17-year-old teenager fatally shot by East Pittsburgh police. UPDATES: OFFICER CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE

OeuvrePressure said:
Your lack of credulity notwithstanding, police couldn't know he was unarmed.
Problem number one with your argument. Asserting that he hadn't committed a crime at that time isn't warranted unless further info comes to light, problem two.
Click to expand...

They couldn't know he was armed either. You'd need to establish that he had committed a crime for any of that to matter, and you haven't. At the time shots were fired, he was innocent, and now that he's dead, he died an innocent man. So, the argument that the cop was preventing innocent people from being hurt is expressly refuted, he guaranteed that an innocent person was harmed by killing this kid.

What's more, we don't hold cops accountable for the actions of others based upon their own action or inaction. That standard would be devastating to cops in exactly these sorts of situations.
 
drstrangelov said:
They couldn't know he was armed either. You'd need to establish that he had committed a crime for any of that to matter, and you haven't.
Click to expand...
This is simply incorrect.
If by "you", you mean "police officers".

I don't know what else you could mean.
 
Drenalin said:
That’s horrible. That’s the kind of thing people should be outraged over
Click to expand...
Yeah, thankfully they're both alive, but given Canada's lax legal system, the assholes responsible will probably serve less than 10. Meanwhile two little girls spend the rest of their lives scarred by this.
 
Justified shooting.
Car had bullet holes, car was involved with a drive by shooting, if the dude did not run he would be alive.
 
OeuvrePressure said:
This is simply incorrect.
If by "you", you mean "police officers".

I don't know what else you could mean.
Click to expand...

I mean you, in your post, where you made a statement about the danger of allowing an armed suspect to escape. You were making an argument that depended upon the fact of the suspect being armed, without any way to know that, your argument can't hold. It's completely undercut by the facts on the ground, but the unknown wouldn't help you either.
 
irish_thug said:
Sure makes it easier to pick sides though.
Click to expand...

Thats the thing tho Irish, there are no sides to pick here except for the sides people have already made up.

All this is here is yet another dead yute, and a person who will probably have to deal with PTSD for the remainder of his life....Which of course is a prime oppertunity for some in this world to make money and enhance the career they've made out of sensationalizing these events: Ghoulish motherfuckers, the lot of them.

I don't like bashing Talcum X because it puts me in the uncomfortable position of being in agreement with some of the racist shitbags in this forum. But black and African people in North America need leadership better Talcom X's capering and Kapernick empty posturing. Far better.
 
salamander said:
Thats the thing tho Irish, there are no sides to pick here except for the sides people have already made up.

All this is here is yet another dead yute, and a person who will probably have to deal with PTSD for the remainder of his life....Which of course is a prime oppertunity for some in this world to make money and enhance the career they've made out of sensationalizing these events: Ghoulish motherfuckers, the lot of them.

I don't like bashing Talcum X because it puts me in the uncomfortable position of being in agreement with some of the racist shitbags in this forum. But black and African people in North America need leadership better Talcom X's capering and Kapernick empty posturing. Far better.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more.
 
drstrangelov said:
I don't follow, I'm not predicting anything, it's an objective fact that the decision not to shoot cannot directly hurt anyone. There could be some later harm caused to someone by this kid, but that's just speculation. By shooting him in the back like a coward, the cop guaranteed that an innocent person was hurt.
Click to expand...


Are you drinking already?
 
irish_thug said:
Yeah, thankfully they're both alive, but given Canada's lax legal system, the assholes responsible will probably serve less than 10. Meanwhile two little girls spend the rest of their lives scarred by this.
Click to expand...
And most likely the assholes will get out & go right back to doing the same old shit
 
drstrangelov said:
I mean you, in your post, where you made a statement about the danger of allowing an armed suspect to escape. You were making an argument that depended upon the fact of the suspect being armed, without any way to know that, your argument can't hold. It's completely undercut by the facts on the ground, but the unknown wouldn't help you either.
Click to expand...
I guess Idon't follow your reasoning.
By you, In the original statement that meant police, right?

They couldn't know he was armed either. You'd need to establish that he had committed a crime for any of that to matter, and you haven't.

I'm picturing, what? A cop has to have proof a running suspect (in a shooting) is armed?
Prove to whom? Wake up a judge at a domestic violence call while they stand around waiting for a judge to... do what?

I feel like we're miscommunicating. Did you mean that I have to have proof?
 
That's some judge dredd stuff right there.

They had PC to assume they were armed and those guys were waving they're arms. Bad shooting though.
 
drstrangelov said:
They couldn't know he was armed either. You'd need to establish that he had committed a crime for any of that to matter, and you haven't. At the time shots were fired, he was innocent, and now that he's dead, he died an innocent man. So, the argument that the cop was preventing innocent people from being hurt is expressly refuted, he guaranteed that an innocent person was harmed by killing this kid.

What's more, we don't hold cops accountable for the actions of others based upon their own action or inaction. That standard would be devastating to cops in exactly these sorts of situations.
Click to expand...
But the car matched the description one involved in a drive-by shooting and had bullet holes in it?
 
OeuvrePressure said:
I guess Idon't follow your reasoning.
By you, In the original statement that meant police, right?

They couldn't know he was armed either. You'd need to establish that he had committed a crime for any of that to matter, and you haven't.

I'm picturing, what? A cop has to have proof a running suspect (in a shooting) is armed?
Prove to whom? Wake up a judge at a domestic violence call while they stand around waiting for a judge to... do what?

I feel like we're miscommunicating. Did you mean that I have to have proof?
Click to expand...

Follow the whole thread, you'll get there.
 
sub_thug said:
But the car matched the description one involved in a drive-by shooting and had bullet holes in it?
Click to expand...

Ok, but he didn't have a gun. I'm not saying he shouldn't have stopped them, or even arrested the guy had he apprehended him, I don't think it's some crazy place to draw the line, at shooting him in the back
 
drstrangelov said:
Ok, but he didn't have a gun. I'm not saying he shouldn't have stopped them, or even arrested the guy had he apprehended him, I don't think it's some crazy place to draw the line, at shooting him in the back
Click to expand...
Weapons were found in the car
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,186
Messages
55,474,687
Members
174,787
Latest member
Biden's Diaper

Share this page

Back
Top