Teen Gunned Down by Police for Answering Door with WiiMote

[Chronodosia]

The police should be largely exempt from negligence claims and negligence prosecutions... given the highly important and risky nature of their important life-saving work.

It's also really unpatriotic and ungrateful to ask for police protection and then turn around and try to crucify them every time they slip up just a little...

You think in a country where there are millions of gun owners you can be completely error free in police work?

What about other professions whose work is life-saving? Should surgeons sewing supplies inside someone's body, or doctors misdiagnosing illnesses despite obvious symptoms be protected from even investigations of negligence? What about nurses say, swapping someone's IV with an ethanol bottle that looked superficially the same (happened to someone I knew's daughter)? What about other professions? A demolition crew's work is also highly dangerous - so if the charges go off prematurely and people die, should the leader be not investigated?

Now, I agree completely about the unpatriotic and ungrateful bit, which is why I really, really detest the sort of people who go around with cameras, then try to bait the police to step out of line. That said, even good will has its limits.[/quote]

Well in general the blanket of negligence liability is something that is in need of dramatic reduction. It has gotten way way WAY out of control in the modern age... certainly I want to see it reduced against people like the police.

They deserve our support when they make mistakes... you should be to some degree above the law, it's only practical if you're going to enforce the law.[/quote]

Sorry if this has been posted already but SHUT UP!!! I am pretty sure that 'MOST United States Police officers are American Citizens ergo they are still subject to the laws of this country NO DAMN IMMUNITY. If you truly think this then if you live in the USA LEAVE right now.

[Shemiki]

I posted that image as an example of what a WiiMote looks like, which is nothing like a gun. Like I've said, if your investigators do turn up something that completely justifies a cop shooting a kid for holding a WiiMote, great. In the meantime, that's exactly how it happened.

Yes, and you can keep posting it all you want, the image you keep posting itself is immaterial as that is an old recycled image of A WiiMote from a 2006 pre-xmas article that site ran 7 years ago, and is not necessarily exactly like PRECISELY THE WiiMote in the hand of Christopher Roupe at the time of the incident. I can post images of WiiMotes all night long that look like anything from that to assault rifles. Unless you have a picture of the very WiiMote in Christopher Roupe's hand anything else i's ultimately immaterial.

As far as the WiiMote goes, I have two things to day at this point start in question forms:
1. Is it theoretically possible for a WiiMote to be confused with a gun? The answer, in the right circumstance, yes it is.
2. Could the WiiMote in Christopher Roupe's hand at the time of the event reasonably be confused for a gun? The answer, I do not know.... I have not seen the WiiMote in question, so I cannot make a judgement on the reasonableness of possible confusion.

Unlike you, I refuse to make a judgement in a criminal sense and opinion in the absence of adequate information.

Right. However, what we also know that many eyewitnesses confirmed that it clearly looked like a WiiMote. We've already discussed the reliability of witnesses, but it's still another bit of evidence we have to support that the WiiMote didn't look like a gun. This thread has also pointed out that the officer had other options besides shooting the kid even if she did think it was a gun.

This isn't a court of law, this is a forum debate.

So? It's not too much to ask to use standard English conventions. Conversation gets difficult when participants don't agree on what words mean, after all.

The standard usage of "alleged" does not imply dishonesty or deception.

True, but when using it in the case of a crime it seems to make the accusers dishonest in their accusations.

The kid wasn't attacking her, and if the level of lighting can give someone clearance to blow somebody away without warning, something's seriously wrong. How you confuse a WiiMote with a gun because of lighting is beyond me.

Like I said, I would be very surprised indeed if he was actually attacking her. Either way, though, you are missing the point of my post here - technically speaking, it's not even confirmed whether or not it was a WiiMote, yet. The point of the investigation is to determine what actually happened, which witnesses are credible, which ones are not, and so on.

Except for multiple witness statements, but everyone here besides me seems to be unanimous in that they're all unreliable. When witnesses are the main device used to solve court cases, I don't know what you'd determine reliable to be.

