Police murder child, refuse to allow mother to comfort him

[Lindberg]

Sorry - but you're wrong.

You're right about "intent" being a requirement, but you are wrong that one cannot prove intent as you sit on someone's back and shoot them point blank with a gun.

Otherwise, I could shoot someone in the face, and later say "Well, I didn't mean to kill him, I was simply trying to injure him" and never be charged with murder.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how this is murder, since that's what you accused the cops of in your OP:

According to the Long Beach Police Department, the shooting occurred after officers were dispatched to a vacant residence in the 1100 block of Hoffman Avenue on Thursday, to investigate a report of trespassing and vandalism.

When the officers arrived, they allegedly looked through an open window and saw Hector Morejon standing inside the residence.

"The officer observed [Morejon] turn towards him, while bending his knees, and extending his arm out as if pointing an object which the officer perceived was a gun," Long Beach police said in a Friday press release.

"At this point, an officer involved shooting occurred," the release continued.

I know you've gone off on several other anti-cop tangents after starting the thread, but is it possible to resolve one incident at a time?

 

[JGoodish]

First of all, since when is "unarmed" a reasonable litmus test for when deadly force is justified? If you break into my house in the middle of the night, you might get shot even if you're "unarmed." Don't want to get shot? Don't break the law. Don't even do something that might make it appear that you're breaking the law. And don't hang around people who are up to no good. And if you get caught, don't scuffle with or run from the police. If you do, what happens next is largely the result of your own poor decision-making.

None of that is to excuse police brutality, but the idea that law enforcement is hunting certain groups of people for sport is ridiculous, in addition to being entirely unsupported by fact in most cases. While we might debate the proportion of a response by law enforcement, the reality is that in almost every case, there would have been no response if the "victim" hadn't decided to commit a crime in the first place AND THEN attempt to evade or physically resist apprehension in some way. The "victims" and their dopey supporters want everyone to ignore the fact that the real problem in most cases is the criminal and not the cop.

If your thing is civil disobedience in the name of "social justice," which is often just a creative term for tyranny these days, then you better have the ability to handle the consequences. I'm not sure that there's anything more pathetic than a "whiner for a cause."


JKG

 

[SkyHog]

I'm still waiting for you to explain how this is murder, since that's what you accused the cops of in your OP:

I know you've gone off on several other anti-cop tangents after starting the thread, but is it possible to resolve one incident at a time?

Someone else changed the topic. But its easy: if an unarmed man pointed a cell phone (or anything other than a gun) at me, and I shot him, even if I claimed self defense, I'd be charged with murder.

Just because they had a badge doesn't mean they get to shoot people who just might have had a weapon, but probably didn't.

 

[SkyHog]

First of all, since when is "unarmed" a reasonable litmus test for when deadly force is justified? If you break into my house in the middle of the night, you might get shot even if you're "unarmed." Don't want to get shot? Don't break the law. Don't even do something that might make it appear that you're breaking the law. And don't hang around people who are up to no good. And if you get caught, don't scuffle with or run from the police. If you do, what happens next is largely the result of your own poor decision-making.

None of that is to excuse police brutality, but the idea that law enforcement is hunting certain groups of people for sport is ridiculous, in addition to being entirely unsupported by fact in most cases. While we might debate the proportion of a response by law enforcement, the reality is that in almost every case, there would have been no response if the "victim" hadn't decided to commit a crime in the first place AND THEN attempt to evade or physically resist apprehension in some way. The "victims" and their dopey supporters want everyone to ignore the fact that the real problem in most cases is the criminal and not the cop.

If your thing is civil disobedience in the name of "social justice," which is often just a creative term for tyranny these days, then you better have the ability to handle the consequences. I'm not sure that there's anything more pathetic than a "whiner for a cause."


JKG

http://bearingarms.com/may-shoot-someone-trespassing/

No cops involved there - trespassing is not a capital offense, and if you shoot someone for simply breaking into your home, you will likely face charges.

edit: unless you live in an area with a "Castle Doctine," which doesn't apply to third parties who have no vested interest (i.e., a cop).

