Teen shot dead by police over stolen PS3

I'm not a member in RPSC (see, geo? I made it to stay away after all) and I also don't see anything that would qualify it as such, it's just news.
 
THe original robbery was an armed robbery.

The cops knock, nobody answers.

They bust down the door, he's standing there with something dark in his hand.

They shoot him, assuming the dark object in his hand is a gun. (Turns out to be a ps3 controller)

Mistakes happen, but to say "shoot first, ask questions later" and "typical american" is...well....typical.
 
It is typical, but its true. The problem with american police is that they dont seem to use their brain. For example: those highway chases. Somebody doesnt want to stop and than you have police cars with sirens on racing like idiots and ramming the guy's car to stop him. The only thing you do is making the guy more scared and have him drive even faster and more dangerous. So instead of trying to controll things as much as possible they are only making it worse. Its exactly the same with this. The storm into a house without a reason (there was no need to kick in the door, no imidiate danger for anyone) with their guns pulled and the second they see something in somebody's hand they start shooting. It might as well been the wrong house with the wrong person in it and then they wouldve killed a innocent person because they like to play trigger happy cowboy. Even if the guy was guilty stealing a ps3 still isnt worse enough to pay with your life.
 
THe original robbery was an armed robbery.

The cops knock, nobody answers.

They bust down the door, he's standing there with something dark in his hand.

They shoot him, assuming the dark object in his hand is a gun. (Turns out to be a ps3 controller)

Mistakes happen, but to say "shoot first, ask questions later" and "typical american" is...well....typical.

Was it russ? I thought it was just beating people up.

The picture on the internet was the justification I heard. But then they said they were not even sure if they were real guns. Face it the Cops screwed the pooch. It happens with regularity.

Highly trained idiots apparently is all they are. And no just b/c someone has something ''dark'' in their hand doesn't mean you shoot them. Was he brandishing it as a weapon? Did they announce their prescence with a megaphone? Why not? Why not say ''this is the police come out with your hands up'' why not pick up the phone and call inside? It was pretty dumb.
 
It is typical, but its true.
Of course its true that there's always 'tut-tutting' about "american stupidity" thats grounded in stereotyping and snobbery.

The problem with american police is that they dont seem to use their brain. For example: those highway chases. Somebody doesnt want to stop and than you have police cars with sirens on racing like idiots and ramming the guy's car to stop him. The only thing you do is making the guy more scared and have him drive even faster and more dangerous. So instead of trying to controll things as much as possible they are only making it worse.
How to control it? C'mon, tell me how to get a guy to stop without forcing him. Does letting him go make things better?

Its exactly the same with this. The storm into a house without a reason (there was no need to kick in the door, no imidiate danger for anyone) with their guns pulled and the second they see something in somebody's hand they start shooting.
You're there to serve a warrent on an armed robbery/aggravated assault. You knock, but nobody answers. You enter the premises, knowing people to be there. There's the suspect to whom you're serving a warrent to for ARMED robbery, holding something in his hands and makes a sudden move. Do you simply assume that he's got nothing dangerous in his hands? Or do you protect yourself?

It might as well been the wrong house with the wrong person in it and then they wouldve killed a innocent person because they like to play trigger happy cowboy.
Your characterization of the person who did the shooting is both ignorant and presumptuous.

Even if the guy was guilty stealing a ps3 still isnt worse enough to pay with your life.
Again, he wasn't shot for stealing a PS3. He was shot for being a suspect of aggravated robbery/assault, not answering the door, and then appearing to be a threat in a fast moving situation that he started.
 
You have to take into account though that in the U.S., everyone and their kid has a gun, so they're going to be much more jumpy about this than in most other countries. It's just another one of those cases where guns kill, for many reasons and in many different ways.
 
How to control it? C'mon, tell me how to get a guy to stop without forcing him. Does letting him go make things better?

The way all those non american countries do it? There is absolutely no need for destruction derby/carmageddon style driving most of the time. You got choppers following the car, you can place spike strips, you can wait untill he runs out of fuel, you can drive behind him and before him at a safe distance to make the road clear etc. No need for cowboy style driving especially since most people only start driving like absolute maniacs after some cop got on his tail with destruction derby driving.

You're there to serve a warrent on an armed robbery/aggravated assault. You knock, but nobody answers. You enter the premises, knowing people to be there. There's the suspect to whom you're serving a warrent to for ARMED robbery, holding something in his hands and makes a sudden move. Do you simply assume that he's got nothing dangerous in his hands? Or do you protect yourself?

Guilty untill proven different? IMO ur innocent untill proven guilty so the police should have keep talking to him so he would come out of the house himself. No storm in and shoot him because he had something dark in his hands. But apparently its OK for you to shoot someone because he has something dark in his hands. Gee, I gotta watch out not getting shot for holding my black DSlite.

Again, he wasn't shot for stealing a PS3. He was shot for being a suspect of aggravated robbery/assault, not answering the door, and then appearing to be a threat in a fast moving situation that he started.

LOL :D SUSPECT though these days you are guilty untill proven innocent it seems.

And a situation he started? he was just playing playstation and was standing there with a controller in his hands. Not what I would call very fast moving.

You have to take into account though that in the U.S., everyone and their kid has a gun, so they're going to be much more jumpy about this than in most other countries. It's just another one of those cases where guns kill, for many reasons and in many different ways.

Actually canadians have more guns, though this doesnt happen in canada.
 
You have to take into account though that in the U.S., everyone and their kid has a gun, so they're going to be much more jumpy about this than in most other countries. It's just another one of those cases where guns kill, for many reasons and in many different ways.

Yup, that's what I assumed as well. I think this case was an accident in that sense.
 
Yup, that's what I assumed as well. I think this case was an accident in that sense.

It is an accident anyway you think about it. So is driving off a cliff, but if you are going 100mph on a mountain pass in the winter then an accident tis more likely to happen.
 
The way all those non american countries do it?

The danish police shoots people too.
We had an incedent, some months back, with young people driving around with hardball guns in a city.
The police stated that if they stopped someone and they had what appered to be a gun, no chances would be taken.
No one here raised a brow over that, as the response was logical.

9 people have been shot by the police in Denmark this year out of a population of 5.2 mio...in a country where firearms are a banned.

And oh yeah, they shot 19 shot into a cow on the highway too.
Had that been in the US, I'm sure someone would have made the same fallices of dicto simpliciter ( "typical US"," US cops are triggerhappy") as are displayed in this thread...
 
You have to take into account though that in the U.S., everyone and their kid has a gun
Its about a third of households that have guns. Im sure the percentage is quite a bit higher for those households with members accused of armed robbery. ;)
 
The way all those non american countries do it? There is absolutely no need for destruction derby/carmageddon style driving most of the time. You got choppers following the car, you can place spike strips, you can wait untill he runs out of fuel, you can drive behind him and before him at a safe distance to make the road clear etc.
That's exactly what's done "most of the time".
 
The way all those non american countries do it? There is absolutely no need for destruction derby/carmageddon style driving most of the time. You got choppers following the car, you can place spike strips, you can wait untill he runs out of fuel, you can drive behind him and before him at a safe distance to make the road clear etc.
Demolition derby driving isn't practiced most of the time. I think you've been watching too many "Wildest Police Chase" shows.
Departments have escalation policies when it comes to this. The general rule is not to attempt a high-risk maneuver unless the suspect has already demonstrated behavior that is considered to be a danger if allowed to continue.

In recent years, police departments have been reevaluating which situations warrant pursuit.

Choppers: Expensive, only municipal forces with the resources and known need for them are going to have them.
Without air surveillance, the only way to track a fleeing suspect it to follow the car (presumably in a vehicle of some kind).

Waiting until he's out of gas:
Assuming you know where he is when he does.

Stop sticks:
Usually used before the police try to run a car down. Suspects have been known to continue driving with flat tires, and stop sticks are not impossible to avoid. This requires at least one other cop car to move into position, and it takes some time, since the suspect doesn't wait.

Driving a safe distance behind:
That's normally done until the stop sticks and other disabling methods fail and the offender is believed to a be a real threat if not stopped.

I certainly hope you don't think that also means the cops drive the speed limit. Since I'm sure the fleeing suspect will be driving at an unsafe speed in an attempt to escape.

Driving in back and in front:
The driving behind part is easy. Driving in front only works if it's a police escort, not a fleeing suspect.

Imagine trying to keep a lead on a speeding car through a complex road network. In the case of just a single highway with offramps, each exit is a binary choice. Being ahead of the suspect, the cop must predict what the crook will do, or there must be a cop car ahead on each path.

After 10 exits, a single cop must have made 10 correct choices, or 1024 cop cars are racing in parallel ahead.
Either we have Miss Cleo in pursuit, or everyone in the country is a cop besides the criminal (and then only up to 28 exits and all roads are 1/0 binary choices).

Since the suspect is fleeing, he's not driving slowly. That means 1024 cop cars are racing through various side streets to get into position.
I don't think that's safer, do you?

God forbid we count other directions, a cross intersection would be 4^whatever number of intersections crossed-number of intersections. Suspects have been known to try reversing direction on occassion, but we'll assume the same cop can tail him.

If that's how it's done in Canada, it's more of a post-apocolyptic wasteland than I previously thought.

No need for cowboy style driving especially since most people only start driving like absolute maniacs after some cop got on his tail with destruction derby driving.
No, I think it's because they don't want to get caught.

Actually canadians have more guns, though this doesnt happen in canada.
I think it happens on occasion.
 
Back
Top