted, bad things happened. Impossible to know if this woman would have killed herself, but that would have been entirely her responsibility.

      1. If I were in that situation, I would not call the cops. If the person is going to kill themselves, they’re going to have to do it on their own, I’m not helping them.

  5. OT: Third Shoe Drops: O’Keefe releases video exposing Hillary illegally coordinating with DNC

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEQvsK5w-jY

    1. These O’Keefe videos, surely there’s nothing illegal going on there or Reason would have already reported on it.

      1. Hasn’t Calidissident explained to you that they must carefully vet these videos for weeks before reporting on them because O’Keefe is a lying liar who lies?

        1. Nope, or I missed it. Anyway, some of the videos he’s posted in the past, the people are on tape outright admitting to the stuff he’s accusing them of. What, is he somehow recording audio over what they actually say and also lip syncing it up by video edit? He’s pretty good if that’s the case.

          1. Look, you saw how Donna Brazil explained the Wikileaks emails. She never received any questions from CNN. It is simple really. And those emails were stolen. And She’s a Christian, so she knows about being persecuted.

            See? This is the same thing. He’s a criminal. It’s a proven fact. So this is all just some criminal rambling. Nobody is paying attention. Because criminal.

            1. The criminal line was amazing because Creamer is a convicted felon. Also, I guess we can’t trust anyone who has been convicted of a crime, DNC?

      2. Assuming this activity truly was illegal (IANAL), what strikes me is how brazenly stupid these people are about their activity. It’s Gruber all over again — their primary objective seems to be to impress people with how great they are.

        1. They’re brazen because they know there will be no consequences even if they are caught. Does anyone seriously expect Hillary to suffer any consequences for this latest illegality, as opposed to all of her other well-documented corruption and criminal activity? Laws are for the little people.

          1. ^^^^THIS^^^^

            when you know the media and authorities will provide cover for you, you aren’t very inclined to keep any of it from the people that travel in your circle. Leftists are pretty damned proud of the illegal and nasty shit they do in the name of the cause, and often have no problem talking about it or dissing the idiots that keep voting for them despite all the criminal activity.

    2. Reason’s dismissal of and hostility toward O’Keefe is disappointing. I suspect it started back when he busted Planned Parenthood for violating federal law in its sale of fetal remains.

      1. That wasn’t him.

        1. He *did* do some Planned Parenthood videos, but not the fetal remains ones.

        2. Don’t mess with the socons’ narrative, Chip; it’s all they’ve got.

        3. I’d forgotten it wasn’t him.

      2. So I take it O’Keefe is not getting invited to many cocktail parties?

      3. I would be interested to hear their response to some of the questions like this that get asked all the time about their editorial decisions on what to cover.

        But I also don’t really care. It’s not as if Reason covering it would finally open the world’s eyes to whatever it is he’s videoing most recently. It’s not as if any readers here are being kept from any knowledge.

        And I think O’keefe would do well to release his unedited footage at teh same time as he releases the finished products. Without that, he’s just a conservative version of the Daily Show.

        1. I think he generally does release the unedited footage at some point, but he delays it to draw his subjects/victims into telling more lies that can be revealed as such in the unedited video.

        2. I agree with everything you said, Zeb.

          Part of their problem is that they quickly publish blog posts regarding just about anything, so when they do not give any coverage to a story that involves a Congresswoman’s husband (who visited the White House many times) admitting on video to inciting violence at political rallies that is receiving a lot of attention, it reflects poorly upon them. Matt Welch’s defense for not writing anything about the video on his podcast was pretty lame, too. I have no idea if Matt has input into editorial decisions anymore, but he defended it, so he deserves some criticism.

          However, insinuating that they did not write about it because they are a full-on SJW cosmotarian cocktail-swilling organization is incredibly stupid, and most importantly, incredibly boring.

      4. Or maybe the editors of Reason are like me and whining and nagging are the surest way not to get me to do what you want.

        1. Doesn’t leave a lot of options, does it?

          Say nothing – nothing changes.

          Praise their editorial decisions – get even more of the same.

          Criticize their editorial decisions – they get all sulky and passive-aggressive and don’t change anything, just to show you.

          1. Eh. I’m just being a dick. 🙂

            1. Don’t ever change, SF.

        2. Everyone, stop complaining about SugarFree’s stories. If we band together and work as a team we can save what little of our souls we have left.

          1. Eh, I sold mine out to Baphomet already. I figure anything I do from here on out to devalue my soul’s value just shows that I was the winning side in that economic exchange.

          2. I have been repairing mine for a while now… he almost killed it dead.

  6. A gun in the home makes you more likely to die violently.

    1. Especially if someone calls the cops to do a “wellness check” on you.

      1. Well, there’s lots of things that could be mistaken for a gun and cops have to make quick decisions. So I don’t think a gun needs to actually come into the mix here. ‘Looked like a gun’ has it covered.

        1. Those tomato plants looked like pot! That garden tool looks like a gun! *bang bang bang… bang bang bang…* Hey, paid vacation!

