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

[ksen]

and that leads to a downward angle how?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Or with a little patience it would "escalate" to explaining the situation again and waiting for the kid to provide the license.

The kid wasn't going to comply even if the officer talked himself blue in the face. He didn't have his license with him. Anyway, the change from asking for the paperwork to arresting seems to be because he wouldn't leave his phone alone.

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

Which as we all know is illegal in the U.S. because in the U.S. there is no freedom of speech or association.

In a situation like this it can be seen as a threat--an attempt to summon armed help.

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.

He didn't refuse to put his arms behind his back. He didn't say, "NO!" or, "I won't put my arms behind my back, officer," or, "I am resisting arrest." He merely took more than two seconds to figure out what was going on.

He knew what was going on at that point, there was time for the cop to warn him that he would be tased if he didn't comply and he still didn't comply.

The tasing was for no good reason because the kid was no threat to anyone and had at no point demonstrated any aggression whatsoever. He was obeying the officer's commands until the officer tried to destroy his cell phone also for no good reason. This infact seems to cause the confusion that delays the kid from putting his arms behind his back.

I see you still don't understand the taser. In a situation like this it's a pain-compliance tool, not a defensive tool. And he didn't try to destroy the cell phone, merely take it away.

The tasing was improper and unsafe because officer was nearly standing on the kid and he fired the taser downward at a range that was too close for optimal function of the weapon. He could have tased himself. The tasing did in fact fail because of the improper use of the weapon.

He didn't have a better way to do it given the situation. Furthermore, even if it failed it shouldn't have made the situation any worse.

Let me repeat myself.
We have no objective evidence as to who was winning the fight.
We have no objective evidence as to who was winning the fight.

But we have the fact the cop was hurt and we have no other reason for him to have fired. The most logical assumption is the cop is telling the truth.

No. There is a difference between having no evidence as to what sort of options you have and not having any other options.
It is the same difference between having no evidence as to the number of dwarf planets orbiting Alpha Centauri, and knowing Alpha Centauri has no dwarf planets orbiting it.

But this is a situation where we do know the options. All I here from the left is defuse, defuse, defuse--with no indication of how it's supposed to be accomplished. You see a situation with a bad outcome and automatically side with the underdog.

I still disagree that he was resisting. But you make a good point. We have come to expect cops to needlessly escalate situations to the point life and death. So the kid had every right to suspect he was about to be murdered by this officer and should have fought back as hard as he could in defense of his life as soon as it became clear the officer intended to hurt him. If anyone's motivations should be called into question here on general principal it is a police officer's.

If the cops don't escalate when faced with resistance they're useless.

How about this for a moral to the story: Don't tolerate police officers driving illegally unsafe vehicles. Don't tolerate police officers useing entrapment to fabricate traffic stops. Don't tolerate police officers assaulting compliant non-aggressive and confused citizens.

We have no evidence the vehicle is illegal or unsafe. Extra bright headlights can fool people into thinking they are brights when they aren't. Perhaps we need to change the rules on headlights but unless we do so don't blame the cop. (The current rules are based on aiming, not on intensity. Bright lights placed high up can be bothersome but are perfectly legal as it stands.)

I see no entrapment, and since he was only giving warnings anyway there's no reason for entrapment--he gains nothing.

I also do not see a confused citizen here. He knew what was up, he just didn't want to comply.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But,why seven fucking times?

Because you keep shooting until the threat is obviously resolved. In a situation like this that means unconsciousness. (And in practice there will likely be an extra round or two--the human brain is capable of firing multiple rounds in the time it takes to evaluate whether they should continue to fire.)

 

[laughing dog]

But,why seven fucking times?

Because you keep shooting until the threat of a living witness is obviously resolved.

FIFY

 

[zorq]

Or with a little patience it would "escalate" to explaining the situation again and waiting for the kid to provide the license.

The kid wasn't going to comply even if the officer talked himself blue in the face. He didn't have his license with him. Anyway, the change from asking for the paperwork to arresting seems to be because he wouldn't leave his phone alone.

