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

[1sikbITCH]

Firstly, people study how to live in their families, after that their friends give them an example

Sadly children these days are more likely educated by WorldStar Hip Hip rather than their parents. Android and iPhone make awesome babysitters.

 

[ivwshane]

You'll find a fair amount of cop haters who make ridiculous statements such as this one attracts.



Describe "several". Or at least attempt to.





You're hilarious. By "responding" you mean attacking the cop? Yeah, nice call there.

I did already.

 

[OverVolt]

If you have zero information on someone, then you should assume he's just a normal citizen.

All you'd have to do is ride along with a cop for one day to see that you are wrong.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

If you have zero information on someone, then you should assume he's just a normal citizen. No need to assume he's a serial-rapist with a dead body in the trunk.

I think that's the main problem in the US. People are afraid of people. For no other reason except that fact that they are strangers. Even your policemen are so afraid of the people they are supposed to protect, that they rather execute them, than take any chances. Fear is the reason normal people think they need 3 handguns, 2 rifles and a machinegun in their bedrooms.

See this is the problem here in this conversation. Your only experience comes from your understanding of your own country. I can now see why you cannot understand the real world practicalities and realities that police officers face in the US and how you do not understand just how different and how large the US is as a nation and as a collection of peoples.

In other words you can have a state that has a crime rate on par with your nation but with lax gun laws in the US and just across state lines (or a few state lines) you have a state with cities that have inner city neighborhoods that have crime rates approaching some third world shitholes, despite all the placard signs that say "Drug Free and Gun Free Zones".

I also find it weird you let cops patrol alone. I think in many countries cops will always work in pairs.

This has to do with many factors, which include the differences in sizes of policing forces, local crime rates and geography. As well as local and state budgets that can often preclude having a army of police officers to flood an area with so that no one officer is alone on a patrol.

The Netherlands. We don't have guns, I think that makes a difference.

Except people do and can get access to firearms even in the Netherlands though not as easily it occur in other nations in Europe or in the US.

So what you really are describing though, albeit indirectly is that you do not have a culture of gun ownership.

In addition I'd say Netherlands homogenous nature in regards to culture and racial make up is probably a larger factor to crime rates there then gun ownership.

Actually, I've read that police is confiscating larger and larger amounts of illegal firearms.

See my statement above.

But still, the amount of shootings is pretty low. Mostly between criminals. Regular thugs and burglars still don't use guns. I think there's less than a dozen incidents per year where our cops pull their gun. And deadly shootings with police happen only once every few years. I think I read somewhere that the last person killed by police was 15 years ago. (Fyi, we have 17 million people). I think Belgium and Germany (our neighbors) have similar numbers.

Again largely do to the homogenous nature of your population and society. If you were to suddenly have a large and sudden influx of non-native peoples whose culture and customs were polar opposite to your average native person in the Netherlands this trend would start to evaporate and a clash of cultures would ensue.

Then you have a situation where either these non-native groups are forced to culturally melt into your pre-established society or the conflict continues to escalate as this group forms its own distinct enclaves that stick out like a sore thumb in the Netherlands and thus become flashpoints for societal conflicts resulting in upticks in crime and violence above any pre-established historical norms.

I didn't see the need to tazer to kid, after he lied on his belly in the dirt. That was a case of "respect ma authohata". The cop could have just as well cuffed the kid and be done with it.

You not seeing the need does not equate to there not being a need for this officer to do so given the nature of the attack. Or the quality of the video once the struggle ensues and we cannot see the entire sequence of events clearly as the suspect starts to fight the officer. In other words you were not in the shoes of the police officer and your view comes from a position of hindsight and the safety and comfort of your 3rd person viewing of the event after everything transpired from a video that is not 100% clear as to what was going on during this struggle
.

My point still is: police shouldn't shoot people in the head 10 times, when something doesn't go as expected.

Regardless of how many shots are fired (1 or 10 shots to the head is still going to equate to the death of a person in almost all cases) the officer acted in what he viewed as critical need for self-defense of his own life. Especially when he had zero clue as to how far this person was willing to go with their attack on the side of a dark road where he was by himself during this attack.

