Police murder child, refuse to allow mother to comfort him

Ok:

1. Fact: the youngster was found in a vacant building. There were no victims present.
2. Fact: the youngster turned toward the officer, unarmed
3. Fact: the officer shot him, with the intent to kill (as trained, they do not shoot to maim)
4. Fact: while the youngster lay, crying for his mother's comfort as he was dying after being shot, after the police had determined that he was unarmed and likely was a bad shoot, he was denied the attention of his mother while he died alone

Fact 4 is to illustrate the "monster" part. Facts 1-3 illustrate that the officers murdered him. Satisfies:

1. Intent to kill
2. No valid self defense argument
3. No valid defense of others argument

So - now you tell me, why is it not murder?
The elements of Murder under the California penal code:

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon'
s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.



188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing
show an abandoned and malignant heart.
When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional
doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no
other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of
malice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to act
within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite
such awareness is included within the definition of malice.

I'll leave for the reader to find the standard for self defense in California. In particular, the question of objective vs. subjective reasonableness and mistakes of fact are always interesting.
 
Would you rather see an innocent man be killed at the hands of someone trying to force a situation, or would you rather see an officer either back off or face danger himself.

I don't accept an either or, here.

That's like saying if I dislike an idiotic governmental rule, then I automatically want for their to be NO REGULATION of anything, ever.

A third possibility is the prudent approach. Draw but don't kill the DEAF MUTE, simply because he MIGHT do something. Be prepared to defend yourself, but don't automatically go to the shoot no matter what, action.
 
Is your argument that an officer should get to shoot and kill someone without provocation on the off chance that they might have a weapon?

In other words - to continue your rant on "probably" is "possibly having a weapon" a better reason to shoot someone than "probably not" having one is reason not to?

If so - can I walk outside and shoot the next guy with his hand pointed at me, because he "possibly" had a weapon?

You seem to completely ignore that the cop thought he was armed. Why is that?
 
I fail to see how moving an arm with no weapon in it, and not in close proximity to an officer (who, by the way, was not even in the same room as the suspect) is "fighting" him.

To your second point of declining to defend yourself, I'll be the first to say that police should defend themselves in the exact same way you or I would. I wouldn't expect to be allowed to shoot someone because they looked at me menacingly or moved an empty arm at me.

How is an officer supposed to know that the empty arm is not a threat, especially if the suspect elects to ignore his instructions? It is unreasonable for an officer (or homeowner) to wait for the first shot before he concludes that his life might be at risk. The benefit of the doubt has to go to the good guys, not the suspects who elect to disregard the instructions of law enforcement.


JKG
 
You are ignoring the difference between simple trespass and home invasion. If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night you can assume he means to do you bodily harm. Not likely the prosecutor will charge you in the latter case unless you live in some liberal dominated state.


More like liberal dominated county, not State. The local Prosecutor is who'll be deciding your fate. And it's really rare for Appointees to go against their money masters these days and apply any form of rational thought. There is a conference call where a "True Believer" says, "Do X.", even if X isn't the correct legal action, nor well advised by the attorneys paying attention to how best to Prosecute, and they remind the appointee how much money they spent on them in the last election and how little they'll spend in the next election, if they don't play ball.

None of this has anything to do with justice. It all has to do with who bought whom a job.
 
You seem to completely ignore that the cop thought he was armed. Why is that?

Because "thinking someone is armed" is not justification to willy-nilly shoot people. I don't get to just walk outside and shoot the first person that turns toward me that I think has a gun, right? If I did, do you think I'd face charges?
 
So what you're saying is that no one should ever be pulled over for speeding? Or flying too low? Or doing anything that equates to breaking any law? What a relief!

Nope. Apply a little logic here:

A. Trespassing is illegal, therefore a cop can shoot someone that trespasses
B. Speeding is illegal, therefore, a cop can shoot someone that speeds

Both are non-violent offenses. Neither should result in death.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was arguing that a police officer should not arrest or cite someone for breaking the law. I just don't think he should be able to shoot them and then get away with it.
 
How is an officer supposed to know that the empty arm is not a threat, especially if the suspect elects to ignore his instructions? It is unreasonable for an officer (or homeowner) to wait for the first shot before he concludes that his life might be at risk. The benefit of the doubt has to go to the good guys, not the suspects who elect to disregard the instructions of law enforcement.


JKG

Replace officer with "anyone" and you'll see your answer. Surely, you're not saying that I or anyone that doesn't have a badge can walk into a building, demand that someone do something, and when they refuse, shoot them because they moved their arm, which may or may not have held a weapon, right?
 
