Really?...........Is Killing Teenagers The Only Option?

gothamist.com...


NYPD Officer Richard Haste fatally shot unarmed 18-year-old Ramarley Graham last month in his family's Williamsbridge home, and his colleague tells the Daily News that while he feels remorse, he also thought Graham was armed. "He didn't want the kid to die. He feels bad. But it happened very fast," the colleague said. "He thought he was carrying, that's why he did what he did. He had a split second to react."



www.thedailybeast.com...

The person he shot was Nicholas Brady, a 17-year-old who also used the last name Schaeffel. Brady was looking up at Smith after he fell down the stairs. Smith, who has been reported to be a former security officer for the U.S. State Department, told police he shot Brady in the face.

www.orlandosentinel.com...

Argument over loud music led to teen's fatal shooting, cops say:

Jordan Russell Davis, 17, and several other teenagers were sitting in a sport utility vehicle in the parking lot when Dunn pulled up next to them in a car and asked them to turn down their music, Schoonover said.

Jordan and Dunn exchanged words, and Dunn pulled a gun and shot eight or nine times, striking Jordan twice, Schoonover said. Jordan was sitting in the back seat. No one else was hurt.

First of all I am not condoning the behavior of these teenagers. However teenagers having been
involved in break-ins and other crimes for years. Lately it seems they pay for their crimes with death. Why? Is it that society views teenagers as armed,dangerous thugs? The links that I posted happened to be black kids but let's not make this a race issue. It is happening to teenagers of all races. Has our demoralizing of teenagers ( exposing them to sex and violence at a young age) caused society to lose respect for the younger generation? We as adults have to take responsibility for what our youth has become.Through the media, that we support, we have told them that crime is cool. Yet, when they act out on what they see and hear we kill them. This is sad for America as a country. Like it or not the youth are our future. Is the generational gap so wide that we do not know how to deal with children anymore? Have we forgotten our deeds we did as teenagers? Or will our next divide and conquer strategy consist of young vs. old?

Maybe these teenagers should look around and see the results of their actions? If you come into my house uninvited, you are leaving in a bag. I will not check id first. If you are man enough to break into someone's home, you are man enough to deal with the consequences.

Regarding the last example where the shooting started over loud music in the parking lot; WTF??? He couldn't have just called the cops and let them deal with it?

Breaking into a house is one thing. Anyone breaking into my house will be met with with force. Now shooting someone over loud music is just plain idiotic.

I understand and support your right to defend your home. However, If there is no immediate threat to your life, do you have to resort to killing someone? The guy who shot the two teenagers had already shot the kid when he decided to shot him again, This time in the face. If he had to shoot them why couldn't he have shot them to maim them instead of purposely killing them? He hid until he could shoot them then he shot again at point blank range.He had time to contemplate a strategy. Why kill them ? Especially once you discover they are unarmed stupid teenagers?

The first one is tricky without more detail. Exigent circumstances and what not. If the cop didn't know the teen lived there, I don't think following him in was wrong or illegal and would hope a cop would run in after someone who was evading him and entered my home. In a situation like that I really think the blame is on the kid.

The second one is creepy. The way the suspect talked to police seemed pretty odd, but at the same time if the kids hadn't broken into his home they would be fine. I personally wouldn't shoot someone if they broke into my home, I would be yelling like crazy and sequestered in my bedroom (or wherever). If someone attempted to come through the door into the room I was in they would be getting shot though.

Third story is a real WTF. Certainly you are within your rights to yell at punk kids blasting music, and if they pull a gun on you you are allowed to shoot, but I doubt that was the case and employing a modicum of common sense would have seen the situation completely avoided.

I don't think there is any war on teenagers. I think teenagers are dumbasses, and sometimes make mistakes that get them killed.

We as adults have to take responsibility for what our youth has become.Through the media, that we support, we have told them that crime is cool.

Adults DO need to take some responsibility. Dirt bad parents lead to dirt bag kids, and the cycle continues. I don't believe the media glorifies crime, and while some aspects of pop culture certainly do, I don't think that is at all to blame. Think of the millions of kids that play violent video games etc. that DON"T get involved with violent or illegal nonsense.

reply to post by FreebirdGirl

I understand and support your right to defend your home. However, If there is no immediate threat to your life, do you have to resort to killing someone? The guy who shot the two teenagers had already shot the kid when he decided to shot him again, This time in the face.

