4
4
0
I am about fed up with this anti-police, "I don't have to obey the commands of law enforcement officers" bullsh*t. I'll make this short and sweet. 1:REGARDLESS of what an officer is accusing you of, you don't have the right to argue it during a traffic stop. That's what court rooms are for. 2: The Deputy was WAAYY more patient than I would have been. He constantly asked, used please, and even tried to reason with the kid. 3: When the Deputy decided to arrest him, the kid would not follow his commands, resisted his arrest, and after getting stunned for resisting arrest (which he clearly was), the kid charged the officer and assaulted him! Are you kidding? Justice for Deven? THE ONLY reason this kid threw up the excuse that the Deputy didn't have a right to pull him over is because he knew he didn't have his license on him. Plain and simple.
Now I'm not saying the kid deserved to die. If it could have been avoided, it should have been. But at what point do we say, "The kid assaulted a Deputy and the Deputy, at risk of losing his weapon, discharged his weapon"? I mean come on RP, help me out. Am I off on a tangent by myself or is society and media losing their sense? Look at the video, look at the picture of the Deputy after the altercation. Seven shots may have been excessive but the kid wasn't some innocent bystander minding his own business to wind up the unfortunate victim of police brutality and rage. He attacked a Deputy! You don't do that and expect to drive home aferwards.
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/crime/family-unarmed-michigan-teen-fatally-shot-officer-article-1.2399638
Now I'm not saying the kid deserved to die. If it could have been avoided, it should have been. But at what point do we say, "The kid assaulted a Deputy and the Deputy, at risk of losing his weapon, discharged his weapon"? I mean come on RP, help me out. Am I off on a tangent by myself or is society and media losing their sense? Look at the video, look at the picture of the Deputy after the altercation. Seven shots may have been excessive but the kid wasn't some innocent bystander minding his own business to wind up the unfortunate victim of police brutality and rage. He attacked a Deputy! You don't do that and expect to drive home aferwards.
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/crime/family-unarmed-michigan-teen-fatally-shot-officer-article-1.2399638
Police
Rights
Law Enforcement
Law
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 3
Have to disagree on this one. I can't find many good reasons to justify shooting an unarmed teenager after a questionable stop, and particularly so in this case. I've also seen the video. I realize the kid wasn't being completely cooperative, but it appeared to me as if the officer was bothered by the fact that the kid was recording the stop. The officer unnecessarily escalated this into a situation where he felt that he had to resort to deadly force. I mean, come on....the kid was unarmed and was laying face down on the ground. The kid was not threatening the officer until after the officer chose to taze him, and the kid's response easily could have been viewed as self-defense on his part. Given all of the recent videos that have surfaced, I don't find it unreasonable for someone to fear for their life when stopped by the police. Don't blame the unarmed victim.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
0
0
0
The child's act which resulted in the shooting was him laying hands on the officer. He laid hands on the officer because he was tased. He was tased because . . .
The entire issue comes down to the next few words. Wearing a badge is not a license to seize, arrest, stop, question, or investigate anyone you like. It looks like there was little, if any, reason to stop the kid in the first place.
What weapon of the officer's was about to be taken anyway? Where was his pistol? It should have been holstered since he had just used his taser seconds before. The taser was discharged, so it was no threat. Assaulting an officer is criminal and should not be taken lightly, but assaults on officers need not end in death, especially when it is a child, and even more so in these tragic circumstances.
The entire issue comes down to the next few words. Wearing a badge is not a license to seize, arrest, stop, question, or investigate anyone you like. It looks like there was little, if any, reason to stop the kid in the first place.
What weapon of the officer's was about to be taken anyway? Where was his pistol? It should have been holstered since he had just used his taser seconds before. The taser was discharged, so it was no threat. Assaulting an officer is criminal and should not be taken lightly, but assaults on officers need not end in death, especially when it is a child, and even more so in these tragic circumstances.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
According to the Michigan Vehicle Code: “Whenever the driver of a vehicle approaches an oncoming vehicle within 500 feet, such driver shall use a distribution of light or composite beam so aimed that the glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of the oncoming driver.”
