Officer shoots bystander

[Tgo01]

Look at this dumb ass article from "The Daily Beast" in regards to this story:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/william-dorsey-jones-jr-lapd-cop-who-shot-valentina-orellana-peralta-in-burlington-store-a-wannabe-reformer


Valentina Orellana-Peralta and her mom, who had recently moved to the U.S. from Chile, were in a changing room when cops stormed a Burlington Coat Factory in North Hollywood on Dec. 23 to confront a man who was swinging a bike lock at women, bloodying at least one of them.

Yes the cops "stormed" the store. They were told there was an active shooter in the store and they saw at least one injured woman while they were looking for the suspect and he was in the process of injuring another woman. But yes they "stormed" the building.


That cops opened fire in spite of the suspect not being armed with a gun quickly served to revive long-standing tensions between the LAPD and communities of color, as well as the debate over police use of force nationally.

Yes that's right! The left is so fucking stupid in this country that they think someone can't possibly be a threat unless they have a firearm. Never mind the fact that this lunatic was bashing women over the head with a heavy bike lock that could easily result in permanent brain damage or even death, but he wasn't armed with a gun so the police should have just asked him nicely to stop and slid some handcuffs over to him across the floor and asked him nicely to place those on his wrists.

I also love this narrative of the "racist" police using too much force against "communities of color" despite the fact that both the police officer and the suspect both belong to "communities of color."

Fuck the media.

For those who don't know the police officer shot the suspect and one of the bullets went through a dressing room wall and struck and killed the teenage girl. Yes it's very tragic but the police officer had absolutely no way of knowing she was there, which is why the media is latching onto the narrative of police being too trigger happy against people with brown skin, even if said brown skinned people are in the process of bashing women over the head with heavy blunt objects.

[Realk]

poor training, and a bad use of a firearm. charge him up just like taser girl. i dont care how it gets written

[ClydeR]

Let's start the new year off right, not to mention early, with some hard truth. There are a lot of similarities to the Daunte Wright shooting. In fact, it is difficult to identify any important differences, other than that the shooter of Daunte Wright was white and the shooter of Valentina Orellana-Peralta was black. Is justice truly blind to skin color? We'll find out when a charging decision is made.

In both cases, the police officer acted to protect another person. In both cases, the officer made a mistake. In both cases, the mistake resulted in death. The only difference I can see, other than the aforementioned differences in skin color of the shooter, is that the victim of the Daunte Wright shooting was a criminal resisting arrest, and the victim of the Valentina Orellana-Peralta shooting was an innocent child bystander.

Certain People, who thought the Kim Potter case was correctly decided but think this officer should not be charged, need to do some self-reflection.

[Neveragain]

poor training, and a bad use of a firearm. charge him up just like taser girl. i dont care how it gets written

We should definitely just stand by and let criminals bash peoples skulls in.

[Slider]

I don't know which way to look at this. First off, they were responding to a suspect armed with a gun, and that shots had been fired. From the article

Bystanders who called 911 about Elena-Lopez offered contradictory information. One caller incorrectly said he was armed with a gun and had fired shots.

So, from the information the police had (from the 911 call) when they arrived at the scene, they had an active shooter, and went in with that mindset. If there had been an active shooter, would everyone have been screaming if they strolled in NOT ready for that? Once they got there, then yes, they saw an armed assailant who had already injured two women, as it states in the article. But, they also apparently gave no orders for the suspect to get down, they just opened fire on him. Not really buying that, every time I have witnessed police go after someone, even someone who is armed, they are shouting orders to drop the weapon, get down, etc. Just going in and immediately opening fire is something that is very likely to end up with the officer involved being charged by the DA, unless they can clearly show that the suspect was firing at them or someone else when they arrived.

The other part, the young girl that got shot? Yeesh, that is a nightmare. First off, an officer is responsible for any bullet he fires from the end of the barrel, to wherever it ends up stopping. Pretty much black letter law there. But, in the officers defense, the article also says

Soledad Peralta said at a Tuesday press conference that her daughter locked the changing room door as the chaos unfolded “to try to protect us,” and that the pair hugged and prayed until they “felt an explosion that threw us both to the ground.”

