Judge Rules That Saying “Oops” After Shooting Reporter Is Not a Legal Defense
A federal judge in California ruled this week that muttering “Oops” after firing a rubber bullet at a journalist is not a constitutionally protected defense. The ruling came during testimony in the case of Braverman v. LAPD, where an officer admitted to firing a projectile into a reporter’s lens, then uttering, “Oopsie. My bad.”
In her written opinion, Judge Consuelo Vera noted that “Oops” may be socially acceptable when spilling coffee, not when blinding someone with a riot munition.
“‘Oops’ is not jurisprudence,” she wrote. “It is toddler logic.”
The LAPD’s legal team had argued that the officer showed remorse and even offered the reporter a Clif Bar afterward. But the court found this insufficient. The new precedent bars the use of apologies as exculpatory evidence unless delivered with a full interpretive dance or notarized haiku.
The defense is now considering an appeal based on the “We Thought He Was a TikToker” doctrine.
Meanwhile, journalists across the country are updating their safety protocols:
-
Step 1: Duck
-
Step 2: Record
-
Step 3: If shot, demand a written apology (preferably in cursive)
Civil rights groups hailed the decision as a major victory.
“No more shrug-based justice,” said ACLU attorney Denise Halford. “Next time they say ‘Oops,’ we say, ‘See you in court—and bring your pension.’”