And just because it seems incredible to you, does not mean it is impossible - that's called an "argument from incredulity", and is a common logical fallacy.

True, though I'd generally prefer to stick with the likely. If those scenarios are disproved, then I will consider the unlikely.

Except, even if it has been proven to us to our satisfaction, it has not yet been proven to a court of law, where witnesses are under threat of perjury, and the lawyers are able to formally present arguments and evidence. This means that, in the eyes of the US justice system, she is not yet guilty of anything.

That's great for the US justice system. Meanwhile, in my eyes, she's guilty of shooting and killing a kid for holding a WiiMote. Does my opinion or anyone else's matter? No? Then why does this thread exist?

Okay, perhaps I have you confused with someone else, in which case I apologize in advance, but wasn't it you who was, earlier in the thread, calling for a lynch mob to kill the officer? A number of people then pointed this out as being a gross violation of justice, and this whole discussion snowballed from there.[/quote]

That was me. In all honesty, I mostly wrote that in the anger at seeing what she did, though I'm still frustrated that my tax dollars have to go to providing her three meals a day and a warm bed while its determined whether she's guilty of something everyone including her knows she did.

Now, what happens if, over the course of the investigation, it is determined, whether through new evidence, retraction of witness statements, et cetera, that she is innocent, and it was a mistake? Would you still consider her to be "guilty"?

Considering the kid's still dead and never coming back, I'd say she's still guilty. Maybe not of murder, but manslaughter for sure.

Speaking of which, I would like to address that "she's guilty" part there. Let's say I found out your real name, and started referring to you exclusively using it - while rude and bad form, that's not illegal. Now, let's say I then post, "[Name] is a rapist!" Now, probably not a whole lot of people would believe me, but you could still charge me with libel over that statement. This is because such statement damage one's reputation, even if they are untrue. Can you see why saying "she's guilty of shooting and killing a kid for holding a WiiMote" is frowned upon? Sure, she's not going to charge you over it, and probably can't, since you (seem to, at least) sincerely believe it, but do you understand the idea that it's wrong to damage somebody's reputation with those sorts of statements?

I suppose it's libel for accusing politicians of corruption and damaging their reputations as well.

In all honesty, though, she did shoot a kill a kid who was simply holding a WiiMote. Nothing's going to change that. She can defend herself with mistaking it for a gun or whatever, but she was responsible for that kid's death. Libel specifically means a false statement. Her being responsible for the death of a kid isn't false.

I posted that image as an example of what a WiiMote looks like, which is nothing like a gun. Like I've said, if your investigators do turn up something that completely justifies a cop shooting a kid for holding a WiiMote, great. In the meantime, that's exactly how it happened.

Unless you can go back in time and saw it happen, you don't know that for sure. It's a distinct possibility, certainly, but it's still not the only possibility. Determining what happened is what investigations are for.

For the third time, great. Have your investigation go ahead. If she's discovered to be justified in shooting a kid, great. In the meantime, I'm sticking with the explanation we currently have, which is her gunning down a WiiMote-wielding kid without warning.

For the last time, it was a WiiMote. Self-defence? I don't think so.

If she could not clearly see it, then perhaps she mistook it for a gun. Again, establishing the truth of such things is what investigations are for.

If she could not clearly see it, how would she know it was a gun? Even if she thought it was, she could have ducked out of the way, yelled for him to drop what he was holding, ask him to show her what he was holding, fire a warning shot, use something nonlethal like a taser,or anything that didn't involve shooting him as soon as she saw him.

Right. That "no proof" part implies that they're not totally honest. It's not saying they're dishonest, it's simply implied.

Except that it doesn't. In standard, conversational English, "alleged" means "accused, but not yet proven in a court of law". That's why newspapers have not been sued into oblivion due to reporting on alleged murderers and the like.

I'm not talking newspapers, I'm taking debate. I know that literally it doesn't mean dishonest, but in my experience, when people use it, they're trying to accuse someone for something for which they know they cannot support with anything.

Yes, because a WiiMote is so dangerous.

