Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AudibleNod OP t1_itz6ks6 wrote

Prosecutors said Schiller was distracting police officers when he had his phone out and was recording the scene.

...

They said he was not preventing officers from doing their job and said even though Schiller's actions may have been abrasive they did not rise to a criminal level.

+++++

So we're clear, the police aren't under any obligation to protect the public. But they will certainly take you to court when you're distracting them from doing their official business.

418

N8CCRG t1_itzo2da wrote

Replying to AudibleNod (#255,985)

This article didn't have a lot of detail, so I googled and read a few more articles. It sounds like he didn't distract them, they distracted themselves. They could have chosen to just ignore him entirely; he wasn't actually interfering in any way. They instead chose to focus their attention on him.

Sounds like the jury made the right call here, 100%.

193

sometimes_i_reddit t1_itzvzum wrote

I watched that stream live on that day, I'll never forget what he did in the first moments of him arriving at the KS. Yeah he was in the middle of it, crouching behind cars and eventually moving out of the plaza. Boulder Cops were assholes to a guy just filming from a parking lot. There was a cop that grabbed him from the back of the neck and moved him 20 feet from where he was standing just to assert his manly blue line crap.

101

Littlebotweak t1_iu027o2 wrote

It’s a tough one because, yes, the Boulder police were being pricks to this guy. I imagine it was because there were so many of them around they wanted something to do.

But, don’t let that subtract from the fact that the BPD did go into the site of an active shooting. They didn’t all stand outside for an hour and a half harassing people, they went in and an officer did lose his life.

I lived in Boulder for many years and I could give plenty of examples of BPD being feckless and cowardly.

When it mattered on this particular day they did answer the call. They did justify their SWAT team and they did get the shooter alive.

By all means tear them down for their flaws, but at least give them credit for their overarching actions that day.

20

NightlyWry t1_iu03jn8 wrote

Replying to Littlebotweak (#260,476)

They saved lives that day, and stomped on a persons legal rights all at the same time. Gnarly world we live in. I grew up right next to that King Soopers and shopped there weekly. Boulder is a safe place and mostly the cops don’t interfere with life. It might be because basically everyone there is white though. Who knows.

57

Littlebotweak t1_iu04q4f wrote

Replying to NightlyWry (#260,653)

You would think that but they get bored and want to shoot people just like any other force and when that happens students get shot.

They’re pricks 99% of the time. But, at least they went in that day.

2

Misguidedvision t1_iu07lws wrote

Replying to TimTom8921 (#257,652)

Lol do you think anyone with a gopro all the sudden has some sort of legal protection from outside recordings? Like in your mind, if someone put a camera on and then walked into a store, all of the security cameras shouldn't be allowed to film them?

14

hakunamatata365 t1_iu07pz6 wrote

I would like to judge this myself. Anyone know where to find the video?

9

Badtrainwreck t1_iu0b7ct wrote

Replying to N8CCRG (#258,646)

I haven’t watched the video, but in light of Uvalde I think there is a good chance some officers just want to “be distracted” during mass shootings, because they do not want to be in any position where they do not have the upper hand. So it wouldn’t surprise me if some officers target people at the scene just so they don’t have to engage with a shooter

64

ShieldProductions t1_iu0hf0q wrote

I have no idea what shooting this was, there have been so many that I can’t keep them straight.

12

N8CCRG t1_iu0jfr7 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#262,538)

You use the word respectfully, but then the rest of your comment is quite disrespectful. Just adding that word to the beginning doesn't change that.

As I thought would be clear from my comment, I read multiple independent sources. All appeared to be trustworthy established news sources (Colorado Public radio, Denver Post and local NBC affiliate, in addition to this one which didn't have a lot of detail). All of their accounting of the events matched the interpretation I recounted.

One could believe that these independent and competing news sources all collaborated to falsely describe the events that occurred, or something similar. Or one could acknowledge that is more than sufficient to reach a conclusion cautiously described as "It sounds like," which indicates it may not be accurate, but it's a reasonable starting point.

34

BubbaTee t1_iu15vf3 wrote

Replying to Badtrainwreck (#261,673)

Funny how so many cops are "warriors" when bullying unarmed and compliant civilians, but the second there's a situation that actually requires a warrior to combat an armed opponent, they turn into "conscientious objectors."

23

Tipsy247 t1_iu19yiw wrote

Now he gets to sue the department for violating his 1st amendment

8

Jdban t1_iu1lg9n wrote

Replying to N8CCRG (#258,646)

I remember watching this. He was always standing very far away and not interfering but they just kept bothering him over and over

4

BD_9x t1_iu8316c wrote

Too many mass shootings that I forgot that happened

1