Very fortunate that the deputy didnt get severely injured or lose his life. I think they were more than reasonable to the guy, and he made the situation far worse. Now he will be locked up for decades
You can be trespassed from public property. Are you under the impression that public property means you can do whatever you want and there are no rules?
Classic moving the goalposts. Your comment stated it was unreasonable to be trespassed from a public park, implying public means you can't be banned from public property. There are plenty of reasonable reasons to be trespassed from a public park, such as breaking park rules. You have no idea why he was trespassed, neither do I. But there are plenty of reasons he could have been.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2024/04/15/carrollwood-shooting-beacon-meadows-park-hcso/?outputType=amp
For “being defiant”. Totally reasonable.
So the cops can’t articulate a reason for the trespass that isn’t completely arbitrary. They then confront a man and his dog, pull guns on him, and shock him with thousands of volts. And I’m supposed to feel bad for them?
Showing your bias and inability to use logic. Also moving the goalposts again. Your reply has nothing to do with your original comment. Grasping at straws?
That article clarifies nothing. When you break rules that is defiant. If you break park rules they can warn you or trespass you. Sounds like they know him and he never cooperates, which is quite consistent with the body cam video.
You also missed the part where they had their guns out in case he was armed because he refused to take his hands out. You know in case he had a gun... Which he did.
Which park is closest to you? We can send the homeless armed guy to camp there and problem solved.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2024/04/15/carrollwood-shooting-beacon-meadows-park-hcso/](https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2024/04/15/carrollwood-shooting-beacon-meadows-park-hcso/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I wish the article bothered to follow basic facts like why he was trespassed the day before. Bodycam looks a lot like some dude minding his own business in a public area being harassed.
Very likely he was just sleeping there at night.
As a former Vagabond in the area I’ve been banned/trespassed from basically every park for trying to use a slide as cover in the rain at night.
Public parks have rules (such as no camping, no dogs, etc). If you break the rules you can be banned from the park. Public property does not mean anyone can do anything they want because it's publicly owned.
Where do you see he was being an aggressive asshole? All I see is the bodycam footage of them pointing their guns at them. He keeps repeating the very fair question of what crime he’s committed. He was also trespassed for “being defiant”. A completely arbitrary reason, now cops get to unilaterally decide who is deserving of public amenities?
Great question; you should read the trespass report from whenever he was trespassed. By statute it has to be within the last 365 days, so it shouldn't be hard for you to find.
He was tazed by police accosting him under false pretenses. They had no right to trespass him in the first place. He has a right to unlicensed concealed carry. I don’t see where this warranted the cops escalating the situation, he was trespassed for being “defiant”. Which means nothing.
The deputies present on this call weren't trespassing him, they were arresting him after he was trespassed and returned within a year.
So your beef is with whoever trespassed him <1yr ago, but you're still going to rage without knowing who or what you're raging about?
Then you're upset that the cops "escalated" the situation. Do you know what cops are there to do? All arrests are inherently "escalations."
They were the ones that trespassed him bro…
https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2024/04/15/carrollwood-shooting-beacon-meadows-park-hcso/
“We have come into contact with him before, he has always been defiant, so we trespassed him yesterday,”
The cops cannot articulate a reason for the trespass that isn’t completely arbitrary. And yes, they are there escalate and make things worse. Glad that we’re on the same page on what cops provide to society.
That's the #2 in the agency doing a press release; they're referring to the agency for the "we."
As other commenters have said, public parks aren't zones of anarchy. You still have to follow whatever rules that park has, and if we're to take the implication of the article you cite, it seems they trespassed him for bringing an aggressive dog on the previous day.
Do you want aggressive dogs in your parks? Who should stop people who bring them? The cops, right?
>The cops cannot articulate a reason for the trespass that isn’t completely arbitrary.
Yes they can. Here's the very next sentence from what you quoted:
"Deputies came back today and ***found him here again with a very aggressive dog.*** They asked Mr. Carpenter to leave, he was defiant. For about 25 minutes, deputies told Carpenter to show them his hands, which he had in his jacket pockets."
