WASHINGTON — A Florida police officer shot and wounded an autistic man's black caretaker, authorities said, in an incident purportedly captured on cellphone video that shows the caretaker lying down with his arms raised before being shot.
North Miami Assistant Police Chief Neal Cuevas told The Miami Herald (http://goo.gl/rhHVyt) that officers responded to the scene Monday following reports of a man threatening to shoot himself. Officers arrived to find 47-year-old Charles Kinsey, a therapist who works with people with disabilities, according to WSVN-TV (http://bit.ly/2ac7zm1), trying to get his 27-year-old patient back to a facility from where he had wandered.
Cuevas says police ordered Kinsey and the patient, who was sitting in the street playing with a toy truck, to lie on the ground. Kinsey lies down and puts his hands up while trying to get his patient to comply. An officer then fired three times, striking Kinsey in the leg, Cuevas said. No weapon was found.
Link - (
New Window )
~ PA Giants
What did cops get away with when cell phones didnt exist?
agreed
What did cops get away with when cell phones didnt exist?
the shooting wasn't on video, so cell phones play very little part in any "getting away with it" in this case.
the officer should be tried, no doubt about it, and I think he will be, but I'd love to hear his explanation. In the video the victim said when he asked the officer why did you shoot me, the officer said "I don't know"
who do they hire for cops? Spiccoli? Maybe they should write those words on a message board for the world to see and give this POS officer full credit "I don't know". That's your reason for shooting an unarmed man?
I hate to say it this way because it might sound cold, but from a silver lining standpoint at least the guy isn't dead.
[/scene]
Lets hear the officers side of events. Was there a threat? And open or concealed carries off screen? Was that guy a thug? Did he have a criminal record or history of violence?
Lets hear the officers side of events. Was there a threat? And open or concealed carries off screen? Was that guy a thug? Did he have a criminal record or history of violence?
WUT?
Quote:
Locked up for 1-2 years? He should be charged with attempted murder.
What did cops get away with when cell phones didnt exist?
the shooting wasn't on video, so cell phones play very little part in any "getting away with it" in this case.
the officer should be tried, no doubt about it, and I think he will be, but I'd love to hear his explanation. In the video the victim said when he asked the officer why did you shoot me, the officer said "I don't know"
who do they hire for cops? Spiccoli? Maybe they should write those words on a message board for the world to see and give this POS officer full credit "I don't know". That's your reason for shooting an unarmed man?
I hate to say it this way because it might sound cold, but from a silver lining standpoint at least the guy isn't dead.
The video did show that the victim was clearly no threat and there was no reason for him to be shot. Had there not been a video the cops could have claimed anything they wanted.
What does this even mean?
He was laying on the ground unarmed with his hands up and the cop fucking shot him. The officer flat out said he didn't know why he shot him, either.
There's no other side to hear here. This is inexcusable behavior.
it was a very tense and divided conversation but I think worth watching.
In the meantime, speaking of senseless shootings, lets not forget about this one.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13040159 Old Dirty Beckham said:
Quote:
Locked up for 1-2 years? He should be charged with attempted murder.
What did cops get away with when cell phones didnt exist?
the shooting wasn't on video, so cell phones play very little part in any "getting away with it" in this case.
the officer should be tried, no doubt about it, and I think he will be, but I'd love to hear his explanation. In the video the victim said when he asked the officer why did you shoot me, the officer said "I don't know"
who do they hire for cops? Spiccoli? Maybe they should write those words on a message board for the world to see and give this POS officer full credit "I don't know". That's your reason for shooting an unarmed man?
I hate to say it this way because it might sound cold, but from a silver lining standpoint at least the guy isn't dead.
The video did show that the victim was clearly no threat and there was no reason for him to be shot. Had there not been a video the cops could have claimed anything they wanted.
You have no idea what happened before the shooting, you have a video after a shooting and a one-sided statement. they can still claim anything.
And to those officers who don't fit this "profile" and largely work out of a sense of public service...thank you (really).
Lets hear the officers side of events. Was there a threat? And open or concealed carries off screen? Was that guy a thug? Did he have a criminal record or history of violence?
Sometimes I think you're just here to rile people up. So anyone with a criminal record or considered a "thug" (who gets to decide this by the way?) is open game to be shot unarmed.
OK then. Sounds like a real life of "the Purge"
And to those officers who don't fit this "profile" and largely work out of a sense of public service...thank you (really).
the guy selling CD's was armed.
Quote:
In comment 13040169 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 13040159 Old Dirty Beckham said:
Quote:
Locked up for 1-2 years? He should be charged with attempted murder.
What did cops get away with when cell phones didnt exist?
the shooting wasn't on video, so cell phones play very little part in any "getting away with it" in this case.
the officer should be tried, no doubt about it, and I think he will be, but I'd love to hear his explanation. In the video the victim said when he asked the officer why did you shoot me, the officer said "I don't know"
who do they hire for cops? Spiccoli? Maybe they should write those words on a message board for the world to see and give this POS officer full credit "I don't know". That's your reason for shooting an unarmed man?
I hate to say it this way because it might sound cold, but from a silver lining standpoint at least the guy isn't dead.
The video did show that the victim was clearly no threat and there was no reason for him to be shot. Had there not been a video the cops could have claimed anything they wanted.
You have no idea what happened before the shooting, you have a video after a shooting and a one-sided statement. they can still claim anything.
Did you not watch the video? There is both before and after, but not the shooting itself.
The footage prior to the shooting shows the man lying on his back with his hands raised telling the police that he is a behavioral therapist in a group home and that the other man does not have a weapon.
The video after the shooting shows both men face down on the ground handcuffed with police hovering over them.
99.9% of the time I side with the police, but I can't on this one unless something out of left field comes out.
Quote:
In comment 13040185 Old Dirty Beckham said:
Quote:
In comment 13040169 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 13040159 Old Dirty Beckham said:
Quote:
Locked up for 1-2 years? He should be charged with attempted murder.
