There is no justification for shooting an unarmed child. No matter the circumstances, no officer should ever fire his weapon without awareness of his target and backstop. Thankfully, the child is recovering and the officer is under investigation.

Right now there are more questions than answers, a void that gets filled with misinformation.

I am wondering why the officers responded to an "irate" boyfriend call by kicking in a door with guns drawn. That is not a typical response to that type of call, so there was likely some additional context. What was reported on the 911 call? Was the child still on the phone with 911? Were there screams in the background? Were there other 911 calls? Was the boyfriend known to officers to be violent or armed? Was there a history of violence at the residence? Did the officers breach the door immediately on arrival? (If so, why, as this would be highly unusual) If not, how much time transpired between officers arrival and the breaching the door, and what efforts did they take to get someone to open the door? (For example, calling back the complainant) Did officers believe there was a hostage situation or violent crime in progress? Was the mother cooperative with officers at the door? How many shots were fired? Was it an accidental discharge?

There are no answers to those questions that would "justify" this shooting. But the answers would draw the difference between:
A> a preventable accident/incident resulting from the convergence of tragic circumstances and poor training
B> a reckless, callous act perpetrated by of a trigger happy, systemically racist bully who belongs "in the Big House".

In my experience nearly all police shootings the result of A>, very few are the result of B>. Predictably, I will be called a "police apologist" and "bootlicker" by those who prefer an ACAB narrative. Please note that I'm retired, I have no need to blindly defend my former profession, my posts come from actual knowledge and experience. The reason I am insistent on these points is that society can't begin to solve a problem until the cause is properly identified. The emphasis on the small percentage of officers described in "B>" keeps the populace angrily clicking away at links to feed the media machine, but it does absolutely NOTHING to solve the problem. Arguably, it makes the problem worse.

Next someone will ask me what is the "root cause" of police shootings of innocent people? There is only one correct answer to that question. "Which one?" Because every police shooting results from a different set of circumstances. While there may be commonalities, there simply aren't enough of them to develop a statistically significant "root cause".

#20 What "appropriate steps" do you recommend to solve the problem?

That is a good general answer that might yield results in a few decades, theoretically, if we someday reach a point where so few criminals are armed that perhaps police can "let their guard down". But I was looking for something specific to incidents like this one. You posted "a debate into why going to a dv situation is dangerous and taking appropriate steps", so that was a sincere question, I am interested in your perspective. In your opinion, what "appropriate steps" do YOU think should be taken by officers going into a domestic violence situation like this one? In my post, I raised questions about what sorts of steps were/were not taken.

I do appreciate your responses, but those are all very general, long term issues that don't address what happened to this young boy, but thanks, I do appreciate your responses.

Maybe #4, do you suggest that a better idea would have been to send "DV family assistance" workers to respond to this 911 call instead of armed officers?

I'll touch on the police related points:
1. "demilitarize the police" I'll assume you are talking about military surplus equipment. This one hits home for me, as my life (and others) were saved by the presence of an armored vehicle. At risk of doxxing myself I will have to generalize. Armored vehicles are used to get needed personnel much closer to dangerous situations (active shooters, bombs) then they would otherwise be able to get. They are used for victim/hostage extractions, rolling cover in active shooter incidents. I saw one go through a brick wall to rescue people trapped in a burning warehouse. People don't like them because they are "intimidating". That is not a very good reason. A rescued hostage said on TV, "I saw that tank come around the corner, it was the most beautiful thing I had ever seen in my life.", and then she spearheaded a fundraising campaign to buy the police department another one. Maybe the gunman was "intimidated". Good. Military surplus helicopters and airplanes are also important resources that enhance public safety. Certainly they shouldn't be misused, for example, as a show of force at protests.

3. "massive investment in mental health to help troubled people develop better problem resolution skills". I agree wholeheartedly
4. "redistribute police funding towards mental health and family assistance so that the first people seen in a dv situation are not necessarily armed police". Great idea in theory, but not practical in reality. First, because "dv" means the situation has already crossed the line from "mental health" or "family assistance" and has become VIOLENT. Do you advocate sending unarmed people into a known violent situation?

5. educate police in conflict resolution
6. educate police in mental health crisis de-escalation

I can't speak for other police depts but officers in mine have training in all three of the above on par with education received by mental health professionals (training is in partnership with local mental health organizations). Arguably, police officers have FAR more actual experience dealing with mental health crisis and conflict than the kind of entry level social worker or therapist likely to sign up for a street level intervention program. We need to do much better, however.

"De-escalation" is an interesting phrase, often brought up after watching a video of the last 15 seconds of an incident without benefit of the prior 30 minutes of de-escalation attempts. The media prefers to cut that part out. We do need to do better, however. Some officers just really suck at it, particularly the ones with 4 year degrees. Frankly, the scrappy ones with blue collar backgrounds are better equipped to calm people down. They better relate to all sorts of people.

