Texas police officer kills 15-year-old boy in car fleeing chaotic house party

[Jastall]

Go shoot at a car that is going towards you randomly. Tell me if you aim. I'll wait for the results of your test.

The point isn't that the cop should be a MLG pro Counter Strike player that can 360 no-scope headshot the driver of a moving car. The point is that since he cannot do this, and the police (from what I read) knew it was a bunch of maybe-drunk teens since they got out of the car at first, he shouldn't have shot at all in the first place.

Firing your gun should be the last resort as an officer. The thing you do to stop a serious crime that's obviously going to happen or is in progress. You don't go from ''hey, he doesn't listen'' to ''shoot the bastard!''. You're not a cowboy shooting at banditos from the hip in a spaghetti western.

The situation with the terrorist in Nice is not the same thing at all. The guy was already and obviously killing as many people as he could, and had to be stopped by any means necessary. He wasn't a teenager that maybe-sorta fleeing the police in panic.

This is why you need body cameras. So we can know what really happened. From my research, they have always had a pretty dramatic effect on police shootings. Which is good, I understand police is stressful work but these guys are here to protect and serve, not go Judge Dredd on our ass.

[alt-ithist]

1. The kids fled the party after hearing gunfire

2. The kids fled in their car and were stopped by the cops

3. The kids got out of the car.

4. There was additional gunfire being heard.

5. The kids got back into the car, and backed out.

6. The cops shot at the car and killed a passenger.

7. The kids get away in the car.

8. The kids notice their dead friend.

9. The kids stop the car to look for help.

This is how the situation went according to the article, but so far you've left out part 3,5,7,8 and 9. To somehow create a story were a car full of kids was stopped but the officers had no clue who or what was inside, gunshots were heard possibly from inside the car and the car drove away towards a group of cops following the justified use of deadly force. Your whole chain of logic doesn't add up with what has been stated in the article.

I must've read a different article than. 3, 4 and 5 did not happen according to the linked article. You might wanna try and take another look.

[MasterOfNone]

Clear show of how bad your argument is, when all you have left is insults. But then again, you defend shooting innocent people, so not sure what morality I expected.

you are being completely ludicrous, so pardon my if i tell you to think a bit. oh wait. we wouldnt want that now would we? doesnt fit your bullshit agenda....

[Techno-Druid]

so how many innocent cops died? thats what i thought. that lump three feet above your ass is your head. inside it is your brain. my suggestion....use it.

- - - Updated - - -



they werent driving away. lets create a false narrative to push your point further. they were backing the wrong way into other LEOs....what is so hard about this?

God your thick, I said shooting a car is dangerous and against protocol, more dangerous than IF YOU WERE TO JUST LET THEM drive away. Shooting at a car is unacceptable, regardless.

[Gorsameth]

You got more information to justify this other than just hating on cops? For all you know the driver was trying to back over a cop, he reacted, and this is the sad result.

they werent driving away. lets create a false narrative to push your point further. they were backing the wrong way into other LEOs....what is so hard about this?

So they were trying to back up over a cop yet no other officer tried to stop them and they stopped a block away, again with no police, when they found out the kid had been shot.

Its a pretty damn bad attempt at driving over people when you end up a block away from them.

[MasterOfNone]

God your thick, I said shooting a car is dangerous and against protocol, more dangerous than IF YOU WERE TO JUST LET THEM drive away. Shooting at a car is unacceptable, regardless.

they WERENT DRIVING AWAY@!!@#!@$!%#%@. they were driving into other people. take a chance at shooting a moving vehicle or let innocent cops get run over? GOD YOU'RE THINK.......

[minteK917]

I will explain one last time why only one cop shot at the car. Its not actual safety protocol to shoot at moving vehicles. Both that and shooting from a moving vehicle are highly discouraged in law enforcement. Simply because it does not increase safety, it reduces it unless there is absolutely no choice (example criminal shooting from a moving car). Why are we taught not to do this in law enforcement:

-Hitting a moving target is hard.

-A car is a metallic object what will happen upon hitting it is highly hazardous. You might hit someone inside, someone behind the car, it might deflect into something or someone else. Because it is both metallic and moving, its just an illogical choice thats hardly ever taken.

-Killing the driver does NOT stop a car. Accelerator in 2017 does not required strength to increase speed, simply letting the weight of your feet will increase speed. While you are driving you are actually keeping your feet away from maximum speed. While you die, you will lose control of your legs and arms. Your feet will press the acceleration and your arms will lose control of the vehicle.

All of this is why hollywood car chases, are just in hollywood. Any car chase youll see we attempt to ram cars using a technique which will lower the car speed and reduce its ability to turn away from the chase. Blockades do not open fire, blockades are only done to block the road. A proper blockade is either meant to block the way completely meaning the car will carsh into something if it does not stop or will have its tire blown, greatly reducing its speed and maneuvrability making it easy to stop.

This is why only one cop shot. Because even if they were trying to run the cops over, killing even the driver wouldnt have stopped it, if he was close enough to actually do it. Even in the only article from france with a terrorist driver shot, the shot was taken after the car was immobile, not during movement. Even if the person had already ran people over. Because shooting at the moving truck would actually result in more death. Hence the french police stopped the truck and then killed the driver.

