[Video] Unites States regime officer executes a 1 year old black baby after his mother did not stop the car for being accused of shoplifting diapers and baby clothes from Walmart
View original on lemmy.world
Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.world
104 replies
What shitty technique and shooting
We need a socialist revolution, and fast.
what kind of vile motherfucker would call the cops on a mother for stealing fucking diapers?
In a just world, the cops should be called, but they should show up to help the poor woman. Not in USA though. In the big, great, awe-inspiring United States of America, your life is literally worth less than a diaper.
anyone that wants to keep their job.
Wow, name checks out.
The world's worst snitch.
the "yaeeeeeaeee" at the start. Theyre so excited to kill people
They're especially excited to kill people of color. I'm convinced it's the only way they can orgasm
An important note here, the family says they have the receipt for the diapers.
So it's an accusation of shoplifting. Not actual shoplifting.
Thank you for the correction I will edit the title
The role of police is - in theory - meant to make arrests based on the notion that someone may be guilty of a criminal act. It isn't for the police to prove guilt or innocence, that's for the courts. Now that being said, the police in all forms in this modern age are fundamentally nothing more than thugs of the state.
Exactly. It's not to try to execute them on the spot for being suspects of a non-violent crime.
In any nation with Rule Of Law that police officer would've been sitting in jail right now for murder for having pulled and fired a gun in that situation.
Were I live (Portugal), merely pulling the gun out would've landed that officer in hot water. Shooting it and killing somebody would've landed him in jail (whilst there would have been a weeks/months long outrage on the Press for what he did and the police leadership that let such a person through the cracks).
Shit, the other day a small group of riot police charged some demonstrators against housing costs who had set up in a square in Porto a camp with some tents very lightly wounding 1 person and it was massive news and a formal Inquest has now been openned on it by the Public Prosecution Service (which can lead to criminal charges). Now, I'm not saying it will lead to criminal charges, I'm saying the level of what's considered acceptable police violence is WAY lower than in the US.
So US tax dollars are funding police stations in Walmarts now?
I don’t understand why it has to be an immediate stop either.
Just like how high speed chases never need to happen anymore.
We have high resolution camera every where. Yes that’s its own problem, but there are there. We have video of shoplifting and people speeding. Just go to their house or send them a court summons. There’s no stakes with traffic violations or shoplifting. No life is in immediate danger until the police get involved. So just remove the police and let the courts figure it out.
And why in the everloving fuck, does a cop stationed at a Walmart, need a gun? "Someone stole a sandwich, quick guys, go shoot them!!!"
Just another form of corporate welfare.
Why should they hire their own security if they can use the municipality's taxpayer dollars to pay for it instead?
walmarts help the police with surveillance and in turn the cops help them with theift
This needs to be higher up. Why are we paying for this? Tell Walmart to hire their own security.
Even to get hit by a Ford Fusion that was at a dead stop 15 ft away, your life is not in danger.
Mean while, the lives of every one in that parking lot were in danger the moment the police firing guns in every direction.
Not only that, they didn't even need to put themselves in danger by trying to run in front of the vehicle to block it in.
Write down the fucking license plate. Go visit their house later to settle any issues. It's not some mass murderer or armed bank robber that's going to disappear to another country if you lose sight of them.
There was zero reason to escalate it to the point weapons were even out in the first place.
The lives of everyone are in danger anytime pigs are around
The officers involved who drew their guns for a shoplifter deserve to be castrated with a dull butter knife. Pathetic frightened fucks.
Remember folks: If you think you see someone shoplifting food or basic supplies, no you didn't.
Yeah if someone is shoplifting something like that they doing it because they don't have a choice.
Anyway apparently the family claims they have a receipt for the diapers. Not that opening fire for someone shoplifting is already fucked up. Gun supposed to be used when the suspect themselves is using a deadly weapon.
And no, jumping in front of somebody's car who just want to flee still doesn't warrant it. They could just run the license plates and find the person. They did this, because they wanted to kill.
Oh no fight there. No weapon should have been touched.
Theft is immoral and should always be stopped. Saying I get to violate your will because it helps my well-being does not justify my immoral actions.
Well said, Inspector Javert. Enjoy your downvotes.
In America we're innocent until proven guilty. Cops have no legal right to be judge, jury and executioner, especially over FUCKING DIAPERS.
