Cop shoots 13 year old boy for pulling out a cell phone!

Published on October 18th, 2007

Posted by SN in General

Seattle Times – October 15, 2007:

A Seattle police officer shot a 13-year-old twice in the leg early Sunday, and police said he had mistaken the boy’s cellphone for a weapon.

The boy was in satisfactory condition at Harborview Medical Center on Sunday evening, hospital spokeswoman Susan Gregg-Hanson said.

According to police, the 13-year-old took off a large jacket and threw it on the ground, then lifted up his T-shirt, reached into a pocket and pulled out a black object. The boy was moving toward the officer, Seattle spokeswoman Deanna Nollette said. The officer, who had his gun drawn, believed the object was a weapon and shot twice, police said.

The 13-year-old’s parents are “understandably angry” about the situation, Diaz said, and the Police Department has offered the families victim support.

52 users responded in " Cop shoots 13 year old boy for pulling out a cell phone! "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 pedro said, on October 18th, 2007 at 5:13 pm

What a sad incident. Thank god he was shot in the legs, otherwise, this story would’ve been sadder still.

# 2 DavidtheDuke said, on October 18th, 2007 at 5:15 pm

Don’t shoot me bro!

god I need to hit myself again

# 3 Jerk-Face said, on October 18th, 2007 at 5:16 pm

The article called the cop “a three-year veteran .” Wow. Only three years under his belt and he’s already a veteran. Cops must have extremely low standards.

# 4 Angel H. Wong said, on October 18th, 2007 at 5:23 pm

“the Police Department has offered the families victim support.”

All I can think of are threats that they will make a living hell out of them if the family presses charges against them.

His superiors must have scolded him that the next time he should shoot the kid in the chest and kill him so they can plant incriminating evidence on the boy.

# 5 Major Jizz said, on October 18th, 2007 at 5:36 pm

That’s what happens when the cop doesn’t get his liter of cola.

# 6 dm said, on October 18th, 2007 at 5:56 pm

If a cop has a gun pointed at you and has told you not to move, it’s not a good idea to walk toward him and start pulling things out of your pocket.

As far as I’m concerned, the kid almost won a Darwin Award.

# 7 andy said, on October 18th, 2007 at 5:59 pm

From the article

“The officer was on routine patrol near the 2500 block of East Yesler Way around 3 a.m. when he saw two people acting suspiciously, Seattle police said.

The two people ran when they spotted the officer, and he chased them in his car south to South Washington Street and 26th Avenue South.

There, the officer shined a spotlight on them and ordered them to put their hands up, police said.

One suspect, a 14-year-old, complied. But the other acted “very agitated” and didn’t listen to the officer, who repeated his orders several times, said John Diaz, deputy chief of operations for the Seattle police.

According to police, the 13-year-old took off a large jacket and threw it on the ground, then lifted up his T-shirt, reached into a pocket and pulled out a black object. The boy was moving toward the officer, Seattle spokeswoman Deanna Nollette said. The officer, who had his gun drawn, believed the object was a weapon and shot twice, police said.”

sounds justified to me

# 8 Jägermeister said, on October 18th, 2007 at 6:38 pm

#6 – dm

Agreed. The kid had it coming. I don’t say that he deserve, but I fully understand the police officer. And shooting him in the leg shows that the police officer just intended to stop him.

# 9 Mr. Fusion said, on October 18th, 2007 at 7:18 pm

And of course the police never lie or mislead. The boy’s father and the other boy apparently say the 13 yr old was obeying the cop when the cop just shot the kid.

Police often ask community groups not to rush to judgment in these situations, Bible said; at the same time they tend to portray those who are shot as being at fault.

http://tinyurl.com/2ehvxh

But of course none of that matters when it is so easy to just blame the kid.

[Please use TinyUrl.com for overly long URLs. - ed.]

# 10 lakelady said, on October 18th, 2007 at 7:26 pm

the parents are angry at the cops because they’re too ashamed to admit their kid had no business being on the streets at 3 AM to begin with. A lot easier to turn feelings outward toward others than examine your own faults.

