Anyone following this story:
Apparently North Carolina police shot an 18 year old in the process of serving him an arrest warrant for the robbery of two Playstation 3s from a fellow student. I haven’t been able to read all of the articles out there, but what I have read is very light on justification for the killing. He was allegedly playing a game of Tiger Woods Golf when the police arrived, and may have had a PS3 controller in hand. His dog was also killed in the struggle.
One of the articles mentions that his father is a wrongful death lawyer. He should be able to get to the bottom of this.
Generally I’m suspicious and unforgiving of inappropriate police behavior, but I’ll wait for a little more info before I decide if this was inappropriate.
What is the relevance of your reticence to your quoted portion of the article? Has it been proven that the victim was guilty of the alleged crime? Even if he was guilty, so what? How does that justify killing him? The only question that matters is whether he pose any threat to the officers who shot him. As far as I’m concerne, it’s up to the cops to prove they were justified, not to anyone else to prove they weren’t. They’re murderers unless and until they can prove they had a reason to kill him.
Yeah, Jim! Only pussies and fascists “wait for more info” before passing judgment.
The quote shows that the alleged perpetrator was thought to be a risk. Obviously, as they were arresting him, he hadn’t yet been proven guilty. I did not read in Earthworm Jim’s post that he was absolving the officers of blame, but he also wasn’t jumping to the conclusion that they were gun-happy cowboys just waiting to shoot someone (and his dog, Toto, too). We’ve all seen enough early news reports filled with sketchy facts to know that perhaps there is more to the story than at first reported.
This is a case where there is no question that a person has been shot and killed, so the burden of proof now shifts to the shooters to prove it was justified.
It’s funny that people always want to afford police shootings a kind of negative burden that they wouldn’t grant anyone else. If I break into your house and kill you, does the state have to prove I wasn’t justified or do I have to prove I was?
I dunno. Police have strong evidence (strong enough to get a warrant) that a guy committed a violent crime. They break into his house, and he turns to face them holding a black glossy object in his hand. I can easily imagine circumstances under which they’d mistake that for a gun.
The burden of proof is on the shooters to prove it was justified, no question, but how about giving them some time to meet that burden?
Daniel
There is nothing in the story that says he posed any threat to the officers who busted into his house and killed him. The Sheriif’s statement that the victim was “a risk and a danger” is just weasel words. He based that characterization on the alleged prior robbery, not on anything that happened at the scene of the shooting and the scene of the shooting is all that matters. A routine mugging is not something which allows the cops to become executioners.
I’m not affording shit to shinola, actually— I just found it (wryly) amusing the way you balked at the notion that he might want more details on what happened, before assuming this is another senseless assassination by the latest police death squad. But I guess everything we need to convict is in that brief AP release, eh?
Cops must have the worst vision of any occupation. The number of objects which seem to get mistaken for guns (including wallets, game controllers and nothing at all) is staggering. The sad thing is that all any cop ever has to say is “I thought he had a gun” and it’s an automatic get-out-of-jail card. Like I said, it imposes an impossible negative burden. How can it ever be proven that the shooter didn’t think the victim had a gun? It allows the cops to kill with impunity. As long as they say the magic words, “I thought he had a gun,” nothing will ever happen to them.
When did I say I wasn’t willing to give them time? Of course they’re entitled to an investigation and trial. I just think the burden is on them rather than the state.
Agreed.
Assumption on your part. Unknown at this time.
Agreed.
I’m willing to wait until I have a better idea of what’s happened before calling for a public execution of the officers.
:rolleyes:
If the guy with the playstation is innocent until proven guilty, then the cops should be also.
Or does justice work different in your world?
I don’t know why, but the last two sentences of the OP made me crack up.
No assumption at all. That’s exactly what the sheriff said himself.
Like I said, his assertion that the victim was a “risk and a danger” was based on his assumption that the victim had committed a prior armed robbery, not on anything that happened at the scene. Since any prior alleged crime is irrelevant to whether the shooting was justified, his statement can only be categorized as weaseling.
Sure. But the burden will be on them, not the state.
The cops would be entitled to a presumption of innocence if they were denying that they shot and killed somebody. But once those facts are stipulated to, then the burden to prove they were justified shifts to them.
If John Dillinger exits a bank with a empty, hot Tommy Gun and 10 dead people inside, to be captured by Eliot Ness, it doesn’t become Dillinger’s burden to prove his innocence. The police officers, who likely must make a statement about a police-involved shooting, already are behind Mr. Dillinger, who has the right to say absolutely nothing.
I seriously doubt the officers are going to say “My bad” in their report. They will report events in a way that exonerates them (even if they are totally in the wrong), and it will likely be investigated internally (which might be in the officers’ favor, or it might not). If the state wishes to pursue further charges beyond what any internal police investigation shows or even based on what the investigation discovers, the state must prove criminality.
That was probably my fault. I was trying to present possible motives (controller looks like gun, attacking dog escalating tension). On the other hand, I have the game and can’t help thinking about the police busting down my door demanding that I stop playing golf or they’ll shoot my dog.
“How would you like to hold the trigger?”
“You have selected: Feather Touch.”
“Bullet has landed in: random teenager.”
Perhaps in the eyes of you and the public this is true. However, I’d like to see a legal cite backing this up. The police have admitted that someone got shot during the course of executing their duties, yes, but proving it was murder still rests on the prosecution, much like of someone broke into your house and you shot him, you could admit that you shot him but it still would not prove you guilty of murder.
The situations are slightly different, but the law works the same way in either case.