Perhaps she didn't believe that it was a WiiMote.

So she shot a kid for holding something that wasn't a WiiMote.

Oh, I don't know, maybe because the kid was right on the other side of the goddamned door, unless your suggesting he yelled the question from across the house?

How do you know he was on the other side of the door when it happened? How do you know that he said it loud enough for her to hear, even if it was only through the door? Again, this is what investigations are for.

Common sense, that's how. When you ask who it is, you don't whisper it from down in the basement. You go up to the door and ask it loudly and clearly. Either that, or you just open the door to see who it is, and in this case get shot without warning.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize it mattered when the kid is already dead. My apologies.

You appear to be trying to support your argument with emotional language instead of solid reasoning. This is a fallacy.

Humans have emotions. They will use those emotions. They're not robots. Pretending otherwise is a fallacy. Deal with it.

Yes, pointing a gun at a thirteen-year-old child and forcing her away from her dying brother is perfectly acceptable.

How do you know that it happened like that? Again, an investigation needs to confirm this.

Witness statements from the sister-oh, why bother, you probably don't like eyewitnesses either.

Yes, because shooting someone isn't murder at all.

Not necessarily, no.

Your right, it's just shooting somebody without warning, provocation or cause.

So these people are deliberately lying that a kid was shot holding a WiiMote, or they all pretended to see something different than what they really saw? It's been established that the kid was holding a WiiMote. That's a fact.

No, it has not been established. It's still under investigation and is very much disputed.

Yes, because only everybody save the cop has said it was clearly a WiiMote.

While some outlets have reported Roupe was holding anything from a can of roach spray to a Nintendo Wii remote to a BB gun, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation maintains Roupe was holding a handgun.

In a statement released Sunday, GBI spokesperson Sherry Lang stated Roupe “opened the door with a handgun pointed at the officer.” When asked Wednesday as to the type of handgun Roupe was holding, Lang said, “I do not [know].”

http://www.daily-tribune.com/view/full_story/24620087/article-Rumors-circulate-around-Euharlee-shooting?instance=most_recommended

When asked Wednesday as to the type of handgun Roupe was holding, Lang said, “I do not [know].”

"I do not know." Real convincing.

Yup, blowing a kid full of holes without provocation.

Speculation.

Yeah, I'm speculating. It's not like the body exists or anything.

It's already been established that it was a WiiMote.

Still no.

Yeah, only a ton of eyewitnes-oh wait, you guys don't like eyewitnesses. Never mind.

The odds of it having a pistol attachment are very low.

Maybe so, but let's wait for the facts.

OK, I agree.

Even if it did, the police officer had other options besides shooting the kid.

Speculation.

Because it's not like there's set protocol for these situations.

Even if it did, the officer should still be shot for ending an innocent life without provocation, as she had other options:

So even if he had a gun and she was justified in shooting him, she should still be shot?

Notice how I said "without provocation." Wielding a gun in her face would definitely be provocation, except that most evidence points to a WiiMote-oh, shoot, you guys still don't like eyewitnesses, do you?

If the officer knew it was a WiiMote and not a gun, she wouldn't have pumped the kid full of lead. If her actions were reasonable, she would have ascertained it was a gun, told him to drop it, fired a warning shot, used a taser, or some other action that didn't involve shooting the kid.

That all depends on what actually went down. Something I trust the investigation will uncover.

I await the results just as eagerly as you, though it would have to have gone down in a very extreme way to narrow her options to ending a life within a few seconds of the door being opened.

Sure it does. Allegation usually means an accusation of illegal activity without the proof to back it up, hence implication of dishonesty.

This is incorrect.

Interpret it how you will, I already addressed this in response to Hindenburgia above.

Great. You tell me if you find anything that justifies the shooting of a kid holding a WiiMote.

Ongoing invstigation etc.

Invstigation?

Yes, I do. The kid asked who it was, received no answer, and got his chest pumped full of lead as soon as he opened the door. Go back and read the thread, for Christ's sake.

