WTF? Teen charged with murder...

#76
#76
therealUT said:
Knowing how to use a gun (squeeze the trigger) and being a good shot (steady aim, controlled breathing) are two radically different things.

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.

Then why make the statement "knew how to use it". It was basically an implication that the kid was trained on the weapon.

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

Its an assumption. Same as vast majority of the posts either defending or implicating the situation.

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)?

No. I am only saying we only have the Copper's testimony that the victim had his gun drawn. No other witness or the other kid have collaborated the shooter's account.

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

I am sure the officer's and the press are allowing his testimony to be made public. C'mon! This statement is absurd.

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?

I have demonstrated my attitude on here also. I am not trying to debase all officers. I am saying the law is stupid. And we can only go on the "facts" that the shooting officer stated. Even if she was in the wrong, do you really think she would state "well I was chasing them and they wouldn't stop so I shot him and then saw he had a gun on his person"?? Doubtful.

I am simply stating that the one's bashing the copper and the ones defending the copper as a Hero with ZERO choice but to use lethal force are all basing their arguments on assumption (myself included).
Click to expand...

.
 
#77
#77
bamacheats said:
Yes, there is a lot of stupidity in this situation.


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 ROBBERY, the cowardly, trigger happy cop created the homicide.


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
Click to expand...

I am not anything close to a cop. Sounds like you are the one who is insecure. Your inability to grasp the facts of the situation and understand the consequences associated with it is clouding your already questionable judgement in the matter. YOu say it's stupid. I say not. Your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's in this forum.
 
#78
#78
bamacheats said:
Yes, there is a lot of stupidity in this situation.


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 ROBBERY, the cowardly, trigger happy cop created the homicide.


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
Click to expand...

Calling the cop cowardly is EXTREMELY ignorant. I would be surprised if you even understood the term cowardly
 
#79
#79
After a day or so of thought, I've come to a conclusion that:

Laws and the punishments for breaking them are implemented to:

1. Remove criminals from society.

2. Deter future crimes from being committed.


This law, I believe, falls reasonably into both categories.
 
#81
#81
shortgameVol said:
I am not anything close to a cop. Sounds like you are the one who is insecure. Your inability to grasp the facts of the situation
Click to expand...
What facts am I missing?
1. 2 kids commit armed robbery
2. 2 kids flee the scene, run from cop
3. 1 kid has gun
4. cop has gun
5. kid dies from bullet to the back
Which FACT is missing?

and understand the consequences associated with it is clouding your already questionable judgement in the matter. YOu say it's stupid. I say not. Your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's in this forum.
Click to expand...

Correct. I don't understand it. The law was enacted to protect cops who kill an innocent bystander by prosecuting the perp for creating that situation. I still have issues with that, but I can reluctantly rationalize that.
This situation, no innocent bystander was shot, the perp died, thats bad, but he created the circumstances, but his friend, who did no shooting, is charged with murder for robbery. Nope. Doesn't make sense. It's just a safe net for the cop.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#82
#82
VOLatile said:
After a day or so of thought, I've come to a conclusion that:

Laws and the punishments for breaking them are implemented to:

1. Remove criminals from society.

2. Deter future crimes from being committed.


This law, I believe, falls reasonably into both categories.
Click to expand...

Too bad life and litigation can't be simplified to two bullet points. While we're at it, speeding tickets haven't stopped or deterred speeders, we should make 25 to life mandatory. Or if that's too harsh, just a year for every mile over.

This law is absurd and not applicable in this situation.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#83
#83
bamacheats said:
Too bad life and litigation can't be simplified to two bullet points. While we're at it, speeding tickets haven't stopped or deterred speeders, we should make 25 to life mandatory. Or if that's too harsh, just a year for every mile over.

This law is absurd and not applicable in this situation.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Great comparison. Speeding and armed robbery are so similar.
 
#84
#84
LawVol13 said:
Great comparison. Speeding and armed robbery are so similar.
Click to expand...

Good job! You're starting to catch on!

BTW, learn the difference between contrast/comparison.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#85
#85
When you are speeding and you see a cop you accelerate? Simple minds abound.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#86
#86
tim said:
When you are speeding and you see a cop you accelerate? Simple minds abound.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Thanks for your contribution. That is a brilliant point!
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#87
#87
Again, If you could offer proof that the kid was shot in the back, that would be wonderful.

The arguers against the kid being shot use the premise of him being shot in the back as the reasoning for why it was the incorrect action.

The account shows that the kid turned around, armed, toward a police officer.
The 2 arguers, Bamacheats and Pandamonium, are saying that the kid was shot IN THE BACK, over and over again.
Many times I've asked for something that corroborates that statement, yet have failed to receive a single link.

