• 15 Year Old Boy Mugs Off Duty FBI-Agent, Gets Shot
    352 replies, posted
[QUOTE=PivotDJ;24560755]No, but you have the ability to get into places you normally wouldn't be able to, although you have the chance of the kid being short as fuck and childish looking, then on the other hand, the polar opposite. Fucking hairy bastards as tall as a 20 year old, we don't know if the kid was hairy and tall or short and childish looking, so I was stating the fact that if he DID look like a 20 year old, he could have had authority over normal cops and things like that.[/QUOTE] Name one place.
Jesus Christ some people on this thread need a lobotomy performed on them. I can understand an opposing view point but none so ignorant. Read the fucking article again and look at these points. 1. It was night time so visibility of a suspect and weapon is harder to distinguish. 2. Threatened by a pellet gun which looks like a real gun. *death threat is made, weapon hard to distinguish under the light conditions.* 3. The person steals the agent's item's and flees with his accomplice at the time. So who in their right mind at that situation would let the suspect flee knowing he could harm someone else? I mean sure it's gruesome that shot the guy 2 times but it was intended to stop him.* he aimed for the legs and the back which were intended to stop him; if it was a head shot then that's a different story.* Point is at the time of the day and when you have a firearm pointed at the back of your head and threatened to death, it doesn't matter the age of the person or the type of weapon you protect yourself and the public. "The Justice Department policy states federal officers can apply deadly force when they have the reasonable belief a suspect has inflicted or threatened injury to an officer or other people.[B] If officers believe a fleeing suspect poses a danger, they have the discretion to use deadly force. [/B]"
[QUOTE=Blind_Guy;24560805]Jesus Christ some people on this thread need a lobotomy performed on them. I can understand an opposing view point but none so ignorant. Read the fucking article again and look at these points. 1. It was night time so visibility of a suspect and weapon is harder to distinguish. 2. Threatened by a pellet gun which looks like a real gun. *death threat is made, weapon hard to distinguish under the light conditions.* 3. The person steals the agent's item's and flees with his accomplice with considered at the time. So who in their right mind at that situation would let the suspect flee knowing he could harm someone else? I mean sure it's gruesome that shot the guy 2 times but it was intended to stop him.* he aimed for the legs and the back which were intended to stop him; if it was a head shot then that's a different story.* Point is at the time of the day and when you have a firearm pointed at the back of your head and threatened to death, it doesn't matter the age of the person or the type of weapon you protect yourself and the public. "The Justice Department policy states federal officers can apply deadly force when they have the reasonable belief a suspect has inflicted or threatened injury to an officer or other people.[B] If officers believe a fleeing suspect poses a danger, they have the discretion to use deadly force. [/B]"[/QUOTE] 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=thisispain;24559655]"somebody doesn't agree with me, i must ignore them or else my frail worldview might be shattered".[/QUOTE] This isn't opinion, this is common sense. Get them straight. For all the agent knew, it was a gunman who now possesed an FBI badge. That's not something to joke about at all. Do you have any idea what kind of damage someone with that can do? This guy was justified in taking those shots.
[QUOTE=RBM11;24560772][url]http://cgi.ebay.com/FBI-Lapel-Pin-Badge-/290470503340?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43a16423ac[/url] Looks like I have unlimited authority now! Real badge for comparison, see if you could tell the difference. [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/FBI_Badge_%26_gun.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] to be honest, the fake ones look like plastic. are you 20 years old or 15? it depends on the age and looks of the person as well as the person involved. I didn't say you had infinite authority, I said you had some. [QUOTE=JDK721v3;24560783]Local LEO agencies aren't subservient to the FBI.[/QUOTE] huh, didn't know that [QUOTE=RBM11;24560800]Name one place.[/QUOTE] Bars. If you're underage and you look old, just flash the badge and boom, you're in, no need for ID. I might be wrong on this. [editline]05:19AM[/editline] [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.[/QUOTE] He had a gun which the agent could not have told if it was real or fake. Do you want to take the chance of letting a armed suspect run with a gun, fake or not, and terrorize other people?
