posted on January 29, 2003 09:11:24 PM new
neonmania - Thanks, but I know that. My thought was that decision might be over-ruled/overturned. Can't a coroners jury decision be overturned? Everything else can.
posted on January 29, 2003 10:12:13 PM new
Linda - I don't think so. It's kind of like a trial - once you are found innocent (or justifued) it's not appealable. It's also during this hearing that the previously mentioned "the other cop fired missed and lied" theory would have been exposed had it been truth by the forensics teams finding of the location of the accidentally fired bullet.
posted on January 29, 2003 10:13:37 PM new
With all the liberal extremism in this forum, I tend to forget about the extreme rightists, who apparently would love to live in a police state where 12-year old suspects deserve the "ultimate punishment" for joyriding. Yes, turning cops into executioners does have its advantages. It reduces prison overcrowding, and eliminates that nasty thing known as "due process of law."
posted on January 29, 2003 10:17:11 PM new
Neo, you're assuming that the first bullet was recovered, and also that its location, etc., was enough to demonstrate the intent of the officer. You want straws, just ask. No need to grasp.
posted on January 29, 2003 10:30:40 PM new
Twin - Wasn't grasping - was using a little logic - If no bullet had been found you can bet that the press would have caught on to that little discrepency and run for daylight with it. As for intent - location absolutely could aid in determination of intent. (i.e. - five feet away and to the left of thefench would tell you it was an accidental whereas 8 inches to the left of the victim would blow a hole in the story)
BTW - Labeling me right wing is damn near he funniest thing you'll do for a long time.
I don't think by any means think that the death of a 12 year old is a good thing. I hope that the officers and their co-workers learn from the experience.
I don't think that cops are justified in dispensing street justice.
I also don't believe that 12 years old car theives are innocent victims.
posted on January 29, 2003 10:33:10 PM new
I dont really care about the whys and wherefores. What I care about is a 12 year old boy is out stealing cars, and obviously knows how to drive one in order to steal it. I care about the parents or parent sniffing coke up their nose, or having that same nose buried in a television set or buried in a pillow sawing logs and the kid is out...at TWELVE YEARS OLD, stealing cars. Now, give that same kid another year, and hes 13. By then, he moved on from stealing cars by sneaking to hotwire them, to using a gun and carjacking them. What values has those parents taught this kid? He was only in this world for 12 short years. And now he isnt. Who is to blame for this? Certainly not the kid. Hes a child. A boy. Doing what he was taught to do by SOMEONE. And that SOMEONE was allowed to teach him. So I ask again...WHERE WERE THE PARENTS? That cop made a mistake. And the parent(s) will sue, but it wont bring their kid back, will it? But it damn sure will give them MONEY and NEWS COVERAGE, wont it? No, I dont know what the parents were like, nor do I care. Being poor, being without, being in a bad neighborhood has NOTHING to do with teaching a child VALUES. This kid had none. Because the PARENTS didnt care enough to teach him.
posted on January 29, 2003 11:00:57 PM new
Now, there is some question of whether or not the kid was driving the car. Every day a new story comes out with a different slant. First the cop slipped on the ice and then he fell over a fence carrying a gun in his hand without his finger on the trigger but the gun shot anyway....
"Do police officers, when they kill somebody, regularly engage in the intimidation of witnesses and suppression of evidence? All the time," said Fieger. "...If it didn't happen here, this would be the first case I've been involved with."
Pittsburgh attorney Joel Sansone, who has also represented Ellerbe's family, has said reliable sources have told him Samuel Nassan, a white rookie trooper, shot Ellerbe after his black partner, Juan Curry, fell and accidentally fired his gun.
Fieger called that account "far-fetched" and said it is likely an attempt by police to cover up the incident.
"A police officer who is contemplating shooting someone in the back, on the alleged suspicion that his partner has somehow been shot with a gun that the person wasn't carrying -- and remember, this was 2:30 in the afternoon," said Fieger. "What was that officer looking at, if he wasn't looking at the person that he was about to shoot?
posted on January 29, 2003 11:08:12 PM new
When my kid was 12, he was in school. Not stealing cars. Nor did he know how to drive. He was still playing ball with the dog, or watching Knight Rider on tv dreaming of being a cop someday, or playing with his cousins in the yard or battling it out with me on the nintendo with Super Mario. I knew where my kid was at 12.
posted on January 29, 2003 11:16:48 PM new
None of these accusations or assumptions about the 12 year old make one whit of difference.
