So 30 million dollar potential settlement on the table for a cop shooting a kid in the back who was fleeing a separate shooting, and since the cop has qualified immunity and essentially committed a count of manslaughter on his way to doing his job he just walks and the taxpayers cover his astounding fuck up? That’s what we’re saying here?
AND the kid was likely involved in the shooting tangentially as he was armed with a handgun at the time. How many 16 year olds armed with a handgun do you know that are walking around at 10pm unless involved in a gang or something other nefarious activity?
The cop was still wrong, but there’s likely more to this story that lead to the initial shooting.
I've been screaming for this for years. Liability Insurance for each and every cop. And since we all know the Unions will raise hell about it, we can even defuse their arguments: have every department pay the base rate for every officer. So ZERO cost to the individual cops initially. When will they need to pay? If their rates go up over the BASE rate. Why would their rates go up? They break the law and their insurance has to pay out. The thugs who break the law and result in judgements in the thousands or millions? Well, the insurance companies aren't going to just eat that, so they'll raise the costs of the individual officer's policies. Bad cops price themselves into such a high policy they can't afford to maintain it? Too bad! So sad! No insurance, no job. They're fired. End of story.
And since the insurance companies don't give one flying fuck whether a cop is working in this county or one next door, their rates will follow them everywhere. So no more "I'll quietly quit here and go work the next town over to avoid any consequences." That still leaves the issue of removing qualified immunity and actually prosecuting cops who break the law, but if we can push the burden of paying for their mistakes into a realm that effectively prices the bad cops OUT, that'll at least be one step forward.
Same. They should start out with a stipend for it. It goes down with long time with no lawsuits and training etc. Goes up with incidents. Once the rate gets out of control they would have to quit and find another profession. Just like doctors with issues.
We do it for everything else with a high payout like this.
My field doesn't even require it and I still pay for liability insurance because if you're doing your job correctly, it's literally there to protect you from bogus claims.
The only reason cops should be scared is if they know that what they get away with would raise premiums. It's almost like they know they break the law on the regular.
it's literally there to protect you from bogus claims
At dayjob our experience with insurance has been the complete opposite - the insurance company rolls over and pays clearly bogus claims and just jacks our rates up while making it so we cannot switch companies since we now have a claim against us.
The problem with that is that the department's budget comes from taxpayers, so in all likelihood a lot of municipalities would just raise their budget. Same reason why generally hospitals require you to get your own liability insurance and not get an umbrella one for the whole hospital.
You make it a condition that it can't be paid for by public money, which already is the case with some liability insurance requirement.
But regardless, even if the city did, they'd at least have an incentive to cut that shit out, since they don't want to pay higher premiums.
And since liability insurance is personal, not umbrella, it would follow the cop even if they did the tried and true "move to another town and become a cop there" trick.
I see this take on Reddit all the time and working in Insurance, it's not the solution.
No insurance company in their right mind would insure cops and if they did, the price would be astronomically expensive to where it wouldn't make sense.
Do you know how much Drs have to pay for this type of insurance?
Almost every single time a municipality has proposed this, it has come with the addendum that the base rate would be paid by the city from the money they use to pay out claims anyways. The rising of the premiums due to incidents the city deems their fault is what wouldn’t be.
You can't really put a dollar amount on an increase in premium just from claims alone. There are many other factors that go into insurance rates.
Also, they wouldn't be able to afford the rate that an insurance company would charge.
Insurance companies are a business and just like any business they need to make money so they would need to factor in their own cut to make sure they made a profit which would end up being more than settlements pay out.
Most initiatives that push this propose using the money they give out in settlements to fund a base insurance rate, and if premiums go up then the department is responsible.
It doesn’t matter whether they sue the city, because it’s not about saving taxpayers money, it’s about pricing out the worst offenders. (although indirectly it does, since it disincentivizes the conduct that would lead to lawsuits in the first place)
Take Derek Chauvin for example
He had been on the force for 19 years. He had 18 complaints, he’d been involved in multiple shootings, etc.
18 complaints is well above average and that alone should have triggered some sort of review. The average I found in various sites varies from one to four complaints over a ten year period. So assuming a two, he was four times as problematic as the average police officer
Had there been a personal professional liability insurance system in place, his record would have triggered high premiums. His continued record of recklessness would have made those premiums soar, and he would have been priced out of policing before he ever met George Floyd.
That’s why people want premiums, not to save the city money.