So again, your assumption is that this officer did not have to shoot but this assumption comes from a perspective founded upon the foundations of your own hindsight and from the safety and comfort of your home instead of having to deal with a violent person who is attacking you for doing your job and enforcing the laws passed by the state and local governments which you are duty bound to enforce.

Of course I won't preclude you from finding fault with the law that allowed this officer to pull over this driver because in the end it was that very law that made this stop possible and justifiable in that location by this officer.

In this case, the cop could have waited for backup, he could have cuffed the kid, he could have put his knee on the kids back, he could have threatened to shoot him, he could have shot him in the legs.[/quote

All of this ignores the reality of what transpired because backup was on its way no doubt and the reason why this event occurred was precisely because the officer was trying to handcuff this person who decided to resist arrest.

Also cops are never, ever trained to make threats. That is not how they operate in the US because there are many people who view threats as a call to action and so threats are essentially meaningless without the surety of direct action to back them up.

He even could have let him escape.

Police officers are not paid/hired to let suspects escape after they have broken a law and they have assaulted them and they have to have very good reason to justify doing so in course of them performing their assigned duties as enforcement officers because the ramifications of doing so when a suspect might go on to commit another crime are going to be harsh for the officer who will be called to question of doing so in the end.

But no, he just simply killed him as the first option that came in his mind.

No he didn't. He gave the kid many verbal opportunities to comply, he then attempted to place this person under arrest and when this person attacked him he used his taser to subdue this person, however after that failed and this person continued to fight and attack him he was forced to use deadly force.

Lastly, you assume that this person would have relented in his attack if the officer had tried to de-escalate which is again an assumption on your part that ignores that this person was bold enough and violent enough to attack a officer in the first place so we cannot assume they would of just backed off themselves.

 

[Dude111]

Absolutely. They are the boss and you're the fuck toy. Bend over, no lube.

Yup!!!!

Call a cop for help..... END UP GETTING YOUR DOG KILLED JUST CAUSE HE RAN UP TO THE OFFICER HAPPY TO SEE HIM!!

 

[Ackmed]

I did already.

You failed to back up your statement on several other options.

 

[ivwshane]

You failed to back up your statement on several other options.

Ok. What options did I give?

 

[ivwshane]

See this is the problem here in this conversation. Your only experience comes from your understanding of your own country. I can now see why you cannot understand the real world practicalities and realities that police officers face in the US and how you do not understand just how different and how large the US is as a nation and as a collection of peoples.

So the US is a unique place where normal human behavior doesn't take place like it does in the rest of the world? How is the US different exactly?

In other words you can have a state that has a crime rate on par with your nation but with lax gun laws in the US and just across state lines (or a few state lines) you have a state with cities that have inner city neighborhoods that have crime rates approaching some third world shitholes, despite all the placard signs that say "Drug Free and Gun Free Zones".

Yes because unlike a country, there is no border control between cities. Rules in one city or state can easily be violated by going to another city or state. I'm guessing this means that any possible solution should be a federal one that all states and cities need to adhere to.


This has to do with many factors, which include the differences in sizes of policing forces, local crime rates and geography. As well as local and state budgets that can often preclude having a army of police officers to flood an area with so that no one officer is alone on a patrol.

So your solution is to just throw your hands up?

Except people do and can get access to firearms even in the Netherlands though not as easily it occur in other nations in Europe or in the US.

So what you really are describing though, albeit indirectly is that you do not have a culture of gun ownership.

In addition I'd say Netherlands homogenous nature in regards to culture and racial make up is probably a larger factor to crime rates there then gun ownership.

Crime in the US typically happens with victim and perpetrator being the same race so.

See my statement above.



Again largely do to the homogenous nature of your population and society. If you were to suddenly have a large and sudden influx of non-native peoples whose culture and customs were polar opposite to your average native person in the Netherlands this trend would start to evaporate and a clash of cultures would ensue.

Based on what? And does this evidence account for other factors?

Then you have a situation where either these non-native groups are forced to culturally melt into your pre-established society or the conflict continues to escalate as this group forms its own distinct enclaves that stick out like a sore thumb in the Netherlands and thus become flashpoints for societal conflicts resulting in upticks in crime and violence above any pre-established historical norms.

True. Our own history shows this to be a typical cycle of human nature. Outsiders are looked down upon, they then slowly integrate into the community where they then become accepted. It's a temporary condition, one that admittedly can take years or decades.