The police are not the judge, jury or executioner of ANYBODY.
I don't care if the kid was ACCUSED of taking a purse from an 80 year old lady.
He is innocent until proven guilty, and unless there is an objective immediate threat to life, the police had no right to shoot him or even have their guns drawn.
I can only hope that the lawsuit is huge and the shooter cop goes to prison.
posted on January 29, 2003 11:19:54 PM new
Hepburn
Most 12 year old kids are not under constant surveilance throughout the day by parents. According to the lawyer the incident occurred at 2:30 in the afternoon.
posted on January 29, 2003 11:25:53 PM new
::He is innocent until proven guilty, and unless there is an objective immediate threat to life, the police had no right to shoot him or even have their guns drawn. ::
Um, they chased him in the car, saw him get out of the car and run ffrom it. Since I think it's safe to assume that the 12 year old wasn't the owner of the car he was guilt of theft. Police officers routinly approach car theives with guns drawn. We've all seen more than our share of high speed chases on TV - which ones are you watching that officers do not approach with their guns drawn once the car is stopped?
::I can only hope that the lawsuit is huge and the shooter cop goes to prison. ::
Civil lawsuits don't result in prison and as has been pointed out numerous times now - it was found a justifyable shooting therefore there is no criminal case.
posted on January 29, 2003 11:30:55 PM new
::Well, most 12 year old kids are not under constant surveilance throughout the day. According to the lawyer the incident occurred at 2:30 in the afternoon.::
I had a lot of extra curicular activites after school - looking back at the numerous choices I had, Grand Theft Auto was just not something I ever considered. I wonder what that permission slip would have looked like
[ edited by neonmania on Jan 29, 2003 11:31 PM ]
posted on January 29, 2003 11:31:53 PM new
Whether the kid was stealing the car or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the cop was justified in using deadly force. That is the ONLY issue. Not whether the parents were watching TV, or how awful the kid might have turned out. ONLY whether deadly force was justified.
According to the link above, deadly force is only justified if an officer believes his life is in immediate danger. NOT that his life is actually in danger, but that he believes it to be. This story concocted by the two cops demonstrates the law's weakness. One cop shoots his gun (when he absolutely should not have), the other cop "thinks" the suspect fired, and kills the suspect. Also if you follow the link above, it's enough for the suspect to look "furtively" at a cop for the cop to think his life is in immediate danger.
If you look cross-eyed at a cop, the cop is justified in killing you. That's the law, boys and girls. I would think the problem is obvious. Cops have carte blanche to shoot citizens.
posted on January 30, 2003 12:00:03 AM new
This thread went off topic because several people wanted to ignore the shooting and denigrate the parents while making sure that the kid was found guilty before trial.
Instead of focusing on the actions of the police who failed to follow proper operating procedure, shooting the 12 year old child throught the back and the heart because he allegedly stole an auto for a joy ride, they want to focus on the parents of this poor dead boy.
Even in South Africa, the police do not shoot fleeing suspects.
posted on January 30, 2003 12:47:44 AM new
::Instead of focusing on the actions of the police who failed to follow proper operating procedure, shooting the 12 year old child throught the back and the heart because he allegedly stole an auto for a joy ride, they want to focus on the parents of this poor dead boy. ::
Interesting rewrite - lets go ahead and ignore that the office heard a shot fired and saw his partner fall.
BTW - this story was not just concocted by the officers involved. The now former lawyer for the family stated that anonymous "but credible" sources told him the second officer saw his partner down on the ground and fired at Ellerbe.
::What a bloodthirsty group. ::
Get down from there now before you fall and hurt yourself!
posted on January 30, 2003 04:54:40 AM new
What's really interesting is that in reality both the sides argued here are right.
Sometimes the cops like all of us mess up and make a mistake.
Sometimes they do deliberately shoot someone dead and get away with it.
Depends on the individual policeman and a great deal what department they are in.
But hearing only the partial facts of the case we will never know which it was in this particular case - yet far too many of us assume it is 100% one way or the other.
Now I have been framed before by police for something they knew I did not do, and by an
unlikely coincidence had an iron clad alibi and was not convicted. And yet I don't assume all police run around looking for people to frame.
posted on January 30, 2003 06:14:12 AM new
DEADLY FORCE WAS JUSTIFIED DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE OFFICER BELIEVED HIS PARTNER WAS SHOT.