What did cops get away with when cell phones didnt exist?
the shooting wasn't on video, so cell phones play very little part in any "getting away with it" in this case.
the officer should be tried, no doubt about it, and I think he will be, but I'd love to hear his explanation. In the video the victim said when he asked the officer why did you shoot me, the officer said "I don't know"
who do they hire for cops? Spiccoli? Maybe they should write those words on a message board for the world to see and give this POS officer full credit "I don't know". That's your reason for shooting an unarmed man?
I hate to say it this way because it might sound cold, but from a silver lining standpoint at least the guy isn't dead.
The video did show that the victim was clearly no threat and there was no reason for him to be shot. Had there not been a video the cops could have claimed anything they wanted.
You have no idea what happened before the shooting, you have a video after a shooting and a one-sided statement. they can still claim anything.
Did you not watch the video? There is both before and after, but not the shooting itself.
The footage prior to the shooting shows the man lying on his back with his hands raised telling the police that he is a behavioral therapist in a group home and that the other man does not have a weapon.
The video after the shooting shows both men face down on the ground handcuffed with police hovering over them.
Yes, I reached the same conclusion everyone else reached. Or almost everyone else. I'm just saying because the actual shooting is not on the video the cops can still lie and say anything they want.
And to those officers who don't fit this "profile" and largely work out of a sense of public service...thank you (really).
I suppose it varies by jurisdiction but I would not characterize law enforcement as "low pay" when you factor in the egregious retirement/pension packages.
Quote:
Lets hear the officers side of events. Was there a threat? And open or concealed carries off screen? Was that guy a thug? Did he have a criminal record or history of violence?
Sometimes I think you're just here to rile people up. So anyone with a criminal record or considered a "thug" (who gets to decide this by the way?) is open game to be shot unarmed.
OK then. Sounds like a real life of "the Purge"
This...
How would the cop even know if this guy had a history of violence to make any kind of a judgement off of that?
And if it's true that the cop said, "I don't know," then that is about a damning of an evidence of his incompetence and criminal act as you can get.
And to be fair, without the footage of the shooting, we have no idea if the guy tried to get up and that's what triggered the police to fire.
That doesn't mean that it was a justified shooting of course. I imagine the police report will have something similar in it.
I don't believe that's true, at least about the military. Last that I recall, the military stopped allowing folks with G.E.D.'s. They upped the requirement to an actual HS diploma. They also have become stricter on criminal records.
This...agree arc
I don't know where you live but I know the military standards have been raised and fire departments get to pick and choose from hoards of applicants for each opening.
Link - ( New Window )
Right, I know several cops and one of them is a 100% a dick. Not all cops are bad...but some of them...as in all groups of people...are worthless.
I think 99% of people support the cops. The problem is less BLM and more the people who support the cops no matter what they do.
100% agree
I get your point but they are trying to point out that this won't have likely happened had it been a white therapist..
Quote:
It bothers me that it was important to write that he's a "black" therapist. The way the media writes these stories doesn't help society move forward.
I get your point but they are trying to point out that this won't have likely happened had it been a white therapist..
No, this is actually a legitimate issue and it happens constantly. The media is constantly defining minorities by their race but omit it when the person in question is white. I see this constantly. It shouldn't be that way.
Quote:
In comment 13040293 Keith said:
Quote:
It bothers me that it was important to write that he's a "black" therapist. The way the media writes these stories doesn't help society move forward.
I get your point but they are trying to point out that this won't have likely happened had it been a white therapist..
No, this is actually a legitimate issue and it happens constantly. The media is constantly defining minorities by their race but omit it when the person in question is white. I see this constantly. It shouldn't be that way.
That's bc minorities are being shot by the fucking cops. That's why they make mention of their race.
Where's the rest of the tape. Seems strange to edit out the shooting.
99.9% of the time I side with the police, but I can't on this one unless something out of left field comes out.
Doesnt matter. SOP in the PR war is to make the guy who took a bullet look as bad as possible.
I think 99% of people support the cops. The problem is less BLM and more the people who support the cops no matter what they do.
I don't think its anywhere near 99%. Trust and support of cops is at rock bottom right now. If you poll 100 men walking down the street you'll get your answer on how supported the police really are.
Part of that is deserved, but it won't right all the wrongs. Solidarity is needed, not division.
Quote:
In comment 13040306 chuckydee9 said:
Quote:
In comment 13040293 Keith said:
Quote:
It bothers me that it was important to write that he's a "black" therapist. The way the media writes these stories doesn't help society move forward.
I get your point but they are trying to point out that this won't have likely happened had it been a white therapist..
No, this is actually a legitimate issue and it happens constantly. The media is constantly defining minorities by their race but omit it when the person in question is white. I see this constantly. It shouldn't be that way.
That's bc minorities are being shot by the fucking cops. That's why they make mention of their race.
Unsurprisingly, you're missing the point. It's not about this case specifically. It's a general issue.
The cowardly ambush and murder of the police in Dallas and then Louisiana only exacerbates the police approaching every call as if it's a potential ambush. As well, there are so many guns in America, I'm sure there's some great prudence in the police "shoot first" mentality. I'm sympathetic to the challenges faced by law enforcement officers. But it's always going to be a tough job and if you're looking for on the job safety then being a cop probably isn't the right occupation.
Anyway, this wasn't a dangerous situation. At least until the police arrived.
Exactly. I hate this notion that you have to support either the cops or BLM, and that's there's no middle ground. I support the cops and am thankful for the tough job they do, but I can also call out the cops who are abusing their power or acting unprofessionally. The violence on both ends is deplorable.
May be the solution is that it shouldn't be the town or county prosecutor who brings the case against the cops as there is inherent connection with the cops but rather internal affairs or internal audit whatever the police department has to bring the case in front of the jury..
The problem is njms very link showed the massive difference- the arrest and charges of those suspects is so massively different then what happens to cops who do similar actions. Since there is basically no repercussions of being a cop who shoots unarmed civilians, those with any kind of itchy trigger finger have no fear of reprisal for scratching it.
All the whattaboutism in the world get thrown at this issue
"yea a cop shot an unarmed black man but what about Al Sharpton/Beyoncé/The Media making it worse?"
