To Serve And Protect

Sigh, it's a tragedy that kid was shot... But jesus, he pointed what appeared to be a gun at the officer... I would've done the same. Fake or not. It's easy with hindsight to know not to shoot this kid. But I'm dispatched, with limited info, saying a suspect was walking around with a gun; I arrive and he pointed the thing at me, I'm shooting him. How am I supposed to know it's fake? wait till he shoots me first? No thanks.

I'm not insensitive, but what was that kid thinking when he pointed that thing at the police? The officer's reaction was reasonable. I don't get the backlash for this one.

 

Regardless of whether or not he pointed the gun at the police, they violated almost every protocol regarding how officers should approach an armed suspect. If they followed their training they would have waited for backup to set up a parameter, and engaged the young man over the PA system in the car from a good distance away. People generally cant hit much of anything with a hand gun beyond 10-15 feet. They could have exited their car, pulled guns, used to the PA to give him instructions and gone from there.

BUT instead they decided to drive up onto the kid, which if he had a real gun and real intent to harm he then had a point blank shot at both officers, and shot him. They placed themselves in danger and ignored all common sense and protocol. They are guilty of murder.

 

This is actually correct. Barnstable, whether or not the gun was real, officers reacted correctly. And to me, it seems the kid either points at em, or attempts to. Like I said, you have to be in their shoes and have the limited information they had, can't always bring hindsight into this.


But Kings, you're absolutely correct. The first thing I noticed is that they rolled up on this kid, like right in front of him... I'm sure that violates not only policies of the agency, but also every tactical rule in the book. I agree with that in every sense of the word.

All I'm stating, is that if I'm that distance from a person who has a gun (real or fake) and points at me, I'm shooting. Cause unfortunately, cops don't have the ability of hindsight during intense moments like that. But yes Kings, your argument is very valid and actually will probably be used against them once this goes to civil court (which it will). The department will not back these guys when it comes to that, cause I'm sure during training, they weren't trained to roll up right in front of an armed suspect...

 

I'm not sure what it is you want cops to do.. I really don't. You don't comply by pointing the gun (real or fake) at them. I'm not defending other instances of shootings. (Cause for some reason, you like to bring up other events) In this instance, in this particular instance (despite the terrible tactics; I'm sure this could've been avoided had they approached it right) is not murder. You have to legally understand what murder actually means. This particular case is a homicide. A homicide that is justifiable. LEGALLY. You forget the word legally.

Tragic? Yes, I don't downplay that. But the Kid, from reports, and from the video, seemed like he pointed at them. Like I said, as a REASONABLE officer, if I was in that similar situation, I'd shoot as well. If I see the barrel of a gun (fake or real) I'm taking the shot because I am not waiting to find out to see if its real or not. It's just not reasonable.

Now, these guys, like I said, will pay for their terrible tactics. They will be sued, and sued hard. The department will probably not back them because of their god awful tactics. Probably more will follow for them. But just so you know, they aren't MURDERERS. Murder has a legal definition, and this incident, does not fit the crime elements related to murder.

 

) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual

That's the Texas penal code and what those cops did fits that description. They willfully ignored all training and common sense, hopped a curb and shot someone like they were action hero wannabes'. They drove up on the person, they were the aggressors, they jumped out the car and fired shots at him.

Now whether or not the DA pursues that or instead goes for the plea bargain/slam dunk of manslaughter or negligent homicide I don't know. But the could certainly argue that the cops purposely violated al training and executed the suspect.

 

Law Enforcement is a hot topic right now. I can debate all I want and there will be flaws left and right. There will always be.

It's a high intensity situation where split second decisions have to be made. All the training in the world wouldn't make the difference. A real life situation is much more dynamic than a static scenario in training. All I know is this. There is a video, in the video, it looks like the boy points the gun. In their report, they said after they warned him to put the gun down, he points it at them. The 911 calls weren't imaginary, there were 911 calls saying a boy was pointing a "gun" at people walking by.

If I have this pointed at me



I'm not taking a chance to wait and see if it's real. It's just unreasonable for me to wait and get shot.

And I don't approach this as if the officer's are always telling the truth. I'm insulted by this assumption. It's contradictory towards my profession. I just don't get caught up in all the hype that fergueson has enacted. I look at the evidence that is presented to me, and I make a judgement based off that. I've already told you about fergueson's evidence. In this one, I just listed the evidence above the picture. I look at the circumstances as well.

Here some interesting stats.

 

Being "up in arms" isn't really a good way to go about things. Peaceful protests (which sadly isn't getting enough coverage) is the right route to go. "Being up in arms" will just create more chaos. Not really the wording I'd be using.

 

The kicker to me us that if the cops would have followed there training or used common sense they would have been in very little danger. IF the kid raised the gun at them it might of been because they were charging at him in a car.

I simply do not understand what they intended to do by driving up on the suspect like that. They are either complete fools who not only put the suspect in a bad position,but also gave someone with a gun a point blank s*** at both of them, or they intended to kill the kid. How in the work did they order him to drop the gun while driving up on him? Did they do it in the PA? And did they expect him do make a snap decision while being driven at by men with pistols drawn? Did they do it while jumping out the car?

Part of being in law enforcement is being more accountable, or at least it should be. These two officers either are complete morons or murders...

 

So when someone murders someone, how would you go about it? Who would be the one to punish them, judge them, discipline them?

I'm not debating, I'm more curious about your philosophy. Cause right now, it kinda has a anarchistic tone to it.