Police kill armed 14-year-old boy on NYC street

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

Rookies with less than a years experience being turned loose with LIVE Weapons is all the makings of a disaster.

There are a couple trucking companies that do this very same thing, or at least they did. It didn't even matter what time of year it was, which made it so insane as to be negligent in my opinion. They'd take two newbies out of school and basic instruction to throw together as a team on a truck. The blind leading the blind. I believe the logic went something like saying they wouldn't learn bad habits and were more alert for being new and...yadda yadda. Just don't tell me the truck next to me in a snowstorm on the interstate is one of those, please.

Same with cops. If I call 911 in dire need of assistance and fighting for my life? Oh PLEASE don't send two brand new guys out who are learning as much from each other as anything else. I want cops not Senior Explorers.

(If, in fact, both were inexperienced, as Defcon has pointed out.)

What Jam posted is your answer. I grew up after crime in the 80's and early 90's was pretty much gone, so in my time crime was down compared to my Fathers days. You rarely saw cops in pairs on corners, patrolling the neighborhoods. Now its become common. Everywhere you go there are cops standing or walking in pairs. Now that they've reinstated and up'd foot patrol in minority neighborhoods it's common to give those positions to the new bucks. The reason why is to show them what it's like from the start. In NYC Stop n' Frisk is mandatory and there is a quota cops MUST reach, if they don't reach their quota they end up doing patrol in the worst neighborhoods.

This is simply a scare tactic used by the force early on so that in the future cops won't think twice about following orders. Make an innocent persons day miserable by giving them a hard time for no reason to meet your quota, or go months doing horrible shifts in the crime ridden neighborhoods. They've already experienced it all, at their most vulnerable state (as a Rookie), so that's stuck in their mind forever and the trade off is worth it.

A 14-year old boy with a gun in NYC during the summertime isn't uncommon. A lot of kids I went to school with are on Facebook flashing their pieces, they're over here teaching their younger cousins and brothers about that lifestyle early. It's sad a kid with little common sense had to die because of negligent parents, he should have been sleeping.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


The problem is, in that respect, that LACK OF FUNDING puts us all at risk.

Everyone hates the word TAXES, but this is a Prime Example of departments that are under funded.

The basic math would dictate that if you were to split those 2 rookies up and put them with an experienced individual, the payroll doubles. Now, the only ones that the math really matters to are the Bean Counters who are trying to control the departmental budgets.

reply to post by Rocker2013


You're looking at this from the wrong angle, really. Firing the gun in of itself is irrelevant the moment he pointed it at the officers who identified themselves. Did the kid deserve to die? No. Not that young. But once you point your gun at another person who also has a gun, you should expect to be shot.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Sounds more like "Operation Blood The Rookies Quickly As Possible."

My thoughts exactly

no different from any other gang.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

as suspect turns...

...to shoot them

assumptions, assumptions wrabbit.

still the "Insanity" that leads you to question the wisdom of dumping rookies into the meatgrinder gets you a star,
flag pending threads development

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by 200Plus
I'd love to know the "rest of the story". Why was the kid shooting?

Why does it matter?
It's illegal for a 14 year old to be in possession of a firearm.

same for ten year olds. however...
awesome-10-yr-old-boy-defends-home-agains t-burglars-and-did-it-with-their-gun/
and there was a similar case where a kid fired at rapists attacking his mom

still advocating a "shoot 1st, then engage brain to come up with BS to get you off the hook when you discover you've seriously F'd Up" policy?

but feel free to ignore me, as I'm quite "Insane"

You are shooting at someone for whatever reason. You are focused on that task. Your adrenalin is flowing. You hear someone shouting behind you (do you hear "police" or just shouting?). You turn with gun at ready. BANG! You're dead.

Being in fight mode, the brain is focused on fighting, winning, surviving. Reasoning is in the back seat, way way back of the bus seat.

Police are trained that their lives are more important than anyone elses. That the only important thing is to go home at end of shift.

Maybe all the kid needed was a fraction of a second to process the information that these were police. Maybe he would have dropped the gun. Maybe he would have fired. The police fired, so we'll never know.

reply to post by TheMagus


What assumptions would that be in this case? The story reports they came upon the boy still firing at the fleeing person. It says they identified themselves as police and when he pointed his gun at them, one of them shot him where he was struck in the jaw and later, pronounced dead at the scene.

I suppose you could say I assumed in the idea he turned with the gun up...as opposed to lowering it, turning and then raising it again to menace them? Otherwise...I'd say I relayed exactly what the story described as the events in this?

We can say the cops were lying, but then that would be an assumption. (couldn't resist...lol)

Originally posted by TheMagus

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by 200Plus
I'd love to know the "rest of the story". Why was the kid shooting?

Why does it matter?
It's illegal for a 14 year old to be in possession of a firearm.

same for ten year olds. however...
awesome-10-yr-old-boy-defends-home-agains t-burglars-and-did-it-with-their-gun/

There is a big difference between a child accessing a legally owned firearm in the home for defense, and publicly carrying and discharging it down a city street.

reply to post by TheMagus

What an outstanding citizen here...

Douse had been in trouble with the law before.

He was charged in May with attempted murder after a 15-year-old boy was shot in a Bronx neighborhood where Douse lived. That shooting took place 2 miles from where Douse was later shot to death.

Douse was also charged with assault, criminal possession of a weapon and menacing in connection to the incident.

