Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As a note...from what I understand. The guy with the truck was the autistic one. The one who was shot was the worker trying to get things under control.

There is also the question of if this would have happened if they were white? (Along all stops...from the false claim of having a gun to the officers keeping the weapons out, etc...)

Some quotes from an article I read.

"Why did you shoot me?"
"I don't know".

 Frazzled wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Good money it was a Negligent Discharge.

Three times with a Glock semi? I call bull gak-

"All he has is a toy truck in his hand,” Kinsey can be heard saying in the video as police officers with semiautomatic rifles hide behind telephone poles approximately 30 feet away.

“That’s all it is,” the caretaker says. “There is no need for guns.”

Seconds later, off camera, one of the officers fired his weapon three times."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/21/fla-police-shoot-black-man-with-his-hands-up-as-he-tries-to-help-autistic-patient/#comments

I just read through that whole article, which coincides with other ones I have read, except the "rifles" part. 3 rounds from one officer or 3 rounds from separate shooters? Not sure why that odd number was fired, and how that could possibly be a negligent discharge. Possible negligent discharge resulted in another officer shooting a controlled, unaimed pair, due to the fact the victim was only shot 1 time, in a very odd location.

Second issue is, an unarmed man, who was shot was then left bleeding on the ground. That is also no where near policy. Warning, speculation ahead: Officers wanted him to bleed out so there was no one to tell a different side of the story.

We are even required to give aid to enemy combatants once we shoot them, if they don't die. I mean why the feth would they not apply pressure to the wound? he is in handcuffs. Sounds pretty bitchmade on the part of the officers to me.
All who fired a weapon, whether it be 1 or multiple should receive the same charge as far as attempted murder is concerned.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
"Why did you shoot me?"
"I don't know".

Take that answer on its face value - it indicates a mistake.

 skyth wrote:
As a note...from what I understand. The guy with the truck was the autistic one. The one who was shot was the worker trying to get things under control.

There is also the question of if this would have happened if they were white? (Along all stops...from the false claim of having a gun to the officers keeping the weapons out, etc...)

Probably. The shooting seemed pretty trigger happy and didn't seem to have any particular correlation to race. Such a negligent discharge could have also hit a bystander or other officer.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Good money it was a Negligent Discharge.

Three times with a Glock semi? I call bull gak-

"All he has is a toy truck in his hand,” Kinsey can be heard saying in the video as police officers with semiautomatic rifles hide behind telephone poles approximately 30 feet away.

“That’s all it is,” the caretaker says. “There is no need for guns.”

Seconds later, off camera, one of the officers fired his weapon three times."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/21/fla-police-shoot-black-man-with-his-hands-up-as-he-tries-to-help-autistic-patient/#comments

Still sticking with it. From a Lawyer POV. That's more cash cow he/she can hit up.

Lack of Training
Improper Training
Lack of Visual Confirmation
Lack of Motive to Draw Weapons
Negligent Discharge causing injuries
Shooter trigger control
etc etc etc

This is a rare instance me and you see eye to eye Jihadin. My guess, one negligent discharge, another followed suit. No POS ID of a weapon, aggressive posture unnecessary and poor weapons handling. negligence all around.

 redleger wrote:
should receive the same charge as far as attempted murder is concerned

Murder has an intent component. If it is not present then it would be unethical for the prosecutor to bring that charge. As usual, all the key details are missing.

 Manchu wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
"Why did you shoot me?"
"I don't know".

Take that answer on its face value - it indicates a mistake.

Thats why some of us seem to think it was a ND(negligent discharge)

 redleger wrote:
Thats why some of us seem to think it was a ND(negligent discharge)

Yeah I think this is the most likely explanation. But we've got papers to sell!

 redleger wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
"Why did you shoot me?"
"I don't know".

Take that answer on its face value - it indicates a mistake.