The 16 year old teen was actually fleeing a shooting when police shot him, not the perpetrator.
For reference, George Floyd's family got $27 million from Minneapolis. This would be the largest sum ever payed out in a police related lawsuit if approved.
The body cam video is absolutely crazy, officer shoots as soon as the kid runs around the corner - neither of them had enough time to react/explain the situation… what a tragedy
Cop just heard gun shots, and immediately shot the first person he saw running
Another few notes:
3. Officer saw the teen running clutching his waistband, where criminals often carry guns (the cop was running toward the gunfire)
4. The initial shooting was precipitated by the teenager attempting and failing to pull his own gun out, as seen in the surveillance video.
Brother what in the hell. This is insane, put yourself in the boy’s shoes. He was literally so blameless that the City is contemplating providing the largest payment ever.
According to Graham v Connor the cop would likely have an easy time articulating yes, seeing as reviewing an incident in hindsight isn't allowed.
Officer hears a series of gunshots nearby and immediately move to intervene.
Officer comes upon someone fleeing the scene in a time that aligns with the amount of time it would take to get from the other side of the building where the shots sounded to be coming from
Fleeing person is clutching at their waist in a way that is common with people carrying a heavy object there, typical with criminals concealing a gun.
Graham V Connor uses a three pronged question to determine the reasonableness of force.
What is the seriousness of the suspected crime? In this case detaining a person fleeing the scene of a shooting is easily articulable.
Did the suspect pose an immediate threat, and if so what degree of a threat? The person is suspected of a shooting and is apparently currently clutching a possible firearm.
Is the suspect actively fleeing or resisting arrest. Yes, the person is actively fleeing.
TLDR; The officer can easily articulate being in danger, and the evidence found after the fact only validates the officer's concerns. Even in 20/20 hindsight the officer's in-the-moment fears are validated, but the city will always pay out because fighting this sort of lawsuit is massively unpopular in today's world.
y'know when they keep having these big payouts for wrongfully killing people, but they keep killing people anyway, it kinda makes the big payouts seem like just the cost of doing business
Make every officer carry personal insurance, like a doctor or nurse. Hold them individually accountable, and unable to insure if they are not acting in a way that is proper for their duty.
Yes this is a better option. If you make payouts from the union it just incentivizes circling the wagons even more than they already do. Police should also be licensed like other professions so when they get in trouble they can't just get a job at another department. It's ridiculous that a hairdresser needs a license but a cop doesn't.
It sort of does have an impact, albeit in a much slower way. Smaller towns that have payouts like this have seen their insurance premiums skyrocket, to the point that they can't keep a local police force employed. They do have to call in the State Troopers for coverage, but at some point those entities will become too costly to run with those kind of payouts as well, but, unfortunately, after many many more civilian deaths.
Should also take it from the longest serving cops pensions first, because that also means that they have motivation as the ones with the most seniority have motivation to keep the youngins in check. If your dumbassery means my pension takes a paycut, youre damn right im going to prevent you from being a dumbass.
Only cops that dont, are cops with seniority who are on record having attempted to correct the behavior of the cop in question and having actual measured feedback - then the supervising officer that didnt fire the guy when the old timer reported it gets to pay instead
Having taxpayers write a big check helps fix police shootings and misconduct. At least I think it does, why else would we be doing the same thing over and over if it didn’t?/s
If it cost them anything, then sure. But the police don't pay, the city/county etc does. The cost to the police is zero, and that's a big part of why they don't change.
"We hope that Konoa's story will send a message across the country: Cities will pay dearly when officers violate the law and take a life without justification. We expect the city of San Diego to ensure this never happens again."
As long as the payouts are still pushed onto the taxpayer, they won't learn anything. The very first time they make the police pension fund pay it instead, you will see them clear their house of anyone who could destroy their retirement. Heaven forbid they do the smart thing and require every officer to carry their own insurance able to payout a 9-figure award. The more the officer screws up, the greater the chance they are no longer insurable to keep working as a police officer. Oh, and the officer has to pay for the coverage themselves; the city covers the base rate for people with no claims but the officer is responsible for any monthly rate increases due to claims.
There just needs to be some cause and effect established. Like okay the PD costs the municipality X dollars, now we have to cut X dollars from your budget to handle the additional money you are spending. We make cuts for other programs to fund mistakes and have recourse to fix the issues that caused the mistakes, like its just not good financial sense at this point to keep allowing this
We should he taking it directly from the officer. He should be imprisoned on work release with his wages going to pay off restitution before he can be released, along with any other cop that participated.
