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 )
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.