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

[bilby]

For civilian citizens of a free country, failing to obey commands is not an offense. It is a right.

Nope, sorry. You have no right to disobey a lawful order from a police officer.

You do have the right in a free country to disobey such commands without the threat of summary execution for disobedience.

You do not have that right in the USA.

Therefore the USA is not a free country.

 

[Toni]

For civilian citizens of a free country, failing to obey commands is not an offense. It is a right.

Nope, sorry. You have no right to disobey a lawful order from a police officer.

And police officers have no right to use deadly force for disobeying an order. The police officer was in zero danger from anything other than his own incompetence.

 

[TSwizzle]

Nope, sorry. You have no right to disobey a lawful order from a police officer.

And police officers have no right to use deadly force for disobeying an order.

The use of deadly force came about due to the teen physically attacking the officer, not for disobeying an "order".

 

[ksen]

For civilian citizens of a free country, failing to obey commands is not an offense. It is a right.

Nope, sorry. You have no right to disobey a lawful order from a police officer.

Not necessarily the same thing.

 

[Toni]

Perhaps they were misaligned on purpose so he could get a better look at passengers and drivers to profile/target them for drunk driving and so on...

Or maybe Explorer has headlights that are higher than those of a regular car and thus shine higher as well. Regardless, that has nothing to do with the shooting which was due to the cop being attacked after the taser didn't work. Had Deven just remained calm and showed the cop his documents he'd probably been on his merry way within minutes.
Lesson: don't toke and drive.

Yeah because pot is known for making people aggressive.

Did the officer notice any impairment consistent with pot use? Any distinctive smell? Isn't it far more likely that this kid wasn't high at all?

And that the officer vastly over reacted by pulling him over in the first place? And from there displayed a complete lack of discipline, training, common sense, competence and control?

Did anyone perform a tox screen on the cop? Because the only person I've ever seen act with such utter disregard for sense, safety and decency was high on a combo of pot laced with PCP.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And police officers have no right to use deadly force for disobeying an order.

The use of deadly force came about due to the teen physically attacking the officer, not for disobeying an "order".

You mean after the non-aggressive teen was shocked by a taser?

 

[TSwizzle]

The use of deadly force came about due to the teen physically attacking the officer, not for disobeying an "order".

You mean after the non-aggressive teen was shocked by a taser?

I meant exactly what I posted, it's not ambiguous so I don't know what your problem is.

 

[Toni]

You mean after the non-aggressive teen was shocked by a taser?

I meant exactly what I posted, it's not ambiguous so I don't know what your problem is.

Unlike any evidence that the teen physically attacked anyone.


And that's a problem. But a bigger problem is that this country seems to be chock full of those who are more than happy to cede all sorts of life and death power to anybody with any modicum of authority, real or imagined, from police officers to fake wannabe neighborhood watch 'captains.'

 

[bilby]

Trial by combat is a hangover from religion. If someone winds up dead, then we know that they were disfavoured by the Gods, and so we can conclude that they deserved it.

We can then bolster this conclusion by finding as much wrongdoing as possible in the dead person's background; Everyone has some shady parts to their life, so the confirmation bias can always be relied upon; If you can't find hard evidence, then you can always simply assert that the victim was 'no angel'.

It saves an awful lot of very hard thinking; and it has the secondary benefit that no effort need be expended on punishment for the killer, who has clearly been doing the Lord's work.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Does that mean you are going to start supporting equality for blacks, whites, males, and females?

I already do.

Evidence???

In this case though I see the shooting as justified because of Deven's behavior.

There is a lot of baggage with a claim that a shooting is justified. You not only have to prove that the instant the shooting took place there were no other reasonable options, you also have to analyze the lead up to the shooting. Your assertion falls flat on both counts.

 

[zorq]

How is that entrapment? Also what evidence is that that the cop broke any law?

The police officer admits in the video that he had pulled over a few other people that very night for flashing their brights at him because they were blinded by his headlights. The officer insists in the video that the headlights on his police cruiser are brand new and therefore shine brighter than typical headlights. The boy on the video insists that the officer was shining his bright headlights and that he couldn't see. Whether the officer was using his bright lights or not, he was clearly and illegally shining his headlight beams into the eyes of approaching drivers.

