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

[Toni]

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.

So at what point do we see the kid assault the officer?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

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.

 

[ksen]

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 was just reading a story that had the video embedded and I didn't see an actual fight either.

But this part of the story was interesting.

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/.../16/press-conference-eaton-guilford/28801761/

Lloyd said Guilford got off the ground and the altercation ended in a snow-filled ditch, where Guilford was able to get on top of Frost and was hitting him in the face. There is no video of the final moments. Frost's body camera came off during the fight and his SUV had no dash camera; Guilford's cell phone remained on the pavement, recording audio of the shots but no video of the shooting.

Lloyd said Frost could feel blood in his mouth and felt he was about to lose consciousness before he removed his gun from the holster. Lloyd said Frost's gun did not fire at first, but he ejected an unfired round, chambered a new round and fired seven shots at close range in four seconds, all of which struck Guilford.

I'd like to know how a guy supposedly about to lose consciousness, on his back, with someone sitting on top of him is able to get his pistol out of the holster, misfire it, clear it and chamber a new round.

That's pretty impressive.

 

[TSwizzle]

I saw it, very clearly and in slow motion.

So at what point do we see the kid assault the officer?

You didn't see it ? Quelle surprise !

 

[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?

Earth to ksen: The kid!

So the officer says but police have been known to lie to protect their asses so why should I believe Sgt. Frost?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Playing the discrimination card now?

The reason I deemed your argument emotional is that it was an appeal to emotions rather than addressing the facts of the case--you're utterly ignoring the repeated escalations the kid engaged in that were what drove this incident.

 

[ksen]

addressing the facts of the case

Who assaulted this officer?

Earth to ksen: The kid!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You see the camera jerk all over the place. You don't see much of the assault because of this--the scene is badly motion-blurred but given what lead up to it there's no reason for this other than the kid attacking. Furthermore, nothing up until that point would have injured the cop but he was injured--it must have happened then.

 

[TSwizzle]

I'd like to know how a guy supposedly about to lose consciousness, on his back, with someone sitting on top of him is able to get his pistol out of the holster, misfire it, clear it and chamber a new round.

Ah, you have cleared up the mystery of why the kid was only shot seven times instead of eight. Excellent work

 

[ksen]

I'd like to know how a guy supposedly about to lose consciousness, on his back, with someone sitting on top of him is able to get his pistol out of the holster, misfire it, clear it and chamber a new round.

Ah, you have cleared up the mystery of why the kid was only shot seven times instead of eight. Excellent work

yw! :fistbump:

 

[Toni]

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.

You see the camera jerk all over the place. You don't see much of the assault because of this--the scene is badly motion-blurred but given what lead up to it there's no reason for this other than the kid attacking. Furthermore, nothing up until that point would have injured the cop but he was injured--it must have happened then.

Really. No other possible explanation such as the officer tripping and injuring himself. Or tazing himself. Or a lot of other scenarios. We don't know because there is no video evidence. The last thing you hear is the kid screaming in pain. We have only the officer's word because conveniently, the only other witness is dead.

 

[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.

Playing the discrimination card now?

The reason I deemed your argument emotional is that it was an appeal to emotions rather than addressing the facts of the case--you're utterly ignoring the repeated escalations the kid engaged in that were what drove this incident.

No. But nice try at a second refusal to addtess my post and instead foist your own emotional agenda on me.

I addressed the facts of the case . The officer escalated by not being able to properly conduct a traffic stop, by losing his cool, by yanking a kid put of his car, by tasing the kid. The officer had already called for back up. Why not wait? The kid was sitting passively in his car until yanked out by the police officer.
What the kid did was to have the temerity to question why he was being stopped. The police officer was clearly irritated because it was the third time someone had flashed their brights at him, but that was hardly the fault of the kid. The kid was trying to be helpful. The officer acted put of cumulative frustration--he acted out of emotion instead of reason which would have told him to have his headlights adjusted.

 

[TSwizzle]

Really. No other possible explanation such as the officer tripping and injuring himself. Or tazing himself. Or a lot of other scenarios. We don't know because there is no video evidence.

This is true only if you are prepared to ignore the video footage of the kid attacking the officer.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

And?

This wasn't a shooting because the cop didn't like the kid.

Oh, so the cop shot the kid but he did so lovingly?

This was a completely logical progression of events in every step triggered by the kid's noncompliance.

Wrong. An experienced and well-trained police officer will not be baited by a kid and will DEESCALATE the situation not thoughtlessly react like Pavlov's dogs. Also, an experienced and well-trained police officer knows how to use a taser and at what range.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Really. No other possible explanation such as the officer tripping and injuring himself. Or tazing himself. Or a lot of other scenarios. We don't know because there is no video evidence.

This is true only if you are prepared to ignore the video footage of the kid attacking the officer.

I saw that on Fox News & Friends, too. It was right after how Hillary is going to make Obamacare even worse by poisoning the drinking water with fluoride. And it was right before how Captain America discriminates against White, conservative, patriotic men. The content of the video in slow motion showed the kid with his arm clearly visible. And that proved to everyone that the kid was on top of the police officer beating him. You already provided the timestamp in the thread when asked, right?

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Playing the discrimination card now?

The reason I deemed your argument emotional is that it was an appeal to emotions rather than addressing the facts of the case--you're utterly ignoring the repeated escalations the kid engaged in that were what drove this incident.

You ignore the repeated escalations the officer engaged in that drove this incident. Perhaps you are the one making emotional appeals.

 

[Toni]

Really. No other possible explanation such as the officer tripping and injuring himself. Or tazing himself. Or a lot of other scenarios. We don't know because there is no video evidence.

This is true only if you are prepared to ignore the video footage of the kid attacking the officer.

I am not ignoring it. I haven't seen the kid attack the officer. Could you please post a link to the video showing that attack and could you please also note the time stamp? I am willing to admit if I made a mistake.

 

[TSwizzle]

The content of the video in slow motion showed the kid with his arm clearly visible.

The video clearly shows the kid lunging at the officer and strike the officer with his arm/hand/fist. But you will probably ignore that in favor of attacking an argument I never made or some other red herring.

- - - Updated - - -

This is true only if you are prepared to ignore the video footage of the kid attacking the officer.

I am not ignoring it. I haven't seen the kid attack the officer. Could you please post a link to the video showing that attack and could you please also note the time stamp? I am willing to admit if I made a mistake.

The video link is in the OP.

 

[ksen]

I saw a kid trying to get away after being tazed.

It's still amazing to me that in the course of a few seconds the officer manages to get beat nearly unconscious with the kid on top of him, pull his gun while nearly unconscious, misfire while nearly unconscious, clear his weapon while nearly unconscious and fire seven shots into the kid while nearly unconscious.

Again, all within about ten seconds.

Cop of the Year.