Teen gets himself shot/killed for what should have been a routine traffic stop

[flexy]

Let me first state the obvious:

OF COURSE it was entirely unjustified that the teen was shot and one could argue that even pulling him over and later him telling not to film was unjustified.

But from watching the video it was very clear to me that the teen was acting like a total brat, he did everything to escalate the situation which...no matter whether you're in the right or not, IN SUCH A SITUATION is totally foolish, to say it mildly.

At the end, the brat actually attacked the cop, I mean it's right there on the footage. When I was a kid I was terrified from cops and even now it wouldn't even remotely come to my mind to actually assault/attack a cop, even in such a situation where I'd be convinced that the cop is not in the right of doing what he's doing.

This is something you let a lawyer/judge decide but not WITH PHYSICAL VIOLENCE during an arrest. WTF was he even thinking would be result of his attack on the cop?

That he can "overtake" the cop, eg. beat him and can then escape from the situation and everything would be fine then? Was this his logic? Was he high on something to even think like this?

The instant the cop was attacked he had (for me) a legitimate reason to use the gun. Sorry to say that. The cop had reason to fear for his life IN THIS VERY MOMENT.

Why are the parents even suing (or think they have a chance with such a lawsuit) when you can clearly see the guy "jumping" the cop at the end...and you can even see the cop being wounded? What would have happened him not using his gun for his defense to stop the assault? The brat smashing his skull in? The brat hitting the cop until he'd be dead? (Seeing that it's extremely irrational to resist/attack a cop it's not far off to conclude that the brat would ultimately have wanted to kill the cop?)

 

[Sulaco]

Ah, another forum tough guy who's only contribution to this forum is thread crapping and talking shit. Oh, you didn't know that was your M.O.? I guess you never bothered reading your own posts😉

Annnnnnd I rest my case.

Have fun OCNewbie. It gets messy. But it's enjoyable to watch at a distance.

Like a train derailment. 😉

 

[OCNewbie]

The message is, don't engage a police officer in a physical fight. How do you still not understand that?

If you threaten someone else's life, you run a much higher risk of losing your own.

This kid gambled and lost. Some people look at that and learn the proper lesson. Other people look at the situation and just fill their heads with more garbage.

Excessive force supporter? What does that even mean? You know that is a highly subjective topic. I can guarantee you there is someone out there who thinks even your threshold is too much and would label you an "excessive force supporter." The simple fact is, no one supports excessive force. If it was supported, then it's not deemed excessive. That comment of yours means absolutely nothing. Put something objective and measurable behind the statement.

That's because you are an authoritarian and a cop apologist. Sorry, I have higher expectations for people who enforce the laws, obviously you do not.

What exactly would you like me to address?

Why not address his comment about not engaging a police officer in a physical fight? Is that a valid point he's making? Is that indeed something that should always be avoided, or at least never instigated? He also challenged you labeling him an "excessive force supporter". You didn't even define what that is (your personal threshold to earn that label). So, other than it sounding like an unpleasant thing to be called, what are you actually saying by putting that label on him? It has no meaning without context.

A cop killing someone should be the absolutely last option. This cop skipped several.

The above quote should have been your response to what he said. Then you should have elaborated about these "several" options the cop had other than shooting the kid (who was physically assaulting the cop). You should probably clarify when these options arose, like before the kid attacked the officer, etc.

I'm going to assume that you believe cubby1223 should see a video like this one and come to the same conclusions you do about it. I fail to see how placing a bunch of labels on him, or about his opinions, could give you any sort of realistic expectation that that would influence his viewpoint. It appears that you're attempting to make him feel guilty for his views through these labels.

 

[shortylickens]

Whenever I see things like this it reminds me that cops are just legalized gangs.

They are legally allowed to harass you for any bullshit reason they come up with.
They are allowed to antagonize you without any legal recourse.
If you respond in any way they are legally allowed to kill you.

This is such a bad system it scares me.

 

[waggy]

Why are so many of the discussions on this forum just name calling back and forth? Can't you, and others like you, just directly address what a person says instead of calling them names?

because he has no real argument (in this case) besides calling names. Most will see the video and put the blame for the kids death on the kid.

yet he wants to put the blame on the cop no matter the facts.

best thing to do is ignore him.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Was that kid on drugs? He sounded weird. The cop was in the right, he became violent and it as pretty obvious that there was no other way out.

Parents failed, they raised a douchebag halfwit.

