Girl, 14, killed by LA police in clothing store shooting

I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole of made up scenarios which have nothing to do with what happened here. And YES they had what they believed an active shooter and bleeding victims on the ground that is justification to take the criminal down by all necessary force as quickly as possibile.

 

My argument against those who claim he did nothing wrong doesn’t mean I think he did do something wrong. It means I don’t think there is enough evidence to jump to conclusions.

 

You're literally saying you don't need a legal excuse to shoot a random person when its "line of duty".
You're streaking in the outfield at this point

 

Odd, you wanted me to posit how they might otherwise have gone about things and that does certainly seem a hypothetical. Perhaps you like your hypos, but not others? Curious eh?

To take all reasonable and necessary force against the shooter yes. Not the girl in the dressing room or any other person.
In any shooting, by law enforcement or not, you need a legal excuse to shoot the person who ends up shot by you. You end up shooting two people? One was on purpose and justified and the other a mistake and not justified? Guess what? You skate on the justified shooting, and you catch the unjustified shooting.

 

The police are still supposed to survey before shooting.

 

Because it was from the police cam. Why have a police cam if you can't rely on it.

 

They had their report of an active shooter, they survey as they search, they have people on the floor bleeding, their job is to take out the active shooter by all necessary force.

 

Have you watched the video and listen to the Police Chief? All you have done is post criticisms and tried to refute anyone who says it appears to be a lawful use of lethal force.

 

Yes that is what they did they weren't using force against anyone else DUH. They had every legal justification to take this guy by all necessary force as quickly as possible.

 

What do you think they were doing as they surveyed the active shooter crime scene?

 

Are you asserting they took aimed and fired at the girl who was killed?

 

I watched the video it's tragic what happened but they had absolute right to go after the suspect and you see the force after what he was doing to that one poor lady

 

You didn't watch the video did you

 

You're out.

 

It was still heavily edited.

 

Did you watch the official video?



No tell me about this "surveying" they should have done you are claiming they did not.

 

They weren't intentionally using force against anyone else, doesn't mean they did not recklessly or negligently use force on anyone else.
I didn't claim they intended to shoot the girl. Mistakes with guns that end in homicide get reckless or negligent homicide convictions.
We've been over this.
They had justification to harm the shooter, no one else. Someone else was harmed, ergo they committed a crime.

 

I'm asserting they took aim, fired, and as the smoke cleared one of their rounds had impacted the girl.
That sounds like recklessness or negligence, not intentional conduct, to me and that's what I have repeatedly stated. Please don't try to cloud the issue with this asinine deflection.

 

You're getting tased for running around naked in the outfield

 

Rounds are smokeless and no deflections just the reality, you should try dealing with it. You keep ignoring that it was a ricochet and have yet to explain this "surveying" they should have done and how they should have done it when they had someone they believed to be an active shooter who was trying to kill people.

Ergo no that does not make it a crime.

 

Smoke clearing = simple poetic license, no need to get in a twist over it. I'm not ignoring that its a ricochet: Any citizen (that includes cops) is responsible for where their rounds end up. If one of your rounds fired from your gun hits a person you don't have legal excuse to hit, you're going to end up with a conviction based on the relevant criminally culpable mental state of either recklessness or negligence depending on the specific circumstances.

Ergo yes indeed it does make it a crime of either negligence or recklessness. You're saying that as long as a cop doesn't specifically intend to shoot you that they can and will skate criminal charges. That's simply not how the law works.

 

IN A LAWFUL USE OF FORCE.................................this was not the firing range, this was not the hunting range............this was an active shooter situation which you continue to try and ignore.

Again explain this survey you claim they were suppose to complete before using lethal force against the criminal who was trying to kill people.

 

Again, I can lawfully use force against a target and be justified as against that target, but if that same action causes harm to someone I do not have a legal excuse to use force against I am not justified as against that second person.
It doesn't matter if I had the right to shoot the one, I'm not being charged for shooting the one I had a right to shoot. I'm being charged for shooting the one I did not have the right to shoot.

What survey claim? I've made no survey claim. Quote me otherwise, don't worry I won't hold my breath waiting for you to produce a quote for a position I never espoused. You need to pay more attention to whom you're speaking.

 

Are you a police officer acting in the line of duty to stop an immediate threat?

"Survey"
Sorry that was Wadsworth

 

Are you a citizen that is justified to shoot one person, regardless of legal reasoning including as a police officer as described above, and yet the round you fire hits a different person whom you have no legal excuse to shoot? If so, you catch a case of either reckless or negligent homicide depending on the exact factual circumstances you find yourself in.

Indeed.