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

[Toni]

Can't edit my post but wanted to include this, also from wiki:
My bolding

Some Taser models, particularly those used by police departments, also have a "Drive Stun" capability, where the Taser is held against the target without firing the projectiles, and is intended to cause pain without incapacitating the target. "Drive Stun" is "the process of using the EMD (Electro Muscular Disruption) weapon [Taser] as a pain compliance technique. This is done by activating the Taser and placing it against an individual’s body. This can be done without an air cartridge in place or after an air cartridge has been deployed."[23]

Guidelines released in 2011 in the U.S. recommend that use of Drive Stun as a pain compliance technique be avoided.[24] The guidelines were issued by a joint committee of the Police Executive Research Forum and the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. The guidelines state "Using the ECW to achieve pain compliance may have limited effectiveness and, when used repeatedly, may even exacerbate the situation by inducing rage in the subject

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Autopsy can't identify everything. Failing to find a reason doesn't prove there isn't one.

Note the pattern--people who got a lot of shocks. That usually means someone highly non-compliant--think maybe there's a reason for that?

Tell us again how tasers cause pain? And does being hit by a single barb such that it penetrates skin cause pain even without an electrical current? Because I'm willing to bet that if someone were to hit you with a taser it would hurt, even if only one barb penetrated your skin.

I'm not saying no pain, I'm saying not a lot of pain. The main pain comes from the electricity.

Loren, the pattern is that the manufacturer of tasers is extremely litigenous and is well known for its strong efforts to suggest that tasers can cause death. Which they can and do. In healthy adults.

But nice you are willing to admit that sinking a single barb would cause pain. The fact is that you have no idea how much pain.

What is notable about any autopsy reports I can find is the failure to mention ANY marks on hands which would indicate that this dead boy hit anyone. Almost like there were no such signs at all.

Then who hit the cop???

 

[Toni]

Autopsy can't identify everything. Failing to find a reason doesn't prove there isn't one.

Note the pattern--people who got a lot of shocks. That usually means someone highly non-compliant--think maybe there's a reason for that?

Tell us again how tasers cause pain? And does being hit by a single barb such that it penetrates skin cause pain even without an electrical current? Because I'm willing to bet that if someone were to hit you with a taser it would hurt, even if only one barb penetrated your skin.

I'm not saying no pain, I'm saying not a lot of pain. The main pain comes from the electricity.

Loren, the pattern is that the manufacturer of tasers is extremely litigenous and is well known for its strong efforts to suggest that tasers can cause death. Which they can and do. In healthy adults.

But nice you are willing to admit that sinking a single barb would cause pain. The fact is that you have no idea how much pain.

What is notable about any autopsy reports I can find is the failure to mention ANY marks on hands which would indicate that this dead boy hit anyone. Almost like there were no such signs at all.

Then who hit the cop???

As I said before: the mark on his forehead and the black eye look very much like what happens when you accidentally bang heads with someone. I've done it myself--complete accident.

If the kid threw punched, there would have been marks on his hands. Maybe that detail was just never mentioned in the autopsy results released to the public. Maybe they never looked but that seems negligent.

Here's the thing: the cop starts recording before he approaches the car or addresses the driver. He states that his brights were NOT on. Why would he make that note? Why would he pull over the kid when he knew--because multiple people had pointed it out to him that night--his own headlights were bright enough to cause multiple other drivers to try to warn him that his lights were blinding them as brights do in snow or rain? He started out irritated and defensive. Which wasn't the kids fault. The kid was trying to do the right thing: warn another driver of an unsafe (very!) practice: having brights on in snow fall.

The cop was looking for a fight, not the kid.

 

[laughing dog]

Autopsy can't identify everything. Failing to find a reason doesn't prove there isn't one.

Note the pattern--people who got a lot of shocks. That usually means someone highly non-compliant--think maybe there's a reason for that?

Tell us again how tasers cause pain? And does being hit by a single barb such that it penetrates skin cause pain even without an electrical current? Because I'm willing to bet that if someone were to hit you with a taser it would hurt, even if only one barb penetrated your skin.

I'm not saying no pain, I'm saying not a lot of pain. The main pain comes from the electricity.

