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

[TSwizzle]

No "attack" - "vicious" or "felonious" or any other kind - has been shown as factual.

The video clearly shows the kid attacked the cop. You just prefer to ignore that.

 

[TSwizzle]

Unfortunately this is where we are at. We have people in their 70s being asked for ID when ordering a glass of wine at the bar. We have kids handcuffed and dragged off to the police station for building clocks.

Actually, there's a reason for IDing the 70-somethings. If you put a dividing line (say, ID anyone who appears to be under 40) you'll get some insulted old-looking people a bit younger than the cutoff. {snip}

The point is, decision making is being removed from people where they cannot be allowed to stray from the written rules which must be obeyed. It's stoopid rules for dumb shits.

 

[ksen]

I've only seen the video once and I couldn't tell if the kid attacked the cop.

Don't say that around TSwizzle.

However, some of the other possibilities I've read sound almost like creationist arguments against evolution: "The cop tripped and that's how he got multiple injuries on his face" or "The recoil of the gun caused the injuries".

Can you explain the injuries on the officers face? How does a punch to the face leave straight line bruises? Why was Sgt. Frost hustled away from the scene by other officers before the paramedics arrived? How did Sgt. Frost manage to shoot Deven at steeply downward angles in the head and chest if Deven was on top of him beating the shit out of him? How did Sgt. Frost manage to draw, misfire and clear his pistol within 4 seconds all while having a teenager on top of him whaling away at his head and being nearly unconscious? Why was the shot to Deven's head at extreme close range but the other gunshot wounds were not? Why was there a slight pause in the shooting?

There are lots of unanswered questions and I hope the family's lawyers bring them all up during the civil suit.

The great leaps people are making to defend the kid of all wrong doing are extraordinary,

Well, there's your problem. You are seeing things in this thread that aren't here: i.e. people defending the kid of all wrongdoing.

as if admitting the kid fucked up is the same as saying he deserved to die. If there were marks on the kids knuckles they would say the cop was trying to headbutt the kid & the kid put his fists in front of his face to protect himself.

Yeah, a big IF that I haven't seen mentioned by anyone involved in the investigation or mentioned in the autopsy report contained in the prosecutor's report.

 

[Toni]

You are--once again--ignoring the facts and attempting to belittle my argument by terming it 'emotional.' I've noticed this is something you like to do to female posters. I've mentioned it before and will keep right on mentioning it.

I don't know why you do this. Perhaps it is because you don't like the truth.

You're obsessing over flashing his brights not being a capital crime but ignoring that that was merely the start of events, not what got him shot.

Really? Where am I obsessing? Where am I obsessing over flashing brights?

There is an obsession or two seen in this thread, but it's not my obsession, Loren.

 

[Toni]

No "attack" - "vicious" or "felonious" or any other kind - has been shown as factual.

The video clearly shows the kid attacked the cop. You just prefer to ignore that.

I have lost count of the number of times you and others have been asked to indicate at what point on the videotape is the obvious attack.

I haven't seen the kid attack the officer. I'm happy to look again at any specific spot on the videotape you say depicts an attack by the kid on the police officer.

Will you provide the time stamp?

 

[ZiprHead]

You don't know if one of Michigan's infamous black squirrels (considered bad luck by the superstitious)

Hmmm, lived in Michigan my whole life. I've never heard of that. My wife will get a kick out of that. Black squirrels aren't common around here (Saginaw). Go twenty miles further north and they are quite common in forest areas and we always like seeing them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We've been down this list before. It's no more sensible this time as last time.

Taser--it was already fired. Until the cartridge is replaced it is at best a stun gun. (Contact-range weapon--it will not work though heavy clothing and thus is pretty much useless in this case.)

Pepper spray--at that range it will reflect back on the officer. He's going to disable himself as badly as his attacker.

Baton--it's unlikely had one (they've been replaced with tasers) and even if he did they're pretty useless at such range.

At the point Frost used his taser, he should not have been using ANY of those methods because Deven was not actively resisting nor attempting to escape. Frost should have simply backed off as this teen was no danger to anyone.

You still don't understand the role of the taser.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Did you not watch the video? He's constantly messing with the phone, even when he's down on the ground about to be cuffed.

This doesn't answer my inquiries about how using a phone constitutes a reasonable threat or even a reasonable suspicion. Revise my hypothetical situation involving YOU and and 5 seconds of phone interaction and adjust the time upwards because the time is unconsequential. Suppose a police officer is talking to you for 15 minutes and you are using your phone for the entire time because your old phone technology only allows you to record 30 second clips at a time. Is that suspicious? Is that a threat to the officer? In most cases the answer is clearly no.

What's the most dangerous weapon on the battlefield? A radio.

Throughout this entire thread you have been insisting that the version of events that you have pictured in your mind must be true and factual because to you they are the most likely explanation for the evidence we do have. But examine what the officer said about the cell phone. He thought that the boy could have been calling for backup to threaten the officer's safety. Is that the most likely reason for a person to be using their cellphone during a traffic stop? No. It's not in the top 10 reasons Family Feud would list as a reason to use a phone during a traffic stop. This one quote from the officer may indicate that he has serious paranoia problems.

He keeps telling the phone what's going on. You don't need to do that to record what's happening.

No the problem here is that you assume that the missing 10 seconds of video footage consists entirely of "self defence situations" when you have no objective evidence of what happened during those 10 seconds. I'll say it again. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. I know you think you know. But you really don't. You don't know if the two were flung apart after first contact leaving one of them dazed and the other one prone on the ground (It doesn't matter which. The ensuing tragedy could happen either way) You don't know if one of Michigan's infamous black squirrels (considered bad luck by the superstitious) jumped onto the Officer's face while the boy was tripping over the mound where Jimmy Hoffa was buried.

You're missing the fact that the video is blurred out over the whole time--the cop is not sitting there dazed. Likewise, the kid isn't sitting there dazed as the cop would have no reason to keep moving around then.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually, there's a reason for IDing the 70-somethings. If you put a dividing line (say, ID anyone who appears to be under 40) you'll get some insulted old-looking people a bit younger than the cutoff. {snip}

The point is, decision making is being removed from people where they cannot be allowed to stray from the written rules which must be obeyed. It's stoopid rules for dumb shits.

You miss the point--it's not about decision making being removed, but about avoiding embarrassing someone who looks older than they are.

 

[ksen]

At the point Frost used his taser, he should not have been using ANY of those methods because Deven was not actively resisting nor attempting to escape. Frost should have simply backed off as this teen was no danger to anyone.

You still don't understand the role of the taser.

Actually, it sounds like you don't.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...quot-of-course&p=216432&viewfull=1#post216432

 

[TSwizzle]

The point is, decision making is being removed from people where they cannot be allowed to stray from the written rules which must be obeyed. It's stoopid rules for dumb shits.

You miss the point--it's not about decision making being removed, but about avoiding embarrassing someone who looks older than they are.

No, it's the authoritarian urge to micro manage every aspect of life.

 

[bilby]

What's the most dangerous idea in law enforcement?

That police vs civilians is a battlefield.

The police are there to protect and serve the citizens. Not to slaughter their way to a crushing victory over them.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What's the most dangerous idea in law enforcement?

That police vs civilians is a battlefield.

The police are there to protect and serve the citizens. Not to slaughter their way to a crushing victory over them.

True

 

[ksen]

What's the most dangerous idea in law enforcement?

That police vs civilians is a battlefield.

The police are there to protect and serve the citizens. Not to slaughter their way to a crushing victory over them.

pure anarchy

 

[Malintent]

And Deven was on the end of a serious assault from officer Frost when he was tazed.

And yet it still didn't stop Deven from viciously attacking officer Frost. If the taser didn't stop him, what would ?

I got the impression from the video that it was the tazer that STARTED him being violent.. the gunshots are what stopped him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And yet it still didn't stop Deven from viciously attacking officer Frost. If the taser didn't stop him, what would ?

I got the impression from the video that it was the tazer that STARTED him being violent.. the gunshots are what stopped him.

Yeah, it did. He wasn't going to put up with being arrested.

The thing is he didn't have the right to resist.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

He wasn't going to put up with being arrested attacked from behind in the middle of nowhere (assuming he got up and immediately counter-attacked which we cannot be sure about--I mean, maybe he stood up angrily and that was enough for the officer to draw his gun and shoot).

FIFY

 

[laughing dog]

I got the impression from the video that it was the tazer that STARTED him being violent.. the gunshots are what stopped him.

Yeah, it did. He wasn't going to put up with being arrested.

The thing is he didn't have the right to resist.

What gave the officer the right to taser someone lying on the ground?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He wasn't going to put up with being arrested attacked from behind in the middle of nowhere (assuming he got up and immediately counter-attacked which we cannot be sure about--I mean, maybe he stood up angrily and that was enough for the officer to draw his gun and shoot).

FIFY

I certainly hope you're not a mechanic!

He was told to put his arms behind his back. He refused to comply. He was warned that if he didn't he would be tased. He still didn't. The officer attempted to tase him. No surprise factor, he knew what was going down.

What we have here is a kid who panicked when faced with a ticket and kept upping the offense.

Yeah, it did. He wasn't going to put up with being arrested.

The thing is he didn't have the right to resist.

What gave the officer the right to taser someone lying on the ground?

As I have said a million times the taser is a pain compliance tool. They have found fewer lasting injuries from using the taser to get people to behave than by simply forcing them to behave.

 

[ksen]

He was told to put his arms behind his back. He refused to comply. He was warned that if he didn't he would be tased. He still didn't. The officer attempted to tase him. No surprise factor, he knew what was going down.

Which is not how tasers are supposed to be used according to the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

But what do they know.