 

[squirrel dog]

He fought the law , and the , law won .

 

[ivwshane]

I already addressed it in my first response when I said the kid wasn't without blame.

Why not address his comment about not engaging a police officer in a physical fight? Is that a valid point he's making? Is that indeed something that should always be avoided, or at least never instigated? He also challenged you labeling him an "excessive force supporter". You didn't even define what that is (your personal threshold to earn that label). So, other than it sounding like an unpleasant thing to be called, what are you actually saying by putting that label on him? It has no meaning without context.


The above quote should have been your response to what he said. Then you should have elaborated about these "several" options the cop had other than shooting the kid (who was physically assaulting the cop). You should probably clarify when these options arose, like before the kid attacked the officer, etc.

I already did, I gave at least one option, he should have called for back up. He also should have deescalated the situation, he also should have not taken offense to a concerned citizen and instead addressed the kids concerns by giving him his badge number. He also should have understood the severity of the stop and assessed the need to escalate it over flashing the high beams.

Do you and others have such low expectations for cops that you can't even fathom that this guy did anything wrong? Do you think death is a good outcome for a traffic stop as petty as flashing your high beans?

I'm going to assume that you believe cubby1223 should see a video like this one and come to the same conclusions you do about it. I fail to see how placing a bunch of labels on him, or about his opinions, could give you any sort of realistic expectation that that would influence his viewpoint. It appears that you're attempting to make him feel guilty for his views through these labels.

As I've already explained to you, cubby has a history of only supporting cops in these threads. He doesn't need to come to the same conclusion as me because our positions are a matter of opinion. He doesn't understand my viewpoint just like I don't understand his.

 

[ivwshane]

Annnnnnd I rest my case.

Have fun OCNewbie. It gets messy. But it's enjoyable to watch at a distance.

Like a train derailment. 😉

As do I troll😉

 

[TheVrolok]

Good shoot? An excessive force supporter I see.

Just another example of poor training.

That's not to say that the kid was free of blame but I don't think anyone should lose their life for this. If it means every traffic stop needs to involve another officer then so be it.

I side against the police in the vast majority of these "excessive force" cases, and I generally agree with the vast majority of things you post in this vein, and others as we're very similar politically.

I have to disagree in this specific case, though. I recall the previous thread as well (linked above somewhere). This kid actually charged and essentially mounted a police officer and starting punching him in the face on the ground on the side of a reasonably heavily trafficked road in the dark. What was the cop supposed to do? Wrestle around with him and risk the tussle sprawling into the road?

 

[ivwshane]

As I've already said, the kid definitely deserves blame. However, why did the situation get to this point in the first place? Everyone expects citizens to act a certain way but they rarely set any expectations for cops to act a certain way.

The consistent issue in these situations, time and time again is a poor response by the police and in my opinion it's due to poor or improper training.

I side against the police in the vast majority of these "excessive force" cases, and I generally agree with the vast majority of things you post in this vein, and others as we're very similar politically.

I have to disagree in this specific case, though. I recall the previous thread as well (linked above somewhere). This kid actually charged and essentially mounted a police officer and starting punching him in the face on the ground on the side of a reasonably heavily trafficked road in the dark. What was the cop supposed to do? Wrestle around with him and risk the tussle sprawling into the road?

 

[TheVrolok]

As I've already said, the kid definitely deserves blame. However, why did the situation get to this point in the first place? Everyone expects citizens to act a certain way but they rarely set any expectations for cops to act a certain way.

The consistent issue in these situations, time and time again is a poor response by the police and in my opinion it's due to poor or improper training.

I guess it comes down to this - how much should police "let citizen's get away with?" So the officer repeatedly asks this kid for license/registration/etc. and the kid repeatedly refuses. What should the cop do? "Well, I guess since you keep refusing I'll just let you go?" So the cop asks him to step out of his vehicle and lay on the ground and he refuses. Again, "Ok, well I guess since you don't want to lay down I'll just let you go." How many "alternate ways" are there to handle that situation?

 

[OutHouse]

What exactly would you like me to address? He has a different opinion than mine and in every cop thread he supports the cops no matter what. A cop killing someone should be the absolutely last option. This cop skipped several.

What law enforcement academy did you graduate from and what dept did you work for?

 

[OutHouse]

Whenever I see things like this it reminds me that cops are just legalized gangs.

They are legally allowed to harass you for any bullshit reason they come up with.
They are allowed to antagonize you without any legal recourse.
If you respond in any way they are legally allowed to kill you.

