US police shooting - 6 year old boy slain

BoJack Horseman

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34754889

Appalled to see on the BBC news, 2 Louisiana marshals have been charged with murder for the shooting dead of 6 year old Jeremy Mardis, who died buckled into his seat in his fathers car.

A Louisiana state police offer said of the body camera footage:

"I can tell you, it is the most disturbing thing I've seen, and I'll leave it like that."

RIP young man.

Absoluvely

Those marshals must be colourblind.

Nodin

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34754889

Appalled to see on the BBC news, 2 Louisiana marshals have been charged with murder for the shooting dead of 6 year old Jeremy Mardis, who died buckled into his seat in his fathers car.

A Louisiana state police offer said of the body camera footage:


RIP young man.

What the hell were the cops doing?

hatrickpatrick

Nodin wrote: »

What the hell were the cops doing?

Shooting first and asking questions later, the usual modus operandi of the US police. And as usual, there'll be a whole bunch of feigned outrage from US politicians, and ultimately no action whatsoever will be taken.

The US needs a federal organisation akin to GSOC to massively clamp down on the cops' perception that they answer to nobody and are subject to no laws. It's not an issue of a few bad apples nor is it an issue of the US police force being stuffed full of assholes - it's a cultural issue which needs to be tackled from the top down.

Sand

Absoluvely wrote: »

Those marshals must be colourblind.

2 black officers shooting an unarmed white man and killing his son. Hard to see how the US media will play this one.

Something is up though. The police moved to arrest them quickly. They must have next to no reasonable explanation for their actions even with the leeway US cops tend to have.

hatrickpatrick

Sand wrote: »

2 black officers shooting an unarmed white man and killing his son. Hard to see how the US media will play this one.

Something is up though. The police moved to arrest them quickly. They must have next to no reasonable explanation for their actions even with the leeway US cops tend to have.

One of the cleverest moves the establishment in the US ever pulled was to frame the whole police brutality thing as a race issue from the beginning. By doing that, they ensured that the national conversation was about racism, prejudice, and privilege - and not about the wider, deadlier issue wherein the cops as an organisation believe themselves to be above the law.

That narrative is beginning to fall apart, which is the one tiny glimmer of a silver lining in all these horrific incidents. Soon enough, I believe, the conversation will switch from "are cops racist" to "do cops believe that they are all powerful and subject to nobody" - when this happens, we may see proper reform of the US policing system.

bee06

The report on RTE News is saying the dad was backing the car up towards the marshals so assuming like this is accurate it wasn't like they opened fire on a stopped car.

Junkyard Tom

bee06 wrote: »

The report on RTE News is saying the dad was backing the car up towards the marshals so assuming like this is accurate it wasn't like they opened fire on a stopped car.

So backing a car into a police car is now an excuse for execution of anyone in the car including children? Police cars are backed into all the time by joyriders. Do you think they should be executed?

Cop the fuck on.

BoJack Horseman

bee06 wrote: »

The report on RTE News is saying the dad was backing the car up towards the marshals so assuming like this is accurate it wasn't like they opened fire on a stopped car.

It was after reviewing the officers body camera footage that the state prosecutors decided to charge the offers with murder (as opposed to a lesser charge)...

Until we see that footage, we cannot say ourselves.... but the reaction of the Louisiana State police colonel I quoted above speaks of something considerable.

Sand

bee06 wrote: »

The report on RTE News is saying the dad was backing the car up towards the marshals so assuming like this is accurate it wasn't like they opened fire on a stopped car.

I think there is a lot to discover before any final interpretation of events is made. It is not clear why the police were pursuing this car. It is not clear why the father was fleeing. It is not clear why the police opened fire on the car.

All we know for now is that the local PD seem certain the officers have very serious charges to answer to. The officers were wearing body cams, and the footage from those cameras seems to be a large part of the reason for the officers being charged with murder.

Sand

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

So backing a car into a police car is now an excuse for execution of anyone in the car including children? Police cars are backed into all the time by joyriders. Do you think they should be executed?

Cop the fuck on.

In fairness thats OTT, you have no idea what the scenario was anymore than I do. The police must have been outside their vehicle. *If* the car was being reversed towards them they may have feared being crushed between the two cars.

