View Full Version : OT: Police shoot unarmed 12-year old

01-28-2003, 12:43 PM

If this is legally justifiable, it shows the huge gap between the law and common morality.

01-28-2003, 12:50 PM
It's sad, and I hate to trivialize the death of someone but here is my take on this:

The kid was doing something wrong, so he knew the police may get involved. He didn't expect to be shot or killed I am sure but the police carry guns and it is a possibility.
The police have a dangerous job which leads them into many unknowns, and when a gun shot is heard, whether it was an accident or not you have to cover yourself. It's sad but this sort of accident can happen and I think if you are killed while carryiong out criminal activity, you have accpeted a certain level of responsibility for your life, because accidents liek these can happen.

01-28-2003, 01:00 PM
I guess police regulations say that if you hear a shot, and can't identify the source, you are justified in popping the guy you are chasing? Seems awfully wrong. Sounds more like the one PO panicked - which is usually my impression from these kinds of controversial police shootings.

I think there ought to be some kind of accountability for f'ing up this badly. Then again, maybe people wouldn't want to be police officers anymore. Part of the perks is that you get to lord it over other people, intimidate who you please, pull U-turns or run red lights for no reason at all, and get the benefit of the doubt when you do something wrong in your duties.

My apologies to all of the Police Officers out there who are good human beings and provide great service to the community.

01-28-2003, 01:03 PM
Would the verdict be the same if the shooter was a 'regular civilian' and not a police officer?

Should police officers have special rights regarding murder?

Just food for thought...

The situation is very unfortunate. :(

01-28-2003, 01:11 PM
fa_jing, unless you are in full posession of the facts I would reserve judgement. There are alot of good policemen out there and these guys may have been some of them. It's easy to make a judgement call when you aren't putting your life on the line like they are.
You're right there are those who abuse it but I doubt this was intentional. Maybe something could have been done, but the fact is the kid was committing a crime and to me that is a contract with society taking a certain level of responsibility for your actions. It sucks that you get shot when you probably didn't deserve it, but hey, sometimes you have to take your medicine. If this was a genuine accident, I don't blame the cops involved at all, except to say maybe more training would have helped, but that isn't necessarily their choice.

Braden - I think it would have been different if it were a civilian, civilians don't have the same accountabiltiy as police officers. A policemans job is to protect and serve and sometimes that recquires they use deadly force. Murder is murder, but I don't see this as murder.

01-28-2003, 01:13 PM
A 'civilian' can also legally use deadly force, can't they?

Ford Prefect
01-28-2003, 01:15 PM
It's BS. The have radio's and he could have verified where the shot had come from. When chasing a little kid, I'd hope the PO would exercise caution rather than a shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality.

Ford Prefect
01-28-2003, 01:19 PM

Actually, a supreme court ruling in Maryland found that the police are not responsible for personal protection. It is the individual's choice to protect himself or not. In the case of deadly force, it is authorized in civilian situation when your life is in danger. You are allowed to use "just enough force to repel the attack" in terms of self-defense.

01-28-2003, 01:19 PM
Braden, under very specific circumstances yes. Policemen are given more lattitude because it is a part of their job, a responsibility they have accpeted, for whatever their personal reason might be. It's like a soldier, as a soldier you have taken the responisibility on for killing if your country calls on you, and that is why war crimes are so hard to prosecute, where do you draw the line?

Ford - Again, I don't think you are in posession of the facts and unless you are a policemen can only guess at the mentality inolved in such a situation.

I know this whole thread is going ot turn into "cops suck" and "down with the man" but I think those sorts of views are extremely ignorant. Sorry guys, I can't buy that everytime someone gets shot, the police are to blame.

01-28-2003, 01:20 PM
Do you think those differences are actually differences in fundamental/legal rights, or simply differences in the amount of time each kind of person finds themself in situations where everyone is allowed to use deadly force?

Water Dragon
01-28-2003, 01:25 PM
Ya know what's funny in a sick, sad way?

A dog gets popped in TN and the whole country is in an uproar.