[QUOTE=Blind_Guy;24560805]3. The person steals the agent's item's and flees with his accomplice with considered at the time. So who in their right mind at that situation would let the suspect flee knowing he could harm someone else? I mean sure it's gruesome that shot the guy 2 times but it was intended to stop him.* he aimed for the legs and the back which were intended to stop him; if it was a head shot then that's a different story.[/QUOTE] So shooting someone for stealing possessions is okay? [QUOTE=Blind_Guy;24560805]I mean sure it's gruesome that shot the guy 2 times but it was intended to stop him.* he aimed for the legs and the back which were intended to stop him; if it was a head shot then that's a different story.[/QUOTE] There's no reason to shoot a fleeing person in the back like that. He got the possessions he wanted and fled. [QUOTE=Blind_Guy;24560805]he aimed for the legs and the back which were intended to stop him; if it was a head shot then that's a different story.[/QUOTE] A shot to the back can EASILY kill someone.
pop pop u ded bitch u ded gimme my wallet bitch
[QUOTE=JDK721v3;24559311]All I'm saying is I don't think he should have chased him down and shot him in the back.[/QUOTE] I don't think the story portrayed enough details. I highly doubt the agent just ran after him and shot him. Seeing how FBI agents in my family worked, I can guarantee that there was a lot of "DROP THE WEAPON AND GET ON THE GROUND OR I WILL OPEN FIRE!" prior to the actual shooting. There's a lot of information the article doesn't give, as stated earlier. Did the officer warn him? Was the suspect making threats? Was there an immediate threat to the officer's life? The 15 year old should be thankful that the shots were nonlethal, and that he mugged a well trained undercover FBI agent, rather than some civilian who might just pull out a pistol and plug a few into his back, then beat him to death. Maybe he'll learn something out of all of this.
[QUOTE=Omali;24560912]Was there an immediate threat to the officer's life?[/QUOTE] [quote]They took Alcoke's wallet, ID and badge and began to run away. As they ran off, Alcoke took out a gun he had concealed on him and chased the suspects toward Superior Avenue.[/quote] Sounds like he was NOT an immediate threat to him.
[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.[/QUOTE] Right......... someone walking around with a pellet gun which looks like a real gun and pointing them in the back of the people's heads with the intent to kill if not handing them over their wallet or whatever is not a threat? Fact is the agent knew this guy was a threat to anyone else since the suspect was believed to be armed with a deadly weapon at the time? Please tell me your sensible solution then
[QUOTE=GetBent;24559004]Actually the mother is very understanding of the whole situation.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure that when the FBI gets involved, you know they aren't fucking around.
[QUOTE=thisispain;24559531]people don't even try when they use ad hominems anymore[/QUOTE] It's not an ad hominem if I'm not arguing, ya fucking dingus. There's nothing here to argue. JDK is just a retard. [QUOTE=thisispain;24559655]"somebody doesn't agree with me, i must ignore them or else my frail worldview might be shattered".[/QUOTE]Why do you stick up for JDK and Warhol all the time? Why don't you just suck their dicks all ready? I know Warhol wouldn't mind. You're like that annoying fucking kid that follows people around telling them how cool they are. I never see you argue as many dumb points as them though (theoretically impossible), so maybe you have part of a brain.