 

[Norman]

You are ignoring the difference between simple trespass and home invasion. If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night you can assume he means to do you bodily harm. Not likely the prosecutor will charge you in the latter case unless you live in some liberal dominated state.

 

[Lindberg]

Someone else changed the topic. But its easy: if an unarmed man pointed a cell phone (or anything other than a gun) at me, and I shot him, even if I claimed self defense, I'd be charged with murder.

Just because they had a badge doesn't mean they get to shoot people who just might have had a weapon, but probably didn't.

You didn't answer the question. This isn't about you and some hypothetical fact scenario different from the actual situation your original post is about. You have made a determination that the cops in this story are murderers. So explain how their actions satisfy the elements of murder, please.

And not just murderers, but monsters.

 

[SkyHog]

You didn't answer the question. This isn't about you and some hypothetical fact scenario different from the actual situation your original post is about. You have made a determination that the cops in this story are murderers. So explain how their actions satisfy the elements of murder, please.

And not just murderers, but monsters.

Ok:

1. Fact: the youngster was found in a vacant building. There were no victims present.
2. Fact: the youngster turned toward the officer, unarmed
3. Fact: the officer shot him, with the intent to kill (as trained, they do not shoot to maim)
4. Fact: while the youngster lay, crying for his mother's comfort as he was dying after being shot, after the police had determined that he was unarmed and likely was a bad shoot, he was denied the attention of his mother while he died alone

Fact 4 is to illustrate the "monster" part. Facts 1-3 illustrate that the officers murdered him. Satisfies:

1. Intent to kill
2. No valid self defense argument
3. No valid defense of others argument

So - now you tell me, why is it not murder?

 

[N801BH]

Ok:

1. Fact: the youngster was found in a vacant building. There were no victims present.
2. Fact: the youngster turned toward the officer, unarmed
3. Fact: the officer shot him, with the intent to kill (as trained, they do not shoot to maim)
4. Fact: while the youngster lay, crying for his mother's comfort as he was dying after being shot, after the police had determined that he was unarmed and likely was a bad shoot, he was denied the attention of his mother while he died alone

Fact 4 is to illustrate the "monster" part. Facts 1-3 illustrate that the officers murdered him. Satisfies:

1. Intent to kill
2. No valid self defense argument
3. No valid defense of others argument

So - now you tell me, why is it not murder?

Please substitute YOUNGSTER for the truth and FACT..

He was a multi time FELON with a rap sheet longer then a three mile final.... At what point was this "YOUNGSTER' not responsible for his outcome..

 

[JGoodish]

http://bearingarms.com/may-shoot-someone-trespassing/

No cops involved there - trespassing is not a capital offense, and if you shoot someone for simply breaking into your home, you will likely face charges.

edit: unless you live in an area with a "Castle Doctine," which doesn't apply to third parties who have no vested interest (i.e., a cop).

Most states do in fact have "Castle Doctrine" protections of some sort, especially when a property owner is INSIDE the home. I happen to live in a state which recently liberalized the law to protect property owners who use lethal force OUTSIDE the home (i.e. largely removed duty to retreat.). So in most states the use of lethal force against an intruder inside the home is fairly easy to justify, and therefore difficut to prosecute.

You're right, Castle Doctrine doesn't protect law enforcement in the line of duty, but that wasn't my point. My point was that if you're a perp, bad things are likely to happen as a result of YOUR actions. If you don't want to risk it, don't be a perp. If you decide to be a perp, society should be rather cautious about rushing to your defense when you get shot, tazed, arrested, or roughed up. After all, YOU were the cause, not those pesky law enforcement officers who were trying to do their jobs.

