I tend to stay out of these threads, because this board comes across as being, overwhelmingly, anti-law enforcement. However, this just riles me up. This teen robbed a man at gun point, and when confronted by the officer, didn't give up and drop his gun, but instead, ran and then turned towards the officer with a gun in his hand. So how exactly can you say that it wasn't his intent to kill the officer? Hundreds of officers in that same scenario have lost their lives. That officer didn't deserve to not go home to her family because of the situation that teen put her in. You don't drop the gun and give up, you deserve what is coming to you.
I feel bad for the officer, she did right thing to protect herself. Incidents like this I'm sure are very hard to live with. I'm also glad the other kid was charged, you would hope this story will be a deterrent, though I doubt it.
Ive been robbed at gun point before by 2 BIG mean scary african american THUGS and it sucks!!!!!! I can understand both sides but damn what a sad ending...having a gun even around the house is asking for trouble sooner or later as accidents can happen as well, you just never know.
By the time an officer visually registers that a suspect has pointed a gun at her, she'd have gotten shot already, because the time lapse from pointing a gun to shooting it is instantaneous. You can't wait until you see someone point a gun at you to defend yourself. Just not dropping a deadly weapon used in the commission of a felony is threatening enough. Then the kid turned toward her....
It doesn't appear to me that the young man was killed "during the commission of a crime", but rather, afterwards. So I don't see how the rule should apply to him. And beyond that, how long after the crime does it have to be in order for that rule not to apply? Seems like a poorly conceived law that has a hard time being applied correctly.
you rob someone at gunpoint, you risk getting shot yourself. unintended consequences. oh well. have a nice afterlife. as for the the other guy being charged with murder, another unintended consequence. oh well.
My take is that people shouldn't rob, but these kids likely were dealt a bad hand at some point. If I was the one that was robbed, I would want to those guys punished SEVERELY. I don't fault the police, she did what she had to under that circumstance. I don't think the DA should be pushing for a murder charge but he is also doing his job the best he can. I don't think it will be a deterrent, as in almost all crimes, people aren't looking to get caught when breaking the law. I do think if I was a criminal with a weapon and my partner got shot by anyone at any point, if they've heard this story, they might be less inclined to surrender since they might be facing death row anyways. D&D and off topic: the Black Communities in the U.S. are in trouble and they themselves bear a lot of responsibilities for lifting themselves out. However, generations of slavery, Jim Crow, "war on drugs" and other policies that made it a much less than even playing field up until ~30 years ago did enough harm that it's not likely to fix itself. Thus, all of the people of this great country, even those of us who are recent emigrants, are also responsible to help them.
There's something wrong with the law when an unarmed 16 year old suspect can be charged with murder when he didn't possess a firearm and didn't, in fact, kill anyone.
I never said I agreed with the law. I just pointed out that the article indicated exactly why there was a murder charge.
I'm just pointing out that there's something seriously wrong with "the law" when a person can be charged with murder under those circumstances. I don't have a problem with the officer defending herself, given the reported incident.
THIS. Don't hold a gun / turn towards a cop with it in your hand after committing robbery with said gun. next time....drop the weapon and put your hands in the air.
