The 'Americans Getting Shot' Thread

[harrybarracuda]

Police shot six-year-old boy dead ‘in self defence’
Richard Hartley-ParkinsonRichard Hartley-Parkinson for Metro.co.ukThursday 29 Sep 2016 7:38 am

Footage has emerged of the moment police officers shot and killed a six-year-old boy.

Jeremy Mardis was shot dead in the shooting last November in a shooting that defence lawyers have described as ‘self-defence’.

The head of Louisiana State Police said the bodycam video from two deputy city marshals firing at the car was the most disturbing thing he’d seen.

Nearly a year later, the public is getting its first look at the graphic footage after it was released by the state judge.

Prosecutors and defence attorneys previously described in writing how the footage depicts the shooting, which stops less than a minute into the video.

The rest of the nearly 14 minutes of footage shows the stomach-churning aftermath, as the officer with the body camera checks on the lifeless body of Jeremy Mardis while his critically wounded father, Christopher Few, lies bleeding on the pavement.

Prosecutors showed the tape in court to support their claim that one of the deputies, Derrick Stafford, had a pattern of using excessive force – including last November’s fatal shooting of Jeremy Mardis in Marksville.

Matthew Derbes, a prosecutor from Attorney General Jeff Landry’s office, said Stafford’s pattern of hurting people he’s arresting also provides a motive for shooting at Few while his hands are raised.

‘Motive is something the jury wants to hear,’ Derbes said. ‘Why would they do this?’

Defence attorneys for Stafford and Norris Greenhouse Jr. argue the deputies acted in self-defence.

They claim Few drove recklessly while leading officers on a two-mile chase and then rammed into Greenhouse’s vehicle as he was exiting it, before he and Stafford opened fire.

‘Christopher Few was a suspect before they knew that child was in the car,’ said Christopher LaCour, one of Stafford’s attorneys.

While the video doesn’t capture the entire pursuit, state District Court Judge William Bennett noted that the footage doesn’t show Few’s car posing a threat to the officers as they fired.

‘That car was not being used as a deadly weapon at that time,’ Bennett said. ‘I daresay it was not even close to being used as a deadly weapon at that time.’

The video from the body camera worn by Marksville Police Sgt. Kenneth Parnell III lacks audio for the first 27 seconds. The deputies began shooting before the audio begins.

Prosecutors say the video shows the deputies firing from a safe distance from Few’s car. Stafford’s attorneys, however, argue the 27-second-long segment without audio makes it impossible to determine if he started shooting before or after Few raised his hands inside the car.

After the shooting and sirens stop, somebody yells at Few to show his hands. Few was slumped over the blood-stained door on the driver’s side of his car when officers approach him.

‘Is he hit at all?’ Stafford later asked Parnell. ‘Who?’ Parnell replied. ‘The driver,’ Stafford said. ‘Yeah,’ Parnell responded.

‘I never saw a kid in the car, man,’ Stafford said. ‘I never saw a kid, bro.’

About seven minutes after the shooting, Parnell opened the passenger door to Few’s car, shone a flashlight onto Mardis, nudged his right shoulder and checked for a pulse. Then he walked over to another officer and said he found a faint pulse on the boy.

Donning surgical gloves, Parnell walked back to the boy’s side of the car and shone a light on the boy again.

‘Oh, my God,’ he muttered. Several minutes later, a paramedic told Parnell the boy was dead.

Defense attorneys have suggested investigators rushed to judgment. George Higgins, one of Greenhouse’s attorneys, said investigators have no evidence that any of the bullets fired by Greenhouse struck Few or his son.

Higgins asked State Police detective Rodney Owens during Wednesday’s hearing why the deputies were arrested before obtaining results of ballistics tests.

‘You didn’t know that Mr. Greenhouse did not shoot anybody when you arrested him?’ Higgins said.

Owens acknowledged that he didn’t. But investigators later traced 14 shell casings to Stafford’s semi-automatic handgun and determined four other shell casings recovered at the scene came from Greenhouse’s gun. Of the four bullet fragments recovered from the boy’s body, three matched Stafford’s weapon and another couldn’t be matched to either deputy.

Owens also testified that there isn’t any physical evidence that Few’s car collided with Greenhouse’s vehicle, but he couldn’t rule that out as a possibility.

Stafford and Greenhouse await separate trials on second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder charges.

Stafford, a Marksville police lieutenant, and Greenhouse, a former Marksville police officer, were moonlighting as deputy marshals on the night of the Nov. 3, 2015, shooting.

Stafford’s trial is scheduled to start Nov. 28; Greenhouse has a March 13, 2017, trial date. Bennett refused Wednesday to consolidate the cases for a single trial.

State Police Col. Mike Edmonson cited the video when he announced the arrest of the two officers on November 6.


