17 yo boy shot by police because he wasn't resisting arrest.

[ChrisL]

Your solution is to allow the cop to get beat up or killed and not defend himself.

This was more than a "bratty" kid, this kid attacked the officer and that is unacceptable. Your solution is lawlessness. Don't comply with an officer and he should just let you go because you're a whiney brat. That is fucking ridiculous!

No. My solution is to have two officers per car and for police to be trained better in de-escalating such situations and people.

So you want to pay higher taxes for more police instead of having a society that respects the law. The kid attacked an armed cop, you think two cops would have made a difference?

The cop didn't escalate the matter, the punk kid did. Stop blaming the cop when the kid made a conscience decision to attack an armed officer.

Kids do NOT make "conscious" decisions in a lot of instances. Another reason why they are considered "children."

Yes kids make conscience decisions, they do not respond by instinct. They are human after all and make stupid decisions but they're very much conscience of it.

This brat made a conscious decision to get into a fight with a cop. The brat attacked the cop as the video proves. The DA saw all the evidence........including the data recovered from the cop car's black box.
It PROVED the car did NOT have it's high beams on. The car was examined and the headlights were properly adjusted. The dash cam recording PROVED the brat was flashing his high beams at the cop car which is a civil crime in that state.
The brat was out looking for trouble and he found it. End of story.

No, I'm sorry, we citizens have rights. Are you some kind of government lackey?

 

[ChrisL]

Lets see, who to believe? An idiot on a n internet board that saw and can not understand a video or a DA that had all the evidence, all the facts and investigated the situation?

I'm saying that the police need better training to deal with belligerent people. Correct? I'm saying there should be two officers to every patrol car because that would keep citizens, as well as cops safer. Correct?

 

[ChrisL]

Obviously, you dummies can't argue any of my points.

What exactly are your points?

From what I have seen the driver failed to comply with just about every instruction given to him and then did in fact attack the officer. Police just want to do there job and go home at the end of the day, they don't need belligerent punks giving them a hard time. If the kid would have simply complied the odds are he would have got a warning for flashing his high beams and been on his way. HE chose to make things hard for himself and it ultimately cost him.

That there needs to be two officers per patrol car at all time. At no time should an officer be out on patrol alone. This is nothing but trouble. He/she has no one to back them and have to wait for help to get there. This is going to make them more likely to shoot instead of trying to restrain.

The police need better training to deal with kids who might be difficult or others that might be suffering from some kind of mental illness that would make it difficult for them to cooperate. The police are here to protect and serve and are paid by taxpayer money. They are OUR employees. Something THEY need to realize. They are not the Gestapo.

How about people obey the officers instructions and not having to have two cops on scene.

You seem to blame the cop when the idiot driver is the only one at fault.

Kids who are difficult need better parenting. They are here to protect and serve and to ticket and arrest those that violate the law.

So your solution to the problem is shoot citizens if they are "difficult." Sorry, unacceptable. I don't care if a child is "bratty." That is not a capital punishment crime. Now, my solution would fix most of these issues.

He did not get shot for being difficult he got shot for ATTACKING the cop.

You are totally missing the point. The cop escalated the situation. He is the one who is trained (allegedly) to set a tone with a citizen, but instead he behaved the exact same way as the 17-year-old child and escalated the situation. His aggressive manner is what sparked the incident.

 

[ChrisL]

Your solution is to allow the cop to get beat up or killed and not defend himself.

This was more than a "bratty" kid, this kid attacked the officer and that is unacceptable. Your solution is lawlessness. Don't comply with an officer and he should just let you go because you're a whiney brat. That is fucking ridiculous!

No. My solution is to have two officers per car and for police to be trained better in de-escalating such situations and people.

So you want to pay higher taxes for more police instead of having a society that respects the law. The kid attacked an armed cop, you think two cops would have made a difference?

The cop didn't escalate the matter, the punk kid did. Stop blaming the cop when the kid made a conscience decision to attack an armed officer.