Unless the officer that fired that bullet had x-ray vision, there is literally no way that he could have known anyone was in that changing room. It's not like they have glass walls, that would sort of defeat the purpose of a changing room, you think? What is also stated is that the police fired 3 shots from a rifle at the suspect. No mention is made of how many of those rounds hit the suspect, or very possibly, went through the suspect and then possibly struck the girl. You are trained to always check what is behind your target for just this reason. Not saying that is the case, but it certainly could have happened. A 5.56 is capable of penetrating a human and a standard drywall both, particularly at close range, as seems to be the case in this incident.

Going to be hard to prove racial bias as a reason the little girl got shot, if there was no conceivable way for him to even see her, or know she was in the changing room. Still that would suck to have happen for everyone involved.

One of the reasons NYC stopped making the NYPD fire warning shots, is because of a little known law of physics (at least among politicians apparently) that what goes up, must come down. But the policy, handed down from the City, was every officer had to fire a "warning shot" into the air before they were allowed to shoot at a suspect. And after it caused several deaths from those warning shots fired, and subsequent lawsuits that the city lost when some little old lady two blocks over got killed by said bullet coming back down to Earth. (Literally.) The policy was changed for some reason. No idea why. /s.

[Neveragain]

I don't know which way to look at this. First off, they were responding to a suspect armed with a gun, and that shots had been fired. From the article

Bystanders who called 911 about Elena-Lopez offered contradictory information. One caller incorrectly said he was armed with a gun and had fired shots.

So, from the information the police had (from the 911 call) when they arrived at the scene, they had an active shooter, and went in with that mindset. If there had been an active shooter, would everyone have been screaming if they strolled in NOT ready for that? Once they got there, then yes, they saw an armed assailant who had already injured two women, as it states in the article. But, they also apparently gave no orders for the suspect to get down, they just opened fire on him. Not really buying that, every time I have witnessed police go after someone, even someone who is armed, they are shouting orders to drop the weapon, get down, etc. Just going in and immediately opening fire is something that is very likely to end up with the officer involved being charged by the DA, unless they can clearly show that the suspect was firing at them or someone else when they arrived.

The other part, the young girl that got shot? Yeesh, that is a nightmare. First off, an officer is responsible for any bullet he fires from the end of the barrel, to wherever it ends up stopping. Pretty much black letter law there. But, in the officers defense, the article also says

Soledad Peralta said at a Tuesday press conference that her daughter locked the changing room door as the chaos unfolded “to try to protect us,” and that the pair hugged and prayed until they “felt an explosion that threw us both to the ground.”

Unless the officer that fired that bullet had x-ray vision, there is literally no way that he could have known anyone was in that changing room. It's not like they have glass walls, that would sort of defeat the purpose of a changing room, you think? What is also stated is that the police fired 3 shots from a rifle at the suspect. No mention is made of how many of those rounds hit the suspect, or very possibly, went through the suspect and then possibly struck the girl. You are trained to always check what is behind your target for just this reason. Not saying that is the case, but it certainly could have happened. A 5.56 is capable of penetrating a human and a standard drywall both, particularly at close range, as seems to be the case in this incident.

Going to be hard to prove racial bias as a reason the little girl got shot, if there was no conceivable way for him to even see her, or know she was in the changing room. Still that would suck to have happen for everyone involved.

One of the reasons NYC stopped making the NYPD fire warning shots, is because of a little known law of physics (at least among politicians apparently) that what goes up, must come down. But the policy, handed down from the City, was every officer had to fire a "warning shot" into the air before they were allowed to shoot at a suspect. And after it caused several deaths from those warning shots fired, and subsequent lawsuits that the city lost when some little old lady two blocks over got killed by said bullet coming back down to Earth. (Literally.) The policy was changed for some reason. No idea why. /s.


The dead criminal is the causation of the entire event. Watching the video, it's a clean shot, there is nobody in the field of view but the criminal.

[ClydeR]

Unless the officer that fired that bullet had x-ray vision, there is literally no way that he could have known anyone was in that changing room. It's not like they have glass walls, that would sort of defeat the purpose of a changing room, you think? What is also stated is that the police fired 3 shots from a rifle at the suspect. No mention is made of how many of those rounds hit the suspect, or very possibly, went through the suspect and then possibly struck the girl. You are trained to always check what is behind your target for just this reason. Not saying that is the case, but it certainly could have happened. A 5.56 is capable of penetrating a human and a standard drywall both, particularly at close range, as seems to be the case in this incident.


