NV - Police fatally shoot man holding cell phone

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Did he point his cell at them? And you can't shoot a person because you think something is going to happen.
How do you know the advanced toward us wasn't to cover up the shooting once they discovered the man had a cell in his hand versus a gun?

Sure you can. If police tell a felon at large to stop and he has something in his hand and he refuses to comply they can shoot to kill.

You don't wait for the felon to shoot or stab you first. Common sense.

JMO
 
It isn't a question of having sympathy but of his rights as a human being. We hear about LE having rights, but under the law didn't this guy have a right to any protections?
At the very least LE made a terrible mistake by shooting a person with a cell phone in his hand. IMO

Exactly what 'protections' does a violent CONVICTED criminal have, when he flees across two stAtes, and jumps bail, to try to escape his sentencing after being found guilty? He has no protections at that time when he is actively trying to escape the US Marshals to avoid an arrest. If he advances on the officers, and does not respond to lawful orders, then he is subject to being shot. JMO
 
As unlikely as it is considering his known patterned behavior, maybe he was advancing to surrender *shrug* no way to know what he was thinking.

Advancing to surrender? Not a wise move.

I'm not sure what the miscreant was thinking but surrendering is not a likely scenario.

JMO
 
Exactly what 'protections' does a violent CONVICTED criminal have, when he flees across two stAtes, and jumps bail, to try to escape his sentencing after being found guilty? He has no protections at that time when he is actively trying to escape the US Marshals to avoid an arrest. If he advances on the officers, and does not respond to lawful orders, then he is subject to being shot. JMO

All Childress had to do was surrender when caught and then he could have utilized all of his rights under the Constitution.

Instead he refused to comply and got killed. He made a poor choice in my opinion.
 
I wonder... if he were really on the run why would he go home? That's the first place they would look. Maybe he knew he'd been caught and was ready to go back with them.

What do you mean by 'if he was really on the run?' He was out on bail until his final sentencing hearing. HE SKIPPED OUT ON THE BAIL and did not go to the hearing. That means he was on the run. There was a legal warrant at that mount that he skipped the final hearing. He knew that.

Then he ended up two states away and the federal marshals had to go looking for him. It is amazing how much benefit of the doubt this violent criminal is being given here. This Marshal was on the job for 17 years. yet people are quick to condemn him, as a bumbling Keystone cop or a brutal killer. Meanwhile this convicted armed robber, found guilty of a brutal home invasion robbery, jumps bail and tries to flee, and everyone is worried about protecting his rights to flee.
 
Sure you can. If police tell a felon at large to stop and he has something in his hand and he refuses to comply they can shoot to kill.

You don't wait for the felon to shoot or stab you first. Common sense.

JMO

And that is what they did,but as it turns out they were wrong. IMO
 
Exactly what 'protections' does a violent CONVICTED criminal have, when he flees across two stAtes, and jumps bail, to try to escape his sentencing after being found guilty? He has no protections at that time when he is actively trying to escape the US Marshals to avoid an arrest. If he advances on the officers, and does not respond to lawful orders, then he is subject to being shot. JMO

DP sorry
 
Exactly what 'protections' does a violent CONVICTED criminal have, when he flees across two stAtes, and jumps bail, to try to escape his sentencing after being found guilty? He has no protections at that time when he is actively trying to escape the US Marshals to avoid an arrest. If he advances on the officers, and does not respond to lawful orders, then he is subject to being shot. JMO

The right to a trial and to be judged by a jury of his peers. Same as all of us.
The right not to be shot until dead for carrying a phone.
IMO
 
And that is what they did,but as it turns out they were wrong. IMO

They were wrong in what way? They where not wrong in shooting Childress. Were they wrong in thinking that he had a gun? Not really because Childress wouldn't show his hands.

He gave them no choice.



'The suspect did not listen, quickly began to advance on the officers, concealing his right hand, which the officers believed was holding a firearm,' McCarthy said in a video message that accompanied the police statement.
 
The right to a trial and to be judged by a jury of his peers. Same as all of us.
The right not to be shot down for carrying a phone.
IMO

He already was judged by a jury of his peers. And found GUILTY> Then he skipped out on the bail and made a run for it.

Because he ran like a coward, the federal Marshals had to track him down out of state. At that point, he is a fleeing felon. He is not a man presumed innocent, awaiting trial. He is a convicted felon who was trying to escape prison time.

And for that reason, the marshals are going to assume he is desperate and violent. This is not like a regular traffic stop. This is the apprehension of a dangerous felon who has jumped bay before sentencing.

He was not shot dead for carrying a phone. He was shot dead for doing a brutal home invasion, being found Guilty, then jumping bail before sentencing, and running across state lines, then refusing to comply when finally caught by the US Marshals, and refusing commands to drop the object and stop advancing.
 
They were wrong in what way? They where not wrong in shooting Childress. Where they wrong in thinking that he had a gun? Not really because Childress wouldn't show his hands.

He gave them no choice.




Maybe mistaken would be a better word to use than wrong. Obviously we know he didn't have a weapon. The only way I could get behind LE on this one is if he had made a gesture with his phone but so far we haven't heard that he did.
 
I wonder what he would've done if the officers hadn't shot?
 
I don't think the officers were instructed to shoot on sight. He wasn't wanted "Dead or alive." His rights are to not be executed without due process. IMO a charge of FTA and carrying a cell phone are not capital crimes.

However if the story is as the officers say that changes things.

JMO

They did not shoot on sight. They shot when he would not comply with their directives and they felt they were in danger. He was a desperate fugitive, a fleeing felon, who had jumped bail and run before sentencing, and they did not have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
 
Maybe mistaken would be a better word to use than wrong. Obviously we know he didn't have a weapon. The only way I could get behind LE on this one is if he had made a gesture with his phone but so far we haven't heard that he did.