[QUOTE=PivotDJ;24560854]Bars. If you're underage and you look old, just flash the badge and boom, you're in, no need for ID. I might be wrong on this.[/QUOTE] So that justifies armed force in order to take it back? [quote]He had a gun which the agent could not have told if it was real or fake. Do you want to take the chance of letting a armed suspect run with a gun, fake or not, and terrorize other people?[/quote]I agree with that to an extent but he hasn't shown that he would be violent post-mugging. This should really be debated further in court so misunderstandings like this don't happen. I know for a fact the police would not shoot a armed suspect if he hasn't pointed at anyone yet but if you point at someone at some point but then lower it and flee,what then? If he's running away I personally believe he wouldn't use it again for the time being so shooting him is not necessary. Remember he never fired a shot. Basically, the police will shoot you if they see you point a weapon at someone or if you have shot at them and fled but they won't shoot you if you flee with a weapon without pointing it or just have a weapon on you in a hostage situation. The middle ground is if they pointed it at someone but didn't pull the trigger then lowered it and fled. I believe that shootings should happen as little as possible so I happen to believe that in a "middle ground" situation, you shouldn't be able to shoot them. [editline]01:35AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Blind_Guy;24560951]Right......... someone walking around with a pellet gun which looks like a real gun and pointing them in the back of the people's heads with the intent to kill if not handing them over their wallet or whatever is not a threat? Fact is the agent knew this guy was a threat to anyone else since the suspect was believed to be armed with a deadly weapon at the time? Please tell me your sensible solution then[/QUOTE] It was a threat while he was pointing the gun but if he lowers without firing he should be considered a threat and be pursued, but not enough of a threat to be shot over unless they raise the weapon again. If he fired the gun at someone then lowered it and fled then light him up for all I care.
[QUOTE=JDK721v3;24560892]So shooting someone for stealing possessions is okay? There's no reason to shoot a fleeing person in the back like that. He got the possessions he wanted and fled. A shot to the back can EASILY kill someone.[/QUOTE] Hey there strawman. First of all the fact he stated "Don't turn around or I will blow your head off" was a death threat and the fact he pointed the gun at the back of their head's was much more severe. The fleeing person could also use that fake gun to car jack someone and escape or some other way of escape posting more of a danger to people out on the road. What's a more sensible solution you purpose then? Also strawman the point was the way he shot the suspect was to intend to stop the suspect, had he been aiming for the head would be more of a sense he wanted to kill the suspect. The fact it was only one shot to the leg and back was just to intend to cripple had he fired anymore in those areas would be more of an intention to kill.
[QUOTE=Blind_Guy;24561096]Hey there strawman. First of all the fact he stated "Don't turn around or I will blow your head off" was a death threat and the fact he pointed the gun at the back of their head's was much more severe. The fleeing person could also use that fake gun to car jack someone and escape or some other way of escape posting more of a danger to people out on the road. What's a more sensible solution you purpose then? Also strawman the point was the way he shot the suspect was to intend to stop the suspect, had he been aiming for the head would be more of a sense he wanted to kill the suspect. The fact it was only one shot to the leg and back was just to intend to cripple had he fired anymore in those areas would be more of an intention to kill.[/QUOTE] Read my post.
[QUOTE=JDK721v3;24560942]Sounds like he was NOT an immediate threat to him.[/QUOTE] The officer would have been over the line to use deadly force, but I think he specifically used non lethal force, rather than just not killing the kid by happenstance. Police are trained in how to deal with someone holding a firearm, and when chasing someone holding a loaded weapon, you can't rely on getting close enough to tackle them, as they can turn around at any moment and you're dead. Leaving him to run away is also not an option, as the officer would likely lose his job, especially if someone got hurt as a result of him stopping and letting the local police handle it. The second you hold a gun up to someone's head and make them think it's real, you've sealed your fate. Like I said, I hope the kid learns from this and realizes how close he was to ending up in a morgue, and changes his way of life. People need to stop picking and choosing. He wasn't shot because he stole something, he was shot because he was flaunting around a loaded weapon (regardless of what it really was).
So the kid found his badge and ID, but assumed he was unarmed? Has he never seen any TV shows that involve federal agents? They usually have a concealed weapon.
[QUOTE=JDK721v3;24560892]So shooting someone for stealing possessions is okay? [/QUOTE]That wasn't his only reason dumbass. Quite nitpicking his post and respond to the whole thing. You have no argument. [QUOTE]There's no reason to shoot a fleeing person in the back like that. He got the possessions he wanted and fled.[/QUOTE]THE AGENT FELT HE WAS A DANGER AND WAS LEGALLY RIGHT IN DOING SO. [QUOTE]A shot to the back can EASILY kill someone.[/QUOTE]Even if it killed him it would still be legal.
