LAPD officer who fatally shot 14-year-old girl along with assault suspect at NoHo Burlington store identified

The Los Angeles police officer who killed an assault suspect and a 14-year-old bystander in a shooting at a Burlington store in North Hollywood two days before Christmas was Officer William Dorsey Jones Jr., according to multiple sources. The LAPD has withheld the officer’s name “pending department...


221 · a year ago · Reddit

This has been a very tough story to follow. Seeing the suspect beat up those helpless old lady's hurt because it made me imagine if that was one of my loved ones.

Seeing the parents of Valentina at the press conference with the signs on their neck and hearing her mother talking about experiencing her daughter dying in her arms made me feel so sad for them.

Finally seeing the video of the cop it looked like a game of Call Of Duty and I don't have much sympathy for the cop. Obviously the suspect was out of control but had the officers followed better training protocol Valentina would still be here. I hope the cop will be face some kind of justice!!!!

141 · a year ago · Reddit

Did I just see a cop decide to use a gun in a populated area with no idea what’s behind the target to subdue a dude with a lock?

103 · a year ago · Reddit

We heard them use the name when they were calling him off in the video.

81 · a year ago · Reddit

Cops only leak cop names if they want a cop gone.

38 · a year ago · Reddit

I remember telling a crazy room mate who was super into shooting in the desert and reloading at home that one accident could send a bullet through probably several homes if no structural components are hit. The face of crazed bewilderment will stick with me forever. The one of “oh shit my guns are THAT strong?! Awesome!” This cop reminds me exactly of that guy and they should fire his ass promptly because that room mate was an idiot.

29 · a year ago · Reddit

I'm a Navy veteran and currently working in private security. I actually know what I'm doing. So it's alway weird seeing all the armchair use of force experts. I mean no offense but a lot of the things concerned people say are just silly because they know absolutely nothing about use of force.

There's a lot of people freaking out about the cop taking the lead. I'm not sure what that's coming from. They didn't know what they were getting into and he had the most fire power. It makes sense. And that's not rocket science.

u/​notxrbt wonders why one guy isn't in absolute charge of when other officers can fire or not. I'm not trying to talk shit, they're obviously not trained for this sort of thing and there's nothing wrong with that. But if you think about it. Imagine staring down the barrel of a gun and thinking to yourself, Wow I should shoot this guy... but my boss didn't give me permission to yet so I guess I'll just die instead. One guy making the call to open fire is not how this sort of thing works because humans don't have a hivemind collective consiousness. That would be awesome if we did because the amount of training it takes just to get a team's communication where it needs to be... in order to be able to start doing the amount of training to get their actual coordination on point is mindboggling and all of that would be innate with applecloud brain sync. But unfortunately that's not how humans, or apples work, so it's impossible for any one in charge person to see and know everything that every other person sees and knows, seamlessly in real time, and that would be the pertinent information that determines wether to open fire or not. Which is why that's a decision that has to be made by every individual on a case by case basis. And just as you can't be ordered not too shoot if you're in a life or death situation, and can't be required to ask permission to shoot if you need to, you also can't be ordered to shoot by anyone, ever.

Years ago when Black Lives Matter was first picking up steam I saw a panel on some news program asking why/​suggesting that officers should actually shoot people in the legs, to wound them, rather than shooting to kill.

That one through me for a loop. Now, I get it. They don't want people to die. That's good. One shouldn't want people to die. But they clearly no nothing about use of force, anyone who does can see this idea is so far beyond the pale. Do you guys know what's in legs?

Fucking femoral arteries.

One of the largest blood vessels in the body.

From which you will bleedout in about a damn minute.

People dies getting shot in the leg all the time.

