Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Guard shoots boy, 15, at FDA office in Bothell

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan


That the "security guard" was employed by an outside firm, is irrelevant. Why do we need armed guards at an FDA facility at all?

 


Bio-tech labs and their staff have been targeted over the years by a number of groups similar to PETA but with much shadier tactics (not that PETA is completely innocent in their dealings) which includes murder and arson, etc, etc.





To the extent that they do have a reasonable justification for the armed security, they hire a firm that employes 15 year old kids?




Where does it say they hire 15 year old kids?




posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Northshore School District spokeswoman Leanna Albrecht says the 15-year-old is a student at the Secondary Academy for Success, an alternative high school adjacent to the FDA office building. Read more: www.komonews.com...
(emphasis added)


7am is a little early for school.

An interesting comment left under the linked article:


Comment by Doc O'Zee ·

Seeking a diagonal shortcut, I once inadvertently rode thru the parking lot in question only to get chased down by an armed guard with a nasty disposition.

In response to to his authoritative ranting, pointed at my headphones & shrugged shoulders while exiting the lot. Rode by on the fronting road to feel his glare, hand on sidepiece.

Never entered that lot again; always left suspiciously curious about the nature of activity therein. Now, even more so


A potential scenario; (pure unadulterated speculation to follow .......)

This could be just some 15 year old kid practising his driving (drove route to school) and parked in this parking lot.

Acting suspicious ? That is what 15 years old`s do best - Everybody is suspicious to Rent-A-Cops .

__________

Encountered this edgy security guard - got freaked out and bolted - realised he left his mom`s car behind - went back for it - madness ensued - the kid panicked- the guard panicked - shots were fired.




edit on 8-2-2013 by UmbraSumus because: correction
edit on 8-2-2013 by UmbraSumus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
It's come to my attention from the article I skimmed, that the boy struck one of the security guards with his car. Running down someone with a car, is a pretty good reason for said person to open fire. A car can be a weapon, and this instance I'm sure the security guard feared for his life and that of his colleagues. The 15 year old, was acting suspicious and when approached ran away, to later come back jump in his car and strike a security guard with it. Both the 15 year old and security guard are lucky to be alive.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


How do we know the kid didnt have a gun?

There was plenty of time for him to toss a weapon after an attempted break in.
edit on 8-2-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



For that matter, how do we know he didn't have a whole army of dragons, too. And he sent them all to fly back to their mountain caves before the cop showed up.

LOL, I would guess you could "know" this because it hasn't been mentioned as being fact.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Wait.


So a guard shoots at a fleeing car whose 15 year old occupant had only been sitting in the parking lot, and its the kid who gets arrested? Did they punch him in the groin for good measure?

Did he veer towards them? Or was he simply trying to leave, after just sitting there, and they tried to jump in front of him to stop him? I can imagine a 15 year old may not be the best driver, and I would posit that it would be a poor idea to jump in front of one driving.

Not that this kid is an angel or anything. I don't know. But it sounds like the security guards were discharging a firearm wrecklessly in a fairly well populated area (from the pictures on page 1), aiming (in essence) for the back of some kid fleeing.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


The kid was acting suspiciously. Now I know, I may not think a guy cooking the flesh of some unknown being over his radiator but others may, and vice versa lol.

So that is really situational and personal in a sense, how ever the kid fled on foot when approached by the security guards. Later, when he returned and was approached by the pair again he ran to his car, and then while trying to make his escape struck one of the guards with his car, at which point a guard opened fire on the vehicle. The teen was struck in the foot and made his escape.

Don't blow things out of proportion, think of it this way, you can get shot by a cop for simply not listening to instructions, and if you drove your car into another officer they would both attempt to kill you likely emptying every round they had in the service weapons. This kid is lucky, I feel the guard attempted to protect the life on himself as well as his colleague.

Why was the Teen on Private property? School near by or not it's private property, the guards were likely gonna ask what he was doing there, and ask him to leave why flee as he did? Assholes or not, until he rammed his car into anyone he wasn't in danger.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


So , the car belonged to the kid who was shot? A fifteen year old? So why did he amp up and reverse at the guards? Why did he not just approach the guards and announce his presence and his ownership of the vehicle, rather than stand about looking shifty? Was he illegally parked?

This seems bloody strange to me I have to say. Something is off.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hijinx
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


The kid was acting suspiciously. Now I know, I may not think a guy cooking the flesh of some unknown being over his radiator but others may, and vice versa lol.