9. "massively increase the penalties for improper use and storage of weapons". Absolutely. If the apocalpypse comes and I need to arm up my homies for battle, all I need is a rock to break car windows. I could round up a hundred guns with an hour. Many of them would be in unlocked cars. That is where most convicted felons get their guns. Parked cars.

11."decriminalize drugs" Interesting, but as long as illegal is cheaper, cartels will thrive. Methadone has been available for decades yet the opiod crisis grows.

12. "develop a more humane criminal justice system" Depends on what you mean. More emphasis on rehabilitation? Better reentry process for released convicts? Decriminalizing petty crimes? The latter isn't working out too well in California.

"I believe that a qualified social worker certainly would have been an appropriate response, with police back up depending on the nature of the 911 call."
I agree, depends on the nature of the 911 call. Keep in mind that 1) 911 is for emergencies 2) Dispatchers already screen calls and often divert calls where police are not needed to telephone reporting or other community resources. 3) Situations unroll rapidly, the "nature of the 911 call" is often very different by the time the officers arrive on scene. More often than not, things have calmed down in the intervening minutes, or the perpetrator has left before officers arrive. Sometimes it is much worse, or entirely different than what is expected.

And the rest.....well now you are back to politics. There is no upside in simply blaming the opposing political party. That is not a solution.

Truth, Have you ever been on a police ride-a-long? Most police departments have a program. Typical "law abiding citizens" have a skewed idea of what the job is like and most walk away with a different perspective. Some departments have "Citizen's academies" where you can take part in some of their training. I have taught some segments and always stuck around to watch the citizens (particularly the journalists) do the "shoot/don't shoot" simulator machines. (No matter how determined they are not to kill "innocents" they usually do). Pretty enlightening for most people, and for officers as well. We ended the sessions by soliciting feedback and input from the non-police citizens. It is easy for the officers to get jaded or lose perspective, and so we did that to seek new solutions and creative ways to improve.

#37 Because, PARTICULARLY if everything you are saying about conservatives is true, you are offering no realistic solutions. What are you going to do? Declare civil war and kill all the conservatives? Meaningful change cannot occur without the cooperation and compromise. That doesn't start by labeling and demonizing the other party. If you can't get past that, then all you can do is work on your party's side of things.

"to throw more police and more militarized police into broken communities"
Most communities determine deployment of officers based on calls for service. The people in these communities are the ones calling police. Go into these communities and ask the law abiding citizens (off camera) whether they want more, or less police. Their answers may surprise you. Frankly, most of the "broken communities" are in more urban areas completely controlled by "Blue governments" so Liberals may need to take some accountability on that rather than just blaming conservatives.

"make it near impossible for a convict to reenter society."
Very true, this is a difficult problem. So assuming it is only conservative businesses that don't want to hire convicted felons, why can't Liberal businesses can lead the way and hire more? If your theories are sound, it should be a win/win and the Liberal businesses will be even more competitive.

"Invest in the high crime areas, give kids alternatives like community centers and parks and social services"
This has been ongoing for decades. Many of these programs are very effective, providing role models and pathways out of poverty. The kids I know who rose up out of poverty did so with help from these kinds of neighborhood programs.

"to assist families and get rid of work requirements for welfare"
I've worked in communities where multigenerational government dependence is commonplace, neighborhoods where literally NOBODY knows ANYBODY who is NOT on welfare. That has gotten better, in part because of successful programs designed to lift people out of the welfare hole. Ending all work requirements would reverse those gains.

"(---- increase welfare so people aren't on the edge of starvation)"
We have free breakfast and free lunch in schools, in community centers during the summer plus SNAP and a wide variety of other social safety nets. I've never met anyone on SNAP who was on the edge of starvation. Where are you seeing this? There are corrupt stores that will run your card and give you "rebates" for your excess bennies. The going rate is about 30 cents on the dollar in cash last I heard. Drug dealers take EBT cards too, they just don't usually give them back.

"And stop sending whole generations of young men into prison so that they can actually create 2 parenting situations"
That would be awesome. One issue is that the incentive for a woman to declare the father of her child as "unknown". If the father is acknowledged on the birth certificate, imparting some level of responsibility, then the state can enforce a child support order, which reduces her AFDC. If she leaves him off the birth certificate, she can keep the AFDC, then hope he stops by once a week with some Pampers. Sadly, some women consider that the measure of a good father. A bag of diapers.

Ok, so we are back to "no realistic solutions" because EVERYTHING you suggest is VERY long term, and requires conservatives to declare they are wrong about everything, and come around to your way of thinking. You have already declared that will never happen. SO you got nothin'. Except complaints about conservatives. Helluva strategy.

Back to the actual topic of the thread. Aderrian Murry. The prevailing narrative for police shootings has been, "Blame systemic racism and authoritarian, trigger happy cops, hold them accountable!" We are holding more officers accountable than ever before, but there is no deterrant effect. It isn't working because they've got the "root cause" all wrong. We need to look closer.

