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

[jc456]

This kid was shot because he was attacking a cop. Don't be stupid!

The cop was attacking him, because he had a cellphone. When the kid defended against the attack by the cop, the cop murdered him.

nope, he didn't provide evidence that he was a legal driver and therefore was being arrested for that. Gawd again. just one piece of evidence please. Please?

 

[jc456]

My child is an adult, thanks. Why the personal questions? I am not the topic of the thread. I am arguing from a position I have taken. My life and my child are NONE of your business.

I expect more from the officer than I do from the 17-year-old child, YES.

The reason I asked is because you sound like you would be a terrible parent. I expect more from my 17 year old than I do anyone else. Regardless of age, gender or profession.

I expect my 17 year old to respect law enforcement and to comply with whatever lawful orders they give.

And if they don't comply you gladly accept them being killed by the cop they showed disrespect towards.

Yeah, sure.

I've come to the conclusion that these people are sociopaths.

Dude, cops need to be trained WELL to deal with the people they have to deal with. This police officer, instead of understanding that he was dealing with a teen and using his smarts, got angry and an attitude, to say the least. These police need to be trained to deal with teens and other people who may or may not be suffering from a mental illness or something. There are good cops out there who know how to deal with the people and how to de-escalate the situation. There are bad cops out there who do not and do not care.

Oh Jackson, you want to explain to us what you find "funny" about this post? Teenaged boys being gunned down by cops who don't know how to handle people? That "funny" to you?

Oh, poor Chris. You just can't handle the facts, can you. Did you want the Police Officer to invite the brat over for hot chocolate so they could share a conversation about respecting authority while you are in your teens?
Maybe after weeks of this "bonding," the brat would see that respecting authority figures is number one, not their self absorbed self in not complying with directions.
Just as others have pointed out to you, the DA investigated and it was considered a "good stop resulting in a shooting." Ket it go. You are losing.

Lol. I don't think so. There is nothing "funny" about this situation. A boy's life has been extinguished by a cop who is poorly trained and because he was on patrol by himself. If he had a partner, this would not have happened.

Whether or not you think the boy was a "brat" is completely irrelevant. The police do not get to shoot and kill us because we are "bratty." End of story.

There is nothing funny about this story, but what is ironic and amusing is your answer to people on this thread. The police officer is not there to play psychologist. He even warned the kid that if he had just followed directions, there wouldn't be need for an arrest. The kid, who probably got his way with his parents was just behaving in an anti authoritative manner. I hope parents who are reading this think about their own teenagers and instill a respect for police officers and their safety. Just an easy lesson. Do what the police officer tells you to do. If you don't, this ending could be an ending for them. His parents needed that discussion and it's too late now.

I am a police officer and I am ordering you strip naked, run down to the nearest convenience store, cover yourself with whipped cream, jump up and down and scream like a chicken. If you don't provide video evidence within 24 hours we will tase your pee pee till you sing like Abba.

Ahh, I love the smell of my unlimited power in the morning...it helps mask the smell of stupidity that reeks throughout the posts of the serfs and slaves in this thread.

you can deny him/ her that and go into the station. It's simple stuff.

They will pat you down, btw, before putting you in the squad car to the station.

 

[jc456]

Firstly, was it NECESSARY to rip the kid out of his car and order him to lie on the ground? Could the officer have simply said, okay, if you don't want to cooperate, I am calling for back up and you will be brought to the police station. The choice is yours, and then waited for backup to arrive and stand there? Is it necessary for the police to become violent?

Was it necessary to pull the boy over in the first place? Do you consider flashing your lights to be a crime at all?

Yes, it was necessary and the the police officer did call for backup. But in the meantime, the kid attacked the cop.

If you came to me with a story of a kid attacking you...I would laugh my butt off at you. If you told me you killed the kid for it, I would quit laughing and drop you where you stand.

where were you cop? Let us go look up the records and see if that happened or not. I'll be glad to go interneting.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Firstly, was it NECESSARY to rip the kid out of his car and order him to lie on the ground? Could the officer have simply said, okay, if you don't want to cooperate, I am calling for back up and you will be brought to the police station. The choice is yours, and then waited for backup to arrive and stand there? Is it necessary for the police to become violent?

Was it necessary to pull the boy over in the first place? Do you consider flashing your lights to be a crime at all?

Yes, it was necessary and the the police officer did call for backup. But in the meantime, the kid attacked the cop.

If you came to me with a story of a kid attacking you...I would laugh my butt off at you. If you told me you killed the kid for it, I would quit laughing and drop you where you stand.

where were you cop? Let us go look up the records and see if that happened or not. I'll be glad to go interneting.

He was never a cop.

 

[jc456]

Firstly, was it NECESSARY to rip the kid out of his car and order him to lie on the ground? Could the officer have simply said, okay, if you don't want to cooperate, I am calling for back up and you will be brought to the police station. The choice is yours, and then waited for backup to arrive and stand there? Is it necessary for the police to become violent?

