By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Idaho Attorney General’s Office has decided not to file criminal charges against four Pocatello police officers involved in the shooting of 17-year-old Victor Perez, who had developmental disabilities. The officers fired 14 shots, resulting in Perez’s death a week later, a decision that was made after an investigation into the incident. Deputy Attorney General Jeff Nye stated that the state could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the use of deadly force was unjustified, focusing solely on the officers’ perceptions at the time. This decision was made despite the tragic nature of the event and the community’s calls for accountability.
Read the original article here
Officers who shot and killed autistic teenager Victor Perez will not face criminal charges – this news, as you can imagine, has stirred up a lot of very strong feelings. The core issue, that a 17-year-old autistic boy was shot and killed by police and the officers involved won’t be held accountable, is inherently upsetting. The details are particularly jarring. The officers fired 14 shots in under two seconds, and 12 of those bullets struck Victor Perez. He died a week later, after doctors amputated his leg and declared him brain dead. How do you justify that?
The fact that the officers weren’t charged, due to the state’s inability to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that their use of deadly force wasn’t justified, feels like a glaring injustice to many. The comments make a point about the burden of proof; shouldn’t the people wielding the guns have to prove their actions were necessary, rather than the system having to prove they weren’t? This resonates – it flips the script on what feels like a fundamental principle of fairness. And let’s be clear, this isn’t just about this specific case. It feeds into a larger narrative, a belief that police can act with impunity.
One of the most striking parts of this situation is the lack of accountability. The comments highlight the fact that the officers were equipped with less-lethal options, like Tasers and a bean bag gun, but Idaho law doesn’t require them to use these methods before resorting to deadly force. It is not about the circumstances of the interaction that day, it is a rule of law that does not place responsibility of accountability on the officers. The comments touch on how the video footage, showing the boy behind a fence, suggests a clear opportunity for de-escalation. In other words, it is an example of the cops doing what they were taught to do. This makes the choice to immediately use lethal force even more difficult to understand, adding to the frustration and anger surrounding this case.
The discussion points to a deeper, systemic problem. Many feel that the entire system needs an overhaul – not just the police, but the prosecutors and the judges who enable them. There’s a prevailing sense that police are shielded from consequences, creating a culture where such tragedies are almost normalized. The lack of compassion and the immediate resort to lethal force described in the comments create a palpable sense of outrage. It is disheartening to see this happen so frequently.
The comments also touch on the role of the dispatcher, who allegedly failed to relay critical information about Victor’s autism to the officers. This is the dispatcher’s fault. This highlights a breakdown in communication and a lack of understanding of how to deal with individuals with disabilities. The sentiment is that with all of the training the officers receive, they were likely not informed of who they would be dealing with that day.
Furthermore, the comments emphasize the disparity in how different individuals might be treated in similar situations. The mention of the boy’s last name and how that might influence the officers’ perception of danger, is not lost on the commenters. The sense of injustice is compounded by the perceived favoritism and lack of accountability within the legal system.
The reaction is one of deep sadness, as well. The parents’ pain, the unfairness of the situation, and the lack of justice for a young life lost. The emotional weight of the situation is undeniable, and it’s a sentiment shared by many of the commenters. It is a situation with far more questions than answers.
Ultimately, this case highlights a complex web of issues: the use of force by police, the treatment of individuals with disabilities, and the need for greater accountability within the legal system. It’s a harsh reminder of the human cost when these systems fail. The fact that the officers won’t face criminal charges only amplifies these feelings, leaving a lasting sense of disillusionment and a desperate need for change.