The California Justice Department announced today that it has found no cause to file chargesagainst a Los Angeles police officer who, while aiming at a suspect, shot and killed a 14-year-old girl hiding in a department store fitting room.
Fourteen-year-old Valentina Orellana Peralta was picking out a quinceanera dress with her mother just before Christmas in 2021. She was shot and killed by a bullet that ricocheted off the floor.
So far, sentiment seems very understanding of the tough situation and a call that had unforeseen circumstances.
Except, oh wait, it’s all bullshit passive voice copaganda.
From the literal article:
Los Angeles officer Jordan Head had a 40-millimeter bean bag gun, but before he could aim it at the suspect, Jones fired his AR-15 three times.
Head “did not discharge the 40-millimeter launcher because, before he could aim, rounds were fired, and the suspect fell to the ground and was no longer an immediate threat,” according to the Justice Department analysis of the shooting.
Officer Michael Mazur, who assumed command of the scene on arrival, told Jones to “slow down” multiple times, and at some point later told Head “It’s f—– up. We tried to slow it down.”
You’re missing the point. Anyone who is unable to follow firearm safety should be disqualified from holding a position that will require the use of a firearm.
Your flippant attitude doesn’t help anything. Yes, peace officers seem to have no moral code and are currently a detriment to society. However, resigning them to your point of view is somewhere between pessimistic and harmful. We must be open to changing this system for the betterment of society.
I don't disagree that you shouldn't have a gun if you can't follow basic safety protocols. Unfortunately, California (and the rest of America overall) does disagree. Which was my point.
You’re missing the point. Anyone who is unable to follow firearm safety should be disqualified from holding a position that will require the use of a firearm.
But thanks to the 2nd Amendment anyone who is unable to follow those rules can have multiple guns
Sounds difficult. Easier to just continue giving them inadequate training and have the city pay out millions of dollars every time a cop wants to kill someone.
Ah yes. The classic "We investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong defence."
Things like these need to be held by an independent team and no info given about those involved, e.g. the shooter was a police officer. Some people keep saying the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The fact the shooter was an officer should have no bearing on the outcome then.
Also, getting an independent team means new jobs for people. Get better results and be a job creator.
No, there wasn't. Dude was hitting people with a bike lock. The only way it comes out differently is if you hold the police accountable for their horrible judgement, but clearly we're not going to do that.
There were two separate 911 calls reporting an active shooter from people hiding in the store (apparently both mistook the smashing of glass as the sound of a gunshot), the officers that responded treated it as an active shooter situation because that's what they were told it was
Showing up ready for a shooter because that's what was reported is prudent. Being cautious as though a shooter may appear soon because that's what was reported is prudent. Shooting to kill someone not armed with a gun while other parties are present and while your cohort has nonlethal weapons on hand and ready to use instead isn't prudent any more
top 50 comments