I agree using the phone was what triggerd the officer to escalate the situation. But SCOTUS has affirmed the right of citizens to record police officers. Scotus has affirmed the right of citizens to communicate with other people even when they are being detained. The boy was within his rights to use his phone. This should not have caused the officer to escalate the situation.

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

Which as we all know is illegal in the U.S. because in the U.S. there is no freedom of speech or association.

In a situation like this it can be seen as a threat--an attempt to summon armed help.

Maybe if the officer had actually witnessed the boy attempting to summon armed help it could be considered a threat. But the officer didn't. So there is no good reason for him to do so.

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.

He didn't refuse to put his arms behind his back. He didn't say, "NO!" or, "I won't put my arms behind my back, officer," or, "I am resisting arrest." He merely took more than two seconds to figure out what was going on.

He knew what was going on at that point, there was time for the cop to warn him that he would be tased if he didn't comply and he still didn't comply.

Just like the Officer's previous command to "get on the ground" the boy was confused because he was already kneeling "on the ground," I think the boy was confused by the command to "Put your arms behind your back," because the officer was already holding one of the boy's arms behind his back. I think it is clear the boy thought he was already complying with the command to get on the ground and I think it is likely the boy thought he was already complying with the command to put his arms behind his back. But again he seemed more confused by the officer kicking his phone away violently.

The tasing was for no good reason because the kid was no threat to anyone and had at no point demonstrated any aggression whatsoever. He was obeying the officer's commands until the officer tried to destroy his cell phone also for no good reason. This infact seems to cause the confusion that delays the kid from putting his arms behind his back.

I see you still don't understand the taser. In a situation like this it's a pain-compliance tool, not a defensive tool. And he didn't try to destroy the cell phone, merely take it away.

How is spasming uncontrolably going to help you comply with an order to move your body into a specific position? That's a rhetorical question.

If your suspect is resisting, a pain-compliance tool may be called for. If your suspect is confused, you are needlessly escalating the situation and endangering the suspect's life.

The tasing was improper and unsafe because officer was nearly standing on the kid and he fired the taser downward at a range that was too close for optimal function of the weapon. He could have tased himself. The tasing did in fact fail because of the improper use of the weapon.

He didn't have a better way to do it given the situation. Furthermore, even if it failed it shouldn't have made the situation any worse.

It did fail and it made the situation orders of magnitude worse. Did you actually write that?

Let me repeat myself.
We have no objective evidence as to who was winning the fight.
We have no objective evidence as to who was winning the fight.

But we have the fact the cop was hurt and we have no other reason for him to have fired. The most logical assumption is the cop is telling the truth.

There are a near infinite number of reasons the cop might have fired his side arm. The reason the officer gave is plausible and likely but not overwhelmingly so. For example, the officer may in fact be a psychopath who deliberately ripped his body camera from his body because he saw this as the perfect opportunity to live out his dream of filling a snotty teenager full of lead. Another example may be that the officer, surprised by the failure of his taser and the boy's recovery fell backward into the ditch by the side of the road. Flustered and hurt, he shot the kid who was coming down to help the officer out of the mud because Sgt. Frost was scared and in a compromising position. Lot's of different things could have happened in the 10 seconds we don't have video for.

No. There is a difference between having no evidence as to what sort of options you have and not having any other options.
It is the same difference between having no evidence as to the number of dwarf planets orbiting Alpha Centauri, and knowing Alpha Centauri has no dwarf planets orbiting it.

But this is a situation where we do know the options. All I here from the left is defuse, defuse, defuse--with no indication of how it's supposed to be accomplished. You see a situation with a bad outcome and automatically side with the underdog.

You see a situation with a bad outcome and automatically side with the authority figure. You don't know if Sgt. Frost could have safely disengaged from the boy. You don't know if Sgt. Frost had the boy dazed and pinned. You don't know if Sgt. Frost had a backup taser, pepper spray, or a baton that might have been better options. In other words, you don't know that using a fire arm was the next logical step that you labeled "7)."

Why do you accept Sgt. Frost description of events without question despite having no other corroborating evidence and knowing full well that Police officers have strong motive to lie every time a citizen ends up injured or dead?

Because you automatically side with the authority figure.

