# 16 Year Old Charged With Murder After Cop Shoots His Accomplice



## Trigga (Jul 1, 2006)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/27/brandon-ross-charged-with_n_868289.html


> A 16-year-old boy has been charged with murder after a Chicago police officer fatally shot his 15-year-old friend Wednesday on the South Side.
> 
> Brandon Ross and his friend Tatioun Williams allegedly robbed a man at gunpoint in the 7000 block of South Cregier Avenue Wednesday evening, and were confronted by police officers a short time later, the Chicago Tribune reports.
> 
> ...


State law my ass that makes no sense to me that you should go down for murder when a cop kills your accomplice


----------



## His Majesty (Apr 5, 2005)

these young punks robbed a guy at gunpoint. dont really have that much sympathy for them. although i do think that charging the kid with the death of his accomplice is a bit weird but then again thats one less criminal with a gun on the street


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

He won't be charged with first degree murder, but it does make sense he's liable for his friend's death. Sounds like the cop reacted correctly and the punk should be charged.


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

I wonder if this goes under the felony murder rule, even though usually its when a victim is killed during the felony taking place, so if you and someone rob someone and then your friend shoots and kills the victim, you'll be up for murder charges too. I don't feel bad for either teen, thieves :thumbsdown:
If you're gonna rob someone, especially at gunpoint then I hope a cop shoots you.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

If those little fucks are robbing people at gunpoint in their mid-teens... kill 'em or put 'em away for life IMO.

When they're pullin' that sh*t at that young age... what kinda violent behavior would they develop as they get older, bigger and more dangerous?



b_ack51 said:


> I wonder if this goes under the felony murder rule, even though usually its when a victim is killed during the felony taking place, so if you and someone rob someone and then your friend shoots and kills the victim, you'll be up for murder charges too. I don't feel bad for either teen, thieves :thumbsdown:
> If you're gonna rob someone, especially at gunpoint then I hope a cop shoots you.


I would hope that any murder would be a felony.
Hell, I'm still a convicted felon because of some stupid moderate vandalism I pulled when I was 19.


----------



## Trigga (Jul 1, 2006)

Sure, im not sympathizing with what they did but cops are supposed to shoot to disarm not shoot to kill right? So just because the guy died of a gunshot wound caused by a cop wouldnt that be manslaughter at the most?

16 is still young and you still have time to turn your life around.. tacking on a murder charge with a $900,000 bail doesnt give that kid a lot of hope to do so, I dont know how many of you know what jail is like, theyre called rehabilitation centres/ correctional facilities but they rarely if ever fix the behaviour that put the person there.


----------



## matc (Jul 31, 2004)

Trigga said:


> Sure, im not sympathizing with what they did but *cops are supposed to shoot to disarm not shoot to kill right*? So just because the guy died of a gunshot wound caused by a cop wouldnt that be manslaughter at the most?
> 
> 16 is still young and you still have time to turn your life around.. tacking on a murder charge with a $900,000 bail doesnt give that kid a lot of hope to do so, I dont know how many of you know what jail is like, theyre called rehabilitation centres/ correctional facilities but they rarely if ever fix the behaviour that put the person there.


When someone aims a gun in your face, you don't have 5 seconds to react. It was either the little jerk or the cop. I raise my hat to that cop. I have absolutely no sympathy for that 16 years old asshole


----------



## Trigga (Jul 1, 2006)

matc said:


> Sure, im not sympathizing with what they did but *cops are supposed to shoot to disarm not shoot to kill right*? So just because the guy died of a gunshot wound caused by a cop wouldnt that be manslaughter at the most?
> 
> 16 is still young and you still have time to turn your life around.. tacking on a murder charge with a $900,000 bail doesnt give that kid a lot of hope to do so, I dont know how many of you know what jail is like, theyre called rehabilitation centres/ correctional facilities but they rarely if ever fix the behaviour that put the person there.


When someone aims a gun in your face, you don't have 5 seconds to react. It was either the little jerk or the cop. I raise my hat to that cop. I have absolutely no sympathy for that 16 years old asshole
[/quote]
read the article the kid just turned around who knows if he was about to give up?