The thread doesn't establish these facts. The thread shows that these facts are being disputed, and that an investigation is necessary.

You guys really don't like eyewitnesses, do you? Can't trust the people who saw it with their own eyes?

Your right. I left out the sister trying to aid the brother and being forced away by the cop. My bad.

Unconfirmed.

Witn-oh, screw it.

You have a valid point, though in this case it's not like she can defend herself.

Of course she can.

Not from killing a kid. That happened. It's the circumstances we're debating, not the main event.

She shot a kid for holding a WiiMote. Not much you can do to justify that.

Still unconfirmed.

...Really?

This isn't a court of law, this is a forum debate.

Irrelevant. The allegations are just as much of allegations on this forum as they are in a court.

Look, I've addressed this twice now, I know its not your fault for me answering everything in one post, but see above.

The kid wasn't attacking her, and if the level of lighting can give someone clearance to blow somebody away without warning, something's seriously wrong. How you confuse a WiiMote with a gun because of lighting is beyond me.

If it's dark, and all you see is a person with something in their hand pointing at you, you might mistake it for a gun. If she mistook it for a gun, she didn't intend to kill an innocent teenager. She intended to defend herself.

Or you could duck out of the way, yell to drop it, fire a warning shot, etc.

That's great for the US justice system. Meanwhile, in my eyes, she's guilty of shooting and killing a kid for holding a WiiMote. Does my opinion or anyone else's matter? No? Then why does this thread exist?

Because we're trying to have a serious debate on this subject. Because that's what NSG is supposed to be for.

I am serious.

I posted that image as an example of what a WiiMote looks like, which is nothing like a gun. Like I've said, if your investigators do turn up something that completely justifies a cop shooting a kid for holding a WiiMote, great. In the meantime, that's exactly how it happened.

Did you post a picture of the specific WiiMote in question, at the moment in question? If not, it's not reliable as evidence.

Also, innocent until proven guilty.

It wasn't intended to be evidence, it was intended as an example.

For the last time, it was a WiiMote. Self-defence? I don't think so.

If she thought it was a gun, it was self-defense. Sure, it was an unreasonable form of it, but still self-defense.

See your quote on "unreasonable."

Right. That "no proof" part implies that they're not totally honest. It's not saying they're dishonest, it's simply implied.

"No proof" does not imply that they were at all dishonest. For example, there's no proof that this officer intended to kill this person. But in the trial, proof may arise.

Addressed three times above.

Yes, because a WiiMote is so dangerous.

If one thinks it's a gun, then yes.

No. She could pretend it was a minigun and it would still be a harmless WiiMote.

Yes, I do.

No. You don't. There may have been provocation (i. e. the kid apparently holding a gun).

Yes, I do, because the kid was only holding a WiiMote. Officers kind of need to ascertain a threat before they open fire.

Oh, I don't know, maybe because the kid was right on the other side of the goddamned door, unless your suggesting he yelled the question from across the house?

Or he could have been talking somewhat softly. People do that sometimes.

In which case it still doesn't justify getting shot as soon as you open the door.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize it mattered when the kid is already dead. My apologies.

It's emotional language, which distorts people's views on the situation. It does matter, in this debate.

Humans have emotions. Deal with it.

Yes, pointing a gun at a thirteen-year-old child and forcing her away from her dying brother is perfectly acceptable.

It's been better said already:

That's the one thing in this situation that she did right. The kid isn't a paramedic; there's nothing she could have done on her own. She could have made his injuries worse by (accidentally) jostling him while she was crying. Her choice of words is abominable, but a crying, screaming child is not what you want near you when you've just shot an innocent bystander, or been attacked or whatever. I can understand why she said that, even if I don't approve. That said, she should have told the kid to go get a bandage or a shirt or something she could have used to try to stop the bleeding. Instead she told her to get away from the corpse. Bad bad bad.

True enough, though as Zarkanians also said, the language and not telling her to get medical attention was bad bad bad.

[UED]

Wait, how did this even happen?
Why are these cops so stupid?
Its these people who makes the police looks extremely brutal and stupid.

