Officer shoots 16 year old boy twice


PDA






TheeBadOne
December 18, 2003, 03:44 PM
Baltimore Officer Attacked During Struggle With Suspect

BALTIMORE -- A teenager was shot twice Thursday after cutting an officer with a knife, police said.

The shooting occurred about 5:25 a.m. after the officer responded to a vandalism report. The unidentified teenager, who was shot in the chest and arm, was taken to the University of Maryland Shock Trauma Center, where he was listed in good condition, police said.

The 27-year-old officer, who also was not immediately identified, was taken to the Wilmer Eye Institute at Johns Hopkins Hospital for treatment of a cut near the right eye.

Charges were pending against the 16-year-old who was shot, police said.

http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/2712969/detail.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Goes to show you never know who's going to try to hurt you, even for a minor offense! (and afirms that teens may be the most dangerous, as they don't think before they act) :eek:

If you enjoyed reading about "Officer shoots 16 year old boy twice" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TallPine
December 18, 2003, 03:47 PM
Another "innocent" child becomes a victim of those evil awful guns .... :D

Sportcat
December 18, 2003, 04:04 PM
Countdown to outraged community.... tick, tick, tick...

rock jock
December 18, 2003, 04:14 PM
Mr. Po-Po needs more firepower.

kc2ixk
December 18, 2003, 05:01 PM
How long do you think it will take until some idiot tries to tell us that the police need to be disarmed???

bvmjethead
December 18, 2003, 05:03 PM
The police need to be disarmed.











































:neener:

Sportcat
December 18, 2003, 05:05 PM
idiot!

spacemanspiff
December 18, 2003, 05:43 PM
16 yr olds who commit crimes and attack LEO's are not 'boys'.
they are vermin that need to be exterminated.

Sportcat
December 18, 2003, 05:44 PM
Maybe he'll be able to share a cell with Michael Jackson.

bbrins
December 18, 2003, 07:07 PM
Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. The 16 year old thug got what he was asking for.

10-Ring
December 18, 2003, 08:49 PM
I'm glad the officer wasn't hurt any worse than he was!

Abenaki
December 18, 2003, 10:34 PM
The Officer should have gone for slide lock!!!!!
Now the little puke will be a hero in his own little circle of friends!

Abenaki

Standing Wolf
December 18, 2003, 10:36 PM
Showing up for a gun fight without a gun is like voting for representatives of the Democratic (sic) party: self-defeating.

rdbrowning
December 19, 2003, 06:41 PM
I'm glad the officer survived, too bad the kid did. I'm all for police restraint and making sure of the situation before acting, but once attacked the cop shouldn't have stopped until his gun was empty!

MicroBalrog
December 19, 2003, 06:45 PM
Police officers DO need military weapons.

KRAUTGUNNER
December 20, 2003, 08:33 AM
I think the officers of the Baltimore police department need more effective ammo.

A hit in the chest is supposed to STOP a bad guy for good!

I would recommend a super fast .40 S&W load with a 135grs Sierra JHP.

Mad Man
December 20, 2003, 09:15 AM
A teenager was shot twice Thursday after cutting an officer with a knife...Goes to show you never know who's going to try to hurt you, even for a minor offense! (and afirms that teens may be the most dangerous,

On October 8, 1995 (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_882844,00.html), a 14-year old stabbed two Denver police officers, almost killilng one of them.

David Wile
December 20, 2003, 10:04 AM
Hey folks,

Have any of you considered what would have happened if any one of us had been standing in place of the cop and had done the same thing?

I have no idea of the details of the incident because I did not want to bother reading about it. I found the comments in this thread far more interesting.

It would seem everyone who responded thus far has expressed the idea that the cop did the right thing, and the kid should have been killed. OK, I can go along completely with the idea that the cop should have been able to defend himself. My problem is that I think everyone should be able to defend themselves in such circumstances. I suspect if it had been a regular citizen who had done the shooting in this case, that citizen would be in jail and would lose everything he owned in his defense. I am quite certain that it it had been a regular citizen doing this shooting, there would have been all kinds of folks (including cops, district attorneys, and folks on this forum) who would have said the citizen should have tried to get away without using deadly force.

Sorry folks, but I do not think there should be different rules for cops than the rules applied to citizens. I am sorry that other folks on this forum would not also think they deserve as much consideration as cops. I just do not understand how we place cops as well as other groups of people on some elevated level that is better than the common citizen.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

Quartus
December 20, 2003, 10:51 AM
A hit in the chest is supposed to STOP a bad guy for good!