There is no point on the human body that you can shoot someone and gurantee they won't die. Any use of a firarm on a human being is highly likely to result in that humans death. So no. You don't want anyone "shooting to wound". That's not how shooting works. Even if you could gurantee someone won't die if you shoot them, lets say, in the tip of their pinky finger. Ok. Do you have any idea how small of a target that is. On a live person. Who's moving. Probably a lot. What happens when you aim for the tip of his pinky and miss and hit him in... I don't know. Sayyy the femoral artery for example! That's the other thing, no one's babe ruth with a glock. I mean a sniper can pretty reliably nail a headshot. But that's only because they're layin on a mat at some point beyond standoff distance. No one who's actually in a fight is going to be able to call their shots like that. Hell we've all seen police shootings with over a hundred shots fired and maybe two hit the target. Is. That someone you want trying their best to hit the tip of your pinky finger to make sure they don't kill you?

That's why there's no such thing as shooting to wound. A firearm is an inherently deadly weapon. There is no such thing as any non deadly way to use it. Any use of a firearm is deadly force.

But here's the real problem with ShOoT tO wOuNd. Currently it's only legal to use a firearm in a life or death situation, where the other individual is using deadly force. If some idiot officially recognizes the concept of shooting to wound. That lowers the threshold of the use of firearms. Now you can legally use them in situations where deadly force wouldn't be legal as long as you say you were shooting to wound.

That's not going to result in less people dying. It's going to result in massively more people getting shot. Which will always result in more people dying. The exact opposite of the pundits intentions for making that suggestion. But they know so little about guns, wounds, use of force, that they don't know enough to know how stupid and counterproductive what they're suggesting really is.

And that. Is basically what happens every time concerned citizens comment on use of force scenarios.

Which isn't to say I'm defending the cops here. It's just that its weird because you guys are always so wrong about what part of things you call out and how you call it.

Rifle goes in front. Yeah. That's not evidence of rabid frothing at the mouth murderous intent of the officer. It's just. Where you put the rifle.

But having seen the video I will say it was a bad shooting. And here's why I'll say it was a bad shooting.

No visual on a weapon, even if they mistook the... bike lock (and boy the list of things that look like guns to cops is getting long) for a gun, no verbal commands issued (what ever happened to "drop the weapon do it do it now"?), no attempt to effect an arrest at all. Just, visual contact, open fire. Looks like they were hunting instead of policing.

Now when I first heard this story I assumed the police arrived to this guy in the middle of him beating the victim, and literally took the shot to stop a blow from landing. Which, since striking someone in the head with a blunt object is deadly force, you are genuinely justified in responding with deadly force to stop the threat. But it did still feel sketchy to me. It's a blunt object that's just... so much less dangerous to defend against than an edged weapon, or firearm, and as cops they're going to be loaded down with a lot of gear. Basically I'm saying they've got a deep deep range of options in a situation like this. And they'd be going out of their way not to use any others if they immediately shot the guy even if he was beating the victim at the moment of their arrival. So it would be sketchy. But they would still be justified.

But then it turns out that wasn't the case. The guy wasn't even on her when they arrived he was around the corner. And then they clearly made no attempt to arrest, just shot on sight.

Every time you try to give these guys the benefit of a doubt they'll prove you wrong.

24 · a year ago · Reddit

A bad crime, followed by a worse crime, and yes, shooting little girls is a crime.

13 · a year ago · Reddit

There is a protocol to follow, the other officers wanted to follow it, Jones instead wanted to take the lead. It is possible the Jones is the field training officer. There was non-lethal equipment which was being carried by the other officers, instead the military weapon was used on a suspect without a gun. jones should shouted the commands to surrender to the suspect, and Jones should have been shouting that the LAPD is here. When you make assumptions such as the store has been evacuated, and that there was no there other choice to execute an unarmed suspect, there should be consequences. The non-lethal weapon seen in the video should have been used to take down the suspect, then pepper spray and then batons. Why the military weapon was the seen as first option baffles me.

6 · a year ago · Reddit

A basic question cops should know when they arrive - is he armed??

5 · a year ago · Reddit

Dude was so excited to use his toy on someone.

Fry the fucker. Bacon for breakfast.