The LA Times reports
Jose de la Trinidad, a 36-year-old father of two, was shot Nov. 10 by deputies who believed he was reaching for a weapon following a police pursuit. But family members and a witness to the shooting said that De la Trinidad, who was unarmed, was complying with deputies and had his hands above his head when he was shot.I wonder if we'll hear that old justification from the gun-rights crowd that shooting a guy in the back is sometimes necessary because he could pull a gun real quick and fire over his shoulder as he's running away.
De la Trinidad was shot five times in the upper and lower back, according to the Los Angeles County coroner's report dated Nov. 13. The report describes four of those wounds as fatal. He was also shot in the right forearm and right hip, with both shots entering from behind, the report found.
“Here's a man who complied, did what he was supposed to, and was gunned down by trigger-happy deputies,” said Arnoldo Casillas, the family’s attorney, who provided a copy of the autopsy report to The Times. He said he plans to file a lawsuit against the sheriff’s department.
This story initially said that the two deputies involved in the shooting were place on administrative leave immediately following the shooting. They were taken off patrol and returned to duty five days later.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
Some thing like this happen in NY, Mike this is a fragment of we fight for our rights, right now it's a few in places with strict gun laws. Imagine if guns were banned for us completely, except to those who are giving power over the power less. Un-able to fight back like a child trying to stand up to a abusive parent. I will add tho by his picture he may have a record and depending on what part of town this happen in could help figure out how they assumed such a thing.
ReplyDeleteSo, you want to be armed to fight off the police?
DeleteIf I have to fight them then yes. Just like the people who shot at the one's who broke into there home. They had the wrong house broke in and a few officers got killed. The courts found it legal because it was a warrant-less raid, just like Katrina when police were robbing people a few officers were killed and it was legal.
DeleteHow much time do you spend thinking about and preparing for a mistaken police raid, or a regular home invasion, for that matter.
DeleteAs always, I'll wait for the investigation, rather than rushing to judgement. But this does sound bad, especially since it's an act by the people whom the Brady Bunch approves of having firearms.
ReplyDeleteUnlike the ordinary subject, police convey public authority, and because of such are endowed with the lawful use of force as a means to carry out their duties. State actors (unlike mere citizens) such as police carry a legitimate interest in being armed. Advocates of gun control, and arms control PACs support the continued issuance of firearms to police, as their disarmament would be preposterous.
Delete