City of Chicago releases another video of a teenager being shot by police

[ksen]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnash...ooting-chicago?utm_term=.gxGv0vvpo#.oyz8a88DM

The incident happened in 2013.

The teen's name was Cedric Chatman. He was unarmed.

Officer Fry said he thought he saw a gun (like they always say) and was in fear for his life, his partner's life and the lives of civilians.

However if you watch the videos Officer Fry apparently wasn't afraid of shooting Chatman while Fry's partner was in the line fire as well as two pedestrians and multiple drivers. Fry fired four times and hit Chatman twice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You can't tell much from that video (certainly not enough to tell if it's justified or not) but I don't see anyone dangerously close to the path of the bullet.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I found it to be very derivative of the first police shooting a teenager video. They should have gone bigger and maybe shot thus guy with a rocket launcher or something.

 

[Derec]

Whether or not the shooting itself is justified, I do not feel sorry for the carjacking thug in the least. And certainly his family do not deserve to become millionaires over his death either.

 

[ksen]

You can't tell much from that video (certainly not enough to tell if it's justified or not) but I don't see anyone dangerously close to the path of the bullet.

you didn't see the two pedestrians right near Chatman when he was shot? or the other police officer? or the cars driving up that road?

 

[Toni]

Whether or not the shooting itself is justified, I do not feel sorry for the carjacking thug in the least. And certainly his family do not deserve to become millionaires over his death either.

The point is whether or not the shooting was justified. In the US, we are supposed to have the rule of law, and police are not supposed to be empowered to pull over anyone they want for any reason, knock them around or shoot them. We don't have to be model citizens to be safe from being shot by police who are 'afraid.' Quotes because I seriously doubt this officer truly feared for his life.

Sadly, it seems that there is little that will force municipalities and police departments to impose a high standard of conduct and a high threshold for firing a weapon at anyone unless there is imminent danger. Hitting them in the pocketbook may have an effect.

 

[Derec]

The point is whether or not the shooting was justified. In the US, we are supposed to have the rule of law,

True. If the shooting is not justified, punish the officer responsible by all means.

and police are not supposed to be empowered to pull over anyone they want for any reason,

But they had a good reason to pull him over - suspicion of carjacking. And he justified those suspicions when he took off running. And he had a black object in his hand that was mistaken for a gun.

knock them around or shoot them.

Shooting somebody is justified under certain circumstances and not others, yes.

We don't have to be model citizens to be safe from being shot by police who are 'afraid.'

Even if the shooting is not justified does not mean we should feel sorry for the criminal and it certainly should not mean their families should benefit financially. I feel much more sorry for the victim of the carjacking than I do for Cedric.

Hitting them in the pocketbook may have an effect.

But it basically sends the message "crime pays". If a thug gets shot these days during commission of his crimes, be they drug dealing, carjacking, or merely attacking people with a knife, there is a very good chance his family is going to be set up for life. That provides a rather perverse and grizzly sort of incentive, n'cest pas?
If you want to financially punish the city is the only way to do it to unjustly enrich the thug's family?

 

[Toni]

We don't have to be model citizens to be safe from being shot by police who are 'afraid.'

Even if the shooting is not justified does not mean we should feel sorry for the criminal and it certainly should not mean their families should benefit financially. I feel much more sorry for the victim of the carjacking than I do for Cedric.

I wasn't aware that you were acquainted with the victim.

The issue isn't whether the person who was killed was a perfect person or even a good person. The issue is whether the police were justified in shooting him. Deserve doesn't figure in to it when awarding punitive damages.

Besides, who knows how he would have turned out if he hadn't been killed. A whole lot of people do stupid and often illegal things when they are kids. Doesn't mean the police get to shoot them.

But it basically sends the message "crime pays". If a thug gets shot these days during commission of his crimes, be they drug dealing, carjacking, or merely attacking people with a knife, there is a very good chance his family is going to be set up for life. That provides a rather perverse and grizzly sort of incentive, n'cest pas?

Mais non.

I've been to the funerals of children. There is no such incentive.