Michigan law Section 257.700 states that "(a) Whenever a motor vehicle is being operated on a highway or shoulder adjacent thereto during the times specified in section 684, the driver shall use a distribution of light, or composite beam, directed high enough and of sufficient intensity to reveal persons and vehicles at a safe distance in advance of the vehicle, subject to the following requirements and limitations:

(b) Whenever the driver of a vehicle approaches an oncoming vehicle within 500 feet, such driver shall use a distribution of light or composite beam so aimed that the glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of the oncoming driver.

The lowermost distribution of light, specified in section 699 paragraph (c), shall be deemed to avoid glare at all times regardless of road contour and loading.

The officer was breaking the law and he knew it because at least three people told him so that night.

Also, police need to learn that tasers are not an "assault civilians free" card. Let's ignore for the moment that tazers are lethal weapons when used against an unidentifiable portion of the population. When did it become policy to apply pain to a suspect until they fall into a state of shock for failing to comply quickly enough? Really?

It wasn't that Deven wasn't compliant quickly enough, it was that he was actively non-compliant.

So using potentially lethal weapons on peaceful citizens who are in your mind "actively non-compliant" is okay with you. When given the choice between waiting a little longer for compliance and impatiently electrocuting someone, you err on the side of electrocution?

Here's an interesting legal fact upheld by the SCOTUS:

19th century court decisions whose details are very different than what transpired here? Really?

I didn't say the cases were directly related. I just said that it is food for thought. You have a right to resist arrest by any means necessary if an officer they tries to illegally arrest you. I personally don't recommend it, but there it is.

 

[abaddon]

Trial by combat is a hangover from religion. If someone winds up dead, then we know that they were disfavoured by the Gods, and so we can conclude that they deserved it.

We can then bolster this conclusion by finding as much wrongdoing as possible in the dead person's background; Everyone has some shady parts to their life, so the confirmation bias can always be relied upon; If you can't find hard evidence, then you can always simply assert that the victim was 'no angel'.

It saves an awful lot of very hard thinking; and it has the secondary benefit that no effort need be expended on punishment for the killer, who has clearly been doing the Lord's work.

The whole authoritarian mindset is reminiscent of religion.

Legalism
“It’s the law” too often settles what’s right and what’s wrong in the legalistic authoritarian mind.

These persons probably have an interest in what’s right and fair and just, but it’s hard to tell because they focus so intently on the legalistic slant. Everyone else is concerned with how different things should be, with the things we should improve. The legalists can’t seem to wrap their minds around that, because it’s what is already written that establishes what is just and right. A similarity comes to mind to biblical literalists who say “God says so there in The Book, so that’s the last word on the matter”.

Black and white simplicity
Legalistic authoritarians are going to toss aside all context and focus on a detail or two. Like the kid allegedly swung a fist so "the shooting's justified". Reduction to a single detail makes everything very simple and clearcut.

If you just obey then everything’s ok
Of course there’s a moral to the story that justifies the story itself, when actually the story is only just fucked up. As in religious tales where people are killed but that’s ok because what matters more than life is to reaffirm the Rightness of Authority.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You mean after the non-aggressive teen was shocked by a taser?

I meant exactly what I posted, it's not ambiguous so I don't know what your problem is.

You ever been tasered?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Didn't we already have a thread on this, or am I mixing up boards?

1) The stop was justified. The cop knew his lights were brighter than typical and sometimes confused other drivers--he was only giving warnings, not tickets.

2) This kid forgot his wallet with his license and was trying to bullshit his way out of a ticket based on a bunch of crap he had been watching on You-tube. Of course it didn't work.

3) The cop finally had enough of his crap and decided to arrest him. (Completely justified--tickets are really a simplified bail procedure. If you refuse to sign the ticket the cop is going to arrest you.)

4) Even then the kid was being totally stupid and resisted arrest. That's 6 months in the pokey.

5) The cop attempted to tase him, it failed.

6) The kid attacked the cop and was winning the fight. Now we're up to 2 years in jail.

7) The cop finally resorted to his gun.


Should he have? Definitely--we have a pattern of the kid making incredibly stupid choices and escalating the situation at each turn. Should the cop bet his life that the kid won't decide to eliminate the only witness to his identity?

