A Cop Shot Her 11-Year-Old Son. Now She Might Lose Custody of Her Kids.
The local prosecuting attorney in Sunflower, Mississippi, is seeking to take away Nakala Murry's three children.

The government is attempting to take away a Mississippi woman's three children after her young son was shot in the chest last year. Bitterly ironic is that it was the government—not the mother, Nakala Murry, or anyone in her company—who did the shooting.
In May 2023, Aderrien Murry, then 11 years old, dialed 911, reportedly at his mother's behest, after her ex-boyfriend, John Nolden, showed up at their house and allegedly started harassing her. But after the arrival of Greg Capers, a police officer in Indianola, Mississippi, things quickly soured further.
Upon hearing Capers' command to come out, Aderrien entered the living room. Almost immediately thereafter, Capers shot him, causing the boy to sustain a collapsed lung, fractured rib, and lacerated liver. (The body camera footage is available here. Judge for yourself if you think the shooting was justified.)
Though Capers was suspended without pay in June, he is still an employee of the Indianola Police Department. A grand jury declined to indict him in December. But consequences may yet be coming. For Nakala Murry.
According to Gwendolyn Jimison, the prosecuting attorney in Sunflower County, Mississippi, an unnamed witness says Nolden assaulted Nakala Murry on multiple occasions and the 911 call that night was thus the "result of the mother and boyfriend domestic violence that have been happening for years [sic]," reported the Mississippi Free Press, which broke this story.
That logic might check out if Nolden had been the one to pull the trigger. But in this case, it appears the government would like to punish a victim for one of its agent's mistakes. "Sgt Capers is glad that the child is recovering and is very sorry that this happened," his lawyer, Michael Carr, said in a statement last June. Police officers are human, and they're going to make errors. But it is bizarre, to put it softly, to further punish the ones who suffered from that error, particularly when considering Capers had been sent to help.
"To have to even think of losing her kids at this point over something that is not her fault is just unbelievable," Carlos Moore, Nakala Murry's attorney, told the Mississippi Free Press on Thursday. "It's outlandish."
Shortly after the shooting, Murry filed a federal lawsuit against Capers, the police chief, the city of Indianola, and other unidentified officers. She may struggle to get before a jury, however, as she will have to beat qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that shields state and local government employees from civil suits unless their misconduct has been established with exactitude in a prior court precedent, as well as the Monell doctrine, which protects municipalities from liability if the plaintiff cannot prove there was an existing policy on the books that specifically greenlit the alleged government misconduct.
It is another reminder of how difficult it is for victims of government mistakes and abuse to get a semblance of justice. And yet, in cases like Murry's, we are reminded that the reverse standard exists for the public. So on April 17, she must arrive at the Sunflower County Youth Court—and in some sense explain why Capers' mistake should not cost her her children.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Never call 911.
Well, shoot the abusive boyfriend dead, then call 911.
Better idea. Shoot the abusive boyfriend, let the neighbors call 911, you call a lawyer. When the cops arrive tell them your lawyers name and phone number. Nothing else. Ask politely that they remove the body so you can clean up the resulting mess.
Admit Nothing. Make the cops have to work to solve the case. Odds are they never will as long as you lawyer up and shut up.
Well, Dick Cheney did get Harry Whittington to apologize for getting shot by him.
To be fair I've hunted pheasant with my Grandfather. My dad made sure he was right by grandpa and spent more time making sure grandpa shot in the right direction than he did looking for birds. Even then there were a few close calls as grandpa would follow the flying bird with his shotgun and not notice the rest of us. Then when my dad got to the same point it was my brothers job to.make sure dad didn't accidentally shoot anyone. I can see how an old guy like Cheany could do it.
If you want to know why people want to defund the police look no further. A grand jury refused to indict?!?
Grand Juries are carefully leashed and diciplined by the prosecutors. Thry are just there to rubber stamp what the prosecutor wants done. So it's not the fault of the Grand Jury. It's the prosecutor who was afraid to prosecute and led the Grand Jury to that conclusion.
That’s not a police problem, per se, it’s a fellow citizens problem.