WHAT MORE DO YOU EXPECT FROM AN OFFICER, HE HEARS A SHOT AND BELIEVES HIS PARTNER WAS HIT AND NOT RETURN FIRE?
THAT BELIEF KILLED A 12 YEAR OLD BOY AND NOW HAS PROBABLY RUINED THE LIFE OF THAT POLICE OFFICER. THE 12 YEAR OLD SHOULD NOT OF RUN IN THE FIRST PLACE, PLACING THEM ALL IN THAT SITUATION. THE RIGHT FINDING WAS DONE BY THE CORONER... "ACCIDENTAL"
ACCIDENTS DO HAPPEN, POLICE ARE NOT PERFECT, BUT SEEMS LIKE THE TRUE ROOT CAUSE WAS BROUGHT UP AND SOME PEOPLE WANT TO OVERLOOK THAT FACT HOME LIFE THAT IS THE ROOT CAUSE AND WITH AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE PARENTS FAILED THIS BOY IS WHERE IT SHOULD BEGIN.
THE PARENTS BETTER HOPE THEY GET SOME MONEY IN CIVIL SUIT, BUT DON'T THINK THEY WILL DUE TO SOCIETY IS SICK AND TIRED OF CRIMMINALS GETTING TREATED AS LESS THAN CRIMMINALS.
HOPEFULLY THE PERSON THE KID STOLE THE CAR FROM WILL SUE THE PARENTS. THAT MAY WAKE THEM UP TO THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO SOCIETY AS A WHOLE.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Jan 30, 2003 06:18 AM ]
posted on January 30, 2003 06:52:36 AM new
Too much caffeine this morning mlecher? Your point is well made and true, imo.
As usual we all form our opinions [partly] on our experiences in life. Parents who have children that have had problems in the past, don't want to take any responsibility for being a part of that happening.....so therefore deny the parential blame.
twelvepole - HOPEFULLY THE PERSON THE KID STOLE THE CAR FROM WILL SUE THE PARENTS. THAT MAY WAKE THEM UP TO THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO SOCIETY AS A WHOLE Yes, the parents could be held financially responsibility...hadn't thought of that.
posted on January 30, 2003 08:11:07 AM new
Unfortunately, the owner's of the car can only sue for the replacement, which will be chump change from what the "parents" look to collect.
Maybe we have raised our children wrong. We raise to be good citzens. Apparently, for others, they are a profitable enterprise....
And YES, that was COLD, CALLOUS and CRUDE. And it happens more and more these days....parents suing SOMEBODY for the consequences of the stupid, dangerous and criminal activities of their children.
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
posted on January 30, 2003 08:41:45 AM new
But then sometimes if you have a good message, this kind of writing will lose whatever credibility you may have and some people may think you are overcompensating to cover lack of content.
Care and consideration is important in your delivery.
posted on January 30, 2003 10:41:41 AM newCare and consideration is important in your delivery
YEAH BUT WE READ YOUR POSTS ANYWAY HELEN.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO VENTURE BEYOND YOUR FRONT DOOR SOMTIME, YOU WOULD BE AMAZED AT HOW THE WORLD ACTUALLY OPERATES. BUT THEN AGAIN IT WOULD PROBABLY MAKE YOU MORE INCOHERENT THAN YOU USUALLY ARE BECAUSE YOUR SENSITVE LITTLE MIND COULDN'T TAKE IT ALL IN.
OH AND LIFE IS GRAND WHEN LITTLE PUNKS DON'T GET AWAY WITH STEALING A CAR, NO MATTER THE METHOD.
posted on January 30, 2003 11:06:46 AM new
The jury is in Helen,give it up.The kid has been tried found guily and executed without the choice of due councial.Maybe the law will be re-written to satisfy AW posters.
Since your view is christianus,Dont be surprized if you get accussed of being a Bible thumper.
I believe any jury including Grand Jury,Is a formality of the first process.A one sided statement by law that is carried on to a hearing.I may be wrong,But that is the way it happened when 3 of my cars were stolen,by a buisness man.
This topic is 7 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new
My thought was that decision might be over-ruled/overturned. Can't a coroners jury decision be overturned? Everything else can.
[ edited by Twelvepole on Jan 30, 2003 06:18 AM ]