Yeah, I can actually see that interpretation.
Maybe they were supposed to stop him before he got to the bag then, not after he emptied it, if that is what they thought.
I’m old enough to remember when this was still a conservative stance on the police.
(Radley is a conservative btw).
I’ve always been intrigued by the history of conservatism. When was this?
Not trusting the police was a core conservative ideal. Because the government isn’t to be trusted and the police are the enforcement arm of the government. The whole “we need guns to protect us from the government” was far more about protecting yourself from the police than the Army. Look at stuff like the ranchers who got into standoffs recently. That action is a conservative one, albeit one taken to extremes.
Stuff like Waco and Ruby Ridge was part of the core of the movement in a lot of ways. Now they’re fine with the government doing anything and they worship the police, who previously they only had a grudging respect for at best.
I’m fairly sure 9/11 was the final turning point. All through Clinton that mindset existed for the most part. Then one day they just decided to give the government everything it wanted because scary brown people had to be stopped or something.
Mobile judges execute another hardened criminal. I wonder whom the other two people in the car will 100% pin the original shooting on now.
I was coming here to post that. Cops gun down teenager in the back who was fleeing from the vehicle. Judge, Jury and Executioner.
As much as I love the movie, these guys need to stop watching Dredd. Geezus.
Also, Pennsylvania. Fuck Pennsylvania.
It’s time to change a “reasonable force” standard that hasn’t been updated in California since 1872, making it the nation’s oldest unchanged use-of-force law, said Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, a San Diego Democrat who introduced the measure.
David Mastagni, a lobbyist for the California Peace Officers Association, said the proposed language creates “a hindsight, second-guessing game that puts not only the officers at danger but puts the public at danger as well.”
Randy Perry, representing several rank-and-file police unions that encompass 90,000 officers, called it “a radical departure from criminal and constitutional law.”
I wouldn’t trust California to do it right, but at this point I’m willing to give just about anything a try.
Charges filed, but a long way to go to justice.
We have a long way to go so police don’t shoot at fleeing suspects.
And there was no gun:
Zappala said “neither of these young men were in possession of a weapon” when they were fleeing.
Edit: Took out erroneous mention of gman as this is a different cop shooting than I recalled. God can we stop with the fucking unarmed shootings already. There are so many they are all
Cops lying is ALWAYS a problem. But I think that separate from saying that cops should never shoot fleeing suspects. I think it’s necessary to leave open the possibility that some fleeing subjects (e.g., those who are immediate danger to the public) need to be stopped, even if it means shooting them as they flee.
Which is fine… if they’re an immediate danger to the public, which is like the tiniest fraction of a fraction.
Like the guys in the North Hollywood Shootout? Yeah, those guys you can shoot while they’re fleeing.
There is, it’s called presumed innocence.
Maybe people who hold the public trust and are armed should not be held to that standard, at least not professional.
I mean there are two angles to this.
Should they be criminally prosecuted
Should they be allowed to continue working as cops
@kerzain said presumed innocence. And in a criminal trial this is absolutely true. The absence of body cam footage should not be de facto proof of guilt, but 5 simultaneous ‘failures’should absolutely be used as evidence. And in a criminal trial that may not be enough. Certainly in conjunction with forensics it could provide circumstantial evidence.
However in the ‘should they keep their jobs as officers entrusted with deadly force’ that is an absolute no. Because it strains credulity, and the barrier of proof should be much lower for being fired than it is for being convicted of murder. Making sure your equipment is working is a priority item. And if the body cams are so poorly maintained, or tampered with, so that five fail simultaneously? That is failure to perform the duties of your job.
Or destruction of evidence.