Dad's lesson ends in tragedy
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 64

Thread: Dad's lesson ends in tragedy

  1. #1

    Dad's lesson ends in tragedy

    This was the perfect storm that just all came together tragically. I don't know if the dad, the son, or the police were the most to blame. They were all at fault in one way or another.

    Dadís Attempt to Teach Son a Lesson Ends in the Most Tragic Way Imaginable

    Dad?s Attempt to Teach Son a Lesson Ends in the Most Tragic Way Imaginable | TheBlaze.com
    Do Not Meddle In The Affairs Of Dragons ~ For You Are Crunchy And Good With Ketchup

  2.   
  3. #2

    Dad's lesson ends in tragedy

    Tragic yes, but IMO the only one at fault is the son. The father refused to buy his son cigarettes. Seems like a reasonable parental decision. Son steals dad's work truck in fit of adolescent anger. Sounds to me like the youngster has some mental/behavioral problems so calling the police to help get the son under control is again a reasonable, albeit a tough and heartbreaking decision. As for the police, I don't know that exact circumstances in which the shots were fired. However, it is common knowledge that a vehicle, especially a pick-up truck can be used as a deadly weapon. The son had already showed blatant disregard for the safety of others by 1) fleeing from the police to begin with and then 2) by ramming a police vehicle. If somebody is endangering the public to that extent, "backing off the pursuit", is not always an option. The article then stated the kid was "revving the engine." Like I said, I don't know the exact circumstances but if what they meant by that was that he was attempting to accelerate and ram the officers again, either in their vehicle or not, I would consider deadly force justified. It's absolutely tragic that this whole thing started over a pack of cigarettes, but in the end, the kid was his own demise. I say that cautiously because I'm sure this kid needed some kind of mental health help that he wasn't getting but in the end, his decisions were what escalated the event.

  4. #3
    Whatever happened to making your kid smoke the whole pack in one sitting?

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Nick Burkhardt View Post
    Whatever happened to making your kid smoke the whole pack in one sitting?
    Don't you know, that's child abuse these days, just like spanking, taking away video games or car keys, and making them do chores.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Burkhardt View Post
    Whatever happened to making your kid smoke the whole pack in one sitting?
    Child abuse laws... parents are no longer (and schools too) able to actually discipline the children.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Let's look at who is really at fault.

    19 yo man, asks daddy for cigarettes. Dad, says, no. (no fault here)
    19 yo man, acts like a whiny baby and demands cigarettes. Dad says, no. (19 yo's fault)
    19 yo man, acts like a spoiled child and steals Dad's work truck. (19 yo's fault)
    Dad, calls cops to get his work truck back. (no fault here)
    Cops find truck and engage in pursuit. (no fault here)
    19 yo will not pull over and acts more brazen. (19 yo fault)
    19 yo uses the truck to ram into the police vehicle which by law is an attack with a deadly weapon on law enforcement. (19 yo fault)
    19 yo revs engine as police try to get him to exit vehicle, 19 yo already tried to use the truck as a battering ram. Police have due cause to believe he would do it again. (19 yo fault)
    Police shoot 19 yo .... this is where we need more facts. If we just take the article's word for it, the 19 yo would not stop for police, did use the truck to ram into police vehicles and was revving the engine as if to do it again. How many of you would think he would? I know I probably would think this punk would have tried to run me down just by the course of events that have expired.

    To claim the Dad is in any way at fault in this situation is ludicrous. All of this lies on the shoulders of the 19 yo. His actions escalated this situation. As far as whether it was a decent shoot, LE can show that a person in a stolen truck is fleeing from police, rammed into the police, and was partaking in actions reasonable to assume that he would ram into them again. From the article it sounds like it was a good shoot. Tragic... unavoidable by many stupid things on the part of the 19 yo, but certainly tragic.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,602
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    Let's look at who is really at fault.

    19 yo man, asks daddy for cigarettes. Dad, says, no. (no fault here)
    19 yo man, acts like a whiny baby and demands cigarettes. Dad says, no. (19 yo's fault)
    19 yo man, acts like a spoiled child and steals Dad's work truck. (19 yo's fault)
    Dad, calls cops to get his work truck back. (no fault here)
    Cops find truck and engage in pursuit. (no fault here)
    19 yo will not pull over and acts more brazen. (19 yo fault)
    19 yo uses the truck to ram into the police vehicle which by law is an attack with a deadly weapon on law enforcement. (19 yo fault)
    19 yo revs engine as police try to get him to exit vehicle, 19 yo already tried to use the truck as a battering ram. Police have due cause to believe he would do it again. (19 yo fault)
    Police shoot 19 yo .... this is where we need more facts. If we just take the article's word for it, the 19 yo would not stop for police, did use the truck to ram into police vehicles and was revving the engine as if to do it again. How many of you would think he would? I know I probably would think this punk would have tried to run me down just by the course of events that have expired.

