Unarmed Behavior Therapist with his hands up shot by Police Officer (video)

YouTube ^ | 7/21/2016 | News 7

[Vermont Lt]

A lot of states have legal liability limits for municipalities. In MA it used to be $100k, but that was many years ago.

The states protect themselves pretty well.

[Vermont Lt]

That is simply not true. A LARGE part of State Police training in MA is all about diffusion.

In fact, they spend more time on that than they do on firearms training.

[blackdog]

The large part of policing problems come from municipal or county forces. State police typically hire and train to a much different end goal. I look at Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland state troopers and see a much different product than Philadelphia, Newark, or Baltimore police.

[MeganC]

“I meant to kill the autistic man who was armed with a toy truck.”

Sorry, that actually makes it worse.

[Blennos]

Upon further reading and some reflection, I admit you are right. There was no excuse for this. When deadly force is used, the police better be damned sure they have good reason to do so.

By the way, it turns out my family knows the counselor, Charles Kinsey. His grandmother was our housekeeper when we were little kids. She is still a close family friend. Her kids and grand-kids are all fine people.

This is one clear case where the police are definitely in the wrong.

[Faith Presses On]

If people believe that “police shouldn’t take the law into their own hands” and say they’re just upholding the law and people’s rights on the one hand, shouldn’t they also not be quick on the other nad to convict police in the court of public opinion, and do so while knowing they don’t know much about the case?

People have hardly been unwilling to pronounce judgment here while not even knowing that the police officer says he wasn’t shooting at the black man, and many other things that have come out. The Miami Herald reported this:

“According to a law-enforcement source, Aledda was taking cover behind a squad car and fired from at least 50 yards away. He shot after another officer, in a radio transmission, suggested the autistic man was loading a weapon, which turned out to be the toy truck, the source said.”(1)

I also read an interview with the autistic man’s mother, who said that he is big and tall, often when he doesn’t get his way, he can get angry and physical. She warned the group home about him possibly “acting out” if they took him for July 4th fireworks. And this:

“On July 5, a behavior analyst from the group home called to tell her she needed to go to an urgent care center immediately. Rios had been injured while he was being restrained the day before, she said, and doctors could not treat the young man without her medical consent, as she was his legal guardian. “He was trying to get out of the house and he became aggressive and he was not allowed to get out of the house,” Soto said. Rios had broken his nose while being restrained. He also had broken his finger, an injury the group home says probably occurred earlier.” (2)

We don’t know what prompted the call to law enforcement by an onlooker. Since the man has a history of physically acting out,

You wrote earlier in this thread:

“Years of dealing with severely developmentally disabled and emotionally traumatized individuals did nothing to prepare him for an encounter with a paranoid and unpredictable person who was armed with a gun and a badge.”

There has not been proof to establish that the officer is a “paranoid and unpredictable person.”

If the police department is at fault here, rather than the incident being more of an accident that happened despite the best precautions they took while working within an imperfect system that is limited by things like budget constraints, then how does anyone know yet that it is the officer at fault, and not others in the department or a fault of the system that led to his actions?

I’ll also mention to you something I wrote to another poster here:

Jesus said this:

“Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.” Luke 6:38

What measure you use, will be measured back to you.

With social media being like a court, and the MSM following along, how would you like the public to treat you if you were accused of something that got high-profile attention and there was a narrative that inclined many people automatically to presuming you were guilty. Not everyone, but many people.

How much of the evidence would you want people to hear before arriving at a judgment about you? Would you want them to make a judgment if they haven’t even been willing to read one entire story about it? If they just hear a few sentences and jump in with their opinion, and don’t want to expend much energy to looking into the matter, but still want to arrive at some strong opinions about you. Would you want people lumping your case in as “one more example of how something is the matter with this type of person,” or would you want them to start from square one, and with the same mindset of a good citizen who wants to just pursue the truth and justice while sitting on a jury, will carefully try and consider each claim that is made? If any information came out that might make you look bad, would you like that person saying, “aha! I thought so,” or would you like the person to say, “that could be bad, but here’s a possible innocent explanation for that”?

