California man who pummeled, shot at female deputy found not guilty despite video of attack

What the hell is going on in California?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/californ...puty-found-not-guilty-despite-video-of-attack

A California man who was caught on video pummeling a sheriff's deputy and shooting at her with her own gun in 2019 was found not guilty of attempted murder and other charges by a jury, with the victim saying the decision sets a bad precedent for law enforcement.

Former San Bernardino County Sheriff's Deputy Meagan McCarthy was the closest law enforcement officer when a frantic 911 call came in from a mother, pleading with dispatch for help and for someone to save her from her own son.

McCarthy rushed to the home and saw a man with "clenched fists" who came outside and then made a "bee-line" in her direction as she got out of her patrol vehicle. Behind him was his mother, with a knife in her hand and still on the phone with dispatch.

McCarthy was the first deputy to arrive at the house and the suspect, Ari Young, looked "very angry," she said. Video taken on a neighbor's cellphone shows he started pummeling her in the face. He then beat her to the ground, seized her gun and began firing shots in her direction. Her injuries included a broken thumb and a black eye.

"Based on my training and experience, it was easy to infer that something was going on," McCarthy recalled of her initial arrival. "People don’t just arm themselves against their son with a knife for no reason, and the fact that she had already made these statements to dispatch was just awful."

The deputy approached Young and attempted to calm the situation and pat him down.

"Thirteen seconds into our interaction, he told me, ‘I will headbutt the f--- out of you,'" she recalled. "So I knew his intentions weren’t going to be of compliance."

Video shows that he punched her repeatedly, the two struggled for a gun, and he fired multiple shots after taking it. McCarthy told Fox News Digital on Wednesday that she had only survived because the gun jammed the first time he pulled the trigger, aiming directly at her face.

Young's defense attorney, however, argued that McCarthy had no lawful reason to do what she was doing, and therefore his client was acting in self-defense.

Raj Malin, the defense lawyer, told Los Angeles' ABC 7 that McCarthy did not have reasonable suspicion to justify patting down his schizophrenic client when she arrived on scene.

"The issue was, was the initial detention of Mr. Young legal?" he told the station. "If it's not, then he's not guilty. ... He could punch her 100 times, and it wouldn't matter."

A California jury found Young not guilty of attempted murder and assaulting a peace officer, instead finding him guilty of the lesser charge of negligent discharge of a firearm, and failed to reach a verdict on several other allegations, including resisting arrest.

 

She developed PTSD and was forced to retire from law enforcement.

So....why would anybody be a cop in California? If I were currently one, I'd be looking for a way out.

 

I’m surprised they aren’t prosecuting the police officer. How dare she interfere with a criminals right to do whatever he wants.

At least she’s retired though, can’t be a threat to the Democrat way of life anymore

 

What a HORRIBLE jury verdict. The left is leading us in anarchy where your only protection will be your own as there will be no police to come to your aid.

 

I would not be surprised if the same laws apply in all your states. Little doubt that the defence used the fourth amendment clause. The defence would have said that the person with the knife should have been stopped hence an unlawful stop and search. Stupid verdict

 

Problem is that when he was stopped and searched he wasn't a criminal. The officer saw one person with a knife following an unarmed person. The officer stopped the unarmed person

 

What do you expect from the land of fruit and nuts?

They get what they vote for and help to usher in.

 

You mean the one that came directly aggressively towards her punching her in the face?

How come a Terry stop wouldn't apply?

 

She was supposed to let the perp kill her. That is what is expected of all law abiding citizens in California.

 

"Former San Bernardino County Sheriff's Deputy Meagan McCarthy was the closest law enforcement officer when a frantic 911 call came in from a mother, pleading with dispatch for help and for someone to save her from her own son."

An officer has a DUTY to make sure a suspect is not armed and dangerous when they are in the process of detaining them. It is for their own safety and that of the public. Then they can assess the situation. NEVER have I EVER heard that if an officer tries to pat you down you have a right to beat the crap out of them then obtain their weapon and try to kill them.

 

She said he looked angry as he was walking towards her. He obviously had a serious argument with his mum so of course he would be angry. Your fourth amendment is the problem here. She started to pat him down without due cause as the situation had already resolved itself with him leaving the house. But his armed mother then followed him.The confrontation did not start until after she started patting him down. I expect that the defence argued that the mother was the immediate threat

 

I seriously suspect you're wrong about the legality of the pat down but even if you are not, it does not excuse what he did.

There are situations where officers are allowed to do a general pat down for weapons without doing a full-on search of one's pockets.

 

The problem is that the only one who was obviously armed was the mother who was following her son who had already left the house hence no longer a danger to her.

 

Any logical person can conclude the reason she had a knife based on the frantic phone call to save her from his assault.

And she is not the one that came aggressively at the officer and assaulted her and then shot at her.

I guess the officers instincts were correct after all

 

The mother wasn’t the one moving aggressively towards the officer. The son made himself the priority.

 

There is little doubt that the jury was composed of anti-police leftist who did not have the law explained to them properly.

 

The fourth states that you cannot do a pat down without reasonable cause of criminal activity. An armed mother telling an officer that she needed to be saved from her son while following after him is not grounds for searching under reasonable cause of criminal behaviour if the person is walking away. Stupid verdict though your 4th gives you that protection

 

And where does the law state if an officer breaks procedure in a manner not threatening whatsoever to a person, that person can respond immediately with physical and deadly force to that officer?

You’re trying to paint this grey when it’s really quite black and white

 

The same way that evidence can be dismissed if not collected according to procedure even if that evidence would prove 100% of a guilty verdict.

The problem with this case is that he was overcharged with attempted murder and assault with a fire arm. But It was also revealed in the court that he fired in NE direction whereas the officer was due south of him hence he did not fire at her.

Again, it is your 4th amendment that is the problem. As an aside, I did not read any of the links until now and I was right. The 4th was the reason for acquittal

 

That's silly.

Absolutely silly.

In a domestic type of call, the assumption is a dispute exists that warrants an investigation of all parties. Same as a fight. Your expectation is that a ruling is made FIRST of whom is the guilty party, and if that can't be done then nobody should be identified or checked for weapons?

He approached the officer, and was the most immediate threat to the officers safety. The mother, standing at the house with a knife was not. WIth an altercation and obvious involvement of weapons, a pat down of all parties to protect the officers safety during the investigation is obviously warranted.

You are advocating for a guy that approach, beat up, and tried to shoot and kill an officer.... because she wanted to verify her own safety.

So.... illogical.

 

Im reminded of the ol' gun banner rhetoric 'everyone needs a good ass kicking now and then, take it like a man, only ******* fight with guns!' Granted its been some years since I've seen that one in common use. But it seems the sentiment lives on with the anti-self-defense crowd that seem to think unwelcome violence is some sort of honor sport and 'the weak' have an obligation to be dominated by the aggressively violently.

 

You mean like a frantic 911 call telling dispatch that the man approaching is assaulting them? Haha. I think that's pretty good probable cause.

100% justified to protect officer safety.

And ironically, a perfect example of why it's justified.

 

I don't think that I've ever heard of a "Terry stop" before.
Please enlighten me.

Thanks,

 

Nope sorry, procedural mistake does give you murder, assault, torture or rape rights over another human being. **** with that BS.

 

It allows an officer to do a brief pat down to search for weapons without necessarily turning someone's pockets inside out.

*Edit..... Actually I got Terry stopped confused and I'm not sure what exactly the case law is but there are conditions under which an officer is allowed to do a brief pat down for weapons without consent