On December 23, a stray bullet from police officers killed a 14 year old girl in a dressing room at a shopping mall in Los Angeles. This occured when officers were chasing a suspect who committed assault with a deadly weapon. The shooting of the 14 year old girl was ruled to be a homicide. Very sad to see something like this happen and hopefully, accountability will set in.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go ... d=81971514

What accountability? Do you want to throw the officer in jail? Dealing with the criminals that have been created by this coddle the bad guy, little to no bail and attack law enforcement mindset isn't easy but there is no criminality here. No matter how much Ben Crump says there is.

NIKV69 wrote:

What accountability? Do you want to throw the officer in jail? Dealing with the criminals that have been created by this coddle the bad guy, little to no bail and attack law enforcement mindset isn't easy but there is no criminality here. No matter how much Ben Crump says there is.

So you’d prefer to coddle the cops then? Should a gun user be accountable for their actions or not? Police held to a different, lower, standard than the general public? Unless of course all accidental killings should just be left.

This is close to my heart because just last week a shooting was prevented at my daughters school.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I usually side with the police in these matters but after watching the body camera footage I don't understand the decision to open fire. If he was still standing over the victim or even advancing towards the officers I could see it, but he was standing 10-15 feet away from the victim and no commands were issued to him before shots were fired.

flipdewaf wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

What accountability? Do you want to throw the officer in jail? Dealing with the criminals that have been created by this coddle the bad guy, little to no bail and attack law enforcement mindset isn't easy but there is no criminality here. No matter how much Ben Crump says there is.

So you’d prefer to coddle the cops then? Should a gun user be accountable for their actions or not? Police held to a different, lower, standard than the general public? Unless of course all accidental killings should just be left.

This is close to my heart because just last week a shooting was prevented at my daughters school.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If it were your daughter being dragged and beaten with a bike lock, you would be grateful the police shot the offender. In a chaotic situation such as this, it is possible for an accident to occur, and that's what it was -- an accident. If you were in the officers' shoes, how would you have handled this? First waiting for a social worker affords no protection for the original victim. How would she have fared if the police did not intervene?

Elkadad313 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

What accountability? Do you want to throw the officer in jail? Dealing with the criminals that have been created by this coddle the bad guy, little to no bail and attack law enforcement mindset isn't easy but there is no criminality here. No matter how much Ben Crump says there is.

So you’d prefer to coddle the cops then? Should a gun user be accountable for their actions or not? Police held to a different, lower, standard than the general public? Unless of course all accidental killings should just be left.

This is close to my heart because just last week a shooting was prevented at my daughters school.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If it were your daughter being dragged and beaten with a bike lock, you would be grateful the police shot the offender. In a chaotic situation such as this, it is possible for an accident to occur, and that's what it was -- an accident. If you were in the officers' shoes, how would you have handled this? First waiting for a social worker affords no protection for the original victim. How would she have fared if the police did not intervene?

Being accountable != being guilty. I just don’t think shooters need safe spaces.

Imagine being so ingrained in a particular view point that the slightest hint that someone doesn’t agree fully with your position can only mean they are diametrically opposed and not needing clarity on their position.

It’s no wonder with responses like this there is have a ‘shoot now ask questions later’ culture.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

TriJets wrote:

I usually side with the police in these matters but after watching the body camera footage I don't understand the decision to open fire. If he was still standing over the victim or even advancing towards the officers I could see it, but he was standing 10-15 feet away from the victim and no commands were issued to him before shots were fired.

Is it not murder in his case, too, then ?

flipdewaf wrote:

It’s no wonder with responses like this there is have a ‘shoot now ask questions later’ culture.

Right. Don't shoot now -- hesitate to explore all PC options and let the (original) victim's head get bashed in while waiting for the social worker to arrive. You haven't a clue.

Elkadad313 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

It’s no wonder with responses like this there is have a ‘shoot now ask questions later’ culture.

Right. Don't shoot now -- hesitate to explore all PC options and let the (original) victim's head get bashed in while waiting for the social worker to arrive. You haven't a clue.

So you can’t read either! Lol! Being accountable doesn’t mean guilt! You can be accountable and in the right.

It’s funny watching folks get their knickers in a twist over police being accountable! Do you want the police to have safe places like snowflakes?

