Bad outcome. I thought all toy and replica guns in California were required to have a blaze orange device at the end of the muzzle?
They paint them
Bad outcome. I thought all toy and replica guns in California were required to have a blaze orange device at the end of the muzzle?
Yeah, but you know if it was just a lowly citizen that did it then there'd be hell to pay, you'd hear the old this is why only cops should be carrying guns etc.
As long as we arent dealing with another case of " the officers said 'the guy with the knife came at us and we had to shoot' then neighbor's video shows otherwise." I'm cool with this. I saw the file photo of the rifle on the ground. It looks real enough that I'd have fired too. Especially with stories like this showing up now...
IMPD searches for young armed robbery suspects - 13 WTHR Indianapolis
That they claim he raised the rifle is not evidence that he raised the rifle.
Outside of the LEOs' claims, what evidence is there that the kid did what he was accused of doing?That may well be true, but we can't control dumb people or the media (which is run by smart people manipulating the dumb ones!). I'm hardly one to support trigger-happy cops, but this is pretty cut and dry unless something shows up that indicates the kid was gunned down inappropriately. You point anything resembling a weapon at someone who is already shouting and aiming at you, you have a death wish.
Because they can say he was smoking pot too and it doesn't mean he was smoking pot. Saying it was so doesn't make it so. This is a pretty simple concept, Kirk.How do you figure that?
It is direct evidence under the law.
Bad outcome. I thought all toy and replica guns in California were required to have a blaze orange device at the end of the muzzle?
They paint them
I thought this as well. I know it is the case in Indiana, and would assume the restrictions are even more egregious on the left coast. A child is dead. A child with a toy weapon, a boy playing with toy guns as I think all boys should, in preparation for becoming men. Killed by adults carrying deadly weapons. LEOs who should be trained to recognize playing from malicious intent. This is a tough one. Especially if the boy did not speak English, and maybe thought that they were participating in the game he was playing. I am most saddened thinking about what the boy's family is going through, and what the LEOs and their families are going through realizing the boy was not a threat. Sucks all around.
Because they can say he was smoking pot too and it doesn't mean he was smoking pot. Saying it was so doesn't make it so. This is a pretty simple concept, Kirk.
15 years of practicing law, trying cases and the Rules of Evidence say that a witness's statement of what he saw is evidence. Don't believe him? Cross examine on bias or present contrary evidence if there is any. Maybe a jury won't believe the testimony, but it's still evidence....but with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in the criminal context, without conflicting evidence, it won't see a courtroom.
I'm not even going that far. I'm just saying that it provides no proof, loosely speaking, that it happened the way someone said it did.The statement is evidence, but it's not necessarily fact. This is the point I believe 88GT is trying to make.
As Kirk said, there is direct evidence through the responding officers that he raised the gun.
What evidence is there that he did not?
a boy playing with toy guns as I think all boys should, in preparation for becoming men. Killed by adults carrying deadly weapons. LEOs who should be trained to recognize playing from malicious intent.
I think the lawyers are using legal jargon where us non-lawyers are not. 88GT, it's like saying OJ Simpson was innocent of murder even though he did it (for example). Officer sworn statements are evidence, correct?
How is the claim that he raised the rifle evidence that he raised the rifle?
I'm just saying that it provides no proof, loosely speaking, that it happened the way someone said it did.