"Yea a cop shot an unarmed black man but what about the "fact" BLM are terrorists!"
Of course the old standby-
"Yea a cop shot an unarmed black man but what about the fact he had a criminal record?"
Quote:
What does it mean to "support the cops"? Do I think they have a difficult job? Sure. Do I want them to be safe? Absolutely. Do I think a decent chunk of them abuse their power? Yes. Do I think they should be held to a lower standard when it comes to being prosecuted? Hell no.
Exactly. I hate this notion that you have to support either the cops or BLM, and that's there's no middle ground. I support the cops and am thankful for the tough job they do, but I can also call out the cops who are abusing their power or acting unprofessionally. The violence on both ends is deplorable.
I'd say most rational people feel this way. The problem is we are riddled with irrational people who listen to lyrics in a song rather than form their own opinion. It is very much Cops vs. BLM, which is sad.
The problem is njms very link showed the massive difference- the arrest and charges of those suspects is so massively different then what happens to cops who do similar actions. Since there is basically no repercussions of being a cop who shoots unarmed civilians, those with any kind of itchy trigger finger have no fear of reprisal for scratching it.
All the whattaboutism in the world get thrown at this issue
"yea a cop shot an unarmed black man but what about Al Sharpton/Beyoncé/The Media making it worse?"
"Yea a cop shot an unarmed black man but what about the "fact" BLM are terrorists!"
Of course the old standby-
"Yea a cop shot an unarmed black man but what about the fact he had a criminal record?"
THANK YOU!!!
No need for further comment.
Cut and dried.
Ridiculous.
I mostly agree, but I basically would hold them to a lower standard for prosecution.They dont have the option of retreating. My gut just tells me that if you ask people to charge into the situations cops have to get involved in, then you need something well beyond a bad or unjustified shooting to charge a crime like manslaughter.
Im not sure if that is technically a different standard. There are few analogies in civilian-on-civilian shootings to the police arrest/detention scenarios.
No it's mentioned more because as you said Black people (not all black people are african americans BTW) are shot disproportionately more.
Wow that is brutal. I have no words for this, just sadness.
I thought LE used 9MM's (for pistols) or 40cal, but it looked like that officer had a rifle on the trunk of the cop car, probably because of the distance - if he's even the officer who shot him.
I only shoot a 9mm pistol and a remington 700 rifle with .300WM ammo, and i cannot see either feeling like a mosquito bite when someone is hit - especially the rifle but the 9 packs a punch too IMO.
adrenaline?
Maybe I could see it if they used a 22 and hit a fleshy part of the thigh, but not sure the police use 22 cal rifles. Maybe they do.
Quote:who do they hire for cops? Spiccoli?
Maybe he thought it was Mr. Hand?
Zed's dead.
I thought LE used 9MM's (for pistols) or 40cal, but it looked like that officer had a rifle on the trunk of the cop car, probably because of the distance - if he's even the officer who shot him.
I only shoot a 9mm pistol and a remington 700 rifle with .300WM ammo, and i cannot see either feeling like a mosquito bite when someone is hit - especially the rifle but the 9 packs a punch too IMO.
adrenaline?
Maybe I could see it if they used a 22 and hit a fleshy part of the thigh, but not sure the police use 22 cal rifles. Maybe they do.
probably adrenaline and shock.
"I like him. He's a really nice fish"
Is anyone really doing that, though?
What did cops get away with when cell phones didnt exist?
Quote:
?
Is anyone really doing that, though?
Probably as miniscule percentage of bad protesters in the world. However, the bad cops and the small percentage of unruly protesters dominate headlines.
on the one hand, the situation seems non threatening.
on the other hand, why wouldn't the actual shooting be part of the video provided?
is it part of the video that a cop (was it the cop doing the shooting, a cop who was there at the time of the shooting, or a cop who showed up afterward?) says I don't know? the guy who was shot is quoted in the article, but again the video wouldn't play for me.
As usual, wait for the investigation to be completed. Don't assume that if the end result doesn't match your snap judgment that there's a coverup.
Quote:
Locked up for 1-2 years? He should be charged with attempted murder.
What did cops get away with when cell phones didnt exist?
Attempted murder for shooting him in the leg?
Ummmm. Yeah- let's require that attempted murder requires a gunshot to the head or torso so that the next time I'm unsucessful at it because I missed and hit my target in the leg, I can't be charged. Makes a ton of sense.
If you've been paying attention to any of these threads, you'll have learned that the idea of "shoot him in the leg" or arm or whatever is not how police or military are trained to operate. Once you are in a situation to use deadly force, you always aim center mass. That's how you are trained. This isn't Starsky and Hutch.
However, a cop, whose job it is to enforce public safety, who has been notified there's a person with a weapon and is authorized to question the populace is a different matter.
Quote:
In comment 13040159 Old Dirty Beckham said:
Quote:
Locked up for 1-2 years? He should be charged with attempted murder.
What did cops get away with when cell phones didnt exist?
Attempted murder for shooting him in the leg?
Ummmm. Yeah- let's require that attempted murder requires a gunshot to the head or torso so that the next time I'm unsucessful at it because I missed and hit my target in the leg, I can't be charged. Makes a ton of sense.
If you've been paying attention to any of these threads, you'll have learned that the idea of "shoot him in the leg" or arm or whatever is not how police or military are trained to operate. Once you are in a situation to use deadly force, you always aim center mass. That's how you are trained. This isn't Starsky and Hutch.
The problem is njms very link showed the massive difference- the arrest and charges of those suspects is so massively different then what happens to cops who do similar actions. Since there is basically no repercussions of being a cop who shoots unarmed civilians, those with any kind of itchy trigger finger have no fear of reprisal for scratching it.
All the whattaboutism in the world get thrown at this issue
"yea a cop shot an unarmed black man but what about Al Sharpton/Beyoncé/The Media making it worse?"
"Yea a cop shot an unarmed black man but what about the "fact" BLM are terrorists!"
Of course the old standby-
"Yea a cop shot an unarmed black man but what about the fact he had a criminal record?"
This!
Quote:
Played by those on other side of the issue so much. njm did it in this thread. "Yea here's a cop who shot a guy laying on the floor but what about these other guys who shot cops?"