And that's my entire problem with the recent national "conversation" on police brutality. Yes, there are bad cops, but most cops are not bad cops. Suspects are innocent until proven guilty, but when you decide to fight with a cop, you're no longer a suspect, you're an immediate threat. It's unreasonable to expect an officer to decline to defend himself, and it's quite presumptuous to Monday-morning quarterback most of these situations.

I'm generally not a big defender of our over-militarized and often arrogant law enforcement agencies, but our system of government requires that we fight the law in court, not on the street. Most of these perps are guilty, and they know it, so their chances of success are much better on the street. Unfortunately, those poor decision have resulted in many unnecessary fatalities. It doesn't matter if the cop is right or wrong if you're dead.


JKG

 

[Bob Noel]

Ok:

1. Fact: the youngster was found in a vacant building. There were no victims present.
2. Fact: the youngster turned toward the officer, unarmed
3. Fact: the officer shot him, with the intent to kill (as trained, they do not shoot to maim)
4. Fact: while the youngster lay, crying for his mother's comfort as he was dying after being shot, after the police had determined that he was unarmed and likely was a bad shoot, he was denied the attention of his mother while he died alone

Fact 4 is to illustrate the "monster" part. Facts 1-3 illustrate that the officers murdered him. Satisfies:

1. Intent to kill
2. No valid self defense argument
3. No valid defense of others argument

So - now you tell me, why is it not murder?

Is this "child" the 19-year old man?

Do you think it would be a good idea for Police to let family members in close proximity of a suspect?

 

[Marky_24]

Someone else changed the topic. But its easy: if an unarmed man pointed a cell phone (or anything other than a gun) at me, and I shot him, even if I claimed self defense, I'd be charged with murder.

Just because they had a badge doesn't mean they get to shoot people who just might have had a weapon, but probably didn't.

You couldn't be more wrong, In most states as long as you feel your life is threatened, note I said feel not if, you are legally able to defend yourself with deadly force.

Example from a few days ago, no charges filed against the citizen. http://m.ksl.com/index/story/sid/34511897?mobile_direct=y

 

[SkyHog]

Please substitute YOUNGSTER for the truth and FACT..

He was a multi time FELON with a rap sheet longer then a three mile final.... At what point was this "YOUNGSTER' not responsible for his outcome..

Ok - replace "19 Year Old" in place of "Youngster" and it changes nothing.

I can't find his rap sheet, and I looked after seeing your post. How many of those felonies were violent crimes and not drug offenses? Either way, does having such a criminal record change the fact that an unarmed man was posing zero threat to police (unless you count moving an arm threatening)?

 

[SkyHog]

Suspects are innocent until proven guilty, but when you decide to fight with a cop, you're no longer a suspect, you're an immediate threat. It's unreasonable to expect an officer to decline to defend himself, and it's quite presumptuous to Monday-morning quarterback most of these situations.

I fail to see how moving an arm with no weapon in it, and not in close proximity to an officer (who, by the way, was not even in the same room as the suspect) is "fighting" him.

To your second point of declining to defend yourself, I'll be the first to say that police should defend themselves in the exact same way you or I would. I wouldn't expect to be allowed to shoot someone because they looked at me menacingly or moved an empty arm at me.

 

[N801BH]

Ok - replace "19 Year Old" in place of "Youngster" and it changes nothing.

I can't find his rap sheet, and I looked after seeing your post. How many of those felonies were violent crimes and not drug offenses? Either way, does having such a criminal record change the fact that an unarmed man was posing zero threat to police (unless you count moving an arm threatening)?

Geez....

Was the structure he was caught in owned by him ???.. Or did he break and enter that property????

 

[SkyHog]

Is this "child" the 19-year old man?

Do you think it would be a good idea for Police to let family members in close proximity of a suspect?

A suspect that has been cleared of violent retaliation (i.e., has no weapon)? Yes, it is a good idea, especially when the suspect is about to die.

I also tend to think shouting "**** your breath" at a dying man is heartless.

 

[SkyHog]

Geez....

Was the structure he was caught in owned by him ???.. Or did he break and enter that property????