You have zeroed in on the critical issue. The fact that the wall was not transparent, and the officer did not know what was behind it, is what calls the officer's actions into question.



Watching the video, it's a clean shot, there is nobody in the field of view but the criminal.

Who could have predicted that a high caliber bullet would pass through the criminal and the sheetrock behind him? Anybody, including anybody with no training. Who should shoot through a sheetrock wall without knowing what is behind it? Nobody, especially including somebody with training. Using either foresight or hindsight, it was a mistake.

[LOL BRIELUS]

So there is a duty to know what is behind walls? How is that reasonable?

[Neveragain]

You have zeroed in on the critical issue. The fact that the wall was not transparent, and the officer did not know what was behind it, is what calls the officer's actions into question.




Who could have predicted that a high caliber bullet would pass through the criminal and the sheetrock behind him? Anybody, including anybody with no training. Who should shoot through a sheetrock wall without knowing what is behind it? Nobody, especially including somebody with training. Using either foresight or hindsight, it was a mistake.

So just let the criminal bash the woman's skull in.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/AdolescentDemandingAmericanpainthorse-size_restricted.gif

[Neveragain]

So there is a duty to know what is behind walls? How is that reasonable?

Todays Liberal's are not reasonable.

I can only hope they are the ones getting their skull bashed in while the cops search the entire building.

[Seran]

You have zeroed in on the critical issue. The fact that the wall was not transparent, and the officer did not know what was behind it, is what calls the officer's actions into question.




Who could have predicted that a high caliber bullet would pass through the criminal and the sheetrock behind him? Anybody, including anybody with no training. Who should shoot through a sheetrock wall without knowing what is behind it? Nobody, especially including somebody with training. Using either foresight or hindsight, it was a mistake.

I think this is exactly what's going to be the end of the officer's career at the very least, the fact he used a rifle inside of an occupied retail center. Three shots and only one struck and killed a bystander? I'm surprised more weren't hurt. Imagine that bullet piercing drywall could have easily pierced multiple bodies.

[Seran]

Los Angeles PD is responsible for bringing as much into the community in the form of use of force or civil rights violation settlements as they do peace and safety it seems.

[Methais]

Seran's here, thread is officially gay and retarded now.

[Flap]

The released the body cam footage. The guy was at the other end of the aisle from the woman when he was shot, you ABSOLUTE FUCKING GHOULS.

[Wrathbringer]

Seran's here, thread is officially gay and retarded now.

This is correct.

[ClydeR]

So there is a duty to know what is behind walls? How is that reasonable?


You have it backwards. You have a duty not to shoot through a wall unless you know that nobody is behind it. Doesn't that make more sense than saying that it's okay to shoot through a wall unless you know that somebody is behind it?

[Methais]

Protip: You can't wallhack in real life

[ClydeR]

Clyder, that just seems so extreme to prevent lawful use of deadly force in any building, since noone has the omnipotence to know or see behind walls, especially if making a split second decision. No self defense or defense of other law is written to require that.

I posit this- if there was an active shooter in a school, and you were the SRO rushing to help defenseless children, but behind the shooter was a wall, that you couldn't see behind, your logic requires you not to shoot until you can somehow manuever the shooter in front of a window where you could see behind, and then confirm,while under fire, and near instantaneously, that noone was behind the shooter all the way to the max range of your weapon. Do you agree that only then Would the law protect you under defense of others?


In your scenario, which does not match the facts of the Burlington shooting, the officer would be justified in taking the shot and gambling that no one was behind the wall. I would say the result would be the same regardless of whether the background was a wall, a dense fog, the dark of night, or even a busy freeway where the odds favor hitting empty space or an unimportant part of a vehicle. It is a risk worth taking when absolutely necessary. How is your scenario different from what happened in the Burlington store? In your scenario, the perpetrator was using a gun, but in the Burlington incident, the perpetrator was not using a gun and was not attacking someone at the moment encountered by the officers.

In any building, there is always a chance that a bullet will go through a wall and hit someone on the other side. The officer knew that. He incorrectly concluded that the benefit of shooting the perpetrator outweighed the risk of hitting someone on the other side of the wall. The incorrectness of his conclusion was knowable in advance without the benefit of hindsight.