The problem is njms very link showed the massive difference- the arrest and charges of those suspects is so massively different then what happens to cops who do similar actions. Since there is basically no repercussions of being a cop who shoots unarmed civilians, those with any kind of itchy trigger finger have no fear of reprisal for scratching it.
All the whattaboutism in the world get thrown at this issue
"yea a cop shot an unarmed black man but what about Al Sharpton/Beyoncé/The Media making it worse?"
"Yea a cop shot an unarmed black man but what about the "fact" BLM are terrorists!"
Of course the old standby-
"Yea a cop shot an unarmed black man but what about the fact he had a criminal record?"
This!
Exactly, great post
Quote:
In comment 13040306 chuckydee9 said:
Quote:
In comment 13040293 Keith said:
Quote:
It bothers me that it was important to write that he's a "black" therapist. The way the media writes these stories doesn't help society move forward.
I get your point but they are trying to point out that this won't have likely happened had it been a white therapist..
No, this is actually a legitimate issue and it happens constantly. The media is constantly defining minorities by their race but omit it when the person in question is white. I see this constantly. It shouldn't be that way.
That's bc minorities are being shot by the fucking cops. That's why they make mention of their race.
Whites are being shot by cops as well but you never see it reported on the news.
- giants24
Quote:
In comment 13040512 Matt M. said:
Quote:
In comment 13040159 Old Dirty Beckham said:
Quote:
Locked up for 1-2 years? He should be charged with attempted murder.
What did cops get away with when cell phones didnt exist?
Attempted murder for shooting him in the leg?
Ummmm. Yeah- let's require that attempted murder requires a gunshot to the head or torso so that the next time I'm unsucessful at it because I missed and hit my target in the leg, I can't be charged. Makes a ton of sense.
If you've been paying attention to any of these threads, you'll have learned that the idea of "shoot him in the leg" or arm or whatever is not how police or military are trained to operate. Once you are in a situation to use deadly force, you always aim center mass. That's how you are trained. This isn't Starsky and Hutch.
First, I thought their training was to aim for extremities to disarm/disable the suspect, unless they deem lethal force absolutely necessary. Second, you would have to be able to prove the officer was shooting to kill for attempted murder to stick. I think it would be difficult to get a conviction for that, as opposed to a lesser charge in a case like this.
No. The shoot to disable is only on TV.
I doubt he went there with the intent to kill or had malice which I understand to be conditions of 1st and 2nd degree murder.
Initial thoughts from me is he was just under- or un-qualified for the situation he was in, and it almost resulted in a man's life - where he had intent, but not intent to kill.
What did cops get away with when cell phones didnt exist?
This: https://storycorps.org/animation/traffic-stop/
I doubt he went there with the intent to kill or had malice which I understand to be conditions of 1st and 2nd degree murder.
Agree. Attempted manslaughter.
By the way ,the article says the North Miami police chief is 30 years old. Ummmm.... what?
Bowing out.
Or he went in paranoid after recent shootings and was probably not cut out to handle the stress of being a police officer.
Maybe if we paid cops like we do doctors, we could be more picky about who gets to carry both a badge and a gun, but I guess that's not very practical from a budget perspective. We've already have millions of teachers who are underpaid.
Maybe if we paid cops like we do doctors, we could be more picky about who gets to carry both a badge and a gun, but I guess that's not very practical from a budget perspective. We've already have millions of teachers who are underpaid.
Where I live, cops get paid a ton. One local cop almost made half a million dollars last year with overtime.
And if he can't drive with a broken back at least he can polish the fender - ( New Window )
Quote:
So it's not practical to be overly picky when it comes to who makes the cut. And the people who do apply aren't the same people who choose to be doctors or engineers or teachers. Awhile back I read of a jurisdiction that turned away candidates who were too smart because the history is that cops with high IQs don't stick with the career for very long, so the training they are put through winds up wasted.
Maybe if we paid cops like we do doctors, we could be more picky about who gets to carry both a badge and a gun, but I guess that's not very practical from a budget perspective. We've already have millions of teachers who are underpaid.
Where I live, cops get paid a ton. One local cop almost made half a million dollars last year with overtime.
I do a lot of work in Massachusetts on or near roads. A cop is required at all times. It's the biggest scam on the planet. Cops can double their pay just doing "details". They mostly sit in the car. There's been a cop at the Longfellow Bridge in Boston 24/7 for 4 years.
Seriously I sympathize with the cops right now. The guys that do a good job must be wondering if they're going to get shot because of this moron.
If this is the case why were more shots not fired at the autistic man once the therapist went down? The supposed risk is still there so why only one shot that misses the intended target IF the claim is they were aiming for the Autistic man?
Quote:
John Rivera, who leads the Dade County Police Benevolent Association, explained that the police officer shot Kinsey by accident. He was actually aiming for “the white male”—Kinsey’s young autistic patient, whom the cops mistook for a suicidal man with a gun. (In the video taken before the shooting, Kinsey calls him “Rinaldo” while trying to get him to lay on the ground so he wouldn’t be shot by the police.)
If this is the case why were more shots not fired at the autistic man once the therapist went down? The supposed risk is still there so why only one shot that misses the intended target IF the claim is they were aiming for the Autistic man?
WTF. This explanation is just as worse. He tried to shoot an unarmed autistic man that was playing with a toy truck in order to protect the life of the guy that he actually shot 3 times???????????????
The officer's 'I don't know' in response to why he fired isn't a good first start.
The officer's 'I don't know' in response to why he fired isn't a good first start.
This.
I wait for the full story too, but not a good start at all.
The problem is njms very link showed the massive difference- the arrest and charges of those suspects is so massively different then what happens to cops who do similar actions. Since there is basically no repercussions of being a cop who shoots unarmed civilians, those with any kind of itchy trigger finger have no fear of reprisal for scratching it.
All the whattaboutism in the world get thrown at this issue
"yea a cop shot an unarmed black man but what about Al Sharpton/Beyoncé/The Media making it worse?"