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

Trigga said:


> Sure, im not sympathizing with what they did but *cops are supposed to shoot to disarm not shoot to kill right*? So just because the guy died of a gunshot wound caused by a cop wouldnt that be manslaughter at the most?
> 
> 16 is still young and you still have time to turn your life around.. tacking on a murder charge with a $900,000 bail doesnt give that kid a lot of hope to do so, I dont know how many of you know what jail is like, theyre called rehabilitation centres/ correctional facilities but they rarely if ever fix the behaviour that put the person there.


When someone aims a gun in your face, you don't have 5 seconds to react. It was either the little jerk or the cop. I raise my hat to that cop. I have absolutely no sympathy for that 16 years old asshole
[/quote]
read the article the kid just turned around who knows if he was about to give up?
[/quote]
That's a different argument altogether. Saying everything happened the way it was reported, then yes I agree with the charges. If she shot him b/c he was pulling out his inhaler then it's a totally different situation. Until proven otherwise, seeing as the little shits robbed a man at gunpoint, I'm going to err on the side of the cops. Cops are not trained to shoot to disarm.


----------



## Trigga (Jul 1, 2006)

So there trained to shoot to kill?

and actually for your first comment.. it doesnt make sense that he should be charged for the death of his accomplice thats why i posted this lol


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

Why not? He was taking part of something that ended in the death of his friend. He has some blame in it, and he's being charged accordingly. They're not going to pin Murder 1 on him. It will be something like involuntary manslaughter.


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

Boobah said:


> Why not? He was taking part of something that ended in the death of his friend. He has some blame in it, and he's being charged accordingly. They're not going to pin Murder 1 on him. It will be something like involuntary manslaughter.


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

Sorry but I have no pity for this "kid". 15/16 years old you know damn well robbery is wrong and pointing a gun at a cop is dumb as hell. One rabid animal dead and another will be caged for a long time. Happy ending.


----------



## sadboy (Jan 6, 2005)

Glad they got them off the street. Who knows what they would have done to innocent people in the coming years. Cop did it by the book. Way to go.


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2011)




----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

That makes 0 sence... he should be accountable for his crime not the death of his friend... he should be charged with armed robbery







Thank god i dont live in the states... never no when a cop kills someone your with and you get charged for the murder.


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

Piranha_man said:


> I wonder if this goes under the felony murder rule, even though usually its when a victim is killed during the felony taking place, so if you and someone rob someone and then your friend shoots and kills the victim, you'll be up for murder charges too. I don't feel bad for either teen, thieves :thumbsdown:
> If you're gonna rob someone, especially at gunpoint then I hope a cop shoots you.


I would hope that any murder would be a felony.
Hell, I'm still a convicted felon because of some stupid moderate vandalism I pulled when I was 19.
[/quote]

No no no, felony murder.

"First, when an offender kills accidentally or without specific intent to kill in the course of an applicable felony, what might have been manslaughter is escalated to murder. *Second, it makes any participant in such a felony criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony*. "

Meaning, if you and a group of friends rob a bank and one of your friends kill someone, the entire group gets charged with murder even though only one person killed the person.

The kid who got killed was killed while participating in a felony. Possibly why he's getting charged with murder.


----------



## Trigga (Jul 1, 2006)

bob351 said:


> *That makes 0 sence... he should be accountable for his crime not the death of his friend... he should be charged with armed robbery
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That was my point in all this.. regardless of whether you guys think hes a rabid animal or whatever ( probably would be singing if a different tune if their names were Chuck Mcgee and Tim Mcwhite) but he should be charged with the crime he committed not the stupidity of his friend.


----------



## CLUSTER ONE (Aug 2, 2006)

I have never heard of you being liable when a cop kills them but I do know in some states "the hand of one is the hand of all" or something like that meaning if a group gets into a fight and a kid dies the whole group is guilty of murder and not just the person who had the fatal blow. It IMO is a good system as YOU have to be responsible for the situation you get yourself in as well as those you hang around with.