Kids do NOT make "conscious" decisions in a lot of instances. Another reason why they are considered "children."

Yes kids make conscience decisions, they do not respond by instinct. They are human after all and make stupid decisions but they're very much conscience of it.

This brat made a conscious decision to get into a fight with a cop. The brat attacked the cop as the video proves. The DA saw all the evidence........including the data recovered from the cop car's black box.
It PROVED the car did NOT have it's high beams on. The car was examined and the headlights were properly adjusted. The dash cam recording PROVED the brat was flashing his high beams at the cop car which is a civil crime in that state.
The brat was out looking for trouble and he found it. End of story.

The cops need to be better trained to deal with such situations. They cannot just shoot people like that. That is wrong.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Lets see, who to believe? An idiot on a n internet board that saw and can not understand a video or a DA that had all the evidence, all the facts and investigated the situation?

I'm saying that the police need better training to deal with belligerent people. Correct? I'm saying there should be two officers to every patrol car because that would keep citizens, as well as cops safer. Correct?

What could the cop have done differently? Just let the kid go without knowing if he was even a legal driver? Not knowing if this kid had any outstanding arrest warrants?

The cop did his job and everything would have went smoothly if the kid had just complied.

Blame the cop all you want, but you are gravely wrong.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No. My solution is to have two officers per car and for police to be trained better in de-escalating such situations and people.

So you want to pay higher taxes for more police instead of having a society that respects the law. The kid attacked an armed cop, you think two cops would have made a difference?

The cop didn't escalate the matter, the punk kid did. Stop blaming the cop when the kid made a conscience decision to attack an armed officer.

Kids do NOT make "conscious" decisions in a lot of instances. Another reason why they are considered "children."

Yes kids make conscience decisions, they do not respond by instinct. They are human after all and make stupid decisions but they're very much conscience of it.

This brat made a conscious decision to get into a fight with a cop. The brat attacked the cop as the video proves. The DA saw all the evidence........including the data recovered from the cop car's black box.
It PROVED the car did NOT have it's high beams on. The car was examined and the headlights were properly adjusted. The dash cam recording PROVED the brat was flashing his high beams at the cop car which is a civil crime in that state.
The brat was out looking for trouble and he found it. End of story.

The cops need to be better trained to deal with such situations. They cannot just shoot people like that. That is wrong.

So you would have rather the cop suffer grave injury or even death and not enforce the law?

The cop was the victim!! He was being attacked!! What part of that is ok with you?

 

[ChrisL]

Oh, here is a police detective admitting the police need better training. Hmm. What do you know about that? These videos are all examples of the police abusing their power and authority. Too many times, a cop will have a bad attitude immediately with a citizen because he "assumes" the worst case scenario. The police are poorly trained to deal with citizens. Some are going to be difficult. That is life. That doesn't mean they deserve to be shot and killed, especially a 17-year-old unarmed boy. If that cop cannot handle a relatively skinny unarmed teen without shooting and killing him, then there are some SERIOUS training problems going on.

 

[ChrisL]

Lets see, who to believe? An idiot on a n internet board that saw and can not understand a video or a DA that had all the evidence, all the facts and investigated the situation?

I'm saying that the police need better training to deal with belligerent people. Correct? I'm saying there should be two officers to every patrol car because that would keep citizens, as well as cops safer. Correct?

What could the cop have done differently? Just let the kid go without knowing if he was even a legal driver? Not knowing if this kid had any outstanding arrest warrants?

The cop did his job and everything would have went smoothly if the kid had just complied.

Blame the cop all you want, but you are gravely wrong.

De-escalate the situation. Do not escalate the situation. There was no need for him to kick the cellphone out of the boy's hands. That is when the boy reacted. Now, at that point, the boy was NOT a criminal. He was just not cooperative. The officer proceeds to kick the phone out of the boy's hands and when the boy gets angry and reacts, instead of trying to subdue him and restrain him, he shot him with the taser which malfunctioned. The boy has now been hurt, and reacts again in a negative way. The cop shoots him and kills him. Nope, I'm sorry. This is just not right.