"Yea a cop shot an unarmed black man but what about the "fact" BLM are terrorists!"
Of course the old standby-
"Yea a cop shot an unarmed black man but what about the fact he had a criminal record?"
Late to the party, but strong post.
Close. They're actually trained to shoot the weapons out of bad guys' hands. Or in this case, the toy truck.
Im all about waiting for the full story as much as anyone else, but I am having a hard time imagining the explanation that makes this OK.
The Feds can subsidise this, instead of giving away military equipment to departments. Here's one that fits the bill:
Made by Cops, For Cops
Interesting, if what they say on the site is true...that "the Oakland Police reduced their use of force by 73.8% in 5 years" using these. This benefits the vast majority of officers who are trying to do a good job (it protects them by giving the true video of what happened). Only those who shouldn't be in the field would oppose using them.
I have no clue who is or isn't at fault, but we are watching a video of a man with his hands up BEFORE he gets shot...no video OF the actual shooting, mysteriously...and now we have to take the man's "claim" at face value.
Why is there a disconnect? And how could any of you come to a conclusion as to why the man was shot or what precipitated the shooting?
I have no clue who is or isn't at fault, but we are watching a video of a man with his hands up BEFORE he gets shot...no video OF the actual shooting, mysteriously...and now we have to take the man's "claim" at face value.
Why is there a disconnect? And how could any of you come to a conclusion as to why the man was shot or what precipitated the shooting?
What possibly could a caretaker trying to calm down his autistic charge do that would warrant getting shot by police when no weapon was found at the scene? He's not charging the cops, he is not threatening them, he is lying on the ground explaining who he is and begging not to be shot. So what on Earth could he have done to make this an ok shoot?
Well, the guy who was shot might have smoked some pot once, or gotten arrested once 15 years ago for disorderly conduct, or done something else for people to think he got what was coming.
I don't know what kind of psych e valuations cops are subject to prior to being hired into LE or admitted to LE training. But assume it must get better and more rigorous and be able to identify folks who shouldn't be given guns.
I've only known one person in my whole life in LE and he was only a trainee. Bit I wouldn't give him a gun from what I very casually knew about him from training with him in MA. He just was too power trippy in a way and not a good listener as a student.
Quote:
Why is there no video of him being shot?!
I have no clue who is or isn't at fault, but we are watching a video of a man with his hands up BEFORE he gets shot...no video OF the actual shooting, mysteriously...and now we have to take the man's "claim" at face value.
Why is there a disconnect? And how could any of you come to a conclusion as to why the man was shot or what precipitated the shooting?
What possibly could a caretaker trying to calm down his autistic charge do that would warrant getting shot by police when no weapon was found at the scene? He's not charging the cops, he is not threatening them, he is lying on the ground explaining who he is and begging not to be shot. So what on Earth could he have done to make this an ok shoot?
nothing...i feel horrible for hat poor man. Thank goodness he is going to survive.
Quote:
In comment 13040512 Matt M. said:
Quote:
In comment 13040159 Old Dirty Beckham said:
Quote:
Locked up for 1-2 years? He should be charged with attempted murder.
What did cops get away with when cell phones didnt exist?
Attempted murder for shooting him in the leg?
Ummmm. Yeah- let's require that attempted murder requires a gunshot to the head or torso so that the next time I'm unsucessful at it because I missed and hit my target in the leg, I can't be charged. Makes a ton of sense.
If you've been paying attention to any of these threads, you'll have learned that the idea of "shoot him in the leg" or arm or whatever is not how police or military are trained to operate. Once you are in a situation to use deadly force, you always aim center mass. That's how you are trained. This isn't Starsky and Hutch.
First, I thought their training was to aim for extremities to disarm/disable the suspect, unless they deem lethal force absolutely necessary. Second, you would have to be able to prove the officer was shooting to kill for attempted murder to stick. I think it would be difficult to get a conviction for that, as opposed to a lesser charge in a case like this.
You can die from being shot in the leg. A bullet can easily sever the femoral artery and if it does, you will bleed out in minutes.
Quote:
In comment 13040185 Old Dirty Beckham said:
Quote:
In comment 13040169 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 13040159 Old Dirty Beckham said:
Quote:
Locked up for 1-2 years? He should be charged with attempted murder.
What did cops get away with when cell phones didnt exist?
the shooting wasn't on video, so cell phones play very little part in any "getting away with it" in this case.
the officer should be tried, no doubt about it, and I think he will be, but I'd love to hear his explanation. In the video the victim said when he asked the officer why did you shoot me, the officer said "I don't know"
who do they hire for cops? Spiccoli? Maybe they should write those words on a message board for the world to see and give this POS officer full credit "I don't know". That's your reason for shooting an unarmed man?
I hate to say it this way because it might sound cold, but from a silver lining standpoint at least the guy isn't dead.
The video did show that the victim was clearly no threat and there was no reason for him to be shot. Had there not been a video the cops could have claimed anything they wanted.
You have no idea what happened before the shooting, you have a video after a shooting and a one-sided statement. they can still claim anything.
Did you not watch the video? There is both before and after, but not the shooting itself.
The footage prior to the shooting shows the man lying on his back with his hands raised telling the police that he is a behavioral therapist in a group home and that the other man does not have a weapon.
The video after the shooting shows both men face down on the ground handcuffed with police hovering over them.
Yup, that is my favorite part, and a recurring theme. Whenever the police shoot an innocent citizen, they always cuff and perp walk them, if the victim can walk. If not, they just leave them to bleed out and die. It is callous, dehumanizing, and it happens over, and over, and over again.
sadly, this is the mentality of far too many people. the concept of innocent until proven guilty apparently doesn't apply to cops.
"As long as I've got my hands up, they're not gonna shoot me, that's what I'm thinking," he said. "Wow, was I wrong."
Link - ( New Window )
An officer accidentally shot behavior therapist Charles Kinsey, according to John Rivera, president of the Dade County Police Benevolent Association. The officer, Rivera said, had been aiming for the patient beside Kinsey, whom he thought posed a danger.