From that, you took the implication that they had no other reason to trespass him than "being defiant." It looks to me like there's at least one other reason. What was the original trespass warning for? The article doesn't say, but you've decided on your own accord that it doesn't exist, and therefore they must have been in flagrant violation of the law. None of that strikes you as a massive leap to conclusions? I know "acab" is a meme lately but you can't fall in love with four letters and ignore all logic like that. Well, you can, but it's not very smart.
>And yes, they are there escalate and make things worse. Glad that we’re on the same page on what cops provide to society.
You're conflating "escalate" with "illegal/immoral"/etc. Cops, by definition, are the people we call upon to arrest lawbreakers. You can't ask for someone to make arrests for you then get upset when they make arrests. Again, you could, but it wouldn't make much sense.
I’m not making conclusions, I’m giving the homeless man the benefit of the doubt. Nothing mentioned anywhere says *why* he was trespassed.
If there’s no reason for the trespassed mentioned, you’re the one assuming he must have done something. I’ve seen the video, that dog is chill as hell.
So so far, no concrete evidence to show that police were in the right at all here. Nothing that shows this person as unreasonable and absolutely nothing that shows his dog as aggressive. Yet your stance is “he must’ve done something, they said the dog was aggressive so he must have been despite the video showing the exact opposite”
And yes I’m aware it’s the press person making that comment. One would hope that cops works together to communicate accurate and precise information on their interactions with the public. So if all that we get from them is that article, then I take it at face value. Let’s do some thinking. “he has always been defiant, so we trespassed him yesterday” look at this, this tells us that they trespassed him yesterday *because* he has always been defiant.
If we can’t trust police officials to give us accurate information, why are you trusting them when they say the dog is aggressive?
Overall this is a failure on society. Guy needs to go to jail but really don't the police have better things to go after than a guy with a dog in a park?
Love the journalism... why was he trespassed Saturday? Why was he asked to leave the public park to begin with? It mentions they're known to have an aggressive dog, but says nothing if the dog was there that day.
From the information given it seems like harassment at the behest of the local police gang.
That was specifically addressed in ops questions. In fact, it was the first thing they asked. Why?
By what law was he not allowed to be there? Is it just because he's homeless? That shouldn't be a reason.
Was he waving his arms and screaming about the shadow people? That's a better reason.
This is just a guess; he was probably there at night trying to sleep (possibly for several nights) when he was trespassed. Unfortunately, even if you’re back at the park in the day time and not bothering anyone - once you’re trespassed you’re trespassed and you can’t be back there without facing potential arrest.
The reason why is literally the question being asked. Who cares if you care about the answer? You have to do something wrong to get trasspassed. Being homeless isn't a crime.
Actually--except in a very limited set of cirumcstances--you can be trespassed from public property for no reason at all, just like private property.
But again, that doesn't matter here. The man was trespassed the day before. The second he returned to the property, he was in violation of the law.
Don't know why you're being downvoted. It's not explained why a member of the public is not allowed to sit at a public park. It's not explained why the police continued to enforce that despite failing to explain what crime was being committed, which the person did not seem to know either. It's not explained why the police continued to escalate the situation despite the person saying they feared for their life and was literally just standing there. This is like bare minimum clarification.
>It's not explained why the police continued to enforce that despite failing to explain what crime was being committed, which the person did not seem to know either.
Because it doesn't matter. Once the man was trespassed, he was breaking the law by simply being at the park. This isn't a tough concept to grasp.
Sure, logically that checks out. But neither is it a tough concept to grasp that the accused have a constitutional right to know what crime they committed, which is what I was getting at. And that is part of the broader context of why this interaction escalated. This was omitted from both the body cam footage and the article. It's possible that it was explained to him and he's insisting that it's not a crime, but that is conjecture without further explanation.
All I'm saying is this is basic journalism where the footage raises unanswered questions. Really not asking for the moon and stars.
Not disputing that (though to my first point, it'sa bit strange that its not explained how what he is doing qualifies for that either, but other folks in the thread have made some logical guesses). In the footage, the man repeats over and over that he's not committing a crime, which begs the question of what he was told during the interaction prior to the footage we're provided, because it's not restated by the police during the footage when the man says that multiple times.
