57
Ohio deputy killed by father of 18-year-old fatally shot by police a day earlier
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 04 May 2025
57 points (98.3% liked)
US News
209 readers
153 users here now
US-specific news
Rules:
- Try to keep the political or Trump-related content to a mild torrent.
- Reliable sources only.
- Articles are good. Self-posts or blog posts by professionals or journalists are fine. Memes or random blogs, no.
- Post title must match the headline. Edits for clarity are fine.
- Don't be a jerk.
- No racism, no bigotry, no spam.
- Be productive.
Other communities of interest:
- !world@quokk.au
- !politics@sh.itjust.works
- !news@lemmy.world
- !usnews@beehaw.org
- !askusa@discuss.online
Icon courtesy Dighital - Flaticon
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The kid stole a car, and then was running away and pointing his loaded gun at the police when they shot him.
Allegedly. I don't know that it won't turn out, in the end, that it was actually his car, and it was a sandwich, and the officer involved had been fired from 3 departments and the cops lied about everything, and so on. But usually making sense of the world by just picking in advance who are the good guys and bad guys, and applying that to every single situation regardless of who's involved or what the details are, is a bad way to go.
There's a video out there of the shooting. The cops arrive at the scene near an allegedly stolen car, four black teens run in different directions away. Within six seconds of arriving on scene, the cop shoots and kills the kid that's in front of him. He was holding a bag, and was absolutely running away.
The cops say he had a gun after the fact, and I think the video shows a gun on the ground in the parking lot, away from where people were running. The two other teens were charged with whatever they call car theft there, one is still at large, and of course the last one was killed by police.
https://youtu.be/UuC-vHD4-7g
I thought I found a non-edited version of the video last night, but I can't find it again this morning. Yet.
Yeah, that would change things a lot. If the kid was unarmed, and the cop shot him in the back and then said he'd been holding a gun and pointed it at the cop...
If you do find the unedited version of it please post, I would like to see.
If the video with kid pointing a gun existed, it would already be out by now.
So either they don't the video or the video is no good...
It's out now, there's a link to a news report in one of the other comments. They claim he had a gun in his hand, at the moment that you can see in the video him coming from between the dumpsters facing towards the cop. You can't see his arm because it's dark, but I have a hard time believing that at that moment the gun could be pointed anywhere but at the cop, if that's true that he was running with it in his right hand. He wouldn't even have to be intentionally aiming it, just holding it without holding his arm weirdly behind him or something.
I would want to see the full bodycam, which supposedly was posted but I haven't seen. Presumably it should make it pretty clear whether the claim about the gun is accurate, because the gun would be right next to him after he's shot and visible on the ground when the cops go up to him.
I don't know man. I'm still trying to reserve judgment, but if you have a gun and you're running around in a "guns out" situation and popping out between obstacles at a cop who was focused on something else at the time (the other guy who was running into the woods), you might get shot. Even if you dropped the gun by then or you're just trying to get away at that point. Definitely if you're still holding a gun. This isn't like some guy who was just getting into his car with a sandwich, or a mentally disabled person who was calling for help, or anything like that. This is someone who created a deadly situation all on their own. One of his buddies had shot some people not long before, too, it doesn't take some kind of crazy leap of logic to say that maybe he took time to make sure to be carrying the gun while running from the cops because he was open to the idea of shooting at the cops, as opposed to for some other reason.
That's my take on it right now. Maybe I'll see more, and we find out the first cop was lying when he said the kid had a gun, or they planted one, or something, but that's my take after seeing the first person video.
The police, as an institution, have entirely lost the benefit of the doubt.
And the policy of "shot first" is not one I want to see in my civilian protection agency.
The whole point of what the father did was because all this "fear for my life" and 'allegedly' doesn't matter. You kill a family member, they kill a family member right back. That's it. That is the logic and frankly I understand it.
This is about the consequences of not having a functioning justice system particularily with regards to the enforcers. Instead of simply not chasing a kid clearly fleeing they chose to end his life. Maybe next time they won't.
Well I don't see any way that can possibly go wrong in the long run.
I actually kind of agree with this. When the systems of justice break down, people are going to start taking stuff into their own hands. And who could blame them? My point is that that makes falsely claiming that the systems of justice have broken down and every time the cops shoot someone, it's an atrocity and they do it all the time without consequences a pretty fucking bad thing to do. That's why I tend to argue about this on Lemmy.