 

[Will Wiley]

Even if the shooting is not justified does not mean we should feel sorry for

Thanks for the advice but I think I'll work out for myself how I should feel about things

 

[laughing dog]

Even if the shooting is not justified does not mean we should feel sorry for the criminal and it certainly should not mean their families should benefit financially.

When a family loses a loved one, it is natural to feel sympathy for them. And if the city or officer is assessed damages because of the shooting, who should benefit financially.

I feel much more sorry for the victim of the carjacking than I do for Cedric.

So what.

But it basically sends the message "crime pays". If a thug gets shot these days during commission of his crimes, be they drug dealing, carjacking, or merely attacking people with a knife, there is a very good chance his family is going to be set up for life. That provides a rather perverse and grizzly sort of incentive, n'cest pas?

Do you have even one iota of actual evidence that this "grisly incentive" exists outside of your mind?

If you want to financially punish the city is the only way to do it to unjustly enrich the thug's family?

In our legal system, when party A damages party B, party A pays damages to party B.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

True. If the shooting is not justified, punish the officer responsible by all means.

And restore the life of the teen due to this "oops"?

 

[Derec]

When a family loses a loved one, it is natural to feel sympathy for them.

It is not natural, however, for having raised a thug.
"Thanks for raising a heroin dealer Mrs. Grey, here's your 6.4 million dollars".

And if the city or officer is assessed damages because of the shooting, who should benefit financially.

Actual damages should be paid to compensate the person damaged. Not to make families of criminals rich.

So what.

I guess you feel much more for the criminal here?

Do you have even one iota of actual evidence that this "grisly incentive" exists outside of your mind?

How about the payout for Freddie Grey? How about the payout for Laquan McDonald?

In our legal system, when party A damages party B, party A pays damages to party B.

Then explain to me how Freddie Grey's family was damaged to the tune of 6.4 million dollars or how Laquan McDonald's family was damaged to the tune of $5 million dollars. This is about making these families rich beyond their wildest dreams, not about compensating them for any actual damages.
And of course Cedrick Chapman's family filed a multimillion dollar lawsuit as well.

 

[Derec]

I wasn't aware that you were acquainted with the victim.

I wasn't acquainted with the carjacking victim, no. But any one of us could be carjacked by a little piece of shit like Cedrick, which is why I sympathize with the carjacking victim much more than with the carjacker.
For example, this happened in Atlanta just a few months ago.
Woman dies after being shot during carjacking

The issue isn't whether the person who was killed was a perfect person or even a good person. The issue is whether the police were justified in shooting him.

And if they were not they should be prosecuted. The little thug's family should not be made millionaires though.

Deserve doesn't figure in to it when awarding punitive damages.

Punitive damages overall are a huge perversion of the tort system, which should be about compensating for damages, not enriching people. When it is used to enrich families for having raised a dangerous thug it is especially perverse.

Besides, who knows how he would have turned out if he hadn't been killed.

We we know how the next several years of his life would have turned out.

I mean, his accomplices will for sure.
Two Men Get 10 Years In Prison For Fatal Police Chase And Shooting

A man and woman had driven in a Dodge Charger to the 7600 block of South Essex Avenue after arranging with Clarke’s sister to buy “cell phone service.”
When the victims got to 76th and Essex, Clarke, Odum and Chatmen got into the back seat of the Charger, and Clarke’s sister, who had arranged the purchase, approached. She began yelling at the driver because she was upset about the phone she received, court records said. Clarke, who was seated behind him, grabbed that man around the neck and pulled him into the backseat.
Clarke, Odum and Chatmen then beat the man about the head and body, and demanded money from the victims, court records indicate. They took $400, a cell phone and the man’s shoes; as well as a coat, shoes, $40 and a cell phone from the woman. The woman then ran away down an alley, where someone assisted her and drove her home.
Clarke, Odum and Chatmen continued to beat the man, then pulled him out of the Dodge as witnesses approached. He was able to crawl across the street and saw the three men searching his car. Odom then crossed the street and demanded money from him again, court records said.
Chatmen then got into the Charger and drove away as the man flagged down a fire truck and ambulance. He was taken to Jackson Park Hospital, where he was treated for a fractured orbital bone, bruising and cuts, court records said.