[QUOTE=RBM11;24561055]So that justifies armed force in order to take it back? It was a threat while he was pointing the gun but if he lowers without firing he should be considered a threat and be pursued, but not enough of a threat to be shot over unless they raise the weapon again. If he fired the gun at someone then lowered it and fled then light him up for all I care.[/QUOTE] Even if the suspect did not fire a shot and ran away, at any given moment he could've turned around and did otherwise. But in situations like this you don't give the criminal any time to fire a weapon at ANYONE. Doesn't matter what the intent was. Even if he just stole your items he carried a weapon and threatened you with it which means anyone else could be threatened or killed. Since he was an federal agent he was within protocol to do what he did in this circumstance.
[QUOTE=Blind_Guy;24561152]Even if the suspect did not fire a shot and ran away, at any given moment he could've turned around and did otherwise. But in situations like this you don't give the criminal any time to fire a weapon at ANYONE. Doesn't matter what the intent was. Even if he just stole your items he carried a weapon and threatened you with it which means anyone else could be threatened or killed. Since he was an federal agent he was within protocol to do what he did in this circumstance.[/QUOTE] And the second he turned around, he would have been shot. The police NEVER fire at someone with a weapon simply because they could at any time point it at someone and shoot. If he started to turn around or made a sudden movement, the agent had plenty of time to shoot him. You don't know how law enforcement works do you? Any sudden movement by the guy running to indicate he was about to turn around and he would be dead. The cop never said he tried to turn around. He was legally able to shoot him at anytime his weapon is raised but once he lowered it and started fleeing it starts become more of a gray area.
Muggers deserve to be shot. This mugger's age has no bearing on that.
[QUOTE=Sharp;24561129]That wasn't his only reason dumbass. Quite nitpicking his post and respond to the whole thing. You have no argument. THE AGENT FELT HE WAS A DANGER AND WAS LEGALLY RIGHT IN DOING SO. Even if it killed him it would still be legal.[/QUOTE] You aren't in any danger from someone fleeing unless he starts to turn around or makes a sudden movement like he's raising the weapon, then you can shoot him. If the fleeing man had previously fired a shot, you can shoot him if he's fleeing. I believe it varies by location if he didn't fire a shot but even if it's legal in this particular area, it's wrong.
[QUOTE=JDK721v3;24559723]Because the robber couldn't be distracted or anything, right? It's happened before where a robbery victim was able to pull a gun on an armed robber and shoot him. It takes like a second to unholster a gun and shoot someone. This guy was an FBI agent too so he has plenty of firearms experience.[/QUOTE] What would make you understand that you have but a few seconds to react to the situation? If you were to be in the situation yourself, you're not going to try to be some big hero who miraculously disarms an assailant and is able to get him arrested before an escalation. It's different when you're just some guy looking back on the situation who hasn't ever been in anything close to what the FBI experienced. Hind-sight is 20-20.
[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] So, your logic would be to wait until the mugger goes and shoots some innocent civillian, then you take him down? "I'm sorry Ma'm, but your son was killed tonight. I had a shot, but I wasn't sure if the guy was a threat or not. Don't worry, as soon as he fired we took him down." [QUOTE=RBM11;24561055]If he's running away I personally believe he wouldn't use it again for the time being so shooting him is not necessary. Remember he never fired a shot.[/QUOTE] This is why you aren't in Law Enforcement.
[QUOTE=RBM11;24561198]And the second he turned around, he would have been shot. The police NEVER fire at someone with a weapon simply because they could at any time point it at someone and shoot. If he started to turn around, the agent had plenty of time to shoot him. You don't know how law enforcement works do you? Any sudden movement by the guy running to indicate he was about to turn around and he would be dead. The cop never said he tried to turn around. He was legally able to shoot him at anytime his weapon is raised but once he lowered it and started fleeing it starts become more of a gray area.[/QUOTE] What does cop protocol have to do with this. If someone mugged me of my money I'd try to do some substantial damage to them before they get away, that way they'll likely have to go the hospital. A lot injured crooks get caught at the hospital.
[QUOTE=Kinversulath;24561128]So the kid found his badge and ID, but assumed he was unarmed? Has he never seen any TV shows that involve federal agents? They usually have a concealed weapon.[/QUOTE] I'm quite sure his badge was contained inside his wallet. That's how my Dad's badge is (he's in county law enforcement.) He may have never seen the badge.
