Police Walk Back Explanation for Shooting Death of 6 year old

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Thebobo

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,672
136
FIVR

FIVR

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2016
3,753
911
106
Slap on the wrist. 6 year olds should have more sense than to occupy the vehicle of somebody who decided to die instead of comply. LOL American Police.


Worth mentioning that when somebody shoots at a cop, it's "attempted murder"... but when a cop shoots at citizens it's always some variation of "oops", attempted manslaughter being the legal version of "oops i tried to kill you, my bad". Also worth noting that charging this murderer with manslaughter allows for only year jail sentence (instead of prison) which in some states can be commuted to house arrest for cops.
 
Last edited:
Perknose

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,758
10,344
146
Victorian Gray said:
One of the most highly respected newspapers in the world isn't reputable enough for you?

Here, put you nose back on.

55091.jpg
Click to expand...

Seriously. The complainer should be embarrassed. :mad:
 
D

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
mikeymikec said:
I would have thought that any police statement should be 'under oath'.
Click to expand...

Who cares if it's under oath if they get multiple days to get their stories straight with each other AND they get to review the freaking evidence against them so they don't contradict it. It's literally as perfect of a situation as possible to successfully craft a lie that will pass muster.

And the statement in question is not under oath, that doesn't happen until after an investigation is concluded (based highly upon said police statement) and if wrongdoing is found they are brought up on charges.
 
mikeymikec

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
20,114
14,595
136
Darwin333 said:
Who cares if it's under oath if they get multiple days to get their stories straight with each other AND they get to review the freaking evidence against them so they don't contradict it. It's literally as perfect of a situation as possible to successfully craft a lie that will pass muster.
Click to expand...

There is that too, I found that to be mind-boggling for the reason you previously stated.
 
The Merg

The Merg

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2009
1,210
34
91
Darwin333 said:
Who cares if it's under oath if they get multiple days to get their stories straight with each other AND they get to review the freaking evidence against them so they don't contradict it. It's literally as perfect of a situation as possible to successfully craft a lie that will pass muster.

And the statement in question is not under oath, that doesn't happen until after an investigation is concluded (based highly upon said police statement) and if wrongdoing is found they are brought up on charges.
Click to expand...

That's not exactly accurate. When a police involved shooting occurs, there are two separate and distinct investigations that occur.

1. Criminal Investigation
Officers have the same rights as any citizen in the right to a lawyer and to answer questions or not. Anything they say can be used against them in court. They will be mirandized just like any other person that is arrested or being interrogated. While many officers will speak without a lawyer, many will request a lawyer first before talking. The big thing here is that an officer cannot be forced to make a statement at this time.

2. Administrative Investigation
This is the Internal Affairs investigation. While it might be on-going at the same time as the criminal investigation, it is generally done afterwards. If done at the same time, the IA investigators and criminal investigators should not be discussing the case and interviews have to be done completely separate. The reason for this as an officer is compelled to answer any questions from the IA investigators. There is no "take the 5th" or "I don't want to talk." Since the statements are compelled, they can't be used in court. Hence, why they would want to do the criminal investigation first. This is also how many officers get administrative sanctions and not criminal charges.

For example, say an officer shoots someone but did not yell "Police" beforehand. While the law does not require that, there could be a department policy that requires it. So, while the shooting is legal, the officer violated a policy and gets gigged on that.

This could also be why an officer gets fired after a shooting and is not charged. It could be that a compelled statement revealed something that shows the officer was in the wrong, but it cannot be used in a criminal case.

- Merg

(And BTW, glad to hear about the conviction on the one guy so far.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AHamick
D

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
The Merg said:
That's not exactly accurate. When a police involved shooting occurs, there are two separate and distinct investigations that occur.

1. Criminal Investigation
Officers have the same rights as any citizen in the right to a lawyer and to answer questions or not. Anything they say can be used against them in court. They will be mirandized just like any other person that is arrested or being interrogated. While many officers will speak without a lawyer, many will request a lawyer first before talking. The big thing here is that an officer cannot be forced to make a statement at this time.

