15 Year Old Boy Mugs Off Duty FBI-Agent, Gets Shot
352 replies, posted
[QUOTE=RBM11;24561356]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]
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]
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]
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]
Seeing as he stole the ID / badge that opens up all sorts of shit if it got into the wrong hands, with those credentials someone could easily impersonate an FBI agent. I'm glad the kid got his comeuppance.
[QUOTE=Funky Pickle;24558846]He did shoot in non-lethal spots, don't worry.
My mom, however, told me that if I am ever threatened, that I should shoot to kill, even if I don't know that he has a gun(IE: a robber in my house). I've always wanted to just shoot them in the leg to get them down, and just have them put in jail. I guess that's not how it works, though. :smith:[/QUOTE]
There is no such thing as a "non-lethal spot", that's just hollywood nonsense. Every gunshot carries a risk, whether it be a headshot or a footshot. The only time you would and should ever need to shoot is when your life in serious and imminent danger.
[QUOTE=Loen;24561539]There is no such thing as a "non-lethal spot", that's just hollywood nonsense. Every gunshot carries a major risk, whether it be a headshot or a footshot. The only time you would and should ever need to shoot is when your life in serious and imminent danger.[/QUOTE]
This.
Shooting someone in the upper leg could tear the femoral artery, killing them in minutes. Shooting them in the foot could lead to the wound becoming infected and them dying of septicaemia.
apparently facepunch is more qualified to decide what's justifiable or not instead of the professionals who do it for a job
[QUOTE=Sharp;24561516]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]
I understand that. My argument is that belief was unreasonable on the basis that once the kid turned around, either put the gun away or at his side, and ran, he no longer posed a danger. His threat at the time of the mugging was very real and I would have supported him if he shot him at that point, but if he flees without firing a shot, it is my belief that that means "get the fuck out of there as soon as possible" not "run around and look for people to shoot." If he fled after firing a shot in this situation, that in my mind would be "posing a danger" and authorize dangerous force.
The argument of whether the belief was reasonable or not is central in trials for these kinds of cases and I happen to believe that it wasn't after a certain point. The key word is [B]reasonable[/B] remember that.
[QUOTE=JerryK;24561607]apparently facepunch is more qualified to decide what's justifiable or not instead of the professionals who do it for a job[/QUOTE]
facepunch is essentially on the same political standings as lf, what did you expect
[QUOTE=JerryK;24561607]apparently facepunch is more qualified to decide what's justifiable or not instead of the professionals who do it for a job[/QUOTE]
This is a discussion forum where people argue their ideas. If you don't know that by now you might as well leave.
so essentially you're saying this is a discussion forum where overweight teenagers argue why they know more than trained federal agents? okay
this place is literally lf
[QUOTE=RBM11;24561497]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.[/QUOTE]
The threat wasn't "proven false" as you say. He got what he wanted from the particular victims. In the FBI agent's mind, he thinks the pellet gun the mugger is holding is real. He's thinking of the safety of others, not his own. There was a low chance the mugger was going to turn around and shoot him, yes. But who's to say that he's not going to move on to other victims and pull the same thing on them? There is potential for an armed mugger to use what he's armed with. Maybe he won't, but the FBI agent was well in his rights to make sure he doesn't.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;24558941]Eh, in nearly every gun rights thread on Facepunch there's always some European(s) yelling 'only the police should have guns :byodood:'[/QUOTE]
Europe is a big place. Good job stereotyping 50 countries just like that.
Also not all Europeans are brainwashed retards (although sadly there are a lot of vocal ones, same with redneck Yanks)
[QUOTE=rossmum;24561850]Also not all Europeans are brainwashed retards (although sadly there are a lot of vocal ones, same with redneck Yanks)[/QUOTE]
Everyone has their share.
Should've shot the kid in the back of the head instead.
RBM, your argument seems entirely predicated on the fact that he "wasn't a threat once he ran". The Agent was fully within his rights to fire on the kid to stop him.
This is what I've gotten from your arguments, as well as some of the others.
Agent: Oh, he's running. He's got a gun, threatened to kill us and stole my wallet with my Federal ID. I'm sure he's learned his lesson and won't possibly go mug another civilian ever again. He's no threat to anyone anymore.
Agent: That guy's got a gun. I should chase after him, get within lethal firing range and try to tackle him. I'm sure he won't notice me chasing him at all.
Agent: This guy's got a gun pointed at the back of my head. I'm sure I have enough time to reach for my gun, unholster it, draw it and shoot the kid before he pulls the trigger.
None of these are realistic. At all. This guy has years of training for just these kinds of situations. You don't run straight at a person with a gun, you don't try to be a hero when at a disadvantage, and you do what you can to stop a public threat. The realistic situation would be:
Agent: He's got a gun and threatened to kill me. If he gets away, he can and probably will harm and mug others. If I get to close he could kill me. By the time the cops get here he'll be long gone with a lethal weapon and an FBI badge. I need to stop him.
Honestly, the second wound was probably accidental. I can't imagine it being easy to hit the legs of a distant person in motion. The Agent did what was necessary, with the appropriate amount of force that the situation called for. When someone is waving a gun around, you don't have time to play around with a lot of optimistic "what-ifs". You need to assume that this guy is willing to harm someone/kill you/doing something else bad. False optimism can get you [i]killed[/i].
[QUOTE=Warhol;24559310]So you fucking potentially kill the kid?[/QUOTE]
You have some really dumb opinions sir. Like in every thread.
Shoot first ask questions later, gotta love it
yeah, shooting someone in the back is definitely heroic.
