Florida police officer charged in shooting of autistic man's caretaker

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: TrueBrit

Tell me about, especially when in the video his rifle appears to have some optics. Is it possible it was not zeroed in??

At that distance, I'd be surprised if it was on the iron sights.

a reply to: Bedlam

If the fool was trying to use a scope at twenty feet...

I... I cannot even fathom the stupid in this concept.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Its really small towards the rear of the rail. It looks more like a holo to me. Something like one of these.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Ah, like a reflex or a red dot sight of some sort?

That would make sense.

Calibration is important of course, but there again, the problem with this shooting happened well before the finger was on the trigger, if you ask me. The ATTITUDE was wrong. The bullet should never have left the barrel, because the officer had no reason to fire. That he also went ahead and hit something other than what he was aiming at, is just another layer on the crap cake, but by no means the base!

a reply to: TrueBrit

FFS with a rifle at that distance I could have nearly just eyeballed it!

This was all over the local news.

It's shameful the way the cops handled the situation.

This is what happens when you don't hire people with high iq's

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Yep, I would have been more accurate than that cop if I'd just thrown a house brick at the target lol.
The obvious problem was the unstable police officer, probably due to crap recruitment policies and/or training.

a reply to: worldstarcountry


I feel like the lady who called and Lied about the gun should be charged too. I'm sure she's old with bad vision, but still, wtf!!! She's to blame for this whole thing too!

Am I the only who thinks this?

a reply to: worldstarcountry
I don't expect that the attempted manslaughter charged under F.S. 782.07 is going to stick, as they cannot prove that the officer was trying to knowingly kill a disabled person.

This could end up being one of those cases where the state attorney is knowingly over-charging an individual expecting him to be found not-guilty because the elements of the charge don't mirror what happened. I mean, the state attorney specifically noted that it has been determined that Aledda was not in a position to accurately fire his weapon--a statement that I can almost guarantee will be used by the defense to say that he could not have been trying to kill anyone if he couldn't even properly aim his weapon.

In any event, trying to sell to the jury that the officer could clearly hear what the caretaker was saying before he fired the shot is, in my opinion, going to be a touch sell, unless we have a statement from other officers who were near the officer who fired saying that they could clearly hear the caretaker's comments, or that the charged officer already stated on the record that he could hear him.

The culpable negligence charge, though, should be no problem. I'm uncertain as to anything else that could be charge, but I would think that there are things like public endangerment and other things that could be charged, since he apparently knowingly fired his weapon without being able to properly aim at the target in the middle of a neighborhood street.

We'll see how it goes...in any event, I don't believe that being a police officer with a firearm is in the best interest of his community.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
I don't know who recorded the video, but I have to assume that with officers securing the scene, they were maybe not as close as the cops in question?? Like seriously, it was plain as day that the victim was in a non threatening position, and the agitated belligerent (autistic man) was playing with a toy truck. Why not simply approach immediately with firearms drawn and detain them both on the spot??

Maybe at that point the young man would have charged away and then got shot. But even that would have made more sense than firing from where they did, at who they did.

a reply to: worldstarcountry
Maybe, but just because all that is visible is a toy truck does not mean that someone doesn't have other objects on their person as well. For all the cops could know for sure is that the autistic man wasn't playing with a gun at that moment in time.

The idea that they should just rush in with guns drawn because they can't see a weapon, when the 911 caller indicated that he had one and was suicidal (which is a mental state of its own that makes someone that more dangerous), is not one that is an intelligent approach to take at the time, given the information that they had at the time.

It is, however, and appropriate approach with our 20/20 hindsight and understanding of everything that we now know.

But what is for certain is that the officer who fired the shot shouldn't have done that, even in the moment.

Also, LEOs may not have had the time to secure the scene at the point of the video being recorded.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I disagree. In the position the suspects were in, the officers had every tactical advantage. This is not like the other one I posted where the guy in Utah idiotically displayed his firearm and then ran. They were both already on the ground, and ANY sudden movement towards a waistband would have been seen by both officers on the approach. I would be more defensive of the officers if this approach had been taken first, as one suspect was already in a submissive position, and the belligerent was in no position to successfully even make an attempt to reach for a weapon without being checked by approaching officers.

We see it everyday after a vehicle chase, and those are true unknowns where an officer cannot clearly see the circumstances they are approaching. I firmly believe an immediate approach and detain would have been very successful given the clear advantage the responding officers had in this circumstance with both suspects in the positions they were in, with all four hands clearly visible. I also would not have faulted the officer discharging his weapon at the mentally deficit man had he made a sudden move right then and their on the approach, and likely so would have the DA.

