Police shoot fleeing 16-year old: justified?

Before we react to the title, let's get the facts straight. Keep in mind this occurred in 2017, but new body cam footage was released recently.

• Isiah Murrietta Golding was pulled over by police and told to exit vehicle. He was pulled over because the day prior there was a shooting that resulted in a car accident and fatalities, and his brother was involved and pled guilty.
• After complying for a short time, he then bolted and ran.
• Golding was "known to carry weapons on him"; not sure what to make of that. Either police heard a rumor, or they have had prior encounters with him before.
• When he was shot, he was climbing the fence of a daycare center (innocent kids)
• One cop jumped the fence while another crouched and shot through it, hitting him in the head. Their response was "good shot".
• Golding was ultimately found to be unarmed. No word if he stashed his weapon somewhere while running.

Article

I am curious to hear where you guys all stand on this. Was this kid needlessly killed? Were the police making a tough, but ultimately correct, call and saving many lives by taking one?

My personal feelings are this: I will never comprehend how shooting a fleeing person is justified. Maybe someone can help me out with that? Maybe to stop an armed suspect from taking hostages? I don't know that seems pretty extreme to me in either case.

What if he took hostages? Well, if we are dealing with theoreticals, what if the bullet bounced off the fence and hit some kid in daycare? We can do this all day....

Far be it from me to criticize our Infallible Boys in Blue, but the whole "good shot!" commentary speaks volumes to the character of police. It almost seems like a sport to them, like hunting. "Oh wow I got him!" says one. "Hey bud, nice shot! Wow look at that, a young buck."

Sorry but there is a real lack of humanity when you shoot someone and your response is "good shot". Keep in mind that these are the people in charge of protecting us enforcing the law, and ideally would consist of the best and finest the community has to offer.

More info, and it doesn't look good for police:

• Police said they were in fear for their lives, but their was no indication he was armed or a threat. He was running away.
• Officer claimed he was reaching for a gun, but Golding was only trying to hold up his pants (I am assuming this kid wore baggy pants like so many kids do). I'd like to think it's pretty obvious to trained observers like police if a kid is pulling up his pants or reaching for a gun.
• Fresno police have a history of shooting instead of de-escalating.

My question is: if the police have already been cleared by their department, the DA, and so on, is there anything the parents can do?

@mrbojangles25: ‘ My question is: if the police have already been cleared by their department, the DA, and so on, is there anything the parents can do?’

Other than question their parenting skills, not really.

My takeaway from this is that cops are shooting at daycare centers.

I'm pretty sure a police officer can't just shoot someone if they're running away, unless they have a reasonable suspicion that they're a threat. link

This case sounds as if the officer broke the law and didn't do his job. Pretty sure you can't judge a person by blood relations or "what you heard." But in before the police-can-do-no-wrong circle-jerk, "freedom-loving" patriots.

As for the "good shot" comment, it does sound bad but if you got to make a shot against a violent criminal, you gotta do it and someone's going to say "good shot." I don't know how it is with policing. For firefighting, we don't want people's houses to burn or have serious car accidents, but if we have a good fire or cut job we're going to do our jobs but then brag about how we got a good fire or a good cut job. Sometimes, we'll take pictures but not of the actual patient unless we have permission from them. It's actually a good learning experience in what crews could do or could do differently.

It's weird. I don't know how to explain it.

Yeah it does sound like they raised two terrible sons, that can't be denied.

Sounds pretty messed up from the description you gave, seems like the cops were on high alert because his brother was involved in a serious crime which resulted in fatalities. As far as "being known to carry weapons" i have no idea if he has any gun charges on him from the past/drug charges/assault, i have no idea if hes a violent person, his brother seems to be, but that doesn't mean he is.

I'm trying to know what the point of pulling him over was? do they suspect he was apart of the crime the day prior with his brother? Also trying to run from the cops after you brother just killed someone the day prior isnt a good look, however hes only 16 so ill give him a pass for being a stupid kid for that one.