2. Administrative Investigation
This is the Internal Affairs investigation. While it might be on-going at the same time as the criminal investigation, it is generally done afterwards. If done at the same time, the IA investigators and criminal investigators should not be discussing the case and interviews have to be done completely separate. The reason for this as an officer is compelled to answer any questions from the IA investigators. There is no "take the 5th" or "I don't want to talk." Since the statements are compelled, they can't be used in court. Hence, why they would want to do the criminal investigation first. This is also how many officers get administrative sanctions and not criminal charges.

For example, say an officer shoots someone but did not yell "Police" beforehand. While the law does not require that, there could be a department policy that requires it. So, while the shooting is legal, the officer violated a policy and gets gigged on that.

This could also be why an officer gets fired after a shooting and is not charged. It could be that a compelled statement revealed something that shows the officer was in the wrong, but it cannot be used in a criminal case.

- Merg

(And BTW, glad to hear about the conviction on the one guy so far.)
Click to expand...

While I don't doubt what you say is true, it is absurdly rare for cops to be immediately charged with a crime. It is usually much later and after they have had a chance to review all evidence against them, in a lot of states this is actually something their unions have demanded/negotiated, potentially before even giving their statements to IA. And again, in just about every state they have days to get their stories straight.

Imagine the police showing a suspect all of the evidence they have against him before asking for a statement and then giving him a day or two to come up with a plausible story and get it straight with other parties. Sounds pretty absurd doesn't it?
 
The Merg

The Merg

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2009
1,210
34
91
Darwin333 said:
While I don't doubt what you say is true, it is absurdly rare for cops to be immediately charged with a crime. It is usually much later and after they have had a chance to review all evidence against them, in a lot of states this is actually something their unions have demanded/negotiated, potentially before even giving their statements to IA. And again, in just about every state they have days to get their stories straight.

Imagine the police showing a suspect all of the evidence they have against him before asking for a statement and then giving him a day or two to come up with a plausible story and get it straight with other parties. Sounds pretty absurd doesn't it?
Click to expand...

I know we disagree on this, but... :)

It is very true that cops are rarely charged immediately with a crime. Police work is the only job where as part of your job description that you are tasked with the ability to kill someone. If a police officer shoots someone, it is viewed that they did so in the context of their job, so it would take a while before determining whether or not it was outside the context of their job.

As for them viewing the evidence against them, you are viewing that the wrong way. Like I said, police are expected that in their job duties to have to possibly kill someone. As such, they are going to get the benefit of the doubt that they were acting within their duties when an incident occurs. It's been shown that many times immediately after an event, a person won't remember every little detail or subtlety of an incident. Sometimes taking that day or two will allow other details to be remembered. So, yes, there is a reason that it has been pushed for officers to have a day or so after an incident before they give a statement.

As an example, I have a friend who was training a rookie and they were in a pursuit. After the pursuit, the friend asked the rookie how many kids were outside the school they passed. The rookie replied that he didn't even notice they went by a school. The next day the rookie came in and said that one kid was in a red shirt and the other in a blue shirt. In the immediate aftermath of the pursuit, he didn't remember, but by the next day he had remembered additional details.

As for the police being shown all the evidence against them, that is also not necessarily true. In many cases, they are allowed to review video of the incident, but just because they review the video does not mean that it will save them from a bad shoot. If an officer says the reason why he shot someone was because he reached for his waist where there was a gun and the video shows the guy with his hands up the whole time, there's no excusing that (or shouldn't be at least).

I also think your thought process that they take a day or two to come up with a "plausible story and get it straight with other parties" is a little harsh as well. When an officer is involved in an officer involved shooting, they are not allowed to talk to with anyone else about the incident, except their lawyer. To think that all officers take that time to sit down and chat with everyone else involved to come up with a "story" as to why they shot someone is absurd. It's not like they shoot someone, go home and have a beer, and then go to sleep. Having to shoot someone is the last thing an officer wants to do and unless they are mentally unstable, most officers probably do not sleep very well after being involved in a shooting. My point here is that thinking that all officers involved in a shooting then conspire to make it a "good" shooting is way off base.