You not seeing the need does not equate to there not being a need for this officer to do so given the nature of the attack. Or the quality of the video once the struggle ensues and we cannot see the entire sequence of events clearly as the suspect starts to fight the officer. In other words you were not in the shoes of the police officer and your view comes from a position of hindsight and the safety and comfort of your 3rd person viewing of the event after everything transpired from a video that is not 100% clear as to what was going on during this struggle
.



Regardless of how many shots are fired (1 or 10 shots to the head is still going to equate to the death of a person in almost all cases) the officer acted in what he viewed as critical need for self-defense of his own life. Especially when he had zero clue as to how far this person was willing to go with their attack on the side of a dark road where he was by himself during this attack.

Every interaction with a citizen is an unknown regardless of whether or not an ID is presented. Which is why an officer should do everything in his power to not only protect himself and the citizen but they should also do everything in their power to ensure they are never put in a compromising position.

Let's pretend that this officer new who he was dealing with (a person with a violent record) what do you think his actions would have been? Do you think he would have attempted to arrest the driver by himself? Do you think that would have been wise?

So again, your assumption is that this officer did not have to shoot but this assumption comes from a perspective founded upon the foundations of your own hindsight and from the safety and comfort of your home instead of having to deal with a violent person who is attacking you for doing your job and enforcing the laws passed by the state and local governments which you are duty bound to enforce.

That may be true but it points to poor or inadequate training. Are you capable of admitting that the officer could have handled the situation differently that could have resulted in a better outcome? If so then shouldn't we be talking about better solutions for officers or do you think telling a dead kid how he should have acted is the smarter response?

Of course I won't preclude you from finding fault with the law that allowed this officer to pull over this driver because in the end it was that very law that made this stop possible and justifiable in that location by this officer.

In this case, the cop could have waited for backup, he could have cuffed the kid, he could have put his knee on the kids back, he could have threatened to shoot him, he could have shot him in the legs.

All of this ignores the reality of what transpired because backup was on its way no doubt and the reason why this event occurred was precisely because the officer was trying to handcuff this person who decided to resist arrest.

Why would he be trying to arrest someone with an unknown history by himself when back up is on the way? Does that seem foolish to you? Is there a reason the kid needed to be arrested right then and their?

Also cops are never, ever trained to make threats. That is not how they operate in the US because there are many people who view threats as a call to action and so threats are essentially meaningless without the surety of direct action to back them up.



Police officers are not paid/hired to let suspects escape after they have broken a law and they have assaulted them and they have to have very good reason to justify doing so in course of them performing their assigned duties as enforcement officers because the ramifications of doing so when a suspect might go on to commit another crime are going to be harsh for the officer who will be called to question of doing so in the end.

Police are paid to ensure the safety of the community and it's citizens INCLUDING the citizens that may be a threat. That's why the desired outcome of a confrontation is a non violent conclusion with no injuries.
With regards to committing another crime, again, context matters, he was pulled over for flashing his high beams. Had he just committed some a violent crime or was impaired you might have a point.

No he didn't. He gave the kid many verbal opportunities to comply, he then attempted to place this person under arrest and when this person attacked him he used his taser to subdue this person, however after that failed and this person continued to fight and attack him he was forced to use deadly force.

Lastly, you assume that this person would have relented in his attack if the officer had tried to de-escalate which is again an assumption on your part that ignores that this person was bold enough and violent enough to attack a officer in the first place so we cannot assume they would of just backed off themselves.

Which is why this situation was handled poorly from the start, it was allowed to escalate in the first place.

 

[JackBurton]

One less entitled little douche. Ain't shedding any tears over this one.

Yep. He thought he was going to be cool and post the interaction on YouTube. This is the stupid shit that's going on YouTube now. The moron is just parroting the same shit other dumbasses post on YouTube. Well, he tried to be a YouTube star, but it didn't go the way he thought.

Just another douchebag removed from society. No issues here. Move along.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Yep. He thought he was going to be cool and post the interaction on YouTube. This is the stupid shit that's going on YouTube now. The moron is just parroting the same shit other dumbasses post on YouTube. Well, he tried to be a YouTube star, but it didn't go the way he thought.

