Forgive me if I'm mistaken but cops should have tazers and guns. Even better kids have to start being idiots and dicking around with the law. Don't break a law don't get shot if you do and live you get a nice lawsuit followed by a pay day.
I've seen a lot of stories lately on the Police in the US. This is by far the worst.
- Thread starter Death_Korps_Kommissar
- Start date
Of course not! He's an American boy and nothing ever bad happen in America! he was just a upstart chap who simply had a disagreement with the other upstart chap.twistedmic said:
(assholish)joking aside, I'm actually sad that it came to that.
I do agree that the cop did go too far for killing the 14 year old. At the same time the 14 year old did kinda cause this to happen. The two biggest mistakes he made were running away and trying to hit the officer with the shed door. I do think the officer should be punished for killing the boy but I can understand why he did fire his weapon.
Actually he should have very much drawn his weapon. That is procedure when you're going into a potentially dangerous situation. For starters a 14 year old could be just as big or bigger than the officer in question. He also just witnessed violent behavior on part of the suspect. The kid is in a shed too, Sheds have tools, like i don't know, hoes, garden shears, hammers to name a few potentially lethal weapons that can be found in a typically shed.Death_Korps_Kommissar said:
I would've had my weapon drawn.
This sounds to me like another case of the people who video tape cops (who almost every single one edit out what lead up to the situation) stretching the truth or filtering details to support their unlawful behavior.
From what I've read about the officer in question's PAST behavior in the article(s) he shouldn't be a cop anymore at this point. He's just not good in the high pressure situations.
I am actually, A CrimJ major at Washington State, and yes this is a serious violation, first of all to those who quotes the second article.WhiteHawk0117 said:
1. He drew his weapon when his life was neither in danger nor was he threatened.
2. He discharged his weapon without having a clear view of his target.
3. He disobeyed a direct order from his superior officer and entered the neighborhood.
4. He drew his weapon in a crowded neighborhood.
The reason for #2 and #4 is because if he didn't have a clear view of his assailant he could have missed, now in a neighborhood that shot could do property damage which the Police Department would be liable for, or even hit a bystander, which the Department would ALSO be liable for.
This man is a threat to everyone in the area he patrols and should never have been made a cop much less been kept on after all the disciplinary action he's suffered.
I realize the kid could've had a weapon and in that situation yes, maybe the gun was warranted. Note that i said the SITUATION, the LOCATION disallowed the use of the gun unless a clear target presented itself. Police are meant to serve and protect at the cost of thier own lives. I'm studying to be an officer and eventually an agent in the FBI and even I know that. This man is a criminal.
Just on what's in the article, that's a long and pretty damning set of facts for the officer and for his department. It's notoriously hard to prosecute police officers, and even harder to use internal disciplinary systems against them effectively, but I don't see how this guy - or anyone involved in keeping him in the job, given his record - will be remaining employed.
There is no excuse or justification for ignoring orders and escalate a situation involving a misbehaving but terrified kid by walking into it prepared to use a firearm (which is the only reason why you'd draw it). We don't have the full facts, but that the officer pursued that course of conduct is simply mind-boggling in and of itself. What's worse is that the responses to previous misconduct would probably have emboldened the officer, rather than discouraging him.
There is no excuse or justification for ignoring orders and escalate a situation involving a misbehaving but terrified kid by walking into it prepared to use a firearm (which is the only reason why you'd draw it). We don't have the full facts, but that the officer pursued that course of conduct is simply mind-boggling in and of itself. What's worse is that the responses to previous misconduct would probably have emboldened the officer, rather than discouraging him.
Storage shed ring any bells? It could have (as someone above pointed out) axes, blades, weed trimmers, liquid pesticides, untold amounts of possible weapons. If you got clocked in the head with a door and didn't know if he was armed, would you react differently?creationis apostate said:
I'm not taking either side, but having no gun drawn has proved to be a costly mistake to many officers. You can always holster a gun, you can't if you're dead from not doing it in the first place.
Yes, it is sad that a kid got killed, I'm not saying it wasn't. But the cop wasn't the only one at fault there, the kid deserves partial blame. If he hadn't run then things wouldn't have turned out the way they did.Dr. wonderful said:
To paraphrase Mister Blonde (and make my own assholish joke) "If he hadn't've done what the cop told him not to do, he'd still be alive."
The kid deserves a darwin award for not thinking, I mean what was going through his mind when he attacked an armed police officer?
The cop deserves a punishment for having a deadly weapon drawn on a kid, I know he was in a difficult situation, but a taser would have been enough.
I just think they are both at fault, and it ended in tragedy.
The cop deserves a punishment for having a deadly weapon drawn on a kid, I know he was in a difficult situation, but a taser would have been enough.
I just think they are both at fault, and it ended in tragedy.
Where I'm from this is called "resisting arrest" and the shed owner can think himself lucky he wasn't charged for obstructing justice since it was his shed the kid hid in.
He was a kid. Facing a cop. I can say from experience just getting pulled over is frazzling enough. Getting told to FREEZE by a cop when your 14 and don't know any better is worse. The point is the cop didn't factor anything into this. Yes the kid shouldn't have run away, but the MOMENT he received an order to stand down that cop should've let him go. Period. End of discussion.AndyRock said:
No one else is to blame after that point but the cop. He disobeyed a direct order and got an innocent killed. Cops are not equal to others, the people they protect, the regular families and kids, they come first before the Cops. That's how it's supposed to work.
i love the clip where the chief of the NISD talks about the family being emotionally distraught at the death of the kid.
no fucking way! their family member dies and THEY'RE UPSET? THERE'S NO FUCKING WAY I WOULD EVER ASSUME THAT.
if it was more along the lines of, "actually, the family is being quite calm and collected. . ." that would be worth mentioning. but no. they have to point out the obvious. fantastic journalism, guys.
no fucking way! their family member dies and THEY'RE UPSET? THERE'S NO FUCKING WAY I WOULD EVER ASSUME THAT.
if it was more along the lines of, "actually, the family is being quite calm and collected. . ." that would be worth mentioning. but no. they have to point out the obvious. fantastic journalism, guys.
Not enough solid information to make a final judgement. It's always important to know the whole context of the story, and this doesn't help much.
Even ignoring what weapons could potentially be found in a shed (bat, crowbar, tire iron, shovel, hoe, maybe an axe, hell there may be a chainsaw) the only evidence the cop had that the kid was unarmed was he didn't use a weapon in the fight, right? That isn't exactly bulletproof (pardon the pun) proof the kid is unarmed (though this situation is probably covered by procedure, but I don't know what it is).