Police kill 8 year old by shooting at a mistaken suspect vehicle

[tvc184]

A few weeks ago at a high school football game, there was a shooting involving a 16 and 18-year-old. They apparently exchanged shots at each other and like always, there were police working security at the football game. Up to a block away there was a family who had been at the football game and was leaving. I don’t know the details of why but it appears as though the police believed somehow this vehicle was involved. Three officers then shot up the vehicle killing an eight year old child and wounding her sister.

The prosecutor then indicted the 16 and 18 year old for first-degree murder because they started the chain of events that caused the death of the child. That in some states is called felony murder where you did not commit the actual a murder but you were committing a felony that caused it.

So far the police have not been charged with anything.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[SmashMouth]

19 hours ago, tvc184 said:

A few weeks ago at a high school football game, there was a shooting involving a 16 and 18-year-old. They apparently exchanged shots at each other and like always, there were police working security at the football game. Up to a block away there was a family who had been at the football game and was leaving. I don’t know the details of why but it appears as though the police believed somehow this vehicle was involved. Three officers then shot up the vehicle killing an eight year old child and wounding her sister.

The prosecutor then indicted the 16 and 18 year old for first-degree murder because they started the chain of events that caused the death of the child. That in some states is called felony murder where you did not commit the actual a murder but you were committing a felony that caused it.

So far the police have not been charged with anything.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

What are your thoughts on the charges against 1st degree charges against the teens and the lack of charges (thus far) against the officers?

[tvc184]

4 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

What are your thoughts on the charges against 1st degree charges against the teens and the lack of charges (thus far) against the officers?

This is going by assumptions. I know some people have heard me say it before but I have been involved in thousands of criminal cases and hundreds of news releases to the media which I wrote or in some cases did on television. My only point in that is we sometimes really have no clue what really happened with what the media reports. That is why I am going by assumptions or what ifs.

The police shooting at a car which did not have someone in the car firing back at them is simply wrong. It is likely wrong by self-defense laws and almost certainly wrong by department policy. Department policy is not law however you could be sued and lose qualified immunity if you do not follow policy. In this case, how do you see a car, reported to be a block away from where the shooting happened and simply open fire on it? Where did the police even get the information that this car was involved? With a limited information available, it appears as though the police screwed up big-time. I am struggling with a legal reason to do what  they did. I think there is a good chance that criminal charges might be and maybe should be filed.

As far as the charges against the two teens, that depends on state law. Some states, including Texas, have a law that is commonly referred to as felony murder. As Texas for an example it is simply under the murder statute and not a separate law. Murder in Texas is to intentionally or knowingly take the life of a person OR (felony Murder) while committing or fleeing from a felony, a person recklessly does an act clearly dangerous to human life and causes of death. In other words it could be a complete accident and still get a murder charge, which is usually an intentional act and not an accident. The only case that comes to mind around here was several years ago when a guy committed a robbery. While driving fast down Twin City Highway in Nederland to get away, he ran a red light and killed I believe a mother and daughter. Obviously he did not want to get in a wreck but his reckless action fleeing from a felony caused death. It might still be Criminally  Negligent Homicide or Manslaughter but (depending on what can be proven) without fleeing from a felony. It would be raised up to Murder because the guy was fleeing from a felony.

The way Texas law reads, I believe the person has to cause the death. In this case the two teens that were charged, did not directly caused death. I believe that some states have a law that says, if you set a sequence of events in motion that caused the death of another, you could be charged. That would appear to fit the situation here where they did not caused the death but they certainly set the actions in motion. Even if the police unlawfully killed someone, it is obvious that the situation was set up by the two teens shooting at each other. I have not read that particular state law so I’m just not sure if it fits or not. It could because each state has the right to make its own laws but a prosecutor might stretch it particularly for political reasons.

So with a limited knowledge we have, I believe the police were clearly wrong and likely should have some criminal charges filed on them. The teens may or may not be correctly charged, according to state law.

I know of a similar situation in this area that in my opinion, a police officer shot into a car without legal justification to do so and did not kill anyone but came within inches of killing a small child. That situation, also in my opinion, was brushed under the rug. 

[baddog]

49 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

This is going by assumptions. I know some people have heard me say it before but I have been involved in thousands of criminal cases and hundreds of news releases to the media which I wrote or in some cases did on television. My only point in that is we sometimes really have no clue what really happened with what the media reports. That is why I am going by assumptions or what ifs.

