Posted on Jun 29, 2021
A Teen Was Having Car Trouble. A Sheriff’s Deputy Shot and Killed Him.
1.12K
34
11
8
8
0
During a traffic stop last week, an Arkansas sheriff’s deputy shot and killed a teenage boy who was only armed with a neon-blue jug of antifreeze, family members told VICE News.
Lonoke County Sheriff’s Office Sgt. Michael Davis stopped 17-year-old Hunter Brittain near Cabot, Arkansas, at about 3 a.m. last Wednesday, and it’s still unclear why. Hunter had been having trouble with his truck when Davis pulled in behind him outside of a local auto repair shop and flashed his emergency lights, according to the account of a 16-year-old riding with Hunter at the time. When Hunter went to put the antifreeze behind his back tire so his vehicle wouldn’t roll into the officer’s, Davis allegedly fired at him.
Lonoke County Sheriff’s Office Sgt. Michael Davis stopped 17-year-old Hunter Brittain near Cabot, Arkansas, at about 3 a.m. last Wednesday, and it’s still unclear why. Hunter had been having trouble with his truck when Davis pulled in behind him outside of a local auto repair shop and flashed his emergency lights, according to the account of a 16-year-old riding with Hunter at the time. When Hunter went to put the antifreeze behind his back tire so his vehicle wouldn’t roll into the officer’s, Davis allegedly fired at him.
A Teen Was Having Car Trouble. A Sheriff’s Deputy Shot and Killed Him.
Posted from vice.com
Police
Law Enforcement
Crime
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
6
6
0
5
5
0
“In potentially dangerous situations, deputies are often forced to make split-second decisions,” Staley said. “Second-guessing those decisions, especially when the facts are still unclear, is dangerous and unfair.”
That is the attitude that has to stop. I can't think of a better time to ask questions about someone's actions than when someone else is killed by them. Unfair to the officer? Someone's dead at their hand. Many times when I hear about not questioning "split second decisions" it's used as a justification for a police officer to kill a member of the public when they are scared. That's just the wrong answer. Of course we should second guess these decisions, particularly when these "split second decisions" keep on ending up with dead members of the public.
To be clear, I think we need the facts. It is the "second guessing" justification that has to stop. It's basically saying we can do what we want and the public doesn't have the right to question us.
That is the attitude that has to stop. I can't think of a better time to ask questions about someone's actions than when someone else is killed by them. Unfair to the officer? Someone's dead at their hand. Many times when I hear about not questioning "split second decisions" it's used as a justification for a police officer to kill a member of the public when they are scared. That's just the wrong answer. Of course we should second guess these decisions, particularly when these "split second decisions" keep on ending up with dead members of the public.
To be clear, I think we need the facts. It is the "second guessing" justification that has to stop. It's basically saying we can do what we want and the public doesn't have the right to question us.
(5)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Well if it went down as described in the article it’s just another case of the officer assuming the worst and getting trigger happy. Nervous Nelly strikes again.
(4)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
MSgt James Clark-Rosa - That article boils down to the author being mad that the police are having trouble putting their own safety above accidentally killing innocent members of the public. Not because taking some risk to protect the public is the right thing to do, but because they will get in trouble if they don't. That article is a summation of a huge problem with the general attitude of policing in America.
It never ceases to amaze me that the police want themselves held to more lax rules of engagement than the military does when in a hostile country. We are more concerned with our troops accidentally killing civilians in a foreign country than the police killing our own citizens. Yes the troops take on more risk so they don't accidentally kill civilians. That's the job.
It never ceases to amaze me that the police want themselves held to more lax rules of engagement than the military does when in a hostile country. We are more concerned with our troops accidentally killing civilians in a foreign country than the police killing our own citizens. Yes the troops take on more risk so they don't accidentally kill civilians. That's the job.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
It's amazing how some always want to give cops who murder innocent people the benefit of the doubt.
While you're on this, go look up Daniel Shaver. Tell me there's "more to the story" there too. Smh.
While you're on this, go look up Daniel Shaver. Tell me there's "more to the story" there too. Smh.
(3)
(0)
CPO Robert (Mac) McGovern
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - Since we were not there and this website is known for sensationalism in their reporting, I tend to wait for more information before I commit to stating or implying the victim was innocent. Once all information is available, a more accurate comment may be made. Additionally, I see no reason for calling a fellow veteran a "dipshit" in this forum. I appreciate your passion and respect your opinion, please respect others.
(0)
(0)
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff
CPO Robert (Mac) McGovern Bite me. How about that? I don't care your opinion of me or my comments.
I have read more than this link posted. Unlike some of the ignorant twits on here I don't just read one source.
I have read more than this link posted. Unlike some of the ignorant twits on here I don't just read one source.
(0)
(0)
CPO Robert (Mac) McGovern
Fuerhoff, how you made rank is beyond me, you have the mentality and personality of a pet rock. You are so right, I will not comment on someone who is as angry as you! Do not bother to respond!
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google