Right and wrong???? - AZ 14 year old car thief shooting

Am I reading this right? You would propose vigilante mobs roaming around versus a trained police force?? That’s a superior way to keep our rights & freedoms?

 

Britt, I have no doubt that you would intervene and stop the robbery. I did doubt that your first solution would be to unload on them. Atleast until they made a effort to fire upon you.

 

PLEASE entertain us, EXACTLY when is that???? Define "effort" to us.

 

I did not say, nor did I assume shit. Unlike many of aforementioned people. I do not know the future and therefore cannot predict what is or isn't going to happen.

 

Who said anything about vigilante mobs?

I’m not going to wait for police to arrive before I intervene if something is happening, be it a neighbor getting robbed or someone being a threat to others.

 

Once they brandish a weapon and direct it at you. Plain and simple.
That is the issue with this kid. He was running away and the officer only SUSPECTED he had a weapon. He damn sure wasnt a threat to the officer at that point.

 

Quote from your post - "An officer has the obligation to protect all". There is no "point" to understand. Your quote is plain and simple, totally wrong.

 

AND direct it at you? So they have to wait till then??? Wowsers......you can't make this shit up.

Are you under the impression that LE guidelines, in all 50 States, are written by the USSC?


You live in Tn, correct? (If not, no problem, I can just about guarantee you all 50 States have similar language in their LE guidelines.)

Read up on> Tennessee Code 39-11-620. Use of deadly force by a law enforcement officer

Specifcally, b(2) > "The officer has probable cause to believe that the individual to be arrested poses a threat of serious bodily injury, either to the officer or to others unless immediately apprehended.

 

Actually by the letter of the law (in most cases) you have as much of a right to protect others as you have to protect yourself. Also as stated numerous times an officer has no (legal) obligation to protect. If you really look at the laws and rules of engagement they have no more right to use deadly force than anyone else, they're just normally treated differently.

 

And what was the probable cause in this case to believe there was danger to others?

 

It happens time and again........... the bootlickers defend the cops who can do no wrong, the cop haters say hang em. I dunno what the answer is but i do know that everything I'VE ever been taught in my life told me that only a coward shoots a man in the back. YMMV.

 

Going to go out on a limb here and say , THE GUN IN HIS HAND.

Yep. That’s right. Let’s wait until we bury another cop because the guy stopped and popped out and killed the cop. Maybe then the dead cop could shoot him since he was facing him. He wouldn’t be considered a “coward” to you then. Please. GTFOH with that BS.

 

I would hate to have to live in your world where only police have the right to have weapons and bear arms....

You probably think I am anti gun or anti cop. I am not. I am against shooting people with out just cause. To me a kid running off after going through a truck is not reason to kill. It is pretty obvious you see that kid as a threat, and would be glad to put one in him just because you THINK he had a gun.
The kid was stupid and made really bad choices, the cop did also IMO and the kid is dead as a result.

 

Speaking in general terms, every firearm in America poses a potential threat to public safety. The point at which that potential threat should be rendered moot with deadly force must, of necessity, be subject to strict scrutiny. Someone seen in the commission of a violent crime and then fleeing, weapon in hand, probably deserves to be stopped by any means available. I'm not convinced that running from a property crime warrants the same response. I think I would prefer to err on the side of mercy.
In this particular instance, I would note that many of us did stupid things as teenagers, yet went on to become productive citizens. This kid likely would have continued on the wrong path, but, sadly, we will never know.

 

You were taught incorrectly. If you think chasing down an armed person who has already shown they are willing to ignore laws is cowardice then you are incorrect. As a reasonable response would be to head in the other direction for self preservation.

As to all the second guessers you are the same people that complain when they miss 'obvious' signs like the shooting in Miami at the bar. Can't have it both ways despite trying.

 

I did some stupid things but I never broke into anybody's car or ran from a cop with a gun in my hand. Some stupid things have bigger repercussions than others.

 

Chasing down an armed person with a bullet changes the dynamic somewhat. Shoot armed jaywalkers on sight? How about a rolling stop with a gun on the seat? Both have demonstrated an obvious proclivity to ignore the law. Fair and moral law enforcement calls for a proportional response. I remain uncertain as to whether that is what we saw here.

 

Nope. It isn’t. I spelled it out explicitly for you. Not my fault you’re obtuse.

 

I'm certainly not going to argue the point. I am questioning the validity of the level of repercussion administered in this case. I understand the need to make a high pressure, split second decision. At the end of the day we have a dead kid who committed a relatively minor crime, and an officer who gets to move forward in life knowing he shot that kid in the back. Looks like a lose/lose to me.

 

Please stop watching John Wayne Westerns.