Like I say, for all I know it happened the way you said. Also, for all you know, it happened just the way the cops said. You have no idea, and you're still very certain of the answer. Specifically because of the consequences in the world when people start running off with their favorite narrative even though they have no idea, that's a bad bad thing.
The funny thing about being a conscious entity with the capacity to remember things is that, in order to survive and navigate the world, one tends to notice patterns in the world at large. One then uses these past patterns to predict future events. This cuts down significantly on the processing required to survive and navigate the world, which is evolutionarily advantageous because energy is at a premium.
We know this is effective because we are here and that trait has persisted in our species. It is part of the human condition.
So, you should not be surprised when we all notice this pattern of cops doing violent crime with no punishment, for decades, and we then do a human consciousness about it by assuming - with solid factual basis - that the cop is the aggressor in every situation. It is not our fault, it is theirs - the police, as an institution, lost our collective trust because of their collective official actions. Are there some good cops who do their best to serve their community, and care deeply? Yes. It's that the official stance of every police force in America? Of course not. Stop blaming us for this pervasive attitude; we are taking the logical stance in the face of what we have observed.
Yeah, which is why when the cops spend all their time every day just chasing around violent assholes who stole somebody's car, beat their spouse, stole some cigarettes, drove drunk, or whatever, it starts to become totally justified to
Wait what were we talking about again?
The facts of the individual matter. Beyond that, I don't even agree with you that the cops do violent crime with no punishment that is objectively false. It used to be true. Back in the 80s and 90s it was godawful, up until 2020 it was still pretty bad, after 2020 it's changed. In my opinion. Like I said elsewhere, probably a fair way to do it is to list out a handful of high-profile cases from the last few years where the cops did something fucked up, and then ask what percentage of the time they got charges for it.
Lemmy likes to take this simple confident narrative that the answer is more or less 0%. That is clearly and objectively wrong. And then, they expand it out into this whole table-pounding-on narrative why it's perfectly okay to slam into some person who's just out doing their job with your car if you're upset because your son stole a car and ran around with a gun and some shit happened (again -- assuming that the cops are telling the truth more or less about how it happened). I get why a father would react that way. It's a pretty human reaction, any father would at least want to. I don't get why people on Lemmy are defending it.
You can't be both perfectly comfortable lumping every single individual into a class of people and then killing any of them you feel like if you get upset about something that happened, and also get upset when the police do the exact same thing (which, again, they aboslutely should not do) with the class of people who are "suspects." It is 100% exactly the same evolutionary pattern recognition you are defending here.
I point out that "the way it used to be" trained the public to see the police this way, and your response is "But it's not that way anymore". Do you understand how training works?
If you want this perception to change, it's going to take at least as many decades of the police being exactly what they should have been this whole time. That's the fact. The public perception makes sense, whether you want to admit it or not; arguing against decades of practical training is a losing proposition.
I'm not interested in your justifications, because that's not what I'm doing here, so I'm going to block you now. Do think about this further, I believe you'll be able to understand what I'm saying eventually.
There's actually a friend-of-a-friend of mine who is a LEO, and he explicitly told my friend that he racially profiles, for exactly this reason. Everything you were saying was his justification.
Have a good day, I hope your blocking goes well.
Thank you for doing this! I saw this same story elsewhere and a lot of similar ACAB/good for the father comments elsewhere even though the article seems to hint the deputy killed was not involved in the shooting.
My first thought was the father was out driving, saw the deputy and was so overcome that he targeted the deputy in the spur of the moment, not that this was some planned retribution thing.
Just know I appreciate you.
Yeah. The Lemmy hivemind is a hell of a drug.
Perhaps if police would more often be held accountable in a fair justice system, people wouldnt be so easily swayed to say they 'had it coming'.
Who's one cop in the last three years who's done something fucked up and not gotten charged for it?
I actually know of one. The prosecutor charged him and the state governor overrode the charges because he was a Republican. I don't know of another.
