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

[ksen]

Tip: My position is that the thing that leads to death is assaulting the officer, not the crime they originally came after you for.

Who assaulted this officer?

 

[Toni]

Are there people being shot each week for not paying taxes or not showing up for jury duty?

When they come to collect you for not paying taxes or showing up for jury duty if you assault them you may get shot.

Links? Since you care so much about answering the questions asked exactly as asked, you must have links to articles describing weekly shootings of citizens who have not paid their taxes and/or have not shown up for jury duty.

There are about one hundred links on this forum of people coming into contact with police officers for various offenses and getting shot.

Where did you get the impression they will only shoot you if you attack them when they try to bring you in for certain things?

It seems a bizarre belief to hold.

Not an answer. Not what I said. BLATANT and really hamfisted evasion.

Do you have links or not?

What part of my claim is giving you a problem:

1) if you don't pay taxes police will eventually come to collect you
2) if you assault the police when they come to collect you, you may get shot.

Neither of these seems particularly controversial, but perhaps I am missing something.

As a matter of fact, the police do not arrest people for tax evasion.

One might be arrested for tax evasion but it is not the police who come for you.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

How many people have been shot by the police this year because they missed jury duty?
How many people have been shot by the police this year because they evaded taxes?
How many people have been shot by the police this year because they did not do what a police officer told them to, to the satisfaction of said officer?

 

[laughing dog]

How many people have been shot by the police this year because they missed jury duty?
How many people have been shot by the police this year because they evaded taxes?
How many people have been shot by the police this year because they did not do what a police officer told them to, to the satisfaction of said officer?

I strongly suspect there are some posters who think "not enough" is the answer to all 3 questions.

 

[dismal]

How many people have been shot by the police this year because they missed jury duty?
How many people have been shot by the police this year because they evaded taxes?
How many people have been shot by the police this year because they did not do what a police officer told them to, to the satisfaction of said officer?

I believe I've said this at least 4 or 5 times now but it's my position that it's generally not the initial crime that gets you killed by an officer.

Whereas you seem hell bent on telling me that it's not the initial crime that gets you killed by an officer.

Good discussion.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

How many people have been shot by the police this year because they missed jury duty?
How many people have been shot by the police this year because they evaded taxes?
How many people have been shot by the police this year because they did not do what a police officer told them to, to the satisfaction of said officer?

I believe I've said this at least 4 or 5 times now but it's my position that it's generally not the initial crime that gets you killed by an officer.

Whereas you seem hell bent on telling me that it's not the initial crime that gets you killed by an officer.

Good discussion.

Then WHY list the three options together, and THEN try to engage in discussing a hypothetical when asked for actual occurences?

Of the three listed, NOTHING gets you shot by the police but disagreeing with and/or not jumping fast enough for the police. Do you think the police should have the right to kill an unarmed citizen for non-cooperation? Should non-cooperation be a capital offense?

 

[ksen]

I still want to know who assaulted this police officer because I haven't seen any evidence yet that the police officer was assaulted by anyone.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I still want to know who assaulted this police officer because I haven't seen any evidence yet that the police officer was assaulted by anyone.

That would go a long way to clearing this whole thing up, now wouldn't it?

 

[dismal]

I believe I've said this at least 4 or 5 times now but it's my position that it's generally not the initial crime that gets you killed by an officer.

Whereas you seem hell bent on telling me that it's not the initial crime that gets you killed by an officer.

Good discussion.

Then WHY list the three options together, and THEN try to engage in discussing a hypothetical when asked for actual occurences?

Of the three listed, NOTHING gets you shot by the police but disagreeing with and/or not jumping fast enough for the police. Do you think the police should have the right to kill an unarmed citizen for non-cooperation? Should non-cooperation be a capital offense?

If you lie there like a stone they should generally not shoot you. They should call some people to scrape you up and haul you off to jail. However if you engage them in some sort of fight you are taking your life into your own hands. They can legally shoot you and some of them will.

Non cooperation should not be and is not a capital offence. Engaging in a scuffle with a police office wearing a gun is not equal "non cooperation", despite your multiple attempts to conflate the two, but is also not a capital offense. If the officer does not shoot you, you will not be sentenced to death but perhaps some sort of felony resisting arrest and assault. However, you get into a scuffle with an officer wearing a gun and he is legally allowed to kill you in self defense so if you do not wish to be shot it's best not to do it.

 

[ksen]

Then WHY list the three options together, and THEN try to engage in discussing a hypothetical when asked for actual occurences?

Of the three listed, NOTHING gets you shot by the police but disagreeing with and/or not jumping fast enough for the police. Do you think the police should have the right to kill an unarmed citizen for non-cooperation? Should non-cooperation be a capital offense?

If you lie there like a stone they should generally not shoot you. They should call some people to scrape you up and haul you off to jail. However if you engage them in some sort of fight you are taking your life into your own hands. They can legally shoot you and some of them will.