I don't agree with this applying to victims of police shootouts but I have very little sympathy as any teen who robs people at gunpoint seems to be setting themselves up for a life of crime and being a strain on society.


----------



## sadboy (Jan 6, 2005)

Trigga said:


> *That makes 0 sence... he should be accountable for his crime not the death of his friend... he should be charged with armed robbery
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That was my point in all this.. regardless of whether you guys think hes a rabid animal or whatever ( probably would be singing if a different tune if their names were Chuck Mcgee and Tim Mcwhite) but he should be charged with the crime he committed not the stupidity of his friend.
[/quote]

Makes perfect sense. If the crime you commit results in the death of another person's life by the hands of someone else, then you are just as guilt. 
Because your actions lead to the death regardless if you pulled the trigger or not.


----------



## Trigga (Jul 1, 2006)

sadboy said:


> *That makes 0 sence... he should be accountable for his crime not the death of his friend... he should be charged with armed robbery
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That was my point in all this.. regardless of whether you guys think hes a rabid animal or whatever ( probably would be singing if a different tune if their names were Chuck Mcgee and Tim Mcwhite) but he should be charged with the crime he committed not the stupidity of his friend.
[/quote]

Makes perfect sense. If the crime you commit results in the death of another person's life by the hands of someone else, then you are just as guilt. 
Because your actions lead to the death regardless if you pulled the trigger or not.
[/quote]
Thats like saying if someone hops off a bus and gets decked by a car the bus driver should be charged with murder because his actions lead to the death, makes no sense


----------



## sadboy (Jan 6, 2005)

No it's not. That's an true accident.
But if I break in someones home and someone gets killed regardless of how it happen, then it's my fault.
If I hadnt broken into the house to commit a crime, then nothing would have happened.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

nope dont agree.. you cant use what ifs in the court of law, the poor kid is getting charged with murder for a police officer shooting his friend... is it jsut me or does that sound so f*cking retarded its not even funny


----------



## CLUSTER ONE (Aug 2, 2006)

Trigga said:


> *That makes 0 sence... he should be accountable for his crime not the death of his friend... he should be charged with armed robbery
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That was my point in all this.. regardless of whether you guys think hes a rabid animal or whatever ( probably would be singing if a different tune if their names were Chuck Mcgee and Tim Mcwhite) but he should be charged with the crime he committed not the stupidity of his friend.
[/quote]

Makes perfect sense. If the crime you commit results in the death of another person's life by the hands of someone else, then you are just as guilt. 
Because your actions lead to the death regardless if you pulled the trigger or not.
[/quote]
Thats like saying if someone hops off a bus and gets decked by a car the bus driver should be charged with murder because his actions lead to the death, makes no sense
[/quote]
It comes into play when dealing with illegal activity that your group commits. If you are with a group that does anything illegal all of you are responsible for those actions. If you rob a store at gun point you are responsible for any subsequent actions so the kid is in a way responsible for his frieds death as if he had not robbed the store with him chances are the kid would still be alive.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

wow...

so if im out with some friends and i kill someone then all my friends are responsible for the murder. f*cking brilliant system


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2011)

Trigga said:


> *That makes 0 sence... he should be accountable for his crime not the death of his friend... he should be charged with armed robbery
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That was my point in all this.. regardless of whether you guys think hes a rabid animal or whatever ( probably would be singing if a different tune if their names were *Chuck Mcgee* and *Tim Mcwhite*) but he should be charged with the crime he committed not the stupidity of his friend.
[/quote]
Never heard of them








It's a strange law IMO, I understand how you should be held responsible for your actions, but he couldn't control the teen who got killed nor could he control the officer who shot him. Many people seem to be ignoring the fact that these were teenagers, now if teens are running around with guns robbing, then shouldn't something be corrected to put an end to it? Throwing teenagers into jail rarely accomplishes anything good, your exposing them to more crime and violence inside prison, then they come out and it all continues. Along with arresting criminals and having them face the law, more work should be put into correcting the cause of the problems IMO.