Thats why some of us seem to think it was a ND(negligent discharge)

Then why put the victim of a Negligent Discharge in handcuffs and fail to render aid? There was no crime to justify being shot, and if the shot was a mistake, there is still no crime. If he didn't intend to shoot, then he wouldn't need to cuff and let the victim bleed unnecessarily.

Shooting then denying aid, further aggravating the victim via cuffing and letting him bleed like an animal shows intent to shoot and no remorse or behavior to indicate it was an unintended discharge.

nkelsch wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
"Why did you shoot me?"
"I don't know".

Take that answer on its face value - it indicates a mistake.

Thats why some of us seem to think it was a ND(negligent discharge)

Then why put the victim of a Negligent Discharge in handcuffs and fail to render aid? There was no crime to justify being shot, and if the shot was a mistake, there is still no crime. If he didn't intend to shoot, then he wouldn't need to cuff and let the victim bleed unnecessarily.

Shooting then denying aid, further aggravating the victim via cuffing and letting him bleed like an animal shows intent to shoot and no remorse or behavior to indicate it was an unintended discharge.

I don't think it would have mattered either way. Once that shot was fired they steered onto a course that they felt the need at the time to see through. Thats another reason I think they didn't render aid. I know Im fitting in pieces of an incomplete puzzle here, but they do fit in. I am not the cops are bad kind of person, but in this situation, I can see no other options. I guarantee that the man laying on the ground didn't get up and charge the officers. He had no weapon. So either an ND or intentional unjustified shooting. Either way is attempted murder or aggravated assault. Im not smart on judicial system, but whichever charge fits either scenario once the "truth" comes out.

 redleger wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Good money it was a Negligent Discharge.

Three times with a Glock semi? I call bull gak-

"All he has is a toy truck in his hand,” Kinsey can be heard saying in the video as police officers with semiautomatic rifles hide behind telephone poles approximately 30 feet away.

“That’s all it is,” the caretaker says. “There is no need for guns.”

Seconds later, off camera, one of the officers fired his weapon three times."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/21/fla-police-shoot-black-man-with-his-hands-up-as-he-tries-to-help-autistic-patient/#comments

I just read through that whole article, which coincides with other ones I have read, except the "rifles" part. 3 rounds from one officer or 3 rounds from separate shooters? Not sure why that odd number was fired, and how that could possibly be a negligent discharge. Possible negligent discharge resulted in another officer shooting a controlled, unaimed pair, due to the fact the victim was only shot 1 time, in a very odd location.

Second issue is, an unarmed man, who was shot was then left bleeding on the ground. That is also no where near policy. Warning, speculation ahead: Officers wanted him to bleed out so there was no one to tell a different side of the story.

We are even required to give aid to enemy combatants once we shoot them, if they don't die. I mean why the feth would they not apply pressure to the wound? he is in handcuffs. Sounds pretty bitchmade on the part of the officers to me.
All who fired a weapon, whether it be 1 or multiple should receive the same charge as far as attempted murder is concerned.

Rifles, I didn't even see that. That feels even more stupid.
Police will typically cuff the shoootee on the theory they are bad guys; are under arrest; and could conceivably fight or flight. I find your argument probably holds merit in some circumstances.

 kronk wrote:

Public social benefits
In addition to not being allowed to serve on a jury in most states, convicted felons are not allowed to apply for federal or state grants, live in public housing, or receive federal cash assistance, SSI or food stamps, among other benefits. Convicted felons also see their parental rights diminish, especially in the case of custody battles or divorces. A felony conviction is almost always a red flag for any judge to award custody to the other parent.
In addition to all of these lost rights, a felony conviction is a permanent stain on a person's record. Even if these are not necessary lost rights, he or she may find difficulty getting a lease, applying for a loan or filing official paperwork in any capacity.

The US really believes in rehabilitation don't they.....