I agree doesn't look good on the cops end, especially being unarmed, but this kid made a seriously bad judgment running from cops after his brother killed someone the day prior, especially into a childrens daycare... come on man.

If its shown this kid had no part in his older brothers crimes/ no past violent criminal charge, i think they might have a case against the police, but if the cops can prove he has a past of violent crimes, they probably cant do much. The cops will say it was justified due to his record and the seriousness of what his brother did the day before, Courts usually falls in the cops favor. But who knows they might be able to win.

Anytime i hear stories like this i think back to this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OflGwyWcft8

The full video shows the cops put about 8-10 rounds into him, But this link is safe though (CBS News), it cuts off right before they unloaded into the guy. But it is one of the most disturbing build ups to a cop killing someone i've ever seen. I'm all for body cams.

@drunk_pi: "I'm pretty sure a police officer can't just shoot someone if they're running away, unless they have a reasonable suspicion that they're a threat."

In a jury trial it doesn't usually matter. It is next to impossible to get a jury to convict a police officer of excessive force if the victim had committed a crime immediately preceding the incident.

That was hard to watch, and it didn't even include the shooting.

Why didn't they have another cop come and frisk/handcuff him while he was covered? How do you crawl with your hands over your head?

I cannot imagine travelling and being forced out of my hotel room, to be psychologically tortured (yes, tortured) and then shot.

I mean is that all a cop needs these days? A suspicion? For someone to accidentally reach behind their back? "Oh he put his hands behind his back" says the cop "Oh well you had a right to shoot. Back to active duty with you, good job" replies the superior.

That's a copout. Hmmm...maybe that's why they call them copouts.

@mrbojangles25: yeah and that cop got off scot free even with that footage.. Wild

Fresno PD and their warrant fugitive team conducting high risk felony vehicle stop of murder suspects, who only the day before gunned someone down, and one of the murder suspects *runs* during this *high risk* vehicle stop? Into a day care center?

Bye, bye.

Violent fleeing felon rule, established by the landmark case of Tennessee v. Garner, with respect to deadly force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others.

I figured the Police In the US would shoot someone regardless of what they do, unless they are complying with their orders, if the police think they are a threat.

Well I guess that settles that then.

Is there a particular reason this rule exists? Genuine question to our Gamespot LEO.

Unitedstatsians and their retarded obsession with guns.

@redrichard: Yeah, america is the only place on the planet where cops have weapons. Heres a huge DERP just for you, you earned it.

@vfighter: You seem to have trouble reading as I made no such claims as to united states cops being the only ones with weapons.

I don't care who you are, I hate when anyone one is killed. But this part, "When he was shot, he was climbing the fence of a daycare center (innocent kids)" makes me think cops acted justly.

He was not at that a time a threat to the cops and should not have been shot.

Climbing a fence makes you a threat?

Into a daycare with kids? Yes, yes it does.

How so? Are you afraid he's going to fall on one?

Are you being genuine?

Yes. He was running and climbing. He didn't display any weapons.

From Steve, "Fresno PD and their warrant fugitive team conducting high risk felony vehicle stop of murder suspects, who only the day before gunned someone down, and one of the murder suspects *runs* during this *high risk* vehicle stop? Into a day care center?"

I wouldn't want the guy to die, but can't let a man who you think might have a gun just climb a fence into a place littered with kids.

Cops aren't supposed to discharge their weapons unless a threat is eminent. At that time they had no proof he was armed nor did he make any threatening moves. I'm not comfortable allowing cops to shoot just because of feelings. They need to be responsible.

Some cops are criminals. Some of them even are in the business of human trafficking. The higher ones in the chain are the corrupted ones, the lowers ones just do their jobs.

I think we need a department that investigate cops. The courts aren't doing their jobs. They are probably in cahoots with whole police branch. That is why we need a whole new department from starting from scratch.

Now, I don't know if we have a system similar to that but I don't know any systems that checks the police.