Just another douchebag removed from society. No issues here. Move along.

Yeah, kill them all!!!! Literal death to all deemed as douchebags by Jack Burton! I approve YOU for supreme overlord and decider of life and death.

 

[ivwshane]

Yep. He thought he was going to be cool and post the interaction on YouTube. This is the stupid shit that's going on YouTube now. The moron is just parroting the same shit other dumbasses post on YouTube. Well, he tried to be a YouTube star, but it didn't go the way he thought.

Just another douchebag removed from society. No issues here. Move along.

No issues until you are that douchebag that gets removed from society. Right? I take it douchebaggery in your mind is something that should be punishable by death?

 

[OutHouse]

A cops biggest fear when getting in a fight is the perp getting his gun.

Minnesota town mourns loss of officer killed by injured suspect in hospital


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/1...tal-grabs-officer-gun-kills-him/?intcmp=hpbt1

 

[Pipeline 1010]

A cops biggest fear when getting in a fight is the perp getting his gun.

Minnesota town mourns loss of officer killed by injured suspect in hospital


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/1...tal-grabs-officer-gun-kills-him/?intcmp=hpbt1

I get that a cop can be afraid of this happening. But why is it his BIGGEST fear when it is so rare? It is extremely rare for a cop to be killed by his own weapon. Are all cops super mega irrationally fearful of unlikely things? If so, then why give them guns and authority and immunity from almost any and all of their actions?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

So the US is a unique place where normal human behavior doesn't take place like it does in the rest of the world? How is the US different exactly?

The US is unique in its diversity of peoples which is why comparing the US to Norway, Japan, etc is flawed to say the least when you look at the US as whole. In other words what flies in Vermont probably won't work in California or Texas, etc and vice versa.

Yes because unlike a country, there is no border control between cities. Rules in one city or state can easily be violated by going to another city or state. I'm guessing this means that any possible solution should be a federal one that all states and cities need to adhere to.

There is a major reason why states and cities are given the ability to create laws for their own localities and that has to do with the fact that giving the federal government that much power would invite massive corruption, abuse and manipulation. It would completely undermine the idea of limiting the power the federal government to ensure it doesn't go apeshit crazy with power and it would also erode the idea of checks and balances found in the US Constitution.

In addition to ignoring the reality of the very real differences in localities found throughout the US let alone states. You could not hope to create sufficient and adequate laws that would be able to cover every single legislative need found in all 50 states let alone in every county and city in the US that make up those states. Basically it would be the height of legislative inefficiency, on top of the political dangers of centralizing that much power at the federal level.

So your solution is to just throw your hands up?

There is no solution other than accepting the fact that there are not and should ever be that many police officers in the US so that every officer is doubled up on every highway, back road or street corner in the US. Attempting to do so would basically invite the creating of a massive police state the likes of which would make even Stalin or Mao envious at its size and scope.

Nevermind the amount of taxation and political justification that would occur to prop up such an ungodly massive police force, or huge conflict of interest it would create, i.e. industrialized policing complex anyone??? Why would you even want that? Seriously.

Crime in the US typically happens with victim and perpetrator being the same race so.

However it's also true that certain races victimize other racial groups at a far higher rate when it comes to crime stats. So while it's more likely the case that some person would be the victim of someone of the same race when a crime occurs the truth is some races are more likely to victimize other racial groups at a far higher rate than others.

Based on what? And does this evidence account for other factors?

Based on the fact that humans beings as whole generally have a mistrust toward those who are not of their own nationality/ethnicity/tribe/religion/etc. This all leads to conflict along side with socio economic differences, cultural differences, religious and political differences, etc.

True. Our own history shows this to be a typical cycle of human nature. Outsiders are looked down upon, they then slowly integrate into the community where they then become accepted. It's a temporary condition, one that admittedly can take years or decades.

It's only a temporary condition if the expectations are placed on the outsiders to adopt and embrace the foreign cultural and social views/ideas found in the new host nation they are now calling home.

I.e., the idea of a melting pot is that you are accepted and given entry but with this embrace comes the full expectation placed upon a new comer that they learn the customs, language and social mores, etc of their new homes.