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Elkadad313 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

It’s no wonder with responses like this there is have a ‘shoot now ask questions later’ culture.

Right. Don't shoot now -- hesitate to explore all PC options and let the (original) victim's head get bashed in while waiting for the social worker to arrive. You haven't a clue.

The new propaganda term is "de-escalation" it is used by most in the media that don't understand police work. It will also lead to many more people being hurt or killed.

It is sad that the criminal's actions (and potentially, the criminal's family) led to the death of the young girl.

Hopefully, Los Angeles will unite as one to stamp out criminal behavior in the future.

All violent criminals should be locked up unless and until they are nonviolent (age 55 is a reasonable guideline).

Police in the US kill more than anywhere else but sure, there is nothing going on. All is fine.

Aesma wrote:

TriJets wrote:

I usually side with the police in these matters but after watching the body camera footage I don't understand the decision to open fire. If he was still standing over the victim or even advancing towards the officers I could see it, but he was standing 10-15 feet away from the victim and no commands were issued to him before shots were fired.

Is it not murder in his case, too, then ?

I don't know. Whatever happened wasn't right though, IMO.

Aesma wrote:

Police in the US kill more than anywhere else but sure, there is nothing going on. All is fine.

Police in the US are also killed more than police in any other comparable country. Police here have to deal with the fact that any criminal they encounter is highly likely to be armed with a firearm.

Yet they shoot at people who are clearly not armed with a firearm, too.

Aesma wrote:

Yet they shoot at people who are clearly not armed with a firearm, too.

Sure, but you don't have to be armed with a firearm to be a deadly threat.

Elkadad313 wrote:

Right. Don't shoot now -- hesitate to explore all PC options and let the (original) victim's head get bashed in while waiting for the social worker to arrive. You haven't a clue.

"Shooting now" is the only possible option that a trained officer has that you wouldn't call "PC" ?

NIKV69 wrote:

What accountability? Do you want to throw the officer in jail?

If he's deemed to have used unjustified force, yes. You apparently missed that he killed an innocent bystander. As usual, you display zero empathy for the innocent victim of this officer's apparent zeal to use his gun. There were at least five armed officers to deal with one man armed with a bike lock. The videos don't show any verbal warning issued, just shots fired.

Virtual737 wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

Right. Don't shoot now -- hesitate to explore all PC options and let the (original) victim's head get bashed in while waiting for the social worker to arrive. You haven't a clue.

"Shooting now" in a crowded mall when the perpetrator no longer posed a threat is the only possible option that a trained officer has that you wouldn't call "PC" ?

FTFY.

A terrible mix of circumstances caused the death of an innocent 14 year old woman. Police are not infallible. They make judgments based on experience and training. Unintended events can happen. There can be some attempt of financial compensation from the City but that is never going to be enough. One can debate the actions of the police officers there, review what happened to try to limit the deaths of innocents in future confrontations.

ltbewr wrote:

Police are not infallible.

I think I heard something...the sound of many members fainting, gasping, and clutching their pearls because such words were uttered...

ltbewr wrote:

One can debate the actions of the police officers there, review what happened to try to limit the deaths of innocents in future confrontations.

But if some people had their way, they'd be shielded forever, with innocent victims treated as collateral, because police ARE infallible and if you disagree, then you're a criminal.

NIKV69 wrote:

What accountability? Do you want to throw the officer in jail? Dealing with the criminals that have been created by this coddle the bad guy, little to no bail and attack law enforcement mindset isn't easy but there is no criminality here. No matter how much Ben Crump says there is.

That’s an easy one the officer is fired and then charged with manslaughter. He recklessly discharged his weapon in a public place. No way would he get with this in most developed countries.

And yet, police in all comparable countries solve these situations without killing people every day. Even social workers in the US and other countries do this continously. Why is this so difficult for american poloce officers? Is it because they are uneducated and haven’t got a clue compared to police elsewhere?

NIKV69 wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

It’s no wonder with responses like this there is have a ‘shoot now ask questions later’ culture.

Right. Don't shoot now -- hesitate to explore all PC options and let the (original) victim's head get bashed in while waiting for the social worker to arrive. You haven't a clue.

