Cops murder autistic man and get awarded $2 million USD.

Two LAPD officers who fatally shot an unarmed man in 2010 were awarded a total of nearly $4 million last week in a discrimination lawsuit that accused the department of treating them unfairly because they are Latino.

Officers Allan Corrales, 35, and George Diego, 34, simply did “what they were trained to do” when they shot and killed an unarmed man with autism, their attorney, Gregory W. Smith, told The LA Times.

The two officers were placed on desk duty indefinitely after the fatal shooting of 27-year-old Steven Eugene Washington in March 2010. Corrales and Diego were on gang patrol near Los Angeles’ Koreatown when they said they heard a “deep boom.” After that, they said, Washington came up to them and looked like he was taking something out of his waistband.

Corrales and Diego each fired one shot. One bullet hit Washington in the head and he was pronounced dead at the scene. Washington wasn't armed.

A civilian commission ruled in 2011 that the officers were not justified in the shooting.

The cops' lawsuit, which was filed in 2012, charges that the officers were barred from returning to the field, and also refused transfers or promotions. The suit alleges that they were discriminated against because they are Latino and Washington was black.

LAPD Chief Charlie Beck maintains that race was totally unrelated to department’s decisions, the Associated Press reports.

Smith told the LA Times that officers “get blamed for making spot decisions” when they have not been properly trained to handle a situation. “You put officers on the streets to do a job, but they are not social workers,” he said.

He also told the LA Times that a white LAPD officer fatally shot an unarmed Latino man was allowed to return to the field after only a six-week probation.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court jury ruled in favor of awarding Diego $1.9 million, and Corrales more than $2 million.

The same year Corrales and Diego initially filed their suit, Washington’s mother received a settlement from the city for $950,000.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/24/allan-corrales-george-diego-steven-washington-shooting-lawsuit_n_6931408.html

To play devil's advocate, we don't know if the two officers were being threatened or whatnot. For all we know, they could have reasonably assumed the man was going to pull a gun.

This is ridiculous. While truth be told it's impossible to know whether or not the officers are lying about the way the shooting went down, if what they described went down the way they claim it did, it's understandable if still awful. The fact that they've gained from the whole scenario is what's abhorrent and reprehensible.

Even if it's a punitive measure for the PD's alleged racism?

Just pointing out that there's been a whole lot of talk for a while about various police departments either condoning or implementing racist policies (that, if true, allegedly get innocent people killed).

So, tricky situation here. If it's true that these officers' treatment was based on racist policies (even if the officers fucked up), does the fact that the officers fucked up override the department's racially discriminative handling of the incident? I think one could argue that IF the police department discriminated against the two officers on a racial basis, that the department should still be held accountable even if the officers weren't actually justified in shooting the man in the first place.

That's based on an "if", though. I don't know if this was the right decision. I'm just arguing that maybe the decision should be less about whether the officers get a payment, and more about whether or not the PD's handling of the incident was racially biased. The latter is sort of the bigger issue (as well as being more directly relevant to the actual lawsuit).

If that is what they're trained to do, then you should change the training.

sorry but american cops are amongst the dumbest and most trigger happiest around the world, 9/10 times they shoot people and animals that were innocent or not posing any threat anyways :p

they should take a lesson from germany and japan!

easy to say that, guns are forbidden in germany and japan and in a lot of other countries as well. Cops don't feel as treatened in these countries since nobody has guns .

@commander: in sweden everybody (and i mean everybody) has atleast one firearm but has one of the lowest crime rates (and don't give me the: thats because they aren't as crowded BS)

The fact they aren't as crowded is an argument but it isn't the argument. Sweden has a lot of social security unlike the usa.

@commander: also in everywhere exept the USA they are trained to shoot on the non-vital parts of the human body while in america they get a target with a bullseye in the face and right on the spine of the dummy (not that smart either eh?)

@thegerg: well if they shoot a child right trough the brains for carrying a knife instead of in his knife arm (making him unable to use the weapon) then YES!

dylander answering Thegergs questions are more lethal than facing trigger happy cops in US =P

You rail at stupidity then go and post stupidity. Obviously you know nothing of training for cops. Stop talking. You're making a fool of yourself.

@indzman: You spelled his name wrong lol.

Heh

Shame on you!

I know the difference between triggerhappy and a real police corps like the dutch,german or japanese one!