----------



## sadboy (Jan 6, 2005)

If all of your friends were involved with you in a commission of a crime, then yes it can happen.

It only applies in a commission of a crime. If you dont break the law, then you have nothing to worry about.


----------



## CLUSTER ONE (Aug 2, 2006)

It is hypothetical as we will only know for sure one outcome though he is at least partially guily for contributing to his friends death becasue he participated in the events that led to it. Mayby if he didn't help the dead kid would still rob the person and still end up dead but the way it happened ended up with one dead kid and one kid who participated in the events that directly led to his friends death.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

makes 0 sence... like trav said your accountable for your own actions not the actions of your friend and the officer....

*insert american insult*


----------



## CLUSTER ONE (Aug 2, 2006)

bob351 said:


> wow...
> 
> so if im out with some friends and i kill someone then all my friends are responsible for the murder. f*cking brilliant system


It depends on what your group was doing. If all of a sudden you snap and start killing then it is not their problem as they had no idea but if you decided to mug a guy and he pulls a knife and then gets shot it is yours and your friends responsibility for participating in events that leds to a death even though the situation escalated past your initial intentions.


----------



## sadboy (Jan 6, 2005)

Makes perfect sense to me.....


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

CLUSTER ONE said:


> wow...
> 
> so if im out with some friends and i kill someone then all my friends are responsible for the murder. f*cking brilliant system


It depends on what your group was doing. If all of a sudden you snap and start killing then it is not their problem as they had no idea but if you decided to mug a guy and he pulls a knife and then gets shot it is yours and your friends responsibility for participating in events that leds to a death even though the situation escalated past your initial intentions.
[/quote]
then you prove me point they didn't plan on getting shot by the police...

if you pull the trigger you get charged with murder not if you were standing beside the guy who pulled the trigger... it called an accessory to a crime or w.e


----------



## CLUSTER ONE (Aug 2, 2006)

As it does to me. It is like those who break the law all the time think cops pick on them while those who don't never have any problems with cops. You are responsible for your actions in whatever situation you get yourself into. Those who have something however tragic happen as a result of stupid actions are responsible equally if they played any role in the crime. It doesn't seem fair if a group commits a crime, one guy gets life in prison for dealing the fatal blow while the others get under 5 years for just the crime itself just becasue they did not committhe fatal blow.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

fine in a gang beating sure... but this is two dudes robbing someone and getting shot by a COP and then getting charged with murder.... no one should have been charged with murder, the cop did his job and the robbers didnt kill anyone... it should be an armed robbery end of story


----------



## Trigga (Jul 1, 2006)

CLUSTER ONE said:


> As it does to me. It is like those who break the law all the time think cops pick on them while those who don't never have any problems with cops. You are responsible for your actions in whatever situation you get yourself into. Those who have something however tragic happen as a result of stupid actions are responsible equally if they played any role in the crime. It doesn't seem fair if a group commits a crime, one guy gets life in prison for dealing the fatal blow while the others get under 5 years for just the crime itself just becasue they did not committhe fatal blow.


Why wouldnt it? If i beat down somebody and killed/robbed them and my boys saw it happen or were with me when the cops came whatever why should they get a murder/robbery charge?

Its so easy to just brand someone guilty these days


----------



## CLUSTER ONE (Aug 2, 2006)

bob351 said:


> wow...
> 
> so if im out with some friends and i kill someone then all my friends are responsible for the murder. f*cking brilliant system


It depends on what your group was doing. If all of a sudden you snap and start killing then it is not their problem as they had no idea but if you decided to mug a guy and he pulls a knife and then gets shot it is yours and your friends responsibility for participating in events that leds to a death even though the situation escalated past your initial intentions.
[/quote]
then you prove me point they didn't plan on getting shot by the police...

if you pull the trigger you get charged with murder not if you were standing beside the guy who pulled the trigger... it called an accessory to a crime or w.eThis is the old sytem. This newer sytem has others equally accountable in some situations. If a death arises due to a situation you were part of it is also your fault as without that situation there is no death.
[/quote]
You don't have to plan on the death. If you are part of a crime that in turn leads to a confrontation with police and a death your actions in that crime indirectly led to the death as without that crime there would be no death.


