It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Boy arrested for murder after police shoot and kill his friend.

page: 10
40
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by felonius
 




I didnt say anything about the gun making him grow up fast. I dont care if he was 13 or 30. There is NO excuse for "not knowing" what is right and wrong.


There is a variety of excuses/reasons for doing what is by legal definition "wrong" and some of them are excellent. Some of them can even get you out of jail free.


Mimicing and adult? REally? The only time I've ever "skinned my weapon" was when i was in danger of being robbed or attacked. period.

Well good for you. You weren't born knowing that were you?
Maybe you should become a big brother and teach a fatherless kid the responsibilities of guns.


Eats shoots leaves? WTF is that?

Without punctuation the sentence can mean 2 very different things. You need the facts in this case as well before you can go shooting off your mouth or anything else.

I know of a criminal who was robbing a home and successfully sued the homeowner because he was caught and cut himself breaking in. Even suspected robbers with guns in their hands are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If you don't like the laws do away with them but you can't change them midstream.




posted on May, 29 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Women shouldn't be cops.

Bet you anything she panicked and prematurely shot the kid.

Now the "Justice System" twists it around and says his friend is responsible for the female cop shooting the kid.

That's just the way the scam works they have to do everything and anything they can to maintain their image to the public as Fair and the actions of the "criminals" (in this case 2 kids) as wrongful.

Textbook good vs bad black and white fairy tale, cops wear the badges and uniforms gives them the right to take a life even though not a single shot was fired at their direction.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by esteay812
 


you are citing a case where the criminals(or one of them) commited murder, in that case yes they both should be charged with murder. but the case in question no murder was commited by the criminals yet one has been charged with murder even though they did not murder anyone.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 04:48 AM
link   
#1 - A minor shouldnt be charged as they do not "know" what they are doing? Really? No, they should not have the right to drink or vote, but they know right from wrong. With that logic you will see the rise of child armies in america. Why should I risk my life doing a crime if I can have a kid do it and they will not serve time. He would have accepted the credit for the robbery.

#2 - As far as the criminal being shot in the back: this is not a colonial battlefield or the OK corral (sp). Patrol officers are not trained to "bullrush" suspects. They control them. One officer on the side and one in front. Officer on the side sees the gun being raised at partner in front and drops criminal. See we can all make up stories about what happened. Difference is some people here want to make this thug out to be a saint trying to feed his family, and some are a little more down to earth.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   
LOL at these people that think its okay to be charged for a crime you did not commit. Its thanks to you lot America seems to be turning more and more into a police state.

Give your selves a pat on the back.

Yes.. the kids an idiot taking part in armed robbery, but blaming him for murder HE DID NOT DO to get the cops of the hook (Its a blatant law that protects authority!)..really takes the jimmy riddle.

Sending him to your prisons on 25-life will most certainly ruin the rest of his life, and he now has a higher probability of being a felon on release...i know i would resent the law after that ordeal.

Also when it comes to the one lad being armed, i have 2 points to raise...

1) America hands out guns to everyone like candy...try not doing this :/

2) The authority figures will shoot you without hesitation, armed or not...because there f****d like that...maybe you should carry a gun?? From everything i have heard recently most people in a uniform in America are the devil in disguise..

Americas system is totally flawed, and it is turning into a police state...theres no hope for anyone in this lads position...grab your passport and leave before FEMA take charge if you know whats best for you...IMO



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   
This is messed up there's nothing else to say about it. If you didn't kill somebody you shouldn't be charged for it there's no two ways about it. Whoever pulled the trigger should be charged, their the ones that took a life. End of story.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:09 AM
link   
At least it was a stupid criminal kid, so nothing important is lost. Holding someone at guy at aged 15 is despicable. So kudos to the cop for getting rid of this human scum


Besides, what else should she have done? Waiting till she gets shot? Yeah, i guess that would make some people at ATS happy, because cops are evil.
But really, there are two criminal pieces of # who don't deserve their lifes, robbing someone, than threaten the cops, what did they expect?

Just too bad the other scumbag survived



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ShadowAngel85
 


Harsh!!!