          1. Cop #1: “Let me see some ID.”
            Civilian: [reaches for wallet]
            Cop #2: “She’s going for her gun!” [blam blam blam blam]
            Cop #1: [blam blam blam blam blam]

  7. Two sheriff’s deputies in Washington state arrived at the house of 23-year-old Renee Davis after the single mother texted someone to say she was in a “bad way” and that person called 911 to tell law enforcement

    well there’s your first problem

    then they shot someone in their own home for nothing more than “being armed”? So now police can just drive up to your home with no pretext and shoot you on your own property ?

    “It’s really upsetting because it was a wellness check,” Davis’ foster sister told the Seattle Times. “Obviously, she didn’t come out of it well.”

    I think this demands slow-ironic-clap.

    But WTF is a “Wellness Check”, exactly? a new euphemism for “cops responding to anything/everything as a potential ‘active shooter’ and ready to throw down on sight?

    Native Americans are killed at the highest rate of any racial group in the United States

    ILM is unfortunately already trademarked.

    1. But WTF is a “Wellness Check”, exactly? a new euphemism for “cops responding to anything/everything as a potential ‘active shooter’ and ready to throw down on sight?

      Pretty much.

      ILM is unfortunately already trademarked.

      They’ll have to go with #NALM I guess.

      1. #Native Americans Matter But Less’n Africans is better than the #North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes

    2. So now police can just drive up to your home with no pretext and shoot you on your own property ?

      Yes. They can do anything that they want. Who will stop them or punish them? Nobody.

      1. Yeah. What’re you gonna do, call the cops?

      2. Yes. “wellness checks” are a blank check for constitutional violations.

        During a “wellness check”, they essentially can enter anyway without need for a warrant. They can forcible enter your home, detain anyone present, and search through all your stuff. They can remove anything of concern, including any legally owned weapon, ammunition, or practically anything society frowns upon.
        You have no recourse during the check and any argument or resistance is grounds for being forcibly subdued. After the fact, you need to pay top dollar for a lawyer to work to get back your stuff. The ‘state’ drags it out to maximize the legal fee you pay, and at the end of the day, only the lucky will get back all their stuff intact and undamaged. Invariably a fair amount is ‘lost’ or damaged.

        For the love of liberty, do not ever….fargin ever….get involved in a ‘wellness check’

        1. Crikey, that’s straight out of a 1984 like dystopia.

        2. I know it sounds like “Victim Blaming”, but part of me wonders why people like BLM dont do a fucking thing to try and help educate people “How Not To Get Fucking Shot By Trigger Happy Cops

          Because, all their whinging about where the moral-responsibility lies, and how we need to ‘teach cops how not to shoot people for being negros’ etc…. you’d think there would at the very least be some minor benefit in helping spread basic information about how the Po-Po tend to roll?

          I am also reminded of this. It was a more-innocent time

          1. You’d also think they would be protesting the WOD, but nope, not any of that going on. And the big blow up in Charlotte wouldn’t have happened if the cops didn’t think the guy was rolling a joint in his truck.

          2. Progressive “movements” are full of false dichotomies/choices. Feminists of the progressive ilk respond to women arming themselves with “we should teach men not to rape!”

            They never admit that we could do fucking BOTH.

        3. What is a Police “Welfare Check“?

          (their term sounds more like this)

          Most people think of the police as patrolling the streets looking for wrongdoers or responding to calls. What many people don’t realize is that the police in their community are also available to conduct welfare checks. This essential law enforcement function is an important tool for building safe communities.

          Friends, family and neighbors are important social contacts. They may regularly check in with loved ones to see how they’re doing. When a loved one fails to respond, the police can be called in to conduct a welfare check. …

          No court order is required for the police to conduct a welfare check. Essentially, as long as they have reasonable grounds to believe that an inhabitant is endangered, they can legally enter the premises. They typically knock on the door and await a response before announcing their law enforcement affiliation. If they still receive no response, they may enter the property. This is useful when someone inside the house is unconscious or otherwise unable to respond. The ability to enter the property without permission means that emergency aid can be rendered

          It sounds like the key-requirement is that a family-member be the one to request it – although the source isn’t very specific on that point.

          1. It isn’t. I have had one called on me by a non-family member. In fact, I looked into the possibility of taking that person to court for it. But I got lazy and just accepted it, like we all do about all this stuff. Nothing will ever change, why fight it?

            1. So basically any 3rd party calls 911 and suddenly no one needs a warrant / castle doctrine is voided?

              Something about that sounds wrong to me.

              1. I unexpectedly found 2 cops in my backyard trying to get inside (front door was triple locked); it was broad daylight, but still, had I been armed at that time, there’s a fantastic chance I’d be dead right now.

            2. I suspect the “just trying to help” defense would have won the jury. Also, there might be some type of good Samaritan law protecting people like that.

              Pro-tips: Never admit you’re having trouble. Be careful who you have as friends.

              I always use incidents like this as teachable moments as to why you don’t call 911, ever.