[QUOTE=RBM11;24561198]And the second he turned around, he would have been shot. The police NEVER fire at someone with a weapon simply because they could at any time point it at someone and shoot. If he started to turn around or made a sudden movement, the agent had plenty of time to shoot him. You don't know how law enforcement works do you? Any sudden movement by the guy running to indicate he was about to turn around and he would be dead. The cop never said he tried to turn around. He was legally able to shoot him at anytime his weapon is raised but once he lowered it and started fleeing it starts become more of a gray area.[/QUOTE] [I][B] "Tennessee v. Garner[/B][/I], [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citation"]471 U.S. 1[/URL] (1985)[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner#endnote_citation"][1][/URL], was a case in which the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States"]Supreme Court of the United States[/URL] held that under the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]Fourth Amendment[/URL], when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." The fact aggravated robbery is a felony and the fact he threatened with a weapon legally justified to what the agent did. Maybe you should read up on law enforcement.
[QUOTE=The Vman;24561249]This is why you aren't in Law Enforcement.[/QUOTE] Have you never seen those one of those police standoffs where some dumbass with a gun walks around his street threatening to shoot people for several hours? There's a reason they don't shoot him as soon as possible, it's because they try to preserve the life of the suspect whenever possible. But as soon as the guy shows an intention to use the weapon by making a sudden movement or pointing at a cop or bystander, he his shot. This situation is different because he raised the weapon like he was going to use it but he never fired it and then he lowered it and ran. After he lowers the weapon without firing it, it's not so clear on whether or not you can use deadly force. I personally believe life should be preserved whenever possible but it's really a legal gray area and you'd probably get conflicting opinions depending on which cop you asked. Cops don't immediately shoot a man who pointed a gun at a cashier in an armed robbery when they catch him with the weapon a few blocks away, why should this be any different? [editline]02:03AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Pepin;24561269]What does cop protocol have to do with this. If someone mugged me of my money I'd try to do some substantial damage to them before they get away, that way they'll likely have to go the hospital. A lot injured crooks get caught at the hospital.[/QUOTE] You'd be arrested and possibly charged if you shot him in the back as he was running away, not during the mugging itself. [editline]02:05AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Blind_Guy;24561333][I][B] "Tennessee v. Garner[/B][/I], [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citation"]471 U.S. 1[/URL] (1985)[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner#endnote_citation"][1][/URL], was a case in which the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States"]Supreme Court of the United States[/URL] held that under the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]Fourth Amendment[/URL], when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." The fact aggravated robbery is a felony and the fact he threatened with a weapon legally justified to what the agent did. Maybe you should read up on law enforcement.[/QUOTE] I say he didn't have probable cause. Please tell me why armed robbers aren't shot on sight when they flee the store and are apprehended by police? They have a weapon, they pointed it at someone so by your logic they pose an immediate threat and should be shot. They don't do it because they guy never fired a shot and showed an intent to flee. Why don't you understand this? Also tell me how he poses a significant threat of death if the weapon is either by his side or in his pocket and he is facing away from the cop? As soon as he turns around or makes a sudden move, he does indeed pose a threat and is shot.
[QUOTE=RBM11;24561356]You'd be arrested and possibly charged if you shot him in the back as he was running away, not during the mugging itself. [/QUOTE] Not if he threatened to blow your brains out if you turned around with a gun you believed to be real.
[QUOTE=lagunka;24561453]Not if he threatened to blow your brains out if you turned around with a gun you believed to be real.[/QUOTE] But the threat obviously was proven false when he started running. People in police standoffs make verbal threats all the time while holding a gun and aren't immediately shot. Armed robbers often threaten to kill the cashier while pointing a gun at their head yet when they flee the store and police chase after him they don't immediately get shot in the back nor is he immediately shot him if they find him a few blocks away. They would shoot him at the moment he was pointing the gun but after he puts it down and runs the imminent threat to life no longer warrants being shot.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.