The police shooting at a car which did not have someone in the car firing back at them is simply wrong. It is likely wrong by self-defense laws and almost certainly wrong by department policy. Department policy is not law however you could be sued and lose qualified immunity if you do not follow policy. In this case, how do you see a car, reported to be a block away from where the shooting happened and simply open fire on it? Where did the police even get the information that this car was involved? With a limited information available, it appears as though the police screwed up big-time. I am struggling with a legal reason to do what  they did. I think there is a good chance that criminal charges might be and maybe should be filed.

As far as the charges against the two teens, that depends on state law. Some states, including Texas, have a law that is commonly referred to as felony murder. As Texas for an example it is simply under the murder statute and not a separate law. Murder in Texas is to intentionally or knowingly take the life of a person OR (felony Murder) while committing or fleeing from a felony, a person recklessly does an act clearly dangerous to human life and causes of death. In other words it could be a complete accident and still get a murder charge, which is usually an intentional act and not an accident. The only case that comes to mind around here was several years ago when a guy committed a robbery. While driving fast down Twin City Highway in Nederland to get away, he ran a red light and killed I believe a mother and daughter. Obviously he did not want to get in a wreck but his reckless action fleeing from a felony caused death. It might still be Criminally  Negligent Homicide or Manslaughter but (depending on what can be proven) without fleeing from a felony. It would be raised up to Murder because the guy was fleeing from a felony.

The way Texas law reads, I believe the person has to cause the death. In this case the two teens that were charged, did not directly caused death. I believe that some states have a law that says, if you set a sequence of events in motion that caused the death of another, you could be charged. That would appear to fit the situation here where they did not caused the death but they certainly set the actions in motion. Even if the police unlawfully killed someone, it is obvious that the situation was set up by the two teens shooting at each other. I have not read that particular state law so I’m just not sure if it fits or not. It could because each state has the right to make its own laws but a prosecutor might stretch it particularly for political reasons.

So with a limited knowledge we have, I believe the police were clearly wrong and likely should have some criminal charges filed on them. The teens may or may not be correctly charged, according to state law.

I know of a similar situation in this area that in my opinion, a police officer shot into a car without legal justification to do so and did not kill anyone but came within inches of killing a small child. That situation, also in my opinion, was brushed under the rug. 

I am not disagreeing with you. The police may have been dead wrong on this one, but I can see how it happened. That’s all I am saying. I don’t agree with workplace violence/shootings, but I can see how they happen. 

[tvc184]

18 minutes ago, baddog said:

I am not disagreeing with you. The police may have been dead wrong on this one, but I can see how it happened. That’s all I am saying. I don’t agree with workplace violence/shootings, but I can see how they happen. 

I am not sure how this falls under workplace violence. From what I read the police fired into a car which was simply driving down the road and was not involved in any way in the prior incident.

Maybe we have different definitions of workplace violence but I call it when somebody does something to a coworker for whatever reason.  

[baddog]

6 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

I am not sure how this falls under workplace violence. From what I read the police fired into a car which was simply driving down the road and was not involved in any way in the prior incident.

Maybe we have different definitions of workplace violence but I call it when somebody does something to a coworker for whatever reason.  

Wasn’t tying it to workplace violence. Workplace violence is simply another situation that I can see how it happens, whether it’s wrong or not.

[tvc184]

37 minutes ago, baddog said:

Wasn’t tying it to workplace violence. Workplace violence is simply another situation that I can see how it happens, whether it’s wrong or not.

OK. You mentioned workplace violence I did not see the tie in.

I would have to know further but honestly, I don’t understand how it happens for the police to fire into a moving car when there is not someone hanging out the window of that car shooting at them. Maybe if the police got into a shootout and watched  the suspect get into a car and was driving down the road and was still a threat to officers and citizens, maybe. 

I also believe this might be sympathetic fire. One officer probably made a bad decision and opened fire and then the other two, trusting that the first officer was correct, also opened fire.

 

[Hagar]

IF we go under the assumption the News reporting is correct, yes the Cops should be charged, BUT based on reporting we see so often from MSNBC & CNN, I doubt the validity of the story.  Absolutely zero reason for Officers to open fire on that car.  In fact, in most cases we no longer watch the News, but a dramatized biased fictional account of an event, worded not to report events but to support an agenda or increase viewer numbers.  In plain language, 🐂💩.

[CardinalBacker]

On 11/17/2021 at 4:31 PM, tvc184 said:

OK. You mentioned workplace violence I did not see the tie in.

I would have to know further but honestly, I don’t understand how it happens for the police to fire into a moving car when there is not someone hanging out the window of that car shooting at them. Maybe if the police got into a shootout and watched  the suspect get into a car and was driving down the road and was still a threat to officers and citizens, maybe. 