In the movies, yes.


Doesn't work that way in real life. The sooner more gunnies realize that, the better.

Mad Man
December 20, 2003, 12:01 PM
It would seem everyone who responded thus far has expressed the idea that the cop did the right thing, and the kid should have been killed. OK, I can go along completely with the idea that the cop should have been able to defend himself. My problem is that I think everyone should be able to defend themselves in such circumstances. I suspect if it had been a regular citizen who had done the shooting in this case, that citizen would be in jail and would lose everything he owned in his defense. I am quite certain that it it had been a regular citizen doing this shooting, there would have been all kinds of folks (including cops, district attorneys, and folks on this forum) who would have said the citizen should have tried to get away without using deadly force.

Dave makes a good point, which I think explains why a lot of gun owners get upset when police officers use excessive force and are not penalized -- or seemingly not penalized -- for it.

It makes it more frustrating when attempts to explain an officer's actions become an attempt to excuse the officer's actions. This double standard, and not a hatred of police officers nor a desire to "bash" them, results in an "us vs. them" attitude, both among police and non-police here.

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh posted an example of this on his blog Volokh.com (http://volokh.com) last week:


December 12, 2003 11:09 AM (http://volokh.com/2003_12_07_volokh_archive.html#107124536045679786)


Arrested for legal self-defense? The Corpus Christi Caller-Times (http://www.caller.com/ccct/local_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_811_2494902,00.html) reports:


Police, prosecutors and women's advocates acknowledge that the public might find it strange that Noelle Richardson is facing a murder charge in the shooting death of her estranged husband.

After all, police say he broke down the door the night before she had a court date to seek a restraining order. Records show that he had stalked her and beat her before.

"The cops don't worry about self-defense," First Assistant District Attorney Mark Skurka said Wednesday. "They have to determine if a homicide took place."

Police say Richardson, 22, shot 23-year-old John Washington Richardson on Monday night with a 9mm semiautomatic handgun that police suspect he gave her before the couple separated. Investigators said Richardson shot him in the face after he broke into an apartment on O'Grady Drive, and that when he kept advancing she shot him again in the side. . . .

Police say they didn't have a choice but to arrest Noelle Richardson, despite what appeared to be an attempt to defend herself.

.....



I'm pretty sure that this is wrong. The police can only arrest someone if they have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. Homicide in self-defense is not a crime -- not intentional murder, not negligent homicide, and not manslaughter. Unless they have probable cause to think that it wasn't self-defense, which the article does not suggest, then an arrest violates the Fourth Amendment.

Bringing the case before a grand jury, I think, may be a different matter: It's the grand jury's job to determine whether probable cause existed, and it seems to me that a prosecutor may decide that, regardless of his own views, he should leave the question to the grand jury (though I tentatively think that the better course is not to even bring before the grand jury cases that the prosecutor thinks weren't crimes, at least unless he thinks they're very close calls). But an arrest actually requires probable cause to believe a crime, not a perfectly legal act, was committed.

.....




Friday, December 12, 2003 3:30 PM (http://volokh.com/2003_12_07_volokh_archive.html#107126104846020861)


Probable cause and affirmative defenses: Several readers e-mailed me to suggest that it's OK for the police to arrest someone who clearly killed someone, even if seems very likely that the killing was in self-defense (http://volokh.com/2003_12_07_volokh_archive.html#107124536045679786). Self-defense, they argue, is an affirmative defense, which is to say that at trial the defendant has to plead it and introduce some evidence of it. Therefore, the probable cause inquiry should focus only on the case-in-chief, not the affirmative defense.

I don't think that's right. The Fourth Amendment is generally described as forbidding arrests unless there's probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. If the police officer has probable cause to believe that someone has been killed, but no probable cause to believe that the killing is unlawful, then the Fourth Amendment test isn't satisfied.

I did a quick search to see what the courts have said about this, and found very little. The one case that's squarely on point is on my side, but it's only a federal trial court case, Dietrich v. Burrows, 976 F.Supp. 1099 (N.D.Ohio 1997):


The test for probable cause is not whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, in believing, in the circumstances shown, that the suspect is committing an act that would be a criminal offense but for the fact that the actor has a valid affirmative defense. The test is whether the officer is reasonable in believing that the actor is in fact committing a criminal offense. Since the arresting officers had actual knowledge that the Dietrichs had a valid affirmative defense to the crime of carrying concealed weapons, the facts and circumstances did not warrant a belief that the Dietrichs were committing a criminal offense.