So that is really situational and personal in a sense, how ever the kid fled on foot when approached by the security guards. Later, when he returned and was approached by the pair again he ran to his car, and then while trying to make his escape struck one of the guards with his car, at which point a guard opened fire on the vehicle. The teen was struck in the foot and made his escape.

Don't blow things out of proportion, think of it this way, you can get shot by a cop for simply not listening to instructions, and if you drove your car into another officer they would both attempt to kill you likely emptying every round they had in the service weapons. This kid is lucky, I feel the guard attempted to protect the life on himself as well as his colleague.

Why was the Teen on Private property? School near by or not it's private property, the guards were likely gonna ask what he was doing there, and ask him to leave why flee as he did? Assholes or not, until he rammed his car into anyone he wasn't in danger.


We would need to see the property, I suppose. But if it belongs to the Federal Government, I question it being labelled "private", especially a parking lot. Is it fenced? Clearly designated "No Trespassing, Use Of Deadly Force Authorized"?

You can't compare a security guard to a police officer. A police officer has a commission and a higher expectation. Were it a cop like our own XCathdra, I would suspect no shots would have been fired. Me personally.....if a security guard tells me to stop so we can talk, he is getting ignored. He has no authority to detain me, and his attempts to do so will be met with an aggressive response.

We don't have the full story here. But the story we DO have sounds like the guards are overly aggressive, this kid ust wanted to leave once he realized it was causing issue, they tried to detain him, got hit by the car (because what 15 year old is a good driver and snap judgement decision maker?), and in retaliation opened fire.

No officer would have done that. If they did, they would lose their job. You just don't go opening fire, shooting at a fleeing car in an area that is thickly covered by malls and other public places. Doing so, as an officer, gets you put on desk duty while they probe you.

Remember, this is a kid. My youngest son is 15. Were this him, I likely would have gone to even the odds. Just thinking about it. I mean, he is 15....did he aim his car at them to run them over? Would you open fire on a kid who was just trying to get his car and leave, if he had done nothing else?

ETA: "Acting suspiciously"...that is the impetus used by tyrants to excuse all manner of stifling of your rights. Because "acting suspiciously" is obviously forbade by our constitution, right?
edit on 9-2-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hijinx
It's come to my attention from the article I skimmed, that the boy struck one of the security guards with his car. Running down someone with a car, is a pretty good reason for said person to open fire. A car can be a weapon, and this instance I'm sure the security guard feared for his life and that of his colleagues. The 15 year old, was acting suspicious and when approached ran away, to later come back jump in his car and strike a security guard with it. Both the 15 year old and security guard are lucky to be alive.


We obviously need more details.....but if the security guard (who is not an officer and has no authority to detain people) was trying to detain this kid, I can honestly see him being struck as a result of his behavior, not the kids. Unless the kid aimed his car at the guard, and purposefully tried to run him over, I don't see the kid being in the wrong.

But there is absolutely, absolutely NO excuse to open fire on the kid. Shooting him in the back as he drove away. The definition of cowardly.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


Just to address the comment about armed officers -

Contrary to popular belief the FBI is not the sole Federal investigative arm. The FDA, IRS, EPA, NOAA etc all have, in general, armed investigative law enforcement sections for their respective areas. Even the US Post Office has armed investigators (US Postal Service Police).

Each group that maintains a federal law enforcement section is responsible for their respective areas. If the FDA gets reports of say processing plants not complying with law / requirements, it is the responsibility of their agents to investigate, not the FBI.

The IRS has a section that investigates violations of the Tax Code.
NOAA has a section that invesitgates (not to mention they also fall under partial miliary code).


In the grand scheme of things we have been essentially led to believe the FBI, through TV and movies, as being the only investigative body at the Federal level, and that is just simply not accurate.

Just thought I would throw this out there....

A generic list of examples -
Bank Robbery - Local law enforcement and FBI
Counterfet Currency - Local law enforcement and the United States secret Service.
Mailbox damage - Local law eforcement and United States Post Oiffice Inspector General
Unlawful flight to avoid prosecution - Local Law Enforcement and the United States Marshal's Service
Tax Evasion - States and United States Internal Revenue service
Smuggling - United States Customs / Border Patrol.
Cybercrime dealing with child pornography - Local law Enforcement and US Customs (consolidated from FBI)


More resources -
NOAA - Office of Law Enforcement
EPA - Criminal Enforcement
FDA - Inspections, Compliance, Enforcement, and Criminal Investigations
IRS - Criminal Enforcement
US Secret Service - Criminal Investigations
FBI Criminal Investigations
US State Department - Diplomatic Security Services

FLETC is responsible for training 91 federal agencies who have positions that are either "commissioned with powers of arrest" or agencies with special duties "Bureau of Prisons".
FLETC - Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
edit on 9-2-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Depending on the Facility and the State, security can stop and detain an individual. Simply discounting security because they are perceived as somthing someone thinks they aren't does not make that a valid view point nor does it strip that officers ability to perform their job under the law.
edit on 9-2-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



My brother in law is a VA security. He is a federal officer, and on his little tiny 2 road campus he drives a police interceptor version sedan to enforce the security of his campus. He is a federal employee paid by the VA.