Replace officer with "anyone" and you'll see your answer. Surely, you're not saying that I or anyone that doesn't have a badge can walk into a building, demand that someone do something, and when they refuse, shoot them because they moved their arm, which may or may not have held a weapon, right?


Nope. But the law covers that. Commands from LE aren't the same under the law as a command from you or me.

Some jurisdictions add the word "lawful" command, but any command an LEO gives, one may assume they believe is a lawful one, and during the resulting moments thereafter is not a particularly good time to attempt to argue it with them.

Some jurisdictions don't even add the word lawful.

Usually the command must be preceded by the LEO identifying themselves as LEO, and maybe some other rules about reasonable suspicion or what have you, it's not consistent anywhere.

If you do something stupid and survive it, unless you have a pile of credible witnesses who will testify that they didn't identify themselves as LE, or didn't follow one of the other jurisdictional rules -- your word against theirs won't be enough in any court before any judge worth their legal salt.

Once someone identifies themselves as LEO, the rules for following instructions, change.

The biggest problem this the law creates, and is backed up by **** poor training tactics, is the Officer who just starts yelling incoherently upon entering any particular space with no regard for intelligibility, hearing disabilities, what have you. How many videos have you watched where some doofus cop is yelling so incoherently and with multiple phrases or such an awful accent or whatever, where even listening through a mic on their person, you know you'd never be able to figure out that they were LEO or what the hell they're even saying, if you were there?

Of course, in court, their recollection of their behavior is going to be that they gave an aggressive but intelligible announcement as good as the White Zone guy in Airplane, and the acoustics of the room were pristine like a sound recording booth.

The poor training tactic I mentioned is the popular training that an Officer must yell and maintain "Alpha Dog" status as the only possible tactical solution to controlling a situation.
 
At the end of the day, I don't think the officer's force was justified and he should be held accountable for that.

All that said, if you decide to be a criminal, and you decide to forcefully enter a home, you should very well expect that there is a strong possibility you're going to end up with a bullet in you.
 
You seem to completely ignore that the cop thought he was armed. Why is that?

Because it would invalidate his argument.

This cop didnt go to check on some kids in an abandoned farmhouse. He went to a vacant apartment in gang territory and did encounter a number of young adults, some of them gang members. Sometimes a split second decision is wrong. The cop in NYC last should have fired first and asked questions later.
 
Because it would invalidate his argument.



This cop didnt go to check on some kids in an abandoned farmhouse. He went to a vacant apartment in gang territory and did encounter a number of young adults, some of them gang members. Sometimes a split second decision is wrong. The cop in NYC last should have fired first and asked questions later.


Exactly.
 
Because it would invalidate his argument.

This cop didnt go to check on some kids in an abandoned farmhouse. He went to a vacant apartment in gang territory and did encounter a number of young adults, some of them gang members. Sometimes a split second decision is wrong. The cop in NYC last should have fired first and asked questions later.

A point I was about to make.

We trained extensively on "felony stops" on vehicles. Weapons drawn and aimed at the subject. Lots of role playing.

If the subject failed to comply with instructions, a lot depended on how that failure to comply manifested.

Waving arms around?

Turning and running?

Mouthing off?

Reaching into the car once out?

Reaching into a pocket?

Charging at officers?

Only two or three of the above would generally result in deadly force, but the decision must be split-second to avoid getting shot. And sometimes, in retrospect, the decision will turn out to be wrong.

So it goes - "Better to be tried by 12 than to be carried by 6!"
 
A scenario that made an impression on me.

Use two toy guns or guns rendered safe.

Subject stands with gun in his hand at his side.

Officer is drawn down on subject, ready to fire. Even cocked in the case of a double-action revolver. Knowing the subject will attempt to fire at some point.

Goal: shoot first when the subject begins to raise gun.

Result: If the subject quickly raises the guns and fires, generally he will get off the first "shot". If you're lucky and fast, maybe the two clicks will be simultaneous. Which does not count as a "win".

Most people underestimate reaction time.
 
Last edited:
Is your argument that an officer should get to shoot and kill someone without provocation on the off chance that they might have a weapon?

In other words - to continue your rant on "probably" is "possibly having a weapon" a better reason to shoot someone than "probably not" having one is reason not to?

If so - can I walk outside and shoot the next guy with his hand pointed at me, because he "possibly" had a weapon?