You want to end this shit? Make it so cops have to pay themselves, liquidate all their assets, and make it so ther kids know that they are homeless because their dad wa s a dumbass murderer
Until these settlements start coming out of the Police Pension Fund instead of the taxpayers' pockets, nothing will ever change. If the 'bad apples' started costing their colleagues their retirement money, the Blue Wall of Silence would crumble overnight.
I don’t know what it’s like to be a parent but if my 16 year old felt he needed to carry a gun I think I should’ve more involved in his life. Not sue after the fact. Cop however responding to shots fired was just a massive situational awareness failure on his part that ultimately cost that kid his life.
I would absolutely say that there were many failures on both sides that led up to this.
That he had a gun doesn't matter. The cop didn't see it, and he shot the kid in the back. He shot literally the first person he saw after hearing the shots.
In no way am I defending the cop. You seem very angry and unstable to hold a conversation let alone a debate. I think it’s very sad about what happened at least all parties involved are being held accountable. I hope you get the help you need.
there were many failures on both sides that led up to this.
What does this mean, then? What is the kid, who was shot for no reason relating to the gun he had, being held accountable for? The cop didn't know he had a gun, so this isn't a consequence of that. So when it comes to the kid, what is it a consequence for? How? Don't be afraid of debate, explain your reasoning.
Until a child is 18 they are the parent’s responsibility. The cop absolutely handles this wrong and is at fault. Unfortunately a dispute between two minors that led to gunfire causing one to run lead ultimately to the officer making a very bad judgement call and shooting someone in the back. None of us can say we would do anything different.
You still have not explained the consequence of the kid carrying the gun. He was shot at, ran away, and was shot by the cop. At no point did he pull it, according to the cop or the original shooter. So in what way was he facing consequences for having the gun? It was simply on him when other things happened.
Should he have had it? Of course not! But him having it didn't factor into his shooting by the officer. At all. His getting shot was the consequence of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, (near a cop when he heard gun shots) not the gun.
Yeah I don’t know somehow I knew kids just like this who carried guns and they somehow were always in the wrong places at the wrong times. Had the cop not been there this would have just been a gang related shooting that could have resulted in retaliation and who knows where it could have escalated down the road. Unfortunately for the child he was gunned down by the very people who should be protecting them and that is the real tragedy where the officer is being held accountable for.
I mean hell, think of any kid he grew up with that isn’t carrying a gun and is cared for by their parents are they in the same situations? I don’t think so.
You didnt read the article yet felt the need to comment with your opinion, I hope you get the help you need to properly read, perhaps going back to 2nd grade would work.
So 30 million dollar potential settlement on the table for a cop shooting a kid in the back who was fleeing a separate shooting, and since the cop has qualified immunity and essentially committed a count of manslaughter on his way to doing his job he just walks and the taxpayers cover his astounding fuck up? That’s what we’re saying here?
Yep. Taxpayers foot the bill, taxes go up, cops get no punishment
instead of defund the police why not de-arm the police.
Only if we also de-feet them.
Like computer problem we patch and the fix is permanent, we as humanity will never get there.
AND the kid was likely involved in the shooting tangentially as he was armed with a handgun at the time. How many 16 year olds armed with a handgun do you know that are walking around at 10pm unless involved in a gang or something other nefarious activity?
The cop was still wrong, but there’s likely more to this story that lead to the initial shooting.
Edit: added armed
The cop had no way of knowing the kid was armed and his report reflected that fact.
Plenty of 16 year olds are out past 10pm who aren’t gang members.
Agreed, definitely the cop in the wrong.
Sorry I forgot “armed”. How many ARMED 16yos?
San Diego agrees that taxpayers should pay for an alleged mistake made by a trigger happy cop they hired and barely trained*
Shot in back tells the tale.
Cops should be required to have malpractice insurance like Doctors. See how they start cracking down on that bullshit when premiums start going up.
Sounds too much like accountability. They are allergic to that.
I've been screaming for this for years. Liability Insurance for each and every cop. And since we all know the Unions will raise hell about it, we can even defuse their arguments: have every department pay the base rate for every officer. So ZERO cost to the individual cops initially. When will they need to pay? If their rates go up over the BASE rate. Why would their rates go up? They break the law and their insurance has to pay out. The thugs who break the law and result in judgements in the thousands or millions? Well, the insurance companies aren't going to just eat that, so they'll raise the costs of the individual officer's policies. Bad cops price themselves into such a high policy they can't afford to maintain it? Too bad! So sad! No insurance, no job. They're fired. End of story.
