Teen Gunned Down by Police for Answering Door with WiiMote

[Shemiki]

Haha, very funny.



No, no, no, and no.

And those answers are based on approximately nothing.

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.

Sure it does.

No, it doesn't. It really, really doesn't. I can't emphasise that enough.

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

Yes, because shooting someone isn't worthy of criminal or administrative punishment.

Sometimes it isn't. This might be one of those times. Or it might not. Which is what the investigation is for.

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

I do know it's illegal to shoot and kill an unarmed child without warning or provocation.

And you don't know that that accurately describes this situation.

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.

[Hindenburgia]

Correct. Shooting someone can be entirely legal. Or it can be a crime other than murder. In either case, the officer has yet to be convicted of anything. It's rather too early to be labelling her a murderer.

OK, that's your opinion. I tend to think that shooting a kid for holding a WiiMote qualifies as murder, but it seems we disagree.

The American justice system also disagrees, in that she cannot be convicted (that is, she is not considered "guilty") until due process has been followed and determined her to be guilty.

The reason for this is simple - everyone has the right to defend themselves from charges leveled against them, according to the US constitution. If you start saying that we should take that right away in cases where guilt is "obvious", then where does one draw the line? How much information does one need to determine such?

[Shemiki]

The kid went to put on a movie with his WiiMote. He heard a knock at the door. He went to the door and asked who it was. No answer. He opened the door. Cop pumps his chest full of lead. This is what happened. No ifs, ands, or buts.

This is what is alleged to have happened, and even if accurate(loaded language aside) does not fully describe the situation.

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

[Shemiki]

OK, that's your opinion. I tend to think that shooting a kid for holding a WiiMote qualifies as murder, but it seems we disagree.

The American justice system also disagrees, in that she cannot be convicted (that is, she is not considered "guilty") until due process has been followed and determined her to be guilty.

The reason for this is simple - everyone has the right to defend themselves from charges leveled against them, according to the US constitution. If you start saying that we should take that right away in cases where guilt is "obvious", then where does one draw the line? How much information does one need to determine such?

You have a valid point, though in this case it's not like she can defend herself. She shot a kid for holding a WiiMote. Not much you can do to justify that.

[Viritica]

I do know it's illegal to shoot and kill an unarmed child without warning or provocation.

And you don't know that that accurately describes this situation.

It pretty much does.

[Zarkanians]

Shemeki, all crimes are alleged crimes until proven otherwise by a court of law. Calling them anything else is dishonest, and if you did so in an actual trial you'd probably be found to be out of order.

[Shemiki]

Shemeki, all crimes are alleged crimes until proven otherwise by a court of law. Calling them anything else is dishonest, and if you did so in an actual trial you'd probably be found to be out of order.

Good thing I'm not in an actual trial and have the freedom to make my own judgments. I don't mind the courts, I don't mind trials, but in my opinion this is a crime, for what it's worth.

[Hindenburgia]

No, it doesn't. It really, really doesn't. I can't emphasise that enough.

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

No, it's an as yet unproven charge. A prosecuting lawyer will call the charges he is prosecuting over "allegations", as that is the actual term for them.

Sometimes it isn't. This might be one of those times. Or it might not. Which is what the investigation is for.

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

What if the kid was attacking her (almost certainly not the case here, but it would justify this), or if, due to lighting, attachments, and so on, it was reasonable for her to assume she was in danger (probably the defense she will present)? Either of these, if true, would justify her actions.

I do know it's illegal to shoot and kill an unarmed child without warning or provocation.

And you don't know that that accurately describes this situation.

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.[/quote]
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.

[Tekania]

The kid went to put on a movie with his WiiMote. He heard a knock at the door. He went to the door and asked who it was. No answer. He opened the door. Cop pumps his chest full of lead. This is what happened. No ifs, ands, or buts.

That isn't all the information. What precisely did the WiiMote (and what I mean by that, is the very one in the hand of Christopher Roupe at the very time he opened the door that night he was shot.... since you have a propensity to post a 7 year old recycled pre-xmas news-article image as "proof") look like, what were the visiual conditions, what were the cops expecting in regards to the warrant(s) they were serving and the context of the fathers probation and criminal history, did the cop actually identify themselves and there was something environmental which presented and did someone else potentially hear it? A lot of stuff the OFFICIAL INVESTIGATORS would have access to, and which information they will not release till after it's presented to the DA.

