Discussion for article #232633
There was a case in Florida where two guys were robbing a bar/restaraunt. Cops showed up and a gun fight ensued. One of the suspects was killed and one of the cops was killed…it was determined that both were killed by police bullets.
Didn’t matter. The survivor robber was executed for killing a cop because he was responsible for the entire incident by breaking the law in the first place.
Same reasoning will be applied here. The car was stolen, so she is going to be held responsible for her own death because she was driving a stolen car.
Cameras matter.
1 Like
DPD really needs to get some camera footage out on this, the sooner the better.
1 Like
Albuquerque P.D. seems to be the worst in the country. The suspect that is killed is afterward always deemed to have mentally ill, resisting arrest or in some other way threatening the lives of the arresting cops. Then the blue wall goes up when investigations begin.
Or, from their perspective, maybe that’s the last thing they should do.
1 Like
Truly guilt by association.
Cops copping out…
No. There’s a difference. The FL example you gave applies the concept of “felony murder.” The basic rule is that, when you are in the act of committing a felony and people die as a result, such as being shot by your accomplice or because the police open fire in self defense and it hits a bystander, you can be held liable for those deaths that occurred as a result of you being int he middle of committing a felony. It may differ from state to state in terms of the nuances. It does NOT, however, give the police carte blanche to just open fire wily-nilly and then say “oh well, I guess they shouldn’t have been in the middle of committing a felony, because that means I get to shoot them and it’s their own fault.” The officers’ decision to open fire still has to be justified or they themselves were committing a felony that supersedes the suspect’s.
In the FL example, the perps opened fire and the cops had obvious facts on which to rely in claiming they fired in self-defense. Having caused the officers’ to justifiably open fire, the perps were responsible for those bullets, even though they did not come out of their own guns. In this example, however, there seems to be some indication that these cops may not have been justified in opening fire. That would change things drastically.
5 Likes
If they want to at least keep a cursory appearance of not being indiscriminate murderers it’d help, but yeah I see your point.
Shoot first and justify it later.
Not one honest cop amongst them. Think about that. According to the cops, they are always 100% justified and doing the right thing but the witnesses and evidence prove otherwise. And yet, the cops version stands.
The problem is the cops and their mangled form of law enforcement by breaking the law. They too are criminals, every lying, killing, one of them.
KUSA also reported that an autopsy showed that Hernandez died from multiple gunshot wounds, without specifying how many.
The officer who was hit suffered a fractured leg, a department spokesperson told the Associated Press. None of the other teens in the car were injured in the shooting.
The other kids were lucky that none of the shots also hit them. On the other hand, that every shot hit the driver indicates that the police were at close range when they fired. This seems like an execution to me. Does ethnic bias play a part?
Wouldn’t ethnically biased Police Murderers want to kill as many hispanic car thieves as possible, rather than concentrating on the driver who hit a cop with a car and broke his leg?