Fresno police shoot 16 year old running away - call it justified

[TexasEd 8248]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/24/us/fresno-police-shooting-unarmed-teenager/index.html

 

Basis of justification:

• He is know to be armed at times
• Was a suspect in a murder
• Allegedly running towards a daycare
• was too fast to catch (i keed, not really)

Watch the video and decide if he was an immediate threat or if his death was avoidable.  Also one of the cops says , "Good shot" and it's captured on the body cam audio.  Probably bad form.  Although he was apparently shot in the head.

Excerpt:

Quote

Citing police statements, the father's lawsuit says that Murietta Golding was wanted for questioning in connection with a shooting one day earlier that had caused a fatal car crash. Fresno Police sought to question the teenager and pulled over a car in which he was a passenger, the lawsuit states.

The teenagers in the car initially complied with police. But Murietta Golding then took off running, the lawsuit states, leading to the fatal chase.

Fresno Police Chief Andrew Hall told CNN affiliate KSEE that the shooting was ruled justified by police's Internal Affairs Bureau, the Fresno County District Attorney's Office and the City of Fresno's Office of Independent Review.

"The use of lethal force in this case occurred while officers were investigating a homicide. The 16-year-old in this case was involved in the homicide with his brother and the brother was later arrested and pled guilty," Hall said.

"The (surveillance) video represents a different vantage point and was not what the pursuing officers could see. The 16-year-old was also known to carry firearms and had jumped a fence into a child daycare center."

My main issues are that he was a suspect in the homicide, he had not been convicted, It happened a day before so it wasn't immediate pursuit, and there was no evidence he was armed at that time.

Edited October 25, 2019 by TexasEd

[Fudge Nuggets 19407]

So if you are known to have been packing heat in the past that is part of a justification for your murder?  You concealed carry people better start re-thinking things (well if you’re black, for sure)

[WBT 20886]

So the cops think shooting into a day care helps their case here?

[fattyflattie 4640]

31 minutes ago, WBT said:

So the cops think shooting into a day care helps their case here?

That’s my concern.  

[Huckleberry 34407]

58 minutes ago, WBT said:

So the cops think shooting into a day care helps their case here?

 

26 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

That’s my concern.  

First thing I thought of, too. "He was running into a childcare facility."

"So your officer thought firing at a moving target in a childcare facility was a good idea?"

[ztejas 44114]

Shit. I don't like the cops as much as the next guy, but you take off running, you're playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes. I've tried to take off running against the cops before - the minute a cop pulled up and got out of the car I stopped running. Spent the night in jail, took a public intoxication charge, made it out no worse for wear. 

It sounds like how guilty this guy was or wasn't is up for debate - as well as his history - but you better have your mind made up 100% before you start running from police, and you better be weighing getting caught vs getting shot or tased. 

Still tragic I guess, but doesn't seem like a situation where the cops are the bad guys exacting authoritarian policies for the fun of it. 

Edited October 25, 2019 by ztejas

[South Austin 53155]

Yes, I understand he was a homicide suspect, and that he was running toward a day care (which would be a huge cause of concern). But can’t you pigs start going for the leg first?

[next2naus 439]

8 hours ago, WBT said:

So the cops think shooting into a day care helps their case here?

you didn't hear, it was a good shot?

[HenryJames 67124]

7 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

 

First thing I thought of, too. "He was running into a childcare facility."

"So your officer thought firing at a moving target in a childcare facility was a good idea?"

April 15th, 2017 was a Saturday so it's likely the childcare facility wasn't even open.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, next2naus said:

you didn't hear, it was a good shot?

Under the law it probably is.  The Texas Penal Code assesses this.  I assume California has a similar law.  It’s pretty standard.  

Edited October 25, 2019 by Johnny Sack

[conVINCEd 21477]

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

April 15th, 2017 was a Saturday so it's likely the childcare facility wasn't even open.

So the defense goes something like this:

”He was a dangerous, suspected murderer who was running toward a daycare center.”

if he was running toward a daycare center, shouldn’t your officers have been more cautious before firing in that direction, potentially endangering the lives of all of those innocent children?

”Well, it was Saturday, the daycare center wasn’t open.”

So, no children’s lives were in danger?

”Haven’t you been paying attention, a dangerous, suspected murderer was running toward a daycare center.”