[Chronodosia]

Wait, how did this even happen?
Why are these cops so stupid?
Its these people who makes the police looks extremely brutal and stupid.

This^

I am best friends with a police officer who works with the sheriffs office. I am best friends with his son to. Both are extremely caring and would fight to defend an innocent from any harm that's why the dad is the cop as his son is doing it in school.

[The Legion of War]

I think that cops should be fired right away whenever they commit something like this, at least, but I'm not even sure that will cut down on these sort of things.

I'm not sure better training will either, because I'd like to believe that the training they receive is decent as a large number of police officers don't randomly shoot people. I'm just not sure what to do with the "bad apples".

[Ifreann]

There's nothing unreasonable about a police officer shooting someone in self-defence.

For the last time, it was a WiiMote. Self-defence? I don't think so.

Because you, presumably, aren't aware that one need not be in actual danger to use force in self defence. You just need a reasonable belief that you are in danger.

An allegation is just an assertion with little or no proof. It comes up in news articles about illegal activity because calling someone a criminal when they haven't been convicted of anything could open one up to being sued.

Right. That "no proof" part implies that they're not totally honest. It's not saying they're dishonest, it's simply implied.

No, it's not. It's implying that you don't know if they're right or not.

A reasonable belief that one's life is in immediate danger.

Yes, because a WiiMote is so dangerous.

A WiiMote isn't. A gun is. A reasonable belief that Christopher was holding a gun means a reasonable belief by the officer that she was in danger.

No, you don't.

Yes, I do.

No, you don't. How could you? You weren't there. You have no conclusive evidence.

And why was that? Did the officer hear him? How do you know whether she did or not?

Oh, I don't know, maybe because the kid was right on the other side of the goddamned door, unless your suggesting he yelled the question from across the house?

I don't know where he was when he asked who it was. I don't know the layout of the house. I don't know how loud he was. I don't know how thick any walls and doors between the two are. I don't know what other noises there were in the area at the time.

See? It's easy to admit that you don't know what happened. You should try it some time.

This from the person who keeps describing a single gunshot wound as being pumped full of lead.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize it mattered when the kid is already dead. My apologies.

Of course it matters. It's a cheap attempt to make the officer seem worse to support your baseless conclusion that she's in the wrong.

---

What's wrong with that?

Yes, pointing a gun at a thirteen-year-old child and forcing her away from her dying brother is perfectly acceptable.

Yes. If the officer believed that Christopher had a weapon then the girl could have been going for it and she was entirely correct to order her away from him.

---

Yes, because shooting someone isn't murder at all.

Not necessarily, no.

So these people are deliberately lying that a kid was shot holding a WiiMote, or they all pretended to see something different than what they really saw? It's been established that the kid was holding a WiiMote. That's a fact.

No, it has not been established. It's still under investigation and is very much disputed.

While some outlets have reported Roupe was holding anything from a can of roach spray to a Nintendo Wii remote to a BB gun, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation maintains Roupe was holding a handgun.

In a statement released Sunday, GBI spokesperson Sherry Lang stated Roupe “opened the door with a handgun pointed at the officer.” When asked Wednesday as to the type of handgun Roupe was holding, Lang said, “I do not [know].”

http://www.daily-tribune.com/view/full_story/24620087/article-Rumors-circulate-around-Euharlee-shooting?instance=most_recommended

Rather changes things.

---

Yes, and you can keep posting it all you want, the image you keep posting itself is immaterial as that is an old recycled image of A WiiMote from a 2006 pre-xmas article that site ran 7 years ago, and is not necessarily exactly like PRECISELY THE WiiMote in the hand of Christopher Roupe at the time of the incident. I can post images of WiiMotes all night long that look like anything from that to assault rifles. Unless you have a picture of the very WiiMote in Christopher Roupe's hand anything else i's ultimately immaterial.