Loren, the pattern is that the manufacturer of tasers is extremely litigenous and is well known for its strong efforts to suggest that tasers can cause death. Which they can and do. In healthy adults.

But nice you are willing to admit that sinking a single barb would cause pain. The fact is that you have no idea how much pain.

What is notable about any autopsy reports I can find is the failure to mention ANY marks on hands which would indicate that this dead boy hit anyone. Almost like there were no such signs at all.

Then who hit the cop???

The issue here is the video does not show the teenager attacking or hitting the police officer. The video is consistent with the teenager attacking the officer, or the teenager striking the officer, or the officer attacking the teenager or the officer running into the teenager or the officer deliberately hurting himself afterwards in order to avoid prosecution. To make it simple, it is simply wrong to assert the video shows any of those alternatives (or other ones).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The issue here is the video does not show the teenager attacking or hitting the police officer. The video is consistent with the teenager attacking the officer, or the teenager striking the officer, or the officer attacking the teenager or the officer running into the teenager or the officer deliberately hurting himself afterwards in order to avoid prosecution. To make it simple, it is simply wrong to assert the video shows any of those alternatives (or other ones).

The video doesn't show much--a failure to see the cop getting hit doesn't prove he wasn't.

 

[Toni]

The issue here is the video does not show the teenager attacking or hitting the police officer. The video is consistent with the teenager attacking the officer, or the teenager striking the officer, or the officer attacking the teenager or the officer running into the teenager or the officer deliberately hurting himself afterwards in order to avoid prosecution. To make it simple, it is simply wrong to assert the video shows any of those alternatives (or other ones).

The video doesn't show much--a failure to see the cop getting hit doesn't prove he wasn't.

Correct. Thank you. But scenarios other than the kid attacking the cop also fit.

We have only the officer's word. He is not unbiased.

 

[laughing dog]

The issue here is the video does not show the teenager attacking or hitting the police officer. The video is consistent with the teenager attacking the officer, or the teenager striking the officer, or the officer attacking the teenager or the officer running into the teenager or the officer deliberately hurting himself afterwards in order to avoid prosecution. To make it simple, it is simply wrong to assert the video shows any of those alternatives (or other ones).

The video doesn't show much--a failure to see the cop getting hit doesn't prove he wasn't.

No one made that claim. But people are making the claim it does show the police officer being hit by the teenager - something you agree is not true.

 

[RavenSky]

Autopsy can't identify everything. Failing to find a reason doesn't prove there isn't one.

Note the pattern--people who got a lot of shocks. That usually means someone highly non-compliant--think maybe there's a reason for that?

Tell us again how tasers cause pain? And does being hit by a single barb such that it penetrates skin cause pain even without an electrical current? Because I'm willing to bet that if someone were to hit you with a taser it would hurt, even if only one barb penetrated your skin.

I'm not saying no pain, I'm saying not a lot of pain. The main pain comes from the electricity.

Loren, the pattern is that the manufacturer of tasers is extremely litigenous and is well known for its strong efforts to suggest that tasers can cause death. Which they can and do. In healthy adults.

But nice you are willing to admit that sinking a single barb would cause pain. The fact is that you have no idea how much pain.

What is notable about any autopsy reports I can find is the failure to mention ANY marks on hands which would indicate that this dead boy hit anyone. Almost like there were no such signs at all.

Then who hit the cop???

maybe you did?

The issue here is the video does not show the teenager attacking or hitting the police officer. The video is consistent with the teenager attacking the officer, or the teenager striking the officer, or the officer attacking the teenager or the officer running into the teenager or the officer deliberately hurting himself afterwards in order to avoid prosecution. To make it simple, it is simply wrong to assert the video shows any of those alternatives (or other ones).

The video doesn't show much--a failure to see the cop getting hit doesn't prove he wasn't.

And it doesn't prove he did get hit, either. But the way you keep insisting he was... almost seems like you must have been there yourself?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The video doesn't show much--a failure to see the cop getting hit doesn't prove he wasn't.

And it doesn't prove he did get hit, either. But the way you keep insisting he was... almost seems like you must have been there yourself?

Something happened that cause the messed-up video and during that time the cop got injured.

Since the obvious intended actions of the cop would not have caused this we need to look for some other explanation--and the only one that makes any sense at all is if Devon got up and attacked at that point.