I still disagree that he was resisting. But you make a good point. We have come to expect cops to needlessly escalate situations to the point life and death. So the kid had every right to suspect he was about to be murdered by this officer and should have fought back as hard as he could in defense of his life as soon as it became clear the officer intended to hurt him. If anyone's motivations should be called into question here on general principal it is a police officer's.

If the cops don't escalate when faced with resistance they're useless.

Cops who escalate when not faced with resistance are reckless and incompetent.

How about this for a moral to the story: Don't tolerate police officers driving illegally unsafe vehicles. Don't tolerate police officers useing entrapment to fabricate traffic stops. Don't tolerate police officers assaulting compliant non-aggressive and confused citizens.

We have no evidence the vehicle is illegal or unsafe. Extra bright headlights can fool people into thinking they are brights when they aren't. Perhaps we need to change the rules on headlights but unless we do so don't blame the cop. (The current rules are based on aiming, not on intensity. Bright lights placed high up can be bothersome but are perfectly legal as it stands.)

I quoted the relevant Michigan law to Derec in this thread. The law prohibits glaring lights that hit the eyes of oncoming drivers. After having three people tell him his lights were blinding them that night I feel comfortable blame the cop for knowingly driving an illegally unsafe vehicle.

I see no entrapment, and since he was only giving warnings anyway there's no reason for entrapment--he gains nothing.

Every time an officer has a chance to pull someone over it is another chance to do a civil forfeiture, discover contraband, and write other tickets that may fill a quota imposed by his superior officer. There's motive there if an officer wants it.

I also do not see a confused citizen here. He knew what was up, he just didn't want to comply.

I disagree.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The kid wasn't going to comply even if the officer talked himself blue in the face. He didn't have his license with him. Anyway, the change from asking for the paperwork to arresting seems to be because he wouldn't leave his phone alone.

I agree using the phone was what triggerd the officer to escalate the situation. But SCOTUS has affirmed the right of citizens to record police officers. Scotus has affirmed the right of citizens to communicate with other people even when they are being detained. The boy was within his rights to use his phone. This should not have caused the officer to escalate the situation.

Record, yes--set it to record and leave it there. That shouldn't cause an objection. Recording doesn't require you to keep interacting with the phone, therefore he was doing something more.

Maybe if the officer had actually witnessed the boy attempting to summon armed help it could be considered a threat. But the officer didn't. So there is no good reason for him to do so.

How is the officer supposed to know exactly what he's doing with it?

Just like the Officer's previous command to "get on the ground" the boy was confused because he was already kneeling "on the ground," I think the boy was confused by the command to "Put your arms behind your back," because the officer was already holding one of the boy's arms behind his back. I think it is clear the boy thought he was already complying with the command to get on the ground and I think it is likely the boy thought he was already complying with the command to put his arms behind his back. But again he seemed more confused by the officer kicking his phone away violently.

Wishful thinking. His only confusion is "how do I get out of this mess?"

I see you still don't understand the taser. In a situation like this it's a pain-compliance tool, not a defensive tool. And he didn't try to destroy the cell phone, merely take it away.

How is spasming uncontrolably going to help you comply with an order to move your body into a specific position? That's a rhetorical question.

What part of "pain-compliance" do you not understand? It's not about enabling the cop to pull his arm back, it's about making non-compliance painful enough that they comply.

He didn't have a better way to do it given the situation. Furthermore, even if it failed it shouldn't have made the situation any worse.

It did fail and it made the situation orders of magnitude worse. Did you actually write that?

The taser didn't make things worse. The realization that he was going to jail made things worse.

There are a near infinite number of reasons the cop might have fired his side arm. The reason the officer gave is plausible and likely but not overwhelmingly so. For example, the officer may in fact be a psychopath who deliberately ripped his body camera from his body because he saw this as the perfect opportunity to live out his dream of filling a snotty teenager full of lead. Another example may be that the officer, surprised by the failure of his taser and the boy's recovery fell backward into the ditch by the side of the road. Flustered and hurt, he shot the kid who was coming down to help the officer out of the mud because Sgt. Frost was scared and in a compromising position. Lot's of different things could have happened in the 10 seconds we don't have video for.

