[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Has someone said she was guilty of theft?

Just so we are clear on this piece. I did not just make that up.

It was a petty shoplifting issue

I mean it seems very probable that she did shoplift unless she was scared of the cops shooting her

So your stance is we shoot everyone that commits a misdemeanor that doesn’t immediately comply with the cops because at some point in the future they could commit a felony

First I want to state unequivocally she did not deserve to die for shoplifting. However, she would have totally gotten off.

I agree that punishment is too light for many crimes. We shouldn’t have the same people committing the same crimes over and over. It is out of control.

Yes but the point of policing isn’t to kill petty shoplifters.

.. is it normal for a shoplifter, in a car, to try to run over a cop?

She didn't deserve to die for shoplifting but people makes decisions that have consequences.

I can't quote, but the officers did not shoot this person for committing a misdemeanor.

Those were all in posts prior to the one where I asked if we know if she actually stole anything. So yes, someones have said that she is guilty of theft in the same way she been found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon despite not going to a court of law for either. Just like the evidence that we have for the assault with a deadly weapon accusation, I would like to know if the evidence backs up the accusation of shoplifting. As you can see, it definitely played a not so insignificant role in how the situation has been discussed.

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

We will stop right there because you have already gotten arrested. The police asked her to exit the car as a part of investigation of a crime. That is a lawful order. You have to comply. You don't have to answer questions beyond your identification (and that depends on the state), but you can't refuse to comply. The police have right to investigation, and they can detain someone who suspected of a crime. That does not mean that person will arrested or get charged, but you don't have a right to ignore police when they give a lawful order. You definitely then don't have a right to run them down with your car. She could refuse a search, and she can refuse to answer questions other than her identification. But she could not leave the scene.

This is a case of two people seeing the same event and perceiving it in completely different ways. However is this case we actually have audio and transcripts of what was said. The underlined part is not what was said. This is what was said.

Out of the car," the officer can be heard saying multiple times.

"For what?" Young asks.

"They said you stole stuff. Do not leave," he responds.

And then this happened

A second officer then stands in front of Young’s car, puts his hand on the hood, and eventually points his gun at her through the front windshield.

"I didn't steal s---," Young says.

"Then get out," the first officer says.

The officer standing in front of Young's car is then seen pointing his gun toward her.

“Get out of the f---ing car,” the second officer says.

"No," Young is heard saying, followed by, "You gonna shoot me?"

I am not saying that the officers have to say what I underlined in your post. They can say exactly what they said. I object to characterizing what they said as asking her to exit the car as part of an investigation of a crime. That is not what was said nor would that have been what was reasonably interpreted in my opinion. That conveyed a pronouncement of guilt. In the same way the officers don't know what her intentions are sitting behind that wheel, I would argue she does not know what the officers' intentions are demanding she get of the car either. I didn't know what their intentions were which is why I asked if she actually stole something. Based on what was said and the actions prior to that wheel turning, that was no longer a question. She was guilty of stealing something.

Based on what was said and the actions prior to that wheel turning I would definitely think I would be getting my ass kicked or be shot if I got out of the car because the officers thought I stole something. None of those words or actions that occurred conveyed that an investigation was taking place or a more friendly we are just going to ask you a few questions to clear up some misunderstanding which it would have to be if I know I have not stolen anything. I would not be surprised if the officers were fearful of what would happen next during the standoff. I would not be surprised if she was fearful of what would happen either. Neither looked they expected this to end without some violence. If both were fearful, her fear is just as valid as theirs. Her feelings of being under threat are just as valid as theirs. I don't understand why people completely understand the officers' fear and not hers. I don't understand why it is so important to grasp onto all the what if extremes when considering her actions but not to do the same when considering the officers' actions. Both parties had control of deadly weapons.

Now then to get to the point that seems to be most important to you. No, she should not have attempted to turn the wheel. No, she should not have moved the car. Yes, she should know that if she turned the wheel or pressed the gas, she would be shot. Based on the words, she said to the officer, she was fully aware of the possibility of being shot and did those things anyway. She fucked around. She found out. Now she's dead. She gets no pass on any of that from me.

This tragedy had three significant acts based on what we know right now. The accusation, the officers confronting her over the accusation, and the car moving/shooting. All three happened. All three are equally important to me. I have zero interests as to whether it was justified or not. it is what it is based on whatever the criteria is. I just refuse to ignore the other parts of the tragedy and reject any attempts to minimize those parts in favor of maximizing the shooting and its justification.