Sometimes it’s a facts don’t fit the narrative problem (not saying that is the case this time, but I’ve seen it too often now.)
Perhaps, But a grand juries for cops often hear exculpatory evidence. Something that would not be presented in one if it was anyone else.
Like I've said before how could no government be worse? You call the police to make things BETTER. If that isn't happening then why have the police? Why have the courts if a person can't get justice? Why have a legislature if they don't legislate improvement in law enforcement and the courts?
Summary:
Cop says, "Don't make me shoot you! Don't make me shoot you! Ooops, now LOOK at you! You MADE me shoot you!!! By making me think that you were resisting!"
Then the child welfare pigs and the judge-pigs and the lawyer-pigs and the social-worker pigs and the pig-pigs say, "Since you MADE the cops shoot your kid, we need to take your kids AWAY from you!"
If it moves, shoot it.
So, admittedly, this is a tough one.
Dude's out there on a DV call. Those can go real sideways real fast. The woman has told him that the guy is still in the house, and he's clearly not responding to commands. Cop announces his actions at every step. And he's walking into a big fat unknown.
And then the kid just bolts out.
Don't go to the youtube video Billy posted. Go to this one (it doesn't stop the clip at the shoot, and it's right at the beginning):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twDqjdsfgtA
. Slow it down to the slowest speed. Like most police shootings, this literally happens in a split second.So let's consider a few things here.
1) Fear (the cop): Like I said, cops hate DV calls. They walk into them knowing that the most dangerous people there are already running super hot, and more often than not under the influence. And this cop hasn't had a chance to even see the guy yet - meaning he has no idea who he's looking for. AND, watch the video, he's walking straight into a fatal funnel. Yea, he has reason to be on guard and ready to react.
2) Fear (the kid): Mom's got an abusive boyfriend in the house that's caused enough of a stir to bring the cops. The cop is barking orders. The kid is, well, a kid - and his pituitary and adrenals are telling him "MOVE." Which is what he does, probably without conscious consideration of his surroundings and circumstances. I can totally understand that, and as such excuse his thoroughly foolish action.
3) Trigger discipline: OK, so clearly cop has his finger on the trigger which, giving him and his police training the benefit of the doubt, means he believes an imminent threat exists. For all you Monday Morning Quarterbacks (especially those who are firearm ignorant) - understand that this is appropriate under the circumstances. The movement from frame to trigger, and then bringing the firearm up and online is something that could get you killed in the amount of time in which this kid popped out of that room, had he instead been a hostile. So if you think in that quarter of a second he had time to discern that this kid who had suddenly came out of nowhere while the cop's in a fatal funnel was a non-combatant, then I'd say you're not being very fair.
4) John Nolden: Police suspect in an active crime in progress, repeatedly warned, barricaded inside, ignoring commands. Nolden could - and should - have diffused this by immediately surrendering before the cop even entered the house. "Hey, there's kids in here. I'm coming out slowly, unarmed, and with my hands up." Maybe that's unrealistic (DV belligerents aren't the most reasonable people) - but, it's funny how not a single article I've read having gone down this story's rabbit hole is pointing at him as the reason this kid got shot. Like the mentality is, "Well that was never going to happen, so it's unreasonable to blame him." As if that makes any sense.
I don't know. I suspect the reason this dude still has a job and wasn't indicted is because, while awful, this was an understandable shoot despite its awful result. I think even if you ran a sim a hundred times where it was 50/50 odds that the emerging body was either a kid or a hostile, putting yourself in the cop's role entering that fatal funnel - either the kid or you would end up shot the extreme majority of the time.
As for the custody thing? Well, Nolden fathered one of this chick's kids. And I'm not seeing much on the custodial situation before or after the shooting. I don't think they could justify taking the gunshot kid if Nolden's custodial rights are still intact. And having custody threatened just because the cops had to show up for a DV call doesn't seem like it'd fly either. There's either something else going on there that we're not being told, or this woman doesn't actually have anything to worry about.
The government is involved. Of course she has something to worry about.
*eyeroll*
What you should have said is, "2.1 GPA Sociology graduates who mindlessly follow agency flowcharts and don't care even slightly about the consequences of their actions because the government will never fire them are involved."