The new propaganda term is "de-escalation" it is used by most in the media that don't understand police work. It will also lead to many more people being hurt or killed.

Elkadad313 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

What accountability? Do you want to throw the officer in jail? Dealing with the criminals that have been created by this coddle the bad guy, little to no bail and attack law enforcement mindset isn't easy but there is no criminality here. No matter how much Ben Crump says there is.

So you’d prefer to coddle the cops then? Should a gun user be accountable for their actions or not? Police held to a different, lower, standard than the general public? Unless of course all accidental killings should just be left.

This is close to my heart because just last week a shooting was prevented at my daughters school.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If it were your daughter being dragged and beaten with a bike lock, you would be grateful the police shot the offender. In a chaotic situation such as this, it is possible for an accident to occur, and that's what it was -- an accident. If you were in the officers' shoes, how would you have handled this? First waiting for a social worker affords no protection for the original victim. How would she have fared if the police did not intervene?

This is one of those only in American situations, police in every other developed country would not shoot a person armed with a bike lock. In NZ that guy would have been disarmed by a police dog.

Yet again it’s a case of shoot first American style policing.

NIKV69 wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

It’s no wonder with responses like this there is have a ‘shoot now ask questions later’ culture.

Right. Don't shoot now -- hesitate to explore all PC options and let the (original) victim's head get bashed in while waiting for the social worker to arrive. You haven't a clue.

The new propaganda term is "de-escalation" it is used by most in the media that don't understand police work. It will also lead to many more people being hurt or killed.

Or it will end up with a lot less people being killed, like in most other peer nations.

M564038 wrote:

And yet, police in all comparable countries solve these situations without killing people every day. Even social workers in the US and other countries do this continously. Why is this so difficult for american poloce officers? Is it because they are uneducated and haven’t got a clue compared to police elsewhere?

NIKV69 wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

Right. Don't shoot now -- hesitate to explore all PC options and let the (original) victim's head get bashed in while waiting for the social worker to arrive. You haven't a clue.

The new propaganda term is "de-escalation" it is used by most in the media that don't understand police work. It will also lead to many more people being hurt or killed.

That's not really a great comparison as police in other developed countries don't have to worry about being shot the way police in the United States do. An average of 245 police officers are shot in the line of duty each year in the United States (source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... 9133.12507 )

In a nation when statistically everyone the police encounter is likely to be armed, the police are going to understandably be on edge when trying to arrest people who are resisting them.

Kiwirob wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

So you’d prefer to coddle the cops then? Should a gun user be accountable for their actions or not? Police held to a different, lower, standard than the general public? Unless of course all accidental killings should just be left.

This is close to my heart because just last week a shooting was prevented at my daughters school.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If it were your daughter being dragged and beaten with a bike lock, you would be grateful the police shot the offender. In a chaotic situation such as this, it is possible for an accident to occur, and that's what it was -- an accident. If you were in the officers' shoes, how would you have handled this? First waiting for a social worker affords no protection for the original victim. How would she have fared if the police did not intervene?

This is one of those only in American situations, police in every other developed country would not shoot a person armed with a bike lock. In NZ that guy would have been disarmed by a police dog.

Yet again it’s a case of shoot first American style policing.

As I mentioned earlier I don't think the officer should have shot (at least, not right away) in this case, but once again you can't really compare policing in a society in which an average of 5 police officers are shot per week to a society in which one or two police officers may be shot in a year.

In this particular case, the police were responding to 911 calls about a potential "active shooter". It is reasonable that after getting this information and seeing the chaos in the store and a bleeding victim on the ground, the officer may have thought that the man with the bike lock was indeed an active shooter as this is not uncommon here, unfortunately.

TriJets wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

If it were your daughter being dragged and beaten with a bike lock, you would be grateful the police shot the offender. In a chaotic situation such as this, it is possible for an accident to occur, and that's what it was -- an accident. If you were in the officers' shoes, how would you have handled this? First waiting for a social worker affords no protection for the original victim. How would she have fared if the police did not intervene?

This is one of those only in American situations, police in every other developed country would not shoot a person armed with a bike lock. In NZ that guy would have been disarmed by a police dog.

Yet again it’s a case of shoot first American style policing.

