Shock Video: Teen Boy Shot and Killed by Cop for Flashing Headlights and Flexing Rights

Any riots yets to make his cop buddies work some extra, extra overtime whent ehy could of gone home an had a nice beer on a nice beautiful day?

O wait, its a white guy...

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: butcherguy

Understanding the law that requires showing DL, insurance, etc when stopped by police should be taught/learned when receiving a DL. It's hard to practice the finer points of rights when a person starts off wrong.

You hit it square at the start.
YouTube is not a source for legal information.
Those who rely on it for that are foolish.
Even lawyers screw up, but I'll still go to them first for legal information.

a reply to: Bedlam

It's not like this should be a surprise to him, or an affront. If he has no more flexibility of behavior than to realize his lights are too bright, the vehicle is nose-up or the lights are mis-aimed and then still persist in pulling over people, he's either profoundly stupid or doing it intentionally. Either way, he's a jerk.

A reasonable person would understand there must be a problem and live with oncoming flashes or switch vehicles.

That still leaves the two most logical reasons of "he's either profoundly stupid or doing it intentionally'".

What other bad decisions might he make in the future.

a reply to: roadgravel

I think "Hey, dispatch, send this vehicle to maintenance tomorrow to fix the headlights, I'm blinding everyone on the road" would have been a lot better (and more sane) response than "Wow, I'm blinding everyone, so... let's pull over everyone who blinks their lights at me even after I know it's me who's in the wrong".

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: roadgravel

... "Wow, I'm blinding everyone, so... let's pull over everyone who blinks their lights at me even after I know it's me who's in the wrong".

Given the statute, improperly aimed headlights are a violation. So if that is the case, he was breaking a traffic rule before each of the others did. Doubt it is a defense for the light flashers though.

First of all, why is my reply button missing? Am I not allowed to post here?

Second, from reading this thread, we know who's going to be on what side when the revolution begins ...

On topic, how can anyone give this police officer any credit? As mentioned many times, he knew that his lights were bright, yet continued to pull people over. That is the first sign that he is on some sort of power trip. Then, in the end ... seven shots? Does it really take seven bullets to take a person down? Why does it always seem to be so many shots in all these instances where police shoot people?

Don't you all think that they are acting aggressively when they repeatedly punch, or repeatedly shoot? Think about it. What if I wanted to punish my child the old fashioned way? With a paddling? Would I paddle them on the rear once, or however many times the punishment calls for? Or would I repeatedly paddle my child all over, with no rhyme or reason? If I did the second, wouldn't you all think something was wrong? Wouldn't you want me locked up?

BTW, I do not spank my children. So please don't call CPS on me. Just an example.

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: roadgravel

... "Wow, I'm blinding everyone, so... let's pull over everyone who blinks their lights at me even after I know it's me who's in the wrong".

Given the statute, improperly aimed headlights are a violation. So if that is the case, he was breaking a traffic rule before each of the others did. Doubt it is a defense for the light flashers though.

Didn't he admit on the recording that he knew he was blinding people? Seems like it's sort of intentional at that point. But it's a cop, so it probably doesn't matter.

Frankly, I'm not sure why they don't get their arrest quotas by just walking down the street plainclothes and jap-slapping the crap out of random people, then when they fight back charge them with felony assault of an officer. After all, if it's ok for an officer to provoke chargeable behavior, why not just go big?

It's reminiscent of the apocryphal gang initiation thing where they drive around with their lights off and kill the first person who blinks at them. Does this cop get a nice tat now to celebrate his first kill of a civilian?

a reply to: Bedlam

Yes, he said others mentioned it and they got, I think he said, warnings.

I think traffic tickets are easy revenue to cities. Easy to get and easy for the officers (normally).

originally posted by: mymymy
What I find shocking is, that although people here don't condone the cop killing the kid, they seem to understand it. He shot him 7 times, that number right there should show that this guy is not cop material.

How many shots are acceptable, to you? What is the appropriate number where it's sufficient, but not excessive?

