Chino police fatally shoot bystander at pizza parlor
Chino police shot and killed a 21-year-old bystander they mistakenly believed was a robbery suspect during a shootout at a local pizza parlor, officials said Monday. Daniel Baledran of Rubidoux was ruled out as a suspect late Monday afternoon based on the statements of witnesses and officers, said Michelle Van Der Linden, a spokeswoman for the Chino Police Department. Baledran died at the scene late Sunday after he was shot by officers responding to a report of an armed robbery at a Papa John's pizza shop on Central Avenue.
Chino police shot and killed a 21-year-old bystander they mistakenly believed was a robbery suspect during a shootout at a local pizza parlor, officials said Monday.
Daniel Baledran of Rubidoux was ruled out as a suspect late Monday afternoon based on the statements of witnesses and officers, said Michelle Van Der Linden, a spokeswoman for the Chino Police Department.
Baledran died at the scene late Sunday after he was shot by officers responding to a report of an armed robbery at a Papa John's pizza shop on Central Avenue.
Now, Zendo Deb at TFS Magnum asks a question
So what will happen now? What would happen to the average citizen who shot a bystander while defending themselves? Will the same rules apply to everyone
This is an interesting scenario because it is multi-faceted. Who is responsible for the death, were they justified in shooting him, and will they receive the same treatment as you and I?
First, who is responsible for Mr. Baledran's death? It's easy to say the cops because they are the ones who pulled the trigger and that they are responsible for where their bullets go, but it's not cut and dry like that.
If the cops were justified in using deadly force against an aggressor (i.e. the thugs doing the robbery) then the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the aggressors' themselves. The same concept applies to a criminal who is robbing a bank and his accomplice murders someone during the process. Thug #1 is responsible for the death as well.
Of course, this also depends on if the police officers were doing their best to minimize collateral damage. If they were shooting randomly (just trying to provide 'cover' or whatever) or at anything that moved, then all bets are off. If they were sincerely confused at who the aggressor was, then unfortunately it's a tragic mistake. In combat, this happens all the time. It's an unfortunate side effect of having to deliver violence, even protective violence, in that you may experience innocents getting hurt or killed.
So, great care must be taken to ascertain the officers' intent with their shooting. If it can be positively proven that they shot Mr. Baledran without malice and within reason (any normal person in a gun fight would have shot at him), then they should be cleared. If it is apparent they did not follow procedure, then they should be punished. Unless it can be proven that the officer intentionally targeted an innocent, the moral blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the gunmen.
However, I'm sure the cops will be given leeway that you and I are not afforded, and that bothers me. If, as Deb asks, during an altercation where I legally employ deadly force, I seriously doubt that I would receive the level of scrutiny that police officers would get had I accidentally shot an innocent. I've heard stories of people who's over-penetration struck bystanders and they were charged with a crime. I can understand, just like the cops, being liable financially to a point, but not criminally.
So, dear readers, what are your view points on this? Who's responsible? Should there be higher / different standards for police and why?
Should there be higher / different standards for police and why?