Details emerge in LAPD's mistaken shooting of newspaper carriers

[addicted2freedom]

"...Beck and an oversight board will decide if officers were justified in the shooting or made mistakes that warrant either punishment or training."

How in the world can that be justified? Wrong model and color truck, and wrong gender and ethnicity of the driver. So that means there was no visual identification of the person, which means there could not have been a visual identification of a weapon. (Correct me if I'm mistaken-- a justified shooting requires an imminent threat)

"As an officer, you look for cues. You know how someone drives normally and then you see someone coming at you slowly, driving in the middle of the street, stopping and starting. That can be misinterpreted," he said.

WTF...............

[Adam-12]

(Correct me if I'm mistaken-- a justified shooting requires an imminent threat)

You're not quite right. That's mostly true, especially for us peasants.

Now I'm talking PA LAW specifically, but there are other justifications of the use of force. In the PA crimes code:

§ 505 covers self defense. Here you're correct: deadly force is only justifiable to protect oneself from death, grave bodily harm, rape, or kidnapping.

§ 506 covers defense of others. You can use the same force to protect others as you can to protect yourself, IF the person you're protecting would also be justified. E.g., there's no justification if the person you're "protecting" is actually committing burglary, because he would not be justified using force, even though you, as a non-burglar, would be justified using such force.

§ 507 covers defense of property. Crudely summarized, lethal force is justifiable to: terminate forcible entry into one's dwelling; prevent oneself from being dispossessed of one's dwelling; or to prevent a felony from being committed inside one's dwelling.

BUT...

§ 504 and § 508 cover the use of force in carrying out public duties, specifically law enforcement. A LEO is authorized to use deadly force to prevent death or serious bodily injury, OR to prevent escape by someone who has attempted a forcible felony OR is armed OR "otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict serious bodily injury unless arrested without delay."

Civilians executing a citizens' arrest are not granted the same justification: they can only use deadly force to prevent death or serious bodily harm.

In short, IF the cops reasonably believed that the defendant were in the truck, AND they reasonably believed that he was armed, or posed a danger to others, THEN they would be fully justified in lighting him up. IF this were occurring in PA, that is. But anyone other than a cop would not be justified in using deadly force in this way: this is one of the LEO superpowers that I prattle about.

Now I'm at the front of the line to throw rotten vegetables at these cops for shooting this little old lady. I think they should be drawn and quartered--or at least drawn and halved. I'd like to see them pilloried, and put in the stocks, and horsewhipped. As the law stands right now, in PA at least, the case against them is not that they have no power to open fire on passing pickup trucks, but that they did not reasonably believe that the suspect was inside, and as a result the shooting was an almost-fatal mistake. We can't tolerate almost-fatal mistakes: we must demand the very highest standards of anyone trusted with LEO superpowers. It should be easy to be fired or even jailed for misusing them.

Secondarily, I'd say it illustrates why these superpowers should not exist, why LEOs shouldn't be the only ones armed, and why citizens must be allowed to defend themselves against unlawful violence by LEOs.

[Ewussor]

How in the world can that be justified?

Morally and ethically? Only one way: If the little old ladies who were delivering newspapers pointed one or more guns at the cops. But AFAIK, there's not even an allegation that they were in any way armed, much less actually threatened the cops with weapons.

[Grey Bearded One]

"As an [police] officer, you look for cues. You know how someone drives normally and then you see someone coming at you slowly, driving in the middle of the street, stopping and starting. That can be misinterpreted," he said.

The police are trying to co-opt the word "officer" as the homosexual community has co-opted the word "gay." Many cops, when you ask them what they do for a living will say, "I'm an officer." I then say, "Oh, you work for a bank."

Back on topic. Driving down the street, starting and stopping and throwing newspapers out of the window. Even if they were acting suspiciously, they hadn't acted in a threatening manner.

[silkworm]

How can they claim they tried to identify the suspect? Even if the two women were in the same color and model truck all of the shots came from behind them.

As the vehicle approached the house, officers opened fire, unloading a barrage of bullets into the back of the truck.

They made no effort to positively identify the suspect beyond "there's a truck".

Also notice that some of the shots were clearly aimed at the passenger seat? They were looking for one man yet still opened fire when they could see that two people were in the vehicle!
Nothing more than thugs in uniform.

[Sheriff Gotcha]

I like how they said there was an estimated 20-30 shots fired... I counted 40+ in the back of the truck AT LEAST! Not to mention the ones that missed the truck all together.

What would of happened if one of those bullets went through someones house window and hit/killed them in their house?

Absolutely nothing... they'd be saying that the women started firing back and they'd plant a gun on them or they would say we can't confirm which officer the shot came from so we will have to "retrain" the group.

[Yachera]

Would this be one of those scenarios where you'd be justified in shooting back?

Because if my loved ones are in a vehicle and it gets shot up I don't care what "colors" you're wearing, if I have breath left in me and a working trigger finger you've got incoming.

[Yachera]

Driving down the street, starting and stopping and throwing newspapers out of the window. Even if they were acting suspiciously, they hadn't acted in a threatening manner.

You never know, maybe they were "assault Newspapers" filled with right wing propaganda.

[TXDMERC73]

Those LAPD are pretty lame, in their police training to use deadly force they must first IDENTIFY the threat in plain view, they cant just shoot behind a wall and think the threat is hiding there and hit an entire family in the process.

Police should stay in the academy longer so they can get it burned to their brain the proper ways to deal with a deadly threat- not call in a bunch of gunships or a sqaud of police academy misfits to eliminate the "possible threat" there is rules to follow which is why negotiation is paramount.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

Have any of these officers been charged?