 Manchu wrote:

 redleger wrote:
should receive the same charge as far as attempted murder is concerned

Murder has an intent component. If it is not present then it would be unethical for the prosecutor to bring that charge. As usual, all the key details are missing.

One can he argue he had the intent to shoot his ass as reflected by the fact he (or they) shot his ass three times. Thats an excellent indicator of intent to a jury.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Thats why some of us seem to think it was a ND(negligent discharge)

Yeah I think this is the most likely explanation. But we've got papers to sell!

If it were a courtoom and a noncivilian claimed it, he would still get convicted on attempted manslaughter.

He intentionally pointed a weapon at an unarmed man who presented no threat. Whether or not he intended to squeeze the trigger he can't beat a felony. The fact he put TWO more into the guy kind of blows the unintentional right out.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Public social benefits
In addition to not being allowed to serve on a jury in most states, convicted felons are not allowed to apply for federal or state grants, live in public housing, or receive federal cash assistance, SSI or food stamps, among other benefits. Convicted felons also see their parental rights diminish, especially in the case of custody battles or divorces. A felony conviction is almost always a red flag for any judge to award custody to the other parent.
In addition to all of these lost rights, a felony conviction is a permanent stain on a person's record. Even if these are not necessary lost rights, he or she may find difficulty getting a lease, applying for a loan or filing official paperwork in any capacity.

The US really believes in rehabilitation don't they.....

Yeah, they are really treated like outlaws. No wonder rehabilitation rates are so appaling. How can anyone break the cycle if they can't work or get assistance? How do you make someone feel like an integrated member of society if they can't vote, and are therefore told their opinion is worthless?

Herzlos wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Public social benefits
In addition to not being allowed to serve on a jury in most states, convicted felons are not allowed to apply for federal or state grants, live in public housing, or receive federal cash assistance, SSI or food stamps, among other benefits. Convicted felons also see their parental rights diminish, especially in the case of custody battles or divorces. A felony conviction is almost always a red flag for any judge to award custody to the other parent.
In addition to all of these lost rights, a felony conviction is a permanent stain on a person's record. Even if these are not necessary lost rights, he or she may find difficulty getting a lease, applying for a loan or filing official paperwork in any capacity.

The US really believes in rehabilitation don't they.....

Yeah, they are really treated like outlaws. No wonder rehabilitation rates are so appaling. How can anyone break the cycle if they can't work or get assistance? How do you make someone feel like an integrated member of society if they can't vote, and are therefore told their opinion is worthless?

Thats funny. Guess who else has found it legal to do so...oh yea the UK and the EU:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/06/uk-ban-on-prisoner-voting-is-lawful-eus-highest-court-rules

Getteth off thine high horse dude.

 Frazzled wrote:

Thats funny. Guess who else has found it legal to do so...oh yea the UK and the EU:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/06/uk-ban-on-prisoner-voting-is-lawful-eus-highest-court-rules

Getteth off thine high horse dude.

That's only for criminals that are currently serving a sentence or prisoners on remand. No high horse there.

 redleger wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Good money it was a Negligent Discharge.

Three times with a Glock semi? I call bull gak-

"All he has is a toy truck in his hand,” Kinsey can be heard saying in the video as police officers with semiautomatic rifles hide behind telephone poles approximately 30 feet away.

“That’s all it is,” the caretaker says. “There is no need for guns.”

Seconds later, off camera, one of the officers fired his weapon three times."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/21/fla-police-shoot-black-man-with-his-hands-up-as-he-tries-to-help-autistic-patient/#comments

I just read through that whole article, which coincides with other ones I have read, except the "rifles" part. 3 rounds from one officer or 3 rounds from separate shooters? Not sure why that odd number was fired, and how that could possibly be a negligent discharge. Possible negligent discharge resulted in another officer shooting a controlled, unaimed pair, due to the fact the victim was only shot 1 time, in a very odd location.

