OT: Police shoot unarmed 12-year old

[Ford Prefect]

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]

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?

[red5angel]

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]

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."

[red5angel]

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.

[rogue]

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]

This is why they say "America Eats it's Babies"

[red5angel]

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]

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.

[red5angel]

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]

Red,
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.

[red5angel]

I don't think skittish is the right word there WD.......it paints things in a way you want to see it.

[fa_jing]

"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]

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.

[Watchman]

WD:

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?