          2. Many/most wellness checks are called in by neighbors or friends.

          3. Basically, “wellness check” is one of those end-runs around the Fourth. Also: I smelled marijuana, I heard someone call for help.

            1. But it is also a good thing. If grandma is having a stroke, you don’t want to have to get a court order to see if she is OK. Even if you aren’t the police, you should be able to break in if you have good reason to suspect someone is in danger.

  8. Davis was Native American. Native Americans are killed at the highest rate of any racial group in the United States. With 13 killed through August, the number in 2016 is set to be twice as high as it was in 2015.

    Before we get all blacklivesmattery with the cop-kill rate among indigenous Americans, it’s important to bear in mind that reservations are under their own jurisdiction regarding police powers. And they need to seriously look at the laws, immunities and incentives the pertain to tribal police departments.

    1. Based on the response from Pat, above, it appears as if this tribe may not have had its own police force, relying on local sheriff’s department for law enforcement.

      1. Forgive my inclusion of the first sentence in the quote. I was talking more about the general claim that “Native Americans are killed at the highest rate”.

      2. I don’t want to speak for him, but your reply wasn’t really responsive to his point as I understood it.

    2. And they also have some of the highest rates of poverty, alcoholism and drug addiction. Which is also good for more confrontations with the cops.

      1. …and for causing the cops to panic even more so than normally.

        1. A native with a gun and some fire water. That’s shoot on first sight stuff right there. Best just to shoot the entire tribe so you don’t have to go back. /sarcasm

      2. Exactly. There are many factors at play, which is what people need to keep in mind when these statistical factoids are bandied about to misrepresent the situation.

  9. Davis also had a five year old staying at a friend’s house and was five months pregnant.

    A pregnant five-year-old!?

    1. It’s pretty clear that “Davis” is the subject of that sentence. A comma might have helped a bit, I guess.

    2. Your attempt at being a grammar nazi failed pathetically. That construction was sound.

      1. Why so serious?

        Oh. Right. Dead pregnant woman.

        1. A real grammar Nazi who doesn’t get it wrong is bad enough?

          1. I figured we’re all agreed on what tone the interrobang is meant to convey.

            1. You have to end it with /pedantic to get out of being scolded for being the grammar Nazi.

              1. Well if you’re going to make a grammar joke (which I personally enjoy), you need to at least be correct. 😛

                1. It was more a joke about being a wilfully obtuse reader and making light of a horrible situation.

              2. Or you can always do it to John, that seems to be well tolerated around here in all cases.

            2. “interrobang”

              I thought this was the word for ” the process of continuously gaining affirmative consent”

  10. The deputies said they saw her with a handgun and, according to a release from the King County Sheriff’s Department distributed to local media, both deputies fired at Davis, killing her.

    And went safely home to their loving families.

  11. Native Lives Matter?

    1. The National Library of Medicine is going to have to start policing its twitter account.

  12. The release does not appear to suggest that Davis had pointed the handgun at the officers.

    At this point cops are pretty much in the “see gun, begin panic fire” mode. Pointing a gun at a cop isn’t required to make them shit their pants and start shooting.

    1. Officer safety is number one, closely followed by a zero tolerance policy for noncompliance. If the officers determined the presence of the handgun as a threat to their safety, then they were obligated to eliminate the threat. Failure to do so could cost them their jobs. Besides that, they probably shouted conflicting commands as they have been trained to do in these types of situations, and the threat was unable to comply. Failure to comply is death.

      1. I suspect it went something like this:

        Officer 1: She’s got a gun!

        Officer 2: *bang!* *bang!*

        Office 1: Put down the gun!

        Officer 2: *bang!* *bang!* *bang!*

        Officer 1: Stop resisting!

        Officer 1 and 2: *bang!* *bang!* *bang!* *bang!* *bang!* *bang!*

        Officer 1: Darn, that was a spoon.

        Officer 2: Looked like a gun to me!

        Officer 1: Me too, paid vacation, woohooo!

        Officer 1 and 2: *high fives*

    2. So first it was concern about police firing at unarmed people. Now, the story is “they didn’t point the gun at police”. What?!? So now its okay to brandish a firearm and expect not to be shot? Whats next? People will think that police can’t shoot back unless they are being fired upon? Utter nonsense.

      1. Fuck off Tulpa.

      2. So now its okay to brandish a firearm and expect not to be shot?

        If I cannot legally shoot someone for simply brandishing a firearm, neither should a cop.

      3. “can’t shoot back unless they are being fired upon?’

        Not a bad idea, that. I’ll bet that’s the exact rule for the soldiers patrolling the DMZ in Korea.

        1. Cops, of course, are held to a much, much lower standard.

          1. Cops are held to a standard?

            1. “Zero” is technically a measurement.

      4. Mmmmm, smell the law and order.

      5. In your own home when you aren’t expecting the police? Yes, it is damn well OK to brandish a firearm. And in that situation, the police should not shoot unless they are being fired upon. Fucking castle doctrine, how does it work?