Also, I am curious as to why a father got involved in a car chase with the police whilst his son was buckled into the seat beside him. There is too much that is simply unknown at this point to start giving out to people making fairly innocuous statements.

As for joyriders - I really don't care what happens to them.

timthumbni

Horrible. These were 2 U.S. Marshals. What does a U.S. Marshal actually do? Are they just another branch of the police or have they greater powers?

Dirty Dingus McGee

timthumbni wrote: »

Horrible. These were 2 U.S. Marshals. What does a U.S. Marshal actually do? Are they just another branch of the police or have they greater powers?

Based on the film US Marshals, I believe that they hunt down fugitives.

SEPT 23 1989

This is America 2015 different rules now it's a military police force, have the inhabitants not copped onto this?

rip kid you were surrounded by fools on all sides

As sad as it is, does anyone know -

1) What the guy did that warranted him having the US Marshals after him?
2) Exactly what he was doing before and during the incident that involved him getting shot?
3) Is there not a difference between a state prosecutor wanting a murder charge and their actually receiving a murder charge?

myshirt

Well based on the films, absolutely every killing by a U.S soldier, police officer or what have you, is justifiable.

These are the bigger terrorists if you ask me.

Samaris

The whole situation seems to be very unclear, why the chase started, what the situation was just before they opened fire, who did what and why and when.

Awful that the little boy was killed. Whatever anyone else did, he didn't deserve it.

Sand

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

How would shooting stop it.

If the car was that close the drivers weight would still be on the accelerator/the car would probably still have some momentum and thus the car would not slow down for a while , and so shooting wouldn't have had any real benefit to it, if it's a case that shooting would have been deemed to have enough benefit to stop them being run over then there would probably have been enough time for the marshals to take evasive action rather than shooting first.

Seems like a case of shoot first ask questions later.

Killing the driver tends to stop most vehicles. Certainly its more effective than standing there with a stupid look on your face.

You've absolutely no idea how things played out or why the driver was (apparently) trying to ram the police car or the officers themselves. I don't either. All we know is that the police investigating the shooting think there is cause to charge the officers with murder.

Junkyard Tom

Samaris wrote: »

Whatever anyone else did, he didn't deserve it.

Apparently the poor wee fella was hit 5 or 6 times. How utterly incompetent does an armed officer have to be to fire into the passenger side of a car multiple times.

BoJack Horseman

myshirt wrote: »

Well based on the films.

Which ones?

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Apparently the poor wee fella was hit 5 or 6 times. How utterly incompetent does an armed officer have to be to fire into the passenger side of a car multiple times.

Again.. no details are known at present.

We don't know his criminal record, how dangerous he was, whether it was known if he was armed, if the cops actually knew that a child was there.

BoJack Horseman

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Which ones?

They spend most of their time chasing after Wesley Snipes.

NIMAN

Its reached the stage now that no news story out of the US surprises me any more.

Still shocked by some of them though.

I think they seriously need to review their rules of engagement for law enforcement.

BoJack Horseman

Deleted User wrote: »

1) What the guy did that warranted him having the US Marshals after him?

Local Law enforcement & the district attorney's office have said that the father had no outstanding warrants or pending legal cases against him.

3) Is there not a difference between a state prosecutor wanting a murder charge and their actually receiving a murder charge?

Well the charge has been served & the officers will await trial.

Le_Dooner

Deleted User wrote: »

Again.. no details are known at present.

We don't know his criminal record, how dangerous he was, whether it was known if he was armed, if the cops actually knew that a child was there.

I'm guessing the child didn't have a criminal record...

Junkyard Tom

Deleted User wrote: »

We don't know his criminal record, how dangerous he was, whether it was known if he was armed, if the cops actually knew that a child was there.

The child was hit multiple times in the passenger seat. What else could multiple bullets slamming into the passenger side of the car be but trigger happy? What if the child had been abducted by his Father?

The killers are being charged with murder.

BoJack Horseman

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Local Law enforcement & the district attorney's office have said that the father had no outstanding warrants or pending legal cases against him.


Well the charge has been served & the officers will await trial.