And since the insurance companies don't give one flying fuck whether a cop is working in this county or one next door, their rates will follow them everywhere. So no more "I'll quietly quit here and go work the next town over to avoid any consequences." That still leaves the issue of removing qualified immunity and actually prosecuting cops who break the law, but if we can push the burden of paying for their mistakes into a realm that effectively prices the bad cops OUT, that'll at least be one step forward.
100%
The problem is how well politically connected the FOP is.
Republicans talk about the AFL-CIO and the Teachers Unions relentlessly because they endorse Democrats, but they never say a word about the FOP.
Same. They should start out with a stipend for it. It goes down with long time with no lawsuits and training etc. Goes up with incidents. Once the rate gets out of control they would have to quit and find another profession. Just like doctors with issues.
We do it for everything else with a high payout like this.
My field doesn't even require it and I still pay for liability insurance because if you're doing your job correctly, it's literally there to protect you from bogus claims.
The only reason cops should be scared is if they know that what they get away with would raise premiums. It's almost like they know they break the law on the regular.
At dayjob our experience with insurance has been the complete opposite - the insurance company rolls over and pays clearly bogus claims and just jacks our rates up while making it so we cannot switch companies since we now have a claim against us.
What field? Personally my premiums haven't gone up but it's also a personal policy, not a company one.
And I have it because I know a genuine fuck up could cost a lot more than I can afford.
It does sound like they're making more money off of your premiums than paying the claims though, maybe that's why they caved
Or make the department carry insurance. Then they can choose how carefully they screen candidates and how well they train their officers.
The problem with that is that the department's budget comes from taxpayers, so in all likelihood a lot of municipalities would just raise their budget. Same reason why generally hospitals require you to get your own liability insurance and not get an umbrella one for the whole hospital.
Then police "unions" would just require cities/towns to pay for police malpractice insurance regardless of the premiums.
You make it a condition that it can't be paid for by public money, which already is the case with some liability insurance requirement.
But regardless, even if the city did, they'd at least have an incentive to cut that shit out, since they don't want to pay higher premiums.
And since liability insurance is personal, not umbrella, it would follow the cop even if they did the tried and true "move to another town and become a cop there" trick.
[deleted]
Right, so price out the worst offenders. Is it a perfect solution? No, but perfect is the enemy of good
I see this take on Reddit all the time and working in Insurance, it's not the solution.
No insurance company in their right mind would insure cops and if they did, the price would be astronomically expensive to where it wouldn't make sense.
Do you know how much Drs have to pay for this type of insurance?
Almost every single time a municipality has proposed this, it has come with the addendum that the base rate would be paid by the city from the money they use to pay out claims anyways. The rising of the premiums due to incidents the city deems their fault is what wouldn’t be.
You can't really put a dollar amount on an increase in premium just from claims alone. There are many other factors that go into insurance rates.
Also, they wouldn't be able to afford the rate that an insurance company would charge.
Insurance companies are a business and just like any business they need to make money so they would need to factor in their own cut to make sure they made a profit which would end up being more than settlements pay out.
Man that's jsut asking for increasing the budget.
Most initiatives that push this propose using the money they give out in settlements to fund a base insurance rate, and if premiums go up then the department is responsible.
[removed]
It doesn’t matter whether they sue the city, because it’s not about saving taxpayers money, it’s about pricing out the worst offenders. (although indirectly it does, since it disincentivizes the conduct that would lead to lawsuits in the first place)
Take Derek Chauvin for example
He had been on the force for 19 years. He had 18 complaints, he’d been involved in multiple shootings, etc.
18 complaints is well above average and that alone should have triggered some sort of review. The average I found in various sites varies from one to four complaints over a ten year period. So assuming a two, he was four times as problematic as the average police officer
Had there been a personal professional liability insurance system in place, his record would have triggered high premiums. His continued record of recklessness would have made those premiums soar, and he would have been priced out of policing before he ever met George Floyd.
That’s why people want premiums, not to save the city money.
Few things to note here.
The body cam video is absolutely crazy, officer shoots as soon as the kid runs around the corner - neither of them had enough time to react/explain the situation… what a tragedy
Cop just heard gun shots, and immediately shot the first person he saw running
Just what people want during an emergency, a trigger-happy coward with no ability to discern a threat.
