Posted on 01/28/2003 3:05:41 AM PST by Dane
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:34:57 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Trooper "acted in a reasonable manner"
After deliberating 55 minutes, a Fayette County coroner
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
Oh what a flowery screed towards the ACLU. Look we don't live in a perfect world and never will, but the fact's are that this 12 year old punk started all this and the cops reacted.
They have a dangerous job being on the front line against all the scum who want to do malicious harm to cops and the general public. I will give them the benefit of the doubt rather than liberal "perfect 20/20 hindsighters", who will always put the blame on the cop and not the criminal.
Yes, how dare someone suggest that a child has not waived his right to breathe because they decided to run away from trouble that they caused. Do you advocate shooting a kid in the back for blowing up your mailbox with an M-80 (or today's equivalent) and running away? (I can't wait to see your shocked and disbelieving face as your are led away for your capital murder trial.)
The fun part is that you guys (Poohbah, Dane, etc) would probably agree with this, too: Let's kill everyone who uses drugs, steals property, or runs from the police. There are reasons that these are not capital offenses, folks.
Celebrating the death of another is vile (and puts you in the same category of those who celebrated when the Towers collapsed). The kid deserved some stiff penalties... not death. The police acted poorly, and forgot their training... and deserve some desk-time (at least) as a consequence for their poor action.
Very close, but not quite. The cop forgot his training, over-reacted, and caused a death needlessly. If death cannot be meted out by a judge, jury, and a long appellate process for the stealing and running, why is it acceptable for a police officer to impose that penalty single-handedly, instantaneously, and based on false information? (Also, don;t any red flags go up for when the cop says he thought the kid fired, but the noise came from the direction of the other officer, who was NOT between them... meaning the sound should have come from another direction? Call me a suspicious, but, as usual, the newspaper doesn't paint a very cler picture of the scene.)
They have a dangerous job being on the front line against all the scum who want to do malicious harm to cops and the general public.
Half of my family are officers. I have the utmost respect for them, and don't want them to be shackled by stupidities in the legal system... but I also don't want them killing perps based on bad information and poor training (or forgetting their training).
I will give them the benefit of the doubt rather than liberal "perfect 20/20 hindsighters",
How is using perffect information "liberal"? In my experience, facts tend not to bother liberla s much. ;^)
who will always put the blame on the cop and not the criminal.
The kid did wrong. I blame him for that, and he should have seen some stiff consequences for it... but my point here is that the cop also did wrong by forgetting his training and shooting based on false information, and he should see some consequences for it. You should also note that the kid's mistake did not led to death... but the cop's did.
Uh the fact is that this "child" stole somebody's property and put innocent people in danger. If it was up to you all, before making a move cops would have to look up their every action in a manual.
Like I have said before we do not live in a perfect world and we will never get the perfect world you are clamoring for. It was the punk's decision to put other people in danger and yes the situation was tragic, but it could have been stopped if the youth had stopped.
Like I said you all(like the ACLU) let the criminal off and put all of the blame on those who are trying to protect the general populace.
My "mailbox" is actually the front entrance to my house. I tend to frown on people throwing a quarter stick of dynamite into my foyer--I might think that they intend to do me and my family serious harm. I still tend to frown on people setting off a quarter-stick of dynamite anywhere on my property, for the same reason. I might not shoot him in the back in public--but he would have a "death by misadventure" within the week. (He'd probably "score an own goal," to use the Irish Republican Army's argot.)
The fun part is that you guys (Poohbah, Dane, etc) would probably agree with this, too: Let's kill everyone who uses drugs, steals property, or runs from the police. There are reasons that these are not capital offenses, folks.
I don't advocate killing those who use drugs; they get one trip through rehab. After that, they are presumed to be dealing. I do advocate shooting dealers.
Thievery and fleeing the police are not capital offenses; however, one who engages in them is voluntarily accepting the natural consequences attached to them, which CAN include getting shot. This kid made a stupid decision. Stupidity frequently leads to death. Glory be to the genome, the natural selection, and the survival of the fittest. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, stupid bunts getting weeded out of the gene pool without end, Amen.
It sure is nice of you to unilaterally declare this, but it really should come from case law or a legislature first. Got any citations? I can't find any in Federal, Indiana (my state), or Pennsylvania (where this took place) law. The 5th and 14th Amendments dictate that neither Federal nor State officials may deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... and there's no exceptions for resisting arrest anywhere to be found.
IIRC, an officer still needs a search warrant to search your premises if you are arrested (and resisting) on your front lawn. Apparently, you don't lose your Due Process Rights while resisting arrest.
And you should also note that that this a real not a training situation. Mistakes will be made, they are human, but the fact remains is that punk is the one who started this situation. The cops are humans in a job which requires no human failings.
I doubt that the cops in this incident are high fiving themselves over this situation, but are aware and angry by pompous critics who think that they know everyhthing and who will demonize them unceasingly over this tragic situation caused by the car stealing punk.
"Due Process" implies that one is actually participating in the process and not actively avoiding participation in same. Sorry, kiddo...but more than one lawbreaker never made it to trial in the earliest days of the Republic because he resisted apprehension.
IIRC, an officer still needs a search warrant to search your premises if you are arrested (and resisting) on your front lawn. Apparently, you don't lose your Due Process Rights while resisting arrest.
If you're resisting arrest, you're not under arrest. Resist well enough, and the officer may employ deadly force against you.
I never knew it was possible for those with a flatline EEG to actually post on FR...
Yep, and he deserved punishment resulting from the trial process.
If it was up to you all, before making a move cops would have to look up their every action in a manual.
ROFL!!! It's called training, and they should KNOW the manual, even under duress. Or would you rather our soldiers just "wing it" and forget their training as they go into Baghdad?
Like I have said before we do not live in a perfect world and we will never get the perfect world you are clamoring for.
True, but that does not mean we instantly forgive those who make mistakes. You certainly aren't forgiving the "child" for his imperfection, even though the same logic could be applied to his actions.
It was the punk's decision to put other people in danger and yes the situation was tragic, but it could have been stopped if the youth had stopped.
It also could have been prevented if the officers who are paid, trained, and expected to follow the rules had done so. If you can celebrate the kid's death for breaking the rules, you should at least be able to see that the officiers should see sanctions for a similar failure that actually cost a life, and didn't "just" risk the lives of the public.
Like I said you all (like the ACLU) let the criminal off and put all of the blame on those who are trying to protect the general populace.
I blame the cops for not holding fast to their training. I expect them to be held accountable when they screw-the-pooch, just like every other citizen is (politicians seem to have a similar exemption, and I'm equally against that)... and I have not once said that the perp should be forgiven for his crime.
I'm all for giving officers the benefit-of-the-doubt when reasonable mistakes are made. I don't see the mistakes made here as reasonable: Running with guns drawn, jumping fences with guns drawn, drawing their guns when they have no reason to suspect the perp has a weapon (the "hand in his pant-pocket while running away" excuse doesn't seem like a reasonable reason to draw to me), and firing the moment they hear gunfire... which likely came from a different direction than the perp. What if they are running through a bad section of town and there's a gunfight involving others? Do they then have the right to simply fire and kill anyone then? Then, how do you prove they even heard a shot at all? The potential for abuse is far too ripe if we were to follow your standards for the police shooting here.
There are justified police shootings. This does not seem like one to me.
Maybe I have an attitude because I know a guy that was hit head on by a Pa State Trooper while the trooper was in uniform, in his private vehicle going 87 mph on a 4 lane highway. He went over the highway divider and creamed this person head on. The trooper died and they lost the blood samples taken. He was a early 20s Hispanic male not on the force very long. They covered their ass big time. They take care of their own. They left the man hit slumped in the roadway losing blood while they rushed the dead guy to the hospital.............The emphasis was on saving the trooper and not the severely injured citizen. The Pa State Police had the balls to go to the ER to ask the man the trooper almost killed if he had been drinking.........
Applying the Reasonable Man standard... I would have plugged the kid as well.
(the "hand in his pant-pocket while running away" excuse doesn't seem like a reasonable reason to draw to me),
And that is the standard line in police shootings when the perp is dead and can tell no other side of the story.
We will just have to disagree. I understand that cops have tough jobs and things are going to work out perfectly 24/7. I do not subscribe to the theory that the cops were out for bloodlust (as others, not you, on this thread imply)in this situation. They were trying to stop a perp who had put innocent lives in danger.
We can go through all the machinations of the situation, but it boils down to this, the cops were the ones trying to do the good(stopping a car robber who was a danger to the public) and the perp doing the bad,(stealing the car, driving wildly, running away when being caught).
You will probably say this is overly simplistic, but it is the truth.
I understand that cops have tough jobs and things are not going to work out perfectly 24/7.
Bad. Yes, most definately. I also think some of our police forces are getting way to big for their britches.
In this one case though... I stand by my opinion that they thought they were under fire from the perp. Case closed.
The precise reason they should be even MORE careful. An errant round can hit an innocent bystander.
The cops are humans in a job which requires no human failings.
It is one of the toughest jobs around. Personally, I'm all for ending the stupid notion that evidence can be tossed-out due to a failure to issue the Miranda Warning (since every citizen cannot claim ignorance of the law, can't they also be expected to know the two-paragraph Miranda, which every 6th grader knows from TV?). Make it easier for public servants to do their jobs (cops and teachers especially), BUT ALSO make sure that those who fail to do their job well are easily removed or sanctioned for those failures. I'm not expecting anything unreasonable here.
I doubt that the cops in this incident are high fiving themselves over this situation, but are aware and angry by pompous critics who think that they know everyhthing and who will demonize them unceasingly over this tragic situation caused by the car stealing punk.
The reason they aren't high-fiving is that they know they did wrong. Every (decent) person who takes a life is forever changed by it. Here, the cop took a life unnecessarily, and he did it while representing the State. He should not be excused for his blunder. He should get plenty of moral support during his punishment (and I would be happy to join in if the mistakes they made are truly sincere, as those here probably are)... but I can't stand it when the proper process is perverted simply because the police volunteer for a tough job.
I sure as heck would have expected to be tossed out on my butt if I ever did anything in my classroom that cost a life, even accidentally. I would accept the moral support from my friends while I looked for a new job, and would be sure to never stop apologizing to the family I wronged. However, if I were to see no consequences and my fellow teachers came to my defense, and my school board refused to sanction me in any way, I would really have to wonder if they were truly there for the public, or if they were there to "protect their own".
To get down to root motivations, my real beef is that those who represent the State (cops and politicians especially) are usually allowed to skate while the rest of us are held to ever-tougher punishments (including the death penalty for stealing an SUV, judging by this thread).
Huh I guess you would get mad at a soldier in the desert if he shot an enemy combatant dead for trying to steal communication equipment.
Like it or not cops have to deal with war zones.
This is all about envy to you isn't. Not about the facts that cops have to work in war zones every day.
One officer hears a gunshot and sees his partner fall to the ground.
He fires at the suspect thinking that the suspect has fired at his partner.
And you think this was a "police killing"?
You would have done the exact same thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.