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 ...
listen to what you're saying....it was a smart move to FIRE towards a day care center???
I don't know what kind of kid this teenager was, and he may have well been a no good gangbanger....but the "murder" he and is brother are accused of was shooting towards a car and causing an accident with the accident actually killing the occupant....
if this were a black kid, we'd never hear the end of it, but being that it was just a whitey, shooting someone in the back towards a day care center is just ho-hum.
You can shoot at a fleeing unarmed guy if it’s a felon. The “philosophy” is that they are a danger to others, period. So this case will hinge on how credible was the intel on this guy.
My only beef with this kind of shoot is that I’m not allowed to do the exact same thing.
*Look up Brazil cop shootings on LiveLeak, (there are numerous), “justice” is often swift and all that’s left is the paperwork and the cleanup.
A new SA, Janet Reno, prosecuted a similar case in Miami, back around 1980. She got some kind of judgement, as I recall.
The subject was an suspected auto thief, who was in the process of climbing a fence to successfully flee police apprehension. Auto theft was a felony back then, and maybe still.
He was shot in the back of his head. Even if he is a POS, the cops are not judge and jury
Also, the 16 year old was just in police custody. When he ran and was being chased. He could not have a weapon. It said was known. also we don’t know what the case was about. Geez he could have just defended himself or killed his sisters rapist. We don’t know.
The report didn’t say he was in police custody, just that he initially complied with the police when he was pulled over. He was wanted for a shooting the previous day that led to a fatality, and then fled police, climbing over a fence onto a day care facility. All the tsk, tsk’ers would have their collective panties in a bunch if he’d have killed or harmed a child at that facility.
I stand by my opinion of a good shoot.
Wrong....you can IF YOU CAN PROVE your shooting was absolutely necessary and the lesser of two evils of letting the perp go, i.e. A prisoner escaping prison is unarmed. Someone who kills a cop with his own gun and then runs, someone who murders children and then runs.....THOSE people are far more dangerous if you let them go, but you HAVE TO PROVE that shooting them was absolutely necessary AND the lesser evil of letting them go.
Looks like an open and shut case of MURDER by cops with no self control.
I guarantee you, that cop was aiming for the body and he yanked the trigger.
We need a “fleeing felon” statute. Cops may shoot to stop a fleeing felon. Then declare fleeing a felony...Results in more dead criminals.
< /semi-sarc >
It was his brother that was responsible for the shooting. Not him. He was n he car.
IT WAS JUSTIFIED!
HE WAS WANTED FOR MURDER, HIS CAR WAS STOPPED, HE RAN, THE COPS WARNED STOP OR ALL SHOOT.. HE DIDN’T...
BOTH HE AND HIS BROTHER MURDERED SOMEONE... THE BROTHER WAS IN THE CAR AS WELL BUT DID NOT RUN< AND LATER CONFESSED...
THIS IS A GARBAGE LAWSUIT... YOUR SONS WERE MURDERERS!!! OWN IT!
PLEASE YOUNG IDIOTS, IF YOU DECIDE TO LIVE THE “THUG LIFE” TELL THOSE AROUND YOU NOT TO WHINE AND SUE AND WHAT NOT IF IT ENDS UP BEING A SHORT ONE.. BECAUSE LIVING THE “THUG LIFE” OFTEN ENDS UP THAT WAY.
They can its Supreme Court precedent... I forget the exact case, but if the cops warn you to stop and you don’t... you can be shot.. period.
This is the same as that fool kid out here in east pittsburgh that was involved in a drive by and fled when the cops stopped the car... Cop shot the punk... and the usual suspects screamed police abuse... the political DA put the cop up on trial which should HAVE NEVER HAPPENED, because even if he had been convicted it would not have stuck.. but the DA has future political ambitions so pandered to the activists in the black community.... Fortunately the jury which was mixed race, saw this for what it was and did not convict.
This is the problem. The person was a suspect, which means he was innocent until proven guilty.
The victim appeared to be carrying an object in his right hand, which the police probably assumed was the gun he had shot at them with the day before.
A gun? Looks like more like a ball cap. But regardless, holding something in your hand, unless it is a weapon, is not cause to shoot someone running away.
Here is the bottom line: if you don’t wanna get shot by the cops, obey their orders, don’t run, and especially don’t run when you’re wanted for murder.
Wow, nothing like giving up your rights and just bending over because someone with a badge says to do it. Police do not have dictatorial powers; and especially aren't meant to be judge, jury and executioner.
I hear you brother.
I share when there is a valuable lesson to the listener. Otherwise not so much. Jesus has heard it all and that’s the end of it.
Peace to you sir.
“You can shoot at a fleeing unarmed guy if it’s a felon.”
Idk about that, but regardless the kid was not a felon. He and his brother were sought for questioning in a shooting from the day earlier. There was not even a warrant for him. Yes, he fled, which was wrong, but you don’t shoot targets of an investigation in the back of the head (killshot). If anything, shoot the legs.
If these kids were that dangerous to begin with, it was sloppy police work not to have enough backup to prevent fleeing to begin with. They had been trailing the car and had plenty of time to plan the stop.
The news article said that it was he, not his brother, that was wanted for questioning in the fatal shooting the day before. Either way, there is a 100% chance that his criminal days are over, and another dirt bag thug has been permanently removed from the streets.
Again, good shoot.
Read a few other articles. It was his brother who was involved in a shooting that caused an accident, not him. That is a fact. He may have been a passenger in the car. But, his brother was arrested for the shooting.
Ok. So the police pull over a suspect in a shooting that led to a fatality, and after initially complying with the police, the known juvenile thug takes off running and scales the fence to a day care center where kids are. Justified shoot because the police had a probable fear that said juvenile thug could harm the kids at the day care. Or would you have liked for the police not to have shot, and potentially ended up with innocent kids being harmed/killed by a known thug because the police failed to act.
In my book, and apparently the inquiry’s outcome, it was a justified shoot. It just had the additional benefit of ensuring no more crimes were committed by the thug in the future.
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.