Sfdebris.net

Conveniently omiting, that the driver, the father of the kids, was a suspect in an armed robbery of a Pizza Hut about two weeks earlier at the time of the shooting and is now charged for said armed robbery. An article implying that cops should just "step out of the way" of a suspected armed robber refusing to stop his car or, possibly, even attempting to run them over, can frankly go fuck itself, especially if it's unclear whether they even knew that the kids were in the car as well. Do they even realize, that they are essentially justifying the father using his kids as human shields or hostages against the cops? Great job, well done. *slowclap*

Man charged for Hugo Pizza Hut robbery

I'm sorry for the kids, but the father is to blame, not the cops. Also, releasing the names of the cops is a fucking stupid thing to do.

Yeah he stole money from Pizza hut so it's his fault hour honorable brothers in blue filled his three seperate children with carefully aimed headshots.

Releasing the names of the cops puts them in danger of terrible reprisals, like maybe a month of paid administrative leave followed by an internal investigation which will clear them of all wrongdoing. #BlueLivesMatter

Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 1:21 am Yeah he stole money from Pizza hut so it's his fault hour honorable brothers in blue filled his three seperate children with carefully aimed headshots.

Releasing the names of the cops puts them in danger of terrible reprisals, like maybe a month of paid administrative leave followed by an internal investigation which will clear them of all wrongdoing. #BlueLivesMatter

Shots carefully aimed as they were either hit by the truck or dodging it? I have a few doubts.

Do you realise how hard it is to actually shoot three moving people in the head outside of Hollywood and videogames? Cops and soldiers are taught to aim for the centre of mass for a reason.
Why is this important? Because this is either a lie, the world's greatest accident, or an execution.

The article says that the guy was a suspect.

Either way there's not much information on the situation.

BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 7:08 pm The article says that the guy was a suspect.

Either way there's not much information on the situation.

The news always uses that term to avoid libel. You can watch someone shoot someone on live TV and s/he will still be called a 'suspect'.

But the not much information is probably why the full spin is going here. Three children out of four all hit with various amounts of gun fire and one is lodged in the brain of one of them. And all have been released from the hospital? For a bullet to stop like that it had to have slowed down. A bunch. That means it went through other things to slow down. Based on ages and this was a truck. How do the officers know there are children inside? If this man was driving to run them down then a low shot to a door could put a bullet right by the children's heads while aiming for his center mass. But this is all speculation.

So this all boils down to how accurate the cops' story is.

Fuzzy is not an unreasonable guy, and I'm sure he would agree that a car, properly wielded, is absolutely a deadly weapon. If someone is intent on using their car as a weapon, then the police don't really have any choice but to use deadly force - not only for their own protection, but for the protection of others. That three children got injured is of course a tragedy, but not one that the police can realistically be held accountable for.

BUT.....Fuzzy can be forgiven for not exactly rushing out to embrace the police narrative with open arms. Sadly, we have ample evidence that the police often ludicrously overestimate the 'threat' being posed to them, and will often outright LIE about what happened in order to justify their actions. We don't know that anything like that happened in this case, of course, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.

This is exactly what bodycams were invented for. Roll tape.

Amazing how infrequently those bodycam footages are released for people to see what was going on.
But these were officers in plain clothes. I assume non-uniformed officers do not have bodycams?

Nealithi wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 8:16 pmI assume non-uniformed officers do not have bodycams?

It definitely lowers the odds, but it's not impossible. Cameras have gotten VERY small, and while they're in plain-clothes, they're still on duty.