As I mentioned earlier I don't think the officer should have shot (at least, not right away) in this case, but once again you can't really compare policing in a society in which an average of 5 police officers are shot per week to a society in which one or two police officers may be shot in a year.

In this particular case, the police were responding to 911 calls about a potential "active shooter". It is reasonable that after getting this information and seeing the chaos in the store and a bleeding victim on the ground, the officer may have thought that the man with the bike lock was indeed an active shooter as this is not uncommon here, unfortunately.

I disagree I think the average cop in the US is poorly trained, they make poor on the spot decisions which often result in people being killed. If weapons are being discharged then thee needs to be specialist officers to deal with them. This incident could have been resolved with a police dog, ditto for the guy escaping on the mobility scooter a few weeks ago, but no police had to shoot him 9 times in the back.

Kiwirob wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

This is one of those only in American situations, police in every other developed country would not shoot a person armed with a bike lock. In NZ that guy would have been disarmed by a police dog.

Yet again it’s a case of shoot first American style policing.

As I mentioned earlier I don't think the officer should have shot (at least, not right away) in this case, but once again you can't really compare policing in a society in which an average of 5 police officers are shot per week to a society in which one or two police officers may be shot in a year.

In this particular case, the police were responding to 911 calls about a potential "active shooter". It is reasonable that after getting this information and seeing the chaos in the store and a bleeding victim on the ground, the officer may have thought that the man with the bike lock was indeed an active shooter as this is not uncommon here, unfortunately.

I disagree I think the average cop in the US is poorly trained, they make poor on the spot decisions which often result in people being killed. If weapons are being discharged then thee needs to be specialist officers to deal with them. This incident could have been resolved with a police dog, ditto for the guy escaping on the mobility scooter a few weeks ago, but no police had to shoot him 9 times in the back.

Not sure what you mean by "specialist officers". When responding to active shooters the first officer on scene is supposed to immediately run towards gunfire and engage the shooter. There is no time to wait for SWAT to arrive, as we saw in Parkland. That strategy went out the window with Columbine.

Uneducated police and a paranoid nation with a wild west millitaristic, macho attitude and guns everywhere, what could go wrong..

TriJets wrote:

M564038 wrote:

And yet, police in all comparable countries solve these situations without killing people every day. Even social workers in the US and other countries do this continously. Why is this so difficult for american poloce officers? Is it because they are uneducated and haven’t got a clue compared to police elsewhere?

NIKV69 wrote:

The new propaganda term is "de-escalation" it is used by most in the media that don't understand police work. It will also lead to many more people being hurt or killed.

That's not really a great comparison as police in other developed countries don't have to worry about being shot the way police in the United States do. An average of 245 police officers are shot in the line of duty each year in the United States (source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... 9133.12507 )

In a nation when statistically everyone the police encounter is likely to be armed, the police are going to understandably be on edge when trying to arrest people who are resisting them.

NIKV69 wrote:

The new propaganda term is "de-escalation" it is used by most in the media that don't understand police work. It will also lead to many more people being hurt or killed.

More killing prevents more death over de-escalation? I think it might be you that misunderstands a term and concept that is practiced the world over with very different and more positive results. Only in a country so poisoned by a perverse gun culture would seemingly intelligent people resort to such illogical statements, especially...especially, in the face of proven approaches to identical situations by police in other nations.

Here's another hero for you, this one has four trophies and an Officer of The Year Award so far. Zero independent oversight, zero accountability, maximum death. How many thousands of deaths did this guy prevent when he bagged his four award-winning kills? I don't mean to cause an aneurism but curious to see the mental gymnastics in action.

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2021/12/p ... times.html

wingman wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

The new propaganda term is "de-escalation" it is used by most in the media that don't understand police work. It will also lead to many more people being hurt or killed.

More killing prevents more death over de-escalation? I think it might be you that misunderstands a term and concept that is practiced the world over with very different and more positive results. Only in a country so poisoned by a perverse gun culture would seemingly intelligent people resort to such illogical statements, especially...especially, in the face of proven approaches to identical situations by police in other nations.

Here's another hero for you, this one has four trophies and an Officer of The Year Award so far. Zero independent oversight, zero accountability, maximum death. How many thousands of deaths did this guy prevent when he bagged his four award-winning kills? I don't mean to cause an aneurism but curious to see the mental gymnastics in action.

