posted on January 29, 2003 05:12:52 PM new
****SNIFF**** OH THE INHUMANITY, THAT DEAR CHILD MICHAEL ELLERBE SHOT DOWN BY THOSE BIG BAD POLICE OFFICERS, WHILE HE WAS COMING HOME FROM HELPING OUT AT THE MATURE LEARNING CENTER, HE WILL BE MISSED, SUCH AN ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY ****SNIFF***
NOW BACK TO REALITY...
WHAT ABOUT THAT POOR PERSON WHOSE CAR THAT WORM STOLE AND WRECKED? IF THEY ONLY HAD LIABILITY INSURNACE, IF ANY, THEY ARE NOW WITHOUT WHEELS, UNTIL THEY CAN SUE THAT BOY'S PARENTS, WHICH WOULD MEAN HARDSHIP FOR THEM AS WELL, THIS IS A LOSE-LOSE SITUATION AND ALL CAUSE BY SOME PUNK.
YOU CAN CALL ME CALLAOUS, BUT UNINFORMED... HARDLY... MY WORLD GOES BEYOND MY FRONT DOOR.
"I DO blame the parents of the kid for letting him be a car thief at 12 years old and no supervision."
Without knowing the parents, we can't blame them for "letting" him become a car thief. Neither can we say that he was unsupervised, relative to his age, without knowing more about the situation. Although we learn a lot from our parents, it's a big village that we live in and all kinds of outside influences and circumstances other than parental failure may lead to such behavior.
posted on January 29, 2003 05:21:25 PM new"Attorney Joel Sansone, who represents Ellerbe's family, said he and Geoffrey Fieger, a nationally known civil rights attorney from Michigan, will file a federal civil rights law suit possibly this week."
But of course there will be a lawsuit! Was there ever any doubt? And the city will settle it, the lawyers take half, and the kid's "family" will find meaning in a young life that they never appreciated when he was running the streets at night stealing cars.
posted on January 29, 2003 05:33:22 PM new
Helen - The twelve year old was
1) Equiped with the the knowledge and or equipment to steal a car
2) Experienced enough in criminal experience to steal the car by himself (notice this was not a couple kids joy rinding which a first timer would do he did this by himself)
3) NOT equipped with the the moral foritude to resist whatever urge led him to the act.
posted on January 29, 2003 05:37:24 PM new
Lets see if I understand this,"Stuff"..verses.."Life"...stuff wins.
Now I see were I was so wrong about the subject.Nuke'em,fry'em,and blow them away.Yes I do live in my own little world.
posted on January 29, 2003 05:50:15 PM new
neonmania
If you read my comment, you will see that I did not exclude his parents from fault. Some parents may be guilty of raising a criminal but we do not know the parents of this 12 year old.
Answers to your questions.
Maybe the keys were in the car?
How do you know that he wasn't a first timer doing this by himself?
Twelve year old children sometimes make mistakes, just like the police officer who shot him in the back.
Who was to blame if not his parents?
As I said before, it's a big village. We don't know his socio-economic conditions, where he lived, his educational and mental status etc.
posted on January 29, 2003 06:01:12 PM new
How do you know that he wasn't a first timer doing this by himself?
Because history tells us that grand theft auto is not a beginners crime. That when firt time youthful offenders do steal a car it's usually a prank pulled with friends. Because first time criminals are usually so scared that they freeze when confronted by police, not run.
It's an assumption based on history of the world as I have seen it, just as your asumption that he ran across an unlocked car with the keys in the ignition must be part of of yours.
I just don't understand where this situation would jibe with it being in the same area with a socio-economic situation would would justify the moral value system that creates 12 year old car theives.
posted on January 29, 2003 06:11:47 PM newCop didnt know kid was kid, nor unarmed.
That's hardly justification. Cops don't know a lot of stuff. That doesn't mean they should shoot everyone. There are specific circumstances where an officer may discharge his weapon. "I didn't know he was unarmed" isn't one of them.
The failings of the parents have NOTHING to do with the FACTS of the case. IF the kid were guilty, and IF he were convicted in a court of law, he would have received probation or at most a few months or even a couple of years in a youth facility. That, by definition of our legal system, is what he DESERVED. He didn't DESERVE to be shot in the back, even if you believe the cops' story. (Which I don't.)
