Posted on 10/24/2019 6:50:00 PM PDT by BenLurkin
The surveillance camera footage, provided by attorney Stuart Chandler, shows 16-year-old Isiah Murrietta Golding climb a fence and enter a small yard as he is being chased by two officers.
Murrietta Golding, wearing a gray sweater, lands on his feet and starts to run. One officer climbs the fence while the other gets into a crouching stance and fires through the fence, the video shows. Murrietta Golding then stumbles and falls to the ground.
In the police body camera footage, also provided by the attorney, someone off camera can be heard saying "good shot."
The bullet went through the back of the teen's head, according to the father's lawsuit, and he died three days later. The lawsuit claims the officer who fired had no "objective facts" to believe that Murrietta Golding was armed or reaching for a weapon. The teen was unarmed, the lawsuit states.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Thanks pig.
I didn’t mean in court woman.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1(1985).
Feel the butthurt flow through you.
She called another poster a “pathetic clown”
I don’t that qualifies as “well reasoned”
No, he was a known violent gangbanger who had shortly before with his brother engaged in a drive by shooting and killed someone. His brother confessed to the murder.
https://www.pe.com/2016/01/22/murrieta-fatal-shooting-was-drug-fueled-mistake-witness-says/
Freepers like killing
Few have done much of it
You’re such a lady.
Even if one thinks it was justified, a couple here seem to get off on it. It’s messed up.
Thank you.
Wrong link, here’s the correct one:
The “pathetic clown” comment came after the posts I was referring to.
Yes, personal attacks are a bad idea. TexasGurl24 did not need to do that. She was winning on logic and fact.
I wouldn’t believe anything from CNN quoting the father’s lawsuit. More of their typical spin and bias.
You are probably correct. I shouldn’t have snapped like that. I do get miffed when people just make up laws, we have enough bad judges doing that very thing.
No where was there ever an “old west law” of “shooting someone in the back is always murder and you are immediately hung.”
That’s something pulled out of thin air.
The law was actually the opposite of that. At common law, the police could kill any escaping felon.
The Supreme Court modified it from ANY fleeing felons to:
1. Felons who were threatening with a deadly weapon; or
2. Felons who had committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of death or serious bodily injury.
Shooting an escaping felon who passed a bad check or committed an unarmed burglary is a no-go now.
Shooting an escaping felon who has murdered someone is still in bounds, pursuant to Garner.
Now some States are even more restrictive than what Garner allows, but the California Code (until this year) was very permissible, and basically tracked Garner.
Complying with lawful authority is now a fun-filled competitive sport! Can you out run or out-fight the representatives of the local self-government?! Grab their service weapon in a tussle and win the game!! Civilization is better off without 16 year-old, sweater-wearing Isaiah, who apparently couldn’t foresee his own untimely demise.
Civilization: it’s an either/or thing.
The deadly chain of events started Friday when Murrietta and his 17-year-old brother got into an argument with four others in a parking lot at First and Gettysburg avenues.
When the four drove away, police say the 17-year-old fired several gunshots at their car, causing it to crash into a tree. The driver, 19-year-old Eugenio Ybarra, was not hit by a bullet but died in the crash.
Because the shooting caused a death, the 17-year-old Murrietta brother is being held responsible.
“He's been charged with one count of murder and three counts of assault with a deadly weapon,” Dyer said.
The gun used in Friday's shooting has not been found. The 16-year-old shot by a police officer remains on life support, and family members held a vigil outside the hospital Sunday and accused police of over reacting.
First, the kid was a suspect in a murder case. Second, he jumped the fence into a compound of a daycare center. Third, to me, it looks like he has something in his right hand as he is running. Fourth, the suspect was known to police to carry a gun. Sorry, but if you don’t wanna get shot, don’t murder people, and don’t run from the cops when you’re trying to arrest you.
“You can’t shoot an unarmed person in the back, even if he had broke the law.”
In the 1980s, a pair of Supreme Court decisions — Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor — set up a framework for determining when deadly force by cops is reasonable.
Constitutionally, “police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances,” David Klinger, a University of Missouri St. Louis professor who studies use of force, said. The first circumstance is “to protect their life or the life of another innocent party” — what departments call the “defense-of-life” standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect poses a dangerous threat to others.
This person was wanted for a homicide and running toward a day care center. The cop had every right to shoot him.
Like it or not, that is the law.
Lol, the police “overreacted.” I’m guessing all the “family members” present were female.
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.