# 11 Major Jizz said, on October 18th, 2007 at 7:51 pm

I think there should be a law that would deport cops who make “mistakes” such as this. If he or she re-enters the country after the deportation, that ex-cop should be tar-and-feathered.

# 12 ECA said, on October 18th, 2007 at 8:22 pm

11, Major Jizz…
HOW about this, YOU are the next replacement for the NEXT fired cop..
You get to stop the next car thats speeding in a school zone…AND NOT know, if the person has JUST had a BAD day/is CRANKED out/Drunk and pissed at his wife/just found out his Wife is Gay/got fired from a $200k job/and so forth…
And you get to deal with this person, as IF’ nothing has happened, and you are ABOUT to make their day WORSE…

Iv heard of Cops QUITTING, after finding out, HOW fast a person at 20′ could kill them with a KNIFE, even if you had a drawn GUN.

# 13 Daniel Quackenbush said, on October 18th, 2007 at 8:58 pm

The police can always say, “I thought he had a gun.” Cops can do no wrong. I’m not saying in this case the cop did wrong, but just because the cop says, “i thought it was a gun,” doesn’t make it so.

Cops are taught to never shoot for the legs. The cop probably missed.

# 14 MikeN said, on October 18th, 2007 at 9:36 pm

This family should be glad the cop is so bad he missed his real target.

# 15 Lauren the Ghoti said, on October 18th, 2007 at 10:14 pm

Jäg & dm – I’m with ya. 13 is more than old enough to know you do not defy an armed policeman’s directions.

And Fusion? Again you demostrate knee-jerk liberalism at it’s finest – “the boy’s father said” – oh, get real. How the fuck does he know? I can tell you right now. It’s the standard line, straight out of the standard script; “My boy wouldn’t lie to me!” Like fuck he wouldn’t. And of course the other kid is going to claim the same. It diverts attention away from whatever it was he and his buddy were up to.

We all know how bad things are getting, and what assholes and worse that some cops can be. But it takes a bigot to automatically stereotype the cop as the bad guy, when most of the time, even these days, he’s there to do what’s right. The entire scenario sounds quite typical and highly likely, and I would’ve done exactly as the cop did. If that was a, f’rinstance, Houston cop, the kid would probably be having his very own autopsy right about now. Of course, here more 13-year-olds carry 9mms than in the civilized world…

# 16 Awake said, on October 18th, 2007 at 11:00 pm

3 AM and the kid is wandering the streets.
Isn’t there some crime we can charge the parents with? Isn’t this just plain parental neglect leading to a tragic conclusion?
If you are out at 3AM, unless you are obviously doing something with a purpose, in my mind you are suspect.
The cop did the right thing. It’s dark… it’s 3AM… he has just finished a pursuit of suspicious people… the cops gun is drawn, orders are issued, yet one of the people moves towards him while pulling an object from his pocket…

As I said in the beginning… why is this kid out at 3AM?

Maybe if we start holding parents responsible for the conduct of their kids we can start resolving a lot of juvenile delinquency problems. If there is a consequence for the neglect, amybe tehy will be a little more parental in their behavior.

# 17 Don said, on October 18th, 2007 at 11:34 pm

As far as I am concerned the little dipshit had it coming. It just sad that the cop was such a bad shot that he couldn’t hit the “Center of Mass.” If he was SHOOTING just to wound, he should be fired. You should only shoot if you feel your life is in immediate danger then you better be shooting to kill the SOB.

There are other things to use if you only want to disable your target, like mace or tazers.

The parents should be charged with neglect for letting their offspring wander the streets at 3 am.

Unfortunately, they will hire a lawyer and the cities insurance will settle out of court for a million or 2.

This country is really starting to suck sometimes.

Don

# 18 Ben Waymark said, on October 18th, 2007 at 11:57 pm

As I said in the beginning… why is this kid out at 3AM?

Because he is thirteen, and thirteen year olds do stupid things…. what has the world come to when we suddenly start freaking out because kids are acting childish! Didn’t you ever do anything stupid at 13 years of age?

# 19 Lauren the Ghoti said, on October 19th, 2007 at 12:23 am

Ben – plain and simple, when we were 13, 13-y-os didn’t commonly carry guns. They do today.

And Don? Fuck you. Why? Because you gotta have a serious problem when you suggest that a human life be taken when it isn’t necessary. This, despite the metaphor in use, is not a fucking war. A citizen, a minor at that, is not to be killed simply because he can be. Cops with that attitude – go ahead & kill him, because you can – are a blight on civilization.

Cops tell each other, if you don’t kill him, he’ll wind up suing you and taking your badge – so blow his brains out, to protect your fucking job. There’s a formula for a fine, humanitarian society.

BTW, you can thank fucking lawyers for making that scenario possible. For every one shooting ‘victim’ like this kid, whose lawyers manage to extort huge sums of money and ruin cops’ careers, there’s probably 10 citizens gunned down by cops terrified that they’ll be bankrupted and ruined. But that doesn’t make this cop a fool for risking his career to avoid taking a life unnecessarily.

# 20 Lauren the Ghoti said, on October 19th, 2007 at 12:53 am

Just to make my last comment there clear – there isn’t always time to bring out the taser or club – or maybe the person you’re protecting yourself from is too far for anything but a bullet. A crack shot, like most cops think they are, should be able to bring someone down without killing them, in many common scenarios.

Being a stupid fucking kid and making a dangerous mistake does not justify being sentenced to death on the street.

# 21 pedro said, on October 19th, 2007 at 3:29 am

I’m sure if the kid was doing something stupid around a cliff, a lawyer may be suieng whomever “created” the laws of gravity.

#18 you deserve a grafitti in your house’s wall.

# 22 Named said, on October 19th, 2007 at 3:43 am

Why didn’t they taser the kid? Or do they just reserve the taser for pregnant women at traffic stops?

# 23 Steve said, on October 19th, 2007 at 3:57 am

22 Named – The kid did not use the code phrase “Don’t tase me bro”.

That’s why he was shot instead.

# 24 Ubiquitous Talking Head said, on October 19th, 2007 at 5:13 am

Maybe if we start holding parents responsible for the conduct of their kids we can start resolving a lot of juvenile delinquency problems.

You either don’t have kids or they’re very young.

Get back to us when you have a 13 year old son.

# 25 Rabble Rouser said, on October 19th, 2007 at 5:29 am

Bad cop, NO DONUT!

# 26 Ben Waymark said, on October 19th, 2007 at 5:42 am

19. Lauren the Ghoti plain and simple, when we were 13, 13-y-os didn’t commonly carry guns. They do today.

I suppose that depends on where and when you grew up. They sure did when I was 13, and recently I was talking to a friend of mine, who is 70 odd years old now, who was telling me about her brother at somewhere around the age of the 13 going around town with a shot gun shooting windows of barns and the like… the only thing is he ran out of barns to shoot and started shooting houses. He got collared, police gave him a good bollocking, so did a judge (his mother didn’t say much and he never knew his Dad), and he that was that, he never really did anything similar again.

The funny thing that my friend was saying was that back then, it was almost assumed that kids do stupid things, if he was to of done that these days it’d be front page of papers, everyone talking about tear-away kids and no disciplined at home, the poor child would end up with years of therapy, all because he was kid doing something stupid, which is what kids do.

Punishing kids for doing stupid things just makes sense, going in hysterics (or allowing trigger happy police to shoot them) and believing the world is coming to end because teenagers are being naughty is something that only happens after a couple of generations spend almost all their time at work and almost none with their kids…

24. Ubiquitous Talking Head You either don’t have kids or they’re very young.

Get back to us when you have a 13 year old son.

I second that notion! And my teenagers are surprisingly well behaved (considering what their mother and father were like at that age)

# 27 GigG said, on October 19th, 2007 at 5:46 am

#9 Wrote: “And of course the police never lie or mislead. The boy’s father and the other boy apparently say the 13 yr old was obeying the cop when the cop just shot the kid.”

The boy’s father, who wasn’t there and is the parent of a 13 year old out at 3 am on a school night. Yeah, I’m going to put a lot of stock in his comment.

And the other kid who was out with his friend at 3am. Again, an excellent witness.

# 28 Misanthropic Scott said, on October 19th, 2007 at 6:14 am

Would it be in really bad taste to point out that at least for once it was not a New York cop shooting an unarmed civilian?

# 29 OhForTheLoveOf said, on October 19th, 2007 at 7:14 am

#19 – Ben – plain and simple, when we were 13, 13-y-os didn’t commonly carry guns. They do today.

Only under very specific definitions of “commonly”.

# 30 ECA said, on October 19th, 2007 at 8:00 am

13 year olds carrying guns ISNT real common outside of Major cities, and drug areas.

If your 13 year old is carrying a hand gun…SHOOT him, PLEASE.
Hand guns only have few uses. And a 13 year old would NEVER need one.

#28,
well at LEASt not in NY..

# 31 captain gordino said, on October 19th, 2007 at 8:10 am

The cops wouldn’t pull this kind of shit if everyone carried a gun. Which everyone should, I believe.

# 32 Lowfreq said, on October 19th, 2007 at 8:23 am

For those who have posted that cop was, either, a ‘poor shot’ or ‘evil’ for wounding the the kid for hitting his leg… As a son of a long time cop as well as having many cops in my general family, cops are trained to deal with each situation accordingly. Look at the conditions: First, two early teens out at 3 a.m. Secondly, the cop gave chase since the kids decided to run. Third, he commanded them to freeze. One kid complied, the other did not. Now the cop has gun drawn and dealing with combative perp. He has no time to go to taser or pepper spray. The kid lost that option we he decided to keep goiing through his clothing as the cop told him repeatedly to freeze. The cop has no back up, so he has a choice to make. Under the tension of this condition, the cop mad the right move: Disarm the assailent. The cop could have shot the chest of the kid and dropped him. But he didn’t. He realized this is just a kid. A dangerous one that is not complying with his commands, but still a kid. The option was to to shot him in the leg to disarm him. Wounding, but not killing him. The cop made the right choice for the circumstances based on the facts the article states. Not all cops are bad or criminal with badges. In fact, you have a better chance of finidng a good cop versus a good lawyer. The parents are unltimately blame for this kid getting shot.

# 33 sherifffruitfly said, on October 19th, 2007 at 10:15 am

(a) Aren’t cops supposed to shoot to kill, whenever they shoot?

(b) Even if I were a 13 yo kid (i.e. a fucking idiot), I can’t remotely pulling anything out of my pants except a gun. Yah, a gun would be stupid too, but that’s the ONLY thing I could pull out that would have a CHANCE of helping me out of my tight situation. It’s not even thinkable that I would pull anything ELSE out. Thus the story is simply not believable.

# 34 Mister Mustard said, on October 19th, 2007 at 10:55 am

Darwin award finalist.

You fuck with the cops at 3am when you’re up to no good, you better be prepared to shoot to kill. Their inflated egos can’t deal with anything else. And he was pulling out his cell phone? wtf for? To call daddy? Daddy should have tucked him into bed at 10:30.

# 35 Misanthropic Scott said, on October 19th, 2007 at 12:18 pm

#34 – MM,

No Darwin award possibilities. The cop neither killed nor sterilized him.

I don’t like your 10:30 rule. It assumes there is one correct time for all 13 year olds to be in bed. Some are responsible enough to stay up later. I never had a curfew. Once (and only once), my mother and I disagreed over what a reasonable hour was. She asked me to call if I was going to be that late again. So, next time I called.

# 36 Lowfreq said, on October 19th, 2007 at 12:25 pm

‘(a) Aren’t cops supposed to shoot to kill, whenever they shoot?’

Only as a last resort. They’re not the military.

# 37 Tim said, on October 19th, 2007 at 12:49 pm

The boy/victim here should be allowed to shoot the officer in the leg upon recovery to even things up.

# 38 NappyHeadedHo said, on October 19th, 2007 at 1:05 pm

They should shoot the ones using a cell phone in a restaurant or movie theater.

# 39 Mr. Fusion said, on October 19th, 2007 at 3:52 pm

#27, Gig,

The boy’s father, who wasn’t there and is the parent of a 13 year old out at 3 am on a school night. Yeah, I’m going to put a lot of stock in his comment.

Instead, you are going to put ALL of your stock into a police public relations officer WHO WASN’T THERE EITHER. My point still is the police have been known to occasionally trump up the charge. So instead of blindly believing the police report, like the good sheeple you are, take a moment to hear the other side.

Now, explain to us why the cop even pulled them over? What law did they break? Why did the cop have his gun trained on them anyway? BTW, apparently there isn’t a curfew in Seattle.

# 40 Lauren the Ghoti said, on October 19th, 2007 at 5:02 pm

#39 – Fuso

“Now, explain to us why the cop even pulled them over? What law did they break? Why did the cop have his gun trained on them anyway? BTW, apparently there isn’t a curfew in Seattle.”

Well, I suppose we could all pretend that the probability that these kids were up to no good – which the cop is paid to look into, BTW – is no greater than the probability that a cop – a Seattle cop, one of a bunch not exactly famous for corruption, incompentence or suchlike –
simply decided, out of a clear blue sky, for no particular reason, just for shits & giggles, as they say, to molest a couple of kids innocently minding their own business, and shoot one of ‘em, since that couldn’t possibly attract any attention or get him in the shit, right?

That’s a bit thick, so let me rephrase – which do you think is more likely; that a couple young kids out in the middle of the night are up to something that the police might want to look into – or that a cop just took it upon himself to roust a couple completely innocent kids and shoot ‘em, for no legitimate reason?

Careful – it’s a trick question.

# 41 Ben Waymark said, on October 19th, 2007 at 10:54 pm

Lauren the Ghoti which do you think is more likely; that a couple young kids out in the middle of the night are up to something that the police might want to look into – or that a cop just took it upon himself to roust a couple completely innocent kids and shoot ‘em, for no legitimate reason?

Its about 50/50 mate: teenagers get into trouble, so cops start assuming that anyway who is a teenager is trouble, even if they are just out on a midnight stroll to get some fresh air because they are have been sitting home all evening playing Runescape.

When I was teenager the cops certainly liked to hassle us mostly because we didn’t actually have anywhere to go we ended up hanging around in front of shops and in parks and other public places, which makes people nervous, so they call the cops, even if all your doing sitting around being a smelly teenager.

# 42 pedro said, on October 20th, 2007 at 5:16 am

#38 I don’t know about the former, but I’m with you about the latter.

#39 did you read the bit about grafitti painting?

# 43 Ben Waymark said, on October 20th, 2007 at 7:07 am

You make many goods points graffiti pedro. I reckon what they should do is have a team of snipers out there protecting the streets, and as soon as they see any youths doing graffiti they should simply snipe them… problem solved….

…. and they start doing the same thing to people who don’t ‘poop and scoop’, spit on the street or performing any other major crime against humanity.

# 44 Lauren the Ghoti said, on October 20th, 2007 at 7:19 am

So let me get you, Ben… you’re saying – as is Fuso, apparently – that adolescents out doing things they shouldn’t – and cops shooting them – are equally frequent events?

Thousands, tens of thousands of teenagers every night do something they shouldn’t be doing, in public. And you say the odds are 50/50, so that would mean thousands, or tens of thousands of teens are shot by police every night.

Uh-huh. OK. Riiiiight.

I suspect my point escaped you. I is tremendously, staggeringly more likely that these kids were up to no good than a cop decided he would accost and shoot some innocent teens going about their lawful business. Therefore, the teens’ story is to be discounted by the same degree, meaning, very simply, it ain’t worth shit.

# 45 pedro said, on October 20th, 2007 at 7:35 am

#43 actually, it was the grafitti thing plus disobeying a police order plus doing something that would make someone with a lethal weapon, in darkness and not complying to his orders to use it.

# 46 Mr. Fusion said, on October 20th, 2007 at 10:20 am

#44, Lauren,

I suspect my point escaped you. I[t] is tremendously, staggeringly more likely that these kids were up to no good than a cop decided he would accost and shoot some innocent teens going about their lawful business. Therefore, the teens’ story is to be discounted by the same degree, meaning, very simply, it ain’t worth shit.

You still didn’t answer the questions of why the cop stopped them in the first place? Like it not, and that is your preference, the police still DO NOT have the right to stop you simply because they feel like it. Nor may they ask you for ID simply because they want to know who you are. They need probable cause and so far the only probable cause is they were suspicious. The common reason for this suspicion? They were out late at night.

Well I’m calling bullshit on the police until they come up with a better explanation and BULLSHIT on your stupid reasoning. You are not using any logic to explain your position. All I read is The stupid kids deserve it for being kids out that late”. Your prejudiced opinion is solely based upon the self serving police statement and the dismissal of any contrary evidence or opinion. You’re slipping back into asshat idiotic claims.

And yes. Anyone who wants to give the police the power to stop people just because the police want to is an asshat. The kid got shot for no reason other than the cop pulled the trigger. He had committed no crime. Not following an unlawful police command is not a crime.

# 47 Mr. Fusion said, on October 20th, 2007 at 10:23 am

#45, pedro,

You are an asshat. In America, there is no law requiring anyone to submit to a police command until they are under arrest. The police need probable cause and even the police spokesperson couldn’t give any probable cause.

# 48 Russ said, on October 20th, 2007 at 3:46 pm

Mr. Fusion- You are a completely sheltered idiot. Do me a favor and ride along with a cop for a week then you can talk stupid all you want. Same goes for Ms. Wong.

# 49 Mr. Fusion said, on October 20th, 2007 at 4:47 pm

#48, Russ,

OK asswipe. What law did the kid break? Of course no one has answered that question so I will. HE DIDN’T BREAK ANY LAW !!! The cop had no reasonable cause to stop the kids let alone have his gun drawn and trained on them. Of course it won’t happen, but the cop should be charged with attempted murder. Wait wait, that won’t happen because the kid had it coming, right?

If you prefer to live in a police state, then why not move to Singapore or China. They don’t have a Constitution that allows people some basic rights.

Ride along with a cop? Phuck you asswipe. Two weeks ago I spent about three hours riding with the Sheriff. I’ve spent another six to ten hours riding along with him in the past ten months. Not only is he a neighbor, but a friend. This guy has been a cop for over 35 years. In all that time, he claims he has only drawn his weapon when they busted meth labs. He has never pointed it at a person. Oh, and an FYI, he still carries a bullet from when he was in Viet Nam.

My uncle was a big city cop. He was wounded during an escape attempt and never recovered fully. Another cop shot him. The escapees were unarmed. One got out of his handcuffs but both were still in the car. They weren’t going anywhere.

You see assdip, just because it is a cop that shot the kid shouldn’t matter. Whenever a cop is shot in the line of duty it is a tragedy. Whenever an innocent person is shot by a cop, it is a worse tragedy. The police are there to protect us, they are not there for the citizens to worship. Until you can explain what law the kid broke then forget the crap about riding around with a cop. You have no idea what the fuck you expel from your ass. And stop watching “COPS”. That has to be the worst show on TV for police abuse.

# 50 Russ said, on October 20th, 2007 at 6:15 pm

You should sloow down and read things before you over-react Rush Limbaugh. Quote from the story “Officers are trained to try to keep situations from escalating, and an encounter with two teens in the middle of the night might have resolved itself fairly quickly, said Dr. Norman Mar, a Seattle psychologist and consultant to law enforcement.