[High Plains Drifter 11162]

10 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

So if you are known to have been packing heat in the past that is part of a justification for your murder?  You concealed carry people better start re-thinking things (well if you’re black, for sure)

 

So, pretty much every Texan. And about 50+% of the entire US population.

 

edit: Including hunters and anybody whose ever just let off a few rounds at a range or at a friend's family ranch or whatever.

 

Edited October 25, 2019 by High Plains Drifter

[BigHorn'13 3480]

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

April 15th, 2017 was a Saturday so it's likely the childcare facility wasn't even open.

I love the "fearing for my life because he was reaching in his waistband" when it's clear his pants were falling off

[HenryJames 67124]

7 minutes ago, BigHorn'13 said:

I love the "fearing for my life because he was reaching in his waistband" when it's clear his pants were falling off

Maybe his gun was holding them up.

[Armybrat 41327]

My pocket pistol drags mine down, so Mrs. Brat bought some fancy Hanes designer underwear for me to replace the standard white briefs.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Armybrat

[SquishMitten 10493]

There anything you old dudes NOT tuck into your underwear?

[next2naus 439]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Under the law it probably is.  The Texas Penal Code assesses this.  I assume California has a similar law.  It’s pretty standard.  

check your sarcasm meter

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 hours ago, conVINCEd said:

So the defense goes something like this:

”He was a dangerous, suspected murderer who was running toward a daycare center.”

if he was running toward a daycare center, shouldn’t your officers have been more cautious before firing in that direction, potentially endangering the lives of all of those innocent children?

”Well, it was Saturday, the daycare center wasn’t open.”

So, no children’s lives were in danger?

”Haven’t you been paying attention, a dangerous, suspected murderer was running toward a daycare center.”

None of that shit matters at all.  So long as they held a reasonable belief the 16 year old who they shot was the one who committed the murder, deadly force is justified under the fleeing felon rule.  (California is more restrictive than Texas, because California requires the underlying felony to be a violent felony whereas Texas does not),

[Fudge Nuggets 19407]

3 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

So, pretty much every Texan. And about 50+% of the entire US population.

 

edit: Including hunters and anybody whose ever just let off a few rounds at a range or at a friend's family ranch or whatever.

 

This is the concern, my dude.  Using that as part of the justification seems a bit silly.

[El Diablo 4232]

9 hours ago, South Austin said:

But can’t you pigs start going for the leg first?

He was aiming for the leg.

[Armybrat 41327]

7 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

There anything you old dudes NOT tuck into your underwear?

Beer.

[jimmyjazz 46982]

I'm gonna go way out on a limb and suggest that perhaps a cop should wait at least until a gun is drawn before firing.  I realize there are gray areas, but "suspect is running away from me" seems to not work in defense of shooting.

There has to be greater responsibility placed on the guy who is charged with keeping the peace and who has allegedly been trained to deal with difficult situations.

[Deej 77676]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm gonna go way out on a limb and suggest that perhaps a cop should wait at least until a gun is drawn before firing.  I realize there are gray areas, but "suspect is running away from me" seems to not work in defense of shooting.

There has to be greater responsibility placed on the guy who is charged with keeping the peace and who has allegedly been trained to deal with difficult situations.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

18 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm gonna go way out on a limb and suggest that perhaps a cop should wait at least until a gun is drawn before firing.  I realize there are gray areas, but "suspect is running away from me" seems to not work in defense of shooting.

There has to be greater responsibility placed on the guy who is charged with keeping the peace and who has allegedly been trained to deal with difficult situations.

I have zero problem with them following the law and shooting a fleeing violent felon suspect so long it was reasonable to believe the fleeing person committed the violent felony.  Zero at all.  In the circumstance they would be a fool to wait until the suspect pointed a gun at them.  Assuming one could reasonably believe the fleeing suspect committed the murder, this was a clean shoot  (Note, we don’t know that yet)

There are plenty of circumstances where shooting an unarmed person is warranted. This is one if the above referenced reasonable belief existed.  Michael Brown is another.  

A rule that you can only shoot armed suspects who have drawn a weapon would be insane.  

Edited October 25, 2019 by Johnny Sack

[Neonmoon 38130]

How did they know he would be a passenger in the stopped vehicle?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

I have zero problem with them following the law and shooting a fleeing violent felon suspect so long it was reasonable to believe the fleeing person committed the violent felony.  Zero at all.  In the circumstance they would be a fool to wait until the suspect pointed a gun at them.  Assuming one could reasonably believe the fleeing suspect committed the murder, this was a clean shoot  (Note, we don’t know that yet)

There are plenty of circumstances where shooting an unarmed person is warranted. This is one if the above referenced reasonable belief existed.  Michael Brown is another.  

A rule that you can only shoot armed suspects who have drawn a weapon would be insane.  

I have huge problems with that. You do not shoot (apparently unarmed in this case ) people in the back.  Cops are out of control with their immunity from pretty much anything they do, when they can get their brothers in blue to lie for them, which ain't hard to do.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I have huge problems with that. You do not shoot (apparently unarmed in this case ) people in the back.  Cops are out of control with their immunity from pretty much anything they do, when they can get their brothers in blue to lie for them, which ain't hard to do.

I don’t have a problem with the use of deadly force to stop a violent fleeing felon. Any citizen.  Not just cops.  

[TwiceHorn 31994]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I don’t have a problem with the use of deadly force to stop a violent fleeing felon. Any citizen.  Not just cops.  

If cops showed a greater degree of responsibility I might agree, maybe.

But felon?  Convicted?  Suspected? Witnessed?  How certain do you have to be?  

I see that rule as being fraught with difficulty.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

If cops showed a greater degree of responsibility I might agree, maybe.

But felon?  Convicted?  Suspected? Witnessed?  How certain do you have to be?  

I see that rule as being fraught with difficulty.

If there is a reasonable belief the fleeing perp committed a violent felony, you can fire away.  That’s the rule in most states.  

So if you walk in on someone raping a family member and they start running, you can pop a cap in their ass.  

[elfenix 34659]

the state can execute someone upon reasonable belief

Edited October 26, 2019 by elfenix

[cabowabo 4646]

Edit. Wrong thread

Edited October 26, 2019 by cabowabo

[cabowabo 4646]

edit  Wrong thread. 

Edited October 26, 2019 by cabowabo

[TexasEd 8248]

30 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

If there is a reasonable belief the fleeing perp committed a violent felony, you can fire away.  That’s the rule in most states.  

So if you walk in on someone raping a family member and they start running, you can pop a cap in their ass.  

But that would be fleeing the crime not something that happened a day later, you don't witness the crime and then they flee you just say, "hey isn't that the guy we're looking for" a day or so later.

[jimmyjazz 46982]

3 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

I have zero problem with them following the law and shooting a fleeing violent felon suspect so long it was reasonable to believe the fleeing person committed the violent felony.

So your standard for the death penalty is "reasonable belief"?

I continue to vehemently disagree with you on almost everything that comes out of your mouth.  I guarantee you'd squeal like a little girl if cops dared to bruise your wrists putting on handcuffs, much less shoot you or a loved one in the back while they were running away.  You know, because fleeing arrest isn't a fucking capital offense.

[NorthLoop 14421]

59 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

If there is a reasonable belief the fleeing perp committed a violent felony, you can fire away.  That’s the rule in most states.  

So if you walk in on someone raping a family member and they start running, you can pop a cap in their ass.  

It's reasoning like this that allowed that piece of shit in Arizona to get away with murdering that dude in cold blood while he begged for his life laying on the carpet in that hotel hallway. 

 

I bet you think that blue line sticker on your jacked up Tacoma will get you out of speeding tickets, too. 

[fattyflattie 4640]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

You know, because fleeing arrest isn't a fucking capital offense.

Maybe it should be.   Something something stupid games, stupid prizes. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, NorthLoop said:

It's reasoning like this that allowed that piece of shit in Arizona to get away with murdering that dude in cold blood while he begged for his life laying on the carpet in that hotel hallway. 

 

I bet you think that blue line sticker on your jacked up Tacoma will get you out of speeding tickets, too. 

No need to project your dumbfuckery to me.  

[NorthLoop 14421]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

No need to project your dumbfuckery to me.  

My bad.. you must have upgraded to an F150. Stepside, of course. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, NorthLoop said:

My bad.. you must have upgraded to an F150. Stepside, of course. 

And you start fights with strangers on the internet.  Nice life you must have.  