They're SUPPOSED to let them drive away, write down their license plate and then get a warrant. You've been brainwashed into thinking shooting at alleged thieves is somehow normal. It's not.
These are not morally equivalent acts.
How's that boot taste loser?
If police are gonna shoot babies for shoplifting, then I'm not gonna report shoplifting :P
Now this I would agree with 100%.
Then open your eyes.
You're fucking vile. Go lick boots instead of polluting us with your shit take. Stealing necessities that society CAN AND SHOULD provide to all citizens is in no way immoral when corporations are by far the worst thieves.
https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-from-workers-paychecks-each-year/
it's not thievery to take back what was taken from you in the first place
Large corporations are stealing from individuals on a grand scale. The argument is that if they aren't being held accountable then they shouldn't be protected under the laws they evade.
The commenter above wasn't clear but the popular sentiment was about shoplifting essentials from large companies, not small shops and people's homes.
It's about solidarity with the poor. We don't have to excuse the immorality but we should see that the companies that exploit us don't deserve our help.
You're talking about deeper issues here though. What you really mean is that the underlying problem is the government and how they're in bed with big business.
That doesn't mean it's OK to steal. Robin Hood - you know the story of Robin Hood, ya? Stole from the rich and gave to the poor? But he didn't, not at all. Robin Hood was a friend of King Richard, the richest of all. He took back what the Sherriff stole from the people - which isn't theft. You cannot steal that in which does not belong to you.
And your claims are grand so they require grand evidence. What is an example of a large business stealing from individuals on a grand scale? Disliking your pay or disliking the cost of goods/services isn't theft, that's consensual adult human interaction. If you don't like the deal, don't consent to it. You can vote with your wallet and labor.
Get bent apologist.
https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-from-workers-paychecks-each-year/
Replying just to remind myself to check what dumbfuck shit that moron spouts in response to this.
You can't vote while you're starving. Wage theft is theft
Holy fuck are you doingthestuff’s new account since his got nuked for being Nazi bootlicking scum like you?
Theft is immoral, correct. But taking back what was stolen is not
edited: rules remembered
Fornicate with thy self.
He wasn't a US officer. He was a police officer in Senatobia, Mississippi.
Zero reason for this response (3 dudes with guns drawn?) when the goods are insured. Call in another cop, one who is in a vehicle, to follow the car and pull them over if you care that much. Having the AG say this is “justified” is a horrendous misjudgment on her part.
Why are the municipal police insuring Walmart's bottom line using taxpayer dollars?
They're paid by a 3rd part security group who is hired by Walmart. They were paid $100 an hour to kill this child.
why are they protecting any property? oh yeah because people don't like getting things stolen from them.
Zero reason for this response if the goods aren’t insured. In what sane universe is it morally justified to hurt anyone over material items??
FFS on top of that it was diapers. Meaning mom and friend were desperate to care for their baby. The system is so disgustingly broken.
How about the fact that in some states, if someone is invading your home in the middle of the night and you shoot them you can be convicted depending on if you give them an avenue of egress, but these guys jumped in front of a moving car and their "reaction" was "justified?"
Wouldn't that depend though?
It is the responsibility of the police to make arrests, not prove guilt or innocence - that is the job of the courts. The police gathered what information they could, rightly concluded that someone had committed theft and attempted to make an arrest. This means that if they can use their bodies to stop the perpetrator from escaping that arrest, they should.
The question then falls on the idea of, was the car already going 30MPH and an officer jumped in front of it not giving them enough time to stop, and that was seen as an act of violence? That then would have been two poor decisions on behalf of that officer. First, jumping in front of the car, and two, in assuming the car's not stopping to be an act of aggression upon them that warranted a returned act of agression.
If someone came into my home, robbed me and my family then ran out to their car and I was standing at the end of my driveway by the time the car started moving (I own firearms) and they clearly held no intention of not running me over, I would shoot to kill and I would be completely justified in doing so. Not because they robbed me (though that can actually be warranted too, it just depends), but because they made an attempt on my life, or at the very least, on my physical well-being.
No man should be made to accept another's attempts to strip them of their life or well-being. I should not be made to suffer a broken body because the only way to have stopped that would be to have taken the life of the assailant who had no qualms with crushing my body.