        1. Fucking castle doctrine, how does it work?

          It doesn’t if the intruders are carrying badges.

      6. Yeah, because according to the Constitution, you have an inalienable right to bear arms, unless you happen to be holding one when the cops unexpectedly drop in on you and then it’s grounds for the state to kill you, because FYTW. I didn’t read that part, but it must be true because it’s quite apparent you’re some sort of genius.

      7. Guess what, BS?

        You, as a prole/subject/civilian, aren’t allowed to gun down somebody just because they are in possession of a gun. Nope, you have to wait until it is an immediate threat to the life or safety of someone.

        So why aren’t the cops also required to wait until it is an immediate threat, etc?

      8. ‘Brandishing’ doesn’t mean simply holding it in your hand.

    3. Look, that wild injun woman could have scalped them. That would have been really embarrassing.

  13. Nutpunch Monday.

    1. Indeed.

    2. It’s the libertarian moment Reason are always telling you about.

  14. …and that person called 911 to tell law enforcement…

    Thus sealing her fate. Luckily none of her children were hit by the panic fire.

    1. Though I’m pretty sure the unborn child won’t make it.

    2. Luckily none of her children were hit by the panic fire.

      Which makes me wonder if it was panic fire, or “Hey, look! An Injun with a gun! Just the excuse we need to shoot her!”

  15. Wikipedia on the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe:

    Most Muckleshoots now live on or near the 15.871 km? (6.128 sq mi) Muckleshoot Reservation on Muckleshoot Prairie, between the White and Green rivers southeast of the city of Auburn (at 47?15?43?N 122?08?45?W in King County and Pierce County). With an approximate population of more than 3,000, the Muckleshoots are one of the largest Native American groups in Washington State. The 2000 census reported a resident population of 3,606 on reservation land, and 28.65 percent reported solely Native American heritage. The city of Auburn extends onto much of the reservation’s land, and includes 72.6 percent of the reservation’s population.

  16. So this story is horribly lacking in details.

    1. We know from the link that she died.

      We know from the link that she had a handgun.

      The link suggests that no one has stated whether she pointed the gun at the officers.

      For all we know, this could have been suicide by cop.

      A gun grabber might write the same article to say we need to disarm civilians.

      A Brit might write the same article and say we need to disarm the police.

      I certainly don’t begrudge the police the right to defend themselves against pregnant women who are pointing a gun at them–if that’s what happened. Not even if there are children elsewhere in the home.

      In fact, I’m starting to resent stories that all driven by big-eyed bunnies. Is the only reason we’re interested in this story because the woman was pregnant?

      Would we be talking about this story if it had happened to angry old man?

      If we were talking about an angry old man, what angle would we be taking?

      That the police shouldn’t do wellness checks?

      That responders who do wellness checks shouldn’t defend themselves?

      What’s the moral of this story supposed to be?

      1. Not that it matters since this will shortly be subsumed under the All Cops are Racists narrative, if it’s picked up at all. And that depends on weather the cop’s last name was Alvarez, Garcia, or Smith.

        1. It’s what I call “Jane Fonda Syndrome”.

          She started out being against the Vietnam War.

          Okay. Honest people can disagree on that issue.

          But protesting the war wasn’t enough to change policy, so she went further. She started making like the Americans were the bad guys.

          Um, okay. A little honest critical self-assessment never hurt anybody. But that didn’t bring about a change in policy either, so she had to go further.

          She started making the North Vietnamese were the good guys.

          Uh oh.

          She went on a tour of Vietnam.

          She posed on a North Vietnamese AA gun with spent shells all around her, and if that weren’t far enough, she toured North Vietnamese POW installations and vouched for the good treatment of American soldiers who were actually being tortured.

          But her intentions were always good!

          . . .unfortunately, good intentions don’t count for shit.

          Yeah, I’m in favor of the Fourth Amendment, too, and I’m also against the police indiscriminately murdering people. I’m against cities and unions making sweetheart deals to shield bad police officers from accountability.

          But let’s not go overboard. Once we start treating the police like they’re the enemy every time they shoot a big-eyed bunny in self-defense–regardless of whether there’s any evidence of wrongdoing–we’ve started down the Hanoi Jane trail.

          How many people have done more harm to the anti-war protest movement than Jane Fonda?

          If her intentions were good, that just makes it worse.

          1. Once we start treating the police like they’re the enemy every time they shoot a big-eyed bunny in self-defense–regardless of whether there’s any evidence of wrongdoing

            Ya know, out here in prole-land, the shooter has to prove that the shooting was justified. Funny how, when its a cop, the shooter has to prove nothing at all, and suddenly the prosecution/plaintiff has to bear the burden of proof that the killing was wrongful.

            1. Why are we filling in the blanks, here?

              If there’s sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, by all means, let’s see the wrongdoers prosecuted.

              I don’t see any such evidence yet.

              Maybe it’ll materialize.

              In the meantime, why assume wrongdoing.

              The only information we have is that a suicidal woman with a gun was shot by the police. I see plenty of evidence that this was tragic. Not much that it was unjustified.

