Chicago Police kill unarmed black teenager

[Dextroden]

If your only option of catching them is shooting them in the back then yes, letting them run away is way better.

Who said that was the only option? Shooting that dumbass was a superior option then letting him run free to plague the community.

[anon5123]

Maybe if he didn't steal and crash a car and then run from the police, he wouldn't have gotten shot.

Don't break the law, there's an idea.

[Dug]

Why? They are a potential danger to everyone. It is true that they may just straiten up after this close call or the cops might catch them later, but why risk the lives of everyone down the road with inaction?

He probably wouldn't straighten up but you don't know if he's going to endager anyone elses life. If you want to shoot the guy while he's trying to run through cars/officers then be my guest but once the threat is on foot, unarmed and running away there is no threat to life and no reason to use lethal force.

- - - Updated - - -

Who said that was the only option? Shooting that dumbass was a superior option then letting him run free to plague the community.

So revenge?

[Elim Garak]

Who said that was the only option? Shooting that dumbass was a superior option then letting him run free to plague the community.

You seem dangerous, I'm calling da police.

[reokotsae]

well the thing you need to understand is it's not "stealing" if the keys were in the car.

But seriously, to all the forum patrons who claim in these scenarios why didn't they do this why didn't they check that, how can they assume he's armed? Have you ever been in a stressful situation in your life? Do you have any hindsight into it? That one time you almost died in whatever scenario did you get that sweet hollywood scenario where you had a few minutes to calmly rationalize the situation well time was frozen? Doubt it.

Both parties in this messed up (though the underlying causes are theft and recklessness duh), but everyone on the planet would be vastly benefited if the police had time and resources to run everyone through a crisis/threatening scenario so they could attempt to understand how actual people respond to them.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

He probably wouldn't straighten up but you don't know if he's going to endager anyone elses life. If you want to shoot the guy while he's trying to run through cars/officers then be my guest but once the threat is on foot, unarmed and running away there is no threat to life and no reason to use lethal force.

For starters, you don't know if he is armed. Secondly, he committed assault with a deadly weapon on police officers by using the car he had stolen to ram them. Thirdly, he can get another vehicle. He can get a hostage. He can do a myriad of things that by running are very much possibilities in the immediate scenario. If he hadn't already been a reckless endangerment to said public and officers, then him running on foot wouldn't seem like such a big deal because then you're simply dealing with a thief... not a lunatic.

The irony here is, if the cops didn't shoot him, the chase went on, and a civilian was hurt or killed as a result - they'd be bitched at and held out to dry anyway. I genuinely feel bad for officers. There is no winning in these scenarios. You're an asshole if you do, an asshole if you don't and all because we can't get around the idea that the dickhead who knowingly endangered the public isn't worth taking such a risk for in the first place. It really should be a case closed scenario but because he's fucking black, it's not.

Now according to his friends, family, etc... I'm sure the PD killed an "angel" of the community that shat out gold nuggets he handed out to the less fortunate and cured the cripple by sheer goodwill alone.

[TrumpIsPresident]

Have there been any riots yet? I'm out of the loop on this one.

[Dug]

snip

Sounds like a bunch of what if

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Sounds like a bunch of what if

Not what if. He already committed assault with a deadly weapon and showed no signs of surrender.

Your argument is entirely based on "what if", not mine. So stop projecting. At least mine is grounded through his actions, not pure speculation.

[Dug]

Not what if. He already committed assault with a deadly weapon and showed no signs of surrender.

Your argument is entirely based on "what if", not mine. So stop projecting. At least mine is grounded through his actions, not pure speculation.

And I already said if he's killed during the assault then that's A-Okay. But in this case the assault was already over, he was then fleeing and they decided to use lethal force when all they had to do was catch up to him and apprehend him. There's a reason it's illegal to chase after someone that broke into your house for a revenge killing.

[Dextroden]

He probably wouldn't straighten up but you don't know if he's going to endager anyone elses life. If you want to shoot the guy while he's trying to run through cars/officers then be my guest but once the threat is on foot, unarmed and running away there is no threat to life and no reason to use lethal force.

- - - Updated - - -



So revenge?

I was thinking along the lines of preventing someone stupid enough to try hitting/killing a cop to avoid arrest didn't do something else stupid like take a hostage.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

srsly when will this madness end?

When we stop victimizing criminals and simultaneously help to educate and train these problematic communities that produce an abhorrent amount of crime in the first place.

Seems like though, we'd rather just take a piss on the police officers, endanger the greater public, and pretend every criminal has a heart of gold; especially if they're black. Whites, Latinos, and Asians need not apply.