----------



## sadboy (Jan 6, 2005)

Your kidding...
Those "kids" rob a person at gunpoint. Gunpoint...
I say it again, at Gun point.
Do you know what it feels like to be rob at Gun point? I do...
Those few seconds/minutes feel like a eternity.


----------



## CLUSTER ONE (Aug 2, 2006)

bob351 said:


> fine in a gang beating sure... but this is two dudes robbing someone and getting shot by a COP and then getting charged with murder.... no one should have been charged with murder, the cop did his job and the robbers didnt kill anyone... it should be an armed robbery end of story


Like i said earlier I don't nessisarily agree with this sytem when it deals with death by cop but I agree with it when it does not.

A persons actions in the crime in turn led to the death. Without the crime there is no death. Without the participation there is no crime therefore all willing participants shoudl share some burden.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

thats fucked up... how can you be held accountable for someone else's actions.


----------



## sadboy (Jan 6, 2005)

The committed a crime together, that's how.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

sadboy said:


> The committed a crime together, that's how.


yes a crime but not a murder....


----------



## CLUSTER ONE (Aug 2, 2006)

Trigga said:


> Why wouldnt it? If i beat down somebody and killed/robbed them and my boys saw it happen or were with me when the cops came whatever why should they get a murder/robbery charge?
> 
> Its so easy to just brand someone guilty these days


It depends on their role. If they are with you and see you beating a guy down and no nothing right there they hold some responsibility for what happens as they did not stop what would lets say turn into a murder. If they were unaware of what you were doing they have nothing to worry about. If they do not participate in the crime at all they can make a decent defense but if a guy is killed infront of you and you do nothing to help your lack of actions did lead to his death. It would be up to you to argue your side in court. If they turned the gun on you and you feared for your life then you are not guilty but if you just sit back and watch with little danger to yourself then you can be guilty of murder.


----------



## sadboy (Jan 6, 2005)

bob351 said:


> The committed a crime together, that's how.


yes a crime but not a murder....
[/quote]

If someone dies because of their actions, then yes.


----------



## CLUSTER ONE (Aug 2, 2006)

I agree with sadboy. Their actions in a crime ultimatly led to the kids death. If they had not done the crime the kid would live. They may not of planned it but they are responsible from any actions resulting from their crime.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

well then i guess we can agree to disagree... i still dont think a cop shooting a criminal should end up with the other criminal getting charged for it... what if the cop tasered instead of killing would the other criminal get charged with assault with a taser


----------



## sadboy (Jan 6, 2005)

Remember the kid is only being charged. 
That is where a lawyer and jury come into the picture.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

sadboy said:


> Remember the kid is only being charged.
> That is where a lawyer and jury come into the picture.


this is true...


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

sadboy said:


> The committed a crime together, that's how.


yes a crime but not a murder....
[/quote]

If someone dies because of their actions, then yes.
[/quote]

Just quit, theres a point to where someone can't understand something.

It makes simple sense.

Two teens planned on robbing someone at gunpoint.
Yes they did not plan on getting shot, BUT that is an outcome of the crime which was caused by their crime. 
They then proceeded to rob someone and run away. 
During this running away after the committed crime (which is a felony). 
One of them turned on the police with a gun (pointed at police or not, I don't know).
Cop feared for their safety and shot the criminal. (i will not use teen anymore as they are now criminals).
One got shot and died, now other is getting the felony murder charge (which is what I mentioned on the first page).
Makes sense.

Read a law book. 
cause and effect



> The Felony Murder Rule states that any death which occurs during the commission or attempt to commit certain felonies, which include arson, rape or other sexual offenses, burglary, *robbery* or kidnapping, is first-degree murder and *all participants in the felony can be held equally culpable, including those who did no harm, had no weapon, and did not intend to hurt anyone*. Intent does not have to be proved for anything but the underlying felony.


http://felonymurder.org/

Stop trolling bob351.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

I get how it works but i think its slightly ridiculous, I mean he didn't get killed directly because of the armed robbery or even during, technically he got killed because HE pointed the gun in the direction of the cop if he dropped the gun he wouldn't have gotten shot, its his fault not his partner in crime. I really want to hear the verdict of this case because I cant grasp how armed robbery gone bad(for them) turns into murder when the criminal gets killed by a cop... I still think it should be end of story on his ass and armed robbery for the other criminal.