[Zeek Daniels]

Sounds to me like underage kids were drinking, cops showed up. They tried to flee. Somehow shots were fired in the area which put everyone on edge. Then it seems like they got into a car to flee and instead of leaving in a safe manner, they drove dangerously. The cop thought other cops lives might be in danger as the vehicle seemed to be headed toward his co workers. So he fired at the vehicle to try and stop them from running the other cops over.


I like how they put that hes a straight A student, like its even relevant to the story. Shouldnt have gone to a party were drinking is involved if your 16 stupid. And if your leaving a party and cops are around maybe driving erratically isnt the best way to avoid attention.

[Techno-Druid]

they WERENT DRIVING AWAY@!!@#!@$!%#%@. they were driving into other people. take a chance at shooting a moving vehicle.

They were backing up because they heard gunshots and one of the officers felt threatened. You're not supposed to fire at a moving vehicle.

or let innocent cops get run over

Or you know, the officers could move out of the way of the car like any functional human would.

GOD YOU'RE THINK.......

Thanks

[Ivanstone]

Exactly. Lots of people are going to just jump to the conclusion that "Hey, the cops were clearly in the wrong" just for the simple fact that the cop shot a guy.

The amount of times its acceptable for a cop to kill someone is zero.

[Gorsameth]

The amount of times its acceptable for a cop to kill someone is zero.

To be fair its not 0.
Its damn close to 0 and there is almost no chance is this one of the time its acceptable but its not entirely 0.

[Dug]

The amount of times its acceptable for a cop to kill someone is zero.

Well that's just flat out wrong.

[kasuke06]

The amount of times its acceptable for a cop to kill someone is zero.

Someone just raped your daughter, ripped her throat out with a knife and is now going to move on to your other children/people you care about, but hey, at least a cop bursts in... popcorn in hand because according to you, he's not allowed to end this.

[Racthoh]

Everyone knows its ok to run over cops. They're crash proof, its ok.

i know my first instinct when seeing someone about to get backed over is to shoot the passengers in the car

[Dug]

Someone just raped your daughter, ripped her throat out with a knife and is now going to move on to your other children/people you care about, but hey, at least a cop bursts in... popcorn in hand because according to you, he's not allowed to end this.

Unless the next person's life is in immediate danger or their own then no they aren't allowed to just kill out of vengeance. Seriously can't you all find a decent medium between extreme hypothetical like the one you have and "NO COP SHOULD KILL EVER". Cops can and should be allowed to kill in certain situations.

[SupBrah]

From what I read so far, it seems to have been a justified shooting. Maybe messy, but justified.


Soo... What's the problem exactly?

[kasuke06]

Unless the next person's life is in immediate danger or their own then no they aren't allowed to just kill out of vengeance. Seriously can't you all find a decent medium between extreme hypothetical like the one you have and "NO COP SHOULD KILL EVER". Cops can and should be allowed to kill in certain situations.

oh of course there are happy mediums, someone whom is a danger to themselves and others and doesn't present an opportunity for a non-lethal take-down, if taking a life allows more people to live, then someone's going to have to bite the proverbial bullet. It's just that "RAR COPS AREN'T EVER ALLOWED TO TAKE A LIFE, RAPIST/MURDERER/TERRORIST LIVES MATTER TOO!" types aren't really capable of, or deserving of a nuanced argument.

[Valkrysa]

Even if we pretend for a moment that the vehicle posed some risk to the additional officers as it moved towards them, everything in the story indicates that there was some time and distance available.
So even if the car posed a risk, the officers had time to step out of the way so that they could both be safe and continue to assess the situation.
Better yet, if the additional officers were in a vehicle of their own they could abandon it and leave it in the path of the oncoming car so in the event the victims car was indeed dangerous they would have collided with it and been likely neutralized as a vehicular threat.

[Dug]

oh of course there are happy mediums, someone whom is a danger to themselves and others and doesn't present an opportunity for a non-lethal take-down, if taking a life allows more people to live, then someone's going to have to bite the proverbial bullet. It's just that "RAR COPS AREN'T EVER ALLOWED TO TAKE A LIFE, RAPIST/MURDERER/TERRORIST LIVES MATTER TOO!" types aren't really capable of, or deserving of a nuanced argument.

I don't think they're advocating that their lives matter just that if a non lethal option is available that should be taken but either way I agree they need to realize that in some situations there is no other option except to defend your life or the life of another and if that takes taking an attackers life then that's the way it's gotta be.

For this situation though I have no idea since there is barely any detail or any video footage atm so the only ones that have any clue are the friends of the deceased and the cops involved.

[Gorsameth]

From what I read so far, it seems to have been a justified shooting. Maybe messy, but justified.


Soo... What's the problem exactly?

The fact that the barrier for a 'justified' shooting in the US is hilariously low?
So low in fact that a soldier patrolling a bad neighbourhood in Iraq has a higher barrier for use of lethal force then a police officer in the US (as per actual people who have done both).

The problem is that in every other country in the world that kid would be alive today.