Was it necessary to pull the boy over in the first place? Do you consider flashing your lights to be a crime at all?

Yes, it was necessary and the the police officer did call for backup. But in the meantime, the kid attacked the cop.

If you came to me with a story of a kid attacking you...I would laugh my butt off at you. If you told me you killed the kid for it, I would quit laughing and drop you where you stand.

Sure you would asshole.
Permanent Ignore

Hiding from the truth doesn't make it go away, boy.

discussing non factual material doesn't prove an argument.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I defend them when they are obviously involved in a good shoot such as this case.

Out of the millions of stops each day, only a fraction of them end with the cop using unnecessary force.

What makes it a 'good' shoot? That he needed 7 shots to kill a kid that was already stunned by a Taser?

And as you point out, it was unnecessary force, ergo unwarranted deadly force.

 

[jc456]

I didn't bring your personal life into this discussion sir, you did by claiming you joined a gang as a kid then became an officer.

Is your argument that kids do not join gangs? If not the what is your argument against officers fearing armed kids?

No, your statement was that kids did not join gangs back in whatever mythical day is in your mind...I merely used anecdotal evidence to prove you wrong. Then, rather than admitting your mistake, as honest, decent folk would do, you tried to turn it into an inquisition of what I did in the gang.

If you want an honest discussion, stow the horsepucky gotcha games (that you ain't very good at anyway) and try to engage honestly.

you said you. That isn't anecdotal any longer.

 

[Uncensored2008]

unhinged never met a fact that he didn't deny.

duhs never met a jackbooted thug he didn't adore.

 

[Uncensored2008]

dodge! answer the question

Or you'll shoot me 7 times?

Oh and duhs, I did answer the question. The answer was, "it depends on the circumstance."

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I defend them when they are obviously involved in a good shoot such as this case.

Out of the millions of stops each day, only a fraction of them end with the cop using unnecessary force.

What makes it a 'good' shoot? That he needed 7 shots to kill a kid that was already stunned by a Taser?

And as you point out, it was unnecessary force, ergo unwarranted deadly force.

I never said the force used in this case was unnecessary. I do think that in some instances deadly force may have been used when it wasn't necessary, but not this case.

The taser didn't work, as explained in the video that you obviously haven't watched.

 

[jc456]

Firstly, was it NECESSARY to rip the kid out of his car and order him to lie on the ground? Could the officer have simply said, okay, if you don't want to cooperate, I am calling for back up and you will be brought to the police station. The choice is yours, and then waited for backup to arrive and stand there? Is it necessary for the police to become violent?

Was it necessary to pull the boy over in the first place? Do you consider flashing your lights to be a crime at all?

Yes, it was necessary and the the police officer did call for backup. But in the meantime, the kid attacked the cop.

If you came to me with a story of a kid attacking you...I would laugh my butt off at you. If you told me you killed the kid for it, I would quit laughing and drop you where you stand.

Wow tough guy.

I bet you stand about 5'4"

that 4 " taller than you.

and six inches taller than you.

 

[jc456]

You forget that this was investigated and it was all good for the officer. Why do you claim he was shot because he had a cellphone.

Because the video shows that he was shot because he was recording the attack.

He was shot because he attacked the police officer! You weren't part of the investigation were you? They have much more information than you do.

He didn't attack the cop, the cop attacked him. He defended against the attack, which the cop was fully in control of, yet still decided to kill.

It's simply murder.

Why do you want a society where armed thugs can murder people on the slightest provocation?

well if it is murder, than the cop will be tried right?

 

[Uncensored2008]

what's the difference between a cop or the president?

Quit a lot.

But I don't bow to and grovel before Obammy, so what relevance is there? (duhs does, he worships the won.)

I'm old. I came from an era where police were hired to protect a community. The change to an armed gang intended to oppress people and keep them in line is one I haven't adapted to. North Korea isn't the model I wish for this nation - it appears I am in a small minority in that view. Obviously most people here think jackbooted thugs shooting anyone who looks sideways is way kewl.

 

[jc456]

The kid failed to honor the commitment he made with the state to maintain a valid driver's license, end of story. The result was all self inflicted.

Well there you go, fail to have a license, you die.

We once were a free and rational nation.

That time is past. We have the Bolesheviks on the left demanding a totalitarian dictatorship, and the insane on the right looking for a brutal police state.

well if that was all that happened then you'd be spot on. But instead that isn't what happened and as a result the attack to the officer ended up escalated and the kid who attacked the cop was shot. self defense. There are pictures of the cops face BTW,

 

[jc456]

One forfeits rights as part of an agreement. The agreement is made to the state when one receives and signs his/ her name on a requested driver's license.

What?

You really are insane.

No, one does not "forfeit" all civil rights to be granted license by our overlords to operate the property we bought and paid for.

