Rage in wake of LAPD shooting

Rage in wake of LAPD shooting

QUOTE
“We have been sent a message that we cannot get justice,” said Minister Tony Muhammad, western representative for the Nation of Islam. “It is a messed up message to young people who are going to start taking justice into their own hands. We are now going to have a problem between the Black community and the police, where there is already tension.

“We could have an all out war. I say they shouldn’t do that,” Muhammad added. “What we need to do is rally and come together to show the world that here is a democratic society that prides itself on giving others human rights, but not here at home. We go and beat up dictators all around the world, but we can’t get justice here in America.”
UNQUOTE

This is a wonderful opportunity for the gun grabbing Brady Bunch to visit LA and convince law-abiding citizens to turn in all their guns. Brady can start by telling citizens how the LAPD will prevent crime 24/7 and in the rare case crime does occur, criminals will be promptly caught, prosecuted, and sentenced to the maximum time in prison.

I don't know the answer to LA's problem but I don't believe forcing law-abiding citizens to turn in their guns and deny them the tools to defend self and property is the answer.

But where in the article does it mention gun control? Sounds like they need to take the guns from the police out there!

this in the "Gun Rights & Gun Control" forum because it's part of an ongoing discussion of whether gun control laws prevent crime.

Can somebody ask jody what
- a story about abuses committed by employees of the executive branch of government
has to do with
- crimes committed by individuals?

Or maybe (I'm guessing, you see, not getting any point) what
- the use of firearms by individuals to commit crimes
has to do with
- the use of firearms by employees of the executive branch of government to commit abuses?

Or what
- the absence of measures to prevent employees of the executive branch of government from committing abuses
has to do with
- measures to prevent individuals from gaining access to firearms to commit crimes with?

How, exactly, is a story about abuses committed by, and the absence of measures to prevent abuses being committed by, police "part of" any discussion of "whether gun control laws prevent crime"??

Unless, maybe, he's suggesting that if the risk-taking kid in the story had been armed with a firearm, he might have shot the cops (them being, presumably, individuals using firearms to commit a crime) before the cops shot him ...

I mean, I dunno. I really don't get it.

This part of the article seemed to spring from the page:
...after leading officers on a brief car chase that ended near 83rd Street and Western Avenue when Brown, an eighth-grade honor student at Audubon Middle School, backed the car he was driving into a police cruiser...

O.K. The kid was 13 and driving. There's a misdemeanor charge or two. He backed into an occupied police car. There's possibly an assault or endangerment charge. There was a chase preceeding the crash and shooting. I don't know about California - someone enlighten me - but if such an action (the crash) happens during a chase in this state there is nearly guarantee of felony assault or attempted murder charges being filed.

I'm not justifying or rationalizing the shooting in any way. There's insufficient information in the article to make a call.

Either way, I don't think we're getting all of the story.

IMO, if it was a bump, the shooting is not justified. If it was a case of foot-to-the-floor ramming, the shooting is certainly justified.

It was just a joy ride gone wrong ... the way so many joy rides do.

Car chases are no-win situations for cops no matter what they do. If they do chase, they generally increase the danger to other people, since the chasee will almost certainly speed up and drive more dangerously (and possibly cause harm that would not have occurred if they had not chased). If they don't chase, there's still a risk that harm will be caused by the joy-rider (that would not have occurred if they has apprehended him/her), given how 13-year-olds who take vehicles illegally aren't likely highly skilled or conscientious drivers, and how other kinds of car thiefs often have little regard for public safety.

These are matters about which police really need to be given political direction, which direction will, one hopes, be based on thorough study of the outcomes of joy-riding (or other car thefts) and police chases.

I'd wager, although I wouldn't claim, that the kid here wasn't ramming the police car as an end in itself, he was either too bad a driver to have the car in the correct gear or put his foot on the correct pedal, or attempting to get away (as distinct from attempting to cause harm, although the outcome might well be the same).

We don't even know that the cops knew there was a 13-year-old behind the wheel. Based on what they'd seen, they might have had reason to assume the worst, i.e. that they needed to stop the driver by any available means because if they didn't some serious harm was likely to occur to someone else, and to believe that they couldn't do that without shooting. Of course, they might also just have been really peeved that someone had backed a car into their vehicle. I would like to think that the latter possibility was at least unlikely.