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2021/12/p ... times.html

That's the thing. There are no "identical situations". Each situation is by definition entirely different. That's why we're confronted with examples of the police in one country being able to stop a man armed with a knife using non-lethal force, while in another country a man armed with a knife kills several police officers before he is finally shot and killed. The circumstances, backgrounds, etc are always different. No two are alike.

Kiwirob wrote:

This is one of those only in American situations, police in every other developed country would not shoot a person armed with a bike lock. In NZ that guy would have been disarmed by a police dog.

Yet again it’s a case of shoot first American style policing.

It is my understanding the original victim (actually, the 3rd original victim) was being dragged toward the dressing rooms while being beaten with a bicycle lock. If this had been your (wife, mother, daughter, sister) would you have been in agreement if the police decided to take no action until a police dog arrived?

Elkadad313 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

This is one of those only in American situations, police in every other developed country would not shoot a person armed with a bike lock. In NZ that guy would have been disarmed by a police dog.

Yet again it’s a case of shoot first American style policing.

It is my understanding the original victim (actually, the 3rd original victim) was being dragged toward the dressing rooms while being beaten with a bicycle lock. If this had been your (wife, mother, daughter, sister) would you have been in agreement if the police decided to take no action until a police dog arrived?

The suspect had already let that victim go and was running away. He was shot in front of the dressing rooms. It is an accidental death, but it is still manslaughter, as the police weapon penetrated an area where people were hiding for safety. Does the police officer get a "no fault" on the shooting merely because he was aiming at a running suspect away from any victim with no gun ?

Elkadad313 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

This is one of those only in American situations, police in every other developed country would not shoot a person armed with a bike lock. In NZ that guy would have been disarmed by a police dog.

Yet again it’s a case of shoot first American style policing.

It is my understanding the original victim (actually, the 3rd original victim) was being dragged toward the dressing rooms while being beaten with a bicycle lock. If this had been your (wife, mother, daughter, sister) would you have been in agreement if the police decided to take no action until a police dog arrived?

You should really watch the bodycam footage.

The perp deserved all he got. The copper that pushed through at least 2 or 3 other officers with handguns with all the eagerness in the world to be point man and discharge a high powered rifle 3 times in a department store with cubicles reasonable well in view fucked up. At the point he fired he had been on the scene less time than the officers he pushed past and fired his 3 shots as soon as he saw the perp.

I'm not saying he had an easy job, but if that is the result of world class training then WTF.

Two points;

1. Do they normally use what looks like an M16?.

2. How does having a cycle lock/chain became an active shooter?.

bennett123 wrote:

Two points;

1. Do they normally use what looks like an M16?.

2. How does having a cycle lock/chain became an active shooter?.

1. They have a rifle available to them in their squad car and it is their discretion whether or not to grab it. The LAPD and most other agencies started issuing rifles to their patrol officers after the North Hollywood shootout in the early 1990s...the LAPD officers responding to the incident only had pistols and shotguns and were completely outgunned by two men armed with automatic rifles. The LAPD officers eventually had to go to a local pawn shop and borrow some rifles in order to take the gunmen down.

From wikipedia:

The North Hollywood shootout was a confrontation between two heavily armed and armored bank robbers, Larry Phillips Jr. and Emil Mătăsăreanu, and members of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in the North Hollywood district of Los Angeles, California, United States on February 28, 1997. Both robbers were killed, 12 police officers and eight civilians were injured, and numerous vehicles and other property were damaged or destroyed by the nearly 2,000 rounds of ammunition fired by the robbers and police.[1]

At 9:17 a.m., Phillips and Mătăsăreanu entered and robbed Bank of America's North Hollywood branch. The two robbers were confronted by LAPD officers when they exited the bank and a shootout between the officers and robbers ensued. The robbers attempted to flee the scene, Phillips on foot and Mătăsăreanu in their getaway vehicle, while continuing to exchange fire with the officers. The shootout continued onto a residential street adjacent to the bank until Phillips, mortally wounded, succumbed to a self-inflicted gunshot wound; Mătăsăreanu was incapacitated by officers three blocks away and subsequently bled to death before the arrival of paramedics more than an hour later.