I take it you're voting for Hillary, you love the whole dictatorship thing.

All you libs seem to forget after that signature, the owner of that license has made an agreement to abide by the laws of the states. If a cop pulls you over, for nothing but to have a chat, you are legally bound to honor his request based on your signature on the agreement, the license. End of story. The kid had no rights, he was obligated to follow the directions, he choose a much different route and ended up losing his life by his actions. The cop did nothing but protect himself. We gave the cops that right as a citizen of the US like any other citizen. The cop puts his life on the line in every encounter, not so much the average citizen.

False;

The SCOTUS ruled the the police must have reasonable suspicion of the crime or infraction to conduct a stop, and cannot detain a person for longer than reasonable.

{The Supreme Court handed down a notable Fourth Amendment ruling this morning in Rodriguez v. United States, holding that the Fourth Amendment does not allow the police to extend the duration of a traffic stop without reasonable suspicion, even for just a “de minimis” amount of time, for reasons unrelated to vehicle and driver safety. The vote was 6-3, with Justice Ginsburg writing for the majority and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito dissenting. I’m pleased with the Court’s opinion. The Court’s holding, and the reasoning, matches up well with the approach I have suggested.}

Police can’t delay traffic stops to investigate crimes absent suspicion, Supreme Court rules

dude, dude, dude. Have you ever heard of after bar hour checkpoints? You can't just go by, you must stop or guess what? Yeah, you go with that. Cop puts his lights on, you pull over. Period. everything else after that is on the driver and what transpires. Period.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I never said the force used in this case was unnecessary. I do think that in some instances deadly force may have been used when it wasn't necessary, but not this case.

The taser didn't work, as explained in the video that you obviously haven't watched.

How did the video "explain" that the taser didn't work? There is nothing in the 4 seconds between the time Gullford was on the ground screaming in pain and the time that Frost tries to murder Gullford only to have his gun jam, then clears the jam, and empties his mag into the unarmed kid.

Have you ever fired a hand gun? If the cartridge jammed and Gullford actually was attacking Frost, is it even possible, much less probable, that he could have cleared the jam, chambered a round, and executed Gullford?

Cops have license to kill in this country. They can kill anyone they like with no criminal recourse.

However, civil courts have a different view. Frost and his department will pay millions for murdering Gullford. It's the only semblance of justice left in this nation.

 

[jc456]

what's the difference between a cop or the president?

Quit a lot.

But I don't bow to and grovel before Obammy, so what relevance is there? (duhs does, he worships the won.)

I'm old. I came from an era where police were hired to protect a community. The change to an armed gang intended to oppress people and keep them in line is one I haven't adapted to. North Korea isn't the model I wish for this nation - it appears I am in a small minority in that view. Obviously most people here think jackbooted thugs shooting anyone who looks sideways is way kewl.

Cop serves and protects, isn't that the job of the president? Don't they both take oaths?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I never said the force used in this case was unnecessary. I do think that in some instances deadly force may have been used when it wasn't necessary, but not this case.

The taser didn't work, as explained in the video that you obviously haven't watched.

How did the video "explain" that the taser didn't work? There is nothing in the 4 seconds between the time Gullford was on the ground screaming in pain and the time that Frost tries to murder Gullford only to have his gun jam, then clears the jam, and empties his mag into the unarmed kid.

Have you ever fired a hand gun? If the cartridge jammed and Gullford actually was attacking Frost, is it even possible, much less probable, that he could have cleared the jam, chambered a round, and executed Gullford?

Cops have license to kill in this country. They can kill anyone they like with no criminal recourse.

However, civil courts have a different view. Frost and his department will pay millions for murdering Gullford. It's the only semblance of justice left in this nation.

Listen at the 2:05 mark.

 

[jc456]

Teen killed in car crash; 17-year-old driver charged with DUI, homicide

Teen driver hits, kills child in car wash parking lot

Crime Blog: Orange County Register:Driver, 17, charged in crash that killed 5 teens in Irvine last year

All these 17 year olds were unarmed.

Drunk drivers kill, and we put them in jail.

Cops kill, and you defend them.

each is unique and if a cop kills to kill then he goes to jail. It's happened right? You can admit that fact right?

 

[Uncensored2008]

dude, dude, dude. Have you ever heard of after bar hour checkpoint? You can't just go by, you must stop or guess what? Yeah, you go with that. Cop puts his lights on, you pull over. Period. everything else after that is on the driver and what transpires. Period.

So what?

Again, a cop MUST have reasonable suspicion to pull someone over.

If a cop pull me over, the phone starts recording and gets put in an inconspicuous place. I cooperate with the stop, then sue based on the video evidence.

I personally have only been pulled over once without just cause. The cop said someone in a similar car didn't have a license. I was young and didn't lodge a complaint - but that was in the days cops didn't routinely murder people - so it was a different circumstance.