In Arvada, Colorado, the cops showed up to a mass shooting and shot the guy who shot the shooter. https://www.cpr.org/2023/09/28/arvada-police-good-samaritan-shooter-settlement/
Yeah, no problem is so bad it can't be made worse by having the cops show up. If you have a problem and call the cops, you now have 2 problems.
So naturally, he's currently in prison. Right? Please?
No, he's on paid administrative duty. All they did was take him off patrol.😒
Another few notes: 3. Officer saw the teen running clutching his waistband, where criminals often carry guns (the cop was running toward the gunfire) 4. The initial shooting was precipitated by the teenager attempting and failing to pull his own gun out, as seen in the surveillance video.
The teen wasn't blameless in this.
“The teen wasn’t blameless”
Brother what in the hell. This is insane, put yourself in the boy’s shoes. He was literally so blameless that the City is contemplating providing the largest payment ever.
He instigated a shooting that he was shot running from... How is that blameless.
I haven't seen the video, but I have run before and always have to "clutch" my waistband. Because pants tend to fall when you run.
So the gun found where he was holding didn't exist? Nor did the gunfire the officer heard and was responding to?
Context matters.
You’re right, context does matter. The cop shot and killed the wrong person.
He should lose his job at the very least.
Lol, that isn't context, those are the surface value facts. Context is when you go beyond the basic headline and see the totality, friend.
Was the cop in danger?
According to Graham v Connor the cop would likely have an easy time articulating yes, seeing as reviewing an incident in hindsight isn't allowed.
Officer hears a series of gunshots nearby and immediately move to intervene.
Officer comes upon someone fleeing the scene in a time that aligns with the amount of time it would take to get from the other side of the building where the shots sounded to be coming from
Fleeing person is clutching at their waist in a way that is common with people carrying a heavy object there, typical with criminals concealing a gun.
Graham V Connor uses a three pronged question to determine the reasonableness of force.
What is the seriousness of the suspected crime? In this case detaining a person fleeing the scene of a shooting is easily articulable.
Did the suspect pose an immediate threat, and if so what degree of a threat? The person is suspected of a shooting and is apparently currently clutching a possible firearm.
Is the suspect actively fleeing or resisting arrest. Yes, the person is actively fleeing.
TLDR; The officer can easily articulate being in danger, and the evidence found after the fact only validates the officer's concerns. Even in 20/20 hindsight the officer's in-the-moment fears are validated, but the city will always pay out because fighting this sort of lawsuit is massively unpopular in today's world.
y'know when they keep having these big payouts for wrongfully killing people, but they keep killing people anyway, it kinda makes the big payouts seem like just the cost of doing business
if by "business" we mean murdering kids
If the payouts were made by the police union instead of public taxes it may actually have an impact.
Make every officer carry personal insurance, like a doctor or nurse. Hold them individually accountable, and unable to insure if they are not acting in a way that is proper for their duty.
Yes this is a better option. If you make payouts from the union it just incentivizes circling the wagons even more than they already do. Police should also be licensed like other professions so when they get in trouble they can't just get a job at another department. It's ridiculous that a hairdresser needs a license but a cop doesn't.
This would solve a lot because it seems to be the same officers who commit most of the egregious crimes.
It sort of does have an impact, albeit in a much slower way. Smaller towns that have payouts like this have seen their insurance premiums skyrocket, to the point that they can't keep a local police force employed. They do have to call in the State Troopers for coverage, but at some point those entities will become too costly to run with those kind of payouts as well, but, unfortunately, after many many more civilian deaths.
Should also take it from the longest serving cops pensions first, because that also means that they have motivation as the ones with the most seniority have motivation to keep the youngins in check. If your dumbassery means my pension takes a paycut, youre damn right im going to prevent you from being a dumbass.
Only cops that dont, are cops with seniority who are on record having attempted to correct the behavior of the cop in question and having actual measured feedback - then the supervising officer that didnt fire the guy when the old timer reported it gets to pay instead
Having taxpayers write a big check helps fix police shootings and misconduct. At least I think it does, why else would we be doing the same thing over and over if it didn’t?/s
If it cost them anything, then sure. But the police don't pay, the city/county etc does. The cost to the police is zero, and that's a big part of why they don't change.