Phillips and Mătăsăreanu are believed to have robbed at least two other banks using similar methods for entry past "bullet-proof" security doors, taking control of the entire bank, and firing weapons illegally modified to enable fully-automatic fire. They were also suspects in two armored car robberies.[2]

Standard issue sidearms carried by most local patrol officers at the time were 9mm pistols or .38 Special revolvers; some patrol cars were also equipped with a 12-gauge shotgun. Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried Norinco Type 56 rifles (a Chinese AK-47 variant), a Bushmaster XM-15 Dissipator with a 100-round drum magazine, and a Heckler & Koch HK91 rifle, all of which had been illegally modified to be select-fire capable, as well as a Beretta 92FS pistol. The robbers wore homemade body armor which successfully protected them from handgun rounds and shotgun pellets fired by the responding officers. A law enforcement SWAT team eventually arrived with higher caliber weapons, but they had little effect on the heavy body armor used by the two perpetrators. The SWAT team also commandeered an armored car to evacuate the wounded. Several officers additionally equipped themselves with AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles from a nearby firearms dealer. The incident sparked debate on the need for patrol officers to upgrade their firepower in preparation for similar situations in the future.[1]

Due to the large number of injuries, rounds fired, weapons used, and overall length of the shootout, it is regarded as one of the most intense gun battles in U.S. police history.[3] Combined, the two men had fired approximately 1,100 rounds in total, while approximately 650 rounds were fired by police.[4] Another estimate is that a total of nearly 2,000 rounds were fired collectively.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

2. My guess is that the 911 callers heard loud banging and screaming in a public area which prompted them to report an active shooter.

Elkadad313 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

This is one of those only in American situations, police in every other developed country would not shoot a person armed with a bike lock. In NZ that guy would have been disarmed by a police dog.

Yet again it’s a case of shoot first American style policing.

It is my understanding the original victim (actually, the 3rd original victim) was being dragged toward the dressing rooms while being beaten with a bicycle lock. If this had been your (wife, mother, daughter, sister) would you have been in agreement if the police decided to take no action until a police dog arrived?

Watch the body cam footage, that’s not what is shown.

Kiwirob wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

This is one of those only in American situations, police in every other developed country would not shoot a person armed with a bike lock. In NZ that guy would have been disarmed by a police dog.

Yet again it’s a case of shoot first American style policing.

It is my understanding the original victim (actually, the 3rd original victim) was being dragged toward the dressing rooms while being beaten with a bicycle lock. If this had been your (wife, mother, daughter, sister) would you have been in agreement if the police decided to take no action until a police dog arrived?

Watch the body cam footage, that’s not what is shown.

I have many times. He is dragging her and hitting her in the head causing her to bleed all over the place which is clearly seen. The officer then approaches just as he runs from the victim. You are not a police officer and you don't know how fast these things happen or how fast a bad guy can get to the officer or someone else. To armchair QB cops because a poor girl was hit by a stray bullet is ridiculous. You don't know how you or anyone else would react to the situation and to infer it's better to hang back and try other methods to contain a person who has a deadly weapon is just place lunacy.

[url][/url]

Elkadad313 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

It’s no wonder with responses like this there is have a ‘shoot now ask questions later’ culture.

Right. Don't shoot now -- hesitate to explore all PC options and let the (original) victim's head get bashed in while waiting for the social worker to arrive. You haven't a clue.

It’s not about being pc like your talk shows say, a child literally got her brains blown out

casinterest wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

This is one of those only in American situations, police in every other developed country would not shoot a person armed with a bike lock. In NZ that guy would have been disarmed by a police dog.

Yet again it’s a case of shoot first American style policing.

It is my understanding the original victim (actually, the 3rd original victim) was being dragged toward the dressing rooms while being beaten with a bicycle lock. If this had been your (wife, mother, daughter, sister) would you have been in agreement if the police decided to take no action until a police dog arrived?

The suspect had already let that victim go and was running away. He was shot in front of the dressing rooms. It is an accidental death, but it is still manslaughter, as the police weapon penetrated an area where people were hiding for safety. Does the police officer get a "no fault" on the shooting merely because he was aiming at a running suspect away from any victim with no gun ?