As far as the WiiMote goes, I have two things to day at this point start in question forms:
1. Is it theoretically possible for a WiiMote to be confused with a gun? The answer, in the right circumstance, yes it is.
2. Could the WiiMote in Christopher Roupe's hand at the time of the event reasonably be confused for a gun? The answer, I do not know.... I have not seen the WiiMote in question, so I cannot make a judgement on the reasonableness of possible confusion.

Unlike you, I refuse to make a judgement in a criminal sense and opinion in the absence of adequate information.

Right. However, what we also know that many eyewitnesses confirmed that it clearly looked like a WiiMote. We've already discussed the reliability of witnesses, but it's still another bit of evidence we have to support that the WiiMote didn't look like a gun.

You know, I looked back at these supposed witnesses you mentioned earlier. You quote the family's lawyer saying that witnesses on the scene clearly state that he had a Wii controller, and a neighbour saying that "they said there was a Wii remote in his hand". So we don't know what the eyewitnesses saw. We know what other people say about what the eyewitnesses said about what they saw. And that's meant to be more reliable than the GBI? Bollocks.

This thread has also pointed out that the officer had other options besides shooting the kid even if she did think it was a gun.

Not really, no.

---

Wait, how did this even happen?
Why are these cops so stupid?
Its these people who makes the police looks extremely brutal and stupid.

It happened because, according tot he Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Christopher Roupe answered the door with a handgun pointed at the officer on the other side.

[Ifreann]

I think that cops should be fired right away whenever they commit something like this, at least, but I'm not even sure that will cut down on these sort of things.

And if it turns out, following an investigation, that they did nothing wrong, then they'll sue the precinct that fired them. Great plan.

[Viritica]

She could of just, you know, tasered him.

There's a reason officers have those things.

[Ifreann]

She could of just, you know, tasered him.

There's a reason officers have those things.

Did this officer have a taser?

[Viritica]

She could of just, you know, tasered him.

There's a reason officers have those things.

Did this officer have a taser?

Don't all officers have tasers?

[Ifreann]

Did this officer have a taser?

Don't all officers have tasers?

Considering that each of the 50 states probably have multiple police forces, not all of which will equip all of their officers uniformly, I couldn't really say one way or the other.

[Shemiki]

For the last time, it was a WiiMote. Self-defence? I don't think so.

Because you, presumably, aren't aware that one need not be in actual danger to use force in self defence. You just need a reasonable belief that you are in danger.

Which doesn't justify shooting the kid as soon as the door opened.

Right. That "no proof" part implies that they're not totally honest. It's not saying they're dishonest, it's simply implied.

No, it's not. It's implying that you don't know if they're right or not.

Addressed above.

Yes, because a WiiMote is so dangerous.

A WiiMote isn't. A gun is. A reasonable belief that Christopher was holding a gun means a reasonable belief by the officer that she was in danger.

Which would then lead to reasonable action and reasonable follow of protocol.

Yes, I do.

No, you don't. How could you? You weren't there. You have no conclusive evidence.

You're right, I'm simply going by what we already know.

Oh, I don't know, maybe because the kid was right on the other side of the goddamned door, unless your suggesting he yelled the question from across the house?

I don't know where he was when he asked who it was. I don't know the layout of the house. I don't know how loud he was. I don't know how thick any walls and doors between the two are. I don't know what other noises there were in the area at the time.

See? It's easy to admit that you don't know what happened. You should try it some time.

Except for common sense, which dictates he was behind the door and asked the question clearly. I don't know that for absolute 100% sure, but when was the last time you whispered for who it was from down in the basement?

Even if there was a noise, or he was too quiet, it doesn't give the officer an excuse to shoot him as soon as the door opens.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize it mattered when the kid is already dead. My apologies.

Of course it matters. It's a cheap attempt to make the officer seem worse to support your baseless conclusion that she's in the wrong.

Or maybe it just doesn't matter whether it was one bullet or thirty, considering the kid died either way.

Yes, pointing a gun at a thirteen-year-old child and forcing her away from her dying brother is perfectly acceptable.

Yes. If the officer believed that Christopher had a weapon then the girl could have been going for it and she was entirely correct to order her away from him.