Where does it say that about the no outstanding warrants?

The point I'm making is we don't know why they shot. Or what the guy was doing to warrant this, prior to driving into the Marshal's car. It's horrible that a child died, but we're going off little or no evidence.

BoJack Horseman

Deleted User wrote: »

We don't know his criminal record, how dangerous he was, whether it was known if he was armed, if the cops actually knew that a child was there.

The father was unarmed and apparently did not have a criminal record (He had apparently completed training to join the US Merchant Marine service which, I've read requires a clean criminal record to join).

The father was confirmed as being unarmed also.

BoJack Horseman

Deleted User wrote: »

Where does it say that about the no outstanding warrants?

Not in the BBC article, but found here

Edmonson (Police superintendant) and District Attorney Charles Riddle both said they were unaware of any outstanding warrants for Few’s arrest. Records in both Marksville city court and the area district court show several traffic violations and a recent DWI conviction but no outstanding warrants or ongoing criminal cases.

StringerBell

Deleted User wrote: »

Again.. no details are known at present.

We don't know his criminal record, how dangerous he was, whether it was known if he was armed, if the cops actually knew that a child was there.

Considering they reviewed the footage and then went for a murder charge rather then a lesser charge and the actual words used by the colonel in the video regarding what he saw on the body camera footage I think we can leave the benefit of the doubt at the door for a change can we?

It doesn't matter what they wanted the guy for, it doesn't matter what his criminal record is, it is not an excuse to have such disregard for human life.

Edit: Also, looking at some of the other posts above mine most of your questions while playing devil's advocate in this have been answered.

Look they would not be hung out to dry by the department if there was any doubt here, they would not be awaiting trial for murder.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact they apparently weren't fulltime Marshals?

Just this paragraph from the BBC article confused me slightly -

Both were working secondary jobs in Marksville as marshals when the shooting happened, Col Michael Edmonson of Louisiana state police told a news conference.

BoJack Horseman

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact they apparently weren't fulltime Marshals?

Just this paragraph from the BBC article confused me slightly -

They were members of the cities police department but also worked 2nd jobs as marshals on the side.

BoJack Horseman

And this was posted yesterday on the Guardian.

The boy, Jeremy Mardis, died on Tuesday night after police shot into a car driven by his father, Chris Few. On Thursday, Colonel Michael Edmonson, head of the Louisiana state police, denied earlier reports that Few had been reversing his car toward the officers, who then had to defend themselves. “No. I didn’t say that,” he told the Guardian. “That didn’t come from me.”

At a press conference, Edmonson initially described the shooting as “an exchange of gunfire”, but later clarified that only the officers had shot, and that investigators had found no gun in Few’s car. Officials had previously declined to confirm whether officer gunfire was responsible for Mardis’s death.

Edmonson also said video footage of the incident does exist, but that investigators have not reviewed it. He added that the officers involved – there are four – had so far refused to speak with state police investigators. Police have not released the names of the involved officer

Now subsequently the names of the officers have been released after their body-cam footage was indeed reviewed by state prosecutors & the murder & attempted murder charges filed.....

but no reversal into the officers car may have occurred.

StringerBell

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact they apparently weren't fulltime Marshals?

Just this paragraph from the BBC article confused me slightly -

He explained their employment status in the press conference though, in the video in the article iirc.

Overheal

Body Camera footage and dash camera footage was preserved. Expect it to go public when their court dates are held.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/louisiana-police-charge-officers-death-year-boy/story?id=35037116

Truly disgusting case. The police and prosecutors would do well to throw the whole book at these two.

StringerBell

Well, and I don't wanna sound too terrible here, but since this time it was a white kid I do expect these two cops/murderers to fry.

StringerBell

I can only imagine how bad the footage is when before any trial a member of the department will publicly say

"This badge has been tarnished by the following two individuals."

So the major news stations are unclear what happened,and the police have an ongoing investigation going on,but people on here know EXACTLY what happened! Bizarre is not the word!

timthumbni

StringerBell wrote: »

Well, and I don't wanna sound too terrible here, but since this time it was a white kid I do expect these two cops/murderers to fry.