However this all goes out the window if you have push back from those who believe that no one should be forced to change and adapt to their new host country. Of which this then leads to the aforementioned increase in societal conflicts in form of increased crime at large by groups that push back on the idea of a melting pot. Hence the phrase, E pluribus unum, out of many comes one, i.e, one people, one language, one nationally and cultural identity that is at the core of the notion of a "melting pot".

That may be true but it points to poor or inadequate training. Are you capable of admitting that the officer could have handled the situation differently that could have resulted in a better outcome? If so then shouldn't we be talking about better solutions for officers or do you think telling a dead kid how he should have acted is the smarter response?

Of course I can admit that the officer could have handled it differently but that admission only comes AFTER the fact and from a position of safety and comfort as a third party viewer not as someone in the midst of having to deal with a violent physical assault by another person.

Also while training is important and a valid tool it can only act as a foundation or guideline for any situation but the truth of the matter is the vast bulk of knowledge gained by any training goes out the window as soon as one variable changes outside of what was trained for (as you can't train for every possibility) and the unexpected occurs.

Every interaction with a citizen is an unknown regardless of whether or not an ID is presented. Which is why an officer should do everything in his power to not only protect himself and the citizen but they should also do everything in their power to ensure they are never put in a compromising position.

That maybe the ideal but do you understand that this is not always possible? That real world situations and the duties of a police officer are often bound to put them in positions where they have to make "Trauma Room" like decisions that are not always easy to make without sacrifices? Which is what happened in this situation.

Let's pretend that this officer new who he was dealing with (a person with a violent record) what do you think his actions would have been? Do you think he would have attempted to arrest the driver by himself? Do you think that would have been wise?

Again engaging in this kind of hypothetical ideal situation is nice in hindsight and I'm sure this officer might of had the wonderful opportunity to choose a different path had he the chance to step away from the situation entirely but the reality is he did not have any other information to work off other then what was presenting in front of him.

Especially in order to treat this person any different then he would of treated someone who knew was a danger to him or someone he knew was not a danger. In the end he was working with what was in front of him at the time and frankly sometimes officers have very little room to second guess themselves and in many instances cannot afford to do so because of the nature of their job sometimes involves them making split second decisions that are grave in nature due to their possible dire outcomes for them, those they are interacting with or others indirectly, etc.

Why would he be trying to arrest someone with an unknown history by himself when back up is on the way? Does that seem foolish to you? Is there a reason the kid needed to be arrested right then and their?

He would do so because his employer (government) pays him to enforce the laws that were passed by our local, state and federal government. That is the nature of his job. Of which this often includes detaining those who refuse to provide identification upon the lawful request of an officer or arresting someone who proceeds to resists such a lawful detention, etc. So if you have a problem with these laws or any other laws or the nature of his job then you should direct it at the legislative branch of government not the officer doing his sworn duty to uphold the laws passed by the local, state or federal government itself.

Police are paid to ensure the safety of the community and it's citizens INCLUDING the citizens that may be a threat. That's why the desired outcome of a confrontation is a non violent conclusion with no injuries

Actually police officers are paid to enforce laws not to ensure your safety. Ensuring the safety of the community is only a by-product of the enforcement of the laws they are paid to uphold. Which is why police officers are never responsible for your safety in the community period.

If you got robbed, murdered, raped, etc they have no culpability according to many laws found at the state and federal level because again, that's not their responsibility to protect you or anyone else as that would be logistically impossible on many fronts. This is why their primary duty (in every state across the nation) is to uphold and enforce the law and as a by-product this often (but not always) ends up benefiting the safety of a community because we hope that such enforcement of our laws by officers might act as a deterrent to the criminal element in society. Of course this is not always the case in the real world because the real world is often messy and ugly.

Which is also why your view of a "Desired outcome" is only a ideal which in many cases is not line with the realities of what police officers are paid to do or why they behave in way they do in some cases, i.e. unable to just "let things go" because that is not the nature of their job or within the boundaries of real world demands placed on them by society and whatever unfolding situation they have to confront.

With regards to committing another crime, again, context matters, he was pulled over for flashing his high beams. Had he just committed some a violent crime or was impaired you might have a point.

