testtest

Should this Officer be Fired?

The kid demonstrated intent by firing at the cop. That was clear. The cop has to assume he still has the gun and intends to shoot again. Unless the cop observed him tossing the gun, shooting in the back is justified, as the subject is possibly looking for a tactical advantage to reengage.
If the cop doesn’t chase him down and the subject takes a hostage a block away, who will be held at fault?
On the other hand, it is hard to fault cops now if they spend the shift in their car and don’t respond to anything. “Can’t get in trouble as long as you don’t leave the car” is the attitude when the city prosecutor/police chief decide to put cops in jail over judgement calls made in split seconds.
Hopefully more info will come out and this will make more sense.
 
benstt said:
Based on the facts provided, he should be in jail. Cops can't, or shouldn't be allowed to, kill unless they are in present danger of death or severe injury. I don't care if the kid has a gun. If he's fleeing, find him later. Shoot a fleeing suspect in the back? Enjoy gen pop, cop. Same as high speed chases. ID the person, back off, get them at a not-deadly time. It troubles me greatly to hear people support killing a "thug." It's innocent until proven guilty in this country; we aren't Russia or Iran. And never forget, we've all committed felonies in our life, often without realizing it. As to benefit of the doubt, that's a two way street. Sure, give it to the cop, that's fair. But also give it to the dead kid. You can't label someone a threat for what they might do. The guy with a CCW permit and a smell of ETOH in the car at a DWI stop might get froggy, too, but you can't shoot him over what he might do. If he turns with the gun, he's fair game. Not until then. Until then, it's murder.
Click to expand...
I agree with some of this. Definitely not the high speed chase thing though At least not for felonies. STL cops are not allowed to engage in them and that includes suspects in drive by shootings. Catch up with them later ? Yeah right, that ain't gonna happen. Car is stolen and filled with black guys. Ain't no identifying anyone because none of the witnesses or victims are talking.

12 year old kid had no problem killing ( or trying to kill) a cop, that's a fact. Shooting him in the back while he's fleeing though ( unless he has a gun in his hand and is returning fire), that's gotta be against department policy. Should the cop be in prison, that's a negative, but fired, yeah that may justified. Assuming the kid was actually shot in the back while fleeing.

Really, not enough information.
 
Gofer said:
The kid demonstrated intent by firing at the cop. That was clear. The cop has to assume he still has the gun and intends to shoot again. Unless the cop observed him tossing the gun, shooting in the back is justified, as the subject is possibly looking for a tactical advantage to reengage.
If the cop doesn’t chase him down and the subject takes a hostage a block away, who will be held at fault?
On the other hand, it is hard to fault cops now if they spend the shift in their car and don’t respond to anything. “Can’t get in trouble as long as you don’t leave the car” is the attitude when the city prosecutor/police chief decide to put cops in jail over judgement calls made in split seconds.
Hopefully more info will come out and this will make more sense.
Click to expand...
What intent? Do you believe his "intent" remained the same when he took off running? That's nonsense. The law is intent can be formed instantaneously. If he changed his "intent" by running away then the response from LEOS has to change, too. I'm glad you aren't a LEO because you'd make the streets a more dangerous place. You can't kill over what someone might do. If you do, you belong in prison or a nut house because you are a danger to everyone else.
 
Gofer said:
The kid demonstrated intent by firing at the cop. That was clear. The cop has to assume he still has the gun and intends to shoot again. Unless the cop observed him tossing the gun, shooting in the back is justified, as the subject is possibly looking for a tactical advantage to reengage.
If the cop doesn’t chase him down and the subject takes a hostage a block away, who will be held at fault?
On the other hand, it is hard to fault cops now if they spend the shift in their car and don’t respond to anything. “Can’t get in trouble as long as you don’t leave the car” is the attitude when the city prosecutor/police chief decide to put cops in jail over judgement calls made in split seconds.
Hopefully more info will come out and this will make more sense.
Click to expand...
I know some STL cops. A lot of them. Outside of one or two of them, they simply won't pull over someone except in extreme circumstances. It is no longer required to have valid tags or tags at all on a car in the city of STL. You don't need to drive the speed limit either. Or stop at lights or stop signs. That's what happens. Drug dealer tries to kill cop, cop chases drug dealer and ends up killing him. Cop gets indicted. Cop gets acquitted and then we have riots. Cop never works again and gets death threats for the rest of his life. Michael Brown assaulted that cop and tried to take his gun. That guy defended himself and now the life he knew is over. And people wonder why there is a dramatic shortage of cops. They don't make jack :poop: either. Half of what I make if they're lucky and I ain't getting rich.
 
Bassbob said:
I agree with some of this. Definitely not the high speed chase thing though At least not for felonies. STL cops are not allowed to engage in them and that includes suspects in drive by shootings. Catch up with them later ? Yeah right, that ain't gonna happen. Car is stolen and filled with black guys. Ain't no identifying anyone because none of the witnesses or victims are talking.