Psychopath: Sure, you can come up with crazy reasons but there's no reason to think they're likely.

Falling backwards in surprise: He knows tasers aren't 100%, he's not going to fall backwards in surprise if it fails. Besides, that scenario doesn't match the video--there's constant rapid motion that must be accounted for. The camera did not fail, it was simply being moved too fast to obtain much in the way of images. (Although there is one frame that appears to show a punch or something of the sort.) This is unfortunately an inherent limitation of such cameras, to get better performance means upping the shutter speed (simply discard the extra frames) and that reduces it's light sensitivity.

You see a situation with a bad outcome and automatically side with the authority figure. You don't know if Sgt. Frost could have safely disengaged from the boy. You don't know if Sgt. Frost had the boy dazed and pinned. You don't know if Sgt. Frost had a backup taser, pepper spray, or a baton that might have been better options. In other words, you don't know that using a fire arm was the next logical step that you labeled "7)."

I don't automatically assume the authority figure is in the right. I've called the cops wrong before (I consider most drug-raid shootings pretty close to murder--there it really is a confused person who doesn't know what's going on and reacts in some scary fashion and gets shot for it. If not that it's someone trying to dump their drugs and they get shot before the cop figures out it's dope he's pulling, not a gun.)

As for a backup taser--you still don't get it. Tasers aren't self-defense weapons, period! They sometimes see use in a standoff, otherwise they're a compliance tool.

Pepper spray: A very bad idea. At extremely close range like that it's going to bounce back. Both people are going to be hit, the cop is going to remove his ability to defend himself. If he fails to also take out his attacker...

Baton: The taser has pretty much replaced the baton. They play the same role--pain compliance. It's just the taser doesn't break bones, the baton sometimes does. Besides, at that range it's pretty much useless.

Why do you accept Sgt. Frost description of events without question despite having no other corroborating evidence and knowing full well that Police officers have strong motive to lie every time a citizen ends up injured or dead?

If he's lying you need some reason for him to have done so.

Cops who escalate when not faced with resistance are reckless and incompetent.

Calling it "confusion" doesn't make it not resistance.

I quoted the relevant Michigan law to Derec in this thread. The law prohibits glaring lights that hit the eyes of oncoming drivers. After having three people tell him his lights were blinding them that night I feel comfortable blame the cop for knowingly driving an illegally unsafe vehicle.

I've seen bright headlights on the road. They're annoying but nothing close to what brights are like.

 

[Toni]

I agree using the phone was what triggerd the officer to escalate the situation. But SCOTUS has affirmed the right of citizens to record police officers. Scotus has affirmed the right of citizens to communicate with other people even when they are being detained. The boy was within his rights to use his phone. This should not have caused the officer to escalate the situation.

Record, yes--set it to record and leave it there. That shouldn't cause an objection. Recording doesn't require you to keep interacting with the phone, therefore he was doing something more.

He was still allowed to talk on the phone. For instance, he could have been calling his attorney. I think I've read (cannot find now) that he was calling his girlfriend to bring him his license which he had left at her house by accident.

Maybe if the officer had actually witnessed the boy attempting to summon armed help it could be considered a threat. But the officer didn't. So there is no good reason for him to do so.

How is the officer supposed to know exactly what he's doing with it?

Common sense? Police training? Listening to the conversation? Why on earth would anyone suppose this kid was calling on some armed group?

That's crazy talk.

What part of "pain-compliance" do you not understand? It's not about enabling the cop to pull his arm back, it's about making non-compliance painful enough that they comply.

How does one comply when one is spasming out of control? Also, your response depends upon the officer discharging the taser correctly, which he did not do.

Psychopath: Sure, you can come up with crazy reasons but there's no reason to think they're likely.

Amusing, coming from someone supposing this kid was calling some anti-cop group to rescue him.

Falling backwards in surprise: He knows tasers aren't 100%, he's not going to fall backwards in surprise if it fails.

Really? Because people fall because they are in complete control of themselves and the situation? If that were true, no one would ever fall.

