The shooting of Robert Dotson, 52, in the northwestern New Mexico city of Farmington prompted a civil lawsuit by his family members, though public prosecutors found there was no basis to pursue criminal charges against officers after a review of events. The suit alleged that the family was deprived of its civil rights and officers acted unreasonably.

Hearing a knock at the door late on April 5, 2023, Dotson put on a robe, went downstairs and grabbed a handgun before answering. Police outside shined a flashlight as Dotson appeared and raised the firearm before three police officers opened fire, killing him. Dotson did not shoot.

“Ultimately, given the significant threat Dotson posed when he pointed his firearm at officers … the immediacy of that threat, the proximity between Dotson and the defendant officers, and considering that the events unfolded in only a few seconds, the court finds that the defendant officers reasonably applied deadly force,” U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Garcia said in a written court opinion.

  • markovs_gun@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    The crazy thing about this is that 2nd amendment nuts are always super defensive about the police in cases like this, even though this is obviously a case that shows you don’t have a right to bear arms if the police can just roll up to your house in the middle of the night and shoot you with impunity if you have a gun in your house or are holding one when you answer the door.

    • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Probably the LARPer subcategory. The smart ones know cops aren’t to be trusted due to low IQ requirements, among other problems.

    • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 day ago

      The NRA refused to support Philandro Castile who was shot for legally owning a firearm. Their spokesperson said on one of the Meet the Press style shows that the NRA has a lot of cops as members and they don’t want to upset them by supporting a black guy shot by cops.

      • cristo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        There are way better pro gun orgs than the NRA. The NRA is no longer the powerhouse it once claimed to be. Any pro gun guy worth their salt would have jumped ship from the NRA by now.

          • cristo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            The GOA actually goes to court, same with the FPC. Big win from the NAGR regarding frt triggers. Basically all these other groups actually do stuff to protect the rights of firearms owners while the NRA just sits there collecting money and dust while at the same time supporting restrictions on guns for law abiding citizens. When is the last time the NRA has done something that isn’t “compromise” with authoritarians who want to take our rights away? It’s been a long time

    • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 days ago

      I remember seeing a lot of them cheering on the Indiana law that specifically legalized shooting cops that enter w/o a warrant after a (messy) court case:

      IND. CODE § 35-41-3-2 (2012)

      Sec. 2. (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen’s home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant….The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.

    • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Yeah the right to bear arms here is more like the right for cops to shoot you for their own mistake. Similar to how “right to work” is more like right for employers to fire you whenever and however.

      • Tower@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        2 days ago

        “At will” is the employment one regarding being able to be terminated without cause (as long as it’s not for a protected reason). “Right to work” is the one about not being required to join a union. But still, your point is valid.

        • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Thanks for the clarification, I thankfully have to worry about neither as a Canadian.

      • insufferableninja@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        right to work means you can’t be forced to join a union. at-will employment is the right for employers to fire you whenever and however. fyi.

    • Carmakazi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m no fan of 2A at this point but I will say opinions on this are more mixed among gun owners than you might think. A lot of people fucking dragged the NRA for not backing gun owners murdered by cops like Castile.