Well, kinda. He shot the first kid in the face. Then he shot the girl, his Ruger jammed so he walked up and shot her a few times in the chest. I don't think he acted appropriately, but that's for the courts and I don't know the laws there. I have a feeling he's in deep poo.

If he had to shoot them why couldn't he have shot them to maim them instead of purposely killing them?

You NEVER shoot to maim. If you're shooting at someone there is a very high probability the shot isn't going where you want it. If you aim at the knee, but pop someone in an artery, or miss and hit them in the chest they are dead. Deadly force (shooting a gun at someone) is just that, you are to the point where the only option is to try and kill them.

Especially once you discover they are unarmed stupid teenagers?

It sounds to me like he wanted to. The whole 'I wanted him dead' (paraphrasing) thing seemed pretty straightforward. I think he was a nut job.

Because people are out of their friggin minds and the level of anger in society is unbelievable. I really feared for my teens once they started driving on their own. One little mistake and people go ballistic. A man through a milk carton from his car to my daughter's driver window because she slowed down too early before a red light. My other daughter had a coffee thrown at her while working at a fast food place because the woman thought it wasn't hot enough.

There's also the media to blame. You never hear when someone does something good. There are teens involved in volunteer work etc. Never hear anything about it. All you hear about are the thugs and half dressed twits. On tv and in movies the teens are either imbeciles or gangbangers.

I would also blame a society that doesn't allow discipline. Teens don't get it. Parents aren't allowed to discipline, schools aren't allowed to discipline. The kids are coddled and taught they are special and if there's a problem "well their needs aren't being met". The kids begin to think they can get away with anything. Sometimes at home and at school they do get away with anything. Then they get out in the world and think it's the same. Big shock when other adults don't think you're special and aren't going to put up with your crap. They don't understand that pissing people off is dangerous. They don't understand that others have rights too. They just don't know how the real world works. But shooting them isn't the way to do it!

reply to post by FreebirdGirl


This has been debated ad nauseum in another thread. The thing is this: you hear someone in your home at night. You have no way of knowing their intent, their age(s) or whether they are armed. Upon investigating the noises you find yourself face-to-face with the intruders. There is no time to assess thei intent, have a conversation, fire a warning shot, or 'wing' them. How are you to know that any hesitation on your part will end up getting you killed? The only prudent course of action when someone has invaded your home is to assume they mean to harm you and act accordingly.

Now, in this particular case the guy apparently went way overboard in his response. But other recent cases show why you don't screw around with a home invader:

Bedford NH Home Invasion

Originally posted by FreebirdGirl
I understand and support your right to defend your home. However, If there is no immediate threat to your life, do you have to resort to killing someone? The guy who shot the two teenagers had already shot the kid when he decided to shot him again, This time in the face. If he had to shoot them why couldn't he have shot them to maim them instead of purposely killing them? He hid until he could shoot them then he shot again at point blank range.He had time to contemplate a strategy. Why kill them ? Especially once you discover they are unarmed stupid teenagers?

Dead men don't sue.

reply to post by FreebirdGirl


It's a sad day anytime a child is killed.

.... compared of the the tens of thousands of children forced to become little solders and Martyrs each and every day.

it's hard to feel much for this particular 18 year old

Originally posted by jtma508
reply to post by FreebirdGirl

 

This has been debated ad nauseum in another thread. The thing is this: you hear someone in your home at night. You have no way of knowing their intent, their age(s) or whether they are armed. Upon investigating the noises you find yourself face-to-face with the intruders. There is no time to assess thei intent, have a conversation, fire a warning shot, or 'wing' them. How are you to know that any hesitation on your part will end up getting you killed? The only prudent course of action when someone has invaded your home is to assume they mean to harm you and act accordingly.

Now, in this particular case the guy apparently went way overboard in his response. But other recent cases show why you don't screw around with a home invader:

Bedford NH Home Invasion

I read the other thread. It is what gave me an idea for this thread. My thread is more about the disregard we have for teenage life these days. On the issue of not shooting to maim or "wing". If the shot was not a direct shot to the face I could inderstand better. But a blast to the face shows intent to kill. Is this justifiable for a TV that you paid a couple of hundred bucks for that's probably insured?

Originally posted by MajorMayhem
reply to post by FreebirdGirl

 

It's a sad day anytime a child is killed.