 

[ksen]

The explanation that "makes sense" isn't always the correct explanation no matter how much we'd like it too.

There are numerous questions about what happened that I've raised about this incident a couple of times that no "pro-shooter" has acknowledged or even tried to address yet.

 

[TSwizzle]

And it doesn't prove he did get hit, either. But the way you keep insisting he was... almost seems like you must have been there yourself?

Something happened that cause the messed-up video and during that time the cop got injured.

Since the obvious intended actions of the cop would not have caused this we need to look for some other explanation--and the only one that makes any sense at all is if Devon got up and attacked at that point.

Which he clearly did as can be seen from the video. Exactly what happened after the video went dark will never be known for sure other than Devon came off worst in this altercation.

 

[Toni]

Something happened that cause the messed-up video and during that time the cop got injured.

Since the obvious intended actions of the cop would not have caused this we need to look for some other explanation--and the only one that makes any sense at all is if Devon got up and attacked at that point.

Which he clearly did as can be seen from the video. Exactly what happened after the video went dark will never be known for sure other than Devon came off worst in this altercation.

It's clear he got up. I saw no fist, no arm drawn back to throw a punch. I would expect to see that if he was attacking the officer.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And it doesn't prove he did get hit, either. But the way you keep insisting he was... almost seems like you must have been there yourself?

Something happened that cause the messed-up video and during that time the cop got injured.

Since the obvious intended actions of the cop would not have caused this we need to look for some other explanation--and the only one that makes any sense I believe at all is if Devon got up and attacked at that point.

Now that police have body cams they are notorious for moving so that the body cam does not show them doing something controversial. For all we know (and I don't believe this) the police officer could have removed and crushed it with his hand. That would better explain why we don't see anything even though I don't believe it.

Also, for all we know, the reason that Deven got up could have been that it finally sunk in after getting tased that he was in trouble. So he may have been putting up his hands. I don't believe that either but it's possible.

I also don't believe that Deven was on the phone with the militia but according to Sgt Frost that is what Frost allegedly believed. I don't believe that Frost actually believed that, but it's possible.

Here are some things that I do believe, though. Shooting someone 7 times is generally unnecessary. Sgt Frost also never needed to pull over the kid. He knew his beams were appearing to be high to people since he said that in a recording and in police reports of other drivers he had stopped beforehand.

Also...

When Sgt Frost asked Deven to "lie belly down facing him" I believe from looking at the video that Deven was confused as to exactly what that meant. He questioned it, but still put his belly to the ground. Then he held up some of his upper body with his arms so he could face the officer with his face. He also held onto his phone.

I believe that when the officer aggressively took/kicked/threw (the biased prosecutor's report says "tossed") the phone Deven thought the officer was acting illegally. It was at least unnecessary.

I believe it was also unnecessary to try to go it alone with someone he allegedly thought was in a militia. He could have waited for backup. No urgency to pull more people over for flashing high beams at him...

I believe that Deven could have also been a lot more cooperative, but he's dead. He can't learn from his mistake.

It would be great if Sgt Frost could learn from his errors, but I believe people like you hold police officers back from improving and learning.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which he clearly did as can be seen from the video. Exactly what happened after the video went dark will never be known for sure other than Devon came off worst in this altercation.

It's clear he got up. I saw no fist, no arm drawn back to throw a punch. I would expect to see that if he was attacking the officer.

And you might expect a big sign in the sky saying "evil here!" also. Doesn't mean it will happen--the video is too unclear for the absence of specific things on it to mean anything.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Now that police have body cams they are notorious for moving so that the body cam does not show them doing something controversial. For all we know (and I don't believe this) the police officer could have removed and crushed it with his hand. That would better explain why we don't see anything even though I don't believe it.

The camera isn't showing things because it's moving too fast, the image are almost all blurred out. It didn't fail, it did record some frames.

Also, for all we know, the reason that Deven got up could have been that it finally sunk in after getting tased that he was in trouble. So he may have been putting up his hands. I don't believe that either but it's possible.

If he were tased the camera would still be pointing at him while he was being tased. And how do you put your hands "up" behind you??

I also don't believe that Deven was on the phone with the militia but according to Sgt Frost that is what Frost allegedly believed. I don't believe that Frost actually believed that, but it's possible.