A video released by Kinsey's attorney has sparked outrage. The video shows the scene before Monday's shooting: A white man sits cross-legged on the ground, holding an object in his hand. Kinsey, who is black, lies on the ground, holds his hands in the air and yells to police that the man beside him is holding a toy truck, not a weapon.
Rivera offered an explanation Thursday, saying that the police officer opened fire because he thought the white individual, whom authorities later learned has autism, was going to harm Kinsey.
"This wasn't a mistake in the sense that the officer shot the wrong guy or he thought that Kinsey was the bad guy," Rivera said in a press conference Thursday.
"The movement of the white individual made it look like he was going to discharge a firearm into Mr. Kinsey and the officer discharged trying to strike and stop the white man and unfortunately, he missed the white male and shot Mr. Kinsey by accident."
Rivera said that the video footage of the shooting was "being portrayed poorly."
One...the therapist explicitly tells the cops that the autistic man has a toy truck in his hands, and the cops aren't too far to think that a white item was a gun...seriously, who's ever seen a white handgun?
Two...how the hell do you accidentally shoot multiple rounds and manage to miss by that wide of a margin? I'm not the greatest of shooter, but seriously, that's one of the worst marksmanship I have ever seen from a professional.
Three...seriously...WTF is the union trying to do by portraying its officer as a total incompetent individual?
This story continues to boggle my mind.
Link - ( New Window )
sadly, this is the mentality of far too many people. the concept of innocent until proven guilty apparently doesn't apply to cops.
It does, because the police officer is likely to go on trial.
The victim, however, was shot multiple times and may have died over apparantly nothing. Wouldn't anyone stopped by a police officer for any number of things also be innocent until proven guilty? Because this fire at will approach doesn't seem to be working.
It's surprising to see you dig in for such a one-sided arguement.
sadly, this is the mentality of far too many people. the concept of innocent until proven guilty apparently doesn't apply to cops.
Oh come on...seriously...this situation is so blatantly stupid, even with the limited information we have, that you can't seriously expect anyone to buy into this "wait until the full explanation comes out," which, by the way, makes this situation even far worse than what we initially thought. A fucking clown show is what we have with that idiot police officer...a close show.
sadly, this is the mentality of far too many people. the concept of innocent until proven guilty apparently doesn't apply to cops.
Holy shit, talk about some absurd hyperbole. They already have admitted they shot the wrong guy, but you want more proof of that...Okie dokie!
If he was aiming for the autistic man then he did shoot the wrong guy.
Incompetence seems to go all the up the chain of command
If this is the case, then why did they shooting after hitting the wrong man? The threat is still there in their minds supposedly, so why would shooting the wrong man stop them from taking the threat out?
So, yeah, in this case the blind squirrel apparently found a nut. but anyone who thinks there isn't a very real sentiment of cops are guilty until proven innocent is delusional.
So, yeah, in this case the blind squirrel apparently found a nut. but anyone who thinks there isn't a very real sentiment of cops are guilty until proven innocent is delusional.
I think "the cop is guilty" talk was pretty justified when the original video has the cop saying he didn't know why he shot the guy. Or are we ignoring that whole bit?
So, yeah, in this case the blind squirrel apparently found a nut. but anyone who thinks there isn't a very real sentiment of cops are guilty until proven innocent is delusional.
Maybe because the initial reports made it pretty damning right from the start?
People should always want to hear the whole story before they make a judgment but it was pretty hard to find a way where this would have wound up being justified from the cops angle based on the facts that came out.
And if you think it's only cops who are always thought to be guilty until they're proven innocent, maybe you're the one with blinders on. Because I can guarantee you there were a whole lot of people who heard this story and assumed the man who was shot was a "thug" or "had a record" as if the cop just had to have a reason for firing at him or he HAD to be asking for it somehow. Hell, we even saw it on this very thread.
So, yeah, in this case the blind squirrel apparently found a nut. but anyone who thinks there isn't a very real sentiment of cops are guilty until proven innocent is delusional.
It was obvious from the beginning. Blind support for the police is just as bad as blind support for the shootee. Got nothing to do with a blind squirrel ( unless one was shot as collateral damage)
So, yeah, in this case the blind squirrel apparently found a nut. but anyone who thinks there isn't a very real sentiment of cops are guilty until proven innocent is delusional.
Not sure that a blind squirrel found it's nut in this case as much as it was almost blatantly incomprehensible to be any other way than one sided based on the video and reports. While you may want to practice prudence in all cases involving police shootings, which is your prerogative, there are certain cases that requires little prudence when it is so one sided that any other explanation just boggles the mind.
So yes, we do have reactionary posters on one hand, who will seek to find any reasons to hate on police officers, but we also have apologist on the other side, who will seek to find any reason to absolve any wrong doing. Case in point is people talking about this therapist maybe having criminal record or history of violence as if that is even relevant in this case.
Miami Herald - ( New Window )
Miami Herald - ( New Window )
Wait...what did he shoot with at a distance of 50 yards? And whatever happened to positive identification of your target? Seriously, what kind of a fucking clown shitshow are they running in that police department?
He had a rifle positioned on the trunk of the police car (assuming that's the cop who shot the guy).
Quote:
According to a law-enforcement source, the officer who shot Kinsey was taking cover behind a squad car and fired from at least 50 yards away. He shot after another officer, in a radio transmission, suggested the autistic man was loading his weapon, which turned out to be the toy truck, the source said.
Miami Herald - ( New Window )
Wait...what did he shoot with at a distance of 50 yards? And whatever happened to positive identification of your target? Seriously, what kind of a fucking clown shitshow are they running in that police department?
Exactly, and why did they not continue to try to take down the supposed man with the gun? These excuses make zero sense given that the only man shot is the one they were supposedly trying to protect, and once down they just go "aw shit, we don't need to save him anymore so lets just walk up and handcuff them".
It is a bunch of complete horseshit with a hole in their excuse that you could drive a truck through
Quote:
Dear god, that had better not have been a pistol shot.
He had a rifle positioned on the trunk of the police car (assuming that's the cop who shot the guy).
If so, then how the hell did he miss so badly? 50 yards with a rifle is almost a sure shot. And seriously, what happened to positive identification prior to pulling the trigger? This entire situation is getting more comical (in a sad way) by the second.
