WTF? Teen charged with murder...

[LawVol13]

Except for the person who actually did the murdering.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Please. The cop didn't "murder" anyone.

 

[BigOrange15]

Except for the person who actually did the murdering.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

That's idiotic.

 

[crusse10]

Link to proof that the article was wrong and that the kid carrying the gun didn't turn around, creating the officer's obligation to fire?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[bamacheats]

Please. The cop didn't "murder" anyone.

Neither did his friend. Are you starting to see the stupidity?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[shortgameVol]

It creates a diversion for trigger happy cops. The public rallies around the atrocity and stupidity of a murder charge and conveniently forgets that a cop shot a kid in the back like a coward.

The kid should be sitting in a cell for armed robbery, but thanks to vigilante justice he's in the morgue.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

That's not remotely true. It's on the books all over the country.

 

[shortgameVol]

This is just felony-murder. I'm fairly sure it's on the books in every state. If, in the commission of certain felonies like rape, robbery, burglary, etc., someone is killed, you can be charged with 1st degree murder.

YOu're exactly right. Virtually every state has this law and it's a good one for the reasons you've stated.

 

[shortgameVol]

Neither did his friend. Are you starting to see the stupidity?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

No, there's no stupidity. If the kid hadn't committed armed robbery, his buddy wouldn't have been shot by the policeman. The act created a homicide. I like it because it reaps all the consequences as a result of the robbery and shooting.

 

[therealUT]

No, there's no stupidity. If the kid hadn't committed armed robbery, his buddy wouldn't have been shot by the policeman. The act created a homicide. I like it because it reaps all the consequences as a result of the robbery and shooting.

Stupid law. Stupid application of said law. Stupid defense of said law.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[shortgameVol]

Stupid law. Stupid application of said law. Stupid defense of said law.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

This is one of those things where "to each his own" applies.

 

[hndog609]

No, there's no stupidity. If the kid hadn't committed armed robbery, his buddy wouldn't have been shot by the policeman. The act created a homicide. I like it because it reaps all the consequences as a result of the robbery and shooting.

While I see where you're going with this I just can't make the logic work...at least in this case.

A person who, as far as I can tell, was never armed is facing murder charges for the actions of others. Frankly I'm no fan of that on it's face. If Williams is dead because he turned on a cop with a gun...tough...but that action wasn't up to Ross. (That we're talking about minors isn't helpful) Moreover it is my understanding that the shooting took place after the robbery. I would think one could make a very strong argument that the shooting itself must be taken separately from the robbery and therefore couldn't be considered an aggravating factor in charging Ross.

Look at it this way; if Williams was located and killed in a shootout with police 3 days after the robbery while Ross was nowhere in sight should Ross still be charged with the "murder" of Williams?

It's just not working for me. With only what little I have to work with the dead kid made his own bed and the live one should be facing armed robbery charges. For Ross to be facing murder charges for the case as I currently understand it is simply unjust.

 

[bamacheats]

No, there's no stupidity.

Yes, there is a lot of stupidity in this situation.

If the kid hadn't committed armed robbery, his buddy wouldn't have been shot by the policeman.

Ifs and buts were candy and nuts..... Let's charge his mother with murder while we're at it. She didn't raise him right. Or his dad, cause he left them and wasn't around. Remove all logic and common sense from your post and it makes a lot of sense.

The act created a homicide.

The act created a ROBBERY, the cowardly, trigger happy cop created the homicide.

I like it because it reaps all the consequences as a result of the robbery and shooting.

You're obviously just another insecure brainwashed cop who drinks kool-aid spiked with innocent blood.


Robbery is deserving of murder?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[crusse10]

The act created a ROBBERY, the cowardly, trigger happy cop created the homicide.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

If you can prove that the police officer firing her weapon was in any way cowardly, I'd like to hear it.

From the story posted the teen had a loaded gun drawn and, while under pursuit, turned in the direction of the police officer.

 

[bamacheats]

If you can prove that the police officer firing her weapon was in any way cowardly, I'd like to hear it.

From the story posted the teen had a loaded gun drawn and, while under pursuit, turned in the direction of the police officer.

Too bad the "proof" is the cop's testimony. The murdered kid can't testify. And I'm sure the cop is being completely honest in her recollection of events. After all, no way a cop would shoot a perp in the back without cause!
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[crusse10]

Too bad the "proof" is the cop's testimony. The murdered kid can't testify. And I'm sure the cop is being completely honest in her recollection of events. After all, no way a cop would shoot a perp in the back without cause!
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Bold accusation on which to base your entire argument.

