Police kill 13 year old boy
- Thread starter DAT NIGGA TAZZ
- Start date
the fuck is WRONG with some of you?
you muh fuckers didnt play with toy guns as kids?
I know I had an M-14 replica that shot caps, so some fucking punk ass pig should have rolled up on me & killed me for playing with a toy?
fuck that shit, these pigs now a days shoot now & ask questions later & that is NOT how it is supposed to work, even if it is a child. Punk ass trigger happy police.
I stand by my previous comment, if this was my kid, they'd of had to shoot me too cause I'd go Christopher Dorner on their bitch asses.
you muh fuckers didnt play with toy guns as kids?
I know I had an M-14 replica that shot caps, so some fucking punk ass pig should have rolled up on me & killed me for playing with a toy?
fuck that shit, these pigs now a days shoot now & ask questions later & that is NOT how it is supposed to work, even if it is a child. Punk ass trigger happy police.
I stand by my previous comment, if this was my kid, they'd of had to shoot me too cause I'd go Christopher Dorner on their bitch asses.
Exactly in this day and age with so many mass shootings at schools,offices,naval yards..etc you got some stupid punk ass kid walking around with a very real replica of an AK47 who wouldn't drop it when told to by the police...it's not like the cop killed the kid while he was on a pogo stick going down the street. Fuck his parents too. It's not like the gun was neon yellow and green and the cop smoked him
what is the difference from a soldier shooting a 13 year old in Iraq who could possibly have a toy gun?
that's how officers are trained. someone has a gun. give them a warning. if not, then shoot to kill.
I think a better discussion would be how officers are trained. maybe they need to restructure their training? idk just thinking out loud.
that's how officers are trained. someone has a gun. give them a warning. if not, then shoot to kill.
I think a better discussion would be how officers are trained. maybe they need to restructure their training? idk just thinking out loud.
^^^so police are soldiers now? once again, never did i think on a gangsta rap website would people be supporting the police, and the militarization of police in our country. giving people who have too much power even more power. shit is fucking depressing.
edit: and yes, fuck soldiers who kill unarmed kids too. and i would like to think, despite our reasons for being there, and as fucked up as it is that we kill civilians, that overseas military action is far far different than killing a kid walking down the street.
cops are not trained to KILL, and soldiers are.
edit: and yes, fuck soldiers who kill unarmed kids too. and i would like to think, despite our reasons for being there, and as fucked up as it is that we kill civilians, that overseas military action is far far different than killing a kid walking down the street.
cops are not trained to KILL, and soldiers are.
Last edited:
ok
There are plenty of things we could do to break down why this happened, but this isnt the GOM so...i digress.
There are plenty of things we could do to break down why this happened, but this isnt the GOM so...i digress.
Props:
T-Spoon
not necessarily. if your life is in danger, you have to protect yourself. that's the point I was trying to make. whether its in a war zone or on the streets. again we do not know the whole story here. if this kid was playing cops and robbers and the cop dumped on him, then like shea said, its dorner time. however if this kid was taunting police with a fake gun then that's a whole nother situation.
Props:
allcalclothing
a difference of 15 seconds. thats what should have happened. they didnt even say the kid pointed the gun at them, that the kid just turned towards them. he was turning a corner, they drove by, yelled, he obviously didn't see them, so he turned to see WHOEVER yelled at him. they didn't give him a chance to respond. Was it stupid he was carrying the pellet? Sure. is there heightened sensitivity about public shootings nowadays? sure. but the cops ARE trained to handle these situations WITHOUT killing someone. If he turned and dropped to one knee with the gun on his shoulder, sure that gives them more reason. but give the kid ten fucking seconds to respond before u assume you're gonna get lit up by a bloodthirsty Cartel member.
its just shoot first, ask questions later. a few seconds makes all the difference between life and death. this was not a standoff with a masked gunman terrorizing people, or responding to a report of a crazed man with a gun in the street. they reacted way too quickly and without hesitation for assessing the situation. i dont believe their safety was threatened as severely as they were so quick to assume.
and if they cant handle it, dont be a fucking cop. people dont have sympathy for the parents? well they're the ones who lost a kid. I have no sympathy for the police, who lost nothing.
its just shoot first, ask questions later. a few seconds makes all the difference between life and death. this was not a standoff with a masked gunman terrorizing people, or responding to a report of a crazed man with a gun in the street. they reacted way too quickly and without hesitation for assessing the situation. i dont believe their safety was threatened as severely as they were so quick to assume.
and if they cant handle it, dont be a fucking cop. people dont have sympathy for the parents? well they're the ones who lost a kid. I have no sympathy for the police, who lost nothing.