The only thing I've seen that mentions someone getting shot in the back was a reference from slydell, and that was just a guess.

At this point I don't even care about the kid who's sitting in jail on Murder 1 charges. I just want to understand how the 2 of you can continue to argue whether or not the officer should have fired her gun, when your only argument is that the kid was shot in the back, which was not mentioned in the story.
 
#88
#88
crusse10 said:
Again, If you could offer proof that the kid was shot in the back, that would be wonderful.

The arguers against the kid being shot use the premise of him being shot in the back as the reasoning for why it was the incorrect action.

The account shows that the kid turned around, armed, toward a police officer.
The 2 arguers, Bamacheats and Pandamonium, are saying that the kid was shot IN THE BACK, over and over again.
Many times I've asked for something that corroborates that statement, yet have failed to receive a single link.

The only thing I've seen that mentions someone getting shot in the back was a reference from slydell, and that was just a guess.

At this point I don't even care about the kid who's sitting in jail on Murder 1 charges. I just want to understand how the 2 of you can continue to argue whether or not the officer should have fired her gun, when your only argument is that the kid was shot in the back, which was not mentioned in the story.
Click to expand...

Who cares where the kid was shot? He's dead! It's horrible! He made a horrible decision that led to his death!

The murder charge against his friend for his death caused by a cop is F'n ridiculous! Why is that hard to understand?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#89
#89
Then quit arguing that his shooting was unjust on the false premise that he didn't turn toward a police officer with a loaded gun in hand. That's all I'm saying.
 
#91
#91
crusse10 said:
Again, If you could offer proof that the kid was shot in the back, that would be wonderful.

The arguers against the kid being shot use the premise of him being shot in the back as the reasoning for why it was the incorrect action.

The account shows that the kid turned around, armed, toward a police officer.
The 2 arguers, Bamacheats and Pandamonium, are saying that the kid was shot IN THE BACK, over and over again.
Many times I've asked for something that corroborates that statement, yet have failed to receive a single link.

The only thing I've seen that mentions someone getting shot in the back was a reference from slydell, and that was just a guess.

At this point I don't even care about the kid who's sitting in jail on Murder 1 charges. I just want to understand how the 2 of you can continue to argue whether or not the officer should have fired her gun, when your only argument is that the kid was shot in the back, which was not mentioned in the story.
Click to expand...
I was just going from the link to one of the stories posted.

Teen Brandon Ross Charged with Murder of Tatioun Williams in Police-Involved Shooting, Armed Robbery Case

An autopsy Thursday found he died from a gunshot wound to the back and ruled the death a homicide.
 
#92
#92
Slydell said:
I was just going from the link to one of the stories posted.

Teen Brandon Ross Charged with Murder of Tatioun Williams in Police-Involved Shooting, Armed Robbery Case

An autopsy Thursday found he died from a gunshot wound to the back and ruled the death a homicide.
Click to expand...

Still don't see it as a cowardly form of shooting someone facing away from you (a la before he turns around in a duel).
If he starts turning around with a loaded gun, you fire. You hit him mid-turn. Still technically "in the back," but definitely not unwarranted.

If he continues running but turns his upper body sideways in order to fire backwards and you shoot, you hit him in the back, but it's still not an unwarranted shot.

The detractors still claim that he the shot was completely unwarranted, and I still disagree wholeheartedly.
 
#93
#93
I only made a comment from the story. Nothing more. None of us have all the details. As someone said, he could have partially turned enough to where he could have fired back at the officer. I just think the application of that particular law, to me, doesn't fit in this case. I can see the application in this case better.
Shop owner has heart attack; teen faces murder rap - ksl.com
 
#94
#94
Wouldn't be shocked if he pleads out of most of the charge for corroborating the officer's story. Clearing any doubt about the officer's actions would probably be for the best. Plus, the kid doesn't get Muder 1, and he's probably scared straight anyway.
 
#95
#95
I can see that happening. Just something extra added on to be plead down but still adding on some additional time to the sentence.
 
#96
#96
Slydell said:
I can see that happening. Just something extra added on to be plead down but still adding on some additional time to the sentence.
Click to expand...

Aggravated robbery
Accessory to attempted murder of an officer

Way better than Murder 1
 
#100
#100
bamacheats said:
So now you agree that the kid shouldn't be charged with murder?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Link to where I said that?

And do I think he should be charged with it? Yeah, it's the law. Do I think they should let him plead down, yeah.

I don't think he should let this go all the way to getting convicted of Murder 1. He is an accessory to the series of events that lead to his friend dying. As the DA's office I would trade Murder 1 for him corroborating the officer's story that the other kid turned around with a loaded gun, thus forcing her to shoot him.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top