Bet that accused kid hopes he has a better litigator than you've proven to be

 

[bamacheats]

Bold accusation on which to base your entire argument.

Bet that accused kid hopes he has a better litigator than you've proven to be

Reading comprehension not a finer quality I see. My "entire argument" is that its stupid for a kid to be charged with murder because a cop shot his friend in the back. It's a diversion tactic to draw attention away from the cop.

The bold accusation is that the bullet in the back was justified because he was shooting backward. It's an armed robbery where no shots were fired. Let him run. You've got witnesses, a description, and his buddy. He wouldn't have lasted a week on the run. That's what a competent cop would have done.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[crusse10]

Reading comprehension not a finer quality I see. My "entire argument" is that its stupid for a kid to be charged with murder because a cop shot his friend in the back. It's a diversion tactic to draw attention away from the cop.

The bold accusation is that the bullet in the back was justified because he was shooting backward. It's an armed robbery where no shots were fired. Let him run. You've got witnesses, a description, and his buddy. He wouldn't have lasted a week on the run. That's what a competent cop would have done.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

First of all, clearly your reading comprehension needs some help. You are basing your argument on the fact that the officer shot the kid in the back. You just said it yourself.

Anyway...
A cop yells, "Stop." The kid, holding a loaded gun, turns around. There's 3 things that could happen.
1. He shoots you.
2. He misses and shoots someone else.
3. You shoot him.

There's no diversion tactic. The kid had a gun, knew how to use it, and at any time was a fraction of a second from pulling the trigger. Either you let him make the decision if someone lives or dies, or you take it into your hands. Whether he lived or died, he was guilty of a crime. The officer's job is to protect innocent bystanders.

 

[therealUT]

Reading comprehension not a finer quality I see. My "entire argument" is that its stupid for a kid to be charged with murder because a cop shot his friend in the back. It's a diversion tactic to draw attention away from the cop.

The bold accusation is that the bullet in the back was justified because he was shooting backward. It's an armed robbery where no shots were fired. Let him run. You've got witnesses, a description, and his buddy. He wouldn't have lasted a week on the run. That's what a competent cop would have done.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I must disagree. What would then keep the two from committing another armed robbery and potentially killing the next victim? If they were running and armed in this instance, what makes you think they would not be armed and try to flee later?

The injustice is that the kid is being charged with murder, not that the Police Officer shot his friend.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[bamacheats]

I must disagree. What would then keep the two from committing another armed robbery and potentially killing the next victim? If they were running and armed in this instance, what makes you think they would not be armed and try to flee later?

The injustice is that the kid is being charged with murder, not that the Police Officer shot his friend.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

First of all, you're kidding yourself to believe this kid was immediately going to run off and rob someone else within a few minutes. There is no data to suggest that. Plus he didn't attempt to shoot anybody. That's a huge step to take to go from robbery to murder. He's obviously not a pro, he would have ran and hid and wiped the piss off his leg. The cop could have apprehended his buddy, and probably could have collared him later that evening.

Secondly, the cop isn't being charged with murder, nor have I said the cop should be. Drastic turn of events from an incredibly poor decision on the kids part. Doesn't completely justify the bullet to the back, but the cop would have been put on paid leave, reported back to work, and life goes on (for most anyway).

Imo, the cop was careless. Cops are too quick to squeeze a few rounds. Charging the kid with murder turns a horrible situation into a possible tragedy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[bamacheats]

First of all, clearly your reading comprehension needs some help. You are basing your argument on the fact that the officer shot the kid in the back. You just said it yourself.

Anyway...
A cop yells, "Stop." The kid, holding a loaded gun, turns around. There's 3 things that could happen.
1. He shoots you.
2. He misses and shoots someone else.
3. You shoot him.

How many bystanders have confirmed these events?

There's no diversion tactic.

That's exactly what this law is.

The kid had a gun, knew how to use it, and at any time was a fraction of a second from pulling the trigger.

You're assuming a lot!

Either you let him make the decision if someone lives or dies, or you take it into your hands. Whether he lived or died, he was guilty of a crime. The officer's job is to protect innocent bystanders.

By firing a weapon? Who was he holding hostage?