I don't automatically assume the authority figure is in the right. I've called the cops wrong before (I consider most drug-raid shootings pretty close to murder--there it really is a confused person who doesn't know what's going on and reacts in some scary fashion and gets shot for it.

Kind of like a 17 year old kid who just got tased, huh? Imagine that. I agree that it's pretty close to murder.

Why do you accept Sgt. Frost description of events without question despite having no other corroborating evidence and knowing full well that Police officers have strong motive to lie every time a citizen ends up injured or dead?

If he's lying you need some reason for him to have done so.

To cover up his bad actions and panic.

I've seen bright headlights on the road. They're annoying but nothing close to what brights are like.

It was snowing that night. Do you ever drive at night, when it is snowing? High beams or bright lights hit the snow flakes and cause a very diffused bright light, blinding everyone. It's very dangerous.

 

[zorq]

I agree using the phone was what triggerd the officer to escalate the situation. But SCOTUS has affirmed the right of citizens to record police officers. Scotus has affirmed the right of citizens to communicate with other people even when they are being detained. The boy was within his rights to use his phone. This should not have caused the officer to escalate the situation.

Record, yes--set it to record and leave it there. That shouldn't cause an objection. Recording doesn't require you to keep interacting with the phone, therefore he was doing something more.

Suppose it took more than 5 seconds for you to set up your phone to record a police officer. Does that give the police officer the right to arrest you and tase you?

Again people have the right to do things other than just record police officers. Even when they are detained, people maintain the right to freedom of speech. The boy could have been texting President Obama himself, legally, and without escalating the situation.

Maybe if the officer had actually witnessed the boy attempting to summon armed help it could be considered a threat. But the officer didn't. So there is no good reason for him to do so.

How is the officer supposed to know exactly what he's doing with it?

If the officer hears the boy say out loud into the phone "There's a police officer here with me on route 9, please send the gang to help me take him out," he could reasonably conclude that the boy was a threat. The officer may not presume that every outgoing message is a coded threat just because the boy is texting and the officer can't see what he's texting. The threshold needed for officers to investigate a crime is reasonable suspicion. A paranoia that every outgoing text message is a threatening request for a posse to come attack the officer does not meet the "reasonable" threshold.

Just like the Officer's previous command to "get on the ground" the boy was confused because he was already kneeling "on the ground," I think the boy was confused by the command to "Put your arms behind your back," because the officer was already holding one of the boy's arms behind his back. I think it is clear the boy thought he was already complying with the command to get on the ground and I think it is likely the boy thought he was already complying with the command to put his arms behind his back. But again he seemed more confused by the officer kicking his phone away violently.

Wishful thinking. His only confusion is "how do I get out of this mess?"

Pure malicious speculation. We all know that resisting an arresting officer is a stupid idea, especially considering the very light offences the boy was guilty of at that point. Anyone calmly pondering thought "how do I get out of this mess?" in the boy's situation would never consider actively resisting the officer. He got out of the car. He got on his knees. He got on the ground. These are the actions of someone trying to comply with an officer's commands. One of his arms was behind his back and the other looked like it was in an uncomfortable position and not reaching for any kind of weapon. It is speculation whether he thought that was fulfilling the officers command, but the look of confusion on his face and sound of fear in his voice is anything but wishful thinking.

I see you still don't understand the taser. In a situation like this it's a pain-compliance tool, not a defensive tool. And he didn't try to destroy the cell phone, merely take it away.

How is spasming uncontrolably going to help you comply with an order to move your body into a specific position? That's a rhetorical question.

What part of "pain-compliance" do you not understand? It's not about enabling the cop to pull his arm back, it's about making non-compliance painful enough that they comply.

It was a rhetorical jab.

He didn't have a better way to do it given the situation. Furthermore, even if it failed it shouldn't have made the situation any worse.

It did fail and it made the situation orders of magnitude worse. Did you actually write that?

The taser didn't make things worse. The realization that he was going to jail made things worse.

Had the taser functioned properly the officer might have had the courage to apply handcuffs to the boy who had been incapacited from the shock. Because the taser was used improperly, it failed, and it lead to a series of events that resulted in the death of a confused kid.