.... compared of the the tens of thousands of children forced to become little solders and Martyrs each and every day.

it's hard to feel much for this particular 18 year old

Why no feelings for this kid? He is a victim of the world he inherited. Do you think if he was born elsewhere, someplace without constant war, that he would be the same kid? This is the thought behind my op. Why are we not compassionate for children and accept responsibility for our shortcomings? These kids did not start a war. But because of the actions of so called adults they will grow up in one.

reply to post by FreebirdGirl


Not true. Anyone that has ever received 'deadly force' training with firearms is taught to shoot at the 'center of mass'. Under a high-stress situation such as this you need to aim for the biggest part of the target and frankly you'd be lucky to hit that. Trying to hit an arm or leg is asking to get yourself killed. The intruder won't be looking to 'wing' you.

If someone breaks in, shoot to kill. How can you know if they're armed or not? So yes, really.

Originally posted by jtma508
reply to post by FreebirdGirl

 

Not true. Anyone that has ever received 'deadly force' training with firearms is taught to shoot at the 'center of mass'. Under a high-stress situation such as this you need to aim for the biggest part of the target and frankly you'd be lucky to hit that. Trying to hit an arm or leg is asking to get yourself killed. The intruder won't be looking to 'wing' you.

I hear ya soldier man. I am speaking in terms of when a person knows that someone is unarmed or has not seen a weapon. The only weapon these kids had was the element of surprise. Which ended up being a weapon of the homeowner. Is it not possible to fire a warning shot before the confrontation? How many kids would stay to investigate where the shot came from? I do not advocate gun control but would these same people have defended their possessions so vigorously if they had to go at it bare handed?

reply to post by FreebirdGirl


Maybe you should have looked for the original story like I did.
in the original report

For the third time in a week, an NYPD officer has shot and killed a suspect. Yesterday an unidentified officer killed 18-year-old Ramarley Graham with a single bullet to the chest. The officer, a member of the narcotics unit, had chased Graham into his home, seen him flush something down a toilet and reportedly saw him make "furtive" movements, apparently prompting the cop to fire.[

see that version here

Even in this version another quote reads

he also thought Graham was armed. "He didn't want the kid to die. He feels bad. But it happened very fast," the colleague said. "He thought he was carrying, that's why he did what he did. He had a split second to react."

So what went wrong? lack of training, young officer got excited and as he said things happened very fast. apparently this cop had reason to suspect wrong doing. the kid ran and flushed something.

If you want me to feel bad pick another story. pick one where a child is dragged out of her bed brutally raped and killed for no reason, then I'll cry with you, I'll pick up the banner and march, protest and shout my outrage..

but this story sounds more like an unfortunate of events for everyone involved.

This horror happened near here on Thanksgiving Day, two teens broke into some guy's house and he executed them, literally:

Smith told police he armed himself with a rifle and a handgun and waited downstairs until he saw the first person's feet, then legs, then hips.

He said he fired and the first victim, Brady, tumbled down the stairs. While Brady looked up at him, he shot him in the face, according to the complaint.

"I want him dead," he told investigators.

He put Brady's body on a tarp and dragged him into his basement workshop and sat back down i his chair.

Several minutes later, he heard more footsteps and saw Kifer coming down the stairs. He waited until he saw her hips, then fired. She also fell down the stairs, but then his rifle jammed and Kifer laughed.

That angered Smith. "If you're trying to shoot someone and they laugh at you, you go again," he told police.

He then pulled out the .22-caliber, nine-shot revolver that he was wearing, and fired "more shots than I needed to." He dragged Kifer into the workshop, placed her next to Brady and noticed she was still gasping for air.

"Smith stated at this point he placed the handgun under the woman's chin and shot her ... up into the cranium ... a good clean finishing shot." (Source)

Neither of them was armed.

reply to post by FreebirdGirl

IMHO, cops are the biggest threat to our safety, much more so than the average criminal.

The music confrontation is a new one, seems like it could have been avoided.

But anytime a criminal decides to break into someone else's home, it should be quite obvious that you may get shot and killed.

The home owner has no idea as to the intentions of that invader nor should he.

Fire first, ask questions later, if at all.

Tragic really. However, as you American’s insist on being armed to the teeth and it is not rare in the US for police to be shot at (and killed), I think no one can blame it when the police shoot first.

www.odmp.org...

Regards