It is a bunch of complete horseshit with a hole in their excuse that you could drive a truck through
I was wondering to about that...if they wanted to save the therapist, then why cuff him? Why let him bleed instead of taking him immediately to a safe location to get checked out.
Who's running this public relations job? A five year old? Because my five year old could come up with just as many dumb excuses as these idiots.
sadly, this is the mentality of far too many people. the concept of innocent until proven guilty apparently doesn't apply to cops.
Point blank: Why do you think this is okay? What are you trying to prove? What is your line of thinking here? What could have occurred that made this okay?
Agreed. I regularly hit woodchucks in the head at longer ranges than that, and that's without a scope and with somewhat compromised vision. Pitiful at best.
Quote:
Exactly, and why did they not continue to try to take down the supposed man with the gun? These excuses make zero sense given that the only man shot is the one they were supposedly trying to protect, and once down they just go "aw shit, we don't need to save him anymore so lets just walk up and handcuff them".
It is a bunch of complete horseshit with a hole in their excuse that you could drive a truck through
I was wondering to about that...if they wanted to save the therapist, then why cuff him? Why let him bleed instead of taking him immediately to a safe location to get checked out.
Who's running this public relations job? A five year old? Because my five year old could come up with just as many dumb excuses as these idiots.
And it is these absurd rationals we get that is making people doubt them when its a legit shoot
I thought you were going to say you had a long funnel..
You know shot of wild turkey, 75 yards, long funnel...I'm here all week folks!
Quote:
That's practically fish in a barrel. If that were the case, he should be fired for incompetence with his weapon alone.
Agreed. I regularly hit woodchucks in the head at longer ranges than that, and that's without a scope and with somewhat compromised vision. Pitiful at best.
I didn't notice a scope on the rifle, I'll check the video again, but I wonder if the police use their rifles in any type of competency training very often.
no scope on a rifle at 50 yards a professional LE officer should make the shot within a few inches IMO, but if you allow for the moving target, the fact there is some stress with a human target, and lack of training i can see missing the autistic man, but hitting the therapist instead is like the pitcher in Bull Durham hitting the mascot, it's so bad of a shot it almost has to be intentional.
with a scope, you just can't miss that bad.
So if he has a scope, he's definitely lying IMO. If he doesn't have a scope there is a good chance he's still lying or he's one of the worst shots in LE.
It certainly isn't looking good for the police on the scene, and every report makes them look worse, but the point still stands that many have already judged the cops as guilty, and have from the very beginning, and I find that attitude abhorrent.
Quote:
In comment 13041609 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
That's practically fish in a barrel. If that were the case, he should be fired for incompetence with his weapon alone.
Agreed. I regularly hit woodchucks in the head at longer ranges than that, and that's without a scope and with somewhat compromised vision. Pitiful at best.
I didn't notice a scope on the rifle, I'll check the video again, but I wonder if the police use their rifles in any type of competency training very often.
no scope on a rifle at 50 yards a professional LE officer should make the shot within a few inches IMO, but if you allow for the moving target, the fact there is some stress with a human target, and lack of training i can see missing the autistic man, but hitting the therapist instead is like the pitcher in Bull Durham hitting the mascot, it's so bad of a shot it almost has to be intentional.
with a scope, you just can't miss that bad.
So if he has a scope, he's definitely lying IMO. If he doesn't have a scope there is a good chance he's still lying or he's one of the worst shots in LE.
I didn't mean to imply that he was using a scoped rifle; I just wanted to make the point that at that range, with open sights, he should have been able to hit whatever he was aiming at.
Hilton Napoleon, who is representing behavioral therapist Charles Kinsey, said Friday that it was implausible that a trained SWAT team member could be that inaccurate from 50 yards or less.
“I don’t understand if he’s aiming at the autistic kid, how he could miss,” Napoleon said. If that was the case, said the attorney, “he had plenty of time to tell my client to move.”
Napoleon also questioned why if police were trying to save Kinsey’s life, they rolled him over and handcuffed him as he was bleeding from a bullet wound to his leg.
“They handcuffed him after he got shot,” he said.
Miami Herald ... - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13041616 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 13041609 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
That's practically fish in a barrel. If that were the case, he should be fired for incompetence with his weapon alone.
Agreed. I regularly hit woodchucks in the head at longer ranges than that, and that's without a scope and with somewhat compromised vision. Pitiful at best.
I didn't notice a scope on the rifle, I'll check the video again, but I wonder if the police use their rifles in any type of competency training very often.
no scope on a rifle at 50 yards a professional LE officer should make the shot within a few inches IMO, but if you allow for the moving target, the fact there is some stress with a human target, and lack of training i can see missing the autistic man, but hitting the therapist instead is like the pitcher in Bull Durham hitting the mascot, it's so bad of a shot it almost has to be intentional.
with a scope, you just can't miss that bad.
So if he has a scope, he's definitely lying IMO. If he doesn't have a scope there is a good chance he's still lying or he's one of the worst shots in LE.
I didn't mean to imply that he was using a scoped rifle; I just wanted to make the point that at that range, with open sights, he should have been able to hit whatever he was aiming at.
I know, I was agreeing with you and adding if he had a scope, just makes his story that much more flimsy.
Why (and who made it) was there a call in to 911 that there was an armed man threatening to kill himself?
The massive overuse of SWAT these days is a separate but related problem in policing. They used to exist solely for highly dangerous situations such as hostage taking or violent armed robberies, but now they routinely are deployed to carry out ordinary police functions like serving warrants.
The massive overuse of SWAT these days is a separate but related problem in policing. They used to exist solely for highly dangerous situations such as hostage taking or violent armed robberies, but now they routinely are deployed to carry out ordinary police functions like serving warrants.
Why (and who made it) was there a call in to 911 that there was an armed man threatening to kill himself?
Because people are idiots?
I'm sure there are thousands of bogus 911 calls everyday. Its no excuse (not saying you said it was)
Why (and who made it) was there a call in to 911 that there was an armed man threatening to kill himself?