Up until about 2020, the police could get away with fucked up stuff, and then after BLM the system changed substantially, and as far as I can tell the left is still steaming forward with the narrative that it is 2014 and no one ever gets charged for anything. I would be a little bit surprised if you can name a couple of cops who have gotten away with stuff since 2020, but if you can, I would bet that I can name 5 cops that have gotten charges for every one that you can name that got away with it.
It's the pendulum theory. Things were real fucked up for a long time, cops could just straight-up kill people or beat the fuck out of them for no reason and nothing happened because they were cops. And now, the pendulum of public opinion has swung all the way to the other side, and the cops are always guilty and always pieces of shit if something happens, even if someone was actively trying to kill them or someone else when it happened.
I already know I am not going to change your mind on this, and I'm actually not into having a long debate about it right now. I am just stating my opinion. I also know nothing about the facts of this case beyond what the cops have claimed. I am just saying that usually this blanket "these people are ALWAYS BAD, NO EXCEPTIONS, AND I WILL GET ANGRY IF YOU DISAGREE" that doesn't need any factual input about the situation is a warning sign to watch out for, in your thinking.
"Charges" are a start. How many can you name who suffered the usual penalty for killing someone?
All convicted this year. If you want to look at an incomplete list just of the ones that were convicted or plead guilty after being charged, going back into the past, there is one here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_enforcement_officers_convicted_for_an_on-duty_killing_in_the_United_States
Maybe a more fair way to estimate is to look at the number of high-profile cases where, clearly, something terrible had happened, and then see what percentage of those involved charges for the cops. Tyre Nichols is the only one recently that I am aware of, and the cops got charges.
Before 2020, that percentage was way too low. After, as far as I know, it is a clear majority of the time. It should be 100%, but it's not. But if you talk to Lemmy, then the number is 0%, and that's just clearly objectively wrong.
Edit: 2020 not 2000
Considering my city is paying 30 million dollars for a settlement for the entire police force taking bribes and looking the other way while a some businessman sexually assualts ~500 women and children. And only because it got the fed's attention. But to noones shocked, not a single officer took the rap.
I just looked it up: It's worse than that. The feds haven't really done anything at all, it was a civil suit by some of the victims.
The FBI and the state law enforcement agency apparently haven't done all that much. People told them, they came by and asked the cops if they took any bribes, the cops said no. The end. This all came to light last year, and apparently it was on the radar of the DOJ's Public Integrity Section which is the agency that would normally investigate and actually bring charges to the cops. But they didn't do anything before Trump got in, and he has already fired most of them, so it's very unlikely that anything more will happen now that the city's paid the settlement. I think a couple people are bringing a new lawsuit, too, but that's not really justice.
Story from last year: https://tennesseelookout.com/2024/04/22/lawsuit-feds-probing-johnson-city-police-over-serial-rapist-cover-up-allegations/
There's a more recent story in the New Yorker if you're able to read those: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/03/31/how-police-let-one-of-americas-most-prolific-predators-get-away
Basically, long story short, it's real fucked up, debatable whether anything would have happened without Trump, and incredibly unlikely that anything will happen now.
So you agree... ACAB in past and now.
No, I just am willing to admit facts even if they don't fit my narrative. I asked for a single example, you provided one, fair play. It doesn't undo the entire narrative, but it's relevant. Absolutely.
Part of the reason I talk about these things is to hear opposing points of view and a lot of times there's some validity to them. I never heard of this whole situation before we talked and it's real fucked up.
There are also other alternative ways to conduct one's self in disagreement conversations.
I can provide examples all day. If pretty crazy you think the BLM movement has put to the end of police corruption. At best it just put their corrupption in the public's spotlight, but its very much still as bad as it always has been.
I definitely do not think that. I think it changed the default. I don't think there will ever be an end to police corruption. You need oversight to make sure they're not going to start to get abusive, and that oversight is never really going to be a "solved" thing or never have to step in. That's just not how human beings operate.
Maybe a fair way to do it is just to list the high profile terribly fucked-up things that happened in the last few years, and see how many of those times the police got charges. Tyre Nichols and Lich Vu are the only ones I was aware of. In one, the police got charges, and in the second, the prosecutor charged the cop (as I would argue is the norm now), but the governor overrode him.