              If someone has been unfairly forced to prove their innocence in the past, that doesn’t justify making these guys prove their innocence. If sufficient evidence comes out of the inquiry to justify prosecuting the cops, then I’ll be glad to see them prosecuted.

              But the discussion about whether it’s appropriate for the police to do welfare checks on suicidal single-women with infants is a lot more compelling that the narrative about how these cops are guilty of something without any evidence but a tragedy.

              1. Why are we filling in the blanks, here?
                History.

                It may be more “fair” to always reserve judgement until all the facts are on the table, but the simple truth is that police in this country (and probably all countries) have a nasty habit and history of over-sharing information when it makes them look good, and clamping down tighter then a Swiss Bank when it makes them look bad.

                You can think it’s unfair for people to do so, but it’s not unreasonable for them to do so.

      2. Wouldn’t it make more sense for EMT’s or like a case worker to do a wellness check? I would think using the police in this way is bound to end up with stories like these.

        1. Not EMTs, there’s more pressing matters. Theoretically case workers, yes, but actually getting them to do something worthwhile is a chore. Still don’t see where the responsibility falls to the police by default though.

        2. I can only speak to California. I worked for a full lock down mental hospital in Los Angeles.

          The only justification for taking someone into custody that isn’t suspected of committing a crime is if they are a danger to themselves or others.

          If you’ve called up 911 and told them that you think someone is armed and trying to kill themselves, the police should already anticipate taking that person into custody.

          In California, they’d send you to the psych ward on what they called a 5150, which means the doctors and the hospital have 72 hours to determine whether you’re still a threat to yourself or others because of some psychiatric problem. If they want to hold you beyond that time, they send a representative of the court to the hospital to determine whether or not holding you longer is justified.

          Short version, if they determine you’re in danger of killing yourself, you’ve got a gun, and they know you’re alone with a house full of children, you’re leaving with the police whether you want to or not. And the cops shouldn’t leave a pregnant woman alone in her house with some infants if she’s got a gun and threatening to kill herself.

          1. Should we really be sending cops to scoop up people that want to kill themselves though?

            1. You get a call saying that someone is armed and suicidal.

              Who’s volunteering to go in unarmed?

              You want to arm EMTs or PET teams?

              Okay, they’re cops now.

              1. I don’t understand why “don’t send anyone until they are endangering others or need a bodybag” isn’t an option.

                I may be a little misanthropic today though.

                1. Infants being involved certainly complicates that narrative.

                  And ignoring a dangerous person with a firearm until after they actually kill someone with it isn’t likely to win you the next election for county sheriff or city council either.

            2. Here’s what LA County does now:

              Psychiatric Mobile Response Teams (PMRT)

              Psychiatric Mobile Response Teams (PMRT) consists of DMH licensed clinical staff assigned to a specific Service Area in Los Angeles County. Teams have legal authority per Welfare and Institutions Code 5150 and 5585 to initiate applications for evaluation of involuntary detention of individuals determined to be at risk of harming themselves or others or who are unable to provide food, clothing, or shelter as a result of a mental disorder.

              Law Enforcement Teams

              This co-response model pairs a DMH clinician with a law enforcement officer to provide field response to situations involving mentally ill, violent or high risk individuals. Primary mission is to provide 911 response to community requests or patrol officer requests for services. Teams also assist PMRT as resources permit.

              http://dmh.lacounty.gov/wps/po…..operations

              LA County probably has a lot more resources for such things than a reservation that apparently has to depend on county sheriffs for law enforcement.

              1. What happens a lot. . .

                Homeless people call up the psych ward when they want to come off the street for a while, get some hot meals, a clean bed, and watch TV.

                So they’d call up the psych ward and tell us that they want to hurt themselves. You’d ask them if they have a gun or something, and they’d say “no”. So we’d send an unarmed PET (psychiatric evaluation team/the guys with the nets) to pick ’em up, and then they’d get into the hospital for 72 hours of heaven.

                Then there were the guys the cops would drag in kicking and screaming. There are some extremely dangerous people out there who are a danger to themselves and others, haven’t committed any crime, but can’t be held accountable for their actions either. Sometimes the only way to protect someone’s rights is to wrestle them into a straight jacket and lock them in a rubber room. Using law enforcement for that is probably the best way to protect their rights.

                What’s the alternative?

                This lady having infants to care for makes it even more complicated.

      3. “The link suggests that no one has stated whether she pointed the gun at the officers”

        I had this same exact conversation with someone over the guy who was shot in Charlotte. My point was that even if the guy had a gun, there was no evidence on the tape that he even tried to threaten the cops with it. If he had a gun, it was either in a holster or he was holding it down at his side. At that point, at least 4 cops were already drawn on him. So if the guy raises his weapon, to me that’s an ok for the cops to fire at him. But he never did anything like that and he was walking backwards with his arms at his side. The person I was talking to thought that they had a right to shoot him just because he might have been holding a hand gun.