For this particular incident, investigators need answers to all the questions I asked above. They need to perform a detailed after action review can study the circumstances and conditions and determine what could have/should have been done differently, identify failures in officer selection, training, procedures, and actions. Those failures can be addressed to prevent this set of circumstances from repeating. It is a reactionary response but if we do this sort of in depth analysis for each and every shooting incident, and build on what we learn, we may be able to make some real change.

Another thing we need to do is talk to/study the officers involved (which never happens because they are under threat of prosecution, civil suit or other social threat) and listen. Maybe with the help of hypnosis or techniques we can find answers that lie in the subconcious. The question is, do we really want to SOLVE this problem, or do we just want to look for someone to punish?

Good link, BUT "Police departments that get more equipment from the military kill more civilians than departments that get less military gear. " That gets a big DUH response. I didn't dig into his source material to see if he controlled for other variables, but he didn't mention having done so that correlation alone is meaningless beyond stating the obvious Communities with more violence are going to be more inclined to want/need military gear. Communities with more violence also have more police killings.

"I am thinking more in the line of wiping records or incentivizing businesses to hire convicts who paid their debt."

Again, can't speak for all states, but Florida already does that too. There is a process to get felonies expunged and get civil rights restored. Businesses generally can't ask about misdemeanors. There are incentives for businesses to hire convicts, and protect businesses from liability. (The Federal Bonding Program). I know of a large business in my areas that exclusively hires convicts and parolees. So there are alternatives, but agree, not enough.

"Get rid of or seriously modify the sex offender registry"

Hard to go along with that one, because sex offenders have a VERY high rate of repeating their offenses, so I think the public has a right to know when they live nearby, BUT the registry has it's own set of weaknesses. In particular, I have investigated sex crimes where moms thought they had done their due diligence by checking the registry before allowing a person access to their child. The registry gave them a false sense of security, because many sex offenders have never been caught and don't appear on the registry at all. I have also heard stories about people who ended up on the registry because of consensual incidents when they were teens, but I am skeptical of claims like those. I have never seen one for myself, and some sex offenders actually lie.

"JFC you're not a serious poster. I posted a dozen plus ideas and you respond with "no realistic solutions"
I'm totally serious. You have some great ideas, but they aren't realistic BECAUSE they depend on forcing conservatives to agree with you, and you have acknowledged yourself that that is hopeless. That makes your solutions unrealistic.

"FFS it has taken decades to get here, there is no quick and easy solution to it, your thots and prayers conservative approach to problems ain't gonna cut it."
My solution is not thoughts and prayers, nor is it complaints and discontent. My solution is explained above, study, in depth analysis, compromise, bipartisanship. That is realistic.

"You want a short term solution? Take guns away from cops. No guns, no kids being shot by cops."
Another unrealistic suggestion

"You aren't serious so why bother discussing with you.
Sounds like you are the one who isn't being serious.

OW same old same old. How many office involved will it take?

"Perhaps a civilian review board"
Most communities already have these for police shootings, not to mention DOJ oversight

"Perhaps get rid of qualified immunity"
Do you really understand what this means? Most people think it provides far more protection than it does. It protects officers acting in good faith in the performance of their duties.It does not protect officers who are incompetent, violate the law or violate civil rights.

"Perhaps hold cops financially/criminally responsible for the damage they do without an automatic default belief that they did no wrong."
That completely mischaracterizes qualified immunity

"Perhaps disarm the cops"
Back to unrealistic

"You asked for MY ideas, they are only unrealistic because republicans won't accept them. SO is the problem with the plans or with conservatives?"

I'm not a Republican. I'm more conservative than you, but I don't speak for conservatives either. I can only speak for myself, and myself is a person with a lot of experience in this particular field. I see a lot of things Liberals are rigth about and Conservatives are wrong about, and vice versa. But mostly, what I see is two sides filled with people with no first hand experience whatsoever, spouting talking points and doctrine, and dismissing the other side as "wrong". I'm a bipartisan kind of gal. The only way to solve these problems is to listen to one another and try to understand what motivates the other side, rather than labeling and demonizing them as though they have the worst possible intentions. I really do believe we all want the same basic things, we just differ on how to get there. Compromise is possible, but only if we first open our minds to what the other side has to say.

I have done that today and appreciate your input and discussion. Gotta sign off now.

I did some PI work in Camden many years ago. Most depressing place I have ever been. It seemed like one long highway with strip clubs lined up for miles. "Girls, Girls, Girls", "XXXX" "More Nude Dancers" on every sign. I wondered where they got all these girls then figured out they were all the same girls, they just bused them from club to club to keep them fresh. It seemd like that was the entire local economy, at least from what I saw. I remember when they fired the police force but haven't kept up to date one how things turned out after the big upheaval. I will consider it my homework assignment to follow up on that. I'm hopeful.