- Merg




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
D

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
The Merg said:
I know we disagree on this, but... :)

It is very true that cops are rarely charged immediately with a crime. Police work is the only job where as part of your job description that you are tasked with the ability to kill someone. If a police officer shoots someone, it is viewed that they did so in the context of their job, so it would take a while before determining whether or not it was outside the context of their job.

As for them viewing the evidence against them, you are viewing that the wrong way. Like I said, police are expected that in their job duties to have to possibly kill someone. As such, they are going to get the benefit of the doubt that they were acting within their duties when an incident occurs. It's been shown that many times immediately after an event, a person won't remember every little detail or subtlety of an incident. Sometimes taking that day or two will allow other details to be remembered. So, yes, there is a reason that it has been pushed for officers to have a day or so after an incident before they give a statement.
Click to expand...

Ok, then why aren't civillians given the same luxury? If their recall will be so much better in a few days why don't police wait a few days before questioning people involved in shootings?


As for the police being shown all the evidence against them, that is also not necessarily true. In many cases, they are allowed to review video of the incident, but just because they review the video does not mean that it will save them from a bad shoot. If an officer says the reason why he shot someone was because he reached for his waist where there was a gun and the video shows the guy with his hands up the whole time, there's no excusing that (or shouldn't be at least). [/quote]

No but it allows them to NOT say that he was reaching for his waistband and instead say something that fits the evidence. I don't see how you could possibly justify allowing officers to review ALL video evidence in a shooting BEFORE they give their statements, the only possible reason for this is to insure that their statements aren't contridicted by the video evidence.

also think your thought process that they take a day or two to come up with a "plausible story and get it straight with other parties" is a little harsh as well. When an officer is involved in an officer involved shooting, they are not allowed to talk to with anyone else about the incident, except their lawyer. To think that all officers take that time to sit down and chat with everyone else involved to come up with a "story" as to why they shot someone is absurd. It's not like they shoot someone, go home and have a beer, and then go to sleep. Having to shoot someone is the last thing an officer wants to do and unless they are mentally unstable, most officers probably do not sleep very well after being involved in a shooting. My point here is that thinking that all officers involved in a shooting then conspire to make it a "good" shooting is way off base.

- Merg
Click to expand...

Oh please, you are being naive because it happens all the time. Here is just one of so many incidents I could present but I chose this one because as a response they, like so many other departments, introduced the rule that officers now had 72 hours and the right to review all video evidence before giving their statements.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...tories-straight-after-shooting-citizens.shtml

Not one but TWO officers stated that the man "lunged" and "moved in a threatening manner towards the officers". Please look at the video and tell me how TWO officers witnessed, and used as justification to shoot a man 4 times, what they wrote in their separate statements they witnessed. I eagerly await you to tell me there was not collusion to make a bad shoot sound good.
 
The Merg

The Merg

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2009
1,210
34
91
Darwin333 said:
Ok, then why aren't civillians given the same luxury? If their recall will be so much better in a few days why don't police wait a few days before questioning people involved in shootings?
Click to expand...

In many ways, citizens are given that "luxury". It's not always that someone is arrested immediately after a homicide. Yes, it does happen in cases where there is overwhelming evidence to support it, but many times, the person is interviewed days after the incident, except for their initial statement that is usually given at the time of the incident, which by the way, officers involved in a shooting do have to do to some extent.

Darwin333 said:
No but it allows them to NOT say that he was reaching for his waistband and instead say something that fits the evidence. I don't see how you could possibly justify allowing officers to review ALL video evidence in a shooting BEFORE they give their statements, the only possible reason for this is to insure that their statements aren't contridicted by the video evidence.
Click to expand...

Whether or not he viewed the video, doesn't mean he will change his story. There are times when the officer knows they are being recorded and they say something that is completely contradictory to what the video says. Whether or not the officer viewed the video or not, doesn't necessarily mean the narrative will change. A bad shoot is a bad shoot and no matter what the officer views in the video to try to justify it is not going to happen (and shouldn't).

