The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[DGuller]

Yeah, a stark difference between negligence and recklessness being demonstrated in those two cases, to my untrained eyes anyway.  Even without the girl killed by a stray bullet this looks like a criminal case.  Shooting the suspect didn't seem justified, and the fact that Rambo seems to be the only one armed with assault rifle, a thing designed to penetrate objects by design, certainly doesn't help his case in the other death.

[DGuller]

Looking at it again, it looks like murder in the second degree for the attacker, and manslaughter in the first degree for the innocent girl, to me.  Obviously I'm not a lawyer, so I'd be curious what the lawyers think going by just the publicly known facts.

EDIT:  Or would the girl's death actually be felony murder if the shooting of the attacker was unjustified?

[Iormlund]

I thought murder required premeditation, but you are right.

In fact one of the examples of second-degree murder I saw when I was looking up Cali's laws was shooting in a crowded room.

[The Minsky Moment]

The crime the prosecution alleges she was committing when she committed the manslaughter was reckless handling of a firearm.  That must mean that her handling of it was reckless even in the absence of pulling the trigger, which, as I stated above, seems absurd.  It does not need to be separately charged if included in the first-degree manslaughter charge.

A defendant can appeal based on sufficiency of the evidence - that the conduct proved at trial is insufficient to prove the elements of the crime.  The standard is whether "the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient to allow a jury to return a guilty verdict."

The Minnesota appeals courts could use this case as vehicle to clarify the mental state requirements of the manslaughter laws.

[DGuller]

Yeah, a stark difference between negligence and recklessness being demonstrated in those two cases, to my untrained eyes anyway.  Even without the girl killed by a stray bullet this looks like a criminal case.  Shooting the suspect didn't seem justified, and the fact that Rambo seems to be the only one armed with assault rifle, a thing designed to penetrate objects by design, certainly doesn't help his case in the other death.

Okay, I was talking out of my ass a little.  It seems by design that there is someone with a rifle but not everyone, and it's natural for the one with the rifle to move to the front.  The shooting itself still doesn't seem justified, though, and it still seems like the shooter acted on his own initiative immediately before the shooting.

[Berkut]

Yeah, a stark difference between negligence and recklessness being demonstrated in those two cases, to my untrained eyes anyway.  Even without the girl killed by a stray bullet this looks like a criminal case.  Shooting the suspect didn't seem justified, and the fact that Rambo seems to be the only one armed with assault rifle, a thing designed to penetrate objects by design, certainly doesn't help his case in the other death.

Okay, I was talking out of my ass a little.  It seems by design that there is someone with a rifle but not everyone, and it's natural for the one with the rifle to move to the front.  The shooting itself still doesn't seem justified, though, and it still seems like the shooter acted on his own initiative immediately before the shooting.

This is a very different case though - this one will get into the reason most cop shooting go unpunished.

He was acting within his authority as a police officer, and he even though it turned out that the suspect was not the danger he thought it was, and even though shooting a fucking assault rifle inside a department store is fucking stupid, being stupid is generally not criminal.

There was someone who was a threat there, who had assaulted someone else. The jury will be asked to put themselves into the shoes of that police officer who had been told that someone inside the store was attacking people with a deadly weapon, and there was a potential shooting incident in progress. When they arrive, they find a victim bleeding on the floor.

This is not murder. This is a trigger happy police officer, bad training, and a tragic situation. And at least part of the problem here isn't with the cop, it is with a society that has so fucking heavily armed itself that cops do in fact go into situations like this one thinking that they are responding to something that does in fact happen rather often - a fucking nut with an assault weapon trying to kill as many people as they can. And the only way to respond to THAT situation is with a maximum of violence.


https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/27/us/lapd-teen-killed-dressing-room-valentina-orellana-peralta/index.html

[DGuller]

The reason I think it was murder is because it doesn't seem like the attacker was presenting an immediate threat.  As far as I know, a cop can't legally just shoot someone who's walking away because the 911 call made it sound like he was a really dangerous guy.  It would be different if he was in the immediate vicinity of the victim and threatening to deal more damage.

[Berkut]

The reason I think it was murder is because it doesn't seem like the attacker was presenting an immediate threat.  As far as I know, a cop can't legally just shoot someone who's walking away because the 911 call made it sound like he was a really dangerous guy.  It would be different if he was in the immediate vicinity of the victim and threatening to deal more damage.

That makes it a mistake though, not murder. The officer probably and can reasonably argue that he did think the person was an immediate threat, and if in fact the attacker was armed with a assault rifle, then walking away or not (and with the clear evidence from the officers perspective that he had already shot at least one person) he is in fact an immediate danger to everyone around.

Imagine a police officer responding to Sandy Hook or the Miami nightclub massacre. If they show up and see who they believe to be one of the attackers, and that attacker happens to be walking away at that particular moment, you are going to assume that they are doing so because they are likely looking for more people to shoot, and will certainly shoot you if you do anything other then blow their ass away.

Now, this is totally fucked up from the standpoint of what we as a society want, of course. We want our police to be rather careful before they whip out their assault rifle and start shooting people. But the reality is that "being careful" in a combat situation is a good way to end up dead, and that means a lot of other people end up dead as well.