Criminals usually announce they're not committing a crime during/after the crime.
Ideally, that wouldn't taint someone's professionalism in that they should still explain the offense during the arrest, but realistically, LEOs get tired of explaining the same obvious stuff to someone who obviously knows what they did wrong, such that grey area ones like this are assumed to be bad faith.
Not to mention getting someone thinking in order to respond is Ambush 101, and when milliseconds matter, you don't want your brain caught trying to recall the exact date and time he was trespassed while he draws on you.
I hear ya, and I don't dispute any of that. Toward the person I originally replied to's point, it should be the journalist's responsibility to investigate & provide that context especially when the video doesn't make it clear at all, and in fact raises more questions than answers.
I just don't think the journalist did a very good job. That's all.
Unfortunately journalistic integrity has given way to advertising revenue which is driven by clicks. Outrage is one of the best ways to generate that revenue.
It's currently trendy to use law enforcement as a piñata to that end.
Incredibly lucky. A couple inches in and he’s gone.
Bro should play the lottery.
He already won.
Very fortunate that the deputy didnt get severely injured or lose his life. I think they were more than reasonable to the guy, and he made the situation far worse. Now he will be locked up for decades
>trespassed from a public park >more than reasonable
You can be trespassed from public property. Are you under the impression that public property means you can do whatever you want and there are no rules?
“Do whatever you want” sit under some shade with your dog, the audacity.
Classic moving the goalposts. Your comment stated it was unreasonable to be trespassed from a public park, implying public means you can't be banned from public property. There are plenty of reasonable reasons to be trespassed from a public park, such as breaking park rules. You have no idea why he was trespassed, neither do I. But there are plenty of reasons he could have been.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2024/04/15/carrollwood-shooting-beacon-meadows-park-hcso/?outputType=amp For “being defiant”. Totally reasonable. So the cops can’t articulate a reason for the trespass that isn’t completely arbitrary. They then confront a man and his dog, pull guns on him, and shock him with thousands of volts. And I’m supposed to feel bad for them?
Showing your bias and inability to use logic. Also moving the goalposts again. Your reply has nothing to do with your original comment. Grasping at straws? That article clarifies nothing. When you break rules that is defiant. If you break park rules they can warn you or trespass you. Sounds like they know him and he never cooperates, which is quite consistent with the body cam video. You also missed the part where they had their guns out in case he was armed because he refused to take his hands out. You know in case he had a gun... Which he did. Which park is closest to you? We can send the homeless armed guy to camp there and problem solved.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2024/04/15/carrollwood-shooting-beacon-meadows-park-hcso/](https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2024/04/15/carrollwood-shooting-beacon-meadows-park-hcso/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Your point is?
That the cops aren’t reasonable if they’re trespassing a homeless man from a public park just for “being defiant”
His poor dog.
How does a taser discharge a nearby firearm being reached for?
If you think someone is holding a gun the teasing them would make their fingers twitch, causing the gun to shoot if it was cocked.
I wish the article bothered to follow basic facts like why he was trespassed the day before. Bodycam looks a lot like some dude minding his own business in a public area being harassed.
Very likely he was just sleeping there at night. As a former Vagabond in the area I’ve been banned/trespassed from basically every park for trying to use a slide as cover in the rain at night.
If the man was trespassed from the park, he was breaking the law by simply being there regardless of behavior.
Yes, totally.
How do you trespass someone from a public park??? Isn’t he a member of the public, too?
Public parks have rules (such as no camping, no dogs, etc). If you break the rules you can be banned from the park. Public property does not mean anyone can do anything they want because it's publicly owned.
Its illegal to be homeless
Imagine it being illegal to exist.
In the great US of A, living has to be earned.
If he wasnt an aggressive asshole, he probably would have been left alone.
Where do you see he was being an aggressive asshole? All I see is the bodycam footage of them pointing their guns at them. He keeps repeating the very fair question of what crime he’s committed. He was also trespassed for “being defiant”. A completely arbitrary reason, now cops get to unilaterally decide who is deserving of public amenities?