 

[TSwizzle]

I meant exactly what I posted, it's not ambiguous so I don't know what your problem is.

You ever been tasered?

By a cop, no. Somehow I have lived to middle age without antagonizing a cop into tasering me bro'.

 

[RavenSky]

Because he did plenty wrong.

To get himself killed? He allegedly flashed his high beams.

to notify the oncoming driver (the cop) that HIS high beams were on, just as at least two other motorists had done that evening.

This then led to a series of events in which he is now dead. Almost nothing he did warranted dying. The fact that he assaulted the officer after being partially tasered could be considered a fight or flight instinct.

except that it is not a fact that the teen assaulted the police officer. We have the cop's unsubstantiated claim that the teen assaulted the cop

The Officer Cartman fucked up in their entire handling of the situation and now the teen is dead.

Tasering a non-aggressive person is really really stupid.

yep

 

[Toni]

Didn't we already have a thread on this, or am I mixing up boards?

1) The stop was justified. The cop knew his lights were brighter than typical and sometimes confused other drivers--he was only giving warnings, not tickets.

2) This kid forgot his wallet with his license and was trying to bullshit his way out of a ticket based on a bunch of crap he had been watching on You-tube. Of course it didn't work.

3) The cop finally had enough of his crap and decided to arrest him. (Completely justified--tickets are really a simplified bail procedure. If you refuse to sign the ticket the cop is going to arrest you.)

4) Even then the kid was being totally stupid and resisted arrest. That's 6 months in the pokey.

5) The cop attempted to tase him, it failed.

6) The kid attacked the cop and was winning the fight. Now we're up to 2 years in jail.

7) The cop finally resorted to his gun.


Should he have? Definitely--we have a pattern of the kid making incredibly stupid choices and escalating the situation at each turn. Should the cop bet his life that the kid won't decide to eliminate the only witness to his identity?

How? Exactly how was the kid going to 'eliminate the only witness to his identity?' Where the fuck do you come up with this shit?

A kid drives his girl home. He forgets his wallet with his license in her house.

He sees someone with their brights on and flashes his to signal that their brights are on. Whether this is legal or not in MI seems to be open for conjecture as his family's attorneys are arguing that it is, while the state claims otherwise. In any case, this is not a capital offense. At most, it is a minor traffic offense. The cop clearly knew why the lights were flashed at him as he had the same experience at least 3 times previously on this same night. Perhaps he was just getting tired of being told he was making a mistake, so he decided to use his taser on the kid who wasn't goose stepping enough for him (or Loren. Or Derec. But then, who ever does goose step enough these days?)

The officer not only cannot manage the lights on his car, but he cannot effectively conduct a traffic stop. And much, much worse: he cannot effectively use a taser.

He is compelled to shoot an unarmed kid 7 times. SEVEN times.

Because....the officer cannot properly work the headlights on his patrol car.

 

[bilby]

Didn't we already have a thread on this, or am I mixing up boards?

1) The stop was justified. The cop knew his lights were brighter than typical and sometimes confused other drivers--he was only giving warnings, not tickets.

Not ONLY warnings. Warnings, tazings and shootings.

2) This kid forgot his wallet with his license and was trying to bullshit his way out of a ticket based on a bunch of crap he had been watching on You-tube. Of course it didn't work.

But equally of course, this should not have been fatal.

3) The cop finally had enough of his crap and decided to arrest him. (Completely justified--tickets are really a simplified bail procedure. If you refuse to sign the ticket the cop is going to arrest you.)

Wait a minute; who gets bail for a warning? Since when has a police officer having 'had enough' warrant an arrest? Surely arrests are warranted by the actions of the suspect, not the police officer's temper? So not so much 'completely justified' as 'an unfair abuse of police authority due to the officer's bad attitude'.

4) Even then the kid was being totally stupid and resisted arrest. That's 6 months in the pokey.

But most certainly not the death penalty.

5) The cop attempted to tase him, it failed.

Demonstrating, if further demonstration were needed, that the cop was in no fit state to make any kind of judgement about anything.

6) The kid attacked the cop and was winning the fight. Now we're up to 2 years in jail.