But do remember that not all videos show all the story. There can still be times where a video shows one thing, but reality is another. For example, look at the Alton Brown video. The initial video that was released looked really bad for the officers. However, once the second video came out, it showed what the officers had been saying in that he was continuously reaching into the one pocket and you hear the officer say he has a gun. If only the first video had been around and the officers had viewed that video, do you think they would have changed their "story" as to what happened? And in actuality, they didn't. They stuck with their version of events even thought the video contradicted it. It wasn't till a week or so later that the second video surfaced that corroborated their version of events.

Videos are great and add a good bit of detail to an incident, but they are not the be all end all that can be relied upon 100% of the time.

Darwin333 said:
Oh please, you are being naive because it happens all the time. Here is just one of so many incidents I could present but I chose this one because as a response they, like so many other departments, introduced the rule that officers now had 72 hours and the right to review all video evidence before giving their statements.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...tories-straight-after-shooting-citizens.shtml

Not one but TWO officers stated that the man "lunged" and "moved in a threatening manner towards the officers". Please look at the video and tell me how TWO officers witnessed, and used as justification to shoot a man 4 times, what they wrote in their separate statements they witnessed. I eagerly await you to tell me there was not collusion to make a bad shoot sound good.
Click to expand...

Happens all the time? How corrupt or criminal do you think the police are in this country? Anecdotal evidence can always be used to prove a point, but it rarely proves anything. In that case, the officers definitely appeared to be in the wrong and were fired and charged appropriately. They both stated that the subject lunged and there was no apparent movement by the subject to even indicate a lunge. The one officer was even charged with making a false statement. That being said, I can't say why they both lied. We don't know if they got to wait to make their statement or if they talked right after the incident to cover things up. Either way, it was wrong and dealt with (as it should be).

- Merg
 
D

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Victorian Gray said:
Plea deal. Too bad, should be doing more time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, negligent homicide is a bullshit charge to let him plea down to. Firing your gun at a vehicle with a father and son in it that is in no way threatening you and then lying and saying the driver was backing up to try to run you over isn't negligence. It's a very deliberate action. Even worse is it's state time so he could be out in 3 years if not sooner.
 
Humpy

Humpy

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2011
4,464
596
126
Darwin333 said:
Yeah, negligent homicide is a bullshit charge to let him plea down to. Firing your gun at a vehicle with a father and son in it that is in no way threatening you and then lying and saying the driver was backing up to try to run you over isn't negligence. It's a very deliberate action. Even worse is it's state time so he could be out in 3 years if not sooner.
Click to expand...

It's bullshit but better than being found not guilty.
 
shortylickens

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,080
136
Darwin333 said:
Yeah, negligent homicide is a bullshit charge to let him plea down to. Firing your gun at a vehicle with a father and son in it that is in no way threatening you and then lying and saying the driver was backing up to try to run you over isn't negligence. It's a very deliberate action. Even worse is it's state time so he could be out in 3 years if not sooner.
Click to expand...

I'm not calling you a liar but do you have any evidence to support the notion a 40 year sentence can allow a man to be paroled in 3 years? I dont doubt such cases exist, I'd just like to see them.
 
V

Victorian Gray

Lifer
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
shortylickens said:
I'm not calling you a liar but do you have any evidence to support the notion a 40 year sentence can allow a man to be paroled in 3 years? I dont doubt such cases exist, I'd just like to see them.
Click to expand...

"A spokeswoman for Attorney General Jeff Landry's office says the plea agreement calls for Greenhouse to be sentenced next Wednesday to 7-and-a-half years in prison."
 
D

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
shortylickens said:
I'm not calling you a liar but do you have any evidence to support the notion a 40 year sentence can allow a man to be paroled in 3 years? I dont doubt such cases exist, I'd just like to see them.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the 7.5 year sentence the 2nd cop got. The first cop will spend over a decade in jail at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom