Police can't explain why a 17 year old was shot

[ipaq]

Next to her in the car.

Said 2 times in the article you just cut & pasted.

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019...lved-shooting/

This incident seems very odd to me. An officer comes into contact with the girl, says he pulled her over for speeding. The shooting occurred. A replica handgun was reported to have been found near the scene.

Except that's all the details that have been released. No supporting details about the traffic stop. No details surrounding the shooting, where the handgun was located, no autopsy report, not much of anything.

If the gun was in the car and she reached for it, I can understand the officer shooting - but if that was the case then why not just say that? Why is it so hard to get answers for something that should be cut and dry. Either the LEO felt like their life was on the line or it wasn't - there's no reason to withhold that information.

- - - Updated - - -

That would pretty much solve 99% of the issues at a lower cost than what the city are paying lawsuits to petty criminal faking it.

When I'm getting arrested by a cop I always make sure not to act like a fuckin' moron in order to get a pay day out of it.

Should be a law introduced for police to have a bodycam, and on, at all times while on duty... and be fined heavily should they not possess it for evidence during altercations as well as charged for tempering with said evidence.

[Ghostpanther]

I don't get it, you have a right to carry a firearm, in some places you have a right to conceal a firearm but at the same time the police can justify killing you at any time because you have a gun???

Does not give you the right to pull it out, or use it in any threatening manner. Around police esp, you need to ether keep it concealed ( In Ohio, by law, you have to tell the officer you have one in your vehicle if they pull you over.) or tell them you are armed. If they see you reach for your firearm, they can not assume you are not going to use it. Cops have died from stopping traffic and the driver was armed.

[Collegeguy]

Probably just saw the gun and shot her. That's all it takes to be legally justified.

If not, why wasn't this guy in jail?



Undercover cop in this scenario wasn't holding the gun, wasn't brandishing, wasn't pointing the gun. Moron cop still didn't get any jail time.

[Ghostpanther]

Probably just saw the gun and shot her. That's all it takes to be legally justified.

If not, why wasn't this guy in jail?



Undercover cop in this scenario wasn't holding the gun, wasn't brandishing, wasn't pointing the gun. Moron cop still didn't get any jail time.

Yeah, that was carelessness on the officer's part. The cop who was shot, won a settlement from the city for 6.2 million dollars. The cop should have been as a min fired. But it is not the normal, but rather the exception when it comes to police and confrontations with citizens shootings. There are former police officers who are in prisons as we make these posts for misuse of their authority.

[Reaper0329]

Oh don't worry, it's nearly impossible to get a real gun in california. Seriously, guns have so many extra rules here it's not even funny, but I could hang a broadsword from my belt and wander around town with no legal complications as long as it's not concealed.

Bolded part is accurate (no idea if they'll let you walk down the street with a claymore though...fears of brandishing spring into mind). My understanding of California firearms law isn't firsthand, but my understanding is that the only handguns available for sale in CA are 1) restricted to 10rd capacity and 2) must be on an approved roster of handguns that hasn't been updated in quite some time. In fact, the general consensus is that a major reason Glock still produces the Generation 3 series is because Gen 3's are approved in CA, whereas Gen 4 and 5 are not (note, not the SOLE reason, but a SUBSTANTIAL reason). I do not know if the Beretta 92 is on that roster, but I would reckon so, given the design's age). Rifle regulations are even more stringent.

As far as the replica goes, it's quite convincing. The slide release is in the wrong position (it's locked up in that photograph; it should be down, resting parallel with the frame. It's only up like that if the slide is to the rear). If she brandished that at him, it's entirely justified.

As far as the information goes, that I don't really know about. I imagine it takes a bit of time to do due diligence and release a statement, though that's beyond my scope. Presently, the whole thing kinda strikes me as an instance of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes," but it's a bit early to say.

[united]

Though theory isn't fact, it's just speculations.

no, according to zaino the theory sounds believable so apparently it must’ve happened

[kasuke06]

Probably because swords are ridiculously awful as weapons; I don't think we're averaging even 1 sword fatality per year in the entire USA going back the past two decades. I know we're well beyond 1 per day when it comes to guns, and I'm fairly certain the same can be said of knives.

Swords just suck as weapons, you can easily flee the person who has the sword or disable them (considering most swords are props or replicas, they're often too heavy for practical use, along with being unbalanced and blunt).

So yes, of course you can walk around with something that clearly looks like a weapon despite it being more or less as dangerous as a brick.

"I've never seen or held an actual sword or any weapon of any type but I'm definitely qualified to make huge sweeping judgements!" Lemme guess, you're antivax because you've seen a stock photo of a person in on of them fancy science coats staring at a beaker and therefore more qualified than they could ever hope to be?