I also believe this might be sympathetic fire. One officer probably made a bad decision and opened fire and then the other two, trusting that the first officer was correct, also opened fire.

 

Here's the problem... it's a no-win situation for the police.  Criminals put them in the position of having to make split second decisions under the most extreme circumstances possible, then we criticize their judgment from the safety of our bathroom with the benefit of 7 different camera angles, slow motion, relevant facts (like whether or not it's the correct vehicle), etc... When there was literally just a shooting at a football game a block away. 

I personally think that police aren't given enough leeway when it comes to being charged for decisions made on the job.

 

But that's just me. 

[tvc184]

9 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

Here's the problem... it's a no-win situation for the police.  Criminals put them in the position of having to make split second decisions under the most extreme circumstances possible, then we criticize their judgment from the safety of our bathroom with the benefit of 7 different camera angles, slow motion, relevant facts (like whether or not it's the correct vehicle), etc... When there was literally just a shooting at a football game a block away. 

I personally think that police aren't given enough leeway when it comes to being charged for decisions made on the job.

 

But that's just me. 

I think they have a pretty wide latitude on use of force. In fact the public might be kind of shocked. Maybe the biggest case is Graham v. Connor. Graham was having a medical crisis for insulin shock. He ran into a convenience store to get some orange juice to get sugar into his blood but saw a line and immediately ran outside. He jumped in a car driven by a friend and he sped off to go to the next store. A police officer saw it and thought maybe he had witnessed an armed robbery because the guy ran in the store he came out a short time later in a hurry. The officer call for back up and stopped the vehicle with Graham. In his intoxication like the state from the hypoglycemia, he was kind of incoherent and the officers kicked the crap out of him. I think he had a broken ankle, some bruises about his head, and injured wrist, etc. Oops, it was not an armed robbery but a medical crisis. A completely innocent man who was having a medical crisis was thrashed by the police and sued and it went to United States Supreme Court.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court said, basically….. “Oh, well”. They came up with a term “objective reasonableness” saying that you had to put yourself in a position of an officer having to make a “split second” decision. They said it was easy with 20/20 hindsight to make a different decision however the police don’t have that luxury.

In another case in front of the Supreme Court was Mullenix v. Luna that came out only six years ago this month. Texas DPS trooper Mullenix was involved in a high-speed chase. The driver of the car called Dispatch and he said he had a gun and he would shoot any police officer that tried to stop him and they needed to disengage in the chase. Mullenix position himself on an overpass up ahead and requested permission to fire on the car to disable it. His supervisor said “standby” and see if the spike strips work. The car hit a spike strips however Trooper Mullenix open the fire anyway. He said he was trying to shoot the engine or the radiator to disable the vehicle. Instead four of the six shots fired from his A.R. 15 hit the driver. The driver flipped the car and it was determined that the four shots for the A.R. 15 killed him. The family sued and it went to the Supreme Court. In an 8-1 decision the Supreme Court said that Mullenix was covered by qualified immunity and could not be sued.

That is just two cases. In one an innocent person was beaten up by the police who thought they had witnessed a major crime but made a mistake. In the other a DPS trooper was told not to fire on a car by his supervisor and did anyway and instead of shooting the car, he shot the driver. In 9-0 and 8-1 decisions, the Supreme Court ruled in favor the police. It should be noted that these were not clear-cut cases where the officer’s  life was in danger but quite the opposite. After the investigations it was found out that the officers made mistakes, yet in unanimous and nearly unanimous decisions the police were found not to be liable.

In both of those cases however, the Supreme Court judges put themselves in a place of the officers and said, we understand how they drew that conclusion. I am wondering what information they had that justified shooting into a car a block away from a crime scene when nobody in the car was found to have a weapon or  to be involved whatsoever. I think it is a little different than a guy jumping out of the car as a suspected armed robber and fighting with the police or a guy in a high-speed chase being witnessed by a trooper and calling in a threat to kill the police.

The facts are not out yet but they need a mighty convincing argument to fire into a vehicle that is simply driving down the road. Even if I suspect was in it, in my opinion that does not justify opening fire.

[bullets13]

I was originally under the impression that the officers were involved in a gunfight with the two suspects, and a stray bullet or bullets from the officers hit a car nearby.  If that were the case these charges would make more sense to me.  The officers making a horrible mistake a block away and shooting into an unrelated car seems like a stretch.  To me this would be similar to an officer responding irresponsibly to a call, driving way too fast and killing someone, and then the DA charging the person committing crime the officer was responding to with vehicular homicide.