The Deputy made it clear why he pulled the kid over. Just because the kid disagrees doesn't mean the Deputy doesn't have a right. Now is it a serious offense? No. Is it a traffic violation according to Michigan State Law? Yes. Does that violation give the Deputy the right to stop him? Yes. The escalation only occurred because Deven would not cooperate with the Deputy. Why didn't he cooperate? Because he knew, and even admitted in the video and then recanted his admission, that he didn't have his driver's license on him. At that point, the kid is gonna say anything he can think of to get out of that traffic stop.
I can't speak to the weapon as it never appears on the video. I would imagine it's holstered and the Deputy withdrew his weapon during the struggle. When I said the kid could have reached for the weapon, I meant the Deputy's firearm. If the kid would have kept punching the Deputy in the face, which at this point he already was, and then reached for the Deputy's weapon, he could have killed him. If the kid had done that and killed the Deputy, we'd be having a very different discussion right now. For all we know, they kid may have reached for the Deputy's weapon at the last minute. We don't know. But because the Deputy successfully (and in my opinion needfully) defended himself, we want to press charges and sue him? Say that Deven was innocent and that he deserves justice?
Like I said, it is a tragedy that the incident ended up with a life lost and that's unfortunate no matter the circumstances. But this Deputy was cool-headed, calm, and polite. This is not a situation where a cop set out to strong-arm someone or exert their power over someone. He was not intrusive nor was he invasive or out of control.
The Deputy made it clear why he pulled the kid over. Just because the kid disagrees doesn't mean the Deputy doesn't have a right. Now is it a serious offense? No. Is it a traffic violation according to Michigan State Law? Yes. Does that violation give the Deputy the right to stop him? Yes. The escalation only occurred because Deven would not cooperate with the Deputy. Why didn't he cooperate? Because he knew, and even admitted in the video and then recanted his admission, that he didn't have his driver's license on him. At that point, the kid is gonna say anything he can think of to get out of that traffic stop.
I can't speak to the weapon as it never appears on the video. I would imagine it's holstered and the Deputy withdrew his weapon during the struggle. When I said the kid could have reached for the weapon, I meant the Deputy's firearm. If the kid would have kept punching the Deputy in the face, which at this point he already was, and then reached for the Deputy's weapon, he could have killed him. If the kid had done that and killed the Deputy, we'd be having a very different discussion right now. For all we know, they kid may have reached for the Deputy's weapon at the last minute. We don't know. But because the Deputy successfully (and in my opinion needfully) defended himself, we want to press charges and sue him? Say that Deven was innocent and that he deserves justice?
Like I said, it is a tragedy that the incident ended up with a life lost and that's unfortunate no matter the circumstances. But this Deputy was cool-headed, calm, and polite. This is not a situation where a cop set out to strong-arm someone or exert their power over someone. He was not intrusive nor was he invasive or out of control.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
He reached into the vehicle to forcibly remove a nonviolent offender (a child) while backup was imminent, and after being told several times that the officer's headlamps were too bright in violation of the very law he was purporting to uphold. That is anything but cool-headed.
Why did he tase the child? The officer was technically in the right to pull him over. The officer justifiably asked to see his license, and was likely justified in detaining the child for driving without one. The officer unjustifiable conducted himself in several ways that resulted in an unarmed child being shot seven times, once in the head.
A person's right to be secure in his person against unreasonable seizures shall not be violated. His forcible removal from the car was arguably unreasonable under the circumstances. Our legal system is better served by hailing the officer into court under these facts.
I'm not saying that officers should be tried criminally every time they discharge their weapons. This, however, is a civil case. The parents of the deceased have a right to sue and be heard for their grievance. Why would you take that civic right away from them?
Why did he tase the child? The officer was technically in the right to pull him over. The officer justifiably asked to see his license, and was likely justified in detaining the child for driving without one. The officer unjustifiable conducted himself in several ways that resulted in an unarmed child being shot seven times, once in the head.
A person's right to be secure in his person against unreasonable seizures shall not be violated. His forcible removal from the car was arguably unreasonable under the circumstances. Our legal system is better served by hailing the officer into court under these facts.
I'm not saying that officers should be tried criminally every time they discharge their weapons. This, however, is a civil case. The parents of the deceased have a right to sue and be heard for their grievance. Why would you take that civic right away from them?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google