[NorthLoop 14421]

yeah my life sucks. how's yours?

[hobbes2702 13352]

22 hours ago, ztejas said:

Shit. I don't like the cops as much as the next guy, but you take off running, you're playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes. I've tried to take off running against the cops before - the minute a cop pulled up and got out of the car I stopped running. Spent the night in jail, took a public intoxication charge, made it out no worse for wear. 

It sounds like how guilty this guy was or wasn't is up for debate - as well as his history - but you better have your mind made up 100% before you start running from police, and you better be weighing getting caught vs getting shot or tased. 

Still tragic I guess, but doesn't seem like a situation where the cops are the bad guys exacting authoritarian policies for the fun of it. 

Yes the cops choosing to act as judge, jury, and executioner doesn’t seem authoritarian at all.

[Jkwellborn 7007]

Yes, I understand he was a homicide suspect, and that he was running toward a day care (which would be a huge cause of concern). But can’t you pigs start going for the leg first?

Im gonna assume this is sarcasm. Shooting at a moving target with a handgun isn’t a good idea. Shooting at someone’s leg is movie stupidity.

There anything you old dudes NOT tuck into your underwear?

Their ballsacks.

I'm gonna go way out on a limb and suggest that perhaps a cop should wait at least until a gun is drawn before firing.  I realize there are gray areas, but "suspect is running away from me" seems to not work in defense of shooting.
There has to be greater responsibility placed on the guy who is charged with keeping the peace and who has allegedly been trained to deal with difficult situations.

Waiting until you can see a gun in someone’s hand is how you get shot. Fuck that. Unless your gun is already out. Of course, then this board would be raising hell about stray bullets from shootouts.

[jimmyjazz 46982]

18 minutes ago, Jkwellborn said:

Waiting until you can see a gun in someone’s hand is how you get shot. Fuck that. Unless your gun is already out. 

The cop should meet a higher standard.  He took the job and assumed the risk.  "I thought he was reaching for a weapon" is bullshit.  His gun was drawn and he was partially hidden by a tree.  He had no reason to pull the trigger.  None.  

I remain more pro-cop than most around here, but this story is a perfect example of how current procedure is royally fucked up.  And before anyone claims that they didn't follow procedure, these cops were exonerated by 3 different "official departments".

[Armybrat 41327]

11 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

I don’t have a problem with the use of deadly force to stop a violent fleeing felon. Any citizen.  Not just cops.  

As long as said use of deadly force does not endanger any innocent bystanders in the background.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, Armybrat said:

As long as said use of deadly force does not endanger any innocent bystanders in the background.

Cue the Dirty Harry bank robbery scene.

[Armybrat 41327]

They didn’t call him Dirty for nothing.

[Iceman 2956]

Buncha folks think every cop should be Lieutenant Briggs...

[elfenix 34659]

40 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Cue the Dirty Harry bank robbery scene.

my criminal procedure prof used scenes from dirty harry to illustrate that, yes, the cops can do that, despite what the movies say.  about the only thing that he did wrong was shoot the fleeing suspect at the end.  guess he should have been running into a day care center.

[immortal13 4059]

On 10/26/2019 at 7:28 AM, Jkwellborn said:

Im gonna assume this is sarcasm. Shooting at a moving target with a handgun isn’t a good idea. Shooting at someone’s leg is movie stupidity.
Their ballsacks.

Waiting until you can see a gun in someone’s hand is how you get shot. Fuck that. Unless your gun is already out. Of course, then this board would be raising hell about stray bullets from shootouts.

A cop should HAVE to see some kind of weapon before using deadly force. Shooting unarmed citizens is totally unacceptable.  If you don't want to take a risk like that, then don't sign up to be a fucking cop.

[Jkwellborn 7007]

A cop should HAVE to see some kind of weapon before using deadly force. Shooting unarmed citizens is totally unacceptable.  If you don't want to take a risk like that, then don't sign up to be a fucking cop.

Maybe we are taking about two different things. If the cop has his weapon out already, yes I feel like he probably should identify a weapon before hitting R1.

Anyone that wants the cop to keep his weapon holstered until he has identified a weapon being pulled is a fool and loves in a dream world. As long as they can show videos of cops getting shot because of those similar things, it’s not going to happen.