There are days when I think like that. Mostly I try and be a little more charitable. I think this is wrong.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by purplemer
 


It is a travesty of justice but in their minds the young man would be alive were it not for their combined actions and so their decision to commit the crime was what got the one guy shot and so the survivor is responsible for the murder or death. It is an unwarranted and preposterous stretch of the circumstances and a convenient way to absolve oneself of guilt for shooting a child. By this reasoning anyone shot by police during a robbery could also be changed with shooting themselves.


you have only passed the responsibility from the officer back onto the suspect, with your logic, you could even go a step further and blame the kids parents for raising them to have morals capable of such an act, or blame society and politics for not designing a system of welfare they could be on, it goes on and on, your blaming the actions of an individual, on the circumstance created by another, the action in question is the officer pulled the trigger, so the officer killed the boy, not the accomplice.

also by the same turn why not say the boy commited suicide? after all it was his own decision to posses the gun and use it
edit on 5/29/11 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by pplrnuts
Dont be a criminal and stuff like this wouldnt happen.

Yes?


You know, the definition of what a 'criminal' is varies depending on social and cultural values and tolerance.

In Nazi Germany, it was criminal to be a Jew or homosexual. In Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, there is death penalty for being a homosexual.

In several Islamic countries, so called honor killings are more or less legal.

I personally met a man who killed an 8 year old child while speed driving. He walked with a fine.

In many countries, smoking the dried flower of the plant Cannabis makes you a criminal (or a delinquent). In certain other countries you can.

So in theory, you can be considered a criminal for smoking a flower, but not after killing a human being.

It doesn't mean I defend acts of violence or robbery, it simply means I feel your reasoning concerning 'criminals' is simplistic.


Originally posted by semperfortis
Everyone knows that if you drive the vehicle for the bank robbers, you will be charged with bank robbery as well.

The "kid" made the choice to Rob that innocent citizen and during the robbery someone died. He gets charged with Murder.



Semper


If you drive the vehicle of a bank robbery, then you're a part of a conspiracy and you simply had a different role to play than the guy who held the shotgun. You should be sentenced for armed robbery, no problem there.

If you did NOT kill someone but is still charged for murder, then we have a problem. Should parents be charged for complicity in murder if their child kills someone, because of bad upbringing? How far are we willing to go in imposing responsability?


Originally posted by MJZoo
reply to post by RickyD
 


Oh should the cops have waited a few minutes for the other kid to try to talk his friend in to putting the gun down? I know if I was a cop and someone pointed a gun at me I'd wait for him to shoot first before I shot back.


It's not a question of whether the police officer should have fired or not in order to defend her life, it's a question of whether another person who did not fire should be held responsible. The police officer should be and will be heard in an internal inquiriy to evaluate if she acted according to law.


Originally posted by BrokenCircles
Is this kid guilty? Of course.
Is he guilty of murder and should be tried as an adult? No.

He robbed a man. His life is over, just as his dead friend's life is.
For robbery.


Voice of reason.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


Where should we run to? The UK? Yeah looks like you guys are doing quite well, lol. And as far as the US handing guns out "like candy" You do realize that the kid did not LEGALLY possess the firearm, correct? I understand your point and I already know your counterpoint but the percentage of gun related crimes that are committed by a person who legally owns a gun is pretty small.

On a side note, why can't people stay on topic? I see replies about rich people getting away with crimes, killing committed during war, a whole slew of different scenarios involving "what if" stories of cops shooting someone. Stick to the OP story. They aren't saying the kid murdered directly his friend. They are saying that he was involved in a crime in which someone was killed, meaning he IS responsible for a death. If there was no crime committed then there would have been no confrontation with the cops and the kids would still be alive. Do you see how that works?

Either way, it's odd that so many people are hating on the cops, or the system, etc. But everyone seems to ignore the fact that the kid robbed someone at gunpoint. "Oh, its so sad the US is a police state now" blah blah blah. What is sad is when you completely bypass the action that caused the reaction. It makes me question the mentality of people when you seem to favor the criminals and condemn the cops or the system.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
its a real travesty no way this should of happened the boy never pulled the trigger he should have been brought to justice but not for murder.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by purplemer
 


It is a travesty of justice but in their minds the young man would be alive were it not for their combined actions and so their decision to commit the crime was what got the one guy shot and so the survivor is responsible for the murder or death. It is an unwarranted and preposterous stretch of the circumstances and a convenient way to absolve oneself of guilt for shooting a child. By this reasoning anyone shot by police during a robbery could also be changed with shooting themselves.