Charming!
Not sure why he is being referred to as Frederick rather than Cedrick, but it's the same case.

A whole lot of people do stupid and often illegal things when they are kids.

Vast majority of people do not commit violent felonies at 17.

Doesn't mean the police get to shoot them.

When you commit violent felonies that greatly increases your chance of getting shot by police.

I've been to the funerals of children. There is no such incentive.

How many of those "children" (Cedrick was 17, not 7) were violent criminals?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Then explain to me how Freddie Grey's family was damaged to the tune of 6.4 million dollars or how Laquan McDonald's family was damaged to the tune of $5 million dollars. This is about making these families rich beyond their wildest dreams, not about compensating them for any actual damages.
And of course Cedrick Chapman's family filed a multimillion dollar lawsuit as well.

How much is a human life worth in US dollars?

 

[laughing dog]

It is not natural, however, for having raised a thug.

It is human nature, regardless of your view of worth of the victim.
"Thanks for raising a heroin dealer Mrs. Grey, here's your 6.4 million dollars".

Actual damages should be paid to compensate the person damaged. Not to make families of criminals rich.

The primary damaged victim is dead. But the family also suffers damages. Why shouldn't they be compensated if they suffered damages? BTW, damages have a two fold purpose. One is to compensate the victims. The other is to provide disincentives for that type of misbehavior. The two purposes are independent of one another.

I guess you feel much more for the criminal here?

I see, only accused rapists are accorded the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption in your world. I feel more for the family and the victim than for the police officer who gunned down an unarmed alleged criminal.

How about the payout for Freddie Grey? How about the payout for Laquan McDonald?

If you had a relevant point, you'd have evidence these people acted in order to get a pay out.

Then explain to me how Freddie Grey's family was damaged to the tune of 6.4 million dollars or how Laquan McDonald's family was damaged to the tune of $5 million dollars. This is about making these families rich beyond their wildest dreams, not about compensating them for any actual damages.
And of course Cedrick Chapman's family filed a multimillion dollar lawsuit as well.

Losing a loved one usually causes suffering. I have a brother who is a two time felon. If he were killed, I would be upset. If he were gunned down when he posed no threat or not doing anything, I would be terribly upset, even though by your standards, he is a "thug". My parents did not raise him to be a "thug" (their other children are law-abiding citizens).

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Punitive damages overall are a huge perversion of the tort system, which should be about compensating for damages, not enriching people. When it is used to enrich families for having raised a dangerous thug it is especially perverse.

That was their plan all along. To have their son shot by police to get $$$$!

 

[Derec]

It is human nature, regardless of your view of worth of the victim.

I think it has more to do with who I think the victims in this case are - the man and woman Cedrick and his two accomplices robbed and carjacked rather than the perp who got shot during the commission of a violent felony.

The primary damaged victim is dead. But the family also suffers damages.

Several million worth? Give me a break.

Why shouldn't they be compensated if they suffered damages?

If they suffered any actual damages and there was actual wrongdoing by police, sure. But they should not profit from their thug son getting himself shot.

Besides, what about the damages Cedrick's victims suffered, including medical bills? The male victim suffered a fractured orbital bone for example.

BTW, damages have a two fold purpose. One is to compensate the victims. The other is to provide disincentives for that type of misbehavior. The two purposes are independent of one another.

Damages should serve only the first purpose. Fines should be used for the second. You are right that the two purposes are independent of each other and thus they should be kept separate, not conflated like US tort system is doing.

I see, only accused rapists are accorded the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption in your world.

Cedrick's two accomplices have been duly convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Cedrick himself is obviously beyond getting convicted because he is dead. That does not mean we need to posthumously presume him innocent. His guilt is beyond doubt.

I feel more for the family and the victim than for the police officer who gunned down an unarmed alleged criminal.