Don't hate "the government" as some general entity. Government has a legitimate and reasonable purpose.
Hate the people who corrupted that, and who abuse it to flourish in their mediocrity and incompetence.
Your way is just a lot of extra words to say the same thing. It's government that hired the cop, government that trained the cop, government that put the cop on the street, government that sent the cop to the house, government that covered the cops ass after shooting a kid, government that is retaliating against the woman.
Sure, I could list all the agencies by name but they are all government agencies. Why bother?
This is what government does. If you have money and power you get preferential treatment because you can afford to buy politicians. If you don't have money and power you get screwed. It's how government has worked since the first agrarian community formed and a group of hunters who didn't pound their metaphorical swords into metaphorical plow shears bullied their way into being the government of the farmers. Some people are always more equal than others.
So, basically, you just hate the Constitution and desire a world without the government it establishes. Got it.
If you don’t have money and power you get screwed.
I've got a newsflash for you pal - that's how it works in the State of Nature as well. "I have the most bananas, largest muscles, breeding mates, and the biggest rock - so you can GFY." The establishment of society - which necessarily establishes some form of governance to maintain order (even in the most primitive of tribal societies) - is a good thing.
Unless you're an agent of chaos and anarchy, which frankly is the tack it sounds like you're taking. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Some people are always more equal than others.
Well, yes. That's true regardless of government.
The establishment of government - at least a proper one, such as that created by the Constitution you seem to despise - at the very least tries to make people equal under the law (and ours goes the extra step and declares that we are all equal, in terms of human rights, under the eyes of God). Which is the best one can ever hope for.
However, it doesn't sound like equality is what you're after. You sound like you may have drank some of that forced equity kool-aid. Of the "social justice" variety. (ie.
https://i.redd.it/9f5bbwxzfyi41.jpg
)That about sum it up?
You've made my point again. If a state of nature isnt a change for those who don't have money and power and if it is inevitable that the rich and powerful will always get their way then why pay half my God damned income for the privilege of getting assfucked when I could spend no money and still get assfucked?
At least I'd have all my money to buy booze and drugs to make the inevitable assfucking not feel so bad.
Language.
And you didn't answer the question.
If a state of nature isnt a change for those who don’t have money and power
You still live in a society dude. That's not a state of nature just because you don't have money or power.
First off, fuck you. This place let's me use all the foul language I want. If you can't take it go back to Facebook where they stop people from doing things that are offensive.
Second off, everything you said is wrong. Which is about par for the course.
My point is that anarchy can't be much worse than what we have with government for the majority of average folks. This woman's kid could have been shot without having to pay half our income in taxes. People can be kidnapped, held against their will, have all their shit taken and eventually be released without any compensation without having to pay half our income in taxes. Black people can be harassed by ignorant southern rednecks without us having to pay half our income in taxes.
Now, is there a middle road between anarchy and all the fucking archy we have today? Yes. The original Constitution of the US pre all the meddlesome amendments after the first 10 was the best compromise between Anarchy and Order in the history of western civilization.
However it's all fucked up now with amendments that removed the balance of power and changed the structure in favor of government over the people. It's like the perfect all the meat and none of the gay vegetables pizza that some asshat took a shit on. You can't undo the shit and have the pizza again.
I would happily accept the original with the 10 amendments again. Then we can decide on that whole 3/5ths thing and if women should vote. I suspect we'd take both as a package deal.
Odds of that happening? Fuck all none.
Anything else is just more of the Hobbsian life for us folks without money and power. If it's a Hobbsian life we are going to get, why pay for the privilege?
Language.
My point is that anarchy can’t be much worse than what we have with government for the majority of average folks.
How could you possibly know that? Have you ever encountered anything even remotely close to true anarchy?
Would you have a problem with it if I walked up and shot you in the face? Or maybe I shoot you in the knee, and do terrible things to your loved ones while you watch. And then shoot you in the face. See, you have this silly and naive view of the world that equates some asinine lack of what you might call "social justice" with anarchy. That's on account of your decadence.
But you don't know anarchy. Because you've never experienced anything even remotely close to it.
