Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Very tragic situation indeed. The "great news" in my OP was to point out that justice is finally coming around. An unarmed minor was shot in the back by a police officer. That officer needs to be dealt with, and it seems he will be.
I am well aware of the situation leading up to the shooting, and the teenage kid should not have run. But he's a teenage kid, he made a bad decision. Does not mean he needed to lose his life over it.
I'm also aware that it was a rookie cop who shot him, and I blame the city for allowing him to fall into a high-pressure situation like that. However, the young officer knew what he was getting into as an LEO, and he will have to deal with the consequences of his actions.
Very tragic situation indeed. The "great news" in my OP was to point out that justice is finally coming around. An unarmed minor was shot in the back by a police officer. That officer needs to be dealt with, and it seems he will be.
I am well aware of the situation leading up to the shooting, and the teenage kid should not have run. But he's a teenage kid, he made a bad decision. Does not mean he needed to lose his life over it.
I'm also aware that it was a rookie cop who shot him, and I blame the city for allowing him to fall into a high-pressure situation like that. However, the young officer knew what he was getting into as an LEO, and he will have to deal with the consequences of his actions.
Looks like you are just applying logic in a way that makes you feel better. I don't say that with derision, I just don't see how one could make two such divergent statements.
You are saying both made poor decisions, but one should suffer consequences while another shouldnt?
So an armed person involved with a prior violent crime who is actively running from LEO should just be given a foot chase and if it doesn't work out, then oops, they got away??
I don't know the officers history so I won't debate that part with you.
So the presumption of innocents should be denied because accountability requires a determination of guilt before trial. Is that correct ?
I have no idea what you are asking. He had been previously fired from another law enforcement agency and that should disqualify one from another law enforcement job in the future.
There was no foot chase. No attempt. No demand to stop. Nothing. Just bang, bang, bang.
Well again, being in a car involved in a shooting, then running from cops when stopped is bad. Thats pretty simple, right? Do you want someone involved in a shooting running around your neighborhood fleeing the police? I don't. Its a shame that he was killed, but when you are involved in shootings and fleeing from the cops, you make choice to take on certain risks. Those risks are on the dead individual who at this point is also said to have residue on his hands indicating he previously fired shots.
If you fire a gun in public for anything other than self defense or sport, expect bad things to happen to you, sorry. Where are all the anti-gun people in this case? Are they all OK with the fact that this kid was out shooing at people?
Very tragic situation indeed. The "great news" in my OP was to point out that justice is finally coming around. An unarmed minor was shot in the back by a police officer. That officer needs to be dealt with, and it seems he will be.
I am well aware of the situation leading up to the shooting, and the teenage kid should not have run. But he's a teenage kid, he made a bad decision. Does not mean he needed to lose his life over it.
I'm also aware that it was a rookie cop who shot him, and I blame the city for allowing him to fall into a high-pressure situation like that. However, the young officer knew what he was getting into as an LEO, and he will have to deal with the consequences of his actions.
There is often unintended consequences as a result of someone's actions. If people in high office get consideration for that and are not accountable for the unintended consequences then people in low office should be treated to same. Unless there is more than one standard of accountability.
I have no idea what you are asking. He had been previously fired from another law enforcement agency and that should disqualify one from another law enforcement job in the future.
No, getting fired for cause from one job doesn't automatically disqualify you from ever working in that field again. Details for the dismissal arent available, so you have no idea what the reason was.
So an armed person involved with a prior violent crime who is actively running from LEO should just be given a foot chase and if it doesn't work out, then oops, they got away??
I don't know the officers history so I won't debate that part with you.
Two wrongs does not make a right. One bad choice should not justify another bad choice as a reaction, and in this case the officer being charged is the price the officer paid for his bad choice while the bad choice of the young adult was paid for by his life.
All around bad choices.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