He doesn't need to believe it, only consider it a reasonable possibility. Self defense does not involve proof beyond a reasonable doubt, merely that a reasonable man would have felt his life was in danger.

Here are some things that I do believe, though. Shooting someone 7 times is generally unnecessary. Sgt Frost also never needed to pull over the kid. He knew his beams were appearing to be high to people since he said that in a recording and in police reports of other drivers he had stopped beforehand.

You shoot until the threat is over--at that range that means until he collapses. Absent a CNS hit (which will either kill or paralyze) that most likely means poking a bunch of holes. And you grasping at straws if you are going to blame the shooting on stopping him over flashing his brights rather than on Devon's utterly stupid handling of the situation.

When Sgt Frost asked Deven to "lie belly down facing him" I believe from looking at the video that Deven was confused as to exactly what that meant. He questioned it, but still put his belly to the ground. Then he held up some of his upper body with his arms so he could face the officer with his face. He also held onto his phone.

I do agree he was likely confused about exactly what he was supposed to do but I don't see that it made a difference in the situation.

I believe that when the officer aggressively took/kicked/threw (the biased prosecutor's report says "tossed") the phone Deven thought the officer was acting illegally. It was at least unnecessary.

I don't think it was illegal at all. Devon wouldn't put down the phone despite being told to. The cop wasn't going to bend over to pick it up--that would put him in a weaker position. Thus he kicked it away--exactly what I would expect a cop to do with most any item he wanted to remove from the suspect's vicinity.

I believe it was also unnecessary to try to go it alone with someone he allegedly thought was in a militia. He could have waited for backup. No urgency to pull more people over for flashing high beams at him...

If Devon hadn't kept up with the phone I think that's exactly what would have happened. I think the cop acted because he was worried about who might have been on the other end of Devon's commentary about what was going on.

I believe that Deven could have also been a lot more cooperative, but he's dead. He can't learn from his mistake.

Reality can be a very harsh grader.

 

[zorq]

And it doesn't prove he did get hit, either. But the way you keep insisting he was... almost seems like you must have been there yourself?

Something happened that cause the messed-up video

Something happened alright, like maybe the camera failed by falling from the officer's body... as was reported in several of the articles about this story. This, by the way explains the blurry images the camera records after tazing. Did the camera start dangling by a wire from the officer's body or did the entire thing start rolling down the embankment? We don't know.

and during that time the cop got injured.

OR perhaps it was at a later time AFTER the kid was shot. We still don't have objective evidence on how or when the officer was injured.

Since the obvious intended actions of the cop would not have caused this we need to look for some other explanation--and the only one that makes any sense at all is if Devon got up and attacked at that point.

Well if you had analysed the situation in your first sentence correctly, this one might have more merit. But of course, there still remain several other explanations that fit the evidence, as I had tried to point out to you before.

 

[RavenSky]

...during that time the cop got injured.

Since the obvious intended actions of the cop would not have caused this...

This is where your assumptions have no basis.

Neither you nor I have any idea what really happened from this point. What we DO know is that the injury does not resemble one from a punch to the face and we do know that there have been zero reports of injuries to the teen's hands to indicate he threw a punch. So for you to insist that the teen "attacked" the cop is nothing more than your opinion, and not supported by facts nor by anything known about the teen's character.

 

[ksen]

I also don't believe that Deven was on the phone with the militia but according to Sgt Frost that is what Frost allegedly believed. I don't believe that Frost actually believed that, but it's possible.

He doesn't need to believe it, only consider it a reasonable possibility. Self defense does not involve proof beyond a reasonable doubt, merely that a reasonable man would have felt his life was in danger.

>believes teenager is calling in a militia strike
>is a reasonable man

 

[RavenSky]

He doesn't need to believe it, only consider it a reasonable possibility. Self defense does not involve proof beyond a reasonable doubt, merely that a reasonable man would have felt his life was in danger.

>believes teenager is calling in a militia strike
>is a reasonable man

Exactly

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The camera isn't showing things because it's moving too fast, the image are almost all blurred out. It didn't fail, it did record some frames.

The camera was found on the ground crushed on the outside away from the scuffle and so at some point in time it was crushed and was moved. That doesn't mean the officer crushed it and moved it, but it's possible.