Was the boy wrong? Of course, but he is the BOY in this situation. The officer is the one I expect to have a professional demeanor at ALL times.

 

[ChrisL]

As tax-paying American citizens, we have rights that protect us from Gestapo-like police tactics. We HAVE the right to film them.

 

[ChrisL]

Is flashing your lights a crime? If not, then the police officer had no right to even pull this kid over to begin with. He should have been on his way to find CRIMES instead of wasting taxpayer money to pull over a person who for flashing his lights. The cops are OUT of control. They do not have a right to pull us over in our vehicles unless we are breaking a law.

 

[jc456]

There's a difference bitch. The "difficult" motorist DID hand over the paperwork asked for by the cop.
The loser punk brat repeatedly refused to hand over the paperwork.
The cop asked the loser punk brat SIX times nice a politely and calmly for the paperwork. The thankfully happily dead loser punk brat refused and he choose to attack the cop. Good day for the rest of us. We'll never have to deal with the loser punk brat.
Thanks to mommy's Liberal enabling (cough) parenting skills.

Was that you in that car?

Anyhow, the cop completely lost his cool. He is terrible at his job and should resign before he kills another unarmed child because he's angry at his authority being challenged. We citizens have rights. The police do not have the right to shoot unarmed teenagers. That is why there needs to be two officers per car. That would cut down on these kinds of incidents. Correct?

The teenager did in fact have arms and attached were hands. (Not sure how much good they are now though). The teenager attacked the cop with arms and hands.......which are legally considered 'weapons' BTW. The cop needed medical assistance after the teenager attacked him.
What advice would you give any teenager who gets stopped by a cop.....for any reason?
Would you advise the teenager to behave the way the now dead loser punk brat behaved?
Thought not.

Of course I wouldn't advise anyone to behave that. Some people can't help themselves. Teenage boys are hormonal, have a lot of boyhood pride, and get adrenaline when challenged. Anyone who knows kids knows this much. It's also widely recognized in the psychiatric community. That is why we classify a 17-year-old boy as a CHILD. That is why he can't drink, smoke, vote, etc.

If there had been two officers, this probably would not have happened.

But a 17 year old is given a license to drive a vehicle that is a weapon. And as such there are rules. And those rules are that police officers are entitled to do certain things and as a licensed driver, the 17 year old is expected to obey the rules he received his license for. Hmmmmmmmmm?

Yes, well in my opinion, if they aren't old enough to drink, smoke or vote, then they have no business driving either. And there are plenty of adults who are even more difficult than this boy. The police need to learn and be trained to handle these types of situation, setting a calm tone. If a citizen asks for a police officer's badge number, he should give it. He should remain calm and do his job to the best of his ability, not with attitude. Some of these officers behave as if a traffic violation is . . . the equivalent of an armed robbery.

off topic, but I'm guessing you don't get out into the real world. You live in a room and live life from there. You are definitely clueless on how society actually works in our world and the world the 17 year old existed in. Get out and see how social skills are really necessary to interact with others.

 

[ChrisL]

Was that you in that car?

Anyhow, the cop completely lost his cool. He is terrible at his job and should resign before he kills another unarmed child because he's angry at his authority being challenged. We citizens have rights. The police do not have the right to shoot unarmed teenagers. That is why there needs to be two officers per car. That would cut down on these kinds of incidents. Correct?

The teenager did in fact have arms and attached were hands. (Not sure how much good they are now though). The teenager attacked the cop with arms and hands.......which are legally considered 'weapons' BTW. The cop needed medical assistance after the teenager attacked him.
What advice would you give any teenager who gets stopped by a cop.....for any reason?
Would you advise the teenager to behave the way the now dead loser punk brat behaved?
Thought not.