A 12 year old child gets popped, and people are trying to justify it.

pitiful; yet typical

01-28-2003, 01:27 PM
in my opinion they are fundamental legal differences but for the reason that policemen have to spend more time in situations where deadly force might be used.
It's like this, why not just take some guys, give them guns, and then tell them that they can do what they have to to keep the peace but they are held as accountable as any other person in society.
I am not saying that the police are exempt but that they are udner different circumstances and so must be looked at differently. this means to me that they are going to be more scrutinized then a civilian in the actions they take, but that they must be given some leeway in acepting that sometimes things happen the wrong way and there is not a whole lot anyone can do.

Take doctors, people sue them for malpractice all the time. So and so went into the operating room and never made it. So lets sue. But Doctors are people too, and if it is found that the doctor did what he could, even if he made a mistake, thats an aspect of his career that he has been willing to accept and people need to understand that they are still human beings.

Ford Prefect
01-28-2003, 01:27 PM

I obviously don't have all the facts regarding this case, but I am quite experienced in the use of firearms. I can understand the officer fearing for his life after hearing the shot and wanting to end the threat if the perp was a a grown man. However the odds of a 12-year old boy being able to accurately discharge a firearm while moving and trying to hit a moving target are slim-to-none. Morally and ethically, he should be obligated to at least verify if any other officer discharged his weapon or knows where the shot came from. Guns aren't these magic killing machines.

Ford Prefect
01-28-2003, 01:32 PM
I agree that there are differences in civilian and law enforcement situations. I think police officers have a tough job (have quite a few cops and ff's in my family) and will get put into situations that are not only hard to control but are hard to identify exactly what the he11 is happenning. That being said, no officer is justified in shooting a 12-year old kid in the back because he heard a shot and figured it had to be the fleeing suspect. I guarantee you that the majority of cops will agree privately.

01-28-2003, 01:42 PM
Ford - "but I am quite experienced in the use of firearms."

Nooffense but I don't see how that is pertinant in the least. You want to talk about familiarity with firearms, lets just say 4 years on a Marine anti-terrorist unit will give you some 'familiarity' with firearms. However, that isn't the issue, it's the psychology of the situation that is at issue here. The action taken implies that either the second cop assumed his partner had to shoot for a reason, or that the person running had taken the shot. Either one is highly possible.
The accuracy isn't at question here either. For my own experience most people who fire a gun at 8 ft hit less then 12% of their targets under the stress of a fire fight. Did the cop know who or what he was dealing with? My guess would be not since he chose to fire.
I tell you what, I will pose your question to the cop class at the school I am going to tonight. Tuesday nights at 8:30 is the special class for policemen and I will stay after and ask them what they think of the situation and get back to you. I am also going to email my 3 cop friends right now and I will let you kow how they feel as well. That way we have some real opinions to draw on instead of someones "opinions" on what cops would say.

01-28-2003, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by red5angel
It sucks that you get shot when you probably didn't deserve it, but hey, sometimes you have to take your medicine.

?? Some medicine.


01-28-2003, 01:46 PM
comment fa_jing?

Water Dragon
01-28-2003, 01:48 PM
So red, were you upset when the dog was killed?

01-28-2003, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by red5angel
comment fa_jing?
yours spoke for itself. Perhaps this boy has been "cured" of breathing?

Ford Prefect
01-28-2003, 01:53 PM

No cop is going to go against another cop in a situation like this unless you are close family or close friends. Get real. I have an idea; why don't you email George Bush Sr and ask if he thinks GW is having an excellent presidency... ;)

As for the psychology of the situation, the cop didn't think his partner had fired. He thought his partner had been shot. That just shows that he was extremely confused in the situation, and wasn't thinking clearly.

01-28-2003, 02:01 PM
well, I agree that the law is a tricky business. Many times cops have to break the laws, just to enforce the laws, or at least that's the way they perceive the situation. But tell me you've never seen a cop run a red light for no reason? Have you never had a PO treat you disrespectfully? Power corrupts, and not only that, certain types of people are attracted to law enforcement, and it's not restricted to those who want to better their community.

01-28-2003, 02:02 PM
WD - I am not sure exactly what you are talking about, but people have a funny way of looking at things. I sat and watched a movie with some people one night a while back, a freind of mine turned around and said "I would rather see all the humans on the earth whiped out then see animals hurt." That was the closest I ever came to hitting a woman, and I liked to thinkk of it more as hitting stupid.

Fa_jing, sorry I am not a bleeding heart, and although I consider it sad that this happened, and I won't necessarily say he had it coming, he was doing something he shouldn't have been doing, and so has to suffer the consequences. At the very least he is as responsible as these policemen for his death.
I also know many cops who are good people just trying to do good things and I grow tired of people so readily blaming the police. Not only does power corrupt, but it causes fear....

Ford - My cop friends are pretty honest in situations like this and they know I don't buy crap so they will be pretty honest with me. I will let you know what they think, as for the class, I don't know any of them personally but will let you know the responses I get.

"That just shows that he was extremely confused in the situation, and wasn't thinking clearly."

Thats exaclty what I was saying. I was attached to a United Nations Armored Column carrying supplies in Somlia when it came under sniper fire. The first shot pinged off the APC in front of us and we heard it over the engines. My first thought was back fire. The second shot caught my buddy in the calve and he fell off the APC we were riding. I hit the deck but still didn't know what was going on. I realized my safety was off and I was warming the trigger before I "knew" what was happening.
In a high stress situation you just react, and hopefully your training carries you through, but it isn't a guarentee because the human psyche is a funny thing.

Water Dragon
01-28-2003, 02:11 PM
Red, it's quite simple where I'm coming from.

A dog is killed in TN. The killing is considered justified. The nation is in an uproar.

A child is killed in PA. The killing is considered justified. Nobody seems to give a flying f***

Let me try to state this in a different way:


01-28-2003, 02:17 PM
Waterdragon, uh ok, who says no one cares? We are debating the very issue at this moment, which shows atleast two people care. I imagine his relatives, friends care. I am sure there are more people out there that care this happened as well. However, I don't like to see misdirected anger, and directing it at the cops without having been there is misdirected.
People get shot all the time. Why doesn't anyone care that he was stealing a car in the first place? Whats the greater tragedy here? That the cops have to worry about being shot at by a 12 year old boy who is stealing cars, or that the 12 year old boy was shot?
You can cry me a ****ing river over it but it happens all the time and I am not sure people really understand the issues.

How about the millions of children starving all over the world? how about the millions of people dying of aids everyday? Why should I be concerned about some ******* brat who decided ot take his life into his own hands when he chose to steal a car and run from the cops? why don't you explain that to me?

01-28-2003, 02:17 PM
Red - but haven't you noticed the disturbing trend of police officers shooting unarmed suspects?

Also, when the police are corrupt, it makes you question their existence. Well I believe that police exist to protect the government first, and the citizens second. But that's just me and my unpopular political theories....

Let me tell you a story from my wild youth - I'm in my friend Chris' car while he goes to pick up a pound of weed in Southwest Philadelphia. We are getting ready to turn down the street where his friend has a house - and there's a police car there, sitting in front of the home. I say to Chris, sh1t, we'd better go, but my friend is wiser than this. He pulls up behind the squad car - at this point we just have money in the car, no contraband - and goes inside the house. Soon, he is at the door, chatting with his friend, and the policeman appears too. As we leave, he informs me that the cop was inside his friends house, and was a friend of this friend - in fact, the cop was advising Chris as to which stash to choose from. Of course Chris left with the weed after a transaction supervised by this PO. IMO, this is a good use of a police officer, but most people would be amazed at the level of corruption within the force.

Then you have articles like the following:


These are the people that some trust to use deadly force.

And yes, I'll be kissing any PO's boots that saves my mother or my sister or my wife from a violent crime. Didn't say they were all bad, but the system is very flawed.

01-28-2003, 02:20 PM
Fa_jing, I understand your point, but cops are human beings too and I just get sick of the villification. I was a skater in my youth, got into all sorts of trouble with the cops, nothing I didn't deserve though.
The point is that it isn't always the cops fault things go bad.

trust me brother, I am with you, but I can't blame the cops for everything that happens with them involved. They deal with dirty individuals everyday, and some who aren't.

Water Dragon
01-28-2003, 02:20 PM
So stealing a car justifies the death penalty without a trial?

01-28-2003, 02:24 PM
Red5 - regarding "millions," etc. -- I think you should be concerned about those kids too. I think it is a bit ridiculous to value one human being over another just because of what country they are born in.

You should be concerned about police misconduct here, because the same might happen to your son or cousin, or you might find yourself in the middle of a riot one day.

01-28-2003, 02:30 PM
WD - not what I am saying. I am saying that once you take breaking the law into your own hands you enter a realm of responsibility that changes. You run form the cops an dthat makes your situation even worse. Of course you don't deserve to be shot, but you have accpeted the idea that that may be the end result, no matte rhow small a chance it might be.

Fa_jing, if it could be proved to be police misconduct, then I would be all for punishing these officers. I just think people are way too quick to blame the cops for these kinds of things and most of those people don't really understand it.

01-28-2003, 02:33 PM
thats terrible :( and we wonder why the world is going to sh|t :(


Ford Prefect
01-28-2003, 02:36 PM
I don't think Red5Angel is saying he condones killing a little kid for stealing car or that he doesn't feel bad for all involved. He is just saying that he can understand the stress of the situation, and that the officer shouldn't be held accountable for a mistake made in a very fast-paced and stressful situation.

Respectfully, I disagree with that because the kid was 12, and I think caution should have prevailed in that situation.

Water Dragon
01-28-2003, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by red5angel
WD - not what I am saying. I am saying that once you take breaking the law into your own hands you enter a realm of responsibility that changes. You run form the cops an dthat makes your situation even worse. Of course you don't deserve to be shot, but you have accpeted the idea that that may be the end result, no matte rhow small a chance it might be.

Children under the age of 18 can not vote
Children under the age of 18 can not marry
Children under the age of 18 can not enter into a business contract
Children under the age of 18 cannot open an investment account

Yet, Children under the age of 18 are expected to be responsible fot the consequences of their actions in a crime.

And the Police, who are given a gun and the authority to use it, should not be held to a higher standard than those of us who are not given broad authority to kill or retaliate?

01-28-2003, 02:43 PM
Ford, I am not even saying that they shouldn't be held accountable, but that if they are held accountable and found to have been within the parameters set forth to do their job, that everyone shouldn't necessarily assume that the situation was as under control as people make it out to be.
When someone gets shot, and especially when it is a 'kid', people tend to get even more upset, not to mention if that kid happens to be of color.
But let's face it folks, there are gun toting 12 year olds out there, its not as uncommon as we would maybe like to believe, so it isn't so far fetched for these officers to assume he might have a gun. Not only that, maybe the cop was trying to wound instead of kill? Maybe it was a warning shot that went bad, the point is not all of the details are there and people have a tendancy to paint some bad pictures of the police before they will paint pictures of the criminals, regardless of age.

Just so it's clear, I put up a thread a few weeks ago on a situation where two cops were 'restraining' a man during a domestic argument when the guy died in their custody. My argument was at that point that these cops were not trained well enough to handle the situation and that was what led to their neglegent act.
This may be what happened in this case, I just don't think it's so easy to assume that it was negligence, or a wrong call because those sorts of decisions aren't always right or wrong until after the fact.

Ford Prefect
01-28-2003, 02:50 PM
Very true. Anything on either of our parts is just speculation and conjecture. I, for one, am happy about the fact that I live in a country where this type of open debate about LE's actions is possible. I think the main reason why this strikes a nerve is because the kid was shot in the back. That just looks bad.

In the words of the local small-town sheriff in Alabama (where my uncle moved): "I just have one request. If you have a quarrel with someone, shoot them in the front. If you shoot them in the back, I'm going to have to come get ya."

01-28-2003, 02:56 PM
WD - life sucks doesn't it? Yes you should be held accountable. Just because you can't vote or drink doesn't mean you can run around like a holy terror, stealing, robbing, raping and the like. Those things you listed are rights granted to you by your governing body, but the other human beings get the right for you to treat them as such, and the moment you stop being a part of society, no matter what age, the moment you pay the price.
I already stated that they should be held to a higher standard.....

Ford, agreed.

01-28-2003, 02:57 PM
Children under the age of 18 can not vote
Children under the age of 18 can not marry
Children under the age of 18 can not enter into a business contract
Children under the age of 18 cannot open an investment account

Yeah but they can hide in the trunk of a car and snipe at unsuspecting men, women and children. They can also rape, steal, kill other kids by tossing them off of rooftops and any other number of things that adults can do. Welcome to the 21st century WaterDragon.

Cops should be and are held responsible for what they do.

Water Dragon
01-28-2003, 03:04 PM
This is why they say "America Eats it's Babies"

01-28-2003, 03:08 PM
WD, not sure hwere you are from but there are many othe rplaces in the world where a childs life is held in much lower regard then here in the US, much less life in general.
I already mentioned being in Somalia and I probably don't have to say much on how bad that place was but you want to see a blatant disregard for the lives of other human beings, that place was like hell. The things people did to each other, openly and without fear of retribution, were numerous and beyond my understanding, and these are just the things we saw everyday in the streets.
Not to mention guatemala, which I have also been to and seen how much worse it can be. We just have better advertising thats all.

Water Dragon
01-28-2003, 03:10 PM
Rogue, please don't welcome me anywhere. In 2002, my best friends father was murdered, shot in the face, by a 15 year old kid. In 2002, a very close aquaintance was set up and murdered, by 16 year old children, in a parking lot.

I know what children are capable of. I still cannot and refuse to even attempt to justify this. If you give up on even one child, you give up on our future.

01-28-2003, 03:14 PM
WD - I don't think anyone was saying we should give up on the kids, my original point was only that the police may not be as to blame as we always jump to say they are. This is regardless of how old the person they are chasing is. The point is that a 12 year old is just as likely to be carrying a deadly weapon as a 26 year old.

Water Dragon
01-28-2003, 03:18 PM
And the police know that is a situation they put themselves into when they takke the job. If you're skittish enough to shoot a kid in the back, as he's running away from you, you shouldn't be a cop in the first place.

01-28-2003, 03:19 PM
I don't think skittish is the right word there WD.......it paints things in a way you want to see it.

01-28-2003, 04:49 PM
"I just think people are way too quick to blame the cops for these kinds of things and most of those people don't really understand it."

Could be. Or could not be. You see, we live in a world where a police officer is just as likely to be lying as a regular citizen. Yet these people to a large extent ARE the law. As are lawyers, politicians, judges, and all sorts of saavy types.

Think about it. When there is such an incident, given that there is any plausible explanation that a police officer did not act in a legally culpable manner, their compatriots will nearly always back them up. These are people that are very familiar with the law and are very capable of putting a spin on things.

Have you ever heard of a PO's buddies turning him in for not following procedure? Maybe that's not newsworthy, or more likely it almost never happens.

I'd love to hear their explanation for this one. It smells of FOP protectionism.

Laughing Cow
01-28-2003, 04:54 PM
In my opinion Cops should be held more responsible for their actions than the average Citizen.

They receive special training that should prepare them for those situations, does the average citizen??

The same thing should be said for ANY specialised profession(Lawyer, Doctor, Firefigther, Soldiers, IT-Admins, etc).

Naturally there might be special circumstances, but they should really be very few.

If a Person can't handle their job correctly he either needs additional training or should be reassigned to a job more suited.

If too many of those situations occur, than the way they are trained needs to be changed to account for it or other measures taken.

That is my opinion.

01-28-2003, 05:10 PM

We're both going off of the "facts" as presented in the story that was posted here, and I want to mention that I think this is a tragedy, but at the same time here are some questions to consider:

Did the police have any idea how old the kid was at the time of the pursuit?

He just led them on a chase that resulted in one vehicle being crashed, can they be sure that he isn't armed?