As long as the payouts are still pushed onto the taxpayer, they won't learn anything. The very first time they make the police pension fund pay it instead, you will see them clear their house of anyone who could destroy their retirement. Heaven forbid they do the smart thing and require every officer to carry their own insurance able to payout a 9-figure award. The more the officer screws up, the greater the chance they are no longer insurable to keep working as a police officer. Oh, and the officer has to pay for the coverage themselves; the city covers the base rate for people with no claims but the officer is responsible for any monthly rate increases due to claims.
There just needs to be some cause and effect established. Like okay the PD costs the municipality X dollars, now we have to cut X dollars from your budget to handle the additional money you are spending. We make cuts for other programs to fund mistakes and have recourse to fix the issues that caused the mistakes, like its just not good financial sense at this point to keep allowing this
We should he taking it directly from the officer. He should be imprisoned on work release with his wages going to pay off restitution before he can be released, along with any other cop that participated.
You want to end this shit? Make it so cops have to pay themselves, liquidate all their assets, and make it so ther kids know that they are homeless because their dad wa s a dumbass murderer
Plenty more of that tax payer money to go round boys, shoot'em up!
Until these settlements start coming out of the Police Pension Fund instead of the taxpayers' pockets, nothing will ever change. If the 'bad apples' started costing their colleagues their retirement money, the Blue Wall of Silence would crumble overnight.
Yep. I would suggest that cops become private contractors and require them to get their own private commercial insurance like doctors have to do.
The insurance companies sort out the bad apples.
No insurance company in their right mind is insuring that.
But I'm sure they didn't arrest or fire the pig that murdered the kid
So nothing happened to Officer Gold? Article says nothing, I feel like he got away with murder quite literally.
And the police union is sleeping just fine tonight while taxpayers cover their butts once again.
Wouldn’t it be San Diego residents paid? Settlement’s need to come out of police union coffers
Piece of shit coward cop. As per usual. He’ll be working for ICE if they ever fire him.
$30M won't bring a son back.
would sure cost the taxpayers though
You mean San Diego agrees that the citizens get to pay for a cop's fuckup.
[removed]
Not since Republicans passed gun control laws because they were scared of armed black men...
Does the question escape you down voter ?
I don’t know what it’s like to be a parent but if my 16 year old felt he needed to carry a gun I think I should’ve more involved in his life. Not sue after the fact. Cop however responding to shots fired was just a massive situational awareness failure on his part that ultimately cost that kid his life.
I would absolutely say that there were many failures on both sides that led up to this.
That is not what happened. Did you bother to do the smallest amount of reading before defending an indefensible action by a cop?
That he had a gun doesn't matter. The cop didn't see it, and he shot the kid in the back. He shot literally the first person he saw after hearing the shots.
In no way am I defending the cop. You seem very angry and unstable to hold a conversation let alone a debate. I think it’s very sad about what happened at least all parties involved are being held accountable. I hope you get the help you need.
What does this mean, then? What is the kid, who was shot for no reason relating to the gun he had, being held accountable for? The cop didn't know he had a gun, so this isn't a consequence of that. So when it comes to the kid, what is it a consequence for? How? Don't be afraid of debate, explain your reasoning.
Until a child is 18 they are the parent’s responsibility. The cop absolutely handles this wrong and is at fault. Unfortunately a dispute between two minors that led to gunfire causing one to run lead ultimately to the officer making a very bad judgement call and shooting someone in the back. None of us can say we would do anything different.
You still have not explained the consequence of the kid carrying the gun. He was shot at, ran away, and was shot by the cop. At no point did he pull it, according to the cop or the original shooter. So in what way was he facing consequences for having the gun? It was simply on him when other things happened.
Should he have had it? Of course not! But him having it didn't factor into his shooting by the officer. At all. His getting shot was the consequence of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, (near a cop when he heard gun shots) not the gun.
Yeah I don’t know somehow I knew kids just like this who carried guns and they somehow were always in the wrong places at the wrong times. Had the cop not been there this would have just been a gang related shooting that could have resulted in retaliation and who knows where it could have escalated down the road. Unfortunately for the child he was gunned down by the very people who should be protecting them and that is the real tragedy where the officer is being held accountable for.
I mean hell, think of any kid he grew up with that isn’t carrying a gun and is cared for by their parents are they in the same situations? I don’t think so.
Oh, so you have no real argument beyond speculation and personal anecdotes. Got it.
You didnt read the article yet felt the need to comment with your opinion, I hope you get the help you need to properly read, perhaps going back to 2nd grade would work.