Second issue is, an unarmed man, who was shot was then left bleeding on the ground. That is also no where near policy. Warning, speculation ahead: Officers wanted him to bleed out so there was no one to tell a different side of the story.

We are even required to give aid to enemy combatants once we shoot them, if they don't die. I mean why the feth would they not apply pressure to the wound? he is in handcuffs. Sounds pretty bitchmade on the part of the officers to me.
All who fired a weapon, whether it be 1 or multiple should receive the same charge as far as attempted murder is concerned.

I think it is standard police to cuff a dangerous suspect even after the suspect was shot and to withold first aid to avoid any opportunity where the suspect even in a wounded state could attempt to harm officers and for officers to avoid contact with blood/fluids that could be diseased. I think once the man was shot the cops went ahead and treated the shooting as justified by default and therefore treated the man as if he was a dangerous suspect that warranted the shooting.

It's also possible that the first shot was an ND and the second and third shots were follow up shots from sympathetic fire not realizing the first shot was an ND. It's even possible that the one cop fired all 3 shots and didn't even realize he had fired the initial ND when the gunshot triggered his own trained response of follow up shots. The cop could have been approaching with his finger on the trigger, stumbled or freaked for whatever reason and BANG! has an ND without realzing it, gets spooked by his own shot not realizing in that instant that it was an ND and pops off 2 quick rounds at the man in a panic assuming the worst before realizing what had happened.

 Frazzled wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Public social benefits
In addition to not being allowed to serve on a jury in most states, convicted felons are not allowed to apply for federal or state grants, live in public housing, or receive federal cash assistance, SSI or food stamps, among other benefits. Convicted felons also see their parental rights diminish, especially in the case of custody battles or divorces. A felony conviction is almost always a red flag for any judge to award custody to the other parent.
In addition to all of these lost rights, a felony conviction is a permanent stain on a person's record. Even if these are not necessary lost rights, he or she may find difficulty getting a lease, applying for a loan or filing official paperwork in any capacity.

The US really believes in rehabilitation don't they.....

Yeah, they are really treated like outlaws. No wonder rehabilitation rates are so appaling. How can anyone break the cycle if they can't work or get assistance? How do you make someone feel like an integrated member of society if they can't vote, and are therefore told their opinion is worthless?

Thats funny. Guess who else has found it legal to do so...oh yea the UK and the EU:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/06/uk-ban-on-prisoner-voting-is-lawful-eus-highest-court-rules

Getteth off thine high horse dude.

That is:

1) not banning them from a whole host of other things that mean that people have no access to work, money or housing
2) not banning convicted fellons from voting ever, only whilst they are in prison. In the UK they are aloud to vote as soon as they leave prison.

I didn't realise the US had so much they banned people from after a conviction. It really is no surprise your reoffending rates are so high. They have nothing to lose and no other choice.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Good money it was a Negligent Discharge.

Three times with a Glock semi? I call bull gak-

"All he has is a toy truck in his hand,” Kinsey can be heard saying in the video as police officers with semiautomatic rifles hide behind telephone poles approximately 30 feet away.

“That’s all it is,” the caretaker says. “There is no need for guns.”

Seconds later, off camera, one of the officers fired his weapon three times."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/21/fla-police-shoot-black-man-with-his-hands-up-as-he-tries-to-help-autistic-patient/#comments

I just read through that whole article, which coincides with other ones I have read, except the "rifles" part. 3 rounds from one officer or 3 rounds from separate shooters? Not sure why that odd number was fired, and how that could possibly be a negligent discharge. Possible negligent discharge resulted in another officer shooting a controlled, unaimed pair, due to the fact the victim was only shot 1 time, in a very odd location.

Second issue is, an unarmed man, who was shot was then left bleeding on the ground. That is also no where near policy. Warning, speculation ahead: Officers wanted him to bleed out so there was no one to tell a different side of the story.

We are even required to give aid to enemy combatants once we shoot them, if they don't die. I mean why the feth would they not apply pressure to the wound? he is in handcuffs. Sounds pretty bitchmade on the part of the officers to me.
All who fired a weapon, whether it be 1 or multiple should receive the same charge as far as attempted murder is concerned.

I think it is standard police to cuff a dangerous suspect even after the suspect was shot and to withold first aid to avoid any opportunity where the suspect even in a wounded state could attempt to harm officers and for officers to avoid contact with blood/fluids that could be diseased. I think once the man was shot the cops went ahead and treated the shooting as justified by default and therefore treated the man as if he was a dangerous suspect that warranted the shooting.

It's also possible that the first shot was an ND and the second and third shots were follow up shots from sympathetic fire not realizing the first shot was an ND. It's even possible that the one cop fired all 3 shots and didn't even realize he had fired the initial ND when the gunshot triggered his own trained response of follow up shots. The cop could have been approaching with his finger on the trigger, stumbled or freaked for whatever reason and BANG! has an ND without realzing it, gets spooked by his own shot not realizing in that instant that it was an ND and pops off 2 quick rounds at the man in a panic assuming the worst before realizing what had happened.

Excellent. Now convict him of felony voluntary manslaughter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steve steveson wrote:

1) not banning them from a whole host of other things that mean that people have no access to work, money or housing
2) not banning convicted fellons from voting ever, only whilst they are in prison. In the UK they are aloud to vote as soon as they leave prison.

Fair enough. I stand corrected. I don't see the point in not allowing them to vote, etc. etc. modified for what their former crimes were (no government housing near children for child rapists etc.)

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Public social benefits
In addition to not being allowed to serve on a jury in most states, convicted felons are not allowed to apply for federal or state grants, live in public housing, or receive federal cash assistance, SSI or food stamps, among other benefits. Convicted felons also see their parental rights diminish, especially in the case of custody battles or divorces. A felony conviction is almost always a red flag for any judge to award custody to the other parent.
In addition to all of these lost rights, a felony conviction is a permanent stain on a person's record. Even if these are not necessary lost rights, he or she may find difficulty getting a lease, applying for a loan or filing official paperwork in any capacity.

The US really believes in rehabilitation don't they.....

Yeah, they are really treated like outlaws. No wonder rehabilitation rates are so appaling. How can anyone break the cycle if they can't work or get assistance? How do you make someone feel like an integrated member of society if they can't vote, and are therefore told their opinion is worthless?

Thats funny. Guess who else has found it legal to do so...oh yea the UK and the EU:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/06/uk-ban-on-prisoner-voting-is-lawful-eus-highest-court-rules

Getteth off thine high horse dude.

That is:

1) not banning them from a whole host of other things that mean that people have no access to work, money or housing
2) not banning convicted fellons from voting ever, only whilst they are in prison. In the UK they are aloud to vote as soon as they leave prison.

I didn't realise the US had so much they banned people from after a conviction. It really is no surprise your reoffending rates are so high. They have nothing to lose and no other choice.

Politicians love to pander to voters by being "tough on crime" which pretty much always means passing even more laws making more stuff illegal or already illegal stuff be extra double/triple illegal and treating anyone convicted of a crime as the worst subhuman scum imaginable. It's an incredibly counter productive vicious cycle. Prison here is really just warehousing people for a "timeout" before releasing them back into the public domain in a manner wherein they are significantly worse off than they were before they committed whatever crime they did. Most convicts end up getting released at some point especially with our overcrowded prisons but very few prisoners ever get any kind of programs or training to help them be better citizens once they're released. The problems with the system are clearly self evident yet nobody in power ever seems to want to do anything to change it.

 jmurph wrote:

 skyth wrote:
As a note...from what I understand. The guy with the truck was the autistic one. The one who was shot was the worker trying to get things under control.

There is also the question of if this would have happened if they were white? (Along all stops...from the false claim of having a gun to the officers keeping the weapons out, etc...)

Probably. The shooting seemed pretty trigger happy and didn't seem to have any particular correlation to race. Such a negligent discharge could have also hit a bystander or other officer.

But would they have been as trigger happy if it wasn't reported as there being a gun present?

Would they still have had their weapons out if it was someone white?

I mean, we will never know the answer...But it makes you wonder.

I can't figure out why they are trigger happy in the first place. There's literally no threat or potential threat here.

 Frazzled wrote:
I can't figure out why they are trigger happy in the first place. There's literally no threat or potential threat here.

Raging incompetence?

Poor training?

Yeah, and while race is a big deal, my issue in recent times is the trigger happy cops. There's a massive training and cultural issue here.

@Frazzled - the prosecutor would need intent to kill, not intent to fire the weapon and, while three shots could support an inference of intent to fire (or even kill) for the sake of charging the officer with attempted murder, the prosecutor would be a long, long way from a conviction - just on the facts, or lack of facts, we presently know, I would be shocked to see the officer charged with attempted murder; I could see attempted manslaughter but more likely some kind of criminal negligence, if anything at all; it's basically impossible to say without a more complete fact pattern ... as to whether there was a threat, it doesn't add up just based on the victim's account - there is literally no basis on which to conclude that the officer intended, in the ordinary sense of that word, to fire his weapon at the victim

It would also be nice they don't go for "attempted murder" so it can be let off by a technicality.

Use charges that will stick.

 skyth wrote:

 jmurph wrote:

 skyth wrote:
As a note...from what I understand. The guy with the truck was the autistic one. The one who was shot was the worker trying to get things under control.

There is also the question of if this would have happened if they were white? (Along all stops...from the false claim of having a gun to the officers keeping the weapons out, etc...)

Probably. The shooting seemed pretty trigger happy and didn't seem to have any particular correlation to race. Such a negligent discharge could have also hit a bystander or other officer.

But would they have been as trigger happy if it wasn't reported as there being a gun present?

Would they still have had their weapons out if it was someone white?

I mean, we will never know the answer...But it makes you wonder.

I think if they thought there was an armed man in the street who was suicidal/deranged they would have responded with weapons drawn regardless of race and that still would have been an needlessly over aggressive response until they actually verified if it actually was an armed suicidal man.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 jmurph wrote:

 skyth wrote:
As a note...from what I understand. The guy with the truck was the autistic one. The one who was shot was the worker trying to get things under control.

There is also the question of if this would have happened if they were white? (Along all stops...from the false claim of having a gun to the officers keeping the weapons out, etc...)

Probably. The shooting seemed pretty trigger happy and didn't seem to have any particular correlation to race. Such a negligent discharge could have also hit a bystander or other officer.

But would they have been as trigger happy if it wasn't reported as there being a gun present?

Would they still have had their weapons out if it was someone white?

I mean, we will never know the answer...But it makes you wonder.

I think if they thought there was an armed man in the street who was suicidal/deranged they would have responded with weapons drawn regardless of race and that still would have been an needlessly over aggressive response until they actually verified if it actually was an armed suicidal man.

But would it still have been reported as an armed suicidal man if they were white?

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Use charges that will stick.

But first of all, the prosecutor should make sure a crime was committed.

 skyth wrote:
But would it still have been reported as an armed suicidal man if they were white?

No reason to believe otherwise TBH, at least on the available facts.

 Manchu wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Use charges that will stick.

But first of all, the prosecutor should make sure a crime was committed.

 skyth wrote:
But would it still have been reported as an armed suicidal man if they were white?

No reason to believe otherwise TBH, at least on the available facts.

I'd proffer its about as self evident that a crime has been committed as could possibly be. There is no legal excuse under the law for shooting an unarmed man who laying down and thus posing no threat, indeed involved in no criminal activity and was trying to prevent harm. The extent of the crime (as you note, the appropriate charging) is the only thing at issue.