McElroy said:
So the justification is that it was likely he would've taken children hostage or otherwise threaten their safety. Better safe than sorry when lives are on the line, I guess. Far from the most absurd American death-by-cop incidents that I've seen.
I've stated many times that I was selected due to my test scores and my psyche evaluation to enter the NYPD academy, and only didn't do so because it just so happen to coincide with the shooting death of my own Sifu's father, Kenneth Chamberlain [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Kenneth_Chamberlain_Sr.]
Without giving too much away, they purposefully ask that question on the test and roundabout in the evaluations. You need to SEE danger, not suppose it. For the primary reason that information is often wrong. I.e., this entire case.
They gave the information that this boy normally has a gun. Whether that's true, I do not know. Nor do the cops. But when you get that call, you approach the situation according to that call. And it colors your perception. It is not better safe than sorry when lives are on the line because his life was on the line and was pushed off.
Better safe than sorry has led to a number of undeserved deaths. Including THIS ONE, because he wasn't armed. Better Safe than Sorry kills more people than it actually protects.
Ask any number of the poor individuals who have shot their own family members in their home because they heard a sound late at night.
Leg End said:
]Initially, I did read the quoted bit first, then took a look into the article for more info, because just the initial quotation definitely made it out to likely be a completely god-awful shoot on multiple levels. But the rest of the article (and the bit you've quoted here) adds a fair bit of context to the matter. Instead of it being a likely unarmed young man being gunned down by police in a misuse of lethal force, you instead have a person:
Wanted for questioning in a homicide case.
Has just bolted from police.
(Allegedly) Known for carrying firearms.
And has just jumped the fence into a daycare.
I dunno about you guys, but that muddies up the water quite a bit for me. Laws vary greatly at state and local levels, and I'm not versed enough to say if he is truly legally in the right, but morally, I think the officer may have a bit of a foothold here. This is all of course with information at the time of the shooting, because that's what matters.
Again, I said I don't know how they do it in California. But real talk, if they do it that way, they do it wrong.
Information is wrong so very often. That's one of the reasons why you're supposed to actually see danger before you actually respond with force. Not predict. Or else you get more Daniel Shavers [https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-daniel-shaver-police-video-20171208-story.html].
And lastly, the Daycare thing is actually why I would do my best to get to him as quick as possible rather than discharging a firearm. Because again, that's firing a weapon near children. A missed shot is something we definitely don't want to think about in those situations.
But that wouldn't even have mattered [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/25/police-shooting-video-isiah-murrietta-golding-fresno-california].
Lawyers for the family noted that the shooting happened on a Saturday while the daycare center was empty. And Chandler said it was "despicable" that police were still trying to attack Murrietta-Golding's character, saying the allegations and insinuations about what had happened prior were not relevant to the officer's decision to kill the boy as he fled.
And also from the article.
The footage shows the teenager running from officers, jumping a fence, falling to the ground and continuing to flee. Murrietta-Golding was an estimated 35 feet away from the officers when one of them fired a single bullet into his head. The officer then hopped the fence, approached the boy?s limp body and handcuffed his hands behind his back.
...
Jerry Dyer, the Fresno police chief at the time of the shooting, has previously stated that the officer, Sgt Ray Villalvazo, thought "he was about to be shot". Dyer claimed the teen "reached into his waistband several times", according to the Fresno Bee. But the new footage, which Chandler obtained in the process of a civil lawsuit against the department, only shows him running away as he appears to be holding up his pants. He was unarmed.
Batou667 said:
Whaddya know, add a bit of context and it's almost as if not all American cops gun down minority kids for fun.
The kid was known to have access to firearms and was wanted in connection with a recent homicide. Not jaywalking or selling lemonade without a permit, or running from cops. That was the trigger, not the underlying cause of the shooting.
Imagine if the cops hadn't shot and the kid was armed. Next morning's headline: "Incompetent cops stand idly by as armed felon runs amok in daycare". Obsidian: I get that you're making a point here but you should choose your battles. This example doesn't really work as a clear cut piece of evidence either way, I feel.
If you can point out where anyone suggested that, great. Take it up with them. Or hell, even me. I try to speak in generalities, but I'm not perfect. If I thought police were all monsters, I wouldn't have tried to become one. But I will not lie and say that overall, the killing of minorities is treated with less impact than others. Not all cops are racists. Not every officer gets away when they do an unjust killing. But enough happens that people actually get shocked when there is some measure of justice done after one of these 'tragic mistake' killings. Holding Police to task when they commit crimes is not tantamount what you suggested.
As just pointed out, it was a Saturday and no one was there.
I never spoke about it being a clear cut piece of evidence. I'm straight up talking about the procedure is wrong.
Quoting myself.
Golding was wanted for questioning. I am not aware how they do it in California, but in the NYPD there has to be a display of a threat. At least, that's what's on the books. You're supposed to meet with equal or lesser force.
A bullet in the back is not equal or lesser force than running away.
I feel more and more we're living in a Judge Dredd misinterpretation than a reality with laws. The harm that the police do for their own reputation is astounding. I hope for justice, but I don't hold my breath.
I just stated to Leg End, the officer said he was afraid he was about to get shot, but he didn't SEE a weapon. He has his perception that was tainted by the information he received which made him see everything in a way that most people who see the video does not see.
Murrietta-Golding's pants are visibly sliding off his body as he runs. He actually looks at the cops for the briefest of moments and continues moving. That is the most important part to me. Because to feel my life is in danger, someone needs to position themselves like they are trying to put a threat on my life. If you look back to me, stop and try to pull out something? Yeah. I would feel threatened at that point.
If you look back at me for not even a second, turn away, and keep barreling away from me? I. Do. Not. Feel. Threatened. There is no confrontation. This is absolute avoidance. For Sgt Ray Villalvazo to say that after the scene as it played out, either case he's a bad cop.
Either he lied and he's a bad cop because he wanted to cover his ass the way he was taught. Or he's a bad cop because he can't read a situation properly for even the split second he has. And how do we know that? As easily as the other police officer on the scene.
Because he read the situation properly and tried to hop the fence.
It's right there in the video. If Murrietta-Golding was presenting as such a threat, that other officer would have seen it the same way and drawn his weapon because obviously this guy was about to shoot his fellow officer. He would have drawn his gun and fire just as well.
But no. That officer just saw some kid running because he was scared. And chased him down like his job required of him.
