NV - Police fatally shoot man holding cell phone

[bluesneakers]

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

I think they stepped in to arrest him and take him back to Arizona on the FTA and to get the verdict he missed on the 17th. (I wonder how that was going to go?) I don't think getting him off the streets vs. taking him out apply in this case, but that's jmo.

 

[Tillicum]

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.

I meant stepped in to arrest him, not to kill him. I think their intent was to arrest him and get him off the streets.

 

[Tawny]

I meant stepped in to arrest him, not to kill him. I think their intent was to arrest him and get him off the streets.

OOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ok I took that wrong, mah bad.

 

[Tillicum]

I think they stepped in to arrest him and take him back to Arizona on the FTA and to get the verdict he missed on the 17th. (I wonder how that was going to go?) I don't think getting him off the streets vs. taking him out apply in this case, but that's jmo.

I agree.

 

[bluesneakers]

I meant stepped in to arrest him, not to kill him. I think their intent was to arrest him and get him off the streets.

Okay, so for some reason I thought you meant these as two different things. Nevermind. Sorry. Oops.

 

[EllieBee]

As for the liberal media and misleading headlines.....

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/0...icers-who-fatally-shot-man-holding-phone.html

Las Vegas police identify 2 officers who fatally shot man holding phone mistaken for gun

Fox didn't call him a violent predator, either, and they are not liberal.

 

[EllieBee]

Okay, so for some reason I thought you meant these as two different things. Nevermind. Sorry. Oops.

I have looked at the title of this thread more than once today and read "Police fatally shoot man in holding cell". Durp.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

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.

Childress wasn't in jail during his last trial and then fled. The system failed in that regard.

Everyone is untitled to bail in most cases. In this case, maybe there should not have been bail. JMO

 

[Tillicum]

Sorry for the confusion I was responding to Tawny's "police stepped in to take a dangerous criminal out".

 

[Deleted member 39678]

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

I believe the police shot him because he posed an immediate threat to them.

If Childress would have obeyed their commands he would have been taking into custody and be alive today.

JMO

 

[kimlynn]

I don't have much sympathy for him. He was a very violent man that perpetrated violence against others so he could take things from them, in a greedy, cruel way. I really don't feel sorry for him right now. I feel more sympathy for the noble, brave men who were REQUIRED to try and track him down and bring him in, only to be under public scrutiny and criticism now.

If this guy purposely did a 'suicide by cop'---it was partially so he could get back at the cops and make people criticize and maybe charge them with something. Just like many are doing here now.

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

 

[Deleted member 39678]

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

Childress didn't have his rights violated in any way.

Law enforcement had no choice but to shoot when Childress wouldn't show his hands and advanced towards them when told to stop.

JMO

 

[Tawny]

Childress didn't have his rights violated in any way.

Law enforcement had no choice but to shoot when Childress wouldn't show his hands and advanced towards them when told to stop.

JMO

That's the discussion/debate. Personally, I don't know yet. I'm super interested to find out the entire scene, where everyone was etc. Like how they had diagrams and stuff of where Michael Brown was as opposed to Darren Wilson, etc. I wonder if we'll get that for this.

Also waiting to see what any witnesses say, if there were any.

 

[kimlynn]

Childress didn't have his rights violated in any way.

Law enforcement had no choice but to shoot when Childress wouldn't show his hands and advanced towards them when told to stop.

JMO

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?

 

[Tawny]

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?

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.

 

[bluesneakers]

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

He had the 14th Amendment and he hadn't been given a death sentence, but yes, he might have put himself at risk under the circumstances.

I agree with you at the very least this was a terrible mistake.

 

[kimlynn]

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.

So far we haven't even heard that he raised his arm or hand toward LE. If he had and LE thought it was a gun I could understand the mistake of the shooting. IMO

 

[bluesneakers]

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.

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.

 

[bluesneakers]

That's the discussion/debate. Personally, I don't know yet. I'm super interested to find out the entire scene, where everyone was etc. Like how they had diagrams and stuff of where Michael Brown was as opposed to Darren Wilson, etc. I wonder if we'll get that for this.

Also waiting to see what any witnesses say, if there were any.

I want to know how far away they were too.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

That's the discussion/debate. Personally, I don't know yet. I'm super interested to find out the entire scene, where everyone was etc. Like how they had diagrams and stuff of where Michael Brown was as opposed to Darren Wilson, etc. I wonder if we'll get that for this.

Also waiting to see what any witnesses say, if there were any.

I guess that I could change my mind if some reliable evidence comes out showing the police where in the wrong. But I doubt that's going to happen in this case.

We have a dangerous felon at large who was caught by police. I put my faith in the cops story at this point because Childress showed that he didn't want to be in custody when he fled Arizona.

It's makes sense that he would not go willingly when cornered.

JMO