---

Rather changes things.

---

You know, I looked back at these supposed witnesses you mentioned earlier. You quote the family's lawyer saying that witnesses on the scene clearly state that he had a Wii controller, and a neighbour saying that "they said there was a Wii remote in his hand". So we don't know what the eyewitnesses saw. We know what other people say about what the eyewitnesses said about what they saw. And that's meant to be more reliable than the GBI? Bollocks.

But that's the entire point I've been making

At the current moment, the GBI knows nothing. All we have to go on are the family lawyer and eyewitness accounts and eyewitness accounts of eyewitness accounts. When the GBI comes up with with something that establishes that the officer acted in the right, I'll switch my judgment. In the meantime, going on what we have, it seems that the officer is guilty.

Not really, no.

Yes, actually yes.

God Kefka, you have accused people of not understanding the mindset of a police-officer because they haven't been one.

You have stated that you would not be willing to be a police-officer, meaning that you aren't one, meaning that by that logic you don't understand either.

Also, protocol for a situation like this is:

1. Make sure the person you're aiming at actually has a gun.
2. Order them to drop the weapon.
3. Fire a warning shot (obviously impossible in this situation, but whatever).
4. Kill them.

She skipped straight to four.

We have eyewitness reports stating that he asked who was there before opening the door, and that she didn't respond. That's yet another breach of protocol.

She had her gun drawn when the door was opened. Not her taser. Once again, she jumped straight to lethal force when there were other solutions available. I'd be inclined to agree with you if she'd tasered the kid.

And, last but not least, being ready to risk your life in service of the people means making absolutely sure that the person in front of you is actually holding a gun before you shoot them, because if you shoot someone on instinct after observing a vaguely rectangular object in their hand, you are doing a really shitty job of serving the people.

If this is being reported as it is, at the very least, she should be charged with criminal negligence leading to death, receive the maximum sentence, and lose her job along with any benefits it might provide.

[Viritica]

Don't all officers have tasers?

Considering that each of the 50 states probably have multiple police forces, not all of which will equip all of their officers uniformly, I couldn't really say one way or the other.

I'm pretty sure all officers have tasers and if she did then that would have provided her with another option.

[Ifreann]

Because you, presumably, aren't aware that one need not be in actual danger to use force in self defence. You just need a reasonable belief that you are in danger.

Which doesn't justify shooting the kid as soon as the door opened.

If the officer reasonably believed that she was in danger, it does.

A WiiMote isn't. A gun is. A reasonable belief that Christopher was holding a gun means a reasonable belief by the officer that she was in danger.

Which would then lead to reasonable action and reasonable follow of protocol.

Which is what? Do you know? Or are you going to assume some more?

No, you don't. How could you? You weren't there. You have no conclusive evidence.

You're right, I'm simply going by what we already know.

As are we all. But you seem to take this limited information for a complete and accurate description of the situation when it really, really isn't.

I don't know where he was when he asked who it was. I don't know the layout of the house. I don't know how loud he was. I don't know how thick any walls and doors between the two are. I don't know what other noises there were in the area at the time.

See? It's easy to admit that you don't know what happened. You should try it some time.

Except for common sense, which dictates he was behind the door and asked the question clearly.

That isn't common sense. That is a convenient assumption on your part.

I don't know that for absolute 100% sure, but when was the last time you whispered for who it was from down in the basement?

I don't have a basement, so never.

Even if there was a noise, or he was too quiet, it doesn't give the officer an excuse to shoot him as soon as the door opens.

Who said it did?

Of course it matters. It's a cheap attempt to make the officer seem worse to support your baseless conclusion that she's in the wrong.

Or maybe it just doesn't matter whether it was one bullet or thirty, considering the kid died either way.

Again, of course it matters. Many shots would suggest recklessness or a determination to kill beyond self defence, especially if it were more shots than one would expect of the capacity of a police issue weapon. Few shots, or one shot, as apparently was the case, suggests sufficient awareness of the situation to recognise when the threat(perceived or actual) had been neutralised.