Police shot six-year-old boy dead 'in self defence' in Louisiana | Metro News

[GracelessFawn]

Did some of you say, we should disarm the law abiding citizens making them easy sitting targets for armed criminals?

No. We said take military-grade weapons away from civilians, and take weapons away from nutters and terrorists.

Reasonable?

Yeah, take weapons away from nutters and terrorists! Why not? But please leave the civilians alone. Protecting and defending one's self is a basic right. I imagine, it must be real hard to be on defence mode using knives and pitchforks.

[AntRobertson]

But Americans already have access to and own more guns than anyone else in the developed world - they are more than well equipped enough to defend themselves and then some probably.

However they also have the highest rates of murder by gun and mass-shootings in the developed world. There's more than a causal connection there I think.

[harrybarracuda]

Did some of you say, we should disarm the law abiding citizens making them easy sitting targets for armed criminals?

No. We said take military-grade weapons away from civilians, and take weapons away from nutters and terrorists.

Reasonable?

Yeah, take weapons away from nutters and terrorists! Why not? But please leave the civilians alone. Protecting and defending one's self is a basic right. I imagine, it must be real hard to be on defence mode using knives and pitchforks.

I have no problem with the first amendment.

Just do not give private citizens AR15's and the like.

You don't need weapons that can slaughter dozens in minutes. A handgun should be enough.

Most of the people that own them are already insecure fucking crazies compensating for their tiny dicks, and it only takes the wife leaving them to turn them into a spree killer.

[Mr Earl]

Just do not give private citizens AR15's and the like.

You don't need weapons that can slaughter dozens in minutes.

Of course not, but the weapon itself doesn't cause violence.

Address the issues revolving around the human who who pulled the trigger.

Simply taking away firearm does nothing to curb why there is murder.

You can be murdered very easily with a straight razor, or whack on the head with baseball bat.

Perhaps we should restrict/ register/ban shaving or baseball!

[Troy]

Did some of you say, we should disarm the law abiding citizens making them easy sitting targets for armed criminals?

Not that shite again....and again...and again...

Why have laws if only law abiding citizens keep to them?

There is enough empirical data from countries around the world to show that this is nothing more than a myth.

This is the "Americans getting shot" thread and it serves to illustrate the price Americans pay to keep a right, taken from the 1689 English Bill of Rights, that has long since seen its day.

There is a time and place for guns and this does not include mommy visiting the shopping mall nor jealous jimmy in the playground cos luscious linda wants bigga dick.

[harrybarracuda]

Just do not give private citizens AR15's and the like.

You don't need weapons that can slaughter dozens in minutes.

Of course not, but the weapon itself doesn't cause violence.

No-one said you shouldn't address why perfectly sane people can instantly become spree killers.

But they can do a lot less damage with a handgun than an AR15.

So just ban military style assault weapons.

They aren't needed for defence, and they certainly aren't needed for hunting.

[Storekeeper]

Soliciting your comments:

Seems perfectly legit to me. But BLM activists believe a cop won't be as quick to shoot a white as a black, right? Is that the crux of the matter?

[harrybarracuda]

I stopped at "split second decisions" when I remembered that bloke who got shot with his hands up outside his car when he clearly represented no threat whatsoever.

[GracelessFawn]

But Americans already have access to and own more guns than anyone else in the developed world - they are more than well equipped enough to defend themselves and then some probably.

However they also have the highest rates of murder by gun and mass-shootings in the developed world. There's more than a causal connection there I think.

I do not think banning gun ownership is the right answer though. Psychologically challenged people will always manifest destructive behavior, and he/she will self destruct or harm others, whether he/she is carrying a gun or a knife. The gun is just another instrument.

Banning gun ownership will not deter criminals or sickos from acquiring guns! It will just hinder responsible normal citizens from defending their family, neighbors, and themselves.

Now, I also believe that gun ownership laws should be well regulated, highly evaluating the psychological profile of all its applicants and should monitor the psychological mindset of all its members, be it new or old, over periods of time. For example, neurological exams, sessions with an appointed psychologists. This should at least alert authorities of sickos and wackos.

[AntRobertson]

I don't think a blanket ban would actually even be possible at this point. There has to be some sort of middle-ground though because the current situation is just utterly bonkers.

The US doesn't just stand alone on the issue it's a complete aberration.

[Door Knob]

the current situation is just utterly bonkers.

Nah. Mole hills. Mountains.

300+ million people. A few get shot every year. No big deal. This is all mostly a case of politician s shouting "look over there!" Cause the economy is fucked.

[AntRobertson]

Yes but no, it's not. That's a pretty specious and kinda morbid way of looking at it in my opinion.

How many mass shootings does there have to be before people recognize there's a problem? Or is it that there have been so many people have become inured to it all??