(1) http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article91309192.html

(2) http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/north-miami/article91472342.html

[MeganC]

Thank you for your very long post. I appreciate the time you invested in it.

The police are desperately trying to blame the victims in this shooting and you’ll kindly forgive me if I’m having none of it.

1. If Officer Aledda was truly firing at the autistic man from just 50 yards away then there’s no excuse for hitting the black man. None. I can score a ten ring with my rifle all day long and at 100 yards. At 50 yards it’s not even a remote challenge.

2. If the police are going to “see” a gun in everyone’s hands (regardless if it’s actually a gun or not) and then use that as an excuse to kill someone then they need to find other work. Period.

3. If the police in this country are going to use lethal force for every encounter with civilians then they’re going to have to understand that some people are going to use lethal force for every encounter with law enforcement. Because in this country there’s no law that says people have to peacefully die when some idiot decides that their cell phone, toy truck, or lipstick is a gun.

Finally, liberty and our rights are rendered meaningless when you can get murdered and the jerk killing you can blow it off with a cheesy excuse that no one else would get away with using.

I still feel terrible for the officers in Dallas but if the police in this country are going to persist in acting like an army of occupation then they are going to foment an insurgency. It’s just that simple.

[Faith Presses On]

If Officer Aledda was truly firing at the autistic man from just 50 yards away then there’s no excuse for hitting the black man. None.

Well, then, what are you saying? The police officer meant to hit the black therapist in the leg? How come?

If the police are going to “see” a gun in everyone’s hands (regardless if it’s actually a gun or not) and then use that as an excuse to kill someone then they need to find other work. Period.

How are they "'see(ing)' a gun in everyone's hands"?  Despite all the encounters between police and the public, including minorities, police shootings are very much a rarity, especially in situations where someone hasn't actually done something serious - like engage in threatening behavior.

If the police in this country are going to use lethal force for every encounter with civilians then they’re going to have to understand that some people are going to use lethal force for every encounter with law enforcement.

"Use lethal force for every encounter with civilians"? Why did you say that? They don't. They usually don't even when they have to physically fight a suspect. "but if the police in this country are going to persist in acting like an army of occupation then they are going to foment an insurgency. It’s just that simple." What you write just sounds anti-police.

I'm wondering what you think of the other high-profile police shooting incidents of recent years.

And once again, on the officer in this case, you don't know if he is truly the one responsible for the error, and that he was either paranoid or just wanting to shoot someone, or if a reasonable person would conclude that what happened really was essentially unavoidable on his part.

One other point on that. Police officers, as we all know, aren't likely to be Harvard graduates, and most would admit that they aren't geniuses.

At the same time, they are dealing with a public which is growing more generally anti-social all the time. People are encouraged by the left not to follow rules "blindly," but to decide for themselves if they can "safely" break a rule. That's why I've seen several people in the city I've moved to drive up to red lights, stop (or not) for a second, and then proceed through the light if nothing is coming (though in one case I had to run back because I was crossing as a pedestrian on my green light).

People today are more self-satisfied but angry at others, cocksure that they're of the superior set.

So in a most challenging environment (and today's prevailing attitude is just a part of their challenges), you have police who typically would admit they weren't at the top of their classes. Let's an officer just makes a wrong decision, but not deliberately. It is out of making the best decision he or she could, given all factors, including their training, their understanding of things, and how well they're able to respond to rapidly-developing situation. Are you in favor of criminally punishing them not on the basis of their actual intent, which was to do good, but on the basis of the outcome? 

[MeganC]

“Are you in favor of criminally punishing them not on the basis of their actual intent, which was to do good, but on the basis of the outcome?”

Absolutely! BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT THEY DO TO EVERYONE ELSE!!!!

Or do you not believe that we’re all supposed to be equal before the law?

[Faith Presses On]

“Are you in favor of criminally punishing them not on the basis of their actual intent, which was to do good, but on the basis of the outcome?”
Absolutely! BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT THEY DO TO EVERYONE ELSE!!!!
Or do you not believe that we’re all supposed to be equal before the law?

Everyone else? What are you talking about? The evidence doesn't in any way support what you say, so I can't even imagine what you're talking about it.