HOWEVER, after carefully reviewing the affidavit, the truth is Officer Aledda was actually 152 feet away from the situation when he fired his weapon, so an accidental hit of Mr Kinsey is entirely possible. But IMO, this just further strengthen my position that the officers with weapons drawn should have approached, albeit carefully. There are points where cover could have been taken moment by moment to maintain a secure position during the approach. But there were two other officers who were closer and had already established that Mr Soto was not a threat. Can we infer there was also a lack of communication between these men?

It was just a very sloppy response by what seems was either an inexperienced or incompetent unit.

It is about effing time this guy got charged.

Completely negligent behavior. I remember when this first hit the news. Guy asked him, "why did you shoot me?" Cop replied, "I don't know ."

Just unbelievable it took this freaking long to get this moron cop charged.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: rockintitz

Professional training standards for police would be a good start for the US.
It still shocks me that some counties have deputies walking the streets armed and uneducated solely at the whim of a sheriff who happens to be their mate.
Backwards third world corruption comes to my mind.

Our police and deputies are some of the highest trained in the world.

With that being said, a few bad apples does not accurately depict our L.E. community as a whole.

He obviously shot the poor guy for no reason.
I get it. Unfortunately, this bad apple got thru the screening process. He was just not cut out to be a cop. But he is not getting away with it. And I doubt he will ever serve in a L.E. capacity again.

"Whim of a sheriff"? Lol.

Who told you that?

a reply to: blueyedevilwoman

Are you asserting that nowhere in the US at County level policing that corruption and nepotism does not exist with local sheriffs?
Really?
Bahaha!!

Sorry, I'll take the word of my US mates, not an anonymous member of an internet forum.

"Highest trained in the world" again, bahahaha!

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
It was just a very sloppy response by what seems was either an inexperienced or incompetent unit.

I'll agree with you, here.

But let's take your scenario of approaching with weapons drawn, and say out of not understanding what was happening, Mr. Rios starts having some nervous tics that seem threatening to the officers, or starts to get up, or whatever action might have happened and then Mr. Rios is shot and killed. Maybe, since we're speaking in hypotheticals here (something that I hate doing because they are unproveable), Mr. Kinsey also gets shot and killed in the process. Hell, maybe Mr. Rios just decided to lunch for Mr. Kinsey for protection as the LEOs approached with drawn guns, and is thought to be attacking him instead, and one or both are killed?

See, that's the problem with always assuming that there's a better way to handle these situations after the fact--there are so many variable in the equation that it's absolutely impossible to say that your way would have ended better than a relatively minor gunshot wound to Mr. Kinsey.

Yes, no shots fired and a peaceful resolution would have been a much better outcome, but like I said at the start of my comments, I think that the prosecutor is going to have a very, VERY difficult time getting a conviction on attempted manslaughter.

But as for disagreeing, we can agree to do that, I just wanted to assert the reality that nothing in these situations is a guarantee, and any different handling of the situation had, IMO, an equal possibility of either a better or worse outcome.

I'll reiterate my opinion that I don't think that Officer Aledda needs to be on the police force, though. I have very low tolerance for mistakes like this.

a reply to: grainofsand
Excuse me, but the level of professionalism and training of the officers in my city would no doubt put to shame many or most in Europe and Australia, and even much of the rest of the US. It is just a shame that those standards are not shared by our neighbors in Miami four hours South.

originally posted by: blueyedevilwoman
Our police and deputies are some of the highest trained in the world.

Maybe some are, but not all, and I would argue not most. I have enough friends/acquaintances in law enforcement and have discussed training with enough LEOs that I don't know to understan that most of them admit that they need better and more training...and that this realization/feeling that they're undertrained creates stress for them on the job when put in dicey situations, and it does contribute to poor decision making.

Just keep in mind, "highest trained" doesn't always equate to 'best trained,' and there is plenty of evidence out there that many of our police forces lack necessary training to do the job better.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Which is why I didn't say 'all' police in the US.
You essentially have a zip code lottery ranging from fantastic professional police, to absolutely corrupt and poorly educated/trained sheriffs departments.

You have national standards for health professionals so I struggle to understand why the same is not applied to law enforcement.

So even with a video of the incident, it took almost a year to determine there was a prosecute-able offense.

Maybe we need to take away cops guns and replace them with chemical weapons. Then we can go from event to punishment in 48 hours.