Trial in shooting opens for 2 Pa. Troopers
- Thread starter Cavalier Knight
- Start date
- Status
The "cop bashing" argument cuts both ways. Some posters will never see a cop as having done the correct thing regardless of the facts, while others will never see a cop as having done wrong regardless of the facts.
As for "don't run if you don't want to get shot," it's a nice sound byte but it is a complete misrepresentation of the law on the issue.
As for "don't run if you don't want to get shot," it's a nice sound byte but it is a complete misrepresentation of the law on the issue.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
Quote:
Lesson #1, don't run from the police when they tell you to stop.
especially if you are an unarmed 12 YO?
Quote:
LEsson #2 if they can't see your hands you are a threat.
So I am free to shoot anyone with his hands in his pocket because he might present a threat to me?
especially if you are a 12 year old fleeing a stolen car after a chase
and if you change to a job that requires you to actually catch folks who might be inclined to shoot you to avoid getting caught yea sure you can shoot em if they make a move to reach into their pants. but only if you actually change to where you do it as opposed to talking about it
and sad as it is when a kid dies how do you tell how old someone in nthe dark running is? my foster son was 6'2 185 at 15 and he killed someone when he was 12, his own father
Lesson #1, don't run from the police when they tell you to stop.
especially if you are an unarmed 12 YO?
Quote:
LEsson #2 if they can't see your hands you are a threat.
So I am free to shoot anyone with his hands in his pocket because he might present a threat to me?
especially if you are a 12 year old fleeing a stolen car after a chase
and if you change to a job that requires you to actually catch folks who might be inclined to shoot you to avoid getting caught yea sure you can shoot em if they make a move to reach into their pants. but only if you actually change to where you do it as opposed to talking about it
and sad as it is when a kid dies how do you tell how old someone in nthe dark running is? my foster son was 6'2 185 at 15 and he killed someone when he was 12, his own father
waterhouse
Member
If the officers are telling the truth, this all could have been avoided if one officer had kept his finger off the trigger until he was ready to shoot.
First, yes, especially if you are an unarmed 12 year old. If you are armed, or an adult, and you steal a car, your best bet might be to run from the cops, because in the legal system we punish people more for using guns while committing other crimes and we punish people more for being adults. Unarmed 12 year olds who steal cars probably aren't in that much legal trouble, relatively speaking.
Second, they didn't know he was an unarmed 12 year old. They knew that he was someone running from a stolen car. If you believe them, he was someone running from a stolen car who kept reaching into his pockets while looking back towards them.
As Steve in PA has said many times, incidents must be judged by what was known at the time. The fact that he was 12 and ended up having candy in his pocket doesn't matter, because no one knew those facts. What needs to be decided is whether the officers acted as they were supposed to when facing a car thief who was running away [accepted fact] and possibly reaching into his pockets.
Most people would say no, it is not OK for cops to shoot a suspected car thief who is running away. But there is an added level of complexity as one officer heard a shot and saw his partner sliding down a fence, thought his partner had been shot, assumed that he himself was in danger, and "returned" fire.
First, yes, especially if you are an unarmed 12 year old. If you are armed, or an adult, and you steal a car, your best bet might be to run from the cops, because in the legal system we punish people more for using guns while committing other crimes and we punish people more for being adults. Unarmed 12 year olds who steal cars probably aren't in that much legal trouble, relatively speaking.
Second, they didn't know he was an unarmed 12 year old. They knew that he was someone running from a stolen car. If you believe them, he was someone running from a stolen car who kept reaching into his pockets while looking back towards them.
As Steve in PA has said many times, incidents must be judged by what was known at the time. The fact that he was 12 and ended up having candy in his pocket doesn't matter, because no one knew those facts. What needs to be decided is whether the officers acted as they were supposed to when facing a car thief who was running away [accepted fact] and possibly reaching into his pockets.
Most people would say no, it is not OK for cops to shoot a suspected car thief who is running away. But there is an added level of complexity as one officer heard a shot and saw his partner sliding down a fence, thought his partner had been shot, assumed that he himself was in danger, and "returned" fire.
That complexity is where the discussion could be held. This isn't a case of a cop seeing someone making a furtive movement and responding accordingly. It's a case of one person's negligence (assuming that the weapon didn't actually have a mechanical malfunction that caused a discharge) leading to a presumption on the part of another person who acted accordingly. The situation could end up that the second trooper can be excused (or even justified) while the first trooper cannot be.
But then again, we are now drifitng towards that part of the "cop bashing" argument where we are told that if we aren't doing the job, we shouldn't make a comment about it.
If this was not a cop doing the shooting, would any one believe them? most people would assume it was a story made up after the fact to justify what they did.
I have a real hard time believing the kid is repeatedly reaching into his pocket that is full of candy while running away from police. just does not pass the smell test. try running at any speed some time with one or more hands in your pocket(s).
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
ilbob, you're reaching pretty far. It's been six years. My guess is that it's beyond dispute at this point that the Bronco was indeed stolen. You'd think that would be one of the major controversies of the trial otherwise.
The kid probably wasn't reaching for his candy, but that doesn't mean he wasn't hitching up his pants, especially if he was saggin' that way.
In any case, this started as a posting of an article without comment that was off-topic (this is the Legal Forum, remember?) It was nice of Steve and some others to try to examine both sides carefully to see what could be learned, but we just don't do this L&P stuff here anymore and this is the kind of thread that inspired that decision.
The kid probably wasn't reaching for his candy, but that doesn't mean he wasn't hitching up his pants, especially if he was saggin' that way.
In any case, this started as a posting of an article without comment that was off-topic (this is the Legal Forum, remember?) It was nice of Steve and some others to try to examine both sides carefully to see what could be learned, but we just don't do this L&P stuff here anymore and this is the kind of thread that inspired that decision.
- Status