NV - Police fatally shoot man holding cell phone

[RANCH]

According to Maricopa County Superior Court records, a jury convicted Childress on December 17 of burglary, armed robbery, kidnapping, aggravated assault and theft.

The shooting occurred on Thursday after Childress had been under surveillance and fled from federal authorities, Las Vegas police said in a statement.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...an-killed-officers-holding-phone-not-gun.html


If he was under federal surveillance while out on bail, then he was considered a pretty serious threat. They don't do that for every one. And those are serious charges he was found guilty of. 'kidnapping/armed robbery/aggravated assault.' They broke into the home so it was also a home invasion robbery at gunpoint. I would consider that a very serious criminal.

And his accomplice was his half brother. So I take whatever his family say with a grain of salt at this point.

There's no doubt that Childress was a dangerous person. He had stolen guns before and could have stolen more after eluding the Feds surveillance.

The police knew that when attempting his arrest. His not showing his hands and advancing on them left them no choice but to shoot in my opinion.

 

[EllieBee]

Bluesneakers was the one posted his convictions and current charges upthread, I believe. HTH.

Have you seen what his CONVICTIONS were for?

"According to Maricopa County Superior Court records, a jury convicted Childress on December 17 of burglary, armed robbery, kidnapping, aggravated assault and theft."



Apparently, he and his half brother and a couple of others forced their way into a home, at gunpoint, kidnapped, assaulted, and robbed the homeowners of guns and weed. That takes a pretty bold and brazen crew, imo.

 

[katydid23]

Bluesneakers was the one posted his convictions and current charges upthread, I believe. HTH.

Right. But she was wondering about whether he was an attempted murder suspect. And my point is, why would it matter? He was convicted last month of kidnapping/armed robbery/aggravated assault, etc, during a home invasion robbery. Then he skipped out of the sentencing hearing and went on the run. So who cares if there is or is not another pending charge?

Those CONVICTIONS prove to me that he was a very dangerous and violent suspect. The cops trying to apprehend him knew that he was desperate to avoid sentencing and jail, so they had every reason to believe he had a gun. Especially since they knew he had just stolen some.

 

[bluesneakers]

Have you seen what his CONVICTIONS were for?

"According to Maricopa County Superior Court records, a jury convicted Childress on December 17 of burglary, armed robbery, kidnapping, aggravated assault and theft."



Apparently, he and his half brother and a couple of others forced their way into a home, at gunpoint, kidnapped, assaulted, and robbed the homeowners of guns and weed. That takes a pretty bold and brazen crew, imo.

Yes, I've seen them. Perhaps you missed my link to the Maricopa County site? I listed his charges as well, even the ones which had been dismissed.

 

[katydid23]

Yes, I've seen them. Perhaps you missed my link to the Maricopa County site? I listed his charges as well, even the ones which had been dismissed.

Ok. so why the focus upon the attempted murder charge? Does it make a difference in terms of his being a violent convicted felon on the run? I don't understand the significance.

 

[bluesneakers]

Ok. so why the focus upon the attempted murder charge? Does it make a difference in terms of his being a violent convicted felon on the run? I don't understand the significance.

See post #76. I'm not sure of the significance either, but it was brought up as a defense of what the officers did. When I questioned this no one was able to provide what was, imo, a definite answer either way. Nbd.

 

[RANCH]

Ok. so why the focus upon the attempted murder charge? Does it make a difference in terms of his being a violent convicted felon on the run? I don't understand the significance.

His prior convictions alone show that Childress was a dangerous felon at large.

His being a suspect in an attempted murder case simply adds to that. JMO

 

[katydid23]

Have lost track of how many times now I have read 'he had a cellphone in his hand, we thought it was a gun, he kept his hand with the object concealed behind his back and advanced on the officers'.

Me too. Maybe that's because it happens do often.

 

[K_Z]

Imagine the difference in how this is presented to the public, if the news media had chosen to report on this story using these headlines:

"Convicted violent felon shot dead during apprehension"

"Convicted violent felon resists arrest and is shot dead by police"

"Violent felon who fled across 2 states resists arrest; shot"

"Violent felon pursued across 2 states by federal marshals; shot dead"

"Convicted violent felon flees Arizona sentencing; shot dead in Las Vegas during arrest"

"Local police collaborate with federal marshals to apprehend fleeing convicted violent felon"

Instead, the liberal media intentionally choose headlines that suggest the idea that police just randomly gunned down a man on his cell phone because they are big bumbling incompetent meanies with guns.