But if that is the law its the law I just think it wrong, what happend to accomplice to a crime vs getting charged for the whole shabang and then some.


----------



## TheSpaz13 (Apr 9, 2010)

I'm with bob on this one. I can't understand the logic but the actions of the criminals are up to the interpretation of the cop. The cops interpretation of a threat allows them to act in this way but my interpretation of a threat is different from everyone else's, likewise my reaction would be different from everyone else's. If the cops can't respond uniformly then I can't understand how this is justified. Idk, it just seems like there is too much wiggle room to accuse someone of murder.

I agree with the actions of the cop in shooting the guy with the gun but the other guy had no affect on how the cop perceived a threat. IMO it's a poor application of a standard that fits alot of other circumstances better


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

Piranha_man said:


> I wonder if this goes under the felony murder rule, even though usually its when a victim is killed during the felony taking place, so if you and someone rob someone and then your friend shoots and kills the victim, you'll be up for murder charges too. I don't feel bad for either teen, thieves :thumbsdown:
> If you're gonna rob someone, especially at gunpoint then I hope a cop shoots you.


I would hope that any murder would be a felony.
Hell, I'm still a convicted felon because of some stupid moderate vandalism I pulled when I was 19.
[/quote]

I believe all murders are felonies. "Felony murder" is the principle under which a death during the commission of a felony may be charged to any of the perpetrators as a murder because their actions forced that death to happen.

And, yes, I've now read the rest of the thread and seen that this was answered. Sorry.


----------



## Dolphinswin (Jun 26, 2010)

Trigga said:


> Sure, im not sympathizing with what they did but cops are supposed to shoot to disarm not shoot to kill right? So just because the guy died of a gunshot wound caused by a cop wouldnt that be manslaughter at the most?
> 
> 16 is still young and you still have time to turn your life around.. tacking on a murder charge with a $900,000 bail doesnt give that kid a lot of hope to do so, I dont know how many of you know what jail is like, theyre called rehabilitation centres/ correctional facilities but they rarely if ever fix the behaviour that put the person there.


First off cops are not supposed to shoot to disarm, when they fire their weapon its to kill. Cops are trained to eliminate any threat to themselves or other civilians as fast as possible. Learned this is Law Enforcement 1 class.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

what you had to go to school to learn in school most people realise naturally... its called common sense


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2011)

Why are you learning law enforcement 1? Aren't you like 15?


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

Trigga said:


> State law my ass that makes no sense to me that you should go down for murder when a cop kills your accomplice


it is a law. 
its basically summed up like this. you and your friend knowingly create a situation like this..you break the law and in the turn of your events your friend is killed because of something you and him did. the law states because of both of your actions (your actions) your friend was killed. you are guilty of creating the situation that ended in your friends death by an officer fearing her life.
this isnt a 1st degree murder case, but its similar to you driving a car drunk and "accidentally" killing your passanger in a traffic accident. except in this case it was a police officer defending herself.


----------



## Ibanez247 (Nov 9, 2006)

Well its america since when does anything make sense? The states are fukd. Each state has their own laws. Some the total opposite of the one right next to it and then on top of that you have federal laws? Its a pretty retarded system run by retards. Dont get me wrogn I like livign here but at the same time Ive never lived any where else in the world so I cant really compare. I dont really get this law though. Sounds liek it gives the cops a right to kill and not ahve to worry about any backlash. They probably hope theirs more than one criminal so they can pop a cap and just use this law to get off killing somone. There isnt enough info though to tell wtf happened. Was the other kid armed or just the one that got shot? I mean the cop yelled stop and the kid well stopped. Must be the cop cant shoot a moving target.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