Sky, his point is the same as your original point. If the guy with the gun also has a badge, he has a license to kill. If you don't have a badge, you don't have that license.
 
Sky, his point is the same as your original point. If the guy with the gun also has a badge, he has a license to kill. If you don't have a badge, you don't have that license.

That's just it though - I don't believe for a moment that a badge is a license to kill, certainly not to kill innocents out of some perceived fear that is irrational.
 
Sky, his point is the same as your original point. If the guy with the gun also has a badge, he has a license to kill. If you don't have a badge, you don't have that license.
Uhh, typically a police officer has no more legal authority to use deadly force than a citizen does, at least in states that have a brain.
 
Read up on Graham vs Connor and Tennessee vs Garner. Those Supreme Court decisions are basis of the use of force policy for pretty much every law enforcement agency in the country.
 
The militarization of civilian police forces has gotten FAR worse under obama, than in any other president in my lifetime, even including the LA PD and their insane rush to criminalize everything from thinking, to not thinking.
 
The militarization of civilian police forces has gotten FAR worse under obama, than in any other president in my lifetime, even including the LA PD and their insane rush to criminalize everything from thinking, to not thinking.

I must agree with you that the militarization of civilian police forces has gotten FAR worse since 9/11/2001. I feel like the terrorists have won.
 
I must agree with you that the militarization of civilian police forces has gotten FAR worse since 9/11/2001. I feel like the terrorists have won.

GWB allowed congress to run over him in so many areas, because he was LOATH to veto bills that were properly passed by both houses. He respected the three legged government that the founders envisioned, but let a militant left house and senate run away with the government, and run off with our privacy, protections and liberty, imo.

9/11 was the smokescreen for so many abuses by government, and it only got worse, by universes under obama, who has ZERO respect for the other branches of government.
 
GWB allowed congress to run over him in so many areas, because he was LOATH to veto bills that were properly passed by both houses. He respected the three legged government that the founders envisioned, but let a militant left house and senate run away with the government, and run off with our privacy, protections and liberty, imo.

9/11 was the smokescreen for so many abuses by government, and it only got worse, by universes under obama, who has ZERO respect for the other branches of government.


I agree......

Bush Tee'ed the ball up and Hussian hit it out of the park....:mad2::mad2::mad:..
There is no going back now, barring a total revolution..
 
NY 2nd District rules that NSA telephone meta-data collection is partially illegal, but then refuses to issue a cease and desist order because, essentially, "Congress will fix it..."

On a law that was supposed to sunset.

We are totally fooked.

There's no longer a point in having a three branch system. The branches figured out they can work for each other and Citizens no longer matter.
 
NY 2nd District rules that NSA telephone meta-data collection is partially illegal, but then refuses to issue a cease and desist order because, essentially, "Congress will fix it..."

On a law that was supposed to sunset.

We are totally fooked.

There's no longer a point in having a three branch system. The branches figured out they can work for each other and Citizens no longer matter.


Hence the need for a total revolution.....:rolleyes:
 
A scenario that made an impression on me.

Use two toy guns or guns rendered safe.

Subject stands with gun in his hand at his side.

Officer is drawn down on subject, ready to fire. Even cocked in the case of a double-action revolver. Knowing the subject will attempt to fire at some point.

Goal: shoot first when the subject begins to raise gun.

Result: If the subject quickly raises the guns and fires, generally he will get off the first "shot". If you're lucky and fast, maybe the two clicks will be simultaneous. Which does not count as a "win".

Most people underestimate reaction time.

Looks like officers Deen and Tate of the Hattiesburg police didn't get a 'win' in that competition.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/two-cops-shot-dead-in-hattiesburg-mississippi-three-suspects-arrested/
 
I presume the two dead cops should make SkyHog happy. He expressed such sickness in an earlier thread. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

At least they caught the sick mother ****ers that killed the cops.

Nope. What I said, and maintain is thst the police e caused the mess. If someone is going to get killed, it makes more sense for it to be them then innocent civilians.

There are no innocent cops. That doesn't mean they should be shot.
 
Looks like officers Deen and Tate of the Hattiesburg police didn't get a 'win' in that competition.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/two-cops-shot-dead-in-hattiesburg-mississippi-three-suspects-arrested/

Two things to point out:

1. First killing of police in that area in 30 years. How many civilians have been shot in that same time by an officer? Yet, the officers have a "dangerous job?"
2. Why no complaints over the haste in filing charges? Took one day, right? I thought it was established thst spending weeks collecting evidence first was too fast...
 