Again, hindsight, i.e. "Monday morning quarterbacking" is wonderful from the comfort and safety of a computer however the officer had every right to pull this guy over and confront him because the state law gave him that right. He had every right to tell this person that they were in violation of state law, he had every right to ask for identification, insurance, etc along with the right and duty to cite this person because that was, again his sworn and lawful duty as driving is not a protected right, it's a privilege.

Also, while this person had not previously committed a violent crime he did do so when he assault the officer which then resulted in his death as the officer lawfully defended himself.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I get that a cop can be afraid of this happening. But why is it his BIGGEST fear when it is so rare? It is extremely rare for a cop to be killed by his own weapon. Are all cops super mega irrationally fearful of unlikely things? If so, then why give them guns and authority and immunity from almost any and all of their actions?

The problem here is that you believe that a cop dealing with a combative suspect always has the ability to read the intentions of the person they are trying to subdue.

It's not that easy and I don't think most cops have this magical power to read minds.

Also while a cop dying to a suspect taking his/her gun away from them maybe rare, how rare are the attempts themselves in the given course of a average cop's time on the force? I suspect those unsuccessful attempts happen way more frequently even if the chances of success are few and far inbetween for when it does happen. Which is probably why many cops have this fear in the back of their minds when they are trying to deal with someone who is fighting them tooth and nail.

 

[flexy]

I was born and have been in raised in a society/family/cultural environment in W. Europe where the idea of that it could be "ok" to assault a cop is inconceivable.

From that P.o.V., the entire debate here w/ the parents suing (while it's obvious the guy attacked the cop) is just bizarre.

 

[Gryz]

See this is the problem here in this conversation. Your only experience comes from your understanding of your own country.

I've lived in 3 countries. Including yours. You ?
Also, I have access to news around the world, coming from multiple sources. Are you limited to the colored low-info US television and newspapers ? When I lived in the US, I found it very hard to find info about anything happening outside North America.

So what you really are describing though, albeit indirectly is that you do not have a culture of gun ownership.

Yes. And gun culture is not an excuse for the US. Gun culture is one of the reasons why you have such a violent and scared society. Reason. That means it can't be an excuse.

In addition I'd say Netherlands homogenous nature in regards to culture and racial make up is probably a larger factor to crime rates there then gun ownership.

If you think the US is the only country with immigrants, you are mistaken. During the last 40 years, all over the world huge amounts of people have been moving countries. And their numbers only increase everywhere.
Example, in my country we have ~17 million people, with ~3.7 million of them not born in NL, or from parents who were not born here. 2 million came from outside Europe. About a million of them are muslims. You think we all are wearing wooden shoes and live in windmills ?

All your dribble about "wait till NL becomes like the US because of different cultures" is nonsense.

You not seeing the need does not equate to there not being a need for this officer to do so given the nature of the attack.

Even if someone smashes you in the face, that's no reason to immediately kill someone. That's what this boils down to. Policemen in the US are so afraid of their own citizens, that as soon as they are startled, they will start shooting people. That doesn't happen in large parts of the world. There is no necessity to allow your police-force to execute people in the streets for giving lip, being drunk, being dumb, being irritating or even when they are running away from traffic violations.

Police officers are not paid/hired to let suspects escape after they have broken a law and they have assaulted them

In civilized countries they are not paid to execute people in the street either.

Most of your text is just dribble about why police-officers have such a tough time, and why they should be allowed to kill people when they feel like it. I don't agree. And I am not the only one.

Land of the free, home of the brave.
From this side of the pond it looks like all those braves are terrified of each other. And you're not free to walk your lands, because violence rules the streets.

 

[sm625]

In Rome, they had spikes tailor made for the mounting of heads. Here, we have lawsuits paid with taxpayer money. One is an effective deterrent. The other is not.

 

[Ackmed]

Ok. What options did I give?

Not several valid ones, that's for sure. Just answer the question and quit beating around the bush.

In civilized countries they are not paid to execute people in the street either.

Speaking of dribble, that's pretty much all you posted. The fact that you think the cop executed someone who was attacking him, shows you don't have a clue. Or do, but just want to jump on the anti police bandwagon.

 

[Svnla]

Also, I have access to news around the world, coming from multiple sources. Are you limited to the colored low-info US television and newspapers ? When I lived in the US, I found it very hard to find info about anything happening outside North America.