Neither have I. Because you and I - we live in society. We were borne into it, we've lived in it, and we've never experienced true social breakdown to the point of reversion to the State of Nature.
You want to pretend otherwise, airing all your silly grievances about unfairness and (perceived) injustices as the equal of anarchy - but all that evidences is your ignorant immaturity. And this manifests itself in your babbling about taxes (of all things), as if it has anything to do with anything we've been talking about, which really just tells us that you're grinding some axe for the sake of grinding some axe.
Lame. Boring. *eyeroll*
So stop paying taxes, MM. Government's so bloated and blind that you can get away with it (god knows all the criminal aliens do). But what does any of that have to do with understanding that the circumstances in which a cop tragically shot a kid is not in any way evidence that the concept of government, by virtue of being government, is somehow broken?
Look how much the world sucks right now. It sucks because of way too much government. If you disagree with this I've no idea why you are here.
I'm saying it would be real hard for it to be worse with no government. Sight unseen. No experience neccesary. Because more governent sure as hell isn't the soluton.
Here's the question, what stops you from shooting me in the knee and then doing horrible things to my loved ones right the fuck now? Seriously. After all, this is your wet dream so you should be able to imagine the scenario. I'm not a rich man so I'd have the same expectations of the government seeking my vengance upon you as anyone else, which is to say not a very good chance. Yeah, Sturgis cops are good, but solving real crimes? If I don't get any color video of you they arn't going to get much done. You're going to go free because even in big cities the rate of unsolved violent crimes is disturbing. In smalll towns, they'd have to count on the FBI which is even worse. Even if they catch someone they probably catch the wrong guy. Look at the number of people on death row who get proved innocent by fucking law students looking for some extra credit. Do you seriously think it's only death row cases with that level of fuckups? People in prisons are found innocent all the time, all it takes is some law students wanting extra credit redoing the DNA evidence and finding the hair that convicted the guy is actually from a fucking dog.
So yeah, you don't have to worry about government stopping you or catching you, as long as you'r reasonably smart. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You know what will stop you from shooting me in the knee.
I live in a Constitutional Carry State.
Not because of the Republicans in the State House and the Governor's Mansion but because of a group of college kids who worked hard to elect Libertarians in Republican Clothing to the state house and then they politically blackmailed the Governor into signing the law.
But because of those college kids all of us have and carry guns. Multiple guns. My wife can chose between the 9mm Walther or the 12 guage pump action I bought her. My son would have to decide between his autoloader and wheel gun. That's if he doesn't decide one of the rifles wouldn't be better in that specific situation. That decision would take longer than it would take him to kill you for tresspassing.
Me, I've got an axe, a $500,000 whole life policy and a death wish. Oh, and some guns too. But I've been wanting to sink that axe head into some dumbasses skull ever since I bought it. It is so sweet. The balance is so nice.
The funny thing is the cops here in Sturgis are so used to people taking care of business for themselves they'd just come by and drag your dead leaking body off and give me a phone number for a good company to come clean up the blood.
Because we in rural areas already live in a state of anarchy. We know responce times are crap and we need to take care of ourselves. We routinely get snowstorms that shut everything down for days at a time. No cops can get to you in any reasonable time. Better have food, water, power and heat for yourself. Oh, and guns... Lots of guns... We don't go to government with problems, we solve them. Together. Without any need for some politician to come by and organize us.
You can imagine it's fear of government that makes people behave if you think so poorly of humans. I know it's a tradition of repsecting property rights and being empathic toward your fellow folks. You don't need threats of government violence to keep folks of European ancestry from being naughty. Especially us Scandinavian types. We get community.
Look how much the world sucks right now.
You really think that? I mean, it would explain a lot - and in which case I feel really sorry for you if you're that despondent and despairing. May I humbly suggest stepping away from social media, turning off your television, and maybe just go out for a walk? Consider chatting up a stranger?
World's a beautiful place, MM. Even with a terrible government and its abysmal leadership, even with terrible lazy ignorant apathetic Americans, even with all the straight-up evil that is LGBT and Islam and cultural rot infiltrating it all - "sucks" is the last word I would choose to describe it.