[Ifreann]

And those answers are based on approximately nothing.

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.

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

No, it doesn't. It really, really doesn't. I can't emphasise that enough.

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

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.

Sometimes it isn't. This might be one of those times. Or it might not. Which is what the investigation is for.

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

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

And you don't know that that accurately describes this situation.

Yes, I do.

No, you don't.

The kid asked who it was, received no answer,

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

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.

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

---

This is what is alleged to have happened, and even if accurate(loaded language aside) does not fully describe the situation.

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

What's wrong with that?

[Shemiki]

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

No, it's an as yet unproven charge. A prosecuting lawyer will call the charges he is prosecuting over "allegations", as that is the actual term for them.

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

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

What if the kid was attacking her (almost certainly not the case here, but it would justify this), or if, due to lighting, attachments, and so on, it was reasonable for her to assume she was in danger (probably the defense she will present)? Either of these, if true, would justify her actions.

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.

And you don't know that that accurately describes this situation.

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.

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.[/quote]

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?

The kid went to put on a movie with his WiiMote. He heard a knock at the door. He went to the door and asked who it was. No answer. He opened the door. Cop pumps his chest full of lead. This is what happened. No ifs, ands, or buts.

That isn't all the information. What precisely did the WiiMote (and what I mean by that, is the very one in the hand of Christopher Roupe at the very time he opened the door that night he was shot.... since you have a propensity to post a 7 year old recycled pre-xmas news-article image as "proof") look like, what were the visiual conditions, what were the cops expecting in regards to the warrant(s) they were serving and the context of the fathers probation and criminal history, did the cop actually identify themselves and there was something environmental which presented and did someone else potentially hear it? A lot of stuff the OFFICIAL INVESTIGATORS would have access to, and which information they will not release till after it's presented to the DA.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Yes, because a WiiMote is so dangerous.

Yes, I do.

No, you don't.

Yes, I do.

The kid asked who it was, received no answer,

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?

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.

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.

---

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

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.

[Zarkanians]

If she shot the kid for attacking her with a plastic remote, then she's still guilty of manslaughter and police brutality. That's excessive force. She had other options available to her, including self-defence training which should have been more than enough to deal with a teenager armed with, again, a plastic remote. She likely also had a taser.

Unless they find out that the Wii remote was actually a gun, that he gave her some reason to believe that her life was in serious danger before he opened the door, and that she identified herself clearly when he asked who was there, there is no way that this isn't a serious breach of protocol.

---

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.

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.

[Tekania]

That isn't all the information. What precisely did the WiiMote (and what I mean by that, is the very one in the hand of Christopher Roupe at the very time he opened the door that night he was shot.... since you have a propensity to post a 7 year old recycled pre-xmas news-article image as "proof") look like, what were the visiual conditions, what were the cops expecting in regards to the warrant(s) they were serving and the context of the fathers probation and criminal history, did the cop actually identify themselves and there was something environmental which presented and did someone else potentially hear it? A lot of stuff the OFFICIAL INVESTIGATORS would have access to, and which information they will not release till after it's presented to the DA.

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.

[Zarkanians]

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.

Italics would have been more than sufficient, mate.

[Tekania]

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.

Italics would have been more than sufficient, mate.

For a normal person they would.

[Kuznetsovia]

This is getting ridiculous. Are US cops really this stupid?

yes, most people in the us are even stupider, except a handful

[Hindenburgia]

No, it's an as yet unproven charge. A prosecuting lawyer will call the charges he is prosecuting over "allegations", as that is the actual term for them.

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.

What if the kid was attacking her (almost certainly not the case here, but it would justify this), or if, due to lighting, attachments, and so on, it was reasonable for her to assume she was in danger (probably the defense she will present)? Either of these, if true, would justify her actions.

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.

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.

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.

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?[/quote]
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.

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"?

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?

