Teen shot 7 times and killed by police officer - ruled "justified" of course

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Since we're talking about objectivity and bias, I'd like to say that there is one side (side A) that admits that both the officer and the kid could have acted better. The other side (side B) totally faults the kid for everything.

 

[laughing dog]

Since we're talking about objectivity and bias, I'd like to say that there is one side (side A) that admits that both the officer and the kid could have acted better. The other side (side B) totally faults the kid for everything.

I can understand why the DA says the shooting was legally justified: the officer was in legitimate fear for his life. Whether the officer should have been (or actually was) in legitimate fear for his life is debatable, but the DA found for the police officer.

However, the finding that shooting was legally justified does not address the question is whether or not this police officer acted appropriately during this entire incident. I think one side is saying absolutely not, and the other side is saying "Yes" or "meh". At the minimum, that police officer should be put on desk duty for a long time. He screwed up big time, and it cost someone their life.

 

[Toni]

Which does not show an attack.

Nor does it show a clenched fist or an arm cocked to throw a punch.

Frost's injury to his forehead is not consistent with being punched. The black eye might be. Taken together, they seem much more consistent with heads cracking together. I know: I accidentally gave someone a black eye that way when our heads collided horsing around.

It could have been intentional or it could have been an accident, which makes sense if Deven were dosoriented and unsteady on his feet after being tased.

- - - Updated - - -

How long is your wing span?

She's the one with the bad logic.

- - - Updated - - -

why people conclude there’s a fight; the mind tends to fill in the blanks of what’s not known with easy answers. But skepticism requires people to not do that.

Do you accept these as facts:

1) The officer seems level headed and to be conducting a fairly routine traffic stop
2) The kid is not cooperative in the traffic stop
3) The kid was told to be lying on the ground
4) At some point after that he is on video on his feet coming at the officer swinging his arms
5) The camera breaks
6) The officers face is beaten up
7) The kid ends up shot

One possible explanation for this is that the officer shot the kid in self defense. Indeed this is the officer's explanation.

Skepticism allows you to consider other possibilities. It does not give you a license to believe whatever else you prefer to believe.

Putting on your nicest skeptic hat, what are the other possibilities that you feel fit the evidence better?

Exactly. I'm looking for the most likely scenario rather than the scenario that fits some particular desired outcome.

Me, too.

Apparently you don't care enough to actually watch the video, though.

No, you're letting your emotions color the issue. What is the most likely scenario for the unclear parts of the video??

So, playing the 'you're too emotional because you are a girl' card again.

Lame sauce, Loren. Just....lame

 

[Toni]

The officer tased the kid who was then disoriented and stumbled towards the officer. His arm is extended to steady himself. He and the officer crash heads which accounts for the injury in the middle of the officer's forehead and the black eye. The officer fires his weapon, also being disoriented which is the only thing that accounts for the 7 shots being fired.

 

[abaddon]

It’s not remotely like if we could determine definitely that Deven attacked the Sergeant then that’s that regarding who is at fault for things happening how they did.

If people want to dissect “the facts” they need to start naming them without relying so entirely on what the officer and county prosecutor said, since they’re both full of shit. There are two laws relevant to the headlights problem and the gist of both is you’re not to have lights that are too bright. It’s not about high beams, the officer’s totally fucked in the head to keep insisting “I didn’t have my brights on” when all along Deven was precisely correct: the real problem (both as an issue of safety and legally) was that the officer’s lights were too bright. So it is Frost that was driving around the roadways breaking the law that evening (and possibly engaged in entrapment too). He pulled over, bullied, escalated rather than defused the tension with his belligerence and at least one outright lie (the trick of words he used to evade giving his badge number… it is required when asked for), and used unnecessary force.

No matter what Deven did, everything the officer did was lawful. Problems include: 1) we don’t know that everything he did was lawful and 2) if you’re legitimating the law with that statement it’s circular. At least some of us are doubting the justice in some of the regulations and laws themselves. "It's lawful" just isn't good enough.

Just comply and everything's ok. That is practical advice but it's stupendously idiotic to offer it as an answer to the problem.

So, about the alleged attack by Deven at the end… the most pertinent question is, why did even the possibility of that ever have to be created over such a petty and wrong traffic stop? The answer is not “Because Deven didn’t obey”. We're looking at the police here and wondering "Just why are they too often such asshats and a menace to citizens instead of protectors of them?"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, a scuffle could have happened if the officer attacked.