Also regarding what you posted, many states are wholly nonsensical in the vast majority of their laws. What is rational is that if someone were to enter your property, you are justified in analyzing the threat as rationally as you can, given the circumstance, and acting accordingly. If you shoot the 8 year old running across your yard, you're in the wrong and just murdered a child, but there are many different situations that can arise. If someone walks into my home (I have young children) and I see that they are carrying a knife or firearm, I'm not going to speak with them, warn them, or otherwise give them an "egress", I am going to shoot to kill, period, the state be damned.
The 3 seconds it might take me to ask questions and wait for a response could be all it takes before my toddler is shot dead. I don't have that time, I don't know this person, I don't know their intentions, and this is the single most horrific and pivotal moment of likely my entire life - the notion that I should be held more accountable for how I react than the individual who entered my home armed is utter nonsense. NOBODY matters to me as much as my children, and that should be a universality across the whole of humanity. If you don't believe that, you're doing "human" wrong.
I'm going to assume you are discussing in good faith.
Yes, it is the policy's responsibility to enforce the law. But they are also not supposed to escalate or use unequal force. Jumping in front of a moving car is "dont do this 101." She had diapers in her car and was trying to get away, not hurt people. In this case gunfire is never an appropriate and justified force. If she had a bomb in her car and said "I'm going to go blow up the elementary school" and sped off towards the school, I'd understand using lethal force to stop her.
Your home invasion part created a lot of unnecessary arguments. In most states, if you shot someone fleeing in their car when they were no longer threatening your life, you'd be convicted of murder. You then conflate accepting an attack on you with shooting someone that was clearly fleeing because they previously threatened you. I'm also not sure why you even brought up shooting an 8 year old running across your yard, that isn't relevant to this situation and I think everyone can agree that's wrong no matter what, no matter how old the person is.
It doesn't matter if states laws are nonsensical, and that's kind of the point. You also confuse what you're willing to accept to do to protect your family with what is legal. In some states you have a duty to warn them or allow them to retreat if they are not directly threatening you, and being in your home unlawfully is not automatically threatening you.
Your emotional conviction to protect your children is not being argued. The point was that even in a situation, where a civilian such as yourself fears the safety of their children, you could have a duty to warn or allow an invader to flee your house depending on the state you live in. While a trained and professional police officer escalated a nonlethal situation by jumping in front of a moving vehicle, and then further escalated it by using lethal force and murdered a person. Even worse, it was legally "justified" despite being completely unreasonable.
Like the 1 year old in the video? So the mother would have been justified running those cops over, right? When someone runs at me shouting with a gun drawn should I assume they just want to talk?
Police in the USA regularly shoot and kill people who pose no threat. The only threat in this situation was entirely brought by the police: they drew weapons and they put themselves in harms way by stepping in front of a moving vehicle.
Agreed.
There is no system, there are just people. And is it justified to hurt people over theft? Of course it is.
All legality ends in killing when taken to its end result. If you get a speeding ticket, what happens if you don't pay it? You get a warrant for your arrest. What happens when you're stopped for speeding again and the officer, noticing your warrant, goes to arrest you but you, believing the state has no business apprehending you for something you never agreed not to do on roads nobody actually owns (which is a legitimate and objective claim, mind you), resist that arrest?
One of three things can occur:
And what do you think happens if you do successfully resist arrest? Now you have a warrant for your arrest not only for speeding, but also for resisting arrest. And what do you think would happen if say, you successfully resisted arrest say, 5 times? Do you think the state is going to just throw its hands up and say, "well, we tried but that bugger got away so what can we do!?" No, of course not. Eventually the criminal escalation will be so great that you would be seen as a violator of the law wholly need of processing, which means violence used against you to ensure your capture. What happens then when those escalated officers draw weapons on you and demand your surrender and you try to escape a sixth time? They throw up their hands?
Of course not, they open fire.
ALL criminal acts eventually lead to death unless you succumb to the will of the authoritarian structure or you're successfully captured and processed, it just depends where along that line you are.
Is it rationally justified to open fire on someone for stealing from a Walmart? Of course not. But it would have been justified to arrest the woman and punish her to the fullest extent of the law, barring that the law is just, and by just, keep in mind, simply being that in which violates the will of another through a logical order of operations. I.E: Murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc.
An officer who shoots at a car to prevent someone from getting away with petty theft at a Walmart should be tried and convicted of murder, but the woman who stole from that Walmart should be tried and convicted of theft, at least barring that the Walmart wanted to press charges at all.