So I admit this isn't the strongest precedent -- but I know of no contrary ones, and I think that the case is consistent with how the Fourth Amendment rule is usually described.

This, though, of course also leaves the question whether a reasonable police officer might still have had probable cause to believe the killing was unlawful. Jeff Sterling (http://sterling.blogspot.com/2003_12_07_sterling_archive.html#107125651137191044), for instance, takes this view (as well as the view that the probable cause inquiry shouldn't consider affirmative defenses). But if the press account is correct, then it's hard for me to see this. The woman says the man had broken into her apartment; even if they didn't trust her, there was presumably physical evidence of that. Texas law (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe0000900.html#pe009.9.31) views self-defense quite broadly. (Just to give an example, it's even generally lawful to use deadly force to prevent someone from imminently damaging your property at night -- something that I believe is generally not lawful in many other states -- if deadly force seems the only realistic means to do so; Texas is pretty hard-core on this stuff.) I would think that, absent some evidence to the contrary, the situation in that case pretty clearly points to self-defense.

Silver writes: "The dead man looks like a bad guy. But is it possible he just went there to talk? Not likely, I'll admit. But it is possible, and if it's true, then the wife ([Battered Woman Syndrome] aside) is a murderer." But the test for probable cause is not mere possibility; it's probable cause. If the police think that it's possible (though not likely) that someone is a criminal, they are free to investigate the person to try to develop probable cause. The Fourth Amendment, however, forbids them from arresting the person based on mere possibility.

UPDATE: Referring to the article mentioned in the original post (http://www.caller.com/ccct/local_news/article/0,1641,CCCT_811_2494902,00.html), reader James Guinivan writes:


So "[p]olice say they didn't have a choice" and "it's up to the district attorney and the grand jury to decide about charges based on whether it's justifiable circumstances"?

I take it from this that if a police officer is attacked by a perp in the course of duty, and shoots the perp dead, then he or she is arrested and thrown in jail by others on the force? After all, they have no choice, right?

If, on the other hand, the police officer is simply put on administrative leave with pay pending investigation (as is done in most other jurisdictions that I'm aware of), then it would appear that the police do "make such decisions in the field" after all.

Mad Man
December 20, 2003, 12:11 PM
This case (in the original post by TheeBadOne) seems like a justified shooting by the officer in question. Knives are dangerous weapons.

But then again...

I wasn't there, and I'm not supposed to believe media reports about police officers using force. So I should be skeptical about what happened.

Right?

Quartus
December 20, 2003, 12:29 PM
Further to my point, if you think a single shot to the chest is "supposed to" stop someone:

http://www.defense-training.com/quips/11Oct03=20.html




http://www.defense-training.com/quips/15Oct03.html

No pistol is going to be nearly as effective (as accurate, as powerful) as a rifle or shotgun, but, unlike rifles and shotguns, we can have a pistol on our person (concealed) nearly all the time. Pistols are convenient, not particularly effective.

Crownvicman
December 20, 2003, 12:40 PM
I think there is a problem with headline writers. a 16 year old is not a boy. He is a young man. He may be an immature idiot, but no boy. Too bad the little s.o.b. isn't dead.

KRAUTGUNNER
December 20, 2003, 01:28 PM
@ Quartus:

Maybe the LEO in that first story had used the wrong ammo.

According to Marshall/Sanow ("Street Stoppers") .45ACP ammo from CCI (with 230 Gold Dot bullets) is rated at 86% OSS (ons shot stops).

The .40 S&W from Cor-Bon (with 135grs Nosler JHP) has an OSS of 96%!!

The 9mm WW ammo (147grs subsonic) the junior LEO used, is a pathetic joke! OSS=77%!!!

I am convinced that REAL stopping power in handgun calibers can only be achieved with light, FAST and expanding/fragmenting large diameter bullets.

Quartus
December 20, 2003, 03:35 PM
You'd better do some more reading. Lab results are not street results.

TheeBadOne
December 20, 2003, 05:23 PM
A few are missing the boat completely. What do OSS's and dead people have to do with each other? The threat was stopped. OSS does not mean "KILL". There have plenty of people who later died of a gunshot but first killed/hurt the person who shot them. OSS means just that, threat stopped (don't have to be dead).

JMHO

BluesBear
December 20, 2003, 07:54 PM
KRAUTGUNNER stated:
The 9mm WW ammo (147grs subsonic) the junior LEO used, is a pathetic joke! OSS=77%!!!
Not a joke if you're the one with one in your chest.
I surely would NOT let someone shoot me with anything that was even as pathetic as .1% OSS.
Your Bravado May Vary

David Wile
December 20, 2003, 11:06 PM
Hey Mad Man,

Thanks for all the information you provided. Your post really contained a lot of information that takes a whole lot of thought to consider it in a meaningful manner. Quite frankly, I had to read and re-read much of it several times, and I am still not sure what I think about some of the points. Sadly, it is far easier to make a trite remark shot from the hip without any serious consideration of what is really involved in a situation which is rarely black or white. Most things in life rarely are black and white, and really do require consideration. Thanks again for all the food for thought.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

Mad Man
December 21, 2003, 12:12 AM
Something else to consider:

In addition to not being immediately arrested after a defensive shooting like a civilian would be, some police departments provide counseling for officers who have to shoot somebody. Officers receive support from their peers. To some degree, an officer who shoots somebody is treated by the system as a victim. (Policies obviously vary from department to department).

Even a justified killing can effect the shooter. I whole-heartedly support this treatment for police officers during the initial phase of the investigation. Innocent until proven guilty, and all of that.

Contrast that with the treatment of a civilian in the same situation. While subjected to the same potential trauma, not only is the civilian not afforded counseling, but is treated as a criminal (arrested, handcuffed, jailed, etc.). This can only make an already bad situation more stressful for a civilian who has to use deadly force to defend himself.


Remember this case about a man who saved several lives after grabbing the bad guy's gun? He killed one of the robbers, and was jailed because "possesing" said gun violated his parole for an earlier drug conviction : http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/08/17/MN229399.DTL


San Francisco -- A man hailed by San Francisco police for seizing a robber's gun to stop a violent holdup at a live-work loft has been jailed by state authorities on a possible parole violation -- handling the gun.

Police are frustrated that Detrick Washington, a 25-year-old San Franciscan who they say was instrumental in saving himself and four other people Tuesday night, has been locked up.

"He took a chance. I believe we could call him a hero," Inspector Armand Gordon said. "He basically saved five people's lives, including his own."

.....

JShirley
December 21, 2003, 02:13 AM
16 yr olds who commit crimes and attack LEO's are not 'boys'.

Well, do you mean that as one type of individual? Attacking a LEO is a crime, of course- did you mean "16 year olds who commit crimes THEN attack LEO's"? Or, did you mean "16 year olds who commit crimes OR attack LEO's"?

In any case, if you mean individuals age 16 who commit crimes, that would be all of us. Yep, every one.

Speeding...crime.
Jaywalking...crime.
Theft...crime.
Changing lanes in intersections...crime.
Running stop signs...crime.
Indecent Exposure...crime.
Assault...crime.

I'm pretty sure all of us is guilty of one or more of these "crimes". Should we be exterminated?
My warning antenna tend to up when I hear that any "type" of person should be exterminated. Sounds like a Final Solution to me.


http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/020409/marlette.gif

clubsoda22
December 21, 2003, 02:26 AM
Had a veterin officer and his rookie in my college city go into foot pursuit of a 15 year old carjacker. They chased im into a dead end alley and the kid whipped around, pulled a gun and fired a wild shot. From a good distance the veterin officer fired 3 shots striking the kid twice in the chest and once in the head. After testifying in court the veterin officer was confronted by the mother of the kid infront of the media with camera's rolling. She asked simply "Why?" to which he responded "Because i'm a better shot than your son"

Then came the riots.

JShirley
December 21, 2003, 02:50 AM
"Because i'm a better shot than your son"

:D

Good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read that!

BluesBear
December 21, 2003, 03:20 AM
"Because i'm a better shot than your son" Absotivily, Posilutely BRILLIANT !

Quartus
December 21, 2003, 11:48 AM
like a civilian would be, some police


Police ARE civilians


Except in a police state.


Which is why the terminology matters.

CZ-100
December 21, 2003, 12:02 PM
Thats Terrible.. He was such a GOOD BOY.:what: :neener:

David Wile
December 21, 2003, 12:14 PM
Hey folks,

Clubsoda22 just cited the following:

Had a veterin officer and his rookie in my college city go into foot pursuit of a 15 year old carjacker. They chased im into a dead end alley and the kid whipped around, pulled a gun and fired a wild shot. From a good distance the veterin officer fired 3 shots striking the kid twice in the chest and once in the head. After testifying in court the veterin officer was confronted by the mother of the kid infront of the media with camera's rolling. She asked simply "Why?" to which he responded "Because i'm a better shot than your son"

Let's assume that the paragraph cited is accurate in the details provided. The cop's response would certainly be accurate. However, his response is also a sterling example of extremely bad judgement. While the response may have been accurate, it was inflammatory in its nature and intent. Why? Because he goes on to say, "Then came the riots."