Now, you're bringing another example. It's actually not certain to me that the DOJ wasn't planning to do something about it (that is precisely the Public Integrity Unit's job and why they are important, and they've been busy doing it until Trump came in). But regardless of anything theoretical like that, yes, this is real fucked up and an indictment of US police that it can happen.
What other cases do you know of? If you list off 5-10 of them from the last few years we can talk about what the outcomes were.
they executed that kid and then planted a gun on his corpse… is this your first time?
See, this is what I was talking about.
You're so confident, just because it lines up with your favorite way to look at things, even though you have literally no idea what happened.
Confidence and easy answers that always point the same direction, that feel good and let you be righteous about what you're saying, are alluring. They feel safe and solid, and people trust them. Be careful of that.
after watching hundreds of videos where it happens exactly like that, and after watching video of this exact incident. no.
it’s quite clear the kid didn’t fire first. no gun visible in the bodycam video at all….
they shot him in the back while he was running away.
you’re a lot more confident than me, responding to every single comment on here like spam….
we don’t need your opinion over and over and over again.
Where's the video of this incident? I didn't know it had been released.
the article that YOU LINKED… right here ^
this article… provides a link to the video, and talks about the video.
you could watch it yourself, but instead you’re arguing against screenshots… “i have no idea what the previous frame of the video shows!?!”.
at least read the article you posted yourself.
clearly you came in here to defend to cops.
the article that YOU LINKED… right here ^
this article… provides a link to the video, and talks about the video.
you could watch it yourself, but instead you’re arguing against screenshots…
clearly you came in here to defend to cops.
What, the video that doesn't show the relevant part of the shooting or the segment that includes the screengrab?
I thought maybe I was the weird one, so I went back and watched the whole thing just to make sure. No, it's basically B-roll and the chief talking and the least relevant part of the incident. That's it. The video tells you nothing at all about what happened.
you are spamming at this point and i’m no longer reading your responses… and blocking you
Okey dokey then.
It's in the link they posted. Here's the screen grab of where they shot him in the back.
That's not a video, that's a screen grab. It looks like the video itself on the site only shows from the second officer's camera, and fades out when the shooting starts. xor said they'd watched the video of the actual incident... but maybe they meant this video which doesn't really show a damn thing. Am I missing something?
I mean maybe they are not releasing the first person video because it clearly shows the kid's hands were empty or something, and the officer lied when he said the kid brandished his gun at him. I have no idea. This screen grab could be right after showing his hands empty, or this could be a frame from 0.2 seconds after the kid pointed his gun at the cop just like the cop said, or something in between.
you need to shut the fuck up at this point, officer.
Okay, so it sounds like you haven't actually seen a video of the incident. You've seen a video of the dumpster and heard shots being fired as the screen turns grey. Good to know.
once the cops start murdering him, they cut the video.
do you think that’s when he pulls his gun out and starts shooting?
you don’t know shit
Nobody said he shot at the cops. The cops said he "brandished" his gun at the cops, which can mean a couple different things. I think if he's running from the cops holding a gun, and there's anything that could be in any wild scenario interpreted as intent to shoot the cops, then they can shoot him. That's my feeling, others might disagree. But nobody as far as I can tell is saying he ever shot at the cops and I don't feel they're required to give him the first shot in this scenario. There is no reason at all to put a gun in your hand while running from the police other than that you plan on shooting them with it if it comes to it, and the cop's job is to catch the guy, which means it'll come to it.
I also wanted to watch the video to see if it was plausible that the cop planted the gun like you said. I doubt it. My guess is that, after the chaos of the shooting itself which might not show clearly what happened, there will be a clear uninterrupted shot from the killing to where the gun is clearly on the ground next to him or something. But maybe not, certainly cops have planted evidence or released selective bodycam footage before.
I have no idea why you're so hostile to the idea of just finding out what happened. If the cops continue to not release the bodycam of the actual shooting, but just that single frame with a big black rectangle that someone could implausibly claim was the teenager pointing a gun at the cops (but is more likely a thermos or a compression artifact), then sure, that's pretty strong circumstantial evidence that something fucked up happened.
Not saying he did or didn't but this is a pretty cliche police statement up there with "Sprinkle some crack on him" classic
But thus whole thing is already being set up as rage bait it seems. Just enough doubt to get people going
you put “allegedly” in the next paragraph… odd choice, boot licker.