Poll of the Day > Albuquerque police killed a child during a botched raid

(+) Yeah! (+)

Tossed flashbangs that set the house on fire with the the kid still inside. Kid was not the suspect they were after.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna38008

That's some quality serving and protecting

This is the statement made by the police chief

In our effort to track down and arrest a violent criminal, a young person tragically lost his life, Medina said a few days after the incident. If any of our actions inadvertently contributed to his death, we will take steps to ensure this never happens again.

imagine having your kid get killed by these thugs and that being their response

VampireCoyote posted...

This is the statement made by the police chief

imagine having your kid get killed by these thugs and that being their response

Statements by police are worth less than nothing tbh

Some of those that work forces
Are the same that burn houses

Albuquerque is wild. Ive spent a lot of time there in the last few years because my ex was goin to school there. Theres a reason Breaking Bad takes place there lol

New Mexican food is amazing though. Im gonna miss it.

Title is a little misleading. It was a 15 y/o who, apparently, choose to barricade themselves in the house for hours with the 27 year old they were after.

Until more information is released (the 27 year old is apparently still alive and able to give statements) I cannot personally find myself able to give the majority of fault to police in this situation.

Why use flashbangs? Are the police ignorant of fire hazard or did they intend for this to happen?

BlackScythe0 posted...

Title is a little misleading. It was a 15 y/o who, apparently, choose to barricade themselves in the house for hours with the 27 year old they were after.

Until more information is released (the 27 year old is apparently still alive and able to give statements) I cannot personally find myself able to give the majority of fault to police in this situation.

How is the title misleading? Police killed a child in a botched raid. What about that is misleading?

It sounds to me like they deployed flashbangs - which are known to have the potential to spark a fire if you have any training with them like we had in the military - without having the fire department present on the scene. That's negligent. That means the police killed a child by setting his house on fire with him in it.

Doesn't matter that he was barricaded in there with the suspect. If they're watching the house where the fuck are the suspect and child going to go? They could've held off for as long as necessary in order to formulate a plan that didn't involve torching a house with a child inside.

What kind of Waco sorry, I mean whacko doesnt realize that those devices can start fires.

Of course they did

VampireCoyote posted...

This is the statement made by the police chief

imagine having your kid get killed by these thugs and that being their response

Gotta love that any time the police or some government agency fucks up, they carefully word their statement as if it wasn't their fault or it was out of their hands

How many innocent people have to die in botched raids until they realize raids are terrible ideas? Fuck the police

Remember when cops threw a flashbang into an occupied crib

Muscles posted...

How many innocent people have to die in botched raids until they realize raids are terrible ideas? Fuck the police

A lot more because theres no accountability

theyre perfectly happy to keep fucking up and killing people, and then investigating themselves and finding no wrongdoing while using taxpayer money to pay a settlement to the family

thug capitalism

I mean, like 50% of the country are people who will defend cops no matter what they do

LAPD has a budget of almost 6 million dollars a DAY

OhhhJa posted...

I mean, like 50% of the country are people who will defend cops no matter what they do

those are known colloquially as dipshits

Omg OhhhJa is back lmao

It was actually some topic with you talking about going to the butt doctor or something. I posted a pic of a hairy bhole made to look like a cave with someone walking across a bridge into it. Bam 6 month ban. You could barely even tell it was a bhole.

OhJa is back and cops are killing kids. Seems like things are back to normal. I declare the pandemic over!

OhhhJa posted...

It was actually some topic with you talking about going to the butt doctor or something. I posted a pic of a hairy bhole made to look like a cave with someone walking across a bridge into it. Bam 6 month ban. You could barely even tell it was a bhole.

Lmfaoooo gg

Honestly the break was great for me. I have no ill will toward any mods

Or users

mods are cops

It was really just funny to me that I got purg'd when I was just screwing around trying to funny instead of when I was being a dick lol

OhhhJa posted...

It was really just funny to me that I got purg'd when I was just screwing around trying to funny instead of when I was being a dick lol

Note: being a dick = ok
being a butthole = SIX MONTHS IN THE HAIRY HOLE

modded over a butthole?

that stinks

i got a 180 purg for posting a really good drawing of santa making out with one of his elves. it didnt even have any nudity

I guess there's a mod that really hates romantic and holesome pictures

The big punishments arent about a single moderation. Theyre about the sum of all of your stupid moderations and decisions in your past. Its about your whole stupid mod history. Not about a single moderation. The final moderation is merely the final straw that broke the camels back.

its amazing to me that people who suffer from this over and over still cant figure this out.

it just shows how stupid you are

imagine claiming you understand gamefaqs mods and their rules while calling other users stupid in the same post

DirtBasedSoap posted...

imagine claiming you understand gamefaqs mods and their rules while calling other users stupid in the same post

Yea direct insults don't tend to go well.

thats the one thing theyll mod you for 100% of the time

I've seen people get away with direct insults but I pretty much never have lol. To his point, I feel like once you're on the mods radar, you have to walk on eggshells

DirtBasedSoap posted...

i got a 180 purg for posting a really good drawing of santa making out with one of his elves. it didnt even have any nudity

I thought it was because you called the mods homophobic right after.