The MEDIA is responsible for attempting, at every opportunity, to paint the police as incompetent random aggressors, and present violent suspects and convicted criminals as purely innocent bystanders. As they clearly did in THIS case.

The media decides which way to slant the information-- they do not report in a factual or even neutral fashion. That hasn't been the case for decades. The media has an agenda to bash and demean law enforcement at every opportunity, IMO. It is up to the reader to decide if they will buy into the intentional spin fed to the public, and accept the headlines at face value (with a predicted “OMG—the police are big bumbling incompetent meanies with guns” response). Or dig further into the story to find out the TRUTH about the suspect, what he did, what he was pursued for, what the justice system has accomplished so far WRT his crimes, and what the police and other law enforcement did to apprehend him, and keep the public safe.

Journalistic incompetence is de rigeur. (Or maybe it's journalistic rebellion, IDK.) I accept at face value very little of what I read these days, and never trust headlines. Especially if it involves a police shooting.

 

[Tawny]

The media isn't reliable on any side, liberal or conservative, so please don't think it's just "liberal media" that's an issue in misinformation.

 

[RANCH]

The media in this case has concentrated on the fact that the felon at large had a cell phone and not a gun. The more important fact is that a dangerous criminal was stopped from harming anymore people.

JMO

 

[Tawny]

The media in this case has concentrated on the fact that the felon at large had a cell phone and not a gun. The more important fact is that a dangerous criminal was stopped from harming anymore people.

JMO

Well, IMO, that is the purpose of the trial system, to get dangerous criminals off the streets.

The discussion at hand seems to be "is it justified to shoot someone if you can't SEE their suspected weapon or should you wait until you have visual confirmation?"

 

[Tillicum]

Well, IMO, that is the purpose of the trial system, to get dangerous criminals off the streets.

The discussion at hand seems to be "is it justified to shoot someone if you can't SEE their suspected weapon or should you wait until you have visual confirmation?"

And when the trial system fails as it did in this case, LE had to step in to get him off the streets. It didn't have to end this way, the criminal made the choices IMO.

 

[Tawny]

And when the trial system fails as it did in this case, LE had to step in to get him off the streets. It didn't have to end this way, the criminal made the choices IMO.

How did the trial system fail? I'm lost on that point.

 

[RANCH]

Well, IMO, that is the purpose of the trial system, to get dangerous criminals off the streets.

The discussion at hand seems to be "is it justified to shoot someone if you can't SEE their suspected weapon or should you wait until you have visual confirmation?"

Childress could have used the trial system. Instead he fled and when confronted by police decided to not surrender. His not showing police his hands is part of the reason why he was shot.

His death lays with his own actions and not on the police. They did what they had to do. JMO

 

[bluesneakers]

How did the trial system fail? I'm lost on that point.

He didn't show up for the verdict? That's not the system that failed though - that's on him for failing to appear. MO

 

[Tillicum]

How did the trial system fail? I'm lost on that point.

They trusted him.

 

[Tawny]

I'm not saying they weren't justified in this case, I'm only addressing the comment that the police stepped in to take a dangerous criminal out where the system couldn't. That's not how it works, thankfully, because the police are not the court.

Again, I don't know if they were justified or not in THIS case, as we don't have all the information yet.

 

[Tillicum]

I'm not saying they weren't justified in this case, I'm only addressing the comment that the police stepped in to take a dangerous criminal out where the system couldn't. That's not how it works, thankfully, because the police are not the court.

Again, I don't know if they were justified or not in THIS case, as we don't have all the information yet.

But did they step in to take him out or just to get him off the streets?

 

[Tawny]

But did they step in to take him out or just to get him off the streets?

That shouldn't be their motivation in a shooting ever, regardless. If they fired on him because they felt he was going to try to kill them, that's justified for the most part (there are intricacies, etc). But if they shot him because they were tired of him getting away or whatever, that's not acceptable. JMO.