We had a majestic cosmic event happen today. Were you even able to appreciate it? Or are you so entrenched in your own misery and contempt for everything and everyone that you missed out on it?
I’m saying it would be real hard for it to be worse with no government.
Then you don't know what you're talking about. Because "worse" would be putting it mildly. If you think total anarchy is preferable to whatever broken and corrupt government we have now, then maybe take a trip to Haiti and go set up shop down there. Feel free to report back after a week or two, assuming you're not being digested.
Because we in rural areas already live in a state of anarchy.
You are utterly clueless. Now I feel even more sorry for you than I did before.
You're like the silly kid in the earbuds talking on his new titanium iphone about the evils of capitalism. Yea, you live in a state of anarchy. With a roof over your head, active technology, an internet service provider, and probably even a comfortable chair on a fabricated desk. Am I right?
That's not anarchy. That's society. Society that you take for granted as you wail about woes that billions worldwide would give their right arm to "suffer."
Grow up.
Nolden was not in the house at the time.
The cop didn't know that, and the woman told him he was.
I thought she told him he wasn't. Regardless, nothing you listed in paragraph 4 applies if he wasn't there.
Right, but remember - we're operating under the same assumptions the cop had to deal with in the moment.
Excuses are like assholes. Everyone's got one and they all stink.
Let's say instead of the cops she called a neighbor who had a concealed carry permit and had been through a decent amount for firearm training. He comes over and does the exact same thing. In a panic shoots the kid.
Do you honestly think he would get the same kid glove treatment? Would the Grand Jury refuse to indict him? Would he still be walking around free? Would he still have his concealed carry permit? Would he still have his gun?
No idea. Don't care. That's not the circumstances we're dealing with here. At this point you're just looking for excuses to grievance-monger.
Bullshit. You know that the system would treat him completely different than they do a cop. He would have already been convicted and in jail for life. The woman would have been able to sue and have all his shit.
Language.
It doesn't matter how "the system" would have treated someone different. A) Those aren't the facts at hand; and B) Your position is entirely speculative. And borne of prejudice.
See, the problem with you MM is, like most people, you engage in conclusion-first reasoning. You don't actually care what the facts are - you care what will get you to the conclusion in which you want to arrive. This is, of course, because you want nothing more than to simply affirm your prejudices. So, y'know, you impute things that aren't there, compare it to that which isn't present, and eagerly run down whatever rabbit hole might fit your narrative.
Problem for you now is that you know you don't have a leg to stand on, so you'll predictably just lash out mindlessly at whatever you perceive to be contrary to your narrative.
Well, have fun with that I guess.
Well, Fuck You again. I'm on a Libertarian site . We dont do censorship. I don't do polite. So Fuck You.
I've been reading your quibbling and evading on this topic and others where it comes to cops fucking up. Tell me, if a cop raped your significant other would you even get mad?
Language.
(And are you really on a libertarian site? Or just pro-drugs/anti-cops site?)
Maybe you just don't get individual liberty. Don't be ashamed, most conservatives don't really want true individual liberty.
Oh, this should be good. By all means, tell me the difference between individual liberty and true individual liberty.
*gets popcorn*
How “understandable” would this be if for some reason a police officer suddenly stepped bolted into view and the mother / boyfriend / anybody reactively shot the cop under the similar scenario ?
Frankly this whole custody thing is likely a distraction suit to preoccupy or intimidate her out of suing the police dept, or to deplete her funds lawyering up for the custody case instead of spending money to sue the cops.
How “understandable” would this be if for some reason a police officer suddenly stepped bolted into view and the mother / boyfriend / anybody reactively shot the cop under the similar scenario ?
Well, A) I think police are a little better trained than that (hence why he was doing all that shouting and announcing his presence and identity of a police officer); and B) if I were barricaded in my room, armed and online, on the reasonable belief that someone dangerous was skulking about in my house, and suddenly an unknown burst into the room - I'd probably shoot him too. So, yea, it would be pretty understandable. This is why you don't do that.
But, in this case, it's a kid. I'll give him a pass for not knowing better.
"Well, A) I think police are a little better trained than that "
You know what, in my mind that means the police should be held to an even higher standard than anyone else when it comes to when the use of force is reasonable.