FBI is not the police, so this should definitely not be treated as if a police officer shot a criminal.
[QUOTE=Funky Pickle;24558749]Whether or not it was a pellet gun, the officer had the right to shoot him, as he thought it was a real gun. He and his friend were supposedly threatened with death. [B]He had the right to kill the boy.[/B] I'm sure some stupid people will disagree, though.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't got that far, he shouldn't try to deliberately kill the boy. He did the right thing, placed 2 non-lethal shots.
[QUOTE=RBM11;24561627]I understand that. My argument is that belief was unreasonable on the basis that once the kid turned around, either put the gun away or at his side, and ran, he no longer posed a danger. His threat at the time of the mugging was very real and I would have supported him if he shot him at that point, but if he flees without firing a shot, it is my belief that that means "get the fuck out of there as soon as possible" not "run around and look for people to shoot." If he fled after firing a shot in this situation, that in my mind would be "posing a danger" and authorize dangerous force.
The argument of whether the belief was reasonable or not is central in trials for these kinds of cases and I happen to believe that it wasn't after a certain point. The key word is [B]reasonable[/B] remember that.[/QUOTE]
Ummmmm what? The fact of the matter was at this point and time the agent was THREATENED to death and the fact he runs around with a pellet gun which looks like a real gun poses a threat to anyone who would stand in his away. The fucking agent didn't know it was just a pellet gun, but he knew what the criminal was capable of and he was only doing what he could do best to stop the criminal which worked. What god damn sensible solution do you have?
The agent was in legal grounds to do what he did. Do we just fucking stand there to wait and see what the criminal does next? Was it reasonable for a kid to rob an innocent man? No. So no matter what you say it shows in the context that the boy committed a felony. The thug was believed to be carrying a WEAPON at the time and the fact he used it to threaten to kill someone. You don't just fucking wait and see what he does next. You watch alot of tv I persume you know criminals alot of times escape in a STOLEN vehicle. He could've used that fake firearm to his advantage had the agent not stopped him and carjack someone or do something else.
Good luck winning with that argument in court
[QUOTE=MachiniOs;24563546]I wouldn't got that far, he shouldn't try to deliberately kill the boy. He did the right thing, placed 2 non-lethal shots.[/QUOTE]
Again:
[QUOTE=Loen;24561539]There is no such thing as a "non-lethal spot", that's just hollywood nonsense. Every gunshot carries a risk, whether it be a headshot or a footshot. The only time you would and should ever need to shoot is when your life in serious and imminent danger.[/QUOTE]
Let's pretend the gun was real, and the 15 year old was maybe 25-30 years old. I bet if that was the case more than half of you people crying that he overstepped his boundaries would change sides.
How was the guy supposed to turn around, pull out his gun, and shoot this kid, and possibly the other one too if he was potentially armed, do you think they're never going to do this again if they both got away- in all honesty the one who got away will probably continue doing these robberies alone or wait until the kid gets out of the hospital.
JDK, You must have a serious problem with law enforcement or you're trying to be an internet tough guy.
You cannot seriously believe what you're saying, as no-one is that ignorant.
"herp derp he just threatened the life of someone with a firearm, robbed them, then ran away with FBI credentials, I'm certain he wont do anything to anyone, and I'll rely on a tiny chance that either he feels sorry or some-one rats him out (Wont happen)"
OR your other defense:
"Hurf durf he could have taken out his gun and shot him on the spot (Wtf, you contradict your first point??) because sometimes a robber gets distracted and there have been a few cases of agents being able to get their guns out on time" <- This is what makes you look stupid. He has to rely on a small chance of: 1) Getting his gun out on time 2) taking the safety off 3) The robber being distracted 4) The robber not having a twitch in his finger when he's shot.
Overall, there's a way higher chance of you dying, your friend dying, or several other people dying because there's a potentially murderous gunman with FBI credentials on the loose now.
What's with all the stupid 15 y.o.s now a days?
terrible parenting b/c their responsibility is being taken away
nanny state-like policies (mainly in commonwealth nations, not so much the us) only exacerbate the problem
Silly person gets what he deserves
ouch
[QUOTE=RBM11;24561627]I understand that. My argument is that belief was unreasonable on the basis that once the kid turned around, either put the gun away or at his side, and ran, he no longer posed a danger. His threat at the time of the mugging was very real and I would have supported him if he shot him at that point, but if he flees without firing a shot, it is my belief that that means "get the fuck out of there as soon as possible" not "run around and look for people to shoot." If he fled after firing a shot in this situation, that in my mind would be "posing a danger" and authorize dangerous force.
The argument of whether the belief was reasonable or not is central in trials for these kinds of cases and I happen to believe that it wasn't after a certain point. The key word is [B]reasonable[/B] remember that.[/QUOTE]
You cannot be this dense. If he put the gun down at his side, he is no longer a threat? Do you know how long it takes to bring a gun to bear from your hip? Less than a second! Certainly less time than it takes for an FBI agent to crouch down and pull his backup gun from his ankle holster... Less time than it would take for a concealed carry holder to lift his shirt and draw his weapon.
Maybe he wasn't trying to gtfo? Maybe he had to catch a bus to his next victim? Criminals dont rob someone, then just calmly stroll away because the deed is done.
[editline]08:14AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=rossmum;24561710]so essentially you're saying this is a discussion forum where overweight teenagers argue why they know more than trained federal agents? okay
this place is literally lf[/QUOTE]
No, the lf guys tend to work out. This place is arf.
Those guys sure did a good job at mugging the wrong dude :v:
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.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.