Very hard? Really?

I can find about anything going on right now in Asia, EU, Australia, or anywhere on Earth online from news sources straight from multiple countries in those regions (original sources and not just from Google cache or link) without any restriction or problem.

I did live in several countries and visit too many to count.

 

[Attic]

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?)

Agree largely here. Though given the officer is the one who is armed and trained, I think the officer has to descalate and wait for backup.

Bottom line, the kid was out of line, but the officer created the situation and has a responsibility deescalate.

Example (loose):

The kid is escalating and acting like an idiot. Officer can say, "I realize you're upset, but I need you to calm down so we can square this away"
...
Not working?, then, "Ok, I understand. We are going to wait for backup." Cop stops talking.

Or, Officer: "Ok, here's whats going to happen if you continue to be non compliant, the fine is going to double then triple and then I can't confirm how high it is going to go, but this is getting more expensive for you and i'd like to make it less expensive.

Or, "I know you likely didn't mean anything with the flashing, but I need to see your drivers license and registration to follow protocol and find someway to get you on your way here".


Of course loose example, but the cop was aware the teen was non compliant. Given the cop is creating the situation by pulling over, and given the cop has the deadly weapon, the cop needs to be much better suited/trained to handle these situations without letting it get deadly.


It should never have gotten deadly and I get the kid took the situation to a point where the cop was justified to shoot, but the cop should never have let it get that far and in the end it was the cop escalating to deadly measures.


This didn't just end the kids life, it ruined his parents life and is going to be severly negative for any siblings or close friends. Easy fallout to a very negative degree of half a dozen people and it's going to haunt the parents every day for the rest of their lives.

Kids are shitty in other countries too, but only the USA has the problem of cops killing citizens by the dozens each year.

 

[ivwshane]

Not several valid ones, that's for sure. Just answer the question and quit beating around the bush.



Speaking of dribble, that's pretty much all you posted. The fact that you think the cop executed someone who was attacking him, shows you don't have a clue. Or do, but just want to jump on the anti police bandwagon.

I'm clearly wasting my time with you if you didn't even bother to read my posts, otherwise not only would you know what options I gave but you'd be able to list them.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't have time right now to address all your points but the one I must call bullshit on is your claim that the police are paid to enforce the law.
The police's primary duty is to protect and serve the community, law enforcement is part of that and is the primary tool the officer can use to acheive that goal. Your claim can easily be disproven by the fact that police can and do let people go that break the law. If they are paid to only enforce the law then letting off citizens with simple warnings would be a direct violation of their duty. If you think having two officers patrol together would create a police state, what do you think would happen if you simply required police to enforce every law and not give warnings?

The US is unique in its diversity of peoples which is why comparing the US to Norway, Japan, etc is flawed to say the least when you look at the US as whole. In other words what flies in Vermont probably won't work in California or Texas, etc and vice versa.



There is a major reason why states and cities are given the ability to create laws for their own localities and that has to do with the fact that giving the federal government that much power would invite massive corruption, abuse and manipulation. It would completely undermine the idea of limiting the power the federal government to ensure it doesn't go apeshit crazy with power and it would also erode the idea of checks and balances found in the US Constitution.

In addition to ignoring the reality of the very real differences in localities found throughout the US let alone states. You could not hope to create sufficient and adequate laws that would be able to cover every single legislative need found in all 50 states let alone in every county and city in the US that make up those states. Basically it would be the height of legislative inefficiency, on top of the political dangers of centralizing that much power at the federal level.



There is no solution other than accepting the fact that there are not and should ever be that many police officers in the US so that every officer is doubled up on every highway, back road or street corner in the US. Attempting to do so would basically invite the creating of a massive police state the likes of which would make even Stalin or Mao envious at its size and scope.

Nevermind the amount of taxation and political justification that would occur to prop up such an ungodly massive police force, or huge conflict of interest it would create, i.e. industrialized policing complex anyone??? Why would you even want that? Seriously.



However it's also true that certain races victimize other racial groups at a far higher rate when it comes to crime stats. So while it's more likely the case that some person would be the victim of someone of the same race when a crime occurs the truth is some races are more likely to victimize other racial groups at a far higher rate than others.