I think it's absolutely absurd to say the police are better trained and use that for justification of why they should get more leeway on use of force than other people.
I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make, or what it has to do with what's being discussed.
Belle offered the hypothetical of someone shooting a cop who bolted into a room the same way this kid did. My response is that cops - including this cop - generally don't do that, because they're trained not to. In no small part because for that very reason. Hence all the calling out and identifying himself.
For the record, I've never said that the cop should get "more leeway." I said that this shoot, awful as it was, is entirely understandable.
Thanks for providing a useful video. I wonder if Binion intentionally chose a video that obscures the most important movement.
It's awful that the kid was shot. The situation dictated that the officer had to be armed and ready when he entered. The rapid movement of a figure even vaguely close to that of the armed perp should have drawn a rapid response. He fired one shot, hit center mass, and then quickly thereafter identified the target as a non-hostile and (assumedly) provided care. The problem is that he didn't manage to properly identify the target in an instant. It's an impossible standard. Overall, it's a good shoot in a bad circumstance.
The kid being shot is relevant in the woman's custody case. There is a pattern of DV in her home. From my understanding this wasn't the first time armed police response was required. If she isn't gonna kick out the douchebag then I don't know that it's wrong to pull the kids out of the house
“If she isn’t gonna kick out the douchebag”
Read the fine article. The douchebag was her ex. He was not living in the house. She had kicked him out. He didn’t stay out.
That left her with two choices: Get a gun and shoot the douchebag, or call the cops. Prosecutors don’t like the first choice. But if you call the cops, you may put yourself and your family in danger from a panicky triggerhappy cop with no idea who is who in the house. Wiit the standards in hiring that seem to be common at police departments these days, if your luck is really bad, that cop may be unable to tell an 11 year old boy from an adult male, but able to imagine any shadow is a gun.
that cop may be unable to tell an 11 year old boy from an adult male
Watch the video I linked.
Imagine I flashed an image on your screen for say... two and a half deciseconds. How much detail do you think you can give me about it? Or, better yet, say you have your finger on one of two buttons. How fast do you think your perception could send signals to your brain to command your finger to move from one button to the other?
It's why I think it'd be interesting to run a sim. 100 iterations. 50 times it's an unarmed kid; 50 times it's a belligerent opening fire. Set at random. I'm willing to bet that someone gets shot most of the time.
An 11 year old boy is roughly half the size of a full grown man. Even if the kid is on the hefty side to shoot him in the chest you'd have to aim about 2 to 3 feet lower than you would on a full grown man. For a panic shoot that was pretty damned accurate fire.
Please. It was center-mass - the easiest target - and well off from a killshot. He was in the hospital for a whopping four days. I'm not trying to diminish the trauma the boy suffered, rather just pointing out that you clearly know nothing about firearms and their use. If it was accurate, than the cop should be praised for having the wherewithal to target so carefully. If not, then you're overblowing the severity that was the end-result of a panic shot. (And sure, it could have been worse - but it wasn't. So let's not pretend otherwise.)
Also, do you know why, in a firefight, you run low and crouched (if you're smart)? Smaller target. Harder to hit.
You seem to think that the bad guys in the world will march out slowly, spread eagle, and wearing a neon sign that says, "Bad guy," or that cops should somehow glean all relevant knowledge they need to appropriately react in less than half a second. It's prejudiced your ability to discuss the subject with any semblance of reason.
On a site called Reason. Just saying.
I see, you're an expert on shooting kids. Nice to know.
I take it you're out of arguments, and now you're just trying to prove that you can be a master baiter?
Why bother with anything worthwhile. You just evade and make excuses. You won't extrapolate or even take a guess. If it didn't happen you don't want to talk about it. Well, except for this sick fantasy you have about shooting me and doing horrible things to my family. That you're willing to imagine.
I have no intention of entertaining your straw men. The reason you refuse to entertain the merits of the discussion is because you know your position is indefensible. Yet, for some reason, you persist in total absurdity.
I attribute that to your unexamined prejudices. You should... examine them.