Of course I wouldn't advise anyone to behave that. Some people can't help themselves. Teenage boys are hormonal, have a lot of boyhood pride, and get adrenaline when challenged. Anyone who knows kids knows this much. It's also widely recognized in the psychiatric community. That is why we classify a 17-year-old boy as a CHILD. That is why he can't drink, smoke, vote, etc.

If there had been two officers, this probably would not have happened.

But a 17 year old is given a license to drive a vehicle that is a weapon. And as such there are rules. And those rules are that police officers are entitled to do certain things and as a licensed driver, the 17 year old is expected to obey the rules he received his license for. Hmmmmmmmmm?

Yes, well in my opinion, if they aren't old enough to drink, smoke or vote, then they have no business driving either. And there are plenty of adults who are even more difficult than this boy. The police need to learn and be trained to handle these types of situation, setting a calm tone. If a citizen asks for a police officer's badge number, he should give it. He should remain calm and do his job to the best of his ability, not with attitude. Some of these officers behave as if a traffic violation is . . . the equivalent of an armed robbery.

off topic, but I'm guessing you don't get out into the real world. You live in a room and live life from there. You are definitely clueless on how society actually works in our world and the world the 17 year old existed in. Get out and see how social skills are really necessary to interact with others.

No, I think that seems more like you. You seem ignorant of our rights as citizens in this country. I assume you are a very old man and completely out of touch.

Now, is flashing your lights a crime?

 

[ChrisL]

Was that you in that car?

Anyhow, the cop completely lost his cool. He is terrible at his job and should resign before he kills another unarmed child because he's angry at his authority being challenged. We citizens have rights. The police do not have the right to shoot unarmed teenagers. That is why there needs to be two officers per car. That would cut down on these kinds of incidents. Correct?

The teenager did in fact have arms and attached were hands. (Not sure how much good they are now though). The teenager attacked the cop with arms and hands.......which are legally considered 'weapons' BTW. The cop needed medical assistance after the teenager attacked him.
What advice would you give any teenager who gets stopped by a cop.....for any reason?
Would you advise the teenager to behave the way the now dead loser punk brat behaved?
Thought not.

Of course I wouldn't advise anyone to behave that. Some people can't help themselves. Teenage boys are hormonal, have a lot of boyhood pride, and get adrenaline when challenged. Anyone who knows kids knows this much. It's also widely recognized in the psychiatric community. That is why we classify a 17-year-old boy as a CHILD. That is why he can't drink, smoke, vote, etc.

If there had been two officers, this probably would not have happened.

But a 17 year old is given a license to drive a vehicle that is a weapon. And as such there are rules. And those rules are that police officers are entitled to do certain things and as a licensed driver, the 17 year old is expected to obey the rules he received his license for. Hmmmmmmmmm?

Yes, well in my opinion, if they aren't old enough to drink, smoke or vote, then they have no business driving either. And there are plenty of adults who are even more difficult than this boy. The police need to learn and be trained to handle these types of situation, setting a calm tone. If a citizen asks for a police officer's badge number, he should give it. He should remain calm and do his job to the best of his ability, not with attitude. Some of these officers behave as if a traffic violation is . . . the equivalent of an armed robbery.

off topic, but I'm guessing you don't get out into the real world. You live in a room and live life from there. You are definitely clueless on how society actually works in our world and the world the 17 year old existed in. Get out and see how social skills are really necessary to interact with others.

Oh and, BTW, stop trying to make this personal. I'm getting tired of it. You don't know anything about me, do you?

 

[ChrisL]

Lets see, who to believe? An idiot on a n internet board that saw and can not understand a video or a DA that had all the evidence, all the facts and investigated the situation?

I'm saying that the police need better training to deal with belligerent people. Correct? I'm saying there should be two officers to every patrol car because that would keep citizens, as well as cops safer. Correct?