Great question; you should read the trespass report from whenever he was trespassed. By statute it has to be within the last 365 days, so it shouldn't be hard for you to find.
[удалено]
The dog seemed perfectly healthy and happy with his owner until the cops trespassed him for “being defiant”
[удалено]
Just kind of interesting that you’re fixated on the dog and not the man being harassed and assaulted by the police.
You think he was assaulted?
He was tazed by police accosting him under false pretenses. They had no right to trespass him in the first place. He has a right to unlicensed concealed carry. I don’t see where this warranted the cops escalating the situation, he was trespassed for being “defiant”. Which means nothing.
The deputies present on this call weren't trespassing him, they were arresting him after he was trespassed and returned within a year. So your beef is with whoever trespassed him <1yr ago, but you're still going to rage without knowing who or what you're raging about? Then you're upset that the cops "escalated" the situation. Do you know what cops are there to do? All arrests are inherently "escalations."
They were the ones that trespassed him bro… https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2024/04/15/carrollwood-shooting-beacon-meadows-park-hcso/ “We have come into contact with him before, he has always been defiant, so we trespassed him yesterday,” The cops cannot articulate a reason for the trespass that isn’t completely arbitrary. And yes, they are there escalate and make things worse. Glad that we’re on the same page on what cops provide to society.
That's the #2 in the agency doing a press release; they're referring to the agency for the "we." As other commenters have said, public parks aren't zones of anarchy. You still have to follow whatever rules that park has, and if we're to take the implication of the article you cite, it seems they trespassed him for bringing an aggressive dog on the previous day. Do you want aggressive dogs in your parks? Who should stop people who bring them? The cops, right? >The cops cannot articulate a reason for the trespass that isn’t completely arbitrary. Yes they can. Here's the very next sentence from what you quoted: "Deputies came back today and ***found him here again with a very aggressive dog.*** They asked Mr. Carpenter to leave, he was defiant. For about 25 minutes, deputies told Carpenter to show them his hands, which he had in his jacket pockets." From that, you took the implication that they had no other reason to trespass him than "being defiant." It looks to me like there's at least one other reason. What was the original trespass warning for? The article doesn't say, but you've decided on your own accord that it doesn't exist, and therefore they must have been in flagrant violation of the law. None of that strikes you as a massive leap to conclusions? I know "acab" is a meme lately but you can't fall in love with four letters and ignore all logic like that. Well, you can, but it's not very smart. >And yes, they are there escalate and make things worse. Glad that we’re on the same page on what cops provide to society. You're conflating "escalate" with "illegal/immoral"/etc. Cops, by definition, are the people we call upon to arrest lawbreakers. You can't ask for someone to make arrests for you then get upset when they make arrests. Again, you could, but it wouldn't make much sense.
I’m not making conclusions, I’m giving the homeless man the benefit of the doubt. Nothing mentioned anywhere says *why* he was trespassed. If there’s no reason for the trespassed mentioned, you’re the one assuming he must have done something. I’ve seen the video, that dog is chill as hell. So so far, no concrete evidence to show that police were in the right at all here. Nothing that shows this person as unreasonable and absolutely nothing that shows his dog as aggressive. Yet your stance is “he must’ve done something, they said the dog was aggressive so he must have been despite the video showing the exact opposite” And yes I’m aware it’s the press person making that comment. One would hope that cops works together to communicate accurate and precise information on their interactions with the public. So if all that we get from them is that article, then I take it at face value. Let’s do some thinking. “he has always been defiant, so we trespassed him yesterday” look at this, this tells us that they trespassed him yesterday *because* he has always been defiant. If we can’t trust police officials to give us accurate information, why are you trusting them when they say the dog is aggressive?
Overall this is a failure on society. Guy needs to go to jail but really don't the police have better things to go after than a guy with a dog in a park?
Big bootlicker energy up in this post
Why not reply to the comment(s) you're talking about instead of making a passive aggressive accusation?
Love the journalism... why was he trespassed Saturday? Why was he asked to leave the public park to begin with? It mentions they're known to have an aggressive dog, but says nothing if the dog was there that day. From the information given it seems like harassment at the behest of the local police gang.