I wouldn't see the force with which the vehicle struck the police car as necessarily relevant to whether the shooting was justified -- even if it had been forcefully rammed, shooting might not have been necessary to stop further harm, just as it isn't always necessary to shoot anyone in order to prevent him/her from doing anything else. A forceful ramming might indeed have made the cops think that the person behind the wheel intended them harm, of course, and *if* they thought he had the intention and means of pursuing that purpose, then shooting would not seem entirely unreasonable.

But anyhow ... one more example of the merits of requiring that car owners not leave their vehicles unlocked or leave keys in the ignition ... and possibly even of requiring that vehicles be equipped with further safety devices to prevent them from being driven if broken into and hot-wired, if that is commonly done and harm commonly results.

Like you, I wouldn't wager that the crash was a deliberate ramming. I would quialfy (for the oficers) that the force of the crash would likely have been a determining factor.

See my post below for more information.

<snip>Devin was killed about 4 a.m. at the end of a pursuit. According to police, Officer Steve Garcia and his partner were on routine patrol near Gage and Grand avenues when they saw a maroon Toyota Camry run a red light. The officers followed the car onto the Harbor Freeway and tried to pull the driver over.

A three-minute chase ended when the driver of the Toyota — police said it was Devin — left the freeway, lost control of the car and drove onto the sidewalk. The officers then parked their patrol car behind the Toyota. A 14-year-old passenger fled.

Police said that Devin backed the Camry into the right side of the patrol car and that Garcia fired 10 times, killing the boy. Police say the car was stolen, although the officers who pursued it were unaware of that.

http://www.manhunt.com/news/stories/1108565274.html

<snip>On February 6, shortly before 4am, after a five-kilometre police car chase, the pursued (stolen) car skidded onto a kerb. One passenger dropped out, the car began backing up, and police fired 10 rounds into it. Several went straight into 13-year-old Devin Brown, killing him instantly. Brown was an honour student, according to his teachers, he had had trouble dealing with his father’s death a year earlier. The police have announced a new training scheme in response to the shooting. On February 14, a community meeting attended by hundreds demanded the police officers involved be charged.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/616/616p18e.htm

<snip>The shooting occurred about 4 A.M., after Brown crashed a 1990 Toyota Camry that was reported stolen onto a sidewalk. After a 14-year-old passenger ran from the scene, the vehicle backed into a patrol car.

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/4196942/detail.html

Let's see: 4:00 A.M., driving a car that has ben reported stolen, evadin officers, passenger bails out and flees on foot, driver crashes into police cruiser after it has been parked and officers ar either exiting or have exited the cruiser.

Let's take a look at this scenario for a moment. It appears to be a proper shoot from the information available.

What in the hell is a 13-year-old doing out at 4:00 A.M. driving a stolen car?

That's one red flag for the cops: the stolen car. Here's another: the attempt at flight. Here's another: the passenger runs away after the car hits the sidewalk. Yet another: the driver backs the stolen car into the police cruiser.

It's hard to determine age in the dark when the person in question appears to be doing all he can to avoid a face-to-face anything.

What? They should have been able to see that it was a kid? Not necesarily. There's no mention of his size, but I know a great many kids via my wife, the retired 8thh grade teacher, who were over 6" at that age. I've been this height and shaving since I was 12.

I can't fault the cops from the information available at this time.

I can fault the writer from SF Bayview for leaving out pertinent details.

It seems that the officers doing the chasing/stopping didn't actually know that the car was stolen -- but they *did* know that the driver had run a red light and attempted to evade apprehension.

Those are at least as good, as "red flags" (dangerous driving that the police have a responsibility to protect the public from, on the face of the traffic offence, and good reason to suspect something more nefarious from the attempt to evade apprehension), as knowledge that a car is stolen. So the case was perhaps even stronger than you stated it. ;)

"There's no mention of his size, but I know a great many kids via my wife, the retired 8thh grade teacher, who were over 6" at that age. I've been this height and shaving since I was 12."

:evilgrin:

P.

Surely you're not suggesting that little tiny people shouldn't be entitled to ... um ... drag firearms around with them ...

Damn that shift key. I'm always hitting it when I shouldn't.

(I hope you appreciate tha I avoided the obvious penis line.)

:D

Restraint noted...

How about an obscure one though?

("Is that an erect penis in your pocket or are you just pleased to ....errrr......hang on!")

One concern I still have is that the officer hit his own car with 5 of the 10 shots he fired - that raises the possibility that he wasn't in quite as much danger from the car as if he had been directly in the path. I'm leaning toward the idea that it was justified, based on all the other factors, but I'm not totally convinced. I do agree that the age and honor student status of the driver are irrelevant...

I'm only working with the information available. It's obvious that we don't have it all.