Ibanez247 said:


> Well its america since when does anything make sense? The states are fukd. Each state has their own laws. Some the total opposite of the one right next to it and then on top of that you have federal laws? Its a pretty retarded system run by retards. Dont get me wrogn I like livign here but at the same time Ive never lived any where else in the world so I cant really compare. I dont really get this law though. *Sounds liek it gives the cops a right to kill and not ahve to worry about any backlash.* They probably hope theirs more than one criminal so they can pop a cap and just use this law to get off killing somone. There isnt enough info though to tell wtf happened. Was the other kid armed or just the one that got shot? I mean the cop yelled stop and the kid well stopped. Must be the cop cant shoot a moving target.


Not at all! The cops are also held responsible for their actions, through an IAB or court action, if that's necessary--it's just understood that if the kid didn't start the robbery, the sequence of events would not have led to the cop shooting his friend.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

:laugh:

alright... so what happens when a person breaks into your house and breaks his leg on your slippey floor then sues your ass for his broken leg.. which has happened. Why is the owner getting in sh*t when the criminals actions led him to breaking his leg...


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

That's civil court which is completely different than criminal. The guy still gets charged for breaking and entering, regardless of what happens in civil court.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

thats still dumber than a mafaka....

some laws in american and some in canada are absolutely ass backwards


----------



## armac (Nov 28, 2002)

Trigga said:


> Sure, im not sympathizing with what they did but cops are supposed to shoot to disarm not shoot to kill right? So just because the guy died of a gunshot wound caused by a cop wouldnt that be manslaughter at the most?
> 
> 16 is still young and you still have time to turn your life around.. tacking on a murder charge with a $900,000 bail doesnt give that kid a lot of hope to do so, I dont know how many of you know what jail is like, theyre called rehabilitation centres/ correctional facilities but they rarely if ever fix the behaviour that put the person there.


At every department I have been employed at, if you shoot to disarm, you are violating department regs. You shoot to STOP the person, center mass.

No shots at the legs or arms, that is all TV stuff.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

did you attend the same school as Dolphinswin


----------



## armac (Nov 28, 2002)

bob351 said:


> did you attend the same school as Dolphinswin


I attended the police academy in Texas and Florida..........no idea about the other guy.

If you shoot someone, it all goes to IA, and you tell them that you were shooting for an arm or a leg, they would take you off the street and send you to retraining.

By trying to wound somebody you put yourself and the public in jeopardy, you shoot to stop the person, now. If a situation warrants use of DEADLY FORCE, like a firearm, then it is used as deadly force, not as a deterrent. Hence the name DEADLY FORCE.......

Also all states have laws stating that if you are comitting a crime, and anybody else gets injured, even if you were not physically involved, you can be charged with their injury/death.

Nothing new, been a law for years.


----------



## bob351 (Oct 23, 2005)

i was just messing around... DW is a 15 year old kid who has gone to police academy or some sh*t









It makes sense if you need to shoot its not to deter... thats what tazers, pepper spray and billie clubs are for.


----------



## armac (Nov 28, 2002)

bob351 said:


> i was just messing around... DW is a 15 year old kid who has gone to police academy or some sh*t
> 
> 
> 
> ...


wow I believe you and I agree for once.........


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

point a gun at someone, expect to be shot...as for charging the kid with murder....i don't know, need more info I guess. State law is state law. I have no problem with a cop shooting someone who points a gun at them...id expect anyone to react the same way. Armed robbery...i mean, who really cares what the charge is, as long as it carries a long sentence that'll keep the POS off the streets.


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

^^It's like somebody above said, if they had not both willingly participated in the crime, the kid wouldn't be dead. 
As far as shooting to wound goes Armac hit the nail on the head. A firearm is not a deterrent. It is LETHAL force. You don't pull it out unless you intend to use it that way.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

agreed. shoot to stop. not intentionally to kill, but to stop the actions of the assailant. shooting center mass, there's a high likelihood of creating a fatal wound, on the flip side, shooting center mass is also the fastest, most efficient way of stopping someone with your safety in mind.


----------