Even if this unsubstantiated speculation were true, 2 years in jail is a long way short of the death penalty. We have no evidence that the kid attacked the cop - and indeed we know that the cop first attacked the kid (with a tazer), rendering any subsequent action by the kid 'self defense'. We have even less evidence that there was a fight that the kid was winning.

7) The cop finally resorted to his gun.

Seven times. So clearly the cool and calculated act of a rational officer of the law acting within his duty to use minimum necessary force. To end a conflict he himself needlessly started, and then needlessly escalated.

Should he have?

No. Of course not. Only a total idiot would suggest that he should.

Oh, look:

Definitely--we have a pattern of the kid making incredibly stupid choices and escalating the situation at each turn.

And of the cop doing the same. Oddly, only the less aggressive party is now deceased.

Should the cop bet his life that the kid won't decide to eliminate the only witness to his identity?

Yes. Because the probability of that is so small as to be no risk at all. Outside pulp fiction novels and film noir, ordinary kids who are stopped by the police for minor traffic infringements don't decide that their best course of action is to kill a police officer with their bare hands to 'eliminate the only witness'; even most psychopaths would re-consider such a bizarre choice of action.

 

[RavenSky]

Should the cop bet his life that the kid won't decide to eliminate the only witness to his identity?

Yes. Because the probability of that is so small as to be no risk at all. Outside pulp fiction novels and film noir, ordinary kids who are stopped by the police for minor traffic infringements don't decide that their best course of action is to kill a police officer with their bare hands to 'eliminate the only witness'; even most psychopaths would re-consider such a bizarre choice of action.

The most ironic part of the article was when the cop later claimed he feared for his life because he claims he thought the teen might be part of the "citizen militia" groups.

As for the driver's license, the teen had called his girlfriend to bring it as he has forgotten his wallet at her house. She arrived in time to see him dead with seven bullet holes in him.

 

[zorq]

This post didn't go through the first time.

Didn't we already have a thread on this, or am I mixing up boards?

1) The stop was justified. The cop knew his lights were brighter than typical and sometimes confused other drivers--he was only giving warnings, not tickets.

Correct this to read, "The cop knew he was illegally blinding people on the road and was pulling over people warning him of his unsafe vehicle settings."

2) This kid forgot his wallet with his license and was trying to bullshit his way out of a ticket based on a bunch of crap he had been watching on You-tube. Of course it didn't work.

Likely true.

3) The cop finally had enough of his crap and decided to arrest him. (Completely justified--tickets are really a simplified bail procedure. If you refuse to sign the ticket the cop is going to arrest you.)

Not quite. The cop never offered the boy a ticket. The boy was taking much too long to to provide his driver's licence, insurance and proof of registration. The boy then decided he wanted to record the interaction with the cop with his cell phone. The cop didn't like that and so he decided to escalate the situation in hopes of intimidating the kid into immediate compliance.

4) Even then the kid was being totally stupid and resisted arrest. That's 6 months in the pokey.

He didn't resist arrest so much as react far too slowly to the officer's commands. When the officer kicks his phone out of his hand he says, "You can't do that." When the officer says, "You are under arrest." the boy says "You can't do that." The officer says "Get your hands behind your back!" The boy says, "But officer..." He didn't understand how he could be assaulted, have his personal property destroyed and be arrested in that situation. He didn't understand. But you call this resisting arrest.

5) The cop attempted to tase him, it failed.

Well, the cop attempted to tase him for no good reason. And did so unsafely and improperly.

6) The kid attacked the cop and was winning the fight. Now we're up to 2 years in jail.

We have no evidence as to who was winning the fight. It's not even proven in the video that the kid ever actually made agressive contact with the officer. The officer might have just stumbled and fallen over surprised by the kid's swift recovery. But suppose the kid did attack the officer. Then the kid's reaction might have been an instinctual un-premeditate retaliation after being attacked without provocation.

7) The cop finally resorted to his gun.

That doesn't make it the next logical step. We have no evidence as to what other sort of options the officer had other than his firearm.

Should he have? Definitely--we have a pattern of the kid making incredibly stupid choices and escalating the situation at each turn. Should the cop bet his life that the kid won't decide to eliminate the only witness to his identity?

Should the kid bet his life that the officer who escalates the situation at every turn and attacks him without provocation isn't intending to execute him on the spot? Because that is exactly what the officer did. 7 shots. 7.