    To claim the Dad is in any way at fault in this situation is ludicrous. All of this lies on the shoulders of the 19 yo. His actions escalated this situation. As far as whether it was a decent shoot, LE can show that a person in a stolen truck is fleeing from police, rammed into the police, and was partaking in actions reasonable to assume that he would ram into them again. From the article it sounds like it was a good shoot. Tragic... unavoidable by many stupid things on the part of the 19 yo, but certainly tragic.
    But that is if you believe the police side of the story. Take a look at what purports to be the truck stolen. Front of it is against brush. Did the vehicle get that way after the kid was shot or before? If before, then it is an unjustified shooting. Many angles of attack if the front is blocked that would not require shooting the kid. Truck used to ram police vehicle? Show me the front of the truck. The side shows damage that looks like the police rammed the truck and what little shows of the front looks undamaged. He backed into the following police car when the officer was on the road chasing him? Needs further investigation.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified RSO
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,415
    There's a link to some audio of the radio transmissions that it doesn't seem anyone is taking into account.

    1) First officer assigned the call is informed right off the bat that it was the kid's dad who made the report and the dispatcher informed him that it was a "he got mad and took off" kind of family dispute call.

    2) At 3:05 of the linked audio, another voice not that of the dispatcher's says, "If he's that reckless....coming into the college area, why don't you back off." This male voice can be heard over a siren, presumably one of the units now involved in the chase communicating with the lead vehicle. That transmission was not even acknowledged by anyone in the chase, and it continued "Southbound on Wallace."

    3) 3:52: Another transmission male voice says, "We know the suspect, so we can probably back it off." No audio of this transmission being acknowledged either.

    4) Only two out of six shots fired hit the kid on a crowded campus. The chase had ended. The cop who fired had ignored advice twice to back off due to pedestrian safety concerns. Where did the other four shots go? If the chase had been backed off from, those four bullets would not have had the opportunity to injure or kill more kids on a college campus. Would the evaluations of it being a "good shoot" be the same if one (or more) of those strays had found a flesh-and-bone target?

    5) Today in Ames, IA, it is apparently a death penalty offense to have "...revved the engine and refused orders to turn it [the truck] off." That is what the Des Moines Register says happened. Nothing about trying to ram the cops again, he just revved the engine, which by the way, suggests to me that the truck wasn't even in gear. Conjecture about another attempted ramming of the cop car(s) in order to exonerate a cop for opening fire over what he knew at the time started as a relatively minor family dispute seems completely out of place here.

    It's possible that the Register edited out whatever acknowledgement of the "back off" transmissions that may have taken place. Perhaps such acknowledgements, if they happened at all, would offer an explanation for why it was imperative to continue the chase onto a crowded college campus and then open fire on a kid revving his engine, but for the life of me, I can't imagine what "public safety" premise such an explanation would consist of.

    I will never understand how people can jump to the defense of cops who open fire on unarmed suspects and kill them. Especially a cop who knew that the kid just had a minor argument with his dad and, given time to cool down, the situation would've most likely resolved itself before the day was over. I mean, if there's going to be conjecture about this killing, why not let it enure to the benefit of a dead kid instead of the trigger happy cop that killed him?

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  10. #9

    Dad's lesson ends in tragedy

    Even if he wasn't actively trying to run down a cop, several states have a fleeing felon law, allowing deadly force to prevent his escape. Also, if he's already rammed a cop he's shown brazen disregard for the safety of others and should be considered a danger to the public. Either of those things could have justified the shooting whether he was actively trying to hit a cop or not. They probably could have taken a different route, but legally I think the shooting was justified.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,415
    Quote Originally Posted by jcreek View Post
    Even if he wasn't actively trying to run down a cop, several states have a fleeing felon law, allowing deadly force to prevent his escape.
    He wasn't fleeing when he was shot, and there's as much evidence that he couldn't flee because of damage to the truck or being otherwise stuck where he was, as there is evidence that he intended to keep fleeing and/or posed a threat to the officers or others in the general vicinity. In other words, no evidence for us to go on at all on either premise. The kid was stopped and was killed for revving his engine, but the cop gets the benefit of the doubt, 180į out of phase with the American Way of suspects maintaining benefit of the doubt until the jury comes back with a guilty verdict.

    Yay fleeing felon laws that are responsible for turning that premise on its head!

    Quote Originally Posted by jcreek View Post
    Also, if he's already rammed a cop he's shown brazen disregard for the safety of others and should be considered a danger to the public.
    Like I said, apparently in Ames, IA it is a death penalty offense to rev your engine or previously have disregarded the safety of others before committing the revving. "Considered a danger to the public," combined with the possibility that IA has a fleeing felon law such as you suggest, means it's open season to kill the kid? Disgusting.

    Quote Originally Posted by jcreek View Post
    Either of those things could have justified the shooting whether he was actively trying to hit a cop or not. They probably could have taken a different route, but legally I think the shooting was justified.
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast