17-year-old teenager fatally shot by East Pittsburgh police. UPDATES: OFFICER CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE

[cottagecheesefan]

From another exchange. Some of it doesn't apply to you, but you may find other parts helpful. From two guys with tactical experience and training.

Eh, I think that guy is a troll. You might as well stop trying.

 

[Drenalin]

It was a stupid decision to shoot the kid, do we now hold the cop accountable for any protests, riots or retaliatory violence against police officers?

Lol you can’t be that stupid, can you? You have got to be trolling because no one can be that stupid.

 

[drstrangelov]

From another exchange. Some of it doesn't apply to you, but you may find other parts helpful. From two guys with tactical experience and training.

Im not trying to argue that there are no scenarios where use of deadly force is acceptable, only that this case doesn't meet that standard given the facts provided.

The fact that cops can be murdered doesn't excuse their killing others, it should reinforce the value of a human life across the board, not only for those collecting government pay checks.

 

[drstrangelov]

Lol you can’t be that stupid, can you? You have got to be trolling because no one can be that stupid.

What's your disagreement? If the kid should know all possible negative outcomes of his actions, and be accountable for them, why shouldn't the cop? Is the cop less intelligent than the kid? Does he simply know less about what happens in response to his actions? I don't see why we would ever expect a 17 year old to be more accountable than a police officer, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

 

[MaxMMA]

It was a stupid decision to shoot the kid, do we now hold the cop accountable for any protests, riots or retaliatory violence against police officers?

When I was in Iraq a truck in our platoon observed a guy on the side of the road messing around in the dirt... They gave this man the benefit of the doubt, rolled up beside him and told him to kick rocks or there would be trouble.

They watched him walk off in a hurry then left the site themselves a few seconds later. About a mile down the road our PL orders our last truck to whip a U turn and make sure the guy didn't come back. Well he had and he was fooling around in that same patch of dirt.

As soon as he saw the truck he starting running so they wasted him with a 240. Had a dozen or so 7.62 holes in his body. They called EOD on the site and low and behold this clown(much like the kid in the OP) was arming pre buried IEDs.

Would you also say the gunner of that truck was a coward for shooting this man in the back?

 

[Quequeg]

Based on available facts this one looks clean.

 

[drstrangelov]

When I was in Iraq a truck in our platoon observed a guy on the side of the road messing around in the dirt... They gave this man the benefit of the doubt, rolled up beside him and told him to kick rocks or there would be trouble.

They watched him walk off in a hurry then left the site themselves a few seconds later. About a mile down the road our PL orders our last truck to whip a U turn and make sure the guy didn't come back. Well he had and he was fooling around in that same patch of dirt.

As soon as he saw the truck he starting running so they wasted him with a 240. Had a dozen or so 7.62 holes in his body. They called EOD on the site and low and behold this clown(much like the kid in the OP) was arming pre buried IEDs.

Would you also say the gunner of that truck was a coward for shooting this man in the back?

Oh, yeah absolutely, that guy didn't pose an immediate threat when the shots were fired, it was just far more operationally efficient to kill him. You could have let him go, apprehended him, done anything you wanted. I'm not saying it's not acceptable, just that it's cowardly. Just like it would be cowardly for one of his people to shoot you in the back on patrol.

The kid in the op wasn't arming IEDs, btw, that must have been introduced in a later post.

 

[Drenalin]

What's your disagreement? If the kid should know all possible negative outcomes of his actions, and be accountable for them, why shouldn't the cop? Is the cop less intelligent than the kid? Does he simply know less about what happens in response to his actions? I don't see why we would ever expect a 17 year old to be more accountable than a police officer, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

Was the cop supposed to be psychic & know the guy left his gun in the car because he was out of ammo? Could the cop see through the guy & know he didn’t have a gun still in his waist band? Was the cop supposed to know the guy didn’t plan on taking someone hostage or ambushing him around a corner?

When you’re a suspect in a drive by shooting & you run from the cops, you don’t get the benefit of doubt. You get shot. That’s why you follow orders & get arrested like the other guy.

Your argument is that the cop should’ve let the guy run away hoping he wasn’t armed. Hoping the drive by shooting suspect wasn’t armed

 

[drstrangelov]

Was the cop supposed to be psychic & know the guy left his gun in the car because he was out of ammo? Could the cop see through the guy & know he didn’t have a gun still in his waist band? Was the cop supposed to know the guy didn’t plan on taking someone hostage or ambushing him around a corner?

When you’re a suspect in a drive by shooting & you run from the cops, you don’t get the benefit of doubt. You get shot. That’s why you follow orders & get arrested like the other guy.

Your argument is that the cop should’ve let the guy run away hoping he wasn’t armed. Hoping the drive by shooting suspect wasn’t armed

No, my argument is that it isn't the kid's fault at all that he was shot. His running away didn't force the cop to shoot him, and the decision to shoot was entirely out of his control. So, saying the kid died because he was stupid for running is either completely wrong, or also opens the cops up to responsibility for the actions of others in response to their behavior.

 

[MaxMMA]

Oh, yeah absolutely, that guy didn't pose an immediate threat when the shots were fired, it was just far more operationally efficient to kill him. You could have let him go, apprehended him, done anything you wanted. I'm not saying it's not acceptable, just that it's cowardly. Just like it would be cowardly for one of his people to shoot you in the back on patrol.

The kid in the op wasn't arming IEDs, btw, that must have been introduced in a later post.

Dude was arming explovise devices specifically made to counter the vehicle driven by those who shot him but they should have chased him down and detained him otherwise they're cowards?

LMFAO!

In the OP the kid is the insurgent, the car is the dirt pile, the guns they found(and that were used) are the IEDs, the insurgent running is also the kid running.

Quick, you have like 5 seconds to decide what to do before this individual gets away or worse decides to resort to more violence, what do you do?

I would fill him full of holes, you would too.

 

[Lord of Lies]

Meh. One less piece of trash on the street.

 

[Drenalin]

No, my argument is that it isn't the kid's fault at all that he was shot. His running away didn't force the cop to shoot him, and the decision to shoot was entirely out of his control. So, saying the kid died because he was stupid for running is either completely wrong, or also opens the cops up to responsibility for the actions of others in response to their behavior.

The world has one less piece of shit on the streets committing drive by shootings. Now no children or innocent victims will be caught in his crossfire. You should be thankful for what the cop did

 

[drstrangelov]

Dude was arming explovise devices specifically made to counter the vehicle driven by those who shot him but they should have chased him down and detained him otherwise they're cowards?

LMFAO!

In the OP the kid is the insurgent, the car is the dirt pile, the guns they found(and that were used) are the IEDs, the insurgent running is also the kid running.

Quick, you have like 5 seconds to decide what to do before this individual gets away or worse decides to resort to more violence, what do you do?

I would fill him full of holes, you would too.

I'm not calling anyone in your scenario a coward, I'd assume in combat there are opportunities enough for checks on Both sides of the ledger that I wouldn't judge them broadly from one cowardly act. Would you consider an insurgent shooting an American soldier in the back during a patrol to be a coward, or at least be acting cowardly? The judgement of the act is independent of uniform.

It's a stretch, since the guns once out of his possession cease to have any capacity to harm anyone, the IEDs, that can vary.

I'm not saying I'd do better if faced with the same situation today, only that if I didn't, it would be cowardly.

 

[drstrangelov]

The world has one less piece of shit on the streets committing drive by shootings. Now no children or innocent victims will be caught in his crossfire. You should be thankful for what the cop did

So you've just dropped that line of questioning in favor of insulting the dead?

 

[Breakitdown]

Not seeing an issue here based on the facts.

Drive bys aren't a net positive for a community, irrespective of the race of the perpetrator(s) - I'm speaking for everyone when I say this. This neighborhood is now safer for this, they should throw a parade for the officer(s) instead of protesting.

 

[Kowboy Karl]

If it was a pit bull running around biting people no one would be upset that they shot the dog

 

[Drenalin]

So you've just dropped that line of questioning in favor of insulting the dead?

Yes I did. I dropped that line on someone who just tried to murder someone moments before he was taken care of

 

[Drenalin]

Meh. One less piece of trash on the street.

And one less pos living in prison at the tax payers expense

 

[Protectandserve]

Oh, yeah absolutely, that guy didn't pose an immediate threat when the shots were fired, it was just far more operationally efficient to kill him. You could have let him go, apprehended him, done anything you wanted. I'm not saying it's not acceptable, just that it's cowardly. Just like it would be cowardly for one of his people to shoot you in the back on patrol.

The kid in the op wasn't arming IEDs, btw, that must have been introduced in a later post.

So your argument is people who may need to shoot someone should only do so face to face? Out of some notion of its braver?

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say you have never been behind a gun facing other people guns.

Talk to anyone who teaches firearms tactics and they will tell you it is infinitely better to shoot someone in the back. If you can do so without warning or giving them the chance to fight back, even better. This isn't the old west where you meet at the OK Corral and say draw.

Your notion that it is cowardly to shoot someone in the back is childish at best.

 

[MaxMMA]

I'm not calling anyone in your scenario a coward, I'd assume in combat there are opportunities enough for checks on Both sides of the ledger that I wouldn't judge them broadly from one cowardly act. Would you consider an insurgent shooting an American soldier in the back during a patrol to be a coward, or at least be acting cowardly? The judgement of the act is independent of uniform.

It's a stretch, since the guns once out of his possession cease to have any capacity to harm anyone, the IEDs, that can vary.

I'm not saying I'd do better if faced with the same situation today, only that if I didn't, it would be cowardly.

A lot of soldiers would say that is cowardly. I personally don't think it is.

Considering the technology and sheer firepower the insurgents were facing over there, they were fighting us anyway they could.