12 year old kid had no problem killing ( or trying to kill) a cop, that's a fact. Shooting him in the back while he's fleeing though ( unless he has a gun in his hand and is returning fire), that's gotta be against department policy. Should the cop be in prison, that's a negative, but fired, yeah that may justified. Assuming the kid was actually shot in the back while fleeing.

Really, not enough information.
Click to expand...
Shooting in the back, based on the scenario presented here, deserves more than a firing. Cops aren't executioners.
 
benstt said:
What intent? Do you believe his "intent" remained the same when he took off running? That's nonsense. The law is intent can be formed instantaneously. If he changed his "intent" by running away then the response from LEOS has to change, too. I'm glad you aren't a LEO because you'd make the streets a more dangerous place. You can't kill over what someone might do. If you do, you belong in prison or a nut house because you are a danger to everyone else.
Click to expand...
More dangerous than a kid totally willing to kill a cop ? How many people do you think a 12 year old kid who tries to kill a cop will end up killing in his short life, before some other POS shoots him dead when he's about 19 ?
 
benstt said:
Shooting in the back, based on the scenario presented here, deserves more than a firing. Cops aren't executioners.
Click to expand...
You don't have the scenario. What if that kid had the gun in his hand and his head was facing the cop he just took a shot at while he was running? Should that cop assume the kid isn't going to try to shoot again ? What's next, if the kid doesn't have the gun leveled toward the cop at the time he shot him the cop goes to jail for murder ? Cops have a duty to protect the citizenry too.
 
Bassbob said:
You don't have the scenario. What if that kid had the gun in his hand and his head was facing the cop he just took a shot at while he was running? Should that cop assume the kid isn't going to try to shoot again ? What's next, if the kid doesn't have the gun leveled toward the cop at the time he shot him the cop goes to jail for murder ? Cops have a duty to protect the citizenry too.
Click to expand...
Yes, they have a duty to protect. But there must be some present indication of intent to cause harm. Running away, even with a gun, is not that. That's the opposite. If they'd shot him while he was shooting at them or if he gave some indication he was going to shoot again then I support lethal force. Defend yourself. Running away with a gun in his hand is not that. Yes, in my mind unless he lowers the gun to shoot or starts to wheel around it should be a murder charge. Same as if you put your hands up with the pistol still in your hands. They don't get to shoot you because you might decide, in the future, to change position and open fire. Sure, that's a split second decision to make. But we give them a badge, a gun, the power of the state behind them, and great discretion to use that power. We have a right to hold them to a higher standard and expect them to do what it takes to live up to that standard. They don't get to fall back on "I was scared" or something similar. They're the ones with the power and the training, they have to take the better course.
 
benstt said:
Yes, they have a duty to protect. But there must be some present indication of intent to cause harm. Running away, even with a gun, is not that. That's the opposite. If they'd shot him while he was shooting at them or if he gave some indication he was going to shoot again then I support lethal force. Defend yourself. Running away with a gun in his hand is not that. Yes, in my mind unless he lowers the gun to shoot or starts to wheel around it should be a murder charge. Same as if you put your hands up with the pistol still in your hands. They don't get to shoot you because you might decide, in the future, to change position and open fire.
Click to expand...
So basically you are saying that if someone takes a shot at a cop ( or presumably anyone) and now that cop is facing them and armed, the perpetrator must stand his ground, facing the armed cop he just shot at with his gun pointing at him or else the cop can't shoot ? Who the F would ever become a cop if they had to do that? If someone shoots at me and then runs for cover or whatever ( you don't know that kid wasn't looking for cover, which is a reasonable assumption when he was facing an armed man he just shot at) and they still have that gun in their hand and they aren't straight up hauling ass out of there in obvious retreat, you can bet I will be trying to eliminate the threat to my life.
 
Definitely a contentious scenario as we can all agree we don’t have all the information on what exactly happened except a child is dead. Let’s face the obvious fact that there is a good chance that whether charges are brought against the officer or not his career in law enforcement is probably over but again we can’t say that for sure either.
One thing is for certain will be the civil lawsuits brought against the officer/department/city because
“my little boy who was a saint”
is dead.
Sad situation.
 
benstt said:
Yes, they have a duty to protect. But there must be some present indication of intent to cause harm. Running away, even with a gun, is not that. That's the opposite.
Click to expand...
Then according to you... based on my story in my first reply. I should be in prison... All I will say is glad I'm retired and glad I'm not a cop in today's world. Your totally wrong in all your post, I read them all. But opinions are like... and I respect your right to your opinion, just hope your never on a jury for a police officer.
 
This is Fox News so I wonder if certain details were left out, I can't read the story because of my adblocker.
In Chicago a shooting suspect was running and had the gun pointed at the officers while still shooting, he was shot dead in the back and no charges were filed since he continued to shoot at the officers.
Of course that could never happen today since mayor beetlejuice made the officers get permission from a supervisor to chase suspects.
I'm not taking sides, because I wasn't there just sayin.
 
benstt said:
What intent? Do you believe his "intent" remained the same when he took off running? .
Click to expand...
No the intent did not remain the same. his intent was to get away so he could continue to rape pillage and burn or at least grow into it. he had no problem about using deadly force against a police officer.
NITS MAKE LICE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top