15 Year Old Boy Mugs Off Duty FBI-Agent, Gets Shot
352 replies, posted
My mom works at a grocery store down the street from Cain park in Cleveland. It's a real shame that the park has so much crime, as the area is actually rather nice during the day and has some great restaurants.
Officer did what he had to do. A fleeing criminal WITH a gun is not to be taken lightly. He threatened with that gun and thus has a chance of possibly shooting someone. No one knew it was a fake gun.
Also, I am european and wish we could carry firearms. Because when I read news I read that shootings happen quite often, which means this gun law doesn't do much shit. And a pedestrian can't even protect himself.
[QUOTE=RBM11;24567959]Why doesn't anyone answer this part of the argument. Why aren't armed robbers shot on sight because:
1: They are armed (most likely with a firearm)
2: They pointed it at somebody and threatened them, but then lowered it an ran, the same as the guy in the article.
Just because armed people are threats, doesn't mean you can shoot them on sight. You only shoot them if they are an [B]immediate[/B] threat. He was no longer an immediate threat after he lowered the weapon, without firing, and ran. If the agent chased him with a gun pointed at his back, the second he tried to turn around, he would be dead. Of course he's still a threat but there was no indication he was willing to pull the trigger, so chase him with a gun pointed at his back. If it worked the way you people think it would, any armed, crazed gunman in the street would be dead the second the police got there solely because he has a gun.
I'll address your other points as soon as you answer this, but you all ignored it.
Also, just so you know, I don't believe the guy should be punished rather this law should be examined in court to determine what constitutes a reasonable threat that requires the officer to shoot.[/QUOTE]
Where do you get all this information? Are you just making shit up? The fact that the robber even has a gun is enough of an immediate threat. More so since he said, "Don't turn around or I'll blow your head off." So you're saying that if I'm in a bank and I'm waving a gun around at everyone, but then I put it down to my side, nothing can happen to me? Bullshit. Just having a gun pointed at anyone is a threat.
A person may use non-deadly force to prevent imminent injury, however a person may not use deadly force unless that person is in [b]reasonable fear of serious injury or death[/b].
Also, Ridge already answered your point. I think someone else did earlier, too.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;24559089]That's not "armed". Armed = lethal or with a reasonable potential of being lethal. You aren't going to kill anyone with a pellet gun, you'll just make them go "Ow! Dick."[/QUOTE]How you know how to use a computer just blows my fucking mind.
Fuck yeah, show those stupid fucks who's boss.
I think it's pretty fair since the police officer believed the kids were armed.
[QUOTE=Sharp;24569157]Where do you get all this information? Are you just making shit up? The fact that the robber even has a gun is enough of an immediate threat. More so since he said, "Don't turn around or I'll blow your head off." So you're saying that if I'm in a bank and I'm waving a gun around at everyone, but then I put it down to my side, nothing can happen to me? Bullshit. Just having a gun pointed at anyone is a threat.
A person may use non-deadly force to prevent imminent injury, however a person may not use deadly force unless that person is in [B]reasonable fear of serious injury or death[/B].
Also, Ridge already answered your point. I think someone else did earlier, too.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying if you flee the scene of an armed robbery they won't automatically shoot you simply because you have a gun, even if during the robbery you pointed it at someone. If the police see you point a gun at somebody they will kill you but if you put it away and flee, they will pursue you until you either:
1. Get away
2. Give up
3. Try to shoot at them or point your weapon at them at which point you die
I happen to believe you no longer have enough of a reasonable fear to shoot someone once they flee after putting away the gun. Obviously there is a chance they could pull it out again and threaten someone which is why you pursue them until one of those 3 things happen.
Here's a story I found by Googling armed robber to use as an example.
[URL]http://www.semissourian.com/story/1661844.html[/URL]
This man had a firearm, pointed it at someone, threatened them, and fled afterward. When the police found him they didn't shoot on sight because he put the gun away and fled after the robbery. If he had pointed it at the police or made a sudden movement to his pocket they would have killed him. By your logic they had a reasonable fear of injury or death so they should have shot him on sight if he tried to flee but my point is they no longer have that fear because once you put the weapon away, it shows you no longer have an intent to use it for the time being and were only using it to rob someone.
This is what happens if you point a gun at someone and there's nothing wrong with this:
[URL]http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/08/20/1784584/police-fatally-shoot-armed-robbery.html[/URL]
[URL]http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/newark_police_officer_kills_armed_R5DVkzg2uHaDewHcajmYiP[/URL]
This is messed up:
[URL]http://news.jacksonville.com/justin/2008/11/07/jacksonville-police-fatally-shoot-fleeing-suspect/[/URL]
Sorry I just happen to believe that fleeing after pointing a gun at somebody means you only intended it to use as a threat, not to shoot someone. By all means pursue him on foot and if he tries something like that again blow his head off. The police try to avoid deadly force at all times so they try suspects as many times as possible.
[editline]03:37PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Billiam;24569814]I think it's pretty fair since the police officer believed the kids were armed.[/QUOTE]
But why should they be able to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back even if they are armed? Pursue them and wait until they do something like that again then blow their head of but not with they no longer show that they will use the weapon.
[QUOTE=RBM11;24570276]But why should they be able to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back even if they are armed? Pursue them and wait until they do something like that again then blow their head of but not with they no longer show that they will use the weapon.[/QUOTE]
Because when you run around a neighborhood threatening people with a firearm you're a pretty big threat to safety.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;24558608]
Someone tell me why the police should have exclusive right to [U]carrying weapons and not Citizens[/U], considering Police Officers are notorious for being bad shots.[/QUOTE]
because Citizens are damn heavy to carry around!