So he had a history of this activity, but of course its all the police officers fault.

Wanted to get that "street cred", live the "thug life", and ended up dead. Kid was an idiot that made bad life choices.


Plain and simple.

reply to post by Rocker2013

So you don't know who he was shooting at, and you don't know the circumstances, but you're willing to immediately say, without question, that the kid deserved to die?
...
You know nothing about this case, and yet you have already decided exactly what happened and who was to blame, without knowing the stories of the officers, without knowing what any witnesses might have to say, without knowing who the person was running away or why he was being shot at.

reply to post by TheMagus


Of course, you could look into this yourself and find out the truth without making cracks and implying malice; but that would assume that you really want to know.

Turns out this 14 yr.-old "child" had been charged earlier this year with attempted murder after shooting another teen, had been videotaped during it, was released by prosecutors, and had other charges pending,

Prosecutors Free 14 yr.-old Shooter Caught on Video in May, Police Shoot Him Dead in August

www.nydailynews.com...

www.nypost.com...

bronx.news12.com...

www.reuters.com...

reply to post by jdub297


You're absolutely right. This kid did have a history and prior actions, tho not convicted. I left that out of my OP and thread here because there is no earthly way the cops walking into this could have known any of that, so it seemed secondary to the immediate question of what happened here.

In the more thorough look at HOW it happened? That sure is important to consider, as another thread ( ) went into a lot more detail for in specifics.

Whatever happened to taking cover first and then they dont have to necessarily fear the shooter (esp a kid who likely is not a good shot)? I am wondering if the kid just turned around holding the gun (not necessarily aiming it at the police)...with the adrenaline and earring from shooting the gun he might not have heard the police ID themselves. I am not blaming the police per se just asking questions (but when you see those DHS targets one can wonder). As many adults have told 14-18 yr olds for a generation, "nothing good happens after midnight."

reply to post by 200Plus


Big difference between a rifle and a pistol.

You can legally buy a rifle at 18 . You can't buy a pistol at 18.

The parents should be slapped for allowing a 14 year old to have a pistol. (even in New York) Isn't there some kind of curfew there?

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by TheMagus

 

What an outstanding citizen here...

Douse had been in trouble with the law before.

He was charged in May with attempted murder after a 15-year-old boy was shot in a Bronx neighborhood where Douse lived. That shooting took place 2 miles from where Douse was later shot to death.

Douse was also charged with assault, criminal possession of a weapon and menacing in connection to the incident.

So he had a history of this activity, but of course its all the police officers fault.

absolutely irrelevant, as the officers were neither telepaths, or possessed your hindsight.

Originally posted by TheMagus
absolutely irrelevant, as the officers were neither telepaths, or possessed your hindsight.

Absolutely relevant as it shows the mindset, and intent of the suspect. It additionally shows that this is not someone who is likely to respond to the officers or their orders, and actually is someone that would have most likely put them in harms way if they had not acted.

reply to post by jdub297


see my reply to defcon

easy to judge,having never been nearly shot like a dog in the street because a pair of thugs in blue, living the thug life shoot without thinking.

and I know whereof I speak, having had bullets part my hair once.
my crime/thuggish behavior?
disarming a machete wielding sociopath, thus preventing my grandma's being hacked to pieces
even worse, I was attempting to throw said machete over the fence and into the street my bad luck it hit the fence, bouncing back onto the porch.

in no way or manner did I do anything that could be construed as threatening to those -SNIPS-
didn't even know they'd arrived until the shots were fired.

the 1st and last time I ever called the cops.

so continue ASSuming things, "Sane" one, as you shoot from the hip, from the comfort of your armchair.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by TheMagus
absolutely irrelevant, as the officers were neither telepaths, or possessed your hindsight.

Absolutely relevant as it shows the mindset, and intent of the suspect. It additionally shows that this is not someone who is likely to respond to the officers or their orders, and actually is someone that would have most likely put them in harms way if they had not acted.

ROFL
hindsight is supposed to be 20/20 vision
unless you're part of the enforcer class
then the blinders stay on.

again: IRRELEVANT, THEY DID NOT KNOW -SNIP- ABOUT THE KID

what you're doing to this kid is no different than the posthumous digging up of "dirt" done to trayvon martin.

and that is some cult brainwashing you've got going there, what with leo's going with what they believe
as justification for their violence

I think that part of the problem here might be the misunderstanding that a police officer has to be legally correct to arrest you... Well he doesn't... He only has to legally BELIEVE he is right to arrest you. Once you are being arrested, your rights are suspended and you are required to follow the “lawful orders” of that officer.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


funny how tunnel-vision, heat of the moment reactions, etc. will get you killed
unless you're a cop, then it's an excuse, allowing them to get away with murder.

reply to post by TheMagus

easy to judge,having never been nearly shot like a dog in the street because a pair of thugs in blue, living the thug life shoot without thinking.
...
in no way or manner did I do anything that could be construed as threatening to those -SNIPS-
didn't even know they'd arrived until the shots were fired.
...
so continue ASSuming things, ... from the comfort of your armchair.

I didn't "ASSum[e]" anything. Read the links, or have a grownup tell you what they contain.

As for the "thugs in blue," who's doing the "ASSuming," here; where you seem to know what the officers YOU called witness an idiot brandishing a machete, then throw it, and respond with equally-deadly force?

"Projection" goes a long way toward explaining your misguided and misinformed ASSumptions.

jw