Well Louisiana has the death penalty but I'd say there's no change of that happening.... Unless the video in question reveals some completely mad sh/te.

StringerBell

droidman123 wrote: »

So the major news stations are unclear what happened,and the police have an ongoing investigation going on,but people on here know EXACTLY what happened! Bizarre is not the word!

For your post?

Bizarre is a pretty good description of it tbh

BoJack Horseman

timthumbni wrote: »

Well Louisiana has the death penalty but I'd say there's no change of that happening.... Unless the video in question reveals some completely mad sh/te.

The officers were charged with 2nd degree murder & 2nd degree attempted murder.

I could be wrong, but I think if that happens the prosecutor is unlikely to seek the death penalty.

StringerBell

StringerBell wrote: »

For your post?

Bizarre is a pretty good description of it tbh

Read back through the posts....seriously

StringerBell

timthumbni wrote: »

Well Louisiana has the death penalty but I'd say there's no change of that happening.... Unless the video in question reveals some completely mad sh/te.

I doubt they will go for death, its a second degree murder charge, and an attempted second degree murder charge. A lot could hinge on the survivors testimony also assuming he doesn't die. (I think he is critical but stable)

Life for both, I mean fry as in they will face the full force of the law.

BoJack Horseman

droidman123 wrote: »

but people on here know EXACTLY what happened! Bizarre is not the word!

Everything I've posted has a link or a quote behind it.

what is a fact is that the cities police department & state prosecutor watched the video & then decided to place a murder charge on the two officers.

We'll see for ourselves when the case goes to trial and the video released.

timthumbni

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The officers were charged with 2nd degree murder & 2nd degree attempted murder.

I could be wrong, but I think if that happens the prosecutor is unlikely to seek the death penalty.

You are right but have cops in the U.S. ever been given the death penalty for killing someone on duty even if convicted of 1st degree murder? It just seems unlikely to me.

SEPT 23 1989

I don't think anybody wants to see that video

Overheal

droidman123 wrote: »

So the major news stations are unclear what happened,and the police have an ongoing investigation going on,but people on here know EXACTLY what happened! Bizarre is not the word!

"I'm not gonna talk about it, but I'm going to tell you this. It is the most disturbing thing I've seen and I will leave it at that."

Louisiana Police spokesman Mike Edmonson



copypasta script from link: (Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/world/us-police-officers-charged-with-murder-after-shooting-jeremy-mardis-6-and-dad-20151107-gkth2p.html#ixzz3qrACykcz
Follow us: @canberratimes on Twitter | CanberraTimes on Facebook)

strandroad

From what the father's girlfriend says:

Moments later, she said, as the cars pulled away from the light, she saw two marshals’ cars – marked in black and white – approaching from behind with their lights flashing. She looked into Few’s car as he pulled away, and he was pointing at his son’s head, indicating that he was in the car and he wasn’t sure what to do.

Few was afraid of the marshals, she said, because he and and one of the marshals on the scene had a prior personal conflict.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/05/louisiana-police-deny-car-reversing-six-year-old-shot

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

"I'm not gonna talk about it, but I'm going to tell you this. It is the most disturbing thing I've seen and I will leave it at that."

Louisiana Police spokesman Mike Edmonson



copypasta script from link: (Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/world/us-police-officers-charged-with-murder-after-shooting-jeremy-mardis-6-and-dad-20151107-gkth2p.html#ixzz3qrACykcz
Follow us: @canberratimes on Twitter | CanberraTimes on Facebook)

Yeah I seen the video posted but at the end of the day it will be days,maybe weeks before the facts emerge

timthumbni

StringerBell wrote: »

I doubt they will go for death, its a second degree murder charge, and an attempted second degree murder charge. A lot could hinge on the survivors testimony also assuming he doesn't die. (I think he is critical but stable)

Life for both, I mean fry as in they will face the full force of the law.

Didn't notice that the charge was 2nd degree murder/ attempted murder. See post 45 for my thoughts on it may not matter anyway.

I watch too many movies. Any time I hear fry (not an Ulster one) I think death penalty. Lol.

SEPT 23 1989

What's the reaction on the streets over there after a six year old with a disability is gunned down by the police