Is that a violent crime worthy of death? Keep in mind, it was vacant and empty.

 

[N801BH]

Is that a violent crime worthy of death? Keep in mind, it was vacant and empty.

I will ask AGAIN......

Did he OWN that property ????..

Or did he break and enter or was trespassing.....

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

Geez....

Was the structure he was caught in owned by him ???.. Or did he break and enter that property????

I can think of quite a few teenagers back in the day, myself included, who would hang out in in an abandoned house from time to time. We had a farmhouse down the road we would explore and poke about in.

Entering doesn't always mean breaking.

Hate to think of being shot on site in there.

 

[Norman]

Ya know, Skyhog, You weren't there when the shooting went down and it's likely you only know what the media has posted. OTOH, you have tried and convicted a cop based on what little you know.

I sure as hell hope you never sit on a jury when a cop is on trial for anything.

 

[FastEddieB]

Just because they had a badge doesn't mean they get to shoot people who just might have had a weapon, but probably didn't.

(bolded mine)

I teach that flying is very unforgiving, and we should beware any time the word "probably" raises its ugly head.

You know...

"We probably have enough fuel."

"The controls will probably work fine without checking them every time."*

"That anvil probably won't have hail under it."

"This plane will probably fly just fine a couple hundred pounds over gross."

Anyway, for a cop who does this thing 40 hours a week, assuming it probably isn't a gun faces the same odds - eventually it will be a gun and he'll get to see what comes out of it.

But then again, it probably wasn't a gun.


*See "Pilots Cutting Corners" thread.

 

[SkyHog]

I will ask AGAIN......

Did he OWN that property ????..

Or did he break and enter or was trespassing.....

It is pretty clear that he entered the property without permission, and he did not own it. It is not clear that he broke in, but regardless, he was trespassing.

Now that the strawman is out of the way, can you answer my question as to whether trespassing on vacant property is a violent crime that warrants being shot over when not fighting or threatening the shooter?

 

[SkyHog]

(bolded mine)

I teach that flying is very unforgiving, and we should beware any time the word "probably" raises its ugly head.

You know...

"We probably have enough fuel."

"The controls will probably work fine without checking them every time."

"That anvil probably won't have hail under it."

"This plane will probably fly just fine a couple hundred pounds over gross."

Anyway, for a cop who does this thing 40 hours a week, assuming it probably isn't a gun faces the same odds - eventually it will be a gun and he'll get to see what comes out of it.

But then again, it probably wasn't a gun.

Is your argument that an officer should get to shoot and kill someone without provocation on the off chance that they might have a weapon?

In other words - to continue your rant on "probably" is "possibly having a weapon" a better reason to shoot someone than "probably not" having one is reason not to?

If so - can I walk outside and shoot the next guy with his hand pointed at me, because he "possibly" had a weapon?

 

[N801BH]

(bolded mine)

I teach that flying is very unforgiving, and we should beware any time the word "probably" raises its ugly head.

You know...

"We probably have enough fuel."

"The controls will probably work fine without checking them every time."

"That anvil probably won't have hail under it."

"This plane will probably fly just fine a couple hundred pounds over gross."

Anyway, for a cop who does this thing 40 hours a week, assuming it probably isn't a gun faces the same odds - eventually it will be a gun and he'll get to see what comes out of it.

But then again, it probably wasn't a gun.

Well Put......

 

[Bob Noel]

A suspect that has been cleared of violent retaliation (i.e., has no weapon)? Yes, it is a good idea, especially when the suspect is about to die.

Well, let's hear from some law enforcement people on the absolute stupidity of letting family members near a suspect.

 

[N801BH]

It is pretty clear that he entered the property without permission, and he did not own it. It is not clear that he broke in, but regardless, he was trespassing.

Now that the strawman is out of the way, can you answer my question as to whether trespassing on vacant property is a violent crime that warrants being shot over when not fighting or threatening the shooter?

Yeah.. BUT...