you have only passed the responsibility from the officer back onto the suspect, with your logic, you could even go a step further and blame the kids parents for raising them to have morals capable of such an act, or blame society and politics for not designing a system of welfare they could be on, it goes on and on, your blaming the actions of an individual, on the circumstance created by another, the action in question is the officer pulled the trigger, so the officer killed the boy, not the accomplice.

also by the same turn why not say the boy commited suicide? after all it was his own decision to posses the gun and use it
edit on 5/29/11 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)


Not if you could read. Thanks for confirming my original response and putting it in your own words. Very good way to essentially copy what I have already said. You do know what unwarranted and preposterous mean don't you?
edit on 29-5-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   
What a stupid title. It should read 'armed robber charged with murder after his partner in violent crime is killed by police during commission of crime'.

OP should be ashamed of himself.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Abney
What a stupid title. It should read 'armed robber charged with murder after his partner in violent crime is killed by police during commission of crime'.

OP should be ashamed of himself.


You know, I was just thinking something very similar. Well done for articulating what I was just speculating. My brain didn't put it together as well as you did!



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Abney
 


Haha, that's funny because I JUST re-read the title and thought the same. And I've been following it since the beginning. He wasn't arrested for murder. He was arrested for the armed robbery and consequently charged with murder because he was involved in committing a crime which resulted in a death.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post b"y unconscious_war
 


Are you serious? Women should not be cops?

And are you serious when you say that in all likely hood "She probably panicked and pulled the trigger" ?

Do you really think that the fact the officer was female is the reason this kid is dead?

Sorry about all the questions here but I can't think of how to reply without being harsh, I want to understand where you are coming from but I'm finding it very hard to do so.

In my mind this was a trained professional, qualified and appointed to maintain public safety, she pulled the trigger because she used her professional opinion and judgement in an extremely volatile situation. I don't think she did it because she was a "woman", I think she did it because that's what you do when a person of any age points a gun at you, and you are one of the people appointed to maintain the safety of all those around and enforce the law. I doubt very much if she wanted to pull the trigger at all, so given the unpredictable circumstances, I do not blame her at all.

Whether the other kid should be tried for murder was the point of this topic, not the gender or actions of the officer involved, which I happen to think was brave, intelligent and as safe and swift as possible given the nano second or two she was given to make that judgement call.....

Please have a good think about what you have said before replying, I'm not trying to be belligerent here but your post made no sense what so ever.

Peace WCS



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
This isn't right. I admit I don't know much about the US legal system, but in my eyes, if a cop feels that they need to kill a perpetrator, then they should take responsibility for it. I'm not saying it was a crime for the officer to shoot the boy dead, nor am I saying it was the wrong thing for her to do, as she was acting on him drawing a weapon, but the boy's accomplice shouldn't be charged with the boy's death.

The cop pulled the trigger, and the dead guy drew a weapon first - if we're going to place responsibility for the death on anyone other than the person who pulled the trigger, it should be the dead boy, for drawing his weapon in the first place. In my opinion, the other guy had nothing to do with his death.

Certainly charge the surviving perpetrator for the crime of armed robbery and whatever else, but I think it's morally wrong for him to be charged with murder. What if the officer used a taser instead? The accomplice wouldn't be charged with murder, because the other guy wouldn't be dead, but either way, the accomplice would not have been controlling the circumstances.
This death was between the perpetrator with the weapon, and the officer.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


It's a stupid law and we have too many laws in this nation already. He should be charged for exactly what he did.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by MJZoo
 


Hey there, thanks for your reply...I can see where your coming from, I wont bother enforcing my point as you said you already know what counter I will use lol...Im replying to say sorry if it seemed i was going off topic, that is a pet hate of my own to be fair...but I was just linking this incident to the bigger picture...the bigger picture being ridiculous laws that TPTB can make at the drop of a hat, uncaring about the fact their decisions can have detrimantal effects of unknowing citizens...Hell im not even American and im outraged..

As for fleeing America, I know its obviously not a practical idea lol...but hey, come over here to England, we're not perfect (We're hand in hand with Obama) but we dont get blamed for murders we havent committed..and the police cant enter our properties without a warrant..and as long as you have a job we will all greet you with outstanding manners and a lovely cuppa tea




new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join