Anyway, this is totally fucked up. Some dumb fucking kid is dead (I do wonder what his deal was - why is he rando attacking people in a department store with a bike lock???) and some poor girl is dead, and some dumb fucking cop killed them and will have to live with that.

I don't really know of course, but I don't see this at all like that cop who shot the dude in the hallway in Vegas, where it was pretty fucking clear he was itching for a chance to murder someone.

I suspect this guy thought, at the moment he pulled the trigger, that he was doing the right thing. In contrast to the guy in Vegas who when he pulled the trigger was thinking "Sweet, I am totally going to blow this dude away!"

[Iormlund]

His buddies are shouting at him to slow down and hold up. He has a lot of backup, with more appropriate weapons for a crowded place (handguns, what looks like a taser, a shotgun).

The vibe I get from watching the footage is he was itching to kill someone, and his day had finally come. And he got two for the price of one.

[DGuller]

That makes it a mistake though, not murder.

I get where you're coming from, he was dealing with an actual situation that required an aggressive police response, but I don't think that unjustified shooting is merely a mistake in the legal sense.  If he mistook some action from the attacker as reaching for a gun, then the shooting wouldn't be unjustified (as problematic as it can be, because without body cams, the dead guy is always reaching for a gun).  However, it's not merely a mistake when you blow away a guy when the use of force guidelines say you can't blow away a guy.  Consciously killing someone without permission is a serious crime.

[Berkut]

That makes it a mistake though, not murder.

I get where you're coming from, he was dealing with an actual situation that required an aggressive police response, but I don't think that unjustified shooting is merely a mistake in the legal sense.  If he mistook some action from the attacker as reaching for a gun, then the shooting wouldn't be unjustified (as problematic as it can be, because without body cams, the dead guy is always reaching for a gun).  However, it's not merely a mistake when you blow away a guy when the use of force guidelines say you can't blow away a guy.  Consciously killing someone without permission is a serious crime.

I think historically courts have given rather wide latitude to police officers when it comes to questions of judgement on the use of force when they can credibly argue they were acting in good faith.

[grumbler]

If the department store shoot was legit within the rules of the LAPD, then the Chief needs to resign and the rules re-written.  The shooter took no time to evaluate the situation and shot as soon as he possibly could, ignoring the cautions of his fellow officers to slow down and hold up (I suspect they were concerned that he was a hothead).   As we know, an officer in Minnesota was convicted of what California calls "voluntary manslaughter" on a much flimsier basis; this case could easily be charged as second-degree murder. 

Cops have frequently not even been charged in incidents amounting to second-degree murder (see: Breonna Taylor shooting), but I'm not sure that will fly in today's climate

[Syt]

https://kotaku.com/lapd-officers-fired-for-ignoring-robbery-to-play-pokemo-1848335699

LAPD Officers Fired For Ignoring Robbery To Play Pokémon Go

Rather than assist a fellow officer, these cops were in pursuit of a Snorlax

Two officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) were fired due to, among other things, playing Pokémon Go, a newly published court document reveals (h/t Axios).

Louis Lozano and Eric Mitchell, beat cops with a combined 28 years on the job, were found through a 2017 investigation to have ignored a commanding officer's request for assistance in handling an in-progress robbery at a nearby Macy's. Rather than respond, the two left the area in the hopes of capturing Snorlaxes and Togetics in Pokémon Go. This decision, caught by the digital in-car video system (DICVS) dash cam, as well as attempts to lie about their actions, ultimately led to the officers' firing from the LAPD.

Reps for Lozano and Mitchell subsequently filed a petition seeking to appeal this decision, arguing that the use of the DICVS footage as part of the official investigation into their conduct violated protections on private conversations between officers. This appeal was denied on January 7, giving us an excellent sneak peek at the hilarious events as they played out in the police cruiser on that fateful day.

For approximately the next 20 minutes, the DICVS captured petitioners discussing Pokémon as they drove to different locations where the virtual creatures apparently appeared on their mobile phones. On their way to the Snorlax location, Officer Mitchell alerted Officer Lozano that "a Togetic just popped up," noting it was "on Crenshaw, just South of 50th." After Mitchell apparently caught the Snorlax—exclaiming, "Got 'em"—petitioners agreed to "go get the Togetic" and drove off. When their car stopped again, the DICVS recorded Mitchell saying, "Don't run away. Don't run away," while Lozano described how he "buried it and ultra-balled" the Togetic before announcing, "Got him." Mitchell advised he was "still trying to catch it," adding, "Holy crap, man. This thing is fighting the crap out of me." Eventually Mitchell exclaimed, "Holy Crap. Finally," apparently in reference to capturing the Togetic, and he remarked, "The[ ] guys are going to be so jealous." Petitioners then agreed to return to the 7-Eleven (where Sergeant Gomez later met them) to end their watch. On the way, Mitchell remarked, "I got you a new Pokémon today, dude."

The court documents: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B307412.PDF

[DGuller]

   I saw this story on my Google News feed as well, looks like it's making rounds.  Maybe appealing didn't work out well for them.

[Sheilbh]

Not police - but criminal justice. This story is incredible and horrifying:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/12/nyregion/rikers-jail-videos.html?smid=tw-share