If he wasn't breaking law and trespassing.. He NEVER would have been shot...

What part of not breaking the law don't you get????

 

[SkyHog]

Yeah.. BUT...

If he wasn't breaking law and trespassing.. He NEVER would have been shot...

What part of not breaking the law don't you get????

Speeding is also breaking the law....

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

Yeah.. BUT...

If he wasn't breaking law and trespassing.. He NEVER would have been shot...

What part of not breaking the law don't you get????

So.... you and your family members have never trespassed?

Really?

 

[N801BH]

Speeding is also breaking the law....

And , it is well known the speeding KILLS...

If I want to speed.... I will accept that risk...

 

[JCranford]

Well, let's hear from some law enforcement people on the absolute stupidity of letting family members near a suspect.

Why? Those that want my input already know the answer. Those that need my input wont listen to it anyway...

And...

FACT: Officers don't shoot with the intent to kill. We shoot with the intent to stop the suspects actions. We shoot center mass. Sometimes that results in the death of the suspect.

Therefore...this does not meet the 'intent' needed for a murder indictment.

And SkyHog, since you weren't there and did not see what the cop saw, you really cant speak to his level of 'fear for his life'. I suspect that if he had known or perceived that the suspect's hands were empty he would not have fired. Unfortunately, he perceived his life to be in danger and did fire. Unfortunately armchair quarterbacks like yourself get to second guess him from the safety of the internet, while he had a split second to make the decision he made.

If you ever crash on takeoff, ill be sure to stand around the crash site and tell everybody what you SHOULD have done in the last seconds of your life

 

[N801BH]

So.... you and your family members have never trespassed?

Really?

I was raised to RESPECT others rights and property.....

YMMV...

 

[weilke]

I can think of quite a few teenagers back in the day, myself included, who would hang out in in an abandoned house from time to time. We had a farmhouse down the road we would explore and poke about in.

Entering doesn't always mean breaking.

Hate to think of being shot on site in there.

Did you grow up in LA gang territory ?

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

I was raised to RESPECT others rights and property.....

YMMV...

So, really .... are you saying the only property you've ever set foot upon was either public or with the owner's explicit permission? Even as a teenager and young adult?

Really??

 

[N801BH]

So, really .... are you saying the only property you've ever set foot upon was either public or with the owner's explicit permission? Even as a teenager and young adult?

Really??

REALLY.....

I have NEVER been in a structure that I was not invited into... NEVER.....

Now, while hiking, I might have crossed private property if it wasn't fenced off... But.. I DON'T climb over fences to trespass and people should not climb over my fences either......

What part of( NOT YOUR PROPERTY) don't you understand???

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

REALLY.....

Now, while hiking, I might have crossed private property if it wasn't fenced off...

Thought so. I'm glad no one shot you on sight.

By the way, the farmhouse I referenced was abandoned for more than 20 years after the owner died without heirs. Was foreclosed on by a bank a few towns over and left to crumble. But I guess I still entered a structure as a teenager that I didn't have permission to.

 

[N801BH]

Thought so. I'm glad no one shot you on sight.

By the way, the farmhouse I referenced was abandoned for more than 20 years after the owner died without heirs. Was foreclosed on by a bank a few towns over and left to crumble. But I guess I still entered a structure as a teenager that I didn't have permission to.

If I did get shot....................

I had it coming....

 

[SkyHog]

And , it is well known the speeding KILLS...

If I want to speed.... I will accept that risk...

And if speeding doesn't kill you, a cop can, right?

Afterall, the gentleman in the OP wasn't killed by trespassing...

 

[SkyHog]

Why? Those that want my input already know the answer. Those that need my input wont listen to it anyway...

And...

FACT: Officers don't shoot with the intent to kill. We shoot with the intent to stop the suspects actions. We shoot center mass. Sometimes that results in the death of the suspect.

Therefore...this does not meet the 'intent' needed for a murder indictment.