Not only was his remark bad judgement, it would probably be found negligent, and that would put his police department and city on the hook for damages. As a taxpayer, I don't like the idea of paying increased taxes for the bad judgement of cops or any other government employees.

Look at the knee jerk posts that followed which showed the writers' obvious glee at the cop's flip remark. None of those folks stopped to consider the ramifications of that cop's remark and how many people were harmed as a result of the remark. What is this thing we have in us that makes us speak so quickly without cosidering what we are saying?

If someone in private industry were to say something similar which caused his company to be exposed to civil lawsuit, you can bet that person would be looking for another job - and rightly so.

The cop may have been correct as to why the woman's son was dead instead of himself, but his remark caused more needless problems. Considering he was "in front of the media with camera's rolling," could he have expected his remark to contribute to further trouble and expose his city to further legal problems? Absolutely. While his remark may have been "correct," it was not cool or neat or funny. It was irresponsible and wrong. It is a shame that some of us think it was funny.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

Sergeant Bob
December 21, 2003, 12:46 PM
David Wile Let's assume that the paragraph cited is accurate in the details provided. The cop's response would certainly be accurate. However, his response is also a sterling example of extremely bad judgement. While the response may have been accurate, it was inflammatory in its nature and intent. Why? Because he goes on to say, "Then came the riots."
Why just assume it's accurate? If a cop really stated that in front of the media outside a courtroom, with the ensuing riots, it would be easy enough to verify with some linkage. I'm sure something like that would be all over the internet.
I did some searching and could find no references to it. Could you help us out here Clubsoda?

JShirley
December 21, 2003, 02:05 PM
Look at the knee jerk posts that followed which showed the writers' obvious glee at the cop's flip remark. None of those folks stopped to consider the ramifications of that cop's remark and how many people were harmed as a result of the remark.

Mr. Wile,

Let me explain something to you. No one was harmed "as a result" of a police officer's statement. If anyone was harmed through rioting, it was because people chose to riot.
When asked why the police officer shot the boy, "Because I was a better shot than he was" is not only correct and true, but I find it cool, and neat, and funny.
The truth often is.
Now, I think if we find documentation, it will show that riots occurred because of "an evil racist shooting" or some such nonsense. In which case, the officer's remark did not "cause" any riots, (even though we understand that PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS, instead of there existing some "knee jerk" response that MAKES them burn down their neighborhoods and kill others) the totally correct actions of self-defense "caused" the riots.

John

David Wile
December 21, 2003, 07:45 PM
Mr. Shirley,

I am sorry for you. It is sad that anyone finds humor in the death and the sorrow of others. Perhaps the Holocaust was a real knee slapper for you. Maybe a lynching would be a real hoot for you - as long as it is one of "them" and not one of "us."

People may choose to riot, and that is regrettable. However, the cop's statement apparently incited the riot, and that is reprehensible - not humorous.

You are apparently a moderator on this forum, and the example you set for others is just as bad as the example the cop set for his community when he made such a remark. Your example is not only bad for this forum, it is also a bad example for 2nd Amendment rights. There are folks out there who would love to take the guns away from everyone but cops and soldiers, and they take great pleasure in pointing to your comments such as yours that you found the cop's words to be "cool, and neat, and funny." To them, we are all just red neck racist trash who cannot be trusted with firearms.

You set a bad example for gun owners and as a moderator for this forum.

David Wile

JShirley
December 21, 2003, 08:14 PM
Mr. Wile,

It might help if you read all my replies in this thread.

My warning antenna tend to up when I hear that any "type" of person should be exterminated. Sounds like a Final Solution to me.

-Me

Also note the cartoon of Hitler in hell. Obviously my hero...

People may choose to riot, and that is regrettable.

No, usually it's stupid. Folks typically burn down their own neighborhoods. Not that wanton property destruction of others' is great, either.

I used your own phraseology. You're quoting yourself. (Which is pretty cool, neat, and funny, huh? :D)

If this story is true, I'd love to meet that officer, and shake his hand.

Of course, the shooting wasn't funny. Since it happened, the truthful response to a foolish "why" is.

If you enjoyed reading about "Officer shoots 16 year old boy twice" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!