In a police chase where parents caused a child’s death, who should go to jail?

[Just_Ken]

Its the old story:

Don't committ crime

Don't take your children with you to committ crime

Don't resist arrest

Don't put your child in danger

Don't try to run from the cops

Don't try to murder cops when your child is in the line of fire.

Think we are all tired of protests and riots for criminals whos life of crime catch up with them. This is on the parents not the cops.

Parents

Cops

[Cidknee]

Whos the anarchist who said cops!😂They should go to jail for being stupid.

[Just_Ken]

Its the nanny state bullshit where nobody is responsible for the stupid stuff they do. Recently heard of a case where a woman got $11 million after her company fired her for being late 40 times in a row. Crazy.

[Cidknee]

BULLSHIT!!

[Cidknee]

She should have to pay it all back with interest since she accepted it. That'd be a start in the new lessons category for loser leftys.

[Just_Ken]

They wonder why companies are replacing workers with automation and AI

[Cidknee]

People are beyond ungrateful. They always want to see all that concerns another in order to see what they do for them. That way they know how much to charge. There's no kindness in the world.

[Brady]

I'm glad most think criminals should be held accountable.

[goaded]

How many bullets do you think should be used by police when they know a child is in the car, and the crime is possibly (the victims claim they paid at the self-checkout) stealing a box of diapers?

Get the number plate of the car and arrest the supposed criminal later.

[Just_Ken]

As many as it takes. What kind of parents would risk their child's life like that?

[goaded]

Sane people would say: none.

[Just_Ken]

Exactly. Should be added to their charges.

[goaded]

Cute. Sane people would say: no bullets.

It was an unverified accusation of shoplifting.

[Just_Ken]

Smart people would say attempted vechilular manslaughter is a crime.

[goaded]

Driving past people is not.

[Twodogs0525]

So, like I said above. If a cop pulls over a drunk driver, who's responsible for a minor in the vehicle?

[goaded]

@Twodogs0525 In that case, the driver. But who's responsible for the child's death if police shoot at the car?

[Twodogs0525]

Collateral damage isn't a crime.

[goaded]

@Twodogs0525 Reckless endangerment is.

[Just_Ken]

Exactly the parents recklessly endangered a child. Im sure its on the body cam footage

[goaded]

By the way, I just noticed the bullshit framing of the question. It says the parents caused the death of the child, although the child was killed by police bullets.

[goaded]

Shooting at a car with innocent people in it is reckless endangerment. What is wrong with you?

[Just_Ken]

They weren't innocent and they tried to run an officer over

[goaded]

Firstly, you're saying the one year old child victim wasn't innocent. Unsurprising, since you're a monster with no sense of empathy or morals.

Secondly, you are lying again, because you don't know if they were guilty of anything. All you've got is the word of a police department who think nothing of gassing protesters and who haven't released any bodycam or CCTV footage. If it exonerated them, it would have been public in hours.

[Just_Ken]

The child was a victim but of his parent's criminal behaviour and child engagement. Hopefully if theyve other children social services have removed them.

So protestors are ok in this matter but if a migrant cuts off the head of a white man protests are wrong?

[goaded]

Clearly we disagree on one simple thing. You think police should shoot at cars containing innocent people, I don't. Especially when simply taking the number of the car and following up, if they find an actual crime was committed, would have saved innocent lives.

[Just_Ken]

They werent innocent. They tried to run over a cop on s simple arrest.

[goaded]

A ONE YEAR OLD CHILD IS AN INNOCENT. Fucking moron.

[Just_Ken]

Yes if only his parents werent criminals

[goaded]

The police shot at a car containing someone even you, with your almost total lack of morality, has to admit was an innocent. They killed the innocent little boy. You think that's justified.

[Just_Ken]

Who is that on? Would be no different than if the parents were drink driving and had an accident

[goaded]

"Would be no different than if the parents were drink driving and had an accident"
No. An accident is down to the driver, shootings are down to the shooter. They made a choice to endanger an innocent child and they killed him.

[Just_Ken]

And just like the drunk driver scenario the driver is responsible

[goaded]

Didn't you read what I said? "An accident is down to the driver, shootings are down to the shooter. They made a choice to endanger an innocent child and they killed him."

No bullets, no innocent child murdered.

[Just_Ken]

Drink driving is no accident, its a choice, so is robbing, fleeing a crime and trying to run over a cop.

[goaded]

They MIGHT have shoplifted a box of diapers, which is not robbery. Robbery involves taking property from a person and using force, or the threat of force, to do it.