What I get from the story is that you have two state troopers in a high-speed chase with a car thief, who subsequently crashes his vehicle and takes off on foot. The cops are right at the peak of an adrenaline dump, where they not only have to worry about their own safey, but also the safety of whoever the suspect comes into contact with. They have to assume the suspect is armed until proven wrong, especially because he has already exhibited that he doesn't care about his safety - or anyone else's - during the process of the pursuit.

Add all of that up and throw in the sound of a gunshot in the immediate vicinity. The cop has half-a-second to decide what to do next. He chooses to fire on the only person that has demonstrated that he is a threat.

Why is it people think that cops have some super-human jedi-like mastery over their circumstances? Can they slow time and immediately discern every single aspect of what they're caught up in?

01-28-2003, 05:12 PM
They receive special training that should prepare them for those situations, does the average citizen??

They do receive special training, but it isn't foolproof - and it doesn't lend them any jedi-like powers.

Also, "average" citizens have access to every form of specialized training that LEO's undergo - you just have to look for it.

In my opinion Cops should be held more responsible for their actions than the average Citizen.

They are. I'll give you an example -

Say you break into my house in the middle of the night. Me, as an "average" citizen - at least here in Utah - can put a bullet through your head without giving you any warning.

However, if you slap a badge on my chest, I have to announce that I am a police officer, tell you to cease your course of action, and give you "reasonable" time to comply before I can start putting rounds your direction. Big difference.

01-28-2003, 05:19 PM
My sifu is a Cook County Sheriff. He was telling me about the training tapes that they had to watch - usually footage from the State Police as they always have their cameras on in their vehicles. Well a trooper pulled over a car, and the guy is heavily under the influence (I'm guessing crack.) The trooper pulls out his weapon as the guy is jumping around. Even after doing so, the guy is acting completely belligerent and dancing, flapping his arms around and moving towards the trooper's vehicle. At some point the trooper moves in to try to control the situation, my sifu described this as an advancing line of control. Then for some reason he moved back somewhat. The perp suddenly reaches inside the trooper's vehicle and takes out a shotgun. Even after all of this, the trooper is still talking to the guy and trying to reason with him. Also, he has taken a receding line of control and has taken cover behind the open door of the other car. The perp opened fire. They say the trooper had time to get off twelve shots, of which only 1 was on target. He of course was killed.
The discussion focussed on what was going through the officer's head - they are thinking that he was probably concerned about a lawsuit.

This obviously is the other side of the coin.

Laughing Cow
01-28-2003, 05:24 PM

I don't expect them to have Jedi-like powers, I also know that the training is not fool-proof.

But using an excuse like he is just another "human" or similar doesn't quiet cut it.

Their behaviour and actions need to be above the average citizen, and they need to show skills that set them above the average citizen.

If this does not happen when what is their function and role??

I don't know about the States, but in my home-country it is VERY tough to become a Cop, they got very strict requirements for physical (Height, Fitness, etc), mental attributes and require college education of a certain level before even talking to a recruit.

I have been to countries where joining the Police force was kind of a last option when no other job was available, not saying that this is true for the states.
But I have seen/experienced both sides and their impact on the living conditions.

As I said just my opinion.

01-28-2003, 05:28 PM
I understand you point, and agree that LEO's should be held to a higher standard on the basis of their standing as peace officers alone.

I wasn't "excusing" the troopers in that story, just lending some perspective. Law enforcement work isn't as cut-and-dried as those of us home watching the news care to believe it is.

Like I said, did those troopers have any idea how old that kid was during the pursuit, and were they 100% positive that he wasn't armed?

It's easy to know where to point the finger after the smoke clears.

01-28-2003, 05:36 PM
I don't think the article really gives us enough information to form a fair judgement on what happened. For example, were the two officers together in the pursuit, or had they split up? If they were together, how far apart were they? Did the officers have constant visual contact with the boy through the pursuit?

Not enough info.

Laughing Cow
01-28-2003, 05:39 PM
What worries me is the following:

Curry's gun fired as he climbed over a fence

His partner naturally reacted by assuming that they are under attack.