A successful tasing means a chain of events that result in a kid who is still alive (Or maybe not if the kid happened to have a heart condition the officer didn't know about). The tasing was improper and it made the situation worse not just because it failed but because it was unnecessary.

There are a near infinite number of reasons the cop might have fired his side arm. The reason the officer gave is plausible and likely but not overwhelmingly so. For example, the officer may in fact be a psychopath who deliberately ripped his body camera from his body because he saw this as the perfect opportunity to live out his dream of filling a snotty teenager full of lead. Another example may be that the officer, surprised by the failure of his taser and the boy's recovery fell backward into the ditch by the side of the road. Flustered and hurt, he shot the kid who was coming down to help the officer out of the mud because Sgt. Frost was scared and in a compromising position. Lot's of different things could have happened in the 10 seconds we don't have video for.

Psychopath: Sure, you can come up with crazy reasons but there's no reason to think they're likely.

Yes, I can come up wit dozens of crazy reasons. Part of the point here is that the one reason you are so sure of isn't at all necessarily the correct one.

Falling backwards in surprise: He knows tasers aren't 100%, he's not going to fall backwards in surprise if it fails. Besides, that scenario doesn't match the video--there's constant rapid motion that must be accounted for. The camera did not fail, it was simply being moved too fast to obtain much in the way of images. (Although there is one frame that appears to show a punch or something of the sort.) This is unfortunately an inherent limitation of such cameras, to get better performance means upping the shutter speed (simply discard the extra frames) and that reduces it's light sensitivity.

The camera did fail in that it fell from the officer's body as was reported in some of the articles. One frame shows the boy with his arms out but that's about it.

Also, anyone can be surprised by sudden unexpected movements. I still jump in my seat every time I watch Gremlins and I see Spike jump out from one of the cupboards in the kitchen scene. Being a police officer doesn't make a person immune to surprise. Where do you get this stuff?

You see a situation with a bad outcome and automatically side with the authority figure. You don't know if Sgt. Frost could have safely disengaged from the boy. You don't know if Sgt. Frost had the boy dazed and pinned. You don't know if Sgt. Frost had a backup taser, pepper spray, or a baton that might have been better options. In other words, you don't know that using a fire arm was the next logical step that you labeled "7)."

I don't automatically assume the authority figure is in the right. I've called the cops wrong before (I consider most drug-raid shootings pretty close to murder--there it really is a confused person who doesn't know what's going on and reacts in some scary fashion and gets shot for it. If not that it's someone trying to dump their drugs and they get shot before the cop figures out it's dope he's pulling, not a gun.)

As for a backup taser--you still don't get it. Tasers aren't self-defense weapons, period! They sometimes see use in a standoff, otherwise they're a compliance tool.

You don't have to treat a taser as a self defense weapon to want to have a back up. They are single use weapons and there are a lot of people out there.

Pepper spray: A very bad idea. At extremely close range like that it's going to bounce back. Both people are going to be hit, the cop is going to remove his ability to defend himself. If he fails to also take out his attacker...

OMG, You don't know that they were at extremely close range because there is no objective evidence as to what happened during those 10 seconds. So many assumptions you have! There ARE situations where pepper spray is preferable to a taser! I know it and you know it. Those missing 10 seconds could have contained one of those situations because again, we have no objective evidence as to what happened.

Baton: The taser has pretty much replaced the baton. They play the same role--pain compliance. It's just the taser doesn't break bones, the baton sometimes does. Besides, at that range it's pretty much useless.

See above regarding range and things that you don't have objective evidence for.

Why do you accept Sgt. Frost description of events without question despite having no other corroborating evidence and knowing full well that Police officers have strong motive to lie every time a citizen ends up injured or dead?

If he's lying you need some reason for him to have done so.

The reason an officer would lie in this situation are obvious. To avoid punishment for killing another human being.

Cops who escalate when not faced with resistance are reckless and incompetent.

Calling it "confusion" doesn't make it not resistance.

You seriously don't think police should make allowances for confused citizens? Citizens who are deaf? Citizens who don't speak English? Citizens with mental disabilities? Citizens who recently recieved a concussion? Citizens who are near death? Citizens who are simply confused? All of these people should be tased into pain-compliance when they don't immediately follow the commands of police officers?

Wow.

I quoted the relevant Michigan law to Derec in this thread. The law prohibits glaring lights that hit the eyes of oncoming drivers. After having three people tell him his lights were blinding them that night I feel comfortable blame the cop for knowingly driving an illegally unsafe vehicle.

I've seen bright headlights on the road. They're annoying but nothing close to what brights are like.

According to Michigan law those bright headlights would be considered illegal if they were glaring.

Why would 3 people tell the officer that his lights were blinding them if the lights weren't sending glaring beams into their eyes?
Have you ever calibrated and angled a car's headlights? I have. It can be done improperly. Of course we also only have the officer's word that the was not using his hi-beams. As I already explained there is a motive there for an officer to simply drive around with his hi-beams on to entrap people into flasing him.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

I don't see the cop losing his cool and the kid was not sitting passively--the trigger incident for deciding to arrest seems to have been what he was doing with the phone despite being told to leave it alone. The kid was spouting sovereign citizen garbage, his use of the phone could be an attempt to summon help. (As in violent help.)

The cop's escalations aren't one bit out of line, he was responding to what the kid did. The kid, however, kept escalating the situation rather than simply accept his ticket like a driver should.

You don't read people well, do you Loren? I mean in real life. That would explain so much.

 

[RavenSky]

Or with a little patience it would "escalate" to explaining the situation again and waiting for the kid to provide the license.

The kid wasn't going to comply even if the officer talked himself blue in the face. He didn't have his license with him. Anyway, the change from asking for the paperwork to arresting seems to be because he wouldn't leave his phone alone.

because he had called his girlfriend to bring his wallet with his license that he had forgotten at her house, so you are clearly wrong about "the kid wasn't going to comply"

But frankly, facts don't matter to you in these case. You wil always always always defend the police killing civilians no matter what the facts ever are. Not even other police officers defend these types of situations as vehemently as you do.

 

[RavenSky]

But this is a situation where we do know the options. All I here from the left is defuse, defuse, defuse--with no indication of how it's supposed to be accomplished. You see a situation with a bad outcome and automatically side with the underdog.

No, it is you who automatically sides with the authoritarian police officer killing unarmed civilians.

As for other options, there were many many much better options that shooting an unarmed teenager seven times until he was dead. Clearly you don't know the other options because you are defending this cop's actions.

Here is a better option - Stop getting into a macho pissing match with a mouthy teenager. Stop arguing with the kid about the headlights. Stop barking orders at him like he is a criminal. Had the cop not actively escalated the situation, he would have learned that the teenager had called his girlfriend to bring his wallet. Instead, the cop behaved in an overly authoritarian manner which was, unfortunately, what the general public expects these days. The teenager got confrontational back, including being somewhat uncooperative and recording the cop's actions - both of which he is allowed by law to do. The cop could have deescalated at any point, and the teenager would still be alive. This is 100% on the cop.

 

[laughing dog]

Since when did society expect teenagers and younger children to behave more responsibly than adults?

 

[TSwizzle]

Since when did society expect teenagers and younger children to behave more responsibly than adults?

It wasn't so long ago that teenagers and youngsters were brought up to be polite and courteous to adults, particularly to those in authority like the police and teachers. Not so much these days. Teachers are shit scared to even chastise a pupil for using a cell phone in class for fear of physical assault.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Since when did society expect teenagers and younger children to behave more responsibly than adults?

It wasn't so long ago that teenagers and youngsters were brought up to be polite and courteous to adults, particularly to those in authority like the police and teachers.

It wasn't so long ago that police didn't shot unarmed kids and teachers didn't call police on kids and get them arrested

Not so much these days. Teachers are shit scared to even chastise a pupil for using a cell phone in class for fear of physical assault.

that is because we have passed laws and instituted policies that take power away from teachers and encourage policing instead of discipline.