Do you have any specific other scenario that fits the facts better? No hypothetical could have been A, could have been B type stuff. This isn't an exercise in enumerating all possible matching scenarios, the objective is to find the most likely one.

LOL. You made up your hypothetical (it is A because I think it matches the facts better). And then you behave as if it is a fact. The entire argument here is only one person knows what happened (Officer Frost) and he is not a disinterested observer.

"Could have"--the thing is it makes no sense for the officer to have attacked.

We aren't trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the kid attacked, thus your arguments make no sense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Since we're talking about objectivity and bias, I'd like to say that there is one side (side A) that admits that both the officer and the kid could have acted better. The other side (side B) totally faults the kid for everything.

Except nobody has given a reasonable better course of action for the officer, they've merely said he could have acted better.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, you're letting your emotions color the issue. What is the most likely scenario for the unclear parts of the video??

So, playing the 'you're too emotional because you are a girl' card again.

Lame sauce, Loren. Just....lame

In other words, you don't want to address the question and are playing the sexism card again. Just how big a deck do you have?!

What specifically should the officer have done differently? No "handle it better" crap.

- - - Updated - - -

The officer tased the kid who was then disoriented and stumbled towards the officer. His arm is extended to steady himself. He and the officer crash heads which accounts for the injury in the middle of the officer's forehead and the black eye. The officer fires his weapon, also being disoriented which is the only thing that accounts for the 7 shots being fired.

What does this have to do with reality???

How do you stumble towards someone while lying face down on the ground??

 

[laughing dog]

No, a scuffle could have happened if the officer attacked.
LOL. You made up your hypothetical (it is A because I think it matches the facts better). And then you behave as if it is a fact. The entire argument here is only one person knows what happened (Officer Frost) and he is not a disinterested observer.

"Could have"--the thing is it makes no sense for the officer to have attacked.

It made no sense for the police officer to harass the kid after the kid mentioned the brights were on. It made no sense for the police officer to taze the kid. It made no sense for the kid to be antagonistic. But it happened anyway. I understand that any possible explanation that is consistent with the observed evidence but inconsistent with "the police are always right" makes no sense to you.

It also makes as much sense for the kid to have attacked the police officer as it does that the police officer physically attacked the kid (especially since the police officer had already attacked the kid with the taser but failed).

We aren't trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the kid attacked, thus your arguments make no sense.

You are not trying to prove anything. You are blinded by the aura of blue authority, so no reality except the police are always right makes sense to you. But that reflects on your strong biases, not on the arguments that you find impossible to accept.

- - - Updated - - -

What specifically should the officer have done differently? No "handle it better" crap.

Many posters have explicitly laid out what the officer could have done differently. Apparently you are under the impression that killing people at traffic stops is the preferred outcome for the police. Fortunately for the rest of humanity, that has yet to be come the accepted norm throughout the USA.

 

[TSwizzle]

The officer tased the kid who was then disoriented and stumbled towards the officer. His arm is extended to steady himself. He and the officer crash heads which accounts for the injury in the middle of the officer's forehead and the black eye. The officer fires his weapon, also being disoriented which is the only thing that accounts for the 7 shots being fired.

The video shows the kid jumping up, arms flailing and attacking officer Frost. Or is your next move the kid was trying to "hug it out" with officer Frost ?

 

[abaddon]

The video shows the kid jumping up, arms flailing and apparently attacking officer Frost.

FIFY.

Or is your next move the kid was trying to "hug it out" with officer Frost ?

That's stupid.

Aren't you the one that was making troll accusations a couple days ago, because you didn't like being pestered to evidence your assertions?

What's in the video (and you can seek out a slow-mo and on Youtube's setting slow even that down to 0.25) is Deven tries to reach back with an open right hand while still mostly prone, then he lifts off the ground and turns and reaches out again with his open right hand toward the officer. And that's the end of what we know of how the events proceed. The rest is all conjecture. Certainty comes when it's taken for granted that a lifted arm, a boy's dead body, an officer's cut/bruised face, and an officer's testimony are conclusive or conclusive-enough. But no matter how certain some personalities like to be about things, some personalities don't share that impulse to feel certain.

And it doesn't matter. The question of the thread is whether the event as a whole is right or not, and the OP-writer can correct me if I'm wrong about that.

 

[TSwizzle]

FIFY.

Grow up ffs.

Or is your next move the kid was trying to "hug it out" with officer Frost ?

That's stupid.