@mrbojangles25: ... a particular reason why the Supreme Court decided it's okay to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect? You can read their opinion and the facts of the case on Tennessee v. Garner. Basically, you can't shoot someone for running unless there's probable cause the subject committed a *violent* felony, and his/her escape would place others in danger.

My department's deadly force policy is based from it.

Now, I'm not sure what the officer stated his justification was nor have I perused through the District Attorney's legal assessment so I'm just assuming it was based on the fleeing felon rule. Either way, there's a lot of information not public because he was a juvenile along with his brother.

Yeah the us definitely need more guns! You guys are freaking sick...

To be fair, there was fault on both sides there. The cop made it incredibly tense with his tone and ridiculous orders, but the kid had been told numerous times if he dropped his hands he would be shot. He'd done so once (or twice after explicit warnings) and he went for his waist a third time, I assume to pull up his pants, and that was it. Frankly, I'm amazed at the restraint of the shooter considering the kid failing to obey commands so many times.

As such and as hard as that is to watch, it's difficult for me to hold the cop shooting him fully responsible. The one that was giving orders should've definitely been disciplined though, his machismo power tripping behavior escalated a situation into needless violence that cost an innocent his life.

OT, I generally don't agree with shooting someone in the back, no.

Yeah it's tricky I don't think this is a black and white situation.

The real argument here is discretion and when to use it, and when to favor technicalities to cover your ass.

I don't doubt that the cops were technically correct to shoot this guy in the back of the head, but maybe they also could have used discretion and accept that someone who is fleeing is generally not a threat. If the guy were going to shoot someone, they'd probably shoot the cops right off the bat.

If the cop was firing at the fleeing suspect’s back who was running towards a daycare center, doesn’t that mean the shot’s background was the daycare center? What if the cop missed? Is that standard procedure to fire rounds at a daycare center?

Cop should be fired for incompetence unless he can prove he saved a child’s life. All he did was endanger kids with this hero cop BS.

And you know why that is?

It´s because according to law a cop can shoot if there is a credible threat to him or other people and in a criminal trial the burden is 90% certain and can you honestly tell me that you can with that degree of certainty claim that the cop did not have a credible fear that this individual would harm someone.

As to the case, if this kid was jumping the fence to an open daycare and he is known for violence, I 100% get the cop shooting because his obligation is to the kids in that centre not to wait and "see" if this individual who just ran from them, was carrying when there were small kids nearby. Especially not when he is wanted for something as serious as a homicide.

If the cops had waited and this 16-year-old had gotten a hold of a small child and perhaps held them, hostage, the cops would have been fried for not taking a shot when they could.

How was this kid's decision to run away putting anyone else in danger? If that question can't be answered then this wasn't justified.

He jumped the fence into a daycare centre. not sure what else you need?

It's times like these I wish I believed in hell, because if it did exist there would be a special place in it for people who insult the parenting skills of people whose children were shot to death.

@theone86: Are you a parent?

That sounds pretty clear cut that they were not justified in shooting that person. Unless they or another person were in imminent danger. A fleeing suspect does not qualify as that.

That. Is. Not. A. Threat.

I can see the point of the cop. Could of been armed jumping into a day care center. From the cops perspective that could of turned into a hostage situation or a child could of been shot.

That's a slippery slope……….

Yeah I think that is what I have the biggest problem with here.

The whole "You know I'm gonna shoot this guy just in case. Better safe than sorry" Then they use their training as their excuse.

To most cops credit, I think this isn't the mentality most of them have. We hear about these terrible things but we never hear about the great things.

@LJS9502_basic: Yeah but the risk is still there. The point is children could of been in danger.

So you want to give police a blank check on IF they think there is danger. Also the danger came from a cop firing toward the day care center.

I hope you are aware that what by law constitute a threat does not need to be someone standing with a gun and aiming at someone.

This kid ran towards minor children and the cop had to make a split-second decision. And according to people who do this for a living, he was in the clear.

So the cop fired a weapon toward minor children...….that makes him the threat.

Not really.

Yes yes it is. No matter how much you say otherwise. Or are you just padding post counts again.

Someone explain why he was running from the police.