Indefensible. Wow, that's rich. You're defending a trained agent of government for shooting an unarmed 11 year old kid in his own house with a series of strawmen that only you believe.
You're the cop worshiping statist here. Talk about indefensible positions.
I'm not defending it. I'm simply explaining why it's entirely understandable how it happened.
It's your position that has no basis in reason. It's borne of prejudice, supposition, and Monday morning quarterbacking. You're operating under an irrational view of reality that doesn't consider anything but that which supports your position.
But you know what? Tell you what Monday - you go ahead and quarterback it. You're the cop. Start from the beginning. You've arrived on scene at the DV call. Walk us through your process step-by-step. And don't skip anything - if you're going to peek into a window, let us know. If you're going to draw your firearm, tell us when. If there's any announcements you're going to make or any conversations you're going to have with anyone on scene, articulate them fully.
Go.
So, admittedly, this is a tough one.
Nope. If you go in a house and shoot a kid, it's a crime. If the cop is not criminally negligent, the policy that sent an unprepared, trigger happy cop into a situation without knowing a kid is present is.
Actually, neither is. Hence why the cop is still on the job and a grand jury didn't find it actionable.
What is and what should never be.
It's easy to explain how you would have won Sunday's game on Monday morning, isn't it.
Sure. It's much easier than defending a system where an officer of the government shoots a kid in his own home.
It actually wasn't all that hard to defend, given the totality of the circumstances. Which I articulated in my original post.
I know. You pointed out how everything was done properly in those circumstances. I say the police should not be in any circumstances where a shooting a kid in his house is proper conduct.
Well maybe a magical fairy could have come down and intervened. But here in reality, sometimes these kinds of things are unavoidable.
Right. A magic fairy...or sensible training and policies based on the thousands of similar previous events...either way.
Why would they have sensible training and policies on those kinds of situations, if they didn't expect to be in circumstances that command their use?
Is it not a predictable circumstance that when you enter a home there may be innocent people inside?
Hence all the knocking, calling out, and identifying oneself as a police officer.
If I were of a kicking down doors, ransacked homes, and doing horrible things to the people inside business I suspect the best option would be to yell that I was a police officer and was there on some bullshit official business. Keep a bright flashlight shining in the eyes of anyone who looks my way and in general acting like an overprivilidged asshole.
There have been a number of news stories about people impersonating cops and intimidating people into giving them money. How would you know for sure if it was a real cop or a fake one?
The flashing lights of your cruiser would probably be a good indicator. Unless... oh wait, do you think the conmen are that good at fooling people, that they've gone out and found a bunch of CrownVics to doll up just to really sell it?
*laughs*
"he believes an imminent threat exists"
Cops ALWAYS believe that, ALL the time. Kids was just lucky he was not a dog, otherwise the cops might have unloaded the whole magazine on him.
If the police officer was employed by a private police company under contract to the city, then all sorts of interesting things would happen. Lawsuits against the company would be successful. Liability insurance rates would be re-assessed on the company and they would strive mightily to ensure proper training and behavior. Police would become much more customer friendly. The work record of the police officer would be scrutinized if ever he applied for another police job, etc.
This is a confusing headline. It sounds like a cop shot her own child and might lose custody as a result, which is pretty reasonable.
HyR is full of those.
Looking at the video AT linked, I wonder what the person behind the door should have done — waved a hat into the hallway?
Call out. Use words. "Is it okay to come out". Would have solved everything.
I mean, he knows a cop is there. How about, "I'm just a kid! I'm unarmed! Don't shoot!" But, like I said above, he's a kid. He probably wasn't thinking when he ran out - just running on impulse.
There are assumptions we could make as to why, but I don't feel particularly compelled to speculate on them. Do you?
So the cop gets the benefit of the doubt when making his snap judgment because he has training. The untrained and frankly stupid kid (all kids that young are stupid) is supposed to be the responcible one and think to clearly inform the man with the gun that he is about to come out with his hands clearly visible and move slowly so as to not scare the highly trained officer..
Talk about an arm chair quarterback.
There is a difference between blaming the kid and not blaming the cop.
The cop messed up in an understandable, if tragic, way.
The kid messed up again in an understandable way. Running on autopilot.
At least the kid survived. That's one silver lining in this disaster.
We can discuss the cop's actions and whether it was a genuine accident or qualifies as negligence. However, it's clear that it was not malicious. This is not a matter of blame, but correction.
I already excused the kid. What's your issue?
I similarly did not give the cop the benefit of the doubt. I actually went over that carefully and with consideration. I said his conduct was understandable. What's your issue?
Is it that you hate cops reflexively? Is that your issue?
Well, aint that mighty white of you. You excused the kid for getting shot. I suppose he needed to be excused because if a cop shoots someone then they needed shootin' acording to you.
Down to the race card then, are you? I knew you didn't have a hand. Let alone a full deck.
"Mighty white of you" is the race card...
Hmm.... My dad used it all the time, never thought of it as degrading not white people. I think I actually used that one my son's Godfather, who is a black man by the way, and he never said shit. But then he gave my son a "bro pass" so he's not into turing everything into race.
If you want to think that was racism then go ahead. You may as well come out of the closet as an authoritarian leftist.
Why would you bring race into the conversation at all?
Oh, because your dad used it. So... something wrong with your upbringing then. Got it. That explains a lot.
The mother created a dangerous situation for her children by shacking up with a violent loser. The kids should be removed for their safety. The shooting is a separate issue.
The mother had kicked him out. He broke back in.
She shacked up with him in the first place. Get the children safe first; then try to sort out the situation.
You are desperate to leave the system blameless. I've known kids who are living along with the mothers abusive and violent piece of shit whom the "protective services" have left in the home. To say she made a poor choice, actually then made a good choice and now must be punished for the original bad choice is over the fucking top.
Losers are as losers do. She probably already had the next piece of shit lined up. Getting rid of the first one wasn't because she finally saw the light and realized it's not a good choice. He was just expired to her.
Course she should get benefit of doubt. And why would one have to pay for their mistakes twice?
But those loser specimens that are oh so worthy of protection to the left, I'm telling you they will find ways to fuck up even in a perfect system, and consistently so.
And why would one have to pay for their mistakes twice?
Why should her children have to pay for her mistakes? She created a dangerous situation for her children. They need to be removed from that peril. Fuck her.
Oh sure, independent from that incident, she should likely never have been in charge of kids.
People complain about flaws of the system here, but the syste. enables a good deal of the reproductive success of people that will not only accidentally but systematically endanger their offspring (often due to issues such as personality disorders, some people are just consistently wired to make the worse choice).
I was just saying that generally it makes no sense to double-pay and that benefit of the doubt is a good guideline. A certain subset of cases will still burn through the benefit and have themselves and others keep on paying. No doubt about that.
As I've said here several times, we need to stop subsidizing the reproduction of indigent unmarried women.
Losers. That makes everything OK.
I really hope you're not one of those anti abortion religious right types. Then you're a worse hypocrite than you already sound like.
Nah, being a loser doesn't make everything OK. Especially not the part where they reproduce like it's our responsibility to subsidize their dysfunctional loser asses.
The ai that wrote this story is broken.
I don't think this is outlandish at all. Baby momma with multiple fathers of her little welfare checks has had the kids in a chaotic situation for years and it took this accident for it to finally come out. The actual question is not whether the removing children is a result of a shooting itself which I doubt but that in the ensuing investigation everything else came to light.
Or, like most supposed "Child Protective Services" they can actually turn a profit by taking away white babies and putting them out on the adoption market while black young kids have almost no adoptive value so they usually leave the black kids in shitty situations.
If there only was a way to explain these preferences...
Correct. The children are objectively in intolerable danger. The shooting is a separate issue.
Parents, teachers, and child care professionals have a right to decide if children should be kept in mortal peril. You're not a libertarian if you think the state should step in to save the children. /Jeffy
According to Jeffy, it’s perfectly normal for any government school to workers to decide that a child is ‘trans’ and needs to be secretly taken to a clinic where they may receive permanently life altering hormone therapy, and even surgery. He also believes teachers have an inalienable right to talk about sexual subjects to children as young as 5.
Of course, Buttplug approves.