 

[therealUT]

First of all, you're kidding yourself to believe this kid was immediately going to run off and rob someone else within a few minutes. There is no data to suggest that. Plus he didn't attempt to shoot anybody. That's a huge step to take to go from robbery to murder. He's obviously not a pro, he would have ran and hid and wiped the piss off his leg. The cop could have apprehended his buddy, and probably could have collared him later that evening.

Secondly, the cop isn't being charged with murder, nor have I said the cop should be. Drastic turn of events from an incredibly poor decision on the kids part. Doesn't completely justify the bullet to the back, but the cop would have been put on paid leave, reported back to work, and life goes on (for most anyway).

Imo, the cop was careless. Cops are too quick to squeeze a few rounds. Charging the kid with murder turns a horrible situation into a possible tragedy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Faulting the Police Officer in this situation is ludicrous and you know it. This is not a movie where a perp and a cop have a lengthy discussion while their guns are trained on each other. The situation, as described, sounds to me as though the LEO felt their life was threatened in the situation. Thus far, the other kid has not refuted the cop's story. If I were in that situation, I would have taken the shot.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[crusse10]

How many bystanders have confirmed these events?


That's exactly what this law is.

You're assuming a lot!

By firing a weapon? Who was he holding hostage?

lol. ok. Go Packers. That's all we're gonna agree on right now.

 

[bamacheats]

Faulting the Police Officer in this situation is ludicrous and you know it. This is not a movie where a perp and a cop have a lengthy discussion while their guns are trained on each other. The situation, as described, sounds to me as though the LEO felt their life was threatened in the situation. Thus far, the other kid has not refuted the cop's story. If I were in that situation, I would have taken the shot.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I just stated that the cop SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED! and that it happened from a poor decision ON THE KIDS PART!

That doesn't mean the cop could not have handled things better. But its the heat of the moment therefore THE COP SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED!

The possible tragedy is not the kid who died, its the fact that his friend COULD BE CONVICTED OF MURDER FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S ACTIONS!
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[PandamoniumReigns]

With all due respect Crusse, you state the kid knew how to use his gun, as in he was a good shot. Isn't that assuming? Or have they come across receipts and video of the kid at the shooting range firing off rounds of his illegal gun?

Kid was stupid, so was his buddy. But we can't start assuming that every possible "bad" action that could happen was going to happen or did happen. You are making this sound as though the kid had Matrix skills and the copper had ZERO choice but to shoot him in the back in anticipation that he was about to shoot.

Whose statement is it that the gun was drawn?

Also - do you really think the dead victim's mother will feel a sense of justice by her dead son's friend sitting in jail?

 

[therealUT]

With all due respect Crusse, you state the kid knew how to use his gun, as in he was a good shot.

Knowing how to use a gun (squeeze the trigger) and being a good shot (steady aim, controlled breathing) are two radically different things.

Isn't that assuming?

Inferring that someone who owns a gun also understands that squeezing the trigger, while a round is chambered, will result in a tiny led projectile emerging at lethal speed from the barrel is hardly an assumption.

Or have they come across receipts and video of the kid at the shooting range firing off rounds of his illegal gun?

This hypothetical question is based on a faulty premise, as described above.

Kid was stupid, so was his buddy. But we can't start assuming that every possible "bad" action that could happen was going to happen or did happen. You are making this sound as though the kid had Matrix skills and the copper had ZERO choice but to shoot him in the back in anticipation that he was about to shoot.

You want a Police Officer to simply assume, an action that you decry above, that the person they are chasing for committing an armed robbery is going to be a bad shot, so bad that a round will neither impact the Police Officer nor any bystanders (to include someone sitting near a window in their apartment)?

Whose statement is it that the gun was drawn?

Thus far, I have not read anything in which Ross refutes the Officer's account.

Your argument is absolutely ridiculous. I have demonstrated on here my attitudes toward Law Enforcement and Legislation, however, I will not sink so low, in an effort that can only be seen as to debase all Police Officers, as to imply that a Police Officer should only shoot if shot at. Should our military also only shoot if shot at? Or, should they engage when the threat is reasonable?

 

[LawVol13]

The possible tragedy is not the kid who died, its the fact that his friend COULD BE CONVICTED OF MURDER FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S ACTIONS!
Posted via VolNation Mobile

That's the chance you take when you commit armed robbery. The easy solution is just don't commit felonies that put people's lives at risk.