But that's the entire point I've been making

At the current moment, the GBI knows nothing.

Don't be ridiculous. I expect they know more than any other party involved. They just haven't released all that information to the public. And why would they when there could well be a court case off the back of this?

All we have to go on are the family lawyer and eyewitness accounts and eyewitness accounts of eyewitness accounts.

And the GBI spokesperson.

When the GBI comes up with with something that establishes that the officer acted in the right, I'll switch my judgment. In the meantime, going on what we have, it seems that the officer is guilty.

Something like a handgun in Christopher Roupe's hand?

Not really, no.

Yes, actually yes.

Maybe with the benefit of hindsight.

[Ifreann]

Considering that each of the 50 states probably have multiple police forces, not all of which will equip all of their officers uniformly, I couldn't really say one way or the other.

I'm pretty sure all officers have tasers

Your personal confidence means little to me, I'm afraid.

and if she did then that would have provided her with another option.

And if she had superhuman reflexes that would have provided her with another option.

[Terra Cecidit]

The cop did the right thing. The kid was probably a Jew and tried to steal her money with the WiiMote. The only good Jew is a dead Jew.
That cop needs a Medal of Honour, Nobel Peace Prize, etc.

Damned Jews. If only Hitler won.

[Viritica]

I'm pretty sure all officers have tasers

Your personal confidence means little to me, I'm afraid.

and if she did then that would have provided her with another option.

And if she had superhuman reflexes that would have provided her with another option.

Here in 'Murica I've never seen an officer without a taser.

And she could have always had her taser drawn instead of her gun.

[Starvation Is Fun]

Can Ifreann and whats-his-face please stop it with these mile-long posts? They're just restating the same points over and over again like little kids going "He poked me!" "Did not!" "Did too!" "Did not!" "Did too!"

[Ifreann]

Your personal confidence means little to me, I'm afraid.

And if she had superhuman reflexes that would have provided her with another option.

Here in 'Murica I've never seen an officer without a taser.

As I said, your country has 50 states, each with at least one police force, probably more. What you have seen officers carrying tells us nothing about what this Euhralee Police Department officer was carrying.

And she could have always had her taser drawn instead of her gun.

She could have, but that would have been stupid.

[Viritica]

Here in 'Murica I've never seen an officer without a taser.

As I said, your country has 50 states, each with at least one police force, probably more. What you have seen officers carrying tells us nothing about what this Euhralee Police Department officer was carrying.

And she could have always had her taser drawn instead of her gun.

She could have, but that would have been stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States#Less_lethal_weapons

And why would it have been stupid?

[Ifreann]

Can Ifreann and whats-his-face please stop it with these mile-long posts? They're just restating the same points over and over again like little kids going "He poked me!" "Did not!" "Did too!" "Did not!" "Did too!"

If you don't like my posts, click my name, then "Add foe" and they'll all be blocked.

[Lincolnocracy]

Would it be fair to summarize the issue being debated (by Ifreann and Shemiki) as whether or not police officers are, by dint of their position, subject to an equivalent of the stand-your-ground laws when performing their duties?

[The Fascist American Empire]

Honestly, I'm not surprised.

[Starvation Is Fun]

Can Ifreann and whats-his-face please stop it with these mile-long posts? They're just restating the same points over and over again like little kids going "He poked me!" "Did not!" "Did too!" "Did not!" "Did too!"

If you don't like my posts, click my name, then "Add foe" and they'll all be blocked.

I think you bring up good points in your posts (while I do disagree with you here, I'm staying out of the discussion on this one) I just don't want to have to keep scrolling past all your posts in this specific thread, although if there's a way to not see someone's posts in a single thread then please point me to it

[Starvation Is Fun]

Would it be fair to summarize the issue being debated (by Ifreann and Shemiki) as whether or not police officers are, by dint of their position, subject to an equivalent of the stand-your-ground laws when performing their duties?

I would think that's fair, but I believe they're also debating as to whether or not the officer was actually "standing her ground"