And SkyHog, since you weren't there and did not see what the cop saw, you really cant speak to his level of 'fear for his life'. I suspect that if he had known or perceived that the suspect's hands were empty he would not have fired. Unfortunately, he perceived his life to be in danger and did fire. Unfortunately armchair quarterbacks like yourself get to second guess him from the safety of the internet, while he had a split second to make the decision he made.

If you ever crash on takeoff, ill be sure to stand around the crash site and tell everybody what you SHOULD have done in the last seconds of your life

Is it armchair quarterbacking when an officer arrests a man for shooting someone else since he wasn't there?

No. Because ad intelligent humans, we can deduce the truth from actions. If the officer was truly too scared to not kill indisciminantly then perhaps he should be in jail where he has his needs taken care of for him.

Afterall, I don't get to kill people just because I thought they might harm me...

 

[nddons]

Most states do in fact have "Castle Doctrine" protections of some sort, especially when a property owner is INSIDE the home. I happen to live in a state which recently liberalized the law to protect property owners who use lethal force OUTSIDE the home (i.e. largely removed duty to retreat.). So in most states the use of lethal force against an intruder inside the home is fairly easy to justify, and therefore difficut to prosecute.

You're right, Castle Doctrine doesn't protect law enforcement in the line of duty, but that wasn't my point. My point was that if you're a perp, bad things are likely to happen as a result of YOUR actions. If you don't want to risk it, don't be a perp. If you decide to be a perp, society should be rather cautious about rushing to your defense when you get shot, tazed, arrested, or roughed up. After all, YOU were the cause, not those pesky law enforcement officers who were trying to do their jobs.

And that's my entire problem with the recent national "conversation" on police brutality. Yes, there are bad cops, but most cops are not bad cops. Suspects are innocent until proven guilty, but when you decide to fight with a cop, you're no longer a suspect, you're an immediate threat. It's unreasonable to expect an officer to decline to defend himself, and it's quite presumptuous to Monday-morning quarterback most of these situations.

I'm generally not a big defender of our over-militarized and often arrogant law enforcement agencies, but our system of government requires that we fight the law in court, not on the street. Most of these perps are guilty, and they know it, so their chances of success are much better on the street. Unfortunately, those poor decision have resulted in many unnecessary fatalities. It doesn't matter if the cop is right or wrong if you're dead.


JKG

Well said

 

[FastEddieB]

Is your argument that an officer should get to shoot and kill someone without provocation on the off chance that they might have a weapon?

No.

But go through some realistic "Shoot/Don't Shoot" scenarios, and you may get an appreciation for how difficult these judgment calls can be.

Someone reaches into his hip pocket and starts up with something black. If your mindset is "It's probably not a gun" and you wait to be sure it is a gun, bad guy will get off a shot before you can react, reaction time being what it is.

I think I've mentioned a classic before. Suspect ignores all your commands, reaches into his pocket and draws a...

...if it's a gun, you're dead.

But in this scenario, it's a black wallet with a card saying, "I'M A DEAF MUTE".

They call these "no win situations" for a reason.

 

[SkyHog]

No.

But go through some realistic "Shoot/Don't Shoot" scenarios, and you may get an appreciation for how difficult these judgment calls can be.

Someone reaches into his hip pocket and starts up with something black. If your mindset is "It's probably not a gun" and you wait to be sure it is a gun, bad guy will get off a shot before you can react, reaction time being what it is.

I think I've mentioned a classic before. Suspect ignores all your commands, reaches into his pocket and draws a...

...if it's a gun, you're dead.

But in this scenario, it's a black wallet with a card saying, "I'M A DEAF MUTE".

They call these "no win situations" for a reason.

Would you rather see an innocent man be killed at the hands of someone trying to force a situation, or would you rather see an officer either back off or face danger himself.

I'd rather not see deadly mistakes excused as simply as "meh, he didn't know so he shot him." Truth told, I'd rather not see anyone die, but the cop put himself in the position, not the innocent man.