Cool, you've stolen a lot of people's time in this thread. Are you volunteering to be subject to your own claims?
This has to be slop.
It's not justified. That's an objective statement. You do not need to give any creed to people who make objectively incorrect claims. You just disregard them.
Following them turns into a high speed chase now endangering other people. Not really a better option when random people get killed.
This comment is dumb. You are saying she should be executed to prevent a crime she has not committed yet. Use your head.
Nice strawman.
Oh yeah, now instead of just getting the license plate and putting out a BOLO, they just killed a 1 year old.
Never said shooting is a good/better alternative, what is it with you people here commenting that? I said an alternative that got mentioned is shit.
Or they could do some police work and, y'know visit the address associated with the plate number.
That said, police shouldn't be doing loss prevention for Walmart.
So you gotta get the boot soaking wet before you shove it up your ass or does it just slide up there easily?
If cops are going to run out with guns drawn over fucking diapers, they shouldn't have guns.
They're paid to protect capital.
$100/hr
Here is a typical oath they take.
"On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character or the public trust.
I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions.
I will always uphold the constitution, my community, and the agency I serve."
We all witness the reality of cops taking their sweet time to report to residential crime, but how they will literally die trying to race to a commercial crime showing up in a few minutes. This is not their oath though. It would be like a doctor deciding not to treat someone because they didn't like their nationality. Why do officers uniquely violate their oath?
Ifcopsare going to run out with guns drawn over fucking diapers, theyshouldn'thave guns.How to Legally Execute Anyone, a Cop's Guide:
And despite over a century of violent and racist policing, I think ICE has really been innovating in this space recently.
The cop even moved to the side and then executed the baby too, he was no longer in danger. But this is not ICE related, this is a regular US regime officer guarding Walmart capital on taxpayer funding.
I know it's not ICE but it seems to be an explicit tactic of theirs. They shot a guy in NYC recently. Despite trailing him undercover and having access to him at several points, they waited until he got into his car so they could shoot him (with his kid in the car, too).
Yes this shooting is reminiscent of ICE executing Renée Good
Didn't he also shoot in the direction of his colleague after he moved out of the way?
There needs to be a massive overhaul of hiring and training for police. Their gun needs to be a LAST DITCH EFFORT to de-escelate the situation. That cop should be in jail. Bare minimum. This should have never happened.
guns are not a tool to de-escalate any situation. by definition, pulling a gun escalates.
the only reason a gun should ever be pulled is when every deescalation tactic has failed and there is a credible threat to human life.
you do not pull a gun to scare someone into cooperation, you pull a gun to immediately incapacitate a threat.
responsible concealed carriers know this. cops, on the other hand...
Police are trained for 11-12 weeks in Tennessee. 3 months is not long enough for something like that. I work for the IRS and onboarding was that long and we frequently get training sessions of up to a month or more when trained in a new application. Im just helping people with their tax inquiries. Why is someone in charge of enforcing the laws having training as exstensive as mine? I didn't even understand how to do my job for months after I was on the floor doing it. Other countries police academies last a year or more.
The fuck we can't. We can disarm everyday policing and only have specialised response teams with firearms. You know, like in civilised countries.
You have that like a direct quote.
He's a liter baby killer, entrusted and empowered by the state. Its nuts.
No amount of training will prevent this sort of thing, ever. There is nothing anyone can do to stop travesties like this from happening. We can likely limit it, some of it, but not outright stop it from happening.
Yeah, there's no training whatsoever that could prevent this.
Really, like not even prevent some of it?
Oh so some amount of training will prevent this from happening just not completely eradicate it.
Your statements are directly contradictory - idk why I'm pointing this out just that it bugged me I guess but I agree with you that elimination of all violence carried out by the state is impossible. We can definitely limit it!
My point is that there are far too many people who have different views, beliefs, and levels of thinking to find a sure-fire method of ensuring all agents of the state have sufficient "training" for this and anything else they might come across that'll be in tomorrow's news.
And when placed into a delicate situation where your fundamental job is answering the call to and making arrests, full-well understanding that every perpetrator is a potential threat to themselves and those around them (as you work in these situations every day), it can become very stressful if placed into a situation such as this.
