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

[ksen]

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.

I agree.

I also don't think it's too much to ask that police officers are trained well enough to be able to take down a teenage boy without resorting to his service weapon.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Then society should hold this police officer more responsible for this tragedy than the teenager.

 

[TSwizzle]

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.

I agree.

I also don't think it's too much to ask that police officers are trained well enough to be able to take down a teenage boy without resorting to his service weapon.

I think there is a lot to be learned from this incident.

 

[Malintent]

what does your question have to do with the discussion? Who said the expectation was as you said? If someone is a licensed driver, then they are expected to behave as an adult (not 'better' than anything). Adults get bent out of shape sometimes too. but not over a fucking cell phone like a teenager today might, which if you watched the viedo you would see was the 'last straw' that drove this kid to have his deadly tantrum.

 

[ksen]

Adults get bent out of shape sometimes too. but not over a fucking cell phone

uh huh

 

[laughing dog]

what does your question have to do with the discussion? Who said the expectation was as you said?

Read the entire thread and you should be able to understand. The teenager acted more like an adult for most of the incident than the police officer.

If someone is a licensed driver, then they are expected to behave as an adult (not 'better' than anything).

No, they are expected to behave like a licensed driver. For example, having a driver's license does not entitle someone to all the legal privileges and responsibilities of an adult.

Adults get bent out of shape sometimes too. but not over a fucking cell phone like a teenager today might, which if you watched the viedo you would see was the 'last straw' that drove this kid to have his deadly tantrum.

How come you are not applying that reasoning to the police officer's behavior?

 

[abaddon]

what does your question have to do with the discussion? Who said the expectation was as you said? If someone is a licensed driver, then they are expected to behave as an adult (not 'better' than anything). Adults get bent out of shape sometimes too. but not over a fucking cell phone like a teenager today might, which if you watched the viedo you would see was the 'last straw' that drove this kid to have his deadly tantrum.

No, his "last straw" was getting tazed, whatever the feeling of that is like when you're laying on your stomach, feeling physically assaulted, and then suddenly there's a painful sharp jab of some object entering your body from behind you. Having the phone kicked from his hand was just another of the acts of belligerence by the officer that were getting increasingly violent. You're trying to make a social commentary on cell phones that isn't relevant here.

My impression is “the kid” had a strong sense of fairness and justice, naively so which is no surprise at 17 years old. But in any case that he was argumentative and hesitant isn’t the problem.

That a police officer was out of line and having a “tantrum” is the problem. Why pull people over when they’re clearly just trying to signal that the brightness of his headlights was distressing them? Here’s the most stupid possible answer to my question, just to get this one out of the way: “Cuz it’s the law”. It’s a petty law of no consequence to anyone and wouldn’t be enforced under the circumstances of that evening by any sane, rational, non-belligerent human being. "But he didn't have his brights on" is another idiocy because it just doesn't matter. If the lights are distressing other drivers then the officer's primary problem to solve that evening was his over-bright lights that were freaking the drivers in his area out. The people who find them to be too bright were not the problem to solve. His job is to protect drivers from unsafe drivers, not go around proving how very fucking wrong they are about a stupid technicality ("my brights were not on!").

Why not sit and wait for backup? One of the most stupid possible answers has already been offered, namely the fear Deven was phoning for some “sovereign citizens” to come shoot the policeman so something needed to be done quick. Deven didn’t utter a single word to suggest this, he’s not spouting any “sovereign citizen garbage” whatsoever. He had clearly seen Youtube videos where people discuss citizen’s constitutional rights during traffic stops, however mistaken some of those sometimes are. But he was right to protest how aggressive and belligerent the officer’s behavior is.

The county prosecutor said something to the effect: “Both could have made better decisions”. Yes, but the ones that matter most, because they’re the most deadly to human beings, are ones made by armed authority figures.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Did you not watch the video? He's constantly messing with the phone, even when he's down on the ground about to be cuffed.

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.

He's describing the situation--that's really all that's needed if he's talking to someone of such a mindset. The phone can be traced by someone with access to the account.

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.

The point is that you are suggesting it's use as a self-defense weapon. That's why I'm saying you don't get it. It's not a matter of whether he has a backup or not. (And there's basically no reason to carry two, anyway. Tasers are single-shot but reloadable--pop a new cartridge on and it's good to go.)

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.

We know he was being injured in those 10 seconds--the kid had no ranged weapon so that means they were at contact range for a good portion of the time.

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?