More than "alleged" at this time. And police had no way of knowing he was unarmed. He was clutching a black object - had he not been so greedy and intent on escaping with the stolen iPhone he'd probably still be alive and would have joined his friends in prison.
In any case, he brought it on himself by robbing and carjacking people. I do not feel sorry for him in the least, and my sympathy for his family is rather limited too.

Losing a loved one usually causes suffering.

No doubt. Even if the loved one is a piece of shit.
But that doesn't entitle the family to millions.

I have a brother who is a two time felon. If he were killed, I would be upset. If he were gunned down when he posed no threat or not doing anything, I would be terribly upset, even though by your standards, he is a "thug". My parents did not raise him to be a "thug" (their other children are law-abiding citizens).

Do you think you and your parents would deserve millions?
And besides, Cedrick was not "not doing anything". He was fleeing after having committed a robbery and a carjacking.

 

[laughing dog]

Several million worth? Give me a break.

What is the life of a loved one worth?

If they suffered any actual damages and there was actual wrongdoing by police, sure. But they should not profit from their thug son getting himself shot.

Seems like you have a contradiction there: jusfitied damage awards that do not allow the family to profit.

Besides, what about the damages Cedrick's victims suffered, including medical bills?

What happened to the presumption of innocence that you insist every accused rapist gets?

The male victim suffered a fractured orbital bone for example.

What about them? They can go after his estate. I would have no problem with any damage award going to the estate of the victim.

Damages should serve only the first purpose.

Fortunately, the rest of rational humanity in the USA disagrees.

Fines should be used for the second. You are right that the two purposes are independent of each other and thus they should be kept separate, not conflated like US tort system is doing.

Money is money.

Cedrick's two accomplices have been duly convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Cedrick himself is obviously beyond getting convicted because he is dead. That does not mean we need to posthumously presume him innocent. His guilt is beyond doubt.

So your insistence of "presumption of innocence" is a charade.

More than "alleged" at this time.

There is no conviction, so you are wrong.

And police had no way of knowing he was unarmed.

Yes they did. They could have followed him and tried to capture him alive. Using your reasoning, the police could shot anyone on the claim they had no way of knowing the victim was unarmed.

No doubt. Even if the loved one is a piece of shit.
But that doesn't entitle the family to millions.

No it doesn't. The finding of wrongdoing by the police and the subsequent judgment by the court entitles the family to the payment.

Do you think you and your parents would deserve millions?

Depending on the circumstances, I think my dad (my mother passed away a bit ago) might deserve millions. Certainly more than the police department or municipality that was enabling such wrongdoing.

And besides, Cedrick was not "not doing anything". He was fleeing after having committed a robbery and a carjacking.

Ignoring your hypocrisy over the presumption of innocence,
1) that is not a capital offense, and
2) it is not the responsibility of the police to execute convicted criminals, let alone, alleged ones.

 

[ronburgundy]

I found it to be very derivative of the first police shooting a teenager video. They should have gone bigger and maybe shot thus guy with a rocket launcher or something.

Yeah, I'm so tired of sequels. Cops are as unoriginal as Hollywood these days.

 

[ronburgundy]

When a family loses a loved one, it is natural to feel sympathy for them. And if the city or officer is assessed damages because of the shooting, who should benefit financially.

I feel much more sorry for the victim of the carjacking than I do for Cedric.

So what.

But it basically sends the message "crime pays". If a thug gets shot these days during commission of his crimes, be they drug dealing, carjacking, or merely attacking people with a knife, there is a very good chance his family is going to be set up for life. That provides a rather perverse and grizzly sort of incentive, n'cest pas?

Do you have even one iota of actual evidence that this "grisly incentive" exists outside of your mind?

If you want to financially punish the city is the only way to do it to unjustly enrich the thug's family?

In our legal system, when party A damages party B, party A pays damages to party B.

And any commission of any crime is damage done to their victims and to the community for which the criminal should have to pay civil financial damages above and beyond criminal punishment. IF that person dies, then their estate is on the hook, and if they are a minor, then their parents are on the hook. Thus, even if his shooting was unjustified, most or all of the compensation that his family gets should turn right around and go to the victim of his car jacking and the city.