        They basically killed the guy because he wasn’t following orders properly or some bullshit like that.

        1. Yeah, just because she was armed doesn’t mean she was pointing a gun at them.

          We don’t have enough information.

          So why are we talking about this case?

          Is it really about the welfare checks?

          Welfare checks are a legitimate function of the police if you ask me. Especially if we’re talking about a suicidal pregnant woman alone at home with other infants around.

          In Libertopia, I don’t want the cops to get those calls and do nothing.

          You knock on the door. If no one answers, you go in to make sure the woman isn’t dead with her infants all alone.

          If the legitimate purpose of government is to protect people’s rights, the police have a legitimate interests in checking on suicidal pregnant mothers of infants when someone calls and tells the police that she’s suicidal.

          If Grandma Jones usually goes to mass every day, and she suddenly doesn’t show up–what are her fellow parishioners supposed to do? Let her lie there in pain with a broken hip until she dies? Breaking and entering is a crime.

          1. If the legitimate purpose of government is to protect people’s rights, the police have a legitimate interests in checking on suicidal pregnant mothers of infants when someone calls and tells the police that she’s suicidal.

            “She’s suicidal!” is hearsay. The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant. A warrant requires probable cause.

            No matter how “legitimate” the function of the government may be, the Fourth Amendment is higher law.

            1. No, if someone tells you that infants are in danger, that’s like any other tip.

              That’s a hot pursuit situation even.

              They presumably knocked on the door first.

              1. Yes, it’s like any other tip. Tips are not evidence.

                1. Somebody calls up and says So and So has kidnapped a child and is holding it in his basement.

                  You don’t think the cops should check that out unless they have corroborating evidence?

                  A tip may not be sufficient to convict someone of a crime, but we’re not talking about a crime here.

          2. And that would be fine if they were trained to handle the situation properly. IOW, focus on deescalating the situation if necessary and if they perceive a threat, I mean a real threat, try neutralizing the threat without harming the individual. But no, they only worry about their own welfare and just go trigger happy. They’re supposed to be trained to do these things, but it’s quite apparent they can’t handle the job.

            1. County sheriffs working on a rez that can’t afford its own police force have to answer calls with the resources they have.

      4. We know from the link that she had a handgun.

        We “know” no such thing. We know the cops said she had one, which isn’t the same thing at all. As we do, actually, know, the cops have shot people for having objects in their hands that weren’t actually handguns at all.

        1. “Two deputies then went inside to check on the unidentified woman and children and found her with a handgun.”

          That’s what it says.

          I was going by that.

  17. I want to see her rap sheet before I decide if I should care.

    1. Seriously. Even if she didn’t have a gun at all or at least have it pointed at the cops, I’m sure she’s done something in her life that merits being blown away.

      1. I just can’t care unless she is the absolute perfect victim. Bonus points for having a vagina and being pregnant, but she’s not white and the assholes that killed her said she had a gun, so it’s a toss-up until I see a rap sheet and evaluate her crimes or find out she might have taken some sort of government assistance. If either of those, then good shoot, fellas.

        1. Single mom living on the res who has given birth to more than three live children? Dude, she *has* to be on public assistance and therefore unfit to live.

          1. She probably had at least one screwdriver in her house, so that’s possession of burglary tools right there.

          2. Three kids, with a fourth on the way? By age 23? Could we allow such wanton sluttery to continue unabated??

            1. +1 wanton sluttery

          3. From the Seattle Times article…

            Bargala said she didn’t know if her sister owned a handgun, although Davis did have a hunting rifle. “She loved hunting,” Bargala said.

            Davis had recently killed an elk and a deer, butchered the animals herself and divided the meat among her family. “I still have elk in my freezer,” Bargala said.

            Damn, that sounds like a helluva woman to me.

            1. Now you’ve got the animal rights activists and probably several other flavors of left wing idiots in the ‘good shoot’ category.

        2. Damn, that’s about the best impersonation of your average SoCon posting on the intertoobz that I’ve seen, SugarFree.

          1. Meh. I didn’t work in the “next time you are in trouble call a crackhead” gag.

            1. That’s because you are a good satirist and know the line between believable and over-the-top.

      2. Exactly.
        At the end of the day, (news cycle), these over worked/ underpaid hero’s saved this whore/ felon from suicide.
        I see commendations in their future, after a thorough (vacation) investigation, (by like, their uncle).

    2. Yeah, if she’s ever been busted for pot before, then good shoot, right?

  18. “It’s really upsetting because it was a wellness check,” Davis’ foster sister told the Seattle Times. “Obviously, she didn’t come out of it well.”

    Damn, that’s pretty cold.

    1. +1 average American voter mentality

  19. More race-baiting nonsense from Reason. It is a peculiar blind spot. Someone brandishes a gun near an armed citizen: justified shooting, 2nd amendment. Some brandishes a gun near a cop: the cop must be racist and should have waited until he was being shot at!

    1. Someone brandishes a gun near an armed citizen: justified shooting, 2nd amendment.

      Link?