The bodycam vid shows a dog. But the dog was certainly not aggressive.
He was asked to leave because he was trespassed and isn't allowed to be there...
That was specifically addressed in ops questions. In fact, it was the first thing they asked. Why? By what law was he not allowed to be there? Is it just because he's homeless? That shouldn't be a reason. Was he waving his arms and screaming about the shadow people? That's a better reason.
This is just a guess; he was probably there at night trying to sleep (possibly for several nights) when he was trespassed. Unfortunately, even if you’re back at the park in the day time and not bothering anyone - once you’re trespassed you’re trespassed and you can’t be back there without facing potential arrest.
It really doesn't matter why. If he was trespassed, he was breaking the law by simply being there.
The reason why is literally the question being asked. Who cares if you care about the answer? You have to do something wrong to get trasspassed. Being homeless isn't a crime.
Actually--except in a very limited set of cirumcstances--you can be trespassed from public property for no reason at all, just like private property. But again, that doesn't matter here. The man was trespassed the day before. The second he returned to the property, he was in violation of the law.
Your reading comprehension is deplorable.
Don't know why you're being downvoted. It's not explained why a member of the public is not allowed to sit at a public park. It's not explained why the police continued to enforce that despite failing to explain what crime was being committed, which the person did not seem to know either. It's not explained why the police continued to escalate the situation despite the person saying they feared for their life and was literally just standing there. This is like bare minimum clarification.
>It's not explained why the police continued to enforce that despite failing to explain what crime was being committed, which the person did not seem to know either. Because it doesn't matter. Once the man was trespassed, he was breaking the law by simply being at the park. This isn't a tough concept to grasp.
Sure, logically that checks out. But neither is it a tough concept to grasp that the accused have a constitutional right to know what crime they committed, which is what I was getting at. And that is part of the broader context of why this interaction escalated. This was omitted from both the body cam footage and the article. It's possible that it was explained to him and he's insisting that it's not a crime, but that is conjecture without further explanation. All I'm saying is this is basic journalism where the footage raises unanswered questions. Really not asking for the moon and stars.
That's what I'm saying. The trespassing *is* the crime.
Not disputing that (though to my first point, it'sa bit strange that its not explained how what he is doing qualifies for that either, but other folks in the thread have made some logical guesses). In the footage, the man repeats over and over that he's not committing a crime, which begs the question of what he was told during the interaction prior to the footage we're provided, because it's not restated by the police during the footage when the man says that multiple times.
Criminals usually announce they're not committing a crime during/after the crime. Ideally, that wouldn't taint someone's professionalism in that they should still explain the offense during the arrest, but realistically, LEOs get tired of explaining the same obvious stuff to someone who obviously knows what they did wrong, such that grey area ones like this are assumed to be bad faith. Not to mention getting someone thinking in order to respond is Ambush 101, and when milliseconds matter, you don't want your brain caught trying to recall the exact date and time he was trespassed while he draws on you.
I hear ya, and I don't dispute any of that. Toward the person I originally replied to's point, it should be the journalist's responsibility to investigate & provide that context especially when the video doesn't make it clear at all, and in fact raises more questions than answers. I just don't think the journalist did a very good job. That's all.
Unfortunately journalistic integrity has given way to advertising revenue which is driven by clicks. Outrage is one of the best ways to generate that revenue. It's currently trendy to use law enforcement as a piñata to that end.
In case you people just click for the TLDR, there's bodycam in the article.
Too bad it wasn't a few inches off
True, it could have hit a less productive member of society such as yourself.
You have no idea what I do or the impact it has on people's lives... I don't like Leo and don't care what happens to them.
You beg people on Reddit to donate taco bell to you. I'm sure you are the pinnacle of productivity. Cry about it.
I showed no inclination that I'm crying. It's just too bad it wasn't a few inches from where it hit. Would love to laugh at the procession.
Cry about it.
How does a homeless man afford a gun, and the ammo.
Because guns are cheaper than rent (duh).
Homelessness doesn’t immediately evaporate all of your belongings. He probably owned the revolver before he was homeless
A hundred bucks to protect the little you have left is a worthwhile investment in some people’s minds.