ZangsBeard posted...

Note: being a dick = ok
being a butthole = SIX MONTHS IN THE HAIRY HOLE

Phahahahahja

I remember a story years ago from Albuquerque where police were confronting a homeless man sleeping out in the middle of nowhere. They hit him with a flashbang and then shot him in the back and killed him. It was all on video and there was literally no cause for using any kind of force as the man was 100% compliant. I guess they're still up to their old tricks there in Albuquerque.

Actually I think it was this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_James_Boyd

Not quite how I remembered it. The body cam footage I saw didn't show him threatening them with knives. He was just standing there, unarmed, not fighting, and then he was murdered in cold blood.

Far-Queue posted...

How is the title misleading? Police killed a child in a botched raid. What about that is misleading?

It sounds to me like they deployed flashbangs - which are known to have the potential to spark a fire if you have any training with them like we had in the military - without having the fire department present on the scene. That's negligent. That means the police killed a child by setting his house on fire with him in it.

Doesn't matter that he was barricaded in there with the suspect. If they're watching the house where the fuck are the suspect and child going to go? They could've held off for as long as necessary in order to formulate a plan that didn't involve torching a house with a child inside.

Pretty much. Was the 15-year-old innocent? Doesn't sound like it. Is "child" misleading when talking about a 15-year-old? A little. Does any of that mean that there was any reason at all for police to risk and ultimately take his life? No. Nothing about this is excusable.

Surprised it's okay to call 14/15 year olds children when we're talking about them being killed by police but not when I talk about 14/15 year old children and sexual activity. Then they aren't children. I've seen it multiple times on this board.

Jen0125 posted...

Surprised it's okay to call 14/15 year olds children when we're talking about them being killed by police but not when I talk about 14/15 year old children and sexual activity. Then they aren't children. I've seen it multiple times on this board.

It's strange. A 15 year-old is a child. Full stop. Nothing misleading there.

Whether this child is innocent is irrelevant. Cops killed him. Nothing misleading there.

It was a botched raid. Nothing misleading there.

Methinks these blokes haven't thought this one through

this is what happens when america encourages this kind of behavior from law enforcement,they dont give a ****.

Far-Queue posted...

It's strange. A 15 year-old is a child. Full stop. Nothing misleading there.

I totally agree.

Far-Queue posted...

It's strange. A 15 year-old is a child. Full stop. Nothing misleading there.

I'd say most people think of younger children than 15 when they hear the word "child" without other context. Even the article itself specifies "teen," which narrows it down to give a more accurate first impression. It's not wrong, but it does imply something other than the reality of the situation at first glance, which is exactly what "misleading" means.

Far-Queue posted...

Whether this child is innocent is irrelevant. Cops killed him. Nothing misleading there.

Similarly, without further context, "child killed in botched raid" is going to make most people think of an innocent bystander, not an active participant in the standoff. Again, that's misleading. That does not even remotely justify cops killing him, given that neither the cops nor anyone else were in any danger from him and they were extremely negligent in their approach, but that doesn't mean you didn't phrase it in a misleading way. "Title is a little misleading" is a perfectly accurate statement: you're not doing anything that's likely to change the ultimate conclusions people draw (which would be really misleading), but you are stating some of the facts in ways don't necessarily reflect the situation (a little misleading).

"Can't give the majority of fault to the police," however, is not. They could have done many things to prevent this outcome that they chose not to do. Everything about this kid's death is their fault, even though I expect none of them will face any justice for it because police are only ever held accountable if the entire country protests so hard that it grinds to a halt.

Nothing in the title is misleading bruh. It's straight fact. Not sure why you're twisting yourself in knots trying to say it's misleading.

I consider 20 year olds to be children honestly. Most act like it at least

Jen0125 posted...

Surprised it's okay to call 14/15 year olds children when we're talking about them being killed by police but not when I talk about 14/15 year old children and sexual activity. Then they aren't children. I've seen it multiple times on this board.

Neither are ok. Nobody thought a teen was killed by reading the thread title.

What does it matter? The teen in question is a child.

Far-Queue posted...

Nothing in the title is misleading bruh. It's straight fact. Not sure why you're twisting yourself in knots trying to say it's misleading.

Because it's misleading, for the reasons I just explained. Inconsequentially so, since it doesn't change the overall conclusion of "these cops are trigger-happy idiots who murdered somebody for no reason," but misleading nonetheless.

It's not misleading, for the reasons I've already laid out:

A 15 year-old is a child. Nothing you could post changes that fact.

Cops killed this child in a botched raid. Nothing you could post changes these facts.

Saying "context" doesn't change the facts laid out in the topic title.

Saying "most people think" is anecdotal at best, and even if it weren't it still doesn't change the facts laid out in the topic title

Keep trying though. Usually you're a bit more dialed in than you are today. Did you eat breakfast my dude?

adjl posted...

Pretty much. Was the 15-year-old innocent? Doesn't sound like it.

wtf led you to think this