That isn't all the information. What precisely did the WiiMote (and what I mean by that, is the very one in the hand of Christopher Roupe at the very time he opened the door that night he was shot.... since you have a propensity to post a 7 year old recycled pre-xmas news-article image as "proof") look like, what were the visiual conditions, what were the cops expecting in regards to the warrant(s) they were serving and the context of the fathers probation and criminal history, did the cop actually identify themselves and there was something environmental which presented and did someone else potentially hear it? A lot of stuff the OFFICIAL INVESTIGATORS would have access to, and which information they will not release till after it's presented to the DA.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Yes, because a WiiMote is so dangerous.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

---

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.

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

[Gravlen]

The officer isn't a murderer, and not trusting the lawyer doesn't require trusting the officer.

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

Yup, blowing a kid full of holes without provocation.

Speculation.

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

Still no.

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

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

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

Speculation.

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?

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.

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.

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

Ongoing invstigation etc.

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.

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

Unconfirmed.

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

Of course she can.

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

Still unconfirmed.

[Gravlen]

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.

With any luck this officer will be killed by vigilantes before we have to spend tax dollars on a trial. What a sick joke. How the hell do you confuse a fucking WiiMote with a firearm?

[Gravlen]

It has been established that Christopher was holding a WiiMote. It has not been established that the officer who shot him did anything worthy of criminal or administrative punishment.

Yes, it has. This argument has been done to death. Go and read back over the last few pages.

The thread does not establish those things as facts.

[Tekania]

Yes, it has. This argument has been done to death. Go and read back over the last few pages.

The thread does not establish those things as facts.

Sure it does, we have journalists publishing stories for people dunking cakes in their coffee to foment opinions, who needs professionals training in forensic investigation and courts.

[Gravlen]

The thread does not establish those things as facts.

Sure it does, we have journalists publishing stories for people dunking cakes in their coffee to foment opinions, who needs professionals training in forensic investigation and courts.

I guess you're right...

But hey, leaving the investigating and judicial decisionmaking to the internet... We can save sooo much money, time and energy!

[Gun Manufacturers]

As far as I can tell, we're speaking passed each other a little bit. Those who are defending the police-officer are invoking a more stringent burden of proof than those who are criticizing her. The issue turns on which burden of proof is appropriate in this context; should we adopt a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, or do we follow the available evidence and amend our conclusion as more is unearthed?

The opinion i stated it of course based on available evidence, the police officer should be given a fair trial. If convicted of murder in a court of law, she should be shot. Like any other murderer.

I don't believe firing squads are really used much for capital punishment anymore. Also, capital punishment isn't an automatic sentence for murder convictions.

[Gun Manufacturers]

The irony... it burns. I'm not the one who rushes to judgement on these things. I'm pro-investigation. Frankly I'm fucking insulted that the person whose first reaction was a hope the vigilantes would rush out and kill the cop is attempting to tell me "not to jump to conclusions", when I've not. I've been pro investigation and having the DA make the determination based upon the results as far as merit as a criminal matter, and the precinct as far as employment matters.

Well, it all depends on whether you want to give a child-murderer a fair chance or just keep the tax dollars. Look, I'm not against an investigation, I just find it hard to believe that we should actually bother with this person's rights when all the evidence points to her killing him for more or less no reason. If your precious investigation turns up something different, even if it shows people can magically pretend WiiMotes are handguns, I'll happily switch my opinion. In the meantime, shoot her.

Um, no.

[Shaggai]

No, it's an as yet unproven charge. A prosecuting lawyer will call the charges he is prosecuting over "allegations", as that is the actual term for them.

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.

What if the kid was attacking her (almost certainly not the case here, but it would justify this), or if, due to lighting, attachments, and so on, it was reasonable for her to assume she was in danger (probably the defense she will present)? Either of these, if true, would justify her actions.

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.

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?

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

That isn't all the information. What precisely did the WiiMote (and what I mean by that, is the very one in the hand of Christopher Roupe at the very time he opened the door that night he was shot.... since you have a propensity to post a 7 year old recycled pre-xmas news-article image as "proof") look like, what were the visiual conditions, what were the cops expecting in regards to the warrant(s) they were serving and the context of the fathers probation and criminal history, did the cop actually identify themselves and there was something environmental which presented and did someone else potentially hear it? A lot of stuff the OFFICIAL INVESTIGATORS would have access to, and which information they will not release till after it's presented to the DA.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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

Yes, because a WiiMote is so dangerous.

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

No, you don't.

Yes, I do.

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

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?

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

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.

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

---

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.

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.