So then do you think these officers should be arrested for murder and serve life in prison?
 
He already was judged by a jury of his peers. And found GUILTY> Then he skipped out on the bail and made a run for it.

Because he ran like a coward, the federal Marshals had to track him down out of state. At that point, he is a fleeing felon. He is not a man presumed innocent, awaiting trial. He is a convicted felon who was trying to escape prison time.

And for that reason, the marshals are going to assume he is desperate and violent. This is not like a regular traffic stop. This is the apprehension of a dangerous felon who has jumped bay before sentencing.

He was not shot dead for carrying a phone. He was shot dead for doing a brutal home invasion, being found Guilty, then jumping bail before sentencing, and running across state lines, then refusing to comply when finally caught by the US Marshals, and refusing commands to drop the object and stop advancing.

Seriously katy I'm aware of his past. The trial would have been the one for fleeing. LE can't shoot a person for a crime from the past. We have the courts to handle that.
According to LE he was shot because they thought he had a weapon. IMO
 
Maybe mistaken would be a better word to use than wrong. Obviously we know he didn't have a weapon. The only way I could get behind LE on this one is if he had made a gesture with his phone but so far we haven't heard that he did.

Making a gesture? I think you mean point it at the police.

Why should police have to wait for a felon at large, who is advancing on them, to point a possible firearm at them first? If it was a gun he could have shot them.

The police did what they had to do protect themselves and the public.

JMO
 
The officers were within a close range, as they were giving KC verbal commands and attempting to arrest him peacefully out in the open, in a residential area with at least one witness/ child PRESENT within view and earshot.

Theresa Lengyel and her son heard the gunshots and saw the event unfold.

"He ran in the house hysterical like 'mom, mom, there's a guy out there with the cops saying freeze, freeze' and we're like what what's going on and we went outside to look, like we just saw the cops, and they say 'go back in the house.'"

**Note that the LV police had time to tell the suspect to freeze several times, the kid ran in the house, and came back out with his mom. And then police directed them to RETURN inside the home for their safety-- BEFORE the shooting. This was not a spur of the moment, or random, situation. Well-conducted-- they knew they had their suspect and were in the process of apprehending him.

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/family-of-unarmed-man-killed-by-police-speaks-out

'The suspect did not listen, quickly began to advance on the officers, concealing his right hand, which the officers believed was holding a firearm,' McCarthy said in a video message that accompanied the police statement.

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

Las Vegas police located Childress outside of a home just west of downtown Las Vegas, and were attempting to arrest him on Thursday afternoon. An altercation began with the officers when they ordering Childress to drop what they thought was a gun in his hand, but instead, he “began to advance on the officers, concealing his right hand,” according to a statement from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Two officers then opened fire on him.

Police captain Matt McCarthy said officers had been provoked to open fire not only because the attempted murder suspect was thought to be holding a deadly weapon, but also because the altercation took place in a residential area. No bystanders or police officers were hurt during the altercation.

http://www.newsweek.com/man-holding-cellphone-mistaken-gun-shot-dead-las-vegas-410999

Two police officers, responding to a request for help from the U.S. Marshals Service, found the suspect outside a house. They repeatedly ordered him to drop what they thought was a firearm in his right hand and to stop moving toward them, police said.

"At one point the officers told the suspect not to advance on the officers. However, the suspect did not listen, concealing his right arm, which the officers believed was holding a firearm," Captain Matt McCarthy of Las Vegas police told reporters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nevada-shooting-idUSKBN0UG0IE20160102

So, let's think this thru. This man, KC, is a convicted felon, with a minimum of 5 violent felonies. He has been arrested and processed thru the criminal justice system. He had a lawyer. He chose to flee. He ignored his attorney, and made no attempts to contact him after the attorney texted him Dec 16-17.

There is NO WAY this convicted felon DIDN'T know that he was being pursued, or that he was being arrested. He speaks English as a native language. He is not reported to be mentally ill, or severely intellectually disabled.

At least 2 officers were arresting him with their service weapons drawn and pointed RIGHT AT HIM. He knew EXACTLY what was going on.

He CHOSE to not cooperate.

He CHOSE to be defiant, and resist arrest.

He CHOSE to hide his hands, and not reveal that he was unarmed.

He could have easily raised his hands, perhaps even dropped to his knees, and surrendered peacefully.

He could have called out "I don't have a gun or a weapon".

He could have said, "Don't shoot me." Or, "I surrender."

He could have said, "I'm reaching for my cell phone to call my lawyer."

But he didn't do any of the things he should have. He repeatedly defied/ ignored instructions from officers who were POINTING THEIR GUNS AT HIM AND ARRESTING HIM. And reached into his pocket or waistband or whatever.

The officers had no choice. They did what we hired them, trained them, and pay them to do. They kept everyone, including themselves, safe from this violent man.

Imagine if KC did have a gun (not far fetched with his criminal history of stealing guns and fleeing prosecution), and shot the child in the above quote-- even by accident.

I don't want police "waiting" to see what make and model gun a perp pulls out in a situation like this. There is a time and place when LE needs to react to a definite threat, and shoot to kill. This was a perfect example of the kind of situation where they needed to be bold enough, and brave enough, to shoot, and not second guess what they needed to do to keep everyone safe from this violent criminal.
 
Probably not. I'm leaning toward it being an error on their part.

I don't even think they made an error. I think they were totally justified to shoot under the circumstances.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
147
Guests online
1,904
Total visitors
2,051

Forum statistics

Threads
606,005
Messages
18,197,032
Members
233,704
Latest member
KatGran
Back
Top