[QUOTE=Billiam;24570433]Because when you run around a neighborhood threatening people with a firearm you're a pretty big threat to safety.[/QUOTE]
No shit, but you are no longer in immediate danger when they put the weapon away which is why you pursue them. If they try to mug someone again or they point the gun at you while you're chasing them then blow their head off. In every other article I've read about police chasing armed suspects the police only shot them if they pointed the weapon again.
[QUOTE=RBM11;24570276]
But why should they be able to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back even if they are armed? Pursue them and wait until they do something like that again then blow their head of but not with they no longer show that they will use the weapon.[/QUOTE]
Yes because letting a criminal possibly endanger another person is a brilliant idea.
[QUOTE=RBM11;24570578]No shit, but you are no longer in immediate danger when they put the weapon away which is why you pursue them. If they try to mug someone again or they point the gun at you while you're chasing them then blow their head off. In every other article I've read about police chasing armed suspects the police only shot them if they pointed the weapon again.[/QUOTE]
I think you are missing the part where he stole FBI credentials.
[QUOTE=RBM11;24567959]Why doesn't anyone answer this part of the argument. Why aren't armed robbers shot on sight because:
1: They are armed (most likely with a firearm)
2: They pointed it at somebody and threatened them, but then lowered it an ran, the same as the guy in the article.
Just because armed people are threats, doesn't mean you can shoot them on sight. You only shoot them if they are an [B]immediate[/B] threat. He was no longer an immediate threat after he lowered the weapon, without firing, and ran. If the agent chased him with a gun pointed at his back, the second he tried to turn around, he would be dead. Of course he's still a threat but there was no indication he was willing to pull the trigger, so chase him with a gun pointed at his back. If it worked the way you people think it would, any armed, crazed gunman in the street would be dead the second the police got there solely because he has a gun.
I'll address your other points as soon as you answer this, but you all ignored it.
Also, just so you know, I don't believe the guy should be punished rather this law should be examined in court to determine what constitutes a reasonable threat that requires the officer to shoot.[/QUOTE]
Armed robbers aren't shot on sight usually because they might start shooting people if you agitate them.
[QUOTE=JDK721v3;24560783]Local LEO agencies aren't subservient to the FBI.[/QUOTE]
Didn't you get permabanned?
[QUOTE=RBM11;24560841]Oh do please tell me how a fleeing suspect who hasn't fired a shot a danger? If he shot at someone I could understand or if he turned around while fleeing I could also understand, but a mugger with his back to you? Muggers don't just randomly shoot people on the street and if he was going to shoot someone, it would have been the agent and his friend.
I don't think the agent should be charged with anything but rather there should be a review of what constitutes posing a threat. Obviously he was posing a threat when he pointed the gun at the guy but was he still posing a threat after he (presumably) either put the gun away or put it down, turned, and ran?[/QUOTE]
[quote] threatened injury[/quote]
The agent had every right to shoot him, in fact he did the right thing since he could have killed him, which he didn't.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;24571031]Didn't you get permabanned?[/QUOTE]
didn't you stop shitposting? of course not.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;24570698]Armed robbers aren't shot on sight usually because they might start shooting people if you agitate them.[/QUOTE]
I'm talking about fleeing armed robbers, not while they're still in the store. And what about crazed gunmen who verbally threaten to either shoot themselves or others, why aren't they shot on sight?
[QUOTE=RBM11;24571192]I'm talking about fleeing armed robbers, not while they're still in the store. And what about crazed gunmen who verbally threaten to either shoot themselves or others, why aren't they shot on sight?[/QUOTE]
If a guard gets a shot on a fleeing armed robber, especially after warning the robber he will shoot if he doesn't stop, that Cop has every right to shoot the robber.
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;24558643]Well they stole his shit, and were mugging him. You have a right to [b]defend yourself.[/b][/QUOTE]
Here's the thing, they took his shit and ran off. The little shit of an FBI agent opened fire on 2 men running away. That isn't "defense" that's retarded.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;24572411]Here's the thing, they took his shit and ran off. The little shit of an FBI agent opened fire on 2 men running away. That isn't "defense" that's retarded.[/QUOTE]
Not only you do not read the op, you also do not consider that an armed robber is dangerous, especially when running away.
[QUOTE=johan_sm;24572550]Not only you do not read the op, you also do not consider that an armed robber is dangerous, especially when running away.[/QUOTE]
Of course he dangerous, but is he an immediate threat to life or limb?
[QUOTE=IStanI;24558720]Defend yourself or defend your material possessions? The suspects were fleeing.[/QUOTE]
And they were taking with them an official FBI badge.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;24571136]didn't you stop shitposting? of course not.[/QUOTE]
That hurts my feelings.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;24572411]Here's the thing, they took his shit and ran off. The little shit of an FBI agent opened fire on 2 men running away. That isn't "defense" that's retarded.[/QUOTE]
That's what the civilized world calls stopping criminals.
[QUOTE=RBM11;24572632]Of course he dangerous, but is he an immediate threat to life or limb?[/QUOTE]
Yes?
[QUOTE=RBM11;24572632]Of course he dangerous, but is he an immediate threat to life or limb?[/QUOTE]
He's a threat to society.
motherfucker got SHOT
I first thought shooting him was a bit too far, then I read they had a gun, and never mind
[QUOTE=Broseph_;24558876]Ambulance Chasing Lawyers, remember a corpse can't sue you[/QUOTE]
Families can and will sue you for more than if you just shot them in the leg.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.