From what I understand, in this story, it is not federal officers. It is security guards from a third party.

Let me ask you, however....would you have opened fire on this kid given the details of the story as we know them? Do you believe shooting at him while he fled is appropriate, in your training?



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
My brother in law is a VA security. He is a federal officer, and on his little tiny 2 road campus he drives a police interceptor version sedan to enforce the security of his campus. He is a federal employee paid by the VA.

From what I understand, in this story, it is not federal officers. It is security guards from a third party.

I was referring to armed security and not commissioned law enforcement. There are states who have laws that allow security to lawfully detain and or take enforcement action. I pointed this out simply to highlight that a blanket viewpoint of security not being able to take any actions is not accurate.



Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Let me ask you, however....would you have opened fire on this kid given the details of the story as we know them? Do you believe shooting at him while he fled is appropriate, in your training?

I am going to provide 2 answers -

1st - Based solely on the info contained in the OP article, the officer was justified in discharging his weapon at the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle fled from them once already, and during their second attempt to make contact the person showed absolutely no regard for the security officers life when he backed up and hit one. At that moment, he demonstrated a disregard for life, and the vehicle went from being a vehicle to that of a deadly weapon weighing 2,000 pounds.

In this example a person cannot view the incidents as separate - It must be viewed as one complete incident, from the person being observed by security, to security attempting to make lawful contact, to the person fleeing from security, to the person coming back to the parking lot, to security trying to make a second attempt to make contact, to the person jumping in his car knowing full well security was wanting him to stop, to him ignoring security and trying to back his car up, to him striking one of the officers with his vehicle, to the driver failing to stop after hitting the officer, to attempting to flee the scene.

I am not a fan of second guessing the actions of an officer when I was not present to experience eveything as they did.

Its one thing to read the article, from point A to point Z. Its something else entirely when you are the one present and you dont get the luxury of being able to read the events prior to them occurring.

Answer 2 - What would I ahve done if I were present. Its hard to say however, if I or a fellow officer gets hit by a vehicle, and that vehicle fails to stop knowing full well they hit the officer, I would take the action as a deadly force encounter and would have responded accordingly, which is to say I would have shot at the vehicle as well.

While the driver of the vehicle was 15, we didnt know that until after the incident during the follow up investigation. Age plays no factor in this type of encounter. A 15 year old is just as deadly as a 95 year old when behind the wheel of a car and intentionally striking a person and trying to flee the scene.

To clarify something - The US Supreme Court ruled in Tennessee vs. Garner that deadly force cannot be used against a fleeing felon. The exception they allowed is when a person commits an action that not only places the officer's in fear of their lives (deadly force encounter) but the actions of the person demonstrate a complete disregard for the public as a whole. In those instaces, an officer can shoot a person who is fleeing if they can articulate the person is an imminent threat to public safety.

In this case, by his actions, the driver of the car met that criteria.

I cannot stress enough that 20/20 hindsight cannot be used to second guess actions. The standard is what did the officer perceive the moment deadly force was used. The info we have from the article was not available to the officers.

If you wish me to be more exact let me know. I hate being dragged into some of these discussions as people like to attack me forexplaining the law and refusing to condemn an action that was lawful and justified.
edit on 9-2-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Well said. I too back the guards actions.

It's not like they knew the perp was 15 to begin with. Also, the vehicle was used as a weapon when it struck the guard.

I feel that this kid needs punished to the fullest. Todays youth are severely misguided with no common sense, respect or courtesy for others.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan


We now have the EPA, DHS, HUD and now the FDA with armed personnel and in some cases outright SWAT-like forces. What could a reasonable justification for having armed security guards at a FDA facility in a rural area like Bothell, WA? What are they protecting and what threat could an unarmed kid who has connections and relationships with the security firm represent?

That the "security guard" was employed by an outside firm, is irrelevant. Why do we need armed guards at an FDA facility at all? To the extent that they do have a reasonable justification for the armed security, they hire a firm that employes 15 year old kids?