I think these 911 calls are actually the mitigating factor in most of these questionable shootings
Hilton Napoleon, who is representing behavioral therapist Charles Kinsey, said Friday that it was implausible that a trained SWAT team member could be that inaccurate from 50 yards or less.
“I don’t understand if he’s aiming at the autistic kid, how he could miss,” Napoleon said. If that was the case, said the attorney, “he had plenty of time to tell my client to move.”
Napoleon also questioned why if police were trying to save Kinsey’s life, they rolled him over and handcuffed him as he was bleeding from a bullet wound to his leg.
“They handcuffed him after he got shot,” he said. Miami Herald ... - ( New Window )
As I've said...total clown shitshow in this department.
sphinx : 7/21/2016 10:32 am : link : reply
It seems that at least some of these shootings are almost the direct result of police responding to incidents with exaggerated and/or false claims of 911 callers and 911 dispatchers.
sphinx : 7/21/2016 10:32 am : link : reply
It seems that at least some of these shootings are almost the direct result of police responding to incidents with exaggerated and/or false claims of 911 callers and 911 dispatchers.
The thing is...if you're basing your actions solely on reports prior to arriving at the scene, you're not doing your job. Yes, it will get you into a heightened sense of awareness of the potential danger involved. However, when you arrive and the scene is a bit different, you expect them to make their own assessment based on the groundtruth instead of relying on the hearsay to make your ultimate premature decision.
Quote:
'reports of a man threatening to shoot himself'
sphinx : 7/21/2016 10:32 am : link : reply
It seems that at least some of these shootings are almost the direct result of police responding to incidents with exaggerated and/or false claims of 911 callers and 911 dispatchers.
The thing is...if you're basing your actions solely on reports prior to arriving at the scene, you're not doing your job. Yes, it will get you into a heightened sense of awareness of the potential danger involved. However, when you arrive and the scene is a bit different, you expect them to make their own assessment based on the groundtruth instead of relying on the hearsay to make your ultimate premature decision.
agree
“I took this job to save lives and help people,” the officer said. “I did what I had to do in a split second to accomplish that and hate to hear others paint me as something that I’m not.”
Link - ( New Window )
It also might mean that the training at the North Miami PD is for shit
“I took this job to save lives and help people,” the officer said. “I did what I had to do in a split second to accomplish that and hate to hear others paint me as something that I’m not.” Link - ( New Window )
What are they painting him as? Incompetent?
So the officer with his rifle shot the therapist who wasn't even that close to the autistic man.
these two sound like the cops from Superbad.
So the officer with his rifle shot the therapist who wasn't even that close to the autistic man.
these two sound like the cops from Superbad.
*officer*
It certainly isn't looking good for the police on the scene, and every report makes them look worse, but the point still stands that many have already judged the cops as guilty, and have from the very beginning, and I find that attitude abhorrent.
Actually...we in the military try to train away this terrible human flaw...which is that when you get a group of people with heighten sense of danger in a situation, you often end up with a terrible case of groupthink and over reliance the collective sense of being right in which an individual relinquishes his/her ability/desire to go against the group.
The reason you brought up doesn't hold water for me and actually makes me think that they're actually even more poorly trained than I initially thought. And before you go and say that this isn't the military, let me just add that we train 18-21 year old to break through such group think. I fully expect a bunch of officers to be able to do the same.
Under the circumstances "I don't know" might be better than I was trying to shoot the guy playing with the toy truck about 6 feet away from you.
Welcome back buddy!
that doesn't mean the shooting was justified in any way. As many have said, it's looking worse and worse by the minute, but that doesn't mean the rush to judgment was justified.
RC: if you're a military, or police force, and a threat has been radioed in, shouldn't the proper training be to assume a threat until it is proven there is no threat? that doesn't mean shoot first ask questions later. And I hear what you're saying about group dynamic getting each other amped up until every one is gung ho hell bent for leather. But isn't it also possible that multiple people legitimately perceived a threat, or at the very least were unable to ascertain that there was no threat? I'm guessing most of the time police and/or military perceive a threat, it is subsequently downgraded, but during the perception, heightened awareness should be the order of the day. Is your training to ignore your patrol mates when they perceive danger? that doesn't excuse someone for being trigger happy. If charges are warranted bring them on. If a cop or two need to be forced to find a new line of work because criminal actions can't be proven or aren't applicable, good. and if better training and awareness is the result of this, all the better for an entire force.
This appears to be an excellent example--as, in my view, was Tamir Rice. A police officer with bad information can get away with not de-escalating without a criminal arrest or firing, but that doesn't make it right. It also may not be the cop's fault as much as the department's fault, for improperly screening who they hire (as with Tamir Rice, imo) or not teaching the officer to properly survey the scene and not rely on what they herd over the police radio.
So did the shooter see a gun? If not and he merely depended on the words of another officer, then he failed to get positive ID of the threat, which is about as careless as anyone can be in a life/death situation.
So was he really trying to protect the therapist who was accidentally shot according to him? If so, then why cuff him and leave him laying there bleeding for many minutes instead of taking him to safety? Why leave him in a dangerous position if the situation was so dire that he made a decision to possibly take another person's life?
Was he really trying to shoot the other person? If so, what kind of shitty training did he receive to miss so terribly?
Any one of these questions alone won't paint the full picture. However, add them all together, and you have to be a freaking moron to even buy a single line of what they're trying to sell you. Seriously, wtf?
City Manager Larry Spring Jr. said Friday that commander Emile Hollant is suspended without pay. Spring declined to give specifics about how Hollant allegedly fabricated information about Monday's shooting of Charles Kinsey by Officer Jonathan Aledda.
"He totally violated his trust from the public to protect and serve by giving misinformation to this department," North Miami Councilman Scott Galvin said at Friday's news conference. "He not only jeopardized Mr. Kinsey's life and the life of his client but he jeopardized the life of every police officer who serves this city."
Hilton Napoleon, Kinsey's attorney, said he was disturbed by Friday's development.
"The fact that they were trying to cover this up initially is a huge problem," Napoleon said.
Link - ( New Window )
What an idiot