[Release]

I shudder when I read some of these responses and the power the American people are willing to give to their police force. A lethal outcome should be the absolute LAST resort saved for the most dire situations. I read these forums and the arguments for shades of grey on when and if shooting a suspect is desirable. Because he could have got away and done more damage to me is not a good enough reason to basically turn the police force into judge, jury and executioner.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

And I already said if he's killed during the assault then that's A-Okay. But in this case the assault was already over, he was then fleeing and they decided to use lethal force when all they had to do was catch up to him and apprehend him. There's a reason it's illegal to chase after someone that broke into your house for a revenge killing.

No, if he had surrendered then it would've been fucked up to shoot him. He never surrendered. You're speculating that he had no weapon. You're speculating that the continued chase wouldn't have resulted in hurt officers, civilians, etc. You're the only one making speculation after speculation and all because he was no longer in the vehicle he had just rammed at police officers. The immediate evidence does not support your position, it does however give weight to mine and that's the important differential to note here.

[Drusin]

Death generally is not the punishment for theft, at least not in Western countries. Shooting when you do not see a gun is also not something I support. If he flashed a gun, etc, that's another story.

This is all that I wanted to say

Since there is no way to ever know if anyone is armed, you are in favor of the police being able to shoot anyone at any time? Cause fear? Seems like a bad idea to me...

but this too

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

I shudder when I read some of these responses and the power the American people are willing to give to their police force. A lethal outcome should be the absolute LAST resort saved for the most dire situations. I read these forums and the arguments for shades of grey on when and if shooting a suspect is desirable. Because he could have got away and done more damage to me is not a good enough reason to basically turn the police force into judge, jury and executioner.

You don't shoot someone simply for running. You shoot them because based upon the last several minutes, they've proven to be an endangerment to the public through their actions. Now they're fleeing, still unwilling to surrender, and you're going to let the chase continue? I don't get this. I really don't.

- - - Updated - - -

This is all that I wanted to say



but this too

Yeah, too bad assault is quite a bit more than theft. Thanks for ignoring that detail though.

[Cthulhu 2020]

No, if he had surrendered then it would've been fucked up to shoot him. He never surrendered. You're speculating that he had no weapon. You're speculating that the continued chase wouldn't have resulted in hurt officers, civilians, etc. You're the only one making speculation after speculation and all because he was no longer in the vehicle he had just rammed at police officers. The immediate evidence does not support your position, it does however give weight to mine and that's the important differential to note here.

Pulling out a gun and shooting at him, especially since they missed many shots before actually hitting him, puts civilian lives in danger. If you're so worried about civilians, why defend their haphazard use of firearms in a situation where he was no longer a threat?

[Dug]

I was thinking along the lines of preventing someone stupid enough to try hitting/killing a cop to avoid arrest didn't do something else stupid like take a hostage.

Where would he have grabbed a hostage? They were already right on his ass, if he took a second to do anything but run they would have had him.

- - - Updated - - -

No, if he had surrendered then it would've been fucked up to shoot him. He never surrendered. You're speculating that he had no weapon. You're speculating that the continued chase wouldn't have resulted in hurt officers, civilians, etc. You're the only one making speculation after speculation and all because he was no longer in the vehicle he had just rammed at police officers. The immediate evidence does not support your position, it does however give weight to mine and that's the important differential to note here.

We're both speculating, you're somehow convincing yourself that the "evidence" (what?) gives favor to yours that he would hurt other people

[Barnabas]

I shudder when I read some of these responses and the power the American people are willing to give to their police force. A lethal outcome should be the absolute LAST resort saved for the most dire situations. I read these forums and the arguments for shades of grey on when and if shooting a suspect is desirable. Because he could have got away and done more damage to me is not a good enough reason to basically turn the police force into judge, jury and executioner.

In this case it seemed to be the last resort the police had left to keep him from fleeing. I don't get how it's possible to taze or use pepper spray on someone when they hop over fences. If you are some type of supercop that could subdue him without a gun feel free to apply to the police department of your choice.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Pulling out a gun and shooting at him, especially since they missed many shots before actually hitting him, puts civilian lives in danger. If you're so worried about civilians, why defend their haphazard use of firearms in a situation where he was no longer a threat?

Now you're producing a question I cannot answer because I don't know if there was any civilians within the path of fire when they shot him. If there wasn't, then taking him out there and then was the best route considering his actions within the last several minutes. If there were civilians within the path of fire, then yes, one could readily argue that both are in fact endangering the greater public and they should've exercised more care.