Police officers are trained to fire until the threat is stopped. The level of derp in this thread is overwhelming.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: mymymyHe shot him 7 times, that number right there should show that this guy is not cop material.

I imagine you'd find it's the first time Mr Cop has shot someone. He probably had it in his mind that shooting a 'perp' was a lot cooler and more studly than the actuality, when you shoot someone and they start screaming and dying hard, with some blood and maybe a few loops of gut or an eyeball dangling out for spice.

So he freaks out and starts blazing away to make the screaming stop.

Seriously?

I never knew there were so many defensive shooting experts on ATS...

How many shots are acceptable, to you? What is the appropriate number where it's sufficient, but not excessive?

Wonder how it was done when officers only carried revolvers with six rounds?

originally posted by: Answer

Seriously?

I never knew there were so many defensive shooting experts on ATS...

Depending on what you call an 'expert', I'm probably there, in all truth. More of an offensive one, though.

originally posted by: roadgravel

How many shots are acceptable, to you? What is the appropriate number where it's sufficient, but not excessive?

Wonder how it was done when officers only carried revolvers with six rounds?

They shot until the threat stopped, just like they do now.

originally posted by: roadgravel

How many shots are acceptable, to you? What is the appropriate number where it's sufficient, but not excessive?

Wonder how it was done when officers only carried revolvers with six rounds?

Speedloaders, of course.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Answer

Seriously?

I never knew there were so many defensive shooting experts on ATS...

Depending on what you call an 'expert', I'm probably there, in all truth. More of an offensive one, though.

Um, no. No you're not.

Your comments about the officer shooting to make the kid stop screaming make that painfully obvious to anyone with a clue about how police officers are trained.

Seeing how many precincts have quotas officers have to meet for productivity... blinding people so they flash, as an excuse to initiate a traffic stop is not out of the question. After the stop; then it's time for running tags, probable cause or suspicion for other things.

Of course is flashing the misdemeanor in this case? Or not having a license the misdemeanor referred too? If it is the latter then it was illegal for him to pull the kid over in the first place. The kid was "I couldn't see" because of your brights so I was "just being polite" cop was having none of that, and was going through his routine wanting to investigate the kid instead of addressing why he pulled him over for something he said was illegal.

Knowing when and where this occurred would clear up the legality of the flashing.

It's also quite possible, that the officer tazing the kid and himself accidentally instead of cuffing the kid, is possibly why the camera went dark the tazer may have shorted the camera. If he fell and gashed himself on the door, from tazing himself... do you think he's going to admit to that incompetence or cover it up? Either way the kid is dead, human nature says he'd protect himself, as the victim in this case is not coming back to tell his side of what happened after the tazer discharged. It's likely he floundered, the kid feeling he was unjustly being attacked and assaulted may have tried to run away, or dumb enough to think the kid attacked him and pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop... bear in mind, that finger had to deliberately move 7 times.

originally posted by: Answer

They shot until the threat stopped, just like they do now.

When the teenager you just plugged is writhing around screaming as he dies, I'd say you were there.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: roadgravel

How many shots are acceptable, to you? What is the appropriate number where it's sufficient, but not excessive?

Wonder how it was done when officers only carried revolvers with six rounds?

They shot until the threat stopped, just like they do now.

How did they get 7 to 10 rounds out?

If a person is shot once or twice and does not get up, is another 5 or more shots necessary. The definition of threat stopped at some point must have been change to 'dead'.

originally posted by: Answer

Um, no. No you're not.

If you say so.

Your comments about the officer shooting to make the kid stop screaming make that painfully obvious to anyone with a clue about how police officers are trained.

Training be damned, you shoot someone who starts screaming and flailing around, it's pretty unsettling unless you're a total sociopath.

eta: Who said anything about police? I'm former military.

originally posted by: roadgravel
If a person is shot once or twice and does not get up, is another 5 or more shots necessary. The definition of threat stopped at some point must have been change to 'dead'.

Torquey or Shamrock might know - from observation I believe they might be trained to keep firing until they empty the weapon.

That ought to do it, I suppose.