[MeganC]

Why should I worry about the INTENT of the cops when they break the law when they don’t care about YOUR intent?

If you shoot someone because you’re in fear for your life and the person turns out to be totally innocent of anything then your ass is going to prison. Period.

But they can break into your home without a warrant, throw a hand grenade in your baby’s crib (nearly killing it), and then beat the hell out of you for ‘resisting arrest’ and when they find out they had the wrong house all that matters is their ‘intent’.

And that actually happened.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/infant-responsible-grenade-thrown-face/

You try that and see if your ‘intent’ stops the police from beating the hell out of you when they catch you and if it stops the DA from trying to put you away for life.

[Faith Presses On]

You make all these sweeping statements about the police, and talk about them attacking "everyone," and whatnot. They're anti-police and don't match the statistics or the reality. 

The odds of someone who hasn't in some way provoked a situation by police are miniscule (and on that, it's important to remember that citizens have some obligation to be cooperative with police and try to avoid appearing to pose a threat to them, and it is prudent to do so). Someone is far more likely to be killed innocently in an automobile, or by another civilian with a gun, than by police.

On the case you mentioned with the botched SWAT team raid, I recall hearing about it, but didn't look too far into the details at the time. Here are some (CNN):

 A confidential informant hours earlier had purchased methamphetamine at the house, the sheriff said.

Because Thonetheva had a previous weapons charge, officers were issued a "no-knock warrant" for the residence, Terrell said.

When the SWAT team hit the home's front door with a battering ram, it resisted as if something was up against it, the sheriff said, so one of the officers threw the flash-bang grenade inside the residence.

Once inside the house, the SWAT team realized it was a portable playpen blocking the door, and the flash-bang grenade had landed inside where a 19-month-old was sleeping, the sheriff said...

The child's mother, Alecia Phonesavanh, told CNN affiliate WSB the family was sleeping at her sister-in-law's house when police arrived, and the grenade seared a hole through the portable playpen after exploding on the child's pillow...

In hindsight, Terrell said at the time, officers would've conducted the raid differently had they known there was a child inside the home, but there was no sign of children during the alleged drug purchase that prompted the raid.

The uncle of the injured infant was the one wanted by police on meth-related charges. 

The wanted man's mother was in the home (sounds like it was her residence), as well as the other family, which was just visiting for the night.

According to police, meth was actually sold in the house earlier in the day.

And then the playpen the child was in was pushed up again the door.

Incidents like this are partly why it's considered dangerous to harbor someone, even  a family member, involved in the drug trade. It also might have been someone else involved in that trade who showed up at this home. and the outcome could have been just as bad or worse.

It's a tragic situation, and whatever defense was put on saying outrageous things, if that's what happened, I've yet to see what those statements actually were, or that if they were that outrageous, weren't just the products of lawyers.

If you shoot someone because you’re in fear for your life and the person turns out to be totally innocent of anything then your ass is going to prison. Period.

That is an apple-to-oranges comparison in so many ways. The typical concerns and circumstances of a private citizen versus someone when they are operating as a police officer is very different.

[MeganC]

I’m not going to bother reporting my personal history for you but just let me say that I’ve been on the receiving end of cops who do what they want and then make shit up to justify it afterwards. I’m happy to now live in a state where we don’t have those problems but I know what they are when I hear it because I’ve been there.

And you feel free to suck up to these people all you want. The first time it becomes expedient for them to accuse you of something you didn’t do you’ll remember this exchange and maybe you’ll realize I was right.

[Faith Presses On]

Well, if you won’t talk about your history, there’s no way to discuss what your grievances are.

Do cops make things up? Yes, I know they do, and for a variety of reasons, just as other people do on their jobs all the time, for various reasons and motives, and to varying degrees of importance.

You mention things, though, like the police attacking everyone they interact with, and don’t respond on statistics and the actual experiences of people, or on things like the excerpts I posted to you about the SWAT raid case.

At this point, I find it far, far more concerning to me what other segments of society with far more social power than the police have are doing. Just for one example: the bypassing of charges against Hillary Clinton and the whitewashing of evidence against her.