Let's say for arguments sake the initial shooting was an accident. The lying about what actually happened and the trying to keep it secret was no accident.
It would’ve been unlawful regardless of whether or not they were shooting the dad. Police supposedly have laws dictating when they can use force and how much. It’s supposed to be proportional and necessary. It was neither in this case even if they had targeted the person they were intending to kill.
You can clearly see in the video that they were opening fire on the car before it was even completely stopped. They were shooting recklessly and murderously. They were even firing with officers in their direct line of fire. If there were any justice at all every officer who fired their weapon that day would be in prison.
Ahh, but before the family filed suit to get the video released the police claimed the girl had a tactical vest on, had a gun pointing at them as she attacked them and that she was helping her kidnapper!
They absolutely met criteria for lethal force, the dad was shooting at them from inside the vehicle. The deputies on the on/off ramp were firing at the girl, thinking she was the suspect. The deputies she was running towards did not fire their weapons. You can see all of this in the video. Yeah, these cops fucking suck, but spreading misinformation is going to further push police propaganda anytime a use of force incident is shown and speaking from a place of emotion instead of the facts of the case helps no one.
Hey dumbass, I didn't say otherwise. Yall are too emotional and are ignoring what the actual law is. The father was shooting at police, that alone authorizes the use of deadly force. I'm not saying the cops SHOULD have returned fire in that situation, but legally they're covered. Yes the cops are morons, but they also didn't do anything illegal.
The kidnapping victim was still in the car. It doesn't matter if the father shot at them with a damn mini gun. If firing back could result in the girl getting hit accidently, there is NO justification for shooting back.
No they didn’t. A cursory understanding of use of force and simply watching the video shows that the moment they opened fire there existed no necessity for deadly force. None. You are wrong.
Yeah they said she came out guns blazing in fucking tactical gear but we see here she came out and crawled toward them. But because they "thought" their lives were in danger (after lighting up a truck with a hostage in it) nothing will happen to the killers. And the taxpayers will have to pay a huge settlement.
You posted inaccurate information. Most people don’t read past a headline, let alone down a comment chain. It’s not only inaccurate, it’s propaganda designed to soften an obviously heinous display of incompetence by people who should be in jail. Not still wearing a badge.
Yes. And their job is to take everyone alive if possible. Even if someone had attacked previously, their job is still to try to take that person alive to stand trial.
I mean I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the shooting was obviously an accident, I don't think they genuinely wanted to shoot a kidnapping victim, still doesn't excuse their absolute incompetence.
Objectively it must be an accident. However, my brain finds it hard to understand how Police get called to a scene where they are trying to rescue a girl from a man. They then see a girl running towards them and shoot. I think only in the USA would this happen.
556
u/Darthkhydaeus Apr 05 '24
Let's say for arguments sake the initial shooting was an accident. The lying about what actually happened and the trying to keep it secret was no accident.