Man killed by deputy in Compton not involved with carjacker

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Man killed by deputy in Compton not involved with carjacker

Amanda Lee Myers, Associated Press

Updated 10:53 pm, Tuesday, August 9, 2016

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department acknowledged Tuesday that a deputy shot and killed a black man who was mistakenly identified as a suspect in a carjacking, again bringing into question the appropriateness of a police agency's use of deadly force.

Donnell Thompson, 27, was shot at close range by a deputy riding in the turret of an armored vehicle, one of two dispatched as officers searched for suspects in Compton after a car chase and shootout. Police said the shooting occurred after Thompson ignored their commands and charged at them.

Hours before Thompson's family planned a news conference to charge that officers killed an innocent man, the department announced its investigation found "no evidence" Thompson was involved in the carjacking.

The finding provided little solace to the family, which believes the department and its officers overreacted after deputies were fired on during the chase, and that race was a factor.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Man-killed-by-LA-County-deputy-wasn-t-involved-in-9131528.php

[cstanleytech]

1. So no body cameras of this and we are supposed to believe he charged them?

Uh huh.

[Feeling the Bern]

2. Another day, another black man shot in killed by badge wearing, state sponsored gangbangers

Don't worry, these fascists will investigate themselves again and find they did nothing wrong. . .again!

Enough is enough with these soul dead props of the authoritarian state. When will people stand up, rise up and. . .yes, fight back against the police state? And I don't mean protests, speeches and weak sauce crap like that!

[Chakab]

3. So let me get this straight. The official story is that a guy, whom they

have no evidence of being involved in any crime, decided for the hell of it to charge an armored police vehicle in the middle of a shoot out?

[cstanleytech]

10. Exactly, its just not believable.

I mean if he had a history of mental illness or was high on drugs it might be plausible but barring that most people are just not going to be stupid enough to charge a vehicle especially one that is being driven by armed police officers.

[Journeyman]

4. So the man "charged" an armored vehicle that looked something like this . . .

and the "deputy riding in the turret" of this armored military assault weapon felt threatened (I assume) by this person who "ignored their commands."

We need braver officers or less trigger-happy psychos in uniform, that's plain to see. And while we're at it, we need to rid ourselves of these dehumanizing military weapons. Such a vehicle may be useful in certain circumstances, but two of these for a carjacking? Preposterous!

[jtuck004]

6. People do that sometimes...

[Journeyman]

7. Yes. Some people with a reason will do that. And when there's a compassionate person in command. . .

the person engaged in such civil disobedience has a reasonable chance to survive. Having grown up in and near Compton, there are few causes for protest against the machine, no matter how civil or compelling, that will end well.

[cstanleytech]

11. Standing still is a far cry from running towards it though and if you notice the tanks drivers

clearly didnt feel threatened as they didnt shot the guy.
No, this looks like a case of a trigger happy cop who needs to be charged with 2nd degree murder imo based purely on whats in the article.

[LanternWaste]

19. You seem to confuse "charging" with "standing still".

You seem to confuse "charging" with "standing still".

[cynzke]

8. THAT PHOTO....

Certainly puts things in perspective rather quickly, doesn't it? What was that dangerous black man going to do....kick the tires?

[etherealtruth]

14. ... and they feared for their lives

[Humanist_Activist]

15. That's a vehicle designed for war, not policing, why the fuck would they ever need...

such a vehicle?

[Journeyman]

16. The Compton police evidently believe they need two of these to go after carjackers . . .

[Humanist_Activist]

17. That's fucking crazy, Compton isn't a warzone for fuck's sake...

it's like the police consider all civilians to be enemy combatants, explains how many police departments handle the communities they "police".

ON EDIT: I remember seeing an armored vehicle that looked quite similar to this in St. Louis county, just driving up the road behind me, and I was scared for my life. They are for intimidation and dealing death, not for protecting the citizens.

[cstanleytech]

20. Actually its a pretty good vehicle for helping deal with crowd control and LA does have a

pretty sizable population.
That aside however I dont see any justification for them to shoot the kid still and I still dont buy the whole charged the vehicle shit they are trying to use to justify the use of deadly force.

[Humanist_Activist]

22. How would it deal with the crowd? By sniping at them from the top mount?

Might as well put a SAW up there or something, at least then they would be efficient at mass killing.

I mean, unless you think they should install water cannons(used in other countries for crowd control) or have launchers for flashbangs and/or tear gas, exactly what good does this vehicle do for "crowd control"?

Also, to be frank, LA isn't a shining example of a reasonable, or even halfway decent run police force. Hell, both they and the sheriff's office run their own gangs!

[cstanleytech]

23. Depends on what attachments they have for it but some recent developments for

crowd control are sonic based which is a hell of alot safer than spraying a crowd with a machine gun.

[Humanist_Activist]

25. True, still have to wonder who they are at war with, it is still a war machine...

and, as evident by the OP, armed with people who seem to treat the citizenry as enemy combatants.

[cstanleytech]

30. sigh, technically almost everything the police have was invented for war.

[Solomon]

26. Why not? It worked with Michael Brown didn't it?

He charged a cop who was shooting at him. Utter and complete bullshit.

[Judi Lynn]

18. Thanks for sharing a look at that critter. Had never seen one. Unbelievable. n/t

[patsimp]

5. i don't believe he charged them. This is murder.

[rgbecker]

9. Hey, the claim of "charging" worked well for Michael Brown's killer....

we'll be hearing that one a lot. The "he had gun" claim has played out as people have realized the lie....so now we have the deadly act of "Charging".

[Taitertots]

13. Darren Wilson's claims were supported by multiple witnesses

This cop was riding an armored car. No reasonable person thinks an unarmed person running at a tank is going to hurt the passengers.

A reasonable person can think Mike Brown was legally killed in self defense. It's impossible to think it in this case .

[Solomon]

27. Bullshit.

And Trayvon Martin was "armed with a sidewalk.". Some people will go for any fucking excuse for killing a black man. Are you guys really that fucking scared of us?

[Taitertots]

29. Nope. Both accounts are supported by witnesses and forensic evidence

Legally (and morally) justified self defense isn't an "excuse".

[Taitertots]

12. No reasonable person fears being "charged" by an unarmed person when they ride in an armored car

It's first degree murder. Period.

Everyone in the department who defends him should be fired as well.

[cstanleytech]

21. Second degree, to be first under California law I think it requires there to be premeditation and

proving that there was premeditation in this shooting would probably be next to impossible.

[rgbecker]

32. Since you seem to have the book on what is reasonable....

How about if the cop, while sitting in a patrol car, is "charged" by an unarmed black guy? Would it be reasonable to shoot (to kill, as they apparently have all been trained to do) the black guy?

[NWCorona]

24. And they shot him from an APV. He must have been a serious threat

[True Dough]

28. That vehicle should be equipped with cameras

There should be footage of the incident. When the police deploy a militarized response to a threat, it should be required that footage is taken so circumstances can be examined. It's bullshit that we have to take their word for it, or fail to accept their version of events and their reputation slides even further.

[cstanleytech]

31. Completely agree, there is really no good reason for it not to have cameras. nt