But as he takes aim he should see the "criminals" hands (i.e. not holding a weapon) and that he is turned away from him. i.e. not posing an immediate threat at that moment.

Like you said nothing is cut-and-dried, but in recent years the incidents/fatal mishaps seem to be on the increase.

But an office should never have a Gun misfire/accidetnal disrcharge during a pursuit as this is endangerment of the public.
As so often I think that the blame is directed at the wrong person.

And that is alarming to me.

01-28-2003, 05:40 PM
I agree joedoe - not enough info.

Besides, if you read the article correctly, they were exonerated by a coroner's jury. That means the coroner's office officially says that the troopers story jibes with the physical evidence.

That doesn't mean the troopers are out of trouble yet.

01-28-2003, 05:43 PM
I agree that the negligent discharge is a worry.

The question in my mind is how close the officers were together during the pursuit. If the officers were right next to each other and the gun discharged, I would have thought you could tell that the shot came from right next to you.

But then again, I have no experience with firearms so I really don't know what I am talking about.

Laughing Cow
01-28-2003, 05:46 PM

It depends on the surrounding, in a build-up are like downtown it is harder to indentify source of a shot.

Suburbs or residential area is a bit easier, but I doubt that the Cops would have been that far apart either way (like down 1 street or at the next building/house).

But I reckon they would have been seperated by a few yards or so.

01-28-2003, 05:48 PM
If he's running from you, you have not yet seen a weapon, and you hear a shot, IMO you are not justified in shooting the person running from you. What if it is someone else shooting? Shouldn't you try to ascertain whether or not the person has a weapon, seeing that before you saw none? Wouldn't you shout to your partner who you think's been shot? Wouldn't you be looking around to see if there was another shooter?

The truth is, there is some scenario - say the kid was obstructed from view when the shot went off, then suddenly came back into view - there's some way that it's possible that this was a legitimate mistake. But my opinion is that this is unlikely. My opinion is that in a lot of these cases, the officer panicks and fires. How can we know? This is one of the flaws of the legal system - the officers present are going to testify about their own and each other's conduct. So there is a potential for abuse.

Again, we often hear of cops shooting unarmed men. The only time that the police are called to task is when they do something egregious - like sodomizing an immigrant with a toilet plunger. I ask you all, have you ever heard of a case where they came out and said, this police officer made a mistake and didn't follow procedure and shot this unarmed man? 'Cause I sure haven't heard of this.

01-28-2003, 06:00 PM
Hey, our cops get abused for shooting an armed man! We had a case a few years ago where a crack-head wielding a knife walked 6 policemen 50 metres up a beach while they had guns drawn and warned him to put the knife down. Eventually they ran out of room and he lunged at one of the officers. He was shot dead.

Then, unbelieveably there was public debate over the officer's handling of the situation. Sheesh.

01-28-2003, 07:57 PM
Please read (http://www.fmew.com/archive/police/)

01-28-2003, 08:33 PM
Thanks rogue. Interesting read.

Based on the points of law presented in that article, the fact that the boy was shot in the back does not look good for the officer in question does it?

Black Jack
01-28-2003, 09:55 PM
Everyone's a victim these days. It wouldn't be due to the lack of parenting skills on the families part now would it.

What's not interesting is the standard race card that has been barfed up by the family attorney, Joel Sansone, who believes that race may of played a role in the shooting, as the criminal was black and the cop was white.

I wonder if it ever crossed there mind that what played a role in the shooting was a car-thief hauling ass from the cops.

01-29-2003, 07:55 AM
I think LEO's ARE held to much higher standards. These guys face situations like this all the time and while you may think that this sort of thing happens all the time, if you compare these sorts of incidents with say, the number of times LEO's face a dangerous situation but never fire their gun, I think things come into perspective a little more.
As for ascertaining whether he had a gun or not, would you? After having been through that whole chase with a person who has proven themselves to be a danger to themselves and others, and then you hear a gun shot, would you pause to see where the shot came from? How about if you partner jumping the fence goes down face first and cries out?