Now don't get it twisted, I'm not in any way saying these cops are in the right - they are not. What I am saying is if you had 2 years of training I don't think things would universally change much. I own firearms for example and I go shooting, and nothing is ever going to prepare me for a day if I ever needed to use one of those firearms. I don't ever want to be in such a situation. I don't want to shoot anyone, I just want to protect my family, myself, and the innocent, in that order. I couldn't imagine how awful it would be to have to make split second choices filled with anxiety, fear, and fight or flight responses in the heat of a moment such as that. Could I make a mistake? Of course! I mean, what if there's a shooting somewhere and suddenly I have to consider so many variables. Where's the shooter? Is my family in danger? Where do we go? Should I draw my weapon? If I do, could police or another armed individual think I'm the shooter? If I saw the shooter, how safe would it even be to shoot them to try to stop them? Could I hit an innocent person? What if I do? Will I go to prison for murder? What if I hit the shooter and take them out? Will I be a hero, or marked as a villain and imprisoned so I never see my family again?
I can think about these things time and again (and I have), but I know nothing I could do would fully prepare me for being in that moment.
And again, I'm not saying that any of that means the cops in this example were justified. I'm just saying I can see how impossible this task could be. Up training to 2 years and you're going to need to increase what we pay cops or many people are going to just go into other professions. What would the value of say, 2 years of training be, exactly? Does it actually reduce the level of police killings? I got this off a quick web search:
"Specialized and targeted training—such as de-escalation, procedural justice, and reality-based tactical training—can reduce police use of force, but simply increasing total training hours alone does not automatically or reliably eliminate fatal police shootings."
That's apparently from NBC News. And the data isn't being very concrete here. It says that better training provides a "measurable drop" in use of force, but it won't say by how much. Deeper searches reveal a reported 28.1% in overall use-of-force incidents, but use-of-force isn't only use of deadly force. Stats say that cops in the US kill an average of 1,150 people annually. A 28.1% reduction (let's assume that's all deadly force, but it wouldn't be), would be roughly 323.15 people. Around 300 people die each year from ladder-related falls. So not only would this reduction be negligible, but what would the cost be? Why not invest that into say, cancer research, traffic safety awareness (39,254 people died in 2024 to traffic accidents), or so many other things.
We look at situations like this - which are egregious, don't get me wrong - and we ask ourselves as if we ARE the collective, "what could WE do?" But there isn't a collective, and there is no "we", there is only what can YOU do. One thing I do is not put myself in situations where police may be involved. Now that doesn't mean this woman deserved what happened, I'm not saying that at all, nor do I believe that, but as terrible as this kind of thing is, rationally as I said, there's often not much that can be done about it, and watch, nothing will be done about it.
People will scream about it for a while, politicians and talk about what we're going to do about it, things may even be put into place around it, but it won't change anything, and if it does, it'll be so negligible that the next time it happens even AFTER the proposed changes are put in place, it'll seem like nothing was ever done at all.
Did you know that being a pizza delivery driver is more dangerous than being a cop?
Fuck u asshole
That is so many words to say you're okay with the status quo and making no changes.
American children are >20x more likely to be killed by firearms than European children. Saying it can't be brought to literally zero is a distinction without a difference.
Oh I thought you were joking in a "no way to stop this, says only country where this regularly happens" way.
Guys please mark these as nsfw, i keep talking to people who get really fucked up after seeing these.
I mean...if you choose to click play after reading that, that's kinda on you, no?
Are you saying that they shouldn't mark it NSFW?
If not, you can always choose to say nothing.
To be fair, yes, they should. But also it's pretty damn obvious what you're about to watch if you click on that.
If you only watch the video you won't know the child was shot. Which I would say makes it SFW.
is the sound of gunfire NSFW?
You cannot through the glass of the car of the baby getting executed so it is not necessarily NSFW.
It needs to be seen. I hope many more stumble upon this footage and also get fucked up by it.
You can't just plug your ears, close your eyes, and pretend that police aren't committing horrible atrocities every single day. Vidoes like these should be shown on billboards, TVs, and every other public screen all day every day until enough people get upset and fucked up enough to finally put a stop to this reckless behavior caused by cowboy cops.
There was a baby being held up, in that window. That fucker shot through a side window that had a baby in it
Fascist police be like: "But I stopped crime tho"
Fuck Walmart ACAB
Fucking disgusting, disgraceful, abhorrent... sigh For fucking diapers!
wow if 5 cops came running towards me with guns drawn i would think I'm in the line of something serious like an active shooter. i wouldn't think oh this must be a dispute over $30