REAMOND
|
posted on January 28, 2003 12:37:48 PM new
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030128_679.html[url]
|
junquemama
|
posted on January 28, 2003 12:47:06 PM new
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030128_679.html
|
junquemama
|
posted on January 28, 2003 12:49:09 PM new
What is wrong with just wounding a suspect?
Shooting anyone in the back, is considered cowardly even in this day and time.
|
bunnicula
|
posted on January 28, 2003 12:57:38 PM new
He probably did shoot to wound--but it is harder to be accurate than most people think in non-target practice shooting.
And now, of course, the fact that the kid was involved in a crime will be forgotten and the police officer in question will become the "bad guy" in all this.
What the Ellerbe family should acknowledge is that their son would be alive today if he hadn't been committing a crime.
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 28, 2003 01:03:14 PM new
I agree with bunni
|
REAMOND
|
posted on January 28, 2003 01:20:28 PM new
The penalty for car theft and fleeing police is not the death sentence given this 12 year old.
The police officer that shot him should be fired and should never be allowed to be in control of a firearm again.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on January 28, 2003 01:32:41 PM new
There is no excuse for shooting a 12 year old in the back.
Helen
|
Helenjw
|
posted on January 28, 2003 01:37:37 PM new
"The police officer in question will become the "bad guy" in all this."
He IS the bad guy "in all this."
The 12 year old is guilty of car theft and fleeing from the police. This is not an excuse to shoot him in the back or anywhere else.
Dam.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on January 28, 2003 01:56:09 PM new
IF THE POLICE OFFICER HAD BEEN BLACK, IT WOULDN'T OF EVEN MADE THE NEWS... STRIKE ANOTHER NOTCH IN THE RACE CARD.
DAMN THIEF GOT WHAT HE DESERVED, WHAT ABOUT THE PERSON HE STOLE THE CAR FROM?
THAT IS THE REAL VICTIM HERE.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND... 
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 28, 2003 01:58:37 PM new
Police officers are up against some pretty serious stuff and in many situations, it's kill or be killed. That's why I can understand the verdict, but there seems to be too many accidents of this nature towards blacks imo.
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 28, 2003 02:01:21 PM new
But if the boy had've been white twelvepole, there would be a public outcry. 
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 28, 2003 02:03:53 PM new
Yep, let's play the race card again. Not about what he was doing, not about the facts the jury heard that we didn't but because of his race.
I'd ask if he had a previous rap sheet. Hard to believe that any 12 year old starts out stealing cars and has no past history of breaking the law.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on January 28, 2003 02:06:00 PM new
The race card was not mentioned until twelvepole brought it up. Let's forget race in this shooting.
What this cop did was wrong regardless of race.
Helen
|
junquemama
|
posted on January 28, 2003 02:12:54 PM new
Why in hell did they have ther guns drawn while in a foot pursuit?
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 28, 2003 02:14:13 PM new
The race issue was brought up in the article Helen. I agree that what the officer did was wrong but I think this was probably an accident.
|
bear1949
|
posted on January 28, 2003 02:15:45 PM new
Shoot to wound. All the cops I know have been trained to fire 3 shots at center mass. You seem to have skipped the statement where the cops said that when he "herd" a shot fired thought his partner had been shot at.
You expect him to ask the fleeing suspect for his ID before firing?
Once again all this falls under the "Never give a cop a reason to go off on you".
The kid was in the wrong place at the wrong time, had he not been in a stolen car to begin with, he would not have been placed in danger.
[ edited by bear1949 on Jan 28, 2003 02:19 PM ]
|
Borillar
|
posted on January 28, 2003 02:16:55 PM new
I, too, think that the police were trying to wound the boy to stop him from getting away. A moving target is hard to hit accurately while you're in pursuit. A clear policy about When using guns to stop a criminal is OK and When Not to use a gun to stop a criminal needs to be made and cops trained and re-trained on it. IMO, the police should never have pulled their guns out to stop the boy from running away. The excuse about firing at the boy and hitting him in the back as he ran away just doesn't jive with me. It was a dangerous and stupid thing for them to do. Had the first officer not pulled his gun and had it misfire (when he pulled the trigger at the boy's back too?), the boy would be alive and policework could have tracked him down at home and arrested him peacefully there. Low IQs and unclear policies make for a terrible mix.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on January 28, 2003 02:26:24 PM new
It was my understanding, bear, that police are taught to shoot to kill. Any use of a gun should be viewed as DANGEROUS and DEADLY. Do you think that the circumstances required deadly force???
And isn't it unusual to shoot a child in the back while running away???
Helen
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 28, 2003 02:28:11 PM new
The article mentioned the race of the boy. I was NOT singling out any poster.
KD did make a statement about it appearing to happen more often to blacks. I don't believe that to be the case. I don't believe a police officer would have shot a youth in the back for the ONLY reason that they were black. This could have happened if both officers were black too.
And to those who think blacks have this happen to them in higher rates than whites, I'd ask them to check on the number of crimes being committed by each race to find their answer.
So...twelvepole and KD, if you took my post to be directed at either of you personally, that was NOT my intent. Rather to discuss another side.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on January 28, 2003 02:36:01 PM new
Just stop trying to make race a cause or an excuse, Linda.
To eliminate that problem, let's assume that the boy is of a nondescript race.
That way, we can determine if the shooting was justified based only on accepted police procedure.
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Jan 28, 2003 02:37 PM ]
|
KatyD
|
posted on January 28, 2003 02:49:09 PM new
You guys are watching too many movies. No cop shoots to "wound". They shoot to kill, or they don't shoot at all. That's how they are trained. Shooting the perp in the legs or shooting the gun out of his/her hand only happens in Clint Eastwood movies.
Now that said...sometimes they miss, and will "wound". But that's not because they weren't trying.
KatyD
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 28, 2003 03:02:26 PM new
Helen - Once again I'm going to remind you that I will say and post anything I wish.
And again....bug off.
|
REAMOND
|
posted on January 28, 2003 03:04:36 PM new
In any event, the 12 year old did nothing to deserve being killed.
|
junquemama
|
posted on January 28, 2003 03:07:59 PM new
10-9-8-7-6.......
|
Helenjw
|
posted on January 28, 2003 03:10:01 PM new
No, the kid did not deserve to be killed.
Don't be silly, Linda.
Of course you will post anything you want. And I have the priviledge to disagree. I'll not "bug off" as you wish. 
Helen
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 28, 2003 03:15:34 PM new
Helen You were telling me what to do. What my actions should be...that's not the same thing as expressing a different opinion.
And just know that each time you do so, I will remind me you're not my mother.
Edited because now I'm doing what I told her I don't like. Sorry.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 28, 2003 03:17 PM ]
|
Helenjw
|
posted on January 28, 2003 03:19:59 PM new
OK, Linda
I see that you want to discuss a possible racial aspect of this incident.
Have we established, as far as we can, that the shooting was not in keeping with proper police procedure?
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Jan 28, 2003 03:21 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 28, 2003 03:20:19 PM new
Reamond - In any event, the 12 year old did nothing to deserve being killed. Right....he didn't. But the jury must have heard facts, that we're not aware of, and made their decision because they didn't see 'intent' to kill on the officers part.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 28, 2003 03:23:12 PM new
Helen - Won't be the first time you were wrong in what you 'see'.  I answered KD statement.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on January 28, 2003 03:30:02 PM new
Linda
I know that your statement followed KD's statement. Since when does that indicate that I can't comment?
Get back on track and forget me.
Helen
|