The police were not run over, and yet KNOWINGLY DECIDED to shoot at a car carrying a small child, killing him. They made a choice to endanger an innocent child and they killed him."

No bullets, no innocent child murdered.

You know this is true, but you'll keep trolling. How about you prove you really quoted my words back to me in that other question?

[Just_Ken]

Yes shot at a car trying to kill him.

[goaded]

Oh, and did the car kill them? Or did he kill a one year old child?

"I was scared, so I shot a baby" is not as impressive as you seem to think it is.

The police were not run over, and yet KNOWINGLY DECIDED to shoot at a car carrying a small child, killing him. They made a choice to endanger an innocent child and they killed him.

The driver MIGHT have shoplifted a box of diapers.

[Just_Ken]

Where they using the baby as a human sheild or did he shoot the driver?

[goaded]

Oh, and did the car kill them? Or did he kill a one year old child?

"I was scared, so I shot a baby" is not as impressive as you seem to think it is.

The police were not run over, and yet KNOWINGLY DECIDED to shoot at a car carrying a small child, killing him. They made a choice to endanger an innocent child and they killed him.

[Just_Ken]

No the car didn't kill him because he opened fire

[goaded]

How, exactly, does shooting a car affect its trajectory? If you have time to shoot the INNOCENT CHILD in the car, you have time to get out the way (even if the police, who teargassed protesters, protesting the murder of the 1 year old, are telling the truth).

"I was scared, so I shot a baby" is not as impressive as you seem to think it is.

The police were not run over, and yet KNOWINGLY DECIDED to shoot at a car carrying a small child, killing him. They made a choice to endanger an innocent child and they killed him.

You're sick. Or a troll.

[Just_Ken]

Causes the driver to swerve

[Twodogs0525]

@goaded You are insane! The mother was interviewed and basically said she was holding her baby up, while the driver was recklessly ramming cars, putting everyone in danger, while trying to get away. The SUPREME COURT said cops don't actually have to "get hit" or "killed" by a fleeing vehicle before the can stop the danger. Again, collateral damage is unfortunate but not a crime. I don't care if diapers are stolen or the cops were called because there was a headlight out! Once they arrive on the scene, their job is to conduct an investigation. Which means, ALL PARTIES involved are required to comply.

[Just_Ken]

@Twodogs0525 yes most parents wouldn't do that and would sheild their child from harm.

[Twodogs0525]

The problem I have, is goaded keeps stressing the "diapers", like an autistic person! It went beyond that, once they made the decision to put the police and other innocent people in danger. Now, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know exactly what happened but neither does goaded! But for him to suggest law enforcement can't fire at a dangerous vehicle because they haven't been HIT? That shows his absolute ignorance.

[Just_Ken]

@Twodogs0525 absolutely. They turned a slap on the wrist into attempted murder and death of a child.

[Twodogs0525]

I know people that got five years for an OW because a minor was in the vehicle. They are 100% responsible.

[Agape93]

Parents.

[goaded]

You know the "crime" was an accusation of shoplifting a box of diapers?

[Just_Ken]

@goaded plus evading arrest, child endangerment and trying to murder a police officer.

[goaded]

All because they were accused of shoplifting a box of diapers (and the cops want to cover their asses for murdering an infant).

[Agape93]

Kid would be alive if she behaved differently

[Just_Ken]

@goaded shoplifting is a crime. Trying to run over a cop is a crime. Trying to flee the scene of a crime is a crime. Child engagement is a crime.
They didn't need to shoplift.

[goaded]

@Agape93 "Kid would be alive if" the police weren't trigger happy morons with guns. Don't you think they should be held to any kind of standard? Like don't shoot babies? That seems like a very low bar to me.

@Just_Ken The police didn't even know if she had shoplifted!

[Just_Ken]

@goaded the police did know they were trying to evade arrest and that they tried to hit a cop with their vechile.
Police were called about shoplifters.

[goaded]

The vehicle, which no doubt had number plates they could have traced back to the owner, clearly didn't hit anyone and had a small child in it. They shot it anyway and killed the baby. Over a box of diapers.

And you seem to think that's just fine.

[Just_Ken]

@goaded didn't hit anyone because they were shot at.

[goaded]

Sure. Or maybe they were never going to hit anyone and were just leaving the car park when they were shot at by police who didn't care there was a small child in the car.

[strateguy632]

1st.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

The parents

[Soapsoaplady]

Police