How do we know this kid was warned? Is it because the pigs said or is it because there is actual video and audio evidence to prove it? These pigs are trigger happy and can't wait to blast and ask questions last. They say they warned the kid which I don't necessarily believe, it was a kid they don't always put 2 and 2 together, the kid probably wasn't even thinkin that the cops were mistaking his toy gun for a real one, he was probably scared and confused as to why they were trippin. Yes I do also fault the parents in a sense that they should have let their child know the dangers of carrying a toy gun outside of the home and the danger it presents in the minds of pigs. I raise my children to know better and to understand that the pigs are not our friends, they are our enemies and can and will hurt us, my 14 year old daughter has witnessed it first hand.
Props:
WHITE DEVIL and DubbC415
No they aren't they will shoot to kill over injure most of the time. My CCW instructor was a former LEO and advised to always shoot to kill.
Props:
Rasan
interesting read.
Deadly Force legal definition of Deadly Force. Deadly Force synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Deadly Force
An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person.
Police officers may use deadly force in specific circumstances when they are trying to enforce the law. Private citizens may use deadly force in certain circumstances in Self-Defense. The rules governing the use of deadly force for police officers are different from those for citizens.
During the twelfth century, the Common Law allowed the police to use deadly force if they needed it to capture a felony suspect, regardless of the circumstances. At that time, felonies were not as common as they are now and were usually punishable by death. Also, law officers had a more difficult time capturing suspects because they did not have the technology and weaponry that are present in today's world. In modern times, the courts have restricted the use of deadly force to certain, dangerous situations.
In police jargon, deadly force is also referred to as shoot to kill. The Supreme Court has ruled that, depending on the circumstances, if an offender resists arrest, police officers may use as much force as is reasonably required to overcome the resistance. Whether the force is reasonable is determined by the judgment of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than by hindsight. Because police officers can find themselves in dangerous or rapidly changing situations where split second decisions are necessary, the judgment of someone at the scene is vital when looking back at the actions of a police officer.
The Supreme Court has defined the "objective reasonableness" standard as a balance between the rights of the person being arrested and the government interests that allow the use of force. The Fourth Amendment protects U.S. citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, the category into which an arrest falls. The Supreme Court has said that a Search and Seizure is reasonable if it is based on Probable Cause and if it does not unreasonably intrude on the rights and privacy of the individual. This standard does not question a police officer's intent or motivation for using deadly force during an arrest; it only looks at the situation as it has happened.
For deadly force to be constitutional when an arrest is taking place, it must be the reasonable choice under all the circumstances at the time. Therefore, deadly force should be looked at as an option that is used when it is believed that no other action will succeed. The Model Penal Code, although not adopted in all states, restricts police action regarding deadly force. According to the code, officers should not use deadly force unless the action will not endanger innocent bystanders, the suspect used deadly force in committing the crime, or the officers believe a delay in arrest may result in injury or death to other people.
Circumstances that are taken into consideration are the severity of the offense, how much of a threat the suspect poses, and the suspect's attempts to resist or flee the police officer. When arresting someone for a misdemeanor, the police have the right to shoot the alleged offender only in self-defense. If an officer shoots a suspect accused of a misdemeanor for a reason other than self-defense, the officer can be held liable for criminal charges and damages for injuries to the suspect. This standard was demonstrated in the Iowa case of Klinkel v. Saddler, 211 Iowa 368, 233 N.W. 538 (1930), where a sheriff faced a Wrongful Death lawsuit because he had killed a misdemeanor suspect during an arrest. The sheriff said he had used deadly force to defend himself, and the court ruled in his favor.
When police officers are arresting someone for a felony, the courts have given them a little more leeway. The police may use all the force that is necessary to overcome resistance, even if that means killing the person they are trying to arrest. However, if it is proved that an officer used more force than was necessary, the officer can be held criminally and civilly liable. In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for police officers to use deadly force to stop fleeing felony suspects who are nonviolent and unarmed. The decision, with an opinion written by Justice byron r. white, said, in part, "We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
When deadly force is used by a private citizen, the reasonableness rule does not apply. The citizen must be able to prove that a felony occurred or was being attempted, and that the felony threatened death or bodily harm. Mere suspicion of a felony is considered an insufficient ground for a private citizen to use deadly force.
This was demonstrated in the Michigan case of People v. Couch, 436 Mich. 414, 461 N.W.2d 683 (1990), where the defendant shot and killed a suspected felon who was fleeing the scene of the crime. The Michigan supreme court ruled that Archie L. Couch did not have the right to use deadly force against the suspected felon because the suspect did not pose a threat of injury or death to Couch.
Deadly Force legal definition of Deadly Force. Deadly Force synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Deadly Force
An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person.
Police officers may use deadly force in specific circumstances when they are trying to enforce the law. Private citizens may use deadly force in certain circumstances in Self-Defense. The rules governing the use of deadly force for police officers are different from those for citizens.
During the twelfth century, the Common Law allowed the police to use deadly force if they needed it to capture a felony suspect, regardless of the circumstances. At that time, felonies were not as common as they are now and were usually punishable by death. Also, law officers had a more difficult time capturing suspects because they did not have the technology and weaponry that are present in today's world. In modern times, the courts have restricted the use of deadly force to certain, dangerous situations.
In police jargon, deadly force is also referred to as shoot to kill. The Supreme Court has ruled that, depending on the circumstances, if an offender resists arrest, police officers may use as much force as is reasonably required to overcome the resistance. Whether the force is reasonable is determined by the judgment of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than by hindsight. Because police officers can find themselves in dangerous or rapidly changing situations where split second decisions are necessary, the judgment of someone at the scene is vital when looking back at the actions of a police officer.
The Supreme Court has defined the "objective reasonableness" standard as a balance between the rights of the person being arrested and the government interests that allow the use of force. The Fourth Amendment protects U.S. citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, the category into which an arrest falls. The Supreme Court has said that a Search and Seizure is reasonable if it is based on Probable Cause and if it does not unreasonably intrude on the rights and privacy of the individual. This standard does not question a police officer's intent or motivation for using deadly force during an arrest; it only looks at the situation as it has happened.
For deadly force to be constitutional when an arrest is taking place, it must be the reasonable choice under all the circumstances at the time. Therefore, deadly force should be looked at as an option that is used when it is believed that no other action will succeed. The Model Penal Code, although not adopted in all states, restricts police action regarding deadly force. According to the code, officers should not use deadly force unless the action will not endanger innocent bystanders, the suspect used deadly force in committing the crime, or the officers believe a delay in arrest may result in injury or death to other people.
Circumstances that are taken into consideration are the severity of the offense, how much of a threat the suspect poses, and the suspect's attempts to resist or flee the police officer. When arresting someone for a misdemeanor, the police have the right to shoot the alleged offender only in self-defense. If an officer shoots a suspect accused of a misdemeanor for a reason other than self-defense, the officer can be held liable for criminal charges and damages for injuries to the suspect. This standard was demonstrated in the Iowa case of Klinkel v. Saddler, 211 Iowa 368, 233 N.W. 538 (1930), where a sheriff faced a Wrongful Death lawsuit because he had killed a misdemeanor suspect during an arrest. The sheriff said he had used deadly force to defend himself, and the court ruled in his favor.
When police officers are arresting someone for a felony, the courts have given them a little more leeway. The police may use all the force that is necessary to overcome resistance, even if that means killing the person they are trying to arrest. However, if it is proved that an officer used more force than was necessary, the officer can be held criminally and civilly liable. In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for police officers to use deadly force to stop fleeing felony suspects who are nonviolent and unarmed. The decision, with an opinion written by Justice byron r. white, said, in part, "We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
When deadly force is used by a private citizen, the reasonableness rule does not apply. The citizen must be able to prove that a felony occurred or was being attempted, and that the felony threatened death or bodily harm. Mere suspicion of a felony is considered an insufficient ground for a private citizen to use deadly force.
This was demonstrated in the Michigan case of People v. Couch, 436 Mich. 414, 461 N.W.2d 683 (1990), where the defendant shot and killed a suspected felon who was fleeing the scene of the crime. The Michigan supreme court ruled that Archie L. Couch did not have the right to use deadly force against the suspected felon because the suspect did not pose a threat of injury or death to Couch.