Nope. What I said, and maintain is thst the police e caused the mess. If someone is going to get killed, it makes more sense for it to be them then innocent civilians.

Got to explain that concept a bit further. All that is know so far is that Deen pulled over a car and was shot at by the occupants. How did he 'cause the mess' ?
 
Got to explain that concept a bit further. All that is know so far is that Deen pulled over a car and was shot at by the occupants. How did he 'cause the mess' ?

Before responding, I would like to point out the irony of waiting for facts, even though, unlike the cops that have killed civilians, the suspects are in jail, facing charges mere hours after the killing...

But to respond: any officer that supports the thin blue line is as guilty as those that commit the atrocities. So, while Deen himself may or may not have committed any crimes directly, he has certainly turned a blind eye to those that have.
 
But to respond: any officer that supports the thin blue line is as guilty as those that commit the atrocities. So, while Deen himself may or may not have committed any crimes directly, he has certainly turned a blind eye to those that have.

Ah, collective guilt. Sure, makes a lot of sense, they are a legit target to somehow avenge whatever misconduct other officers are guilty of .
 
Nope. What I said, and maintain is thst the police e caused the mess. If someone is going to get killed, it makes more sense for it to be them then innocent civilians.

There are no innocent cops. That doesn't mean they should be shot.

I am convinced there is something wrong with you.

And that you deserve a place on a very short list of mine.
 
Nope. What I said, and maintain is thst the police e caused the mess. If someone is going to get killed, it makes more sense for it to be them then innocent civilians.

There are no innocent cops. That doesn't mean they should be shot.
:confused::(:rolleyes2:
 
Y'all are interestingly creating your own thin blue line in this thread and proving his point.

Does anyone refute that there are bad cops and that it's really rare to see them brought swiftly to justice because their actions are often hidden by others doing the job? (Even if they secretly hope they get caught?)

Because if you truly believe that isn't happening, I think some Denver taxpayers want the $3M they've paid out in settlements for one single officer back. Another is closing on him at just over $1M.
 
Ah, collective guilt. Sure, makes a lot of sense, they are a legit target to somehow avenge whatever misconduct other officers are guilty of .

I think you either have a reading comprehension problem or you are intentionally trying to demonize me.

Never once have I said it is ok to kill police officers. But whatever - if you can't see the difference between "holding them all accountable" and "killing them all," it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you don't see a problem with the collective action of the police, since you merely see the police are "holding the public accountable."

Very sad. I will shed a tear for the police slain today, but no more than I shed a tear for those the police have slain.
 
Y'all are interestingly creating your own thin blue line in this thread and proving his point.

Does anyone refute that there are bad cops and that it's really rare to see them brought swiftly to justice because their actions are often hidden by others doing the job? (Even if they secretly hope they get caught?)

Because if you truly believe that isn't happening, I think some Denver taxpayers want the $3M they've paid out in settlements for one single officer back. Another is closing on him at just over $1M.


:yes:
 
Y'all are interestingly creating your own thin blue line in this thread and proving his point.

Does anyone refute that there are bad cops and that it's really rare to see them brought swiftly to justice because their actions are often hidden by others doing the job? (Even if they secretly hope they get caught?)

Because if you truly believe that isn't happening, I think some Denver taxpayers want the $3M they've paid out in settlements for one single officer back. Another is closing on him at just over $1M.

Yes. Thank you.

Remember, police take an oath to protect people from the exact situation they put them into. By refusing to enforce the laws on their own ranks, they are essentially allowing organized crime to occur right in front of them, but unlike organized crime thst everyone is familiar witb, this one results in a permanent loss of freedom in the best case, and permanent loss of life in the worst.

And it is predictably self-motivating too, since the bad ones never get weeded out, the good ones need the bad ones to get their own back later, so they are scares to be thst guy that does the right thing. Preeictable, but inexcusable.

And, when people refuse to admit there is even a problem, it all gets swept under the rug and the atrocities continue. Guys like me are demonized because I dare to point out the issues unfiltered.

Truth is, it's neither more dangerous to be a police officer, nor to be a citizen engaged with a police officer. But, if something goes wrong, in most cases, the outcome is a dead citizen and a police officer that faces very little if any questioning for his actions. And even if questioned, his word is taken as gospel, so lying has no consequence for him. Look at the number of times a case is shut with "no wrongdoing," then a video surfaces from the public and it turns out the officer was lying.

There are good cops, no doubt. But the whole "few bad apples" argument is tainted when the good cops let the bad ones go Scott free.
 
Back
Top