Lawn darts killed one or two kids and maimed a couple of others in the US over a period of a few years and they were completely banned. How many dead kids is it going to take when it comes to guns.

[Door Knob]

How many dead kids is it going to take when it comes to guns.

It's a matter of values.

When they start to love their kids more than their guns, it'll stop.

Won't happen though.

[AntRobertson]

Some selected stats:

- there were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015 alone;

- 64 school shootings for the same period;

- the death toll from guns between 1968 - 2011 eclipses the death toll from all wars involving the US, ever;

- the US spends more than a trillion dollars per year on anti-terrorism, terrorism kills a mere fraction of people than ordinary gun crime.

That's not 'a few' or a distraction. It's outright insane.

Guns in the US: The statistics behind the violence - BBC News

[Door Knob]

- the US spends more than a trillion dollars per year on anti-terrorism, terrorism kills a mere fraction of people than ordinary gun crime.

Yeah but that's big business. Profit from war, suppress the populous, take away civil liberties and undermine democracy, expand power overseas, etc etc. All good stuff for the 1%.

Gun control laws on the other hand would limit manufacturing and stifle several different industries, and would hurt the economy. Doesn't make sense. Why would you do it? Plus it provides further distraction for the sheeple. More good stuff.

This is not some emotional argument over a bunch of kids dying. Not when there's so much more at stake. You could ultimately have a paradigm shift if people's values change, but that's all secondary. Gun control is first and foremost brick and mortar. Money, power, industry, jobs, etc. Hell even the shootings contribute. From police and doctors to funeral companies and all the rest. Everybody wins. Well... except the dead feckers and their poor families. Tragedy for the greater good.

[Mr Earl]

I don't think a blanket ban would actually even be possible at this point. There has to be some sort of middle-ground though because the current situation is just utterly bonkers.

The US doesn't just stand alone on the issue it's a complete aberration.

What the fuck do you care? You've never lived in the USA, never will. You are a NZ citizen, what do do care?
I suspect you've never actually visited the USA, yet you seem to have a vast repetoire of opinion....

[Door Knob]

What the fuck do you care?

We care because we don't like our sports interrupted cause a bunch of you cunts shot each other.

[david44]

These tragedies with no one proposing radical disarmament of crazies makes you wonder , What will run out first ammo or victims?

[Door Knob]

These tragedies with no one proposing radical disarmament of crazies makes you wonder , What will run out first ammo or victims?

Oh stop being so dramatic.

[GracelessFawn]

How many dead kids is it going to take when it comes to guns.

It's a matter of values.

When they start to love their kids more than their guns, it'll stop.

Won't happen though.

A lot of people keep guns in the house in order to protect their family.

With the way technology is today, I'm sure companies could easily develop guns that only respond to registered fingerprints. This could eliminate chances of kids having accidents with guns.

[Door Knob]

A lot of people keep guns in the house in order to protect their family.

With the way technology is today, I'm sure companies could easily develop guns that only respond to registered fingerprints. This could eliminate chances of kids having accidents with guns.

Ahh yes, the protection argument. Never been satisfactorily challenged that one. Well done, sir.

[GracelessFawn]

Some selected stats:

- there were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015 alone;

- 64 school shootings for the same period;

- the death toll from guns between 1968 - 2011 eclipses the death toll from all wars involving the US, ever;

- the US spends more than a trillion dollars per year on anti-terrorism, terrorism kills a mere fraction of people than ordinary gun crime.

That's not 'a few' or a distraction. It's outright insane.

Guns in the US: The statistics behind the violence - BBC News

Maybe the problem goes way deeper than gun ownership. Taking guns away from people will just make them look for other deadly instruments to use. Guns are mere instruments. We tend to forget what lies beneath peoples psyche pushing them to harm or hurt others. Maybe. computer games programmed peoples minds to accept, tolerate or even practice some degree of violence. Maybe, drinking too much animal milk increases our aggression level. Or, it could be a case of our brains freezing due to its inability to cope with fast emerging technology!

[AntRobertson]

A guitar is an instrument. A gun is designed to do one thing and one thing only and they're pretty focking effective at it.

There's a reason that mass shootings with guns are more common and more deadly than mass stabbings or mass baseball battings.

Looking for other reasons just obfuscates. The issue is guns: specifically the ease with which nutters can get their hands on them because NRA backed politicians make it so ('don't step on our right to own guns... But we will legislate to tell you who you can marry and what you can do with your vagina!')

[Mr Earl]

A guitar is an instrument. A gun is designed to do one thing and one thing only and they're pretty focking effective at it.

A very narrow minded view, which completely ignores the human cultural flaw which accepts murder and mayhem.

Address the roots of human culture and address the problem.

Firearms are just a symtom of the glaring problem..