Based on the fact that humans beings as whole generally have a mistrust toward those who are not of their own nationality/ethnicity/tribe/religion/etc. This all leads to conflict along side with socio economic differences, cultural differences, religious and political differences, etc.




It's only a temporary condition if the expectations are placed on the outsiders to adopt and embrace the foreign cultural and social views/ideas found in the new host nation they are now calling home.

I.e., the idea of a melting pot is that you are accepted and given entry but with this embrace comes the full expectation placed upon a new comer that they learn the customs, language and social mores, etc of their new homes.

However this all goes out the window if you have push back from those who believe that no one should be forced to change and adapt to their new host country. Of which this then leads to the aforementioned increase in societal conflicts in form of increased crime at large by groups that push back on the idea of a melting pot. Hence the phrase, E pluribus unum, out of many comes one, i.e, one people, one language, one nationally and cultural identity that is at the core of the notion of a "melting pot".



Of course I can admit that the officer could have handled it differently but that admission only comes AFTER the fact and from a position of safety and comfort as a third party viewer not as someone in the midst of having to deal with a violent physical assault by another person.

Also while training is important and a valid tool it can only act as a foundation or guideline for any situation but the truth of the matter is the vast bulk of knowledge gained by any training goes out the window as soon as one variable changes outside of what was trained for (as you can't train for every possibility) and the unexpected occurs.



That maybe the ideal but do you understand that this is not always possible? That real world situations and the duties of a police officer are often bound to put them in positions where they have to make "Trauma Room" like decisions that are not always easy to make without sacrifices? Which is what happened in this situation.



Again engaging in this kind of hypothetical ideal situation is nice in hindsight and I'm sure this officer might of had the wonderful opportunity to choose a different path had he the chance to step away from the situation entirely but the reality is he did not have any other information to work off other then what was presenting in front of him.

Especially in order to treat this person any different then he would of treated someone who knew was a danger to him or someone he knew was not a danger. In the end he was working with what was in front of him at the time and frankly sometimes officers have very little room to second guess themselves and in many instances cannot afford to do so because of the nature of their job sometimes involves them making split second decisions that are grave in nature due to their possible dire outcomes for them, those they are interacting with or others indirectly, etc.



He would do so because his employer (government) pays him to enforce the laws that were passed by our local, state and federal government. That is the nature of his job. Of which this often includes detaining those who refuse to provide identification upon the lawful request of an officer or arresting someone who proceeds to resists such a lawful detention, etc. So if you have a problem with these laws or any other laws or the nature of his job then you should direct it at the legislative branch of government not the officer doing his sworn duty to uphold the laws passed by the local, state or federal government itself.



Actually police officers are paid to enforce laws not to ensure your safety. Ensuring the safety of the community is only a by-product of the enforcement of the laws they are paid to uphold. Which is why police officers are never responsible for your safety in the community period.

If you got robbed, murdered, raped, etc they have no culpability according to many laws found at the state and federal level because again, that's not their responsibility to protect you or anyone else as that would be logistically impossible on many fronts. This is why their primary duty (in every state across the nation) is to uphold and enforce the law and as a by-product this often (but not always) ends up benefiting the safety of a community because we hope that such enforcement of our laws by officers might act as a deterrent to the criminal element in society. Of course this is not always the case in the real world because the real world is often messy and ugly.

Which is also why your view of a "Desired outcome" is only a ideal which in many cases is not line with the realities of what police officers are paid to do or why they behave in way they do in some cases, i.e. unable to just "let things go" because that is not the nature of their job or within the boundaries of real world demands placed on them by society and whatever unfolding situation they have to confront.



Again, hindsight, i.e. "Monday morning quarterbacking" is wonderful from the comfort and safety of a computer however the officer had every right to pull this guy over and confront him because the state law gave him that right. He had every right to tell this person that they were in violation of state law, he had every right to ask for identification, insurance, etc along with the right and duty to cite this person because that was, again his sworn and lawful duty as driving is not a protected right, it's a privilege.

Also, while this person had not previously committed a violent crime he did do so when he assault the officer which then resulted in his death as the officer lawfully defended himself.

 

[Drako]

The kid must have been on drugs, or was extremely stupid. Sucks for his family though.

 

[Oyeve]

Cops are dicks. I didn't even read the OP.