This is such a bad system it scares me.

🙄

 

[Fenixgoon]

🙄

if another person shoots and kills you, they can be successfully prosecuted in criminal or civil court.

if a cop shoots and kills you, a story will be put forth (true or not) to make you look like an aggressor against the saintly, can't-be-wrong police officer. other officers may cover for the actions of the officer who may or may not have violated your rights or otherwise harmed you. the officer will be put on paid leave. an internal investigation will conclude no wrongdoing has occurred (regardless of the actual events). the DA will be hesitant to pursue criminal charges, and will probably decline to altogether. key audio/video evidence will mysteriously disappear, making either civil or criminal action next to impossible. the other officers, having covered for one of their own, will have assured that civil penalties are mitigated. the officer will resume his/her job.

so yes, i'd be far more worried about an encounter with police than with the average citizen.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Option 1:

Cop pulls kid over for flashing headlights. Kid apologizes and cop lets kid go with a warning.

Option 2:

Cop pulls kid over for flashing headlights. Kid explains that he thought the cop had his headlights on and was just informing him of this. Cop write's kid up for distracting over drivers or whatever the laws says.

Option 3:

Cop pulls kid over for flashing headlights. Kid becomes belligerent and things escalate. Cop then tells kid to get down as he's going to be arrested. Kid takes issue and attacks cop. Kid dies.


If I'm the kid I chose option 1. If I'm feeling fully justified I might go with option 2, but you have to know the more you question the cops motive the more likely you will be ticked or arrested. Option 3 is the default choice for too many folks these days and seems to come from the whole "respect" thing. Hardly a night goes by where someone at a night club feels slighted by someone and pulls a gun because -- you can't disrespect me man. Never mind that most of those demanding to be respected feel no particular need to show respect for anyone else.


Brian

 

[Gryz]

Glad I'm not living in the land of the free.

Over here stupidity and being rude against cops isn't allowed either. But at least the punishment isn't execution on the spot, without trial.

This was a clear case of "respect ma autohata, or else I'll shoot you !". The kid was obnoxious and slow and dumb. But did go lie down. Once he subdued, the officer found it necessary to taser him. When the need was gone. That to me is a clear sign it was all about "respect ma autohata". When the cop was too dumb to use his taser, his last option was to kill the kid. It's easy to understand once you think about why he tried to taser the kid after he lied down.

 

[NoStateofMind]

The kid did nothing wrong.

 

[OCNewbie]

I already addressed it in my first response when I said the kid wasn't without blame.



As I've already explained to you, cubby has a history of only supporting cops in these threads. He doesn't need to come to the same conclusion as me because our positions are a matter of opinion. He doesn't understand my viewpoint just like I don't understand his.

If it's not too difficult, could you not reply to my post within my own quote? Makes it a pain to reply to what you then say.

Here's what you said:

I already did, I gave at least one option, he should have called for back up.

He did, he called twice, no?

He also should have deescalated the situation, he also should have not taken offense to a concerned citizen and instead addressed the kids concerns by giving him his badge number.

You say "he should have deescalated the situation" as if there's a single magic word that he refused to use that would have done so. What do you think he should have tried to do that? The kid was arguing with him, saying he did have his brights on, and basically insisting that the cop admit that he had them on (even though he apparently didn't). Then the kid refused to give the information that he had on him, then he lied and said he didn't have ID on him, then he said he did but the cop didn't have the right to see it, etc.

He also should have understood the severity of the stop and assessed the need to escalate it over flashing the high beams.

The kid was not complying, and perhaps the kid was trying to hide something? I mean, imagining myself being the cop in that situation, I don't understand why this kid is being so antagonistic, so I imagine it would cross my mind that there was a reason this kid was being this way, beyond just insisting I admit that my high beams were on. Should the cop have simply let him go?

Do you and others have such low expectations for cops that you can't even fathom that this guy did anything wrong?

I'm open to the cop being wrong about something, I just don't see anything glaring in this specific situation. Was the cop getting annoyed that the kid wasn't respecting his authority in the situation? Probably so. Did the cop do anything illegal up to the point he told the kid to get out of the car? Not that I'm aware of. So, up to that point, the cop had every right to pull the kid over, ask for what he asked for (ID, etc.), and when the kid didn't comply (which the cop gave him many opportunities to do), to order him outside of the car. I mean... If I'm wrong about the cop's legal rights to do those things, I'm wrong, but as far as I understand it, I am not.