But if someone flees, fails to respond to commands and reaches into his waistband for something, an officer is faced with the possibility that person is armed and poses a danger, Mar said.”

Your Sheriff friend ever had a gun pulled on him? Or something that looked like a gun? Like I said, ride with him for a WEEK and see what he has to put up with. Generally it’s people like you that they have to deal with, you want to put someone down without understanding the entire situation. What would you do if you thought someone was about to shoot you, besides wet yourself. What will you have to say when a cop passes a suspicious looking character because he doesn’t want to listen to crap from people like you and the character winds up mugging you or breaking into your house? Who’ll be crying in their milk then? YOU! “The cops aren’t doing enough to make me safe!” Wah!

By the way, do you hug your mother with those nasty little fingers of yours?

# 51 Mr. Fusion said, on October 20th, 2007 at 8:05 pm

#50, Russ,

Once again, you miss the point. You are blaming the victim without examining the evidence. You quote a police psychologist. Alright, so what is the point there? Did the cop fail to follow his training? Does this person have some information into the incident that we are missing? What probative value is in that quotation? Or is this just another police spokesperson excusing the cop?

Geeze, did you read the story from the other Seattle newspaper? The one where the other kid and the shot boy’s father said the boy was following the cop’s directions when the cop just shot. How about how the where the cops always ask the public not to jump to conclusions when they put out information that states a conclusion in their favor?

So far I have read comments from a police spokesperson, who wasn’t at the scene, a police psychologist who wasn’t at the scene, the Police Chief who wasn’t at the scene, a reporter that questioned these people that weren’t at the scene and wasn’t at the scene herself, and the cops lawyer who wasn’t at the scene all of whome were relying upon the cops version. Then we have the father who wasn’t at the scene, AND ONE OF THE KIDS WHO WAS AT THE SCENE.

So absent some convincing evidence that the cop had a reason to stop these kids in the first place, the cop is in the wrong from the start. If he had not stopped them to begin with the kid would not have been shot.

As with most police, our Sheriff has never had to draw his weapon. It is the rare cop that ever needs to draw his weapon and even rarer to have a weapon drawn on him.

Your problem is in believing it is better to shoot first and then blame the victim. Fortunately, most cops are not like that. Maybe if you rode along with a cop instead of watching “COPS” you would have a better idea of what really happens on the streets.

Regardless, you are a sad excuse of a person to blame the victim.

# 52 Lauren the Ghoti said, on October 21st, 2007 at 12:45 pm

Fascinating. 100% of the claim that the kid did nothing wrong comes from a highly biased source, the kid’s friend, crony, accomplice – who has more than ample motive to lie.

13 year-olds do not normally have any legitimate reason to be on the streets at 3AM. It is highly unusual. Unusual enough to elicit the legitimate interest of a police officer. And contrary to your wildly incorrect legal theorizing, he has the right – in fact, it is his duty – to investigate suspicious activity. And a couple kids lurking at 3AM IS SUSPICIOUS. And THAT is sufficient PC to stop the kids. And once he has stopped them, as the Supreme Court has made clear, his orders are presumed lawful and must be complied with. If it should turn out later that they weren’t, fine. But it is not up to the kid to decide whether he wants to obey the cop or not.

Of course the other kid is going to say his buddy did nothing wrong – whether the other kid did or didn’t, his buddy would say he did – so the other kid’s claim has no probative value, meaning it is no help in determining the actual events that took place.

You really need to quit imagining you know anything about law, Fusy. You make your liberal ideological bent clear when you automatically, reflexively take the side of an accused wrongdoer against the police. The vast, VAST majority of the time, the millions of incidents EVERY DAY where bad guys and cops come into contact – the wrongdoers ARE the ones doing wrong, NOT the police. When an exception comes along, you dishonestly use it to make it look like the police are to be assumed to be the wrongdoers, when it is seldom the case, even in cities where corruption is rampant, unlike Seattle.

Quit playin’ the fool, fooool.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!