Please help make FR's voice louder.
Truth, Justice, and the American Way.
Posted on 01/29/2016 1:43:21 PM PST by BenLurkin
Two former Los Angeles police officers who fatally shot an unarmed motorist from behind, on live TV, were fired and now are suing to get their jobs back.
Michael Ayala and Leonardo Ortiz were among about two dozen officers who pulled up behind 51-year-old Brian Beaird’s mangled Corvette after he crashed in downtown Los Angeles in 2013, ending a long, high-speed pursuit.
As TV news helicopters circled overhead and water from a damaged fire hydrant rained down, adding to the chaos of the scene, Beaird stumbled around the back of his car, turned away from officers and appeared to be trying to flee on foot.
That’s when Ayala, Ortiz and a third officer opened fire, killing Beaird.
...
A law enforcement source familiar with the case, who was not authorized to publicly comment on the matter, said the two officers were fired as a result of the shooting.
{LAPD Chief] Beck issued a rare public rebuke of the officers, calling their actions "unjustified."
The City Council, concerned that a civil jury would find the officers had used excessive force, approved a $5-million settlement with Beaird’s father, who said he’d watched his son’s death on live TV. That settlement is the largest paid by the city in a police shooting in more than a decade.
Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey declined to press criminal charges, however, saying a jury might believe the officers legitimately feared for their lives. They claimed they saw Beaird reach for his waistband, possibly for a gun, as he stumbled out of the car. Beaird did not have a gun, but a police shooting is legal as long as the officers believe the suspect poses a direct threat to them, or others.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
“””Beaird did not have a gun, but a police shooting is legal as long as the officers believe the suspect poses a direct threat to them, or others.”””
Does that go for civilians, too?
No matter how bad your briefs are pinching you, never move to rearrange your junk when dealing with the police.
Ah, yes, the old “charged us and reached for his waistband”-schtick.
Just like OREGON.
Truth, Justice, and the American Way.
“â€â€Beaird did not have a gun, but a police shooting is legal as long as the officers believe the suspect poses a direct threat to them, or others.â€â€â€
“Does that go for civilians, too?”
Actually, yes.
But it is a bit more than the article states.
The standard is not simply that the officers believe the subject poses a direct threat to them or others.
It is that a reasonable person in the officer’s situation, knowing what the officers knew, would believe that the subject poses a direct threat to them or others.
Too bad, so sad; Mr Beaird suffered from insufficient melanin.
“It is that a reasonable person in the officer’s situation, knowing what the officers knew, would believe that the subject poses a direct threat to them or others.”
Well, that just about covers any “murder under color of authority” now doesn’t it! And sad to say, the cops get away with murder on a dally basis, because of their internal “code of omerta” which says that they cover for each other no matter what really happened. I mean whatever is necessary for their protection, liyng, throw down weapons, you name it!
Suing to get his job back. Gimme a break.
These guys shot the piss outa that guy when he was no longer a threat. All the cops that shot him should be in prison till they die.
And any cop that thinks what they did was OK should be paying the $5M Los Angeles gave the family, and with earnings from some job other than being a cop.
“””“â€â€Beaird did not have a gun, but a police shooting is legal as long as the officers believe the suspect poses a direct threat to them, or others.â€â€â€
Does that go for civilians, too?”””
Doesn’t work for cops either.
Its supposed to be “if officers reasonably believed the suspect poses a direct threat to them or others.”
The problem is the concept of “reasonably” for a cops is similar to that of a 6 year old girl throwing a temper tantrum.
Cops reach for their weapons all the time “unreasonable”(such as traffic stops at night before they even talk to the person) if you pop one and use the same defense they use, “suddenly” the DA is all about charging you and the definition of “reasonable” gets really really “text book”.
Alot of this shift is due to the fact that DA simply refuse to submit charges for juries to decide. This is also why the government is terrified of jury nullification because they, see how they are abusing it for their benefit and don’t want it turned against them. Thus short of extreme and caught on tape... any action for cops is deemed “reasonable”.
They just have to remember to say those magic words, and all will be well.
If a violent offender drops a firearm and runs away they are still a demonstrated violent offender.
He was in a high speed chase crashed, how do the police know what he does or does not have. It also depends on the nature and danger of the case. (drugs, pain killers, endangerment of others etc...)
Know your place, serf.
Don't ask upity questions or you will get yourself in trouble...
Why is it ok for officers to shoot a fleeing suspect, but I can’t?
Why is it ok for officers to shoot innocents in clearly the wrong color truck?
Don’t give me any of this split second, high stress situation bunk!
Neither apply in either case.
“Why is it ok for officers to shoot a fleeing suspect, but I can’t?
Why is it ok for officers to shoot innocents in clearly the wrong color truck?
Don’t give me any of this split second, high stress situation bunk!
Neither apply in either case.”
They are “”highly” “trained” “professionals” with “nerves of steel”” thats why....
Protoculture infusions as well.
How about this, they can get their jobs back when they repay the taxpayers for the $5 million that was lost to the families lawsuit. Then they can post a $2 million bond each for any future acts which result in a lawsuit.
Kinda, excpet it was “stumbling through snow with his hands high in the air, might have reached for his waistband while having a gun in his pocket”. Killed anyway.
He was shot live on TV, shown by helicopter cameraman. I saw it. WOW what did I just see?
I say this as evidence that the shooting was not warranted. Usually TV pans away for the actual shooting, but the broadcasters were surprised, not expecting this.
The old guy wasn’t really trying to flee, as much as stumble out of his wrecked car, around the back to the passenger side and to the sidewalk, out of the street. He did not make it. Collapsed just after clearing the trunk as I recall.
Was watching at the time as well. It was gnarly.
The only other one I saw like that was a guy shot in fast food parking lot in Long Beach at the end of a chase. He actually was armed and pointed the weapon at the PD. Went down in what could only be described as a hail of bullets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.