[TEHPALLYTANK]

"I've never seen or held an actual sword or any weapon of any type but I'm definitely qualified to make huge sweeping judgements!" Lemme guess, you're antivax because you've seen a stock photo of a person in on of them fancy science coats staring at a beaker and therefore more qualified than they could ever hope to be?

Your guesses are completely incorrect.

[Rennadrel]

Probably because swords are ridiculously awful as weapons; I don't think we're averaging even 1 sword fatality per year in the entire USA going back the past two decades. I know we're well beyond 1 per day when it comes to guns, and I'm fairly certain the same can be said of knives.

Swords just suck as weapons, you can easily flee the person who has the sword or disable them (considering most swords are props or replicas, they're often too heavy for practical use, along with being unbalanced and blunt).

So yes, of course you can walk around with something that clearly looks like a weapon despite it being more or less as dangerous as a brick.

If you get disarmed as a swordsman, then you are a really shitty swordsman. I could kill someone with an escrima stick or a bo, doesn't mean they shouldn't be considered weapons.

[Independent voter]

Not enough information to call this one.

Did she point that fake yet realistic looking pistol at the cop? If she did that, it's justified cause there's no way the cop could know it was a fake.

Why was she speeding with that thing in her car? Did she want to get shot?

I guess they're going to release video of the incident at some point.

[Kumorii]

I don't get it, you have a right to carry a firearm, in some places you have a right to conceal a firearm but at the same time the police can justify killing you at any time because you have a gun???

I mean, the issue with guns is that you don't know who will use it at what time... having so many guns in circulation I don't find it surprising people feel threatened or act like it's a danger constantly.


OT:
Lets see how many instantly jumps to either side of what's happened instead of waiting for more info. Already counted several, ironically some of them even called out the "other side" for doing it.

[Howel]

Why would you reach for a replica gun? Threatening the police officer or somesuch?

[Draco-Onis]

As your link said, It is illegal to possess a replica handgun in the state of California. And for good reasons. How is the officer to know it was a fake gun? He sees it as a real threat until he knows different and has to treat it that way. He could be dead in less than a second. But then again, need to see a body cam or know more details to pass any judgement.

The post pretty much says that there isn't enough information available to figure out what happened so you shouldn't be jumping at the assumptions that the cops were in the right. My question would be why these guy weren't wearing body cams or there should at least be cam footage from their police car, the whole thing makes no sense why would you go for replica gun?

[Unholyground]

Why doesn't the federal gov create a law where all state level officers are required to wear cams at all times or they are not allowed to work? Pretty simple solution to all of this bullshit, non compliance should be termination.

[Svifnymr]

The post pretty much says that there isn't enough information available to figure out what happened so you shouldn't be jumping at the assumptions that the cops were in the right.

It does seem pretty pointless to even discuss anything, since it doesn't even look like the police have made a real statement yet.

My question would be why these guy weren't wearing body cams or there should at least be cam footage from their police car, the whole thing makes no sense why would you go for replica gun?

There's a lot of other laws that interface with things, on state/local levels, so a federal law is a bit over-reaching. Almost all have dash-cams though, afaik. Florida passed data-storage requirements for body cams that made it expensive for many jurisdictions that previously had them. Likewise the Sunshine law vs privacy concerns has issues.

Overall I'm all for body-cams in theory, but I think there's a lot of times where the cops let folks off that might go away if they're being reviewed later for every decision. Certainly it's a better thing than relying on these after-action reports for serious issues.

I didn't really see if the department in the story actually had body-cams or not though.

[Socialhealer]

Why would you reach for a replica gun? Threatening the police officer or somesuch?

shush the cops don't like logic.

I'd totally reach for a fake gun vs an officer with a real gun that's really useful.

[Svifnymr]

Why would you reach for a replica gun? Threatening the police officer or somesuch?

There's just not enough info, they did not mention or rule out drugs/alcohol for instance.

[Moadar]

Why doesn't the federal gov create a law where all state level officers are required to wear cams at all times or they are not allowed to work? Pretty simple solution to all of this bullshit, non compliance should be termination.

A lot do have them. They just pull the cable out when they want something not recorded.

[Aurrora]

shush the cops don't like logic.

I'd totally reach for a fake gun vs an officer with a real gun that's really useful.

Or she realized it would look bad for her to have it sitting on the seat and thought she could hide it real quick.

But let’s just jump to the conclusion that a cop wanted to get their murder boner on, killed a random stop, and planted evidence.

[PACOX]

There's just not enough info, they did not mention or rule out drugs/alcohol for instance.

The whole thing about the gun is that it wasn't even recovered until well after the fact. If she brandished it then why not say that in the initial report? Especially when you know people are going to want answers.

Either they are absolutely trash when it comes to reporting information or there's some fuckery going on.