 

[Malintent]

But this is a situation where we do know the options. All I here from the left is defuse, defuse, defuse--with no indication of how it's supposed to be accomplished. You see a situation with a bad outcome and automatically side with the underdog.

No, it is you who automatically sides with the authoritarian police officer killing unarmed civilians.

As for other options, there were many many much better options that shooting an unarmed teenager seven times until he was dead. Clearly you don't know the other options because you are defending this cop's actions.

Here is a better option - Stop getting into a macho pissing match with a mouthy teenager. Stop arguing with the kid about the headlights. Stop barking orders at him like he is a criminal. Had the cop not actively escalated the situation, he would have learned that the teenager had called his girlfriend to bring his wallet. Instead, the cop behaved in an overly authoritarian manner which was, unfortunately, what the general public expects these days. The teenager got confrontational back, including being somewhat uncooperative and recording the cop's actions - both of which he is allowed by law to do. The cop could have deescalated at any point, and the teenager would still be alive. This is 100% on the cop.

I agree that the cop fueled the escalation. He could have handled things much more... humanly.

However, you are wrong about a few things. firstly, it is not illegal to record a cop, but it is not your 'right' to do so. If the cop tells you to remove all items from your hands, that will include the recording device you are holding. put it the fuck down. If you are the type of person that feels they need to have a means to record everything, then a dash cam, or dashboard mount for your phone is a more appropriate a tool. It is not the cops responsibility to ensure you can record him. This cop even states to the teen that he is recording everything too. A better title to this thread might be, "teen gets himself shot over not letting go of his phone".
The other thing is that "being confrontational back" in this particular case amounted to a misdemeanor offense of failing to produce your drivers license as the operator of a motor vehicle. When he got more 'confrontational' by refusing to get out of the car, the misdemeanor offense escallaed to a felony.. resisting arrest.

Kids these days lack respect and common courtesy. They are completely absorbed by their digitized social networks and lack of common sense, situational awareness, and common courtesy.

Not that he should have been shot by a cop for this... but it is something I would love to do to half the drivers on the road today, now that everyone has a fucking cellphone glued to their stupid, clueless faces.

 

[TSwizzle]

I agree that the cop fueled the escalation. He could have handled things much more... humanly.

If Deven had been smart, he would have complied with the officer's instructions and likely would have been sent on his way with a warning. But these types of traffic stops are bogus anyway, that's a big problem.

Kids these days lack respect and common courtesy. They are completely absorbed by their digitized social networks and lack of common sense, situational awareness, and common courtesy.

Not that he should have been shot by a cop for this... but it is something I would love to do to half the drivers on the road today, now that everyone has a fucking cellphone glued to their stupid, clueless faces.

I hope I haven't taken this out of context but the kid wasn't shot because he was rude, he was shot due to him attacking a police officer.

 

[laughing dog]

Since when did society expect teenagers and younger children to behave more responsibly than adults?

It wasn't so long ago that teenagers and youngsters were brought up to be polite and courteous to adults, particularly to those in authority like the police and teachers. Not so much these days. Teachers are shit scared to even chastise a pupil for using a cell phone in class for fear of physical assault.

What does any of that have to do with my question?

 

[TSwizzle]

It wasn't so long ago that teenagers and youngsters were brought up to be polite and courteous to adults, particularly to those in authority like the police and teachers. Not so much these days. Teachers are shit scared to even chastise a pupil for using a cell phone in class for fear of physical assault.

What does any of that have to do with my question?

Just a general opinion of what was expected of youngsters. I don't think society really expects teenagers and younger children to be more responsible than adults.

 

[ksen]

What does any of that have to do with my question?

Just a general opinion of what was expected of youngsters. I don't think society really expects teenagers and younger children to be more responsible than adults.

Unless of course if they interact with the police. In that case people expect that the teenager is the responsible one to stop the cop from killing him.

 

[TSwizzle]

Just a general opinion of what was expected of youngsters. I don't think society really expects teenagers and younger children to be more responsible than adults.

Unless of course if they interact with the police. In that case people expect that the teenager is the responsible one to stop the cop from killing him.

I don't think it is asking too much of a teenager to refrain from attacking a police officer or a teacher or an adult.