I stated it was my understanding. If that wasn't the case I stand corrected.

Anyone happen to know what kind of ammo the LAPD uses in those rifles. I had always been told LEOs use Hollow points to avoid over penetration and lessen the risk from ricochets. But perhaps that is untrue either of the ammo or the departments.

ArchGuy1 wrote:

On December 23, a stray bullet from police officers killed a 14 year old girl in a dressing room at a shopping mall in Los Angeles. This occured when officers were chasing a suspect who committed assault with a deadly weapon. The shooting of the 14 year old girl was ruled to be a homicide. Very sad to see something like this happen and hopefully, accountability will set in.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go ... d=81971514

Yeah, I wouldn't consider this a stray bullet killing as that is a mischaracterization. More a case of being the unintended consequence of being in the line of fire.

Seems to me the number of officers present, and within close proximity of the perpetrator would've presented other response options.

No one had a taser?

dampfnudel wrote:

No one had a taser?

Maybe they all thought they’d drawn their tasers?

TriJets wrote:

Police here have to deal with the fact that any criminal they encounter is highly likely to be armed with a firearm.

But the United States as a society decided they wanted guns. This isn't an excuse. It would be like if here in Canada we had a right to pet bears, and after many innocent people die in bear traps, because there is no adequate way to control the bears, people said "Well, the fact of the matter is that per capita, we have more bears!" Yeah, no shit!!

NIKV69 wrote:

What accountability? Do you want to throw the officer in jail? Dealing with the criminals that have been created by this coddle the bad guy, little to no bail and attack law enforcement mindset isn't easy but there is no criminality here. No matter how much Ben Crump says there is.

Coddle the bad guy? Have you ever been to jail? It’s horrific and shocking that such appalling conditions exist in America. Criminals are not coddled in this country, period.

Kiwirob wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

This is one of those only in American situations, police in every other developed country would not shoot a person armed with a bike lock. In NZ that guy would have been disarmed by a police dog.

Yet again it’s a case of shoot first American style policing.

As I mentioned earlier I don't think the officer should have shot (at least, not right away) in this case, but once again you can't really compare policing in a society in which an average of 5 police officers are shot per week to a society in which one or two police officers may be shot in a year.

In this particular case, the police were responding to 911 calls about a potential "active shooter". It is reasonable that after getting this information and seeing the chaos in the store and a bleeding victim on the ground, the officer may have thought that the man with the bike lock was indeed an active shooter as this is not uncommon here, unfortunately.

I disagree I think the average cop in the US is poorly trained, they make poor on the spot decisions which often result in people being killed. If weapons are being discharged then thee needs to be specialist officers to deal with them. This incident could have been resolved with a police dog, ditto for the guy escaping on the mobility scooter a few weeks ago, but no police had to shoot him 9 times in the back.

In some states, it takes longer to get a cosmetology license.

meecrob wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Police here have to deal with the fact that any criminal they encounter is highly likely to be armed with a firearm.

But the United States as a society decided they wanted guns. This isn't an excuse. It would be like if here in Canada we had a right to pet bears, and after many innocent people die in bear traps, because there is no adequate way to control the bears, people said "Well, the fact of the matter is that per capita, we have more bears!" Yeah, no shit!!

It isn't an excuse at all....it is reality. Cops don't forfeit the right to self-defense just because many criminals are armed.

TriJets wrote:

meecrob wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Police here have to deal with the fact that any criminal they encounter is highly likely to be armed with a firearm.

But the United States as a society decided they wanted guns. This isn't an excuse. It would be like if here in Canada we had a right to pet bears, and after many innocent people die in bear traps, because there is no adequate way to control the bears, people said "Well, the fact of the matter is that per capita, we have more bears!" Yeah, no shit!!

It isn't an excuse at all....it is reality. Cops don't forfeit the right to self-defense just because many criminals are armed.

So if less criminals had access to guns this factor would be reduced.

How can this be acheived?.

CitizenJustin wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Coddle the bad guy? Have you ever been to jail? It’s horrific and shocking that such appalling conditions exist in America. Criminals are not coddled in this country, period.

No I don’t want to go to jail hence I don’t commit crimes. More and more no bail legislation is going to lead to more crime. It is a shame.