28 It is unlawful for a person, after receiving a
29 verbal warning not to approach from a person he or she knows or
30 reasonably should know is a first responder, who is engaged in
31 the lawful performance of a legal duty, to knowingly and
32 willfully violate such warning and approach or remain within 25
33 feet of the first responder with the intent to
Like the original comment said, it's "approach or remain"
Here’s a judge who jailed a guy known for reporting on police misconduct under the excuse that he refused to become a sworn witness in the trial of a cop murderer - which he had nothing to do with, and was simply attending in the audience. https://therealnews.com/a-cop-watcher-attended-the-trial-of-...
(I think what they were trying was just kick him out of the courtroom; my understanding is that when someone is a (potential) witness testifying in a trial they are not allowed to attend)
In large swaths of the rural parts of the US, judges are not required to pass the bar exam.
Or have a legal degree.
Or have a college degree.
Still problematic, in my opinion.
If the judge just wants someone out of their courtroom they can simply order them to leave. If they do not leave a bailiff or two will be happy to encourage them to go.
Earlier that week officer Dean had been convicted of killing Jefferson. The trial then moved to the sentencing phase.
On the day the conviction was announced there had been a group protesting in front of the court. When the officer's family was escorted out through a side door many of the protest group moved to there and confronted the family. There were allegations that this included threats against the family, including specific death threats.
One of that group, Mata, showed up in court later as a spectator but instead of sitting with Jefferson's family and supporters sat with Dean's supporters, within immediate reach of Dean's family.
The defense attorneys wanted to talk to him to bolster their case that the trial should have been moved to another county. The judge wanted to talk to him because the judge was concerned that someone who was part of the group that had allegedly issued death threats to Dean's family was sitting right next to that family [1].
[1] https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2022/12/19/man-arreste...
Then simply you've never hung around a single judge.
I come from a family that had more than its fair share of members that work in law enforcement and first responders. I've hung out with judges at barbecues at their house. The people at these private events are mostly other elected officials and other law enforcement officers. These people are their friends, they've known them for years or decades, hell, quite often grew up together. And yea, while a judge can attempt to be unbiased as possible, human nature always leads people to bias toward those they know and against those they do not.
It is not a crime to be within 25 feet of the first reaponder, it is only a crime if all elements of the statute are met.
Here's a per-state breakdown of police training requirements. https://www.apexofficer.com/police-training-requirements
Most of them require 20 hours or less PER YEAR, and that is not just firearms training, but total training across e.g. deescalation, driving, EMT, less-than-lethal force, crowd control, etc. Several of them specify that the firearms training is only 2 hours. Most hobby shooters can knock out 12 hours of dedicated firearms training in a month or 2 of weekend range days, so 6x what a cop might have to do in 12 months.
Outdrawing the cops isn't the issue, outnumbering them is. Unless you've also got 300+ buddies you can call for support, you're going to lose in the end.
The old saying when running from the cops goes
> "You can beat Mopar, but you can't beat Motorola"
--- end requirements. It's not exactly relevant that some people spend personal time shooting as a hobby, if you're not willing to admit that some of those people are cops.
Which is why I specified:
> most people competent with a gun
Most civilians are not people competent with a gun.
It is very relevant that hobby shooters can easily far outpace police in their weapon competency with just a casual amount of shooting practice (hell, most ranges give you a 2-hour block of time, so even one range day a YEAR could put you even with some of these departments). Whether some cops are also hobby shooters is irrelevant to the complete lack of reasonable training requirements at a policy level before we turn cops loose on the streets with firearms.
If a guy with the closest thing the real world has to a license to kill, who is doing something bad enough to warrant being recorded for later evidence, turns their attention to intimidate you or physically force you to stop — this is a person you believe yourself to be safe around?
So why in the world would you "stand your ground" in this scenario?? Perhaps you posted in the wrong comment thread?
Look, I'm not condoning police violence or immunity. I'm just saying that, as a purely practical matter, if you fear for your life when you interact with police, trying to "stand your ground" does not make you safer. Quite the opposite.