Do you think death is a good outcome for a traffic stop as petty as flashing your high beans?

Absolutely not. It appears that you're really committed to saying the cop is the bad guy in this situation though, and you're giving the kid too much of a free pass for attacking the officer, and being belligerent prior to that point.

I have no knowledge of your past history here with cubby, so I'm sure that explains some of the way you reacted with him.

 

[OCNewbie]

It's total intellectual dishonesty to claim that the cop shot the kid because the kid flashed his high-beams at the officer.

 

[theeedude]

Reduce your interaction with cops to the bare minimum. Don't admit or apologize for anything, just let him tell you what he thinks he has on you, let him give you the ticket/warning, and get on your way. He is not the judge. Anything you say can be used against you in court. The cop is allowed to lie to you, but not vice versa. Why would you engage in any conversation under these terms?

 

[ivwshane]

I guess it comes down to this - how much should police "let citizen's get away with?" So the officer repeatedly asks this kid for license/registration/etc. and the kid repeatedly refuses. What should the cop do? "Well, I guess since you keep refusing I'll just let you go?" So the cop asks him to step out of his vehicle and lay on the ground and he refuses. Again, "Ok, well I guess since you don't want to lay down I'll just let you go." How many "alternate ways" are there to handle that situation?

Either continue talking to the kid in a non threatening manner (until back up arrives) or wait by his car until back up arrives. Why would the officer put his life in danger by asking the kid to step out of the car with no back up?

 

[ivwshane]

If it's not too difficult, could you not reply to my post within my own quote? Makes it a pain to reply to what you then say.

Here's what you said:



He did, he called twice, no?



You say "he should have deescalated the situation" as if there's a single magic word that he refused to use that would have done so. What do you think he should have tried to do that? The kid was arguing with him, saying he did have his brights on, and basically insisting that the cop admit that he had them on (even though he apparently didn't). Then the kid refused to give the information that he had on him, then he lied and said he didn't have ID on him, then he said he did but the cop didn't have the right to see it, etc.



The kid was not complying, and perhaps the kid was trying to hide something? I mean, imagining myself being the cop in that situation, I don't understand why this kid is being so antagonistic, so I imagine it would cross my mind that there was a reason this kid was being this way, beyond just insisting I admit that my high beams were on. Should the cop have simply let him go?



I'm open to the cop being wrong about something, I just don't see anything glaring in this specific situation. Was the cop getting annoyed that the kid wasn't respecting his authority in the situation? Probably so. Did the cop do anything illegal up to the point he told the kid to get out of the car? Not that I'm aware of. So, up to that point, the cop had every right to pull the kid over, ask for what he asked for (ID, etc.), and when the kid didn't comply (which the cop gave him many opportunities to do), to order him outside of the car. I mean... If I'm wrong about the cop's legal rights to do those things, I'm wrong, but as far as I understand it, I am not.



Absolutely not. It appears that you're really committed to saying the cop is the bad guy in this situation though, and you're giving the kid too much of a free pass for attacking the officer, and being belligerent prior to that point.

I have no knowledge of your past history here with cubby, so I'm sure that explains some of the way you reacted with him.

Absolutely not! I'm sure the cop did exactly as he was trained and that's part of the issue. I've already said the kid isn't blameless but a traffic stop like this shouldn't result in a citizen dying. If you can justify his death then more power to you, me personally, I have higher expectations of law enforcement and the cop should have zero expectations of a citizen.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

because he has no real argument (in this case) besides calling names. Most will see the video and put the blame for the kids death on the kid.

yet he wants to put the blame on the cop no matter the facts.

best thing to do is ignore him.

Got stick with the narrative even when reality and the evidence says otherwise. LOL

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Glad I'm not living in the land of the free.

Over here stupidity and being rude against cops isn't allowed either. But at least the punishment isn't execution on the spot, without trial.

This was a clear case of "respect ma autohata, or else I'll shoot you !". The kid was obnoxious and slow and dumb. But did go lie down. Once he subdued, the officer found it necessary to taser him. When the need was gone. That to me is a clear sign it was all about "respect ma autohata". When the cop was too dumb to use his taser, his last option was to kill the kid. It's easy to understand once you think about why he tried to taser the kid after he lied down.

Wow so you are allowed to physically attack police officers when they attempt to place you under arrest or detain you for further questioning?? What country do you live in exactly that allows this to occur?