• NobodyElse@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    “Let me be very direct: We cannot allow individuals to flee from officers with a loaded firearm aimed at them,” she said. “When this happens, the outcome is almost always tragic. No one wins, and everyone involved is affected.”

    Absolutely disgusting mindset for the police to operate in and it should be a condemnation of them, not an excuse for killing a fleeing person merely suspected of committing a property crime.

    Armed gang murders member of the public (with the full intention of “investigating” themselves and finding they did nothing wrong), is shocked that public would kill one of their own, and expects the public to shed tears for their fellow gang member (who was really a great guy… every other gang member loved him).

    • adarza@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      so the kid, unarmed, was shot in the back because he didn’t submit?

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The kid was armed and pointing it at the cops.

        But he also wasn’t shooting at them, he was running away. In that scenario, you don’t shoot him, because even if he starts shooting he ain’t gonna hit shit.

        • collapse_already@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Police claim “kid was armed and pointing it at the cops.” Cops are famous for making up bullshit to justify their murders after the fact.

      • AlexLost@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Supposedly. Are you aware of the allegations of planting evidence thrown at many, many police officers in the good ol’ US of A? It is a known issue and I’ll take a criminals word before a police officers.

        • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.auBanned from community
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          So you just assume that every single piece of evidence is planted?

          and I’ll take a criminals word before a police officers.

          Oh ok, so no one should take anything you say seriously.

          • AlexLost@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Certainly, nor you. Police officers lie by rote all the time. They are untrustworthy “witnesses” because they are always protecting their own interests and not telling the facts of the case.

        • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s happened on camera many times with zero charges filed or consequences for the pigs planting their own truffles

  • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is the kind of thing people do when they fully believe that there is no path to justice. If we ever held cops accountable, this wouldn’t have happened.

    • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Everyone exploding at this, but this headline seems written to stir controversy, and people don’t seem to be reading the article.

      Two key facts:

      • It’s reported that the 18 year old who was shot and killed was pointing a firearm with an extended magazine at officers when he was shot (though yes, he was running away, so yes, it could have been handled better, but there are thousands of more cut and dry cases to be mad about).

      • The deputy who was killed may have absolutely nothing to do with what happened

      • barneypiccolo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Key “facts” about your “key facts”:

        The cop that shot him CLAIMS the kid pointed the gun at him, but the video evidence contradicts that. In fact, he was prompted to shoot the moment he exited his vehicle by other cops hollering “He’s got a gun!” He relied on their statements, not his own experience of seeing the gun.

        The fact that the kid had a gun is automatically in dispute. ALL cops have throwaway guns to be used in exactly this sort of a case. The video does not show him with a gun, but one was on him when he was found? Highly suspicious.

        This kid stole a car, which was recovered. That is not a death penalty situation. Nobody should be murdered over an insured car.

            • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              … so if my son was murdered by police who claimed that he was pointing a gun at them and then I saw footage that proves that u would use my words and tell the whole fucking world.

              You’re speculating that maybe they planted a gun.

              There is body camera footage that shows the event and notably family members who have watched it have not made that claim.

              Only you are making that claim.

              • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                Everyone responds differently. You’d use words probably because you’ve found that effective in the past or have strongly associated events such as this where words have solved problems.

                You are speculating the family would run to the media and your son isn’t dead so your reaction is all speculative.

                If facts actually meant as much to you as you claimed you wouldn’t so readily speculate and be so quick to paper over your lack of knowledge with your personal biases.

                You do indicate you like to use words and you’re currently using those words to create an unsupported narrative while getting upset with others for doing the same.

                I’d suggest you try and find some time to work of self reflection but you probably just tell me to get fucked.

                • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I’m not creating any narrative.

                  People are throwing out the claim that he didn’t have a gun and the cops planted it, I’m saying there’s no proof and the family isn’t saying that either.

                  I’m not supporting the cops killing this kid at all, I get why the dad did what he did too.

                  It’s just wild that someone can be like “yo I be he didn’t even have a gun and the cops planted it” and my statement that not even the family who saw the video is saying that is in the wrong.

                  I don’t really need to self reflect on that, tbh.

        • Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          but the video evidence contradicts that

          The video evidence reportedly claims that. As far as I can tell it hasn’t been made public yet.

          Yes the police shouldn’t be trusted, but neither should media being put out the same day. There hasn’t been enough time for the media to actually get evidence and view it themselves. Any “facts” you see right now should be held to the same belief.

          • barneypiccolo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            I saw a clip of the kid running, and I didn’t see a gun. So I’m not just parroting someone else, I am drawing my own conclusion based on my own objective research using original sources.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        The second point, I don’t really mind. If you cause your department to be viewed with hatred, you’re responsible for your “brothers” dying. If they want to avoid this they should try to rehabilitate their image. Until then, they should view everything they do as effecting all of their fellow officers.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            I don’t want them to blame me, but I also will not hold it against them if they do. It’ll be understandable, but maybe not perfectly accurate.

            However, these officers are in a different situation than that. They’re choosing to work as cops and with the person who caused this. I’m sure they’d fight to protect them if it comes to it, so if they get part of the punishment that’s fine. They need to learn they can’t do what they’re doing, and they aren’t going to learn by us asking nicely. They need to face consequences of some form, and the legal system isn’t handling it.

            • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              What that sounds like is that you are okay with collateral damage. But where does that stop? Are you ok with the killing of thier spouse because they chose to marry someone who became a cop? What about thier kids? Cousins? Neighbors? People who live in the same apartment complex? Where do you draw the line? And why?

              • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                A very solid line against anyone who didn’t choose it. Spouse? Probably not, but it’s in the blurry area. Are they encouraging them to be evil? I’d rather none of it happen, including the cops killing people. If they are, it’d be good if they faced consequences, so they couldn’t do it freely. Those first two aren’t happening though, so something else needs to. The only way they stop at this point is if they’re afraid to murder people. Again, preferably this is done through the legal process, but that isn’t happening.

                • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  For me, killing a cop indiscriminately is not okay. A dirty cop, I will say ok assuming the punishment fits the crime. The problem you describe is caused by poloticians, union leaders, and the legal system. They are the ones that should be “pressured” to affect change.

          • RidderSport@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Trust me that will always be part of your person in the eyes if others and has been for quite some time now.

            It took decades for Germans to not be immediately seen as Nazis in other European countries even when the Germans were obviously born after WW2. And to this day one of the first things you get to hear is something related to WW2, today mostly by non-europeans.

          • SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Then I guess you should probably be actively doing something about that problem shouldn’t you?

            So long as you aren’t that blame isn’t really misplaced is it?

            • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Blame is usually reserved for those actively contributing to the problem. There are several words for not doing anything to solve a problem, but blame doesn’t really fit. And how would you know if I was or was not actively doing something. That’s kind of my point. If you blame someone for something just by association, and don’t even try to find out if they are trying to solve the problem… I am not in favor of that. Afterall, a person can’t actively work to solve every problem that people who they are associated with cause. So you would be to blame for the mexican drug cartels killing people because you aren’t actively working to solve that problem, but people from your country surely do drugs which is why the cartels exist and kill people.

              • SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                how would you know if I was or was not actively doing something

                It’s the Internet I don’t. The difference in perspective I see is the lack of ‘guilt by association’ which only goes so far. That was kind of what the whole Nuremberg trials were about. My point is that if you are not confident that in a real life interaction you can demonstrate either you were unaware, were resisting, dis-associated yourself or were incapable, then you do shoulder some of the blame.

                The fact we’re having this conversation shows you are not unaware, I hope you’re actively resisting but the defensiveness tells me you might not believe you’re doing enough, and if that’s because you’re incapable, for whatever reason, then give yourself some grace. If that’s not the case then yes, you modern_medicine are to blame for the fascist bullshit happening around you.

                people from your country surely do drugs which is why the cartels exist and kill people.

                I believe you have a poor understanding of what cartels are and why they exist, but yes using your example I can confidently say I actively work to alleviate the conditions that result in people self-medicating and have distanced myself from cartels and their activities as much as I am aware and capable of. Can you say the same?

                I agree that “blame” may not be the right word. Is there an English word for “complicit through complacency”?

                • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Yes, “complicit through complacency” is much better. I thought there were lots of single words that fit too. But I struggled to find any that didn’t imply active assistance.

                  I do what I can. But it doesn’t feel like enough. At the same time, most of it feels ineffective. In my case I have to weigh the saftey of my family against my ideology. It’s not fair to my kids to go and get myself locked up or worse.

      • njm1314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        You’re saying key facts, but there’s no proof at this time that he was aiming a gun at the cops. The article makes that very clear. That has not been established at all. There’s nothing that proves he even had a weapon. That’s a claim the police made. But has not been proven. You should never ever take police statements as fact. Particularly when they so obviously have motive not to be truthful.

        • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          There is body cam footage of the event.

          The family has already reviewed it.

          There’s been no statement that he wasn’t carrying a gun from the family.

          • njm1314@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            The video was so enraging to the father that he went out and killed another police officer. Seems like a statement to me.

            • Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              I mean dude just lost a kid. Right or wrong, people make bad decisions in those situations.

              Revenge doesn’t make an action justified.

  • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    In case anyone finds the headline confusing this is what happened in order

    1. Rodney Hinton the older hit a much beloved semi retired deputy who was directing traffic for a college graduation. He is accused of doing so intentionally but the motive isn’t specified. He was not accused of stealing a car nor did it have anything to do with any other specified crime. This is pending trial.

    2. Ryan Hinton, son of Rodney Hinton, was involved in a car theft. He and 3 others were caught in said car and scattered in 4 different directions when police made contact.

    3. During the chase police shot and killed Ryan whom they allege had a gun on him. Indeed a gun was recovered. Purported to be in possession of the young man who was shot.That said the body cam footage is alleged to show another officer yelling about a gun rather than the gun itself from the vantage point of the officer.

    Questions:

    Is Rodney guilty of killing the deputy on purpose? If so why? Was it instead an accident?

    Did the officer that shot the boy know he was the son of Rodney?

    Why did Rodney pull out a gun but not fire it?

    Is there further evidence showing the history of the particular gun? Fingerprints on the gun? Body cam footage from the other officer that more clearly establishes the gun in the hand of Rodney?

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      That is not correct. The events, as alleged, before someone jumps down my throat:

      1. Ryan steals a car
      2. Cops try to arrest Ryan
      3. Ryan flees, cops shoot Ryan
      4. Ryan’s dad Rodney hits and kills an unrelated cop with his car
  • peregrin5@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    This was a very confusing headline. It sounded like they were charging a dead person.

    Bottom line is:

    1. 18 year old gets shot by police
    2. The father of the 18 year old hit and killed a deputy with his car later on.
    • Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Why can’t some headline writers use comas?

      Father of, 18 year old fatally shot by Ohio police, charged with hitting and killing deputy, with car

      • LePoisson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Damn, I know everyone else said it too but honestly wtf is this travesty you’ve written. It’s an affront to the comma and maybe to punctuation everywhere. Hell, your “correction” might be an ungodly abomination born of the netherworld sent to break our poor brains.

      • andros_rex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        That is not at all how you use commas. You’ve broken your clauses.

        Father of 18 year old, fatally shot by Ohio police, charged with hitting and killing deputy with car.

        That would be correct. Good ACT question lol.

        • Steve@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          While your certainly sounds better with the word choice in the headline, it doesn’t reflect the actual facts of events.

          “Father of an 18 year old,” establishes the father as the subject, and the 18 year old as a specifying factor. So the the rest of the sentence states, it was the father who was “fatally shot by Ohio police” and “charged with hitting and killing deputy”. It’s still unclear if it was the father or the deputy who was “with car”.

          Where as my commas separate the facts accurately. Their strangeness comes from the extremely poor word choice and order of facts in the headline.

          “Father of,” establishes the father as the subject. “18 year old fatally shot by Ohio police,” is together a single specifier. “charged with hitting and killing deputy,” states what happened to the father. And finally “, with car” is what the father used, to hit and kill the deputy.

          • andros_rex@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            “Father of,” establishes the father as the subject. “18 year old fatally shot by Ohio police,”

            No. The subject is the father yes, but you can’t cut off the “of” that way.