You must be angry with me now :(

This is awful! :( I'm autistic myself.

@indzman: It's time for a paddlin'!

Newer generation officers need better training to be peace keepers not CoD players.

lulz.

huff po prolly blew up.

but the autistic! but the minority cops! but disabled! but hispanic! but discrimination! but DISCRIMINATION !but but zzzzzzerakt! kabloowie!

That title seems rather misleading

@dylandr:

Actually after reading your posts I don't get the impression you know much about anything.

There is a problem when police are clear to kill based on assumptions.

thread title made me lol

@LJS9502_basic: If you want to hate on someone please look in the mirror.

You can't bring me down, already had my life turn around, Hater, Hater, Hater. Sorry your post got me singing lol.

Yes the title is misleading.

@davillain-: You sound like freddy mercury you're allowed to sing babe!

Walking up to cops with your had under your shirt is going to get the nervous ones shooting before they ask you anything.

Because you talk about things you clearly don't understand? LOL you put the posts out there with the false information. As for hate....hell you are too bland to have any feeling toward whatsoever.

@LJS9502_basic: again mirror, bye!

Guess I stepped into middle school with you. Sad.

@LJS9502_basic: no just tired of talking with douchebags like you bye, you don't have to reply because i will just ignore the next thing you say

crazy they got more money then the mother whos son is now dead. murder pays.

Good because reading your posts drops IQ points. In point of fact in the US NO ONE is trained to perform head-shots. Period. That was the most stupid comment I've read here in awhile. Talking out your ass and getting mad for being called on it. Priceless.

I just want to point out that the thread title is incredibly illustrative of the terrible ways news is disseminated in this day and age. It is so loaded towards one perspective that there's almost no way for a reader to not be influenced by it.

Cops (1)Murdered (2)Autistic Man Get (3)Awarded $2 Million USD

(1) The word murder means that the man in this story was 100% innocent, that he was in no way a threat to the police officers and was not acting threateningly. This is not a proven fact.

(2) Including that the man has autism implies a couple things: a) The police were discriminating against the man because of this condition b) The man was only acting threateningly because of his condition. The autism spectrum displays a huge range of different behavioral conditions and it is not impossible for a person with autism to comply with police directions

(3) Awarded here in combination with the earlier loaded words implies these cops were specifically rewarded for shooting the individual, and not for the discrimination suit that proceeded against the department.

@MrGeezer:

its a good time to be a minority in america :D

I wish I had $2,000,000.

I don't know if you were trying to be sarcastic or not. But yeah...it sort of IS a good time to be a minority in America (and by "America" I'm assuming that you're talking about the USA).

Granted, there's still a LOT of room for improvement. But considering how things have been for minorities in "America", things are actually pretty damn good right now.

@thegerg:

murder means killing without justification. so yes, saying the cop murder someone implies that, what general_x was talking about.

how about you look up the dictionary?!

anyway, cops seems to kill a lot of people in the US. if they are up against a knife wielder, why don't they just shoot the arm? its a fucking range weapon, just shoot the leg like its resident evil. shoot the leg, walk up and knife them.

the only reason they shoot to kill, is because they want to kill. killers in disguise, looking for excuse.

1. turning my light hearted joke into a reason to discredit my views, just makes you look like try hard.

2. on the word murder, you're missing the point. if the man was 99% innocent or 1% innocent, doesnt matter. that man may still be innocent. the point is that saying you murder someone implies that the victim had done nothing to deserve it, and you just fucking MURDER someone, not manslaughter. That's the whole point, you can just ignore the 100% remark if its confusing you.

the whole distinction is about the state of mind. the state of mind of the killer, when he murders, when he committed an involuntary or voluntary manslaughter are all different.

so when you say you murder someone, it is exactly as general_x said. you don't have to get so hammed up about that 100% thing. it doesnt matter he maybe autistic, he may be acting weird, the cop thought he was noncompliant, so it wasnt exactly 100% innocent. that's not what the point was about.

the point was how the word 'murder' implicates the whole perspective of the story.

edit:extra

its a damn convenient way of thinking that "you're stopping the threat of a knife wieder" instead of "you're gonna kill somebody shooting them in the body".

what about them cops that 'murder' someone for throwing stones at them?

The whole point is the implication of the word. Imply. Implication. Implicates. Key words to the whole topic, that you dont seems to get, and continue to argue about something else that I dont care for.