Also, for all we know, the reason that Deven got up could have been that it finally sunk in after getting tased that he was in trouble. So he may have been putting up his hands. I don't believe that either but it's possible.

If he were tased the camera would still be pointing at him while he was being tased. And how do you put your hands "up" behind you??

Your question should be how does a person put up their hands in surrender to the police or what does it look like when someone is fighting not to get shot from a taser and/or gun. Would you expect their arms to be out and about and/or possibly up in those situations?

I also don't believe that Deven was on the phone with the militia but according to Sgt Frost that is what Frost allegedly believed. I don't believe that Frost actually believed that, but it's possible.

He doesn't need to believe it, only consider it a reasonable possibility.

He has to be honest and it has to be reasonable. One or two of those criteria are not met here.

Self defense does not involve proof beyond a reasonable doubt, merely that a reasonable man would have felt his life was in danger.

A reasonable person would not think Deven was on the phone with souverign citizen militia. Those militia are against the federal govt in particular because they are pro-small-government. They often love local sheriffs. They are also against taxes and love their guns. There was no gun rack, no nra bumper stickers, no don't tread on me bumper sticker. No evidence of anti-tax stuff. Just Deven thought he had a right to film the cop with his phone and the cop even initially said he had no problem with that. So thinking Deven was in the militia is BS.

Here are some things that I do believe, though. Shooting someone 7 times is generally unnecessary. Sgt Frost also never needed to pull over the kid. He knew his beams were appearing to be high to people since he said that in a recording and in police reports of other drivers he had stopped beforehand.

You shoot until the threat is over--at that range that means until he collapses. Absent a CNS hit (which will either kill or paralyze) that most likely means poking a bunch of holes.

Within the course of 5 seconds the shooting 7 times was over. If he shot three times, Deven likely would still have collapsed after the fifth second. One need not keep beating a dead horse, but I guess I am doing it anyway.

And you grasping at straws if you are going to blame the shooting on stopping him over flashing his brights rather than on Devon's utterly stupid handling of the situation.

What I wrote was that pulling the kid over was unnecessary and unreasonable. I will also add that civilians have a right to question authority. They also have a right to object and prod when they are pulled over for unnecessary and unreasonable reasons. They also have a right to pull a camera out (in many states, not all) and record the policeman who is unnecessarily and unreasonably charging them with something.

When Sgt Frost asked Deven to "lie belly down facing him" I believe from looking at the video that Deven was confused as to exactly what that meant. He questioned it, but still put his belly to the ground. Then he held up some of his upper body with his arms so he could face the officer with his face. He also held onto his phone.

I do agree he was likely confused about exactly what he was supposed to do but I don't see that it made a difference in the situation.

It makes a difference because it shows that Deven was actually trying to be compliant with one exception. He thought he had a right to record the cop. So he lied down as ordered in a way. But he continued to record.

I believe that when the officer aggressively took/kicked/threw (the biased prosecutor's report says "tossed") the phone Deven thought the officer was acting illegally. It was at least unnecessary.

I don't think it was illegal at all. Devon wouldn't put down the phone despite being told to. The cop wasn't going to bend over to pick it up--that would put him in a weaker position. Thus he kicked it away--exactly what I would expect a cop to do with most any item he wanted to remove from the suspect's vicinity.

I did not claim you think it was illegal. I said Deven thought so. That is why he said "you can't do that."

I believe it was also unnecessary to try to go it alone with someone he allegedly thought was in a militia. He could have waited for backup. No urgency to pull more people over for flashing high beams at him...

If Devon hadn't kept up with the phone I think that's exactly what would have happened.

You think that the cop would continue to pull over people for flashing their high beams at him? Well, then he's an idiot (according to you).

I think the cop acted because he was worried about who might have been on the other end of Devon's commentary about what was going on.

Just 30 seconds beforehand he told Deven he was "okay with that" in reference to the phone. At 1:19 in the video he said "Everything's being recorded son. I got no problem with that." Then, at 1:49 he kicks/throws the phone.

I believe that Deven could have also been a lot more cooperative, but he's dead. He can't learn from his mistake.

Reality can be a very harsh grader.

The reality that people who can control the outcomes of your life can do so in extremely unnecessary and unreasonable ways.