What could the cop have done differently? Just let the kid go without knowing if he was even a legal driver? Not knowing if this kid had any outstanding arrest warrants?

The cop did his job and everything would have went smoothly if the kid had just complied.

Blame the cop all you want, but you are gravely wrong.

Is flashing your lights illegal?

 

[ChrisL]

If the boy did nothing illegal, the officer should not have even stopped him. The cop was angry. That much is obvious.

 

[Dan Daly]

De-escalate the situation. Do not escalate the situation.

That, ma'am, is the key guiding principal...at least it used to be. Today it seems like a competency that modern law enforcement no longer masters.

 

[jc456]

No. My solution is to have two officers per car and for police to be trained better in de-escalating such situations and people.

So you want to pay higher taxes for more police instead of having a society that respects the law. The kid attacked an armed cop, you think two cops would have made a difference?

The cop didn't escalate the matter, the punk kid did. Stop blaming the cop when the kid made a conscience decision to attack an armed officer.

Kids do NOT make "conscious" decisions in a lot of instances. Another reason why they are considered "children."

Yes kids make conscience decisions, they do not respond by instinct. They are human after all and make stupid decisions but they're very much conscience of it.

This brat made a conscious decision to get into a fight with a cop. The brat attacked the cop as the video proves. The DA saw all the evidence........including the data recovered from the cop car's black box.
It PROVED the car did NOT have it's high beams on. The car was examined and the headlights were properly adjusted. The dash cam recording PROVED the brat was flashing his high beams at the cop car which is a civil crime in that state.
The brat was out looking for trouble and he found it. End of story.

No, I'm sorry, we citizens have rights. Are you some kind of government lackey?

who hire police and give them the laws to protect us against. It is expected society obey those laws we all agreed the cops were hired to support. Violation of said rules we give the police the authority to handle. Period!

We also tell officers if they feel threatened by anyone, ANYONE and have justified their actions to defend themselves. PERIOD!!

 

[Uncensored2008]

You don't seem to get that it doesn't matter what he was initially pulled over for. He wasn't shot for flashing high beams.

Was he shot for recording the incident with the cop?

 

[jc456]

If the boy did nothing illegal, the officer should not have even stopped him. The cop was angry. That much is obvious.

people are stopped daily who do nothing against the law. So stop yourself already, learn about our society before you post in a public forum. you look uninformed and demonstrate that indeed you are.

 

[ChrisL]

Hmm. Well this is interesting.

Federal judge rules drivers allowed to flash headlights to warn of speed traps


A federal judge in Missouri ruled this week held that drivers have a First Amendment right to flash their headlights to warn other motorists of nearby police and speed traps.

The order by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Autrey in St. Louis on Monday stems from a lawsuit filed by Ellisville resident Michael Elli. In 2012, Elli flashed his headlights to warn oncoming vehicles of a radar set up by police in the town of Ellisville.

A flash of headlights is a common way motorists communicate to oncoming drivers of either a dangerous situation or the presence of police — in essence, a warning to slow down.

An officer saw the flash and pulled over Elli, who could have faced a fine of up to $1,000 if convicted. Elli, was accused of "[f]lashing lights on certain vehicles . . . warning of RADAR ahead," according to court papers obtained by The Wall Street Journal.

He faced a fine up to $1,000 in addition to points on his license, according to the report.

The city later dropped the charge, but the American Civil Liberties Union sued on Elli's behalf anyway, claiming the arrest violated his First Amendment right to free speech.

 

[ChrisL]

If the boy did nothing illegal, the officer should not have even stopped him. The cop was angry. That much is obvious.

people are stopped daily who do nothing against the law. So stop yourself already, learn about our society before you post in a public forum. you look uninformed and demonstrate that indeed you are.

Are you stupid? The police do not have the right to do that. If you haven't committed a crime and are not suspected of committing a crime, they have no right to harass us. We are citizens with rights and the police need to realize that.