    2. Tulpa, you cunt. As always the only testimony that she had a gun is coming from the people that murdered her. But that’s good enough for you. slurp slurp slurp

    3. She was holding a gun inside her own home, which they entered without permission. She wasn’t just walking around brandishing it near cops.

    4. Some brandishes a gun near a cop: the cop must be racist and should have waited until he was being shot at!

      Firstly, there is zero evidence beyond the word of two killers that she was brandishing a weapon.

      Secondly, yes, they should have waited because cops are paid to assume risk to their own safety to protect others, and that includes holding their fire unless they’re actually threatened. Simply seeing a gun is not cause to murder a pregnant woman.

      1. Secondly, yes, they should have waited because cops are paid to assume risk to their own safety to protect others, and that includes holding their fire unless they’re actually threatened.

        That is actually not true. Their first and most important duty is to preserve officer safety. They are not supposed to risk their safety at all. Doing so can get them fired. They are to shoot first, and then answer questions a few days later after the union lawyer tells them what to say.

    5. Well, credit where it’s due, you caught a couple.

      Now fuck off Tulpa.

    6. Like I said up top, this isn’t race baiting.

      It’s about a big-eyed bunny.

      It isn’t that she’s Native American (if that’s what she is).

      It’s that she’s pregnant.

      You’re supposed to be against the police shooting pregnant women under any circumstances, I guess.

      Maybe you’re supposed to be against the police doing wellness checks.

      But it isn’t about race baiting.

      The race baiting is about what’s in your head.

      1. 1. She had guns and she killed animals, dude, the left are not going to show any empathy here.

        2. She’s not black. Case closed.

    7. Where does it say anything about the cops being racist?

      1. The cops have shot plenty of hispanics. Where was the outrage? There wasn’t any and there will be none here either. Native Americans are only an issue when someone names a foozball team after them. And then it’s only an issue to whiny ass white progtards.

    8. A cop acting without a warrant or probable cause to make an arrest ceases to be a lawful peace officer and is just an intruder.

  20. Everything about this story is a sad reminder of the horrific conditions a lot of Native Americans live in, from violence to substance abuse to welfare dependency.

    But we can’t address any of those issues until white liberals first make the Washington Redskins and the Cleveland Indians change their names.

    1. If only there were some sort of government bureau that could manage all these Indian’s affairs for them, so they could finally become self sufficient.
      It’s not like the U.S. govt. has a history of causing Indians harm!
      *heap big-um forked tongue*

    2. If only there were some sort of government bureau that could manage all these Indian’s affairs for them, so they could finally become self sufficient.
      It’s not like the U.S. govt. has a history of causing Indians harm!
      *heap big-um forked tongue*

  21. You wouldn’t want cops to walk blindly into a trap, would you? What if a psycho copkiller called in a fake wellness check and then ambushed them? Cops are at war, and they cannot ever let their guard down. And besides, that crazy squaw was begging for it.

  22. This is an easy one, black people can’t own firearms. If she had just obeyed the laws and police she’d be alive.

    1. Escept – she wasn’t black.

      1. close enough for government work

      2. Escept – she wasn’t black.

        I am a dunce. I just looked at the pic and skimmed the article, normally I read these things before hand I swear!

        1. normally I read these things before hand

          Ha. This guy.

  23. “Davis was Native American. Native Americans are killed at the highest rate of any racial group in the United States. ”

    Evidence?

    1. Ed Five Rivers speak with forked tongue.

    2. Not really sure it matters or that I care, Natives have more control over how they are policed than I do, so they bear the brunt of that stat.

      1. Not all natives, Pinky, just the tribal-enrolled, reservation-living ones.

        1. Not really, many of them not living on the Rez still get to vote in tribal elections. Living there isn’t always a requirement for voting there.

          1. And, unless you’ve somehow teased them out, the rez living Natives skew the stat, so my statement stands.

      2. Natives have more control over how they are policed than I do

        Did somebody disband the BIA while I wasn’t looking?

        1. Did the BIA do anything here?

          And you are seriously offering the BIA as equivalent to local police departments?

          Come on.

          1. No, I’m saying that the BIA has an indirect hand in tribal government. Although, if this constitution is actually in effect for the Muckleshoot tribe, then it seems they are pretty much self-governing.

    3. Without digging too deep… nyt did a bit on the disproportionate victimization rates for injuns

      And here’s your BJS data. the chart on the cover of the report should provide at least headline support for that claim.

    4. Who knows were the cite comes from but it wouldn’t surprise me. In Canada they’re massively over represented in the penal system.

      While Aboriginal people make up about 4% of the Canadian population, as of February 2013, 23.2% of the federal inmate population is Aboriginal (First Nation, M?tis or Inuit). There are approximately 3,400 Aboriginal offenders in federal penitentiaries, approximately 71% are First Nation, 24% M?tis and 5% Inuit.

      In 2010-11, Canada’s overall incarceration rate was 140 per 100,000 adults. The incarceration rate for Aboriginal adults in Canada is estimated to be 10 times higher than the incarceration rate of non-Aboriginal adults.

      http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/cnt/r…..o-eng.aspx

    5. “Evidence?”

      Yeah!! Where’s the evidence!?

      Do you Reasonoids seriously think that including a link in your claim that links to the relevant statistics proving the claim to be true is sufficient EVIDENCE for the likes of Jason and I?! Nonsense!! Citation NEEDED!! Even if you gave a citation, that fact’s irrelevant!!

      1. The link was for police killings, and I now realize that was the intended point of the quote(which simply said “killings”). For regular murder, see the stats linked by Glimore, Indians are actually less likely than the population as a whole to be murdered:

        https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aic.pdf

        About police killings of Indians, there were a grand total of 10 in 2015. How much can be concluded by a number that low?

  24. And they also have some of the highest rates of poverty, alcoholism and drug addiction.

    And whom do we blame? That’s right.

    Kkkorporations.

  25. At some point, I have to some coming here.

    1. It’s doing a number on your intelligibility, for one thing.

      1. Mine too. Those italics were not supposed to be there.

  26. I’m perpetually dumbfounded that people will turn over their most basic social responsibilities to the government without a second thought. Wellness check? How about you go and check on your friend/family member yourself?

    It’s like they don’t understand that police have filters on everything they hear. You may think that you are saying something like this:

    “Hello, could you please check on my friend? I think she may be suicidal and try to kill herself. She owns a gun.”

    All the cops hear is:

    “…… ….. … …… ….. .. .. ……. . ….. … … .. …….. … … .. kill …….. … …. . gun.”

    RED ALERT. RISK TO OFFICER SAFETY EXCEEDING THRESHOLD. SWAT SUITED UP IN MILITARY EQUIPMENT AND DEPLOYED TO NEUTRALIZE THE THREAT OF POSSIBLY NON-COMPLIANT CITIZEN. MEDIA SPIN MACHINE DEPLOYED TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE KNOWS THAT BRAVE HEROES MADE IT HOME SAFE TONIGHT.

    1. “How about you go and check on your friend/family member yourself?”

      You’re some kind of barbarian.

    2. How about you go and check on your friend/family member yourself?
      Unless you have a key to a place and standing permission to enter, then doing a wellness check yourself, in the cases where it’s actually needed, would be illegal.

      Which isn’t the problem. I don’t think my grandmother would have taken any action against a neighbor who broke down her door and then helped her up when she got stuck between the wall and the bed (mobility issues are a killer. Unfortuantely, sometimes literally).

      The problem is when it’s a false alarm. When grandma isn’t responding to calls because she’s pissed off about Facebook so she turned off her phone, and swapped churches without telling her old church. In that case, if you break down the door because she doesn’t hear you knock (maybe her hearing aid was charging or something) and burst in on her in the bath, she’ll be rightfully pissed.

      Which is why people offload the concern to police. Because then they can get the good (someone checks on grandma when she goes dark) without the bad (they get sued for B&E because they checked in on grandma).

      This isn’t to say that the current system is the best, just explaining why people are hesitant to do what you suggest.

      1. Under the Peelian principles, the uniformed police do not have any special rights to do things that an ordinary citizen cannot. Without a warrant or probable cause, it’s B&E regardless of whether you’ve got a badge or not.

  27. I do not think the ethnicity of the victim.is relevent here. Mentioning it makes this more likely that that will overshadow that this is likely more evidence that “good” police procedure is to escalate to deadly force at the sight of a gun held by private person.

    1. It’s not relevant in determining why the cops shot her, probably. It is relevant in providing more evidence that shit is pretty messed up on a lot of Indian reservations.

  28. Unionized government employees are authorized, even required, to kill you on sight for simply holding a gun. So much for that “right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” bullshit.

  29. Should have called Longmire instead. He would have calmly resolved the situation, beat the shit out of the 911 caller, and banged the shit out of the mom.

  30. Suicide by cop. Native Americans also have the highest suicide and ‘drug addiction’ rates.

    1. Bloopditty boop da loop skibbity doo waaaaa

      1. *Jazz hands*

        1. Jazz hands are triggering.

      2. AM is the ghost of Shooby Taylor? Makes as much sense as anything about him.

  31. What many people don’t realize is that the police in their community are also available to conduct welfare checks. This essential law enforcement function is an important tool for building safe communities.

    Weeding out the undesirables, one welfare check at a time.

  32. “Native Americans are killed at the highest rate of any racial group in the United States.”

    #RedLivesMatter??

  33. OT: I probably won’t be around for PM Lynx, and since reason’s writers all seem to be on hiatus toady, I’ll just drop this here:

    Figure we could use a palette cleanser anyway after this cops shoot pregnant woman nutpunch.

    1. Fucking HTML:

      The onion’s latest Biden masterpiece

      Is what was supposed to after “here;”

      1. You do realize that there’s a “preview” button you can use to test that your links work, yeah?

  34. Would have?

  35. Now can we stop screaming about BLM and address the police AS A police problem?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.