No--I'm saying that keep pretending his resistance was due to confusion. The only thing he might actually have been confused about was getting face down rather than just kneeling.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

No--he would have gotten the no-license ticket.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

what does your question have to do with the discussion? Who said the expectation was as you said? If someone is a licensed driver, then they are expected to behave as an adult (not 'better' than anything). Adults get bent out of shape sometimes too. but not over a fucking cell phone like a teenager today might, which if you watched the viedo you would see was the 'last straw' that drove this kid to have his deadly tantrum.

No, his "last straw" was getting tazed, whatever the feeling of that is like when you're laying on your stomach, feeling physically assaulted, and then suddenly there's a painful sharp jab of some object entering your body from behind you. Having the phone kicked from his hand was just another of the acts of belligerence by the officer that were getting increasingly violent. You're trying to make a social commentary on cell phones that isn't relevant here.

The tasing was no surprise--he was told he would be tased if he didn't comply.

And the phone wouldn't have been kicked away if he had obeyed instructions and left it alone. Cops kick away such objects rather than reach for them as it would put them in a weaker position.

My impression is “the kid” had a strong sense of fairness and justice, naively so which is no surprise at 17 years old. But in any case that he was argumentative and hesitant isn’t the problem.

No. He had a mind full of sovereign citizen bullshit and was trying to use it to avoid a ticket.

Why not sit and wait for backup? One of the most stupid possible answers has already been offered, namely the fear Deven was phoning for some “sovereign citizens” to come shoot the policeman so something needed to be done quick. Deven didn’t utter a single word to suggest this, he’s not spouting any “sovereign citizen garbage” whatsoever. He had clearly seen Youtube videos where people discuss citizen’s constitutional rights during traffic stops, however mistaken some of those sometimes are. But he was right to protest how aggressive and belligerent the officer’s behavior is.

His argument about "rights" is sovereign citizen bullshit. The reality is that if you're driving the cops have a right to demand your paperwork. Any driver who doesn't know this doesn't know the laws they are operating under and thus shouldn't be on the road in the first place.

And the officer's behavior wasn't belligerent until he pulled his bogus rights argument.

 

[ksen]

We know he was being injured in those 10 seconds

We don't know that he was injured by the kid.

For all we know he could have been hit by the recoil of his gun.

Those don't look like punch bruises.

Why was Sgt. Frost hustled out of there before the paramedics arrived?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If Deven had been smart, ...

He would have been 36 by the time the cop walked up to the car. But he couldn't do that so ...

"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride:
If turnips were swords, I'd wear one by my side,:
And if, Ifs and Ands were pots and pans,
there'd be no work for tinkers"

 

[TSwizzle]

If Deven had been smart, ...

He would have been 36 by the time the cop walked up to the car.

So the answer is to increase the age for a drivers license to 36 ? Not issue a drivers license/permit to dipshit teenagers ?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

He would have been 36 by the time the cop walked up to the car.

So the answer is to increase the age for a drivers license to 36 ? Not issue a drivers license/permit to dipshit teenagers ?

Wrong

(and no style points either)

 

[Toni]

He would have been 36 by the time the cop walked up to the car.

So the answer is to increase the age for a drivers license to 36 ? Not issue a drivers license/permit to dipshit teenagers ?

No: don't hire dipshits to be cops. And don't arm dipshits.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We know he was being injured in those 10 seconds

We don't know that he was injured by the kid.

For all we know he could have been hit by the recoil of his gun.

Recoil? Officers have a lot of practice on the range and handguns don't have all that much recoil in the first place.

 

[TSwizzle]

So the answer is to increase the age for a drivers license to 36 ? Not issue a drivers license/permit to dipshit teenagers ?

No: don't hire dipshits to be cops. And don't arm dipshits.

If officer Frost had not been armed, dipshit teenager would possibly be in jail for murder.

 

[RavenSky]

No: don't hire dipshits to be cops. And don't arm dipshits.

If officer Frost had not been armed, dipshit teenager would possibly be in jail for murder.

Your posts are getting more and more ridiculous

If Frost had not been armed, the teenager's girlfriend would have arrived with his driver's license, and the teenager may have gotten a ticket, at most.

 

[bleubird]

Sgt. Frost looks like a thug to me.

 

[TSwizzle]

If officer Frost had not been armed, dipshit teenager would possibly be in jail for murder.

Your posts are getting more and more ridiculous

If Frost had not been armed, the teenager's girlfriend would have arrived with his driver's license, and the teenager may have gotten a ticket, at most.

Again, if Deven had been smart.......etc

 

[ksen]

We don't know that he was injured by the kid.

For all we know he could have been hit by the recoil of his gun.

Recoil? Officers have a lot of practice on the range and handguns don't have all that much recoil in the first place.

You've obviously never had a thumb in the way of the slide before.