Boy, 14, killed by L.A. police may have fired on officers: police

Catfish · 08-11-16, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Where did you get that from? It's not part of the article and gangs do get guns illegally.

Where is being said the 14-year-old boy belonged to a "gang"? He was spraying a wall when the police saw that and tried to get him. "Gang graffiti vandalism" alright. In Germany you are not automatically belonging to a gang, if you illegally spray something on a wall. Nor are you shot.
Then he ran and threw away a handgun. Seems when hitting the wall or ground, the weapon fired.
He heard it, probably thought the police had fired a warning shot, so stopped and turned around. Then he was shot.

Buddahaid · 08-11-16, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish

Where is being said the 14-year-old boy belonged to a "gang"? He was spraying a wall when the police saw that and tried to get him. "Gang graffiti vandalism" alright. In Germany you are not automatically belonging to a gang, if you illegally spray something on a wall. Nor are you shot.
Then he ran and threw away a handgun. Seems when hitting the wall or ground, the weapon fired.
He heard it, probably thought the police had fired a warning shot, so stopped and turned around. Then he was shot.

Well you assume some 14 year old can just go to a store and buy a gun and I assume he was a gang member because he had a gun. Your assumption is extremely unlikely while mine is very plausible. No gun broker would sell that gun to a minor but a "friend" might, or it may have been stolen by the kid. Either way it's usually gang related.

Platapus · 08-11-16, 06:29 PM

It reminds me of that line from the movie "The Stone Killer"

"He was only 17."

"The gun made him older."

Shame it was such an old gun. many (Most?)Contemporary revolvers are more difficult to discharge when dropped/thrown.

Glad the round did not hit someone.

vienna · 08-15-16, 02:00 PM

Just an update on the shooting: Los Angeles news media reported the officers involved in the shooting have been allowed to view the body cam footage prior to making their initial statements to investigators regarding their version of the incident. This has raised a lot of questions here locally about the process of investigations when body cam footage is available; many in the community believe the officers should first give their accounts of the incident without reviewing the footage, and then the footage should be reviewed to see if it fits with the officers' accounts. It is already SOP that officers involved in shootings are to be separated from each other as soon as possible after any OIS and interrogated separately in order to prevent collusion. Allowing the officers to view the footage is seen as an opportunity for them to engage in CYA. As far as additional information on the investigation, it is still ongoing...

<O>

Platapus · 08-15-16, 04:46 PM

Another way to look at it is that by allowing the officers to view the camera footage, it will encourage them to tell the truth, which is what we want.

vienna · 08-15-16, 05:40 PM

Possibly, but you also lose the ability to weed out the really bad cops from those who were just doing their jobs to the best of their ability. Prior to body cams, SOP has been to interrogate the cops before showing them any of the evidence (ballistics, forensics, witness accounts, etc) as a means of seeing just how much of a deviation exists between the evidence and the cop's account of the incident. If the cop's account is greatly different, the possibility they may have engaged in other questionable activities is greater and worth investigating further...

<O>

08-11-16, 06:29 PM	#3
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,384 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	It reminds me of that line from the movie "The Stone Killer" "He was only 17." "The gun made him older." Shame it was such an old gun. many (Most?)Contemporary revolvers are more difficult to discharge when dropped/thrown. Glad the round did not hit someone. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

08-15-16, 02:00 PM	#4
vienna Navy Seal Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Anywhere but the here & now... Posts: 7,718 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	Just an update on the shooting: Los Angeles news media reported the officers involved in the shooting have been allowed to view the body cam footage prior to making their initial statements to investigators regarding their version of the incident. This has raised a lot of questions here locally about the process of investigations when body cam footage is available; many in the community believe the officers should first give their accounts of the incident without reviewing the footage, and then the footage should be reviewed to see if it fits with the officers' accounts. It is already SOP that officers involved in shootings are to be separated from each other as soon as possible after any OIS and interrogated separately in order to prevent collusion. Allowing the officers to view the footage is seen as an opportunity for them to engage in CYA. As far as additional information on the investigation, it is still ongoing... <O> __________________ __________________________________________________ __

08-15-16, 04:46 PM	#5
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,384 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Another way to look at it is that by allowing the officers to view the camera footage, it will encourage them to tell the truth, which is what we want. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

08-15-16, 05:40 PM	#6
vienna Navy Seal Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Anywhere but the here & now... Posts: 7,718 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	Possibly, but you also lose the ability to weed out the really bad cops from those who were just doing their jobs to the best of their ability. Prior to body cams, SOP has been to interrogate the cops before showing them any of the evidence (ballistics, forensics, witness accounts, etc) as a means of seeing just how much of a deviation exists between the evidence and the cop's account of the incident. If the cop's account is greatly different, the possibility they may have engaged in other questionable activities is greater and worth investigating further... <O> __________________ __________________________________________________ __