Non cooperation should not be and is not a capital offence. Engaging in a scuffle with a police office wearing a gun is not equal "non cooperation", despite your multiple attempts to conflate the two, but is also not a capital offense. If the officer does not shoot you, you will not be sentenced to death but perhaps some sort of felony resisting arrest and assault. However, you get into a scuffle with an officer wearing a gun and he is legally allowed to kill you in self defense so if you do not wish to be shot it's best not to do it.

Sweet.

What's that got to do with this thread?

 

[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?

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.

You're engaging in an emotional appeal without addressing the facts. Emotional appeals that don't address the facts are basically an admission that you're wrong but you don't like the truth.

 

[TSwizzle]

Tip: My position is that the thing that leads to death is assaulting the officer, not the crime they originally came after you for.

Who assaulted this officer?

It is very clear from the video who assaulted the officer. But, you knew that already.

 

[Toni]

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.

You're engaging in an emotional appeal without addressing the facts. Emotional appeals that don't address the facts are basically an admission that you're wrong but you don't like the truth.

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.

 

[ksen]

Who assaulted this officer?

It is very clear from the video who assaulted the officer. But, you knew that already.

No I didn't because I haven't watched the video.

Got a timestamp for when the assault is shown?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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'.

No, at this point it escalated from a warning for flashing his brights to a ticket for no license. Since the kid wouldn't comply this became an arrest.

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.

Evidence needed. Tasers are not 100% by any means. They fail if the leads cross (and when firing down they're prone to that), they fail if either of the diverging barbs misses, they fail if they hit clothing that's too thick (and ordinary winter clothing can do this), they fail if both barbs hit the same piece of conductive clothing.

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.

No--while initiating the use of force would preclude a civilian from claiming self defense that doesn't apply to the cops. Their job routinely involves initiating the situation, taking away the right of self defense because they initiated would mean it would be impossible for them to do their job.

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.

The cop is expected to escalate the level of force sufficiently to do their job. This isn't wrongdoing!

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.

You're not reading what I said. At the time the cop pulled the trigger the kid was looking at two years in jail, not a minor traffic violation. And how do you get "bare hands"--he would have the cop's gun.

 

[Toni]

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.

You're engaging in an emotional appeal without addressing the facts. Emotional appeals that don't address the facts are basically an admission that you're wrong but you don't like the truth.

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.

 

[Toni]

It is very clear from the video who assaulted the officer. But, you knew that already.

No I didn't because I haven't watched the video.

Got a timestamp for when the assault is shown?

I HAVE seen the video. You hear the officer threatening the kid, you see the officer tazing the kid. You do NOT see the kid assaulting the officer.

Which anyone would know if he or she would ever deign to actually watch a video.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You can't write a ticket if identity isn't established. The non-cooperative nature of the situation means the cop had no way to establish his identity, thus it would escalate to an arrest for no license.

As for the cell phone--recording wasn't a problem. The problem is he kept trying to tell someone on the other end things.

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.

Refusing to put your arms behind your back counts as resisting arrest.

I do agree the kid didn't understand the reality of the situation--but ignorance of the law is no excuse, certainly for a driver. Whether he was actually one of these sovereign citizen kooks or just fell victim to their garbage we probably will never know.

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.

The tasing was proper--because he wouldn't put his arms behind his back.

And where's the evidence of unsafe or improper???

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.

The cop shot because he was losing.

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.

You just made my point--he had no other options.

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.

You're not rebutting this one.

And one should expect the cops to escalate when one resists! Other than the cop losing the fistfight and having to use his gun everything played out as I would expect it to. Don't play roadside lawyer, don't attack the cops.

- - - Updated - - -

Simple question, yes or no answer requested.

Is this the country where you want to live, where kids get killed and where the police shoot people because they don't like them at the time?

The fantasy world you want doesn't exist.

This wasn't a shooting because the cop didn't like the kid. This was a completely logical progression of events in every step triggered by the kid's noncompliance.

 

[TSwizzle]

No I didn't because I haven't watched the video.

Got a timestamp for when the assault is shown?

I HAVE seen the video. You hear the officer threatening the kid, you see the officer tazing the kid. You do NOT see the kid assaulting the officer.

Which anyone would know if he or she would ever deign to actually watch a video.

I saw it, very clearly and in slow motion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Double parking, parking in disabled bays and texting while driving, I would welcome the cops shooting these people no matter what age they are.

The latter might be a good idea.

Double parking--simply make it legal to do what you want to a double-parked car, consistent with general safety. (Thus, for example, lighting it on fire would not be acceptable.)

- - - Updated - - -

Tip: My position is that the thing that leads to death is assaulting the officer, not the crime they originally came after you for.

Who assaulted this officer?

Earth to ksen: The kid!