No less stupid than your mental gymnastics

 

[RavenSky]

Since we're talking about objectivity and bias, I'd like to say that there is one side (side A) that admits that both the officer and the kid could have acted better. The other side (side B) totally faults the kid for everything.

Except nobody has given a reasonable better course of action for the officer, they've merely said he could have acted better.

Actually, MULTIPLE people have. You've simply ignored that

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Could have"--the thing is it makes no sense for the officer to have attacked.

It made no sense for the police officer to harass the kid after the kid mentioned the brights were on. It made no sense for the police officer to taze the kid. It made no sense for the kid to be antagonistic. But it happened anyway. I understand that any possible explanation that is consistent with the observed evidence but inconsistent with "the police are always right" makes no sense to you.

The cop continued the stop because he got BS instead of paperwork. At that point is ceased to simply be a stop about flashing brights.

In a fashion it made sense for the kid to be antagonistic--he was trying to avoid a no-license ticket.

Tasing the kid doesn't merely make sense, it was what I would expect in that situation.

What specifically should the officer have done differently? No "handle it better" crap.

Many posters have explicitly laid out what the officer could have done differently. Apparently you are under the impression that killing people at traffic stops is the preferred outcome for the police. Fortunately for the rest of humanity, that has yet to be come the accepted norm throughout the USA.

Where have such been posted?

 

[laughing dog]

The cop continued the stop because he got BS instead of paperwork. At that point is ceased to simply be a stop about flashing brights.

But it didn't have to be. At any point the police officer could have backed off. In fact, he did not have to ask for any paperwork.

In a fashion it made sense for the kid to be antagonistic--he was trying to avoid a no-license ticket.

It makes no sense - being antagonistic to a police officer rarely helps someone avoid ensuing trouble.

Tasing the kid doesn't merely make sense, it was what I would expect in that situation.

Of course it makes sense to you - you kneejerk approve of police violence towards civilians. But it doesn't make sense to most anyone else.

Where have such been posted?

Where has what been posted?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

At that point is ceased to simply be a stop about flashing brights.

And instead it became about authoritarian compliance no matter what the cost would be to the kid, no matter what kind of violence the officer would have to do and he started showing it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But it didn't have to be. At any point the police officer could have backed off. In fact, he did not have to ask for any paperwork.

They always ask for it.

In a fashion it made sense for the kid to be antagonistic--he was trying to avoid a no-license ticket.

It makes no sense - being antagonistic to a police officer rarely helps someone avoid ensuing trouble.

That's why I said "in a fashion". It doesn't work but not doing it meant a basically certain ticket.

Tasing the kid doesn't merely make sense, it was what I would expect in that situation.

Of course it makes sense to you - you kneejerk approve of police violence towards civilians. But it doesn't make sense to most anyone else.

Tasers are a pain compliance tool. Fewer injuries than if he simply forced matters.

Where have such been posted?

Where has what been posted?

If you can't follow the thread why do you post in it?

- - - Updated - - -

At that point is ceased to simply be a stop about flashing brights.

And instead it became about authoritarian compliance no matter what the cost would be to the kid, no matter what kind of violence the officer would have to do and he started showing it.

A society in which police back down at resistance is a lawless society.

 

[Rhea]

Loren, it continues to appall me that you consider it a decent society to live in where a police force uses electricity to subdue citizens for being mouthy or confused.

That you assert that all citizens should expect to be electrically shocked into unconsciousness if they fail to understand the cop's frame of mind.

That's so incredible it is hard to fathom. That you _want_ a society that does that. That you think it is _better_ seriously, BETTER to shoot a kid dead than let him get away with operating a vehicle without a license.

I understand exactly what you're saying, we all do, we conclude that only a sociopath would agree with it - and we are not sociopaths. We do not think a society should kill uncooperative youth. Let him go without shooting him. Best he can do is run on foot and you have his car. You'll get him. Alive.

This... this is horrible. The fact that you think it is not just continues to disgust me. I'm no longer surprised, you have made it clear that dead children mean nothing to you. So clear that it doesn't even make me say "WTF" any more. It just makes me shudder when I see your name in a thread and know the guy who admires cops for killing kids is back in the room.

 

[TSwizzle]

That's so incredible it is hard to fathom. That you _want_ a society that does that. That you think it is _better_ seriously, BETTER to shoot a kid dead than let him get away with operating a vehicle without a license..

That's not why officer Frost shot the kid. The kid was shot for attacking the officer.

 

[ksen]

so you keep asserting