Perhaps that cop was thinking some of these very things when he unholstered his weapon: bad neighborhood, lax courts. Maybe he was tempted to mete out some of his own "justice." As usual, we have only the cops' word as to what really happened.
posted on January 29, 2003 06:38:07 PM new
Helen - I realize that you all love to end arguements around here with cute little snips but it really just comes across as someone desperate to just have they last word rather than add anything to the conversation.
Lets face it
The kid is no angel
The parents were failures
The cop made a horrible misjudgement that will haunt him for the rest of his life
The car owner has no way to get to work tomorrow
Everyone was a victim in this one.
[ edited by neonmania on Jan 29, 2003 06:40 PM ]
posted on January 29, 2003 07:03:08 PM new
neomania
I don't agree with your assesment of the situation. As I said before several times, we don't have enough information to judge the parents or the child.
You are making assumptions about the 12 year old and his parents. It's silly to argue about this case with assumptions as premises.
posted on January 29, 2003 07:04:17 PM new
Hi Lindak. I may disagree with ya from time to time, but not often. Tis good to see ya, girl.
Junque, Ive been around, but dont post much.
Back on topic: It was an accident and one the cop will live with forever in his waking and sleeping days. As far as the kid goes, the FACT is, he was a thief and wouldnt be dead if he acted like a 12 year old. And the parents wouldnt have a DEAD kid if they paid attention to what hes doing. Yep, I blame the parents. I blame the kid too. Its sad that hes dead, but its also sad that MANY now will have to live with what was done, because of the parents, AND the kid himself. If that makes me cold hearted so say so and think it, then so be it.
posted on January 29, 2003 07:04:34 PM newMaybe the keys were in the car?
Would make it easier, but in no way excuses stealing the car.
How do you know that he wasn't a first timer doing this by himself?
First time or 20th, it was a crime.
Twelve year old children sometimes make mistakes, just like the police officer who shot him in the back.
Stealing a car is not a "mistake."
Yes, it's a bad thing that the kid is dead. However, his death wasn't an "execution." And the kid was committing a crime. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on January 29, 2003 07:06:55 PM new
It's silly to argue about this case with assumptions as premises.
Yup. Sure is. And none of us KNOW this kid was an innocent 12 year old that didnt know what he was doing was wrong, or that running after STEALING a car was wrong, or that he was just a wonderful little boy with a loving family that went to church every sunday and volunteered at the community fund raisers and fed food to homeless, or that it wasnt his fault because he was just "playing" do we?
Edited to say that I forgot how to make bold or do italics in here. Cant remember if its a < bracket, or a [ bracket.
[ edited by hepburn101 on Jan 29, 2003 07:08 PM ]
posted on January 29, 2003 07:07:12 PM new
The cop heard a shot fired, saw his partner react, then saw the boy running away and shot him... probably all in less than a few seconds. The unfortunate part is that the boy turned out to be 12 and was shot in the back. Maybe the cops did lie, but the scenario seems to make sense. Still and accident imo.
posted on January 29, 2003 07:15:29 PM new
That's good to hear Hep! Should I warn others that you can be honestly blunt, or should I let them find out on their own?
Ooops, I meant to say brutally honest, but blunt works too.
(sp)
[ edited by kraftdinner on Jan 29, 2003 07:17 PM ]
[ edited by kraftdinner on Jan 29, 2003 08:24 PM ]
posted on January 29, 2003 07:35:54 PM new
Helen - You have argued the case based on one set of assumptions, I on the other side.
I don't see how that is different from any other discussion on these boards. Two people read the same piece of information and place an opinion and a certain set of assumption on the situation based on their life experience and beliefs.
I don't think it's really silly to do that since this type of exchange helps people see other sides of an issue they may not have thought of.
posted on January 29, 2003 08:22:03 PM new
Just think about the kid...We don't know his IQ, his mental status...he could be mentally ill, his background, etc., his relationship with his parents and siblings, friends, school... Happy, well adjusted kids don't steal cars so something is not right. But we will never know what the problem was unless we hear more about this story. Thinking along the line of good kid, bad kid is not constructive. It's important to know WHY he did what he did.
posted on January 29, 2003 08:30:13 PM new
Why doesn't matter. He did it. He's paid the ultimate price for his actions. Will one of the officers be put on trial? We'll see.
posted on January 29, 2003 08:44:04 PM new
Linda - it's already been stated a few times in this thread that a coroners jury found the shooting jusstified. The only trial he'll see is the Civil Rights suit. No criminal charges.
This topic is 7 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new