Something here makes absolutely no sense.

www.seattlepi.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


I bolded the part that I am replying to. Considering it's the FDA, they might have narcotics there which are illegal for the average joe to possess without a prescription/DEA license. They also could have millions of dollars in lab equipment. We don't know what the details are on that facility and what it was used for.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


If anyone attacks you for your response, I got your back. Even though we disagree (quite often), you are one of the "good guys" in my estimation. And your input is necessary as often as possible.

Having said that, is it deadly force when a horribly inexperienced driver accidentally hits someone? From what I read in the article, it doesn't sound like the officer had any real injury. Is it deadly force if the guys ran up behind him while he is backing up and get struck, or is that just an accident spurred by his desire to not make contact?

Moreover, why would we call them officers without commission?

And for the record, regardless of state law in Texas, if i choose to talk to securty it is a courtesy i extend. Not a requirement I am bound to.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Well said. I too back the guards actions.

It's not like they knew the perp was 15 to begin with. Also, the vehicle was used as a weapon when it struck the guard.

I feel that this kid needs punished to the fullest. Todays youth are severely misguided with no common sense, respect or courtesy for others.


Do you iknow it was used as a weapon? Or could it be that the kid is a crappy teenage driver that may have inadvertantly hit a guard in his haste to get out of the parking lot?

I once accidentally hit my father in laws house with my van when first married. Does that mean i was using my car as a tool for demolition?



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

I once accidentally hit my father in laws house with my van when first married. Does that mean i was using my car as a tool for demolition?


Did you hit and run or stop and own up to it like a responsible driver?



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


If anyone attacks you for your response, I got your back. Even though we disagree (quite often), you are one of the "good guys" in my estimation. And your input is necessary as often as possible.

I appreceiate that...



Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Having said that, is it deadly force when a horribly inexperienced driver accidentally hits someone?

Accidentally being the key word - no its not deadly force.



Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
From what I read in the article, it doesn't sound like the officer had any real injury.

If a person points a gun at you and pulls the trigger, and misses, you arent really hurt so should you be able to exercise deadly force to protect yourself?



Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Is it deadly force if the guys ran up behind him while he is backing up and get struck, or is that just an accident spurred by his desire to not make contact?

The 15 year old can claim he did not know he hit the officer. The officer can claim he felt in imminent fear for his and his partners safety when the kid backed up and hit one of them.

That is one of those areas where the term totality of circumstances comes into play. Backing up a car and accidentally hitting a person generally does not rise to the level of a criminal act (exceptions like DWI etc). In this case, the action of backing up was not the sole action involving the officers or the suspect that day. Taking into account everything leading up to the suspect backing up, its not hard to perceive the action of hitting the officer as intentional, and when the person did not stop and fled the scene, it further pushes the actions of the officer farther into the justified realm based on all circumstances present.



Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Moreover, why would we call them officers without commission?

Out of respect and professionalism... I come across security all the time in my job, and just like any other profession you will have those whose sole purpose in life is to be nothing more than a warning to others. The 99% of the security officers I deal with know their job and have the training required, and do their job in a professional manner.

just because they are security does not mean we dont need to show them common courtesy.
Police Officer
Deputy Sheriff
Security Officer
Motor Vehicle Officer

I dont care much for Obama, and I did not vote for him either time. I dont care for his views on just about everything and I dont think he is a particually good president.

With that being said if I were to ever meet him I would refer to him as Mr. Prisident and respond with yes and no sir's. If I ever met you during the course of my job I would refer to you either as sir or Mr. so and so. Again, its respect and not a requirement.

When we attach a label to someone or a profession, you are just asking for that same mindset to be used back on you - furthering the us vs them mentality problem we are faced with now.



Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
And for the record, regardless of state law in Texas, if i choose to talk to securty it is a courtesy i extend. Not a requirement I am bound to.

In which case you are opening the door to a confrontation for the sole purpose of you not likeing a law and how its applied. Again, a precedent that you are forcing to be used directly back on you, which you dont like. Simply not liking a law does not mean you can just up an ignore it, nor does it mean other people arent empowered to enforce or be covered by it.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by kimish
 


You do know that, by stating that you miss the guys point?
He was just pointing out that the guard was FOLLOWING the law.

Yet, you have to drag in personal opinions of what and why you think a fifteen year old should be shot.
Was this in Europe, your comment would be hated to death, or your comment would be different.
Please see from different perspectives as people are run down by cars every day and no shootings occur like this one and we are merely discussing the law and the justification of the actions of the guard.

If you have more opinions like these, please head over to Stormfront, create an anti-teen forum and ramble about that kids shouldn't be skatin' on the sidewalk no more.






top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution