Police officer kills unarmed adolescent

[Kamakazie Sith]

The homeowner saw Derek enter his shed, called 911, and then flagged down Alvarado while he was driving around, searching the neighborhood.

Just in case there was any need for clarification, the home owner clearly informed Alvarado that the kid was in the shed. Alvarado was driving around searching the neighborhood, the only way he could have known to search that particular shed would be because he was tipped off.

As I said earlier, its pretty clear that he was a very shitty cop. His reckless decision to put himself in harms way escalated the situation unneccessarily. Failure to follow proper procedure should immediately invoke severe penalties akin to manslaughter at the very least. I'd like to see the findings of the "investigation" in to the shooting, but at this point it doesn't appear anyone is saying he was at any point "armed". The only defense fostered by the school district was that he "charged out" of the shed, which again seems like bullshit given that the body was carried from the shed and laid on the grass. For what purpose? Why move the subject from the shed to the grass unless you were wanting to create the story that he "charged out" and you "had to shoot him".

Failing to follow proper procedure does not make a shooting unjustified. As for his "procedure" violations. Which one did he violate? Not waiting for a back up officer isn't a procedure issue. It's just not very smart. There are times when you have to look by yourself but this probably wasn't one of them.

Also, I feel like I need to point out that a young boy probably wouldn't have been considered a barricaded subject unless there was reason to believe he was armed was a dangerous weapon that would make clearing a shed tactically unsound. Usually when we declare someone barricaded it is because they're in a building or a house or are believed to be armed with a firearm.

As for moving the body? That could have been done to give medical personnel room to work. The question is did Alvarado omit this information from his report or officer involved shooting interview.

[Alkaloid]

Even if (and I stress if) the kid was armed and actively charging the officer so that he felt it was necessary to shoot him, the officer knowingly made a series of choices, despite being disciplined repeatedly in the past for making similar decisions and being told not to make one of them in this particular instance by his superior, that common sense let alone police training should tell him were wrong and likely to end in someone being injured.
Is there any particular reason he shouldn't have had the book thrown at him for this?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Even if (and I stress if) the kid was armed and actively charging the officer so that he felt it was necessary to shoot him, the officer knowingly made a series of choices, despite being disciplined repeatedly in the past for making similar decisions and being told not to make one of them in this particular instance by his superior, that common sense let alone police training should tell him were wrong and likely to end in someone being injured.
Is there any particular reason he shouldn't have had the book thrown at him for this?

Seriously? So, according to your logic if an officer makes bad decisions and/or has a history of discplinary problems then the laws the govern the use of deadly force no longer apply to the officer and he'll be charged with a crime? What crime do you think he should be charged with?

This might surprise you but just because you're dealing with the biggest dumbass cop in the world doesn't give you a right to try and seriously injure or murder him.

Also, how do you know his disciplinary incidents were for situations like this? Or do you just mean failure to obey incidents...

[Alkaloid]

I don't saying he doesn't have the right to defend himself, up to and including deadly force if necessary, or that the kid has the right to attack him, but this cop, through his actions, which included disobeying orders and violating procedure (I don't know what his departments procedures for situations like this are, but I'm pretty sure drawing a gun and bursting into an enclosed space with a suspect who you can't see and who has no way to exit the building without your knowledge is not one of them, if it is there is a whole other set of problems that need to be addressed) created a situation in which he felt he had to, and did, shoot a child.

I can't really think of any charges that should be brought against him, but I can see know reason why he should still be employed as a police officer, as he has repeatedly demonstrated (I think it was reprimanded 16 times, suspended 5 and his termination was recommended, and shot a child in a situation that did not need to occur, and had he followed orders, would not have occurred.) that he does not have the necessary judgement and discipline to be charged with the job, carry a firearm and enforce the law.

[SVPD]

I don't saying he doesn't have the right to defend himself, up to and including deadly force if necessary, or that the kid has the right to attack him, but this cop, through his actions, which included disobeying orders and violating procedure (I don't know what his departments procedures for situations like this are, but I'm pretty sure drawing a gun and bursting into an enclosed space with a suspect who you can't see and who has no way to exit the building without your knowledge is not one of them, if it is there is a whole other set of problems that need to be addressed) created a situation in which he felt he had to, and did, shoot a child.

Ok, first of all there probably is no set department procedure for dealing with subjects who may be hiding in an enclosed space without other aggravating factors. It is not possible to come up with a procedure for each and every situation one encounters, nor is it reasonable to make so many because no one would be able to remember them all. If merely hiding inside a shed or something like that meant the police couldn't go in and search for you simply to avoid the possibility of you attacking them and then getting shot, what do you think every criminal would do?

Second, the fact that he is a "child" is irrelevant, and the use of the term child is predjudicial because while he is a minor, he's also a teenager, not a small child, which is what usually comes to mind with that word. What matters is whether he actually did have a weapon and move towards the officer aggressively.

I can't really think of any charges that should be brought against him, but I can see know reason why he should still be employed as a police officer, as he has repeatedly demonstrated (I think it was reprimanded 16 times, suspended 5 and his termination was recommended, and shot a child in a situation that did not need to occur, and had he followed orders, would not have occurred.) that he does not have the necessary judgement and discipline to be charged with the job, carry a firearm and enforce the law.

What exactly is a "situation that did not need to occur"? The kid did not need to beat up his classmate in the first place, either. Second, it's hardly acceptable to say "if he followed orders he wouldn't have shot the kid." Of course not, but since we don't know what would have happened, it hardly matters. What was the supervisor planning to do? Go out and search himself? Send another officer to do it? Just leave it go and get the kid later? Possibly the latter, but it's not acceptable for the police to just let criminals go run off and catch them whenever they get around to it; that just encourages criminals to do exactly that. Had someone else searched, and the kid really DID grab something and charge its possible he STILL would have been shot.

Third, no, this guy does not look like he needs to work as a police officer; his disciplinary record is appalling. However, if they kept him on the force the fact is that unless he was officially placed on some restricted duty (where they should have taken his gun anyhow) he can, and should, enforce the law like he's supposed to. His superiors should not send him out to do the job then decide once he's out there and a situation occurs "oh, wait, now lets have him sit on his hands because he might not handle it well." That's their fault if he doesn't; they've decided to keep him and failed to give remedial training.

There's also the possibility that most or all of his reprimands come from supervisors who regularly tell their officers, essentially, "don't enforce the law". Given the behavior of his supervisors and their apparent failure to fire him the possibility exists that he was disciplined under circumstances that would be questionable were he actually terminated and he decided to sue.

[TheHammer]

I once had a pretty vigorous debate with some people on this board in regards to having a reinforced door to make it more difficulty for police to simply "kick-in" the door whenever they felt they had "reasonable suspicion". And shit like this is the reason why. I hope the dept gets taken to the cleaners, another investigation is performed on the officer by an outside agency (hopefully one with integrity), and that several people get fired over this...

And you're still wrong. Shit like this? So, you want reinforced doors so strangers can run into your yard and barricade themselves from the police. Hammer, you are an idiot.

I want a reinforced door to prevent some gung-ho cop from simply kicking it in, shooting me, and throwing a weapon down by my body and saying "Well he was trying to kill me! It was self defense! You should believe me because I'm a cop". As you noted then, there are ways to breakdown even reinforced doors, however those require additional steps and are highly unlikely to result in a heat of the moment door-kick *SURPRISE* shots fired incident. In short, its not the good cops I'm afraid of, rather its the shitty ones such as the one in the article that I'm concerned about.

[TheHammer]

The homeowner saw Derek enter his shed, called 911, and then flagged down Alvarado while he was driving around, searching the neighborhood.

Just in case there was any need for clarification, the home owner clearly informed Alvarado that the kid was in the shed. Alvarado was driving around searching the neighborhood, the only way he could have known to search that particular shed would be because he was tipped off.

As I said earlier, its pretty clear that he was a very shitty cop. His reckless decision to put himself in harms way escalated the situation unneccessarily. Failure to follow proper procedure should immediately invoke severe penalties akin to manslaughter at the very least. I'd like to see the findings of the "investigation" in to the shooting, but at this point it doesn't appear anyone is saying he was at any point "armed". The only defense fostered by the school district was that he "charged out" of the shed, which again seems like bullshit given that the body was carried from the shed and laid on the grass. For what purpose? Why move the subject from the shed to the grass unless you were wanting to create the story that he "charged out" and you "had to shoot him".

Failing to follow proper procedure does not make a shooting unjustified. As for his "procedure" violations. Which one did he violate? Not waiting for a back up officer isn't a procedure issue. It's just not very smart. There are times when you have to look by yourself but this probably wasn't one of them.

If was his failure to follow orders and proper procedure resulted in the situation escalating to the point where he had to fire his weapon then he should suffer a penalty. It was noted in the article that he did both:

"In violation of police department procedures, according to the lawsuit, Alvarado drew his weapon immediately after exiting his patrol car, rushed into the back yard, and shot Derek within seconds of arriving at the house."
...
"Dispatch recordings reflect that his supervisor directed Alvarado to stay with the other boy and to 'not do any big search over there.'"

And that neither was a first time offense for this guy.

Granted, those are the facts as presented by the lawsuit. However, given that either one could EASILY be disproven if false, then I'm going to take the stance that they are accurate.

Strictly put, an officers authority and right to use firearms are governed by laws and procedures. Failure to follow either should be prosecuted so you don't have "Dirty Harry" wannabies running around CAUSING situations where they have to discharge their firearm. If the boy did in fact charge him with a pickaxe or something (and there has been no mention of this scenario ANYWHERE, so this is purely hypothetical) then the actual shooting would be justified. However the Officer's fuckups up to that point that resulted in this situation should incurr a severe penalty akin to manslaughter.

Also, I feel like I need to point out that a young boy probably wouldn't have been considered a barricaded subject unless there was reason to believe he was armed was a dangerous weapon that would make clearing a shed tactically unsound. Usually when we declare someone barricaded it is because they're in a building or a house or are believed to be armed with a firearm.

If he did not believe the boy to be armed or a threat why draw his weapon? Oh apparently, as the officer reported, he had just witnessed a "violent attack" on another student - which was described as a SINGLE PUNCH. I will also note that the victim of the "violent attack" did not require immediate medical attention because the officer choose to put the other student in his car and chase the boy into the neighborhood...

But given the officer's behavior of drawing his gun immediately upon exiting the vehicle, the boy's hands clearly should have been considered lethal weapons, and thus he should have been considered "barricaded" in the shed.

As for moving the body? That could have been done to give medical personnel room to work. The question is did Alvarado omit this information from his report or officer involved shooting interview.

Except Alvarado never called for medical personnel. It was a neighbor that made that call and administered what aid he could.

If this had been a decorated officer, or one with a better record then maybe you could give him the benefit of the doubt. But even when its clear he was a shitty cop and a shitty human being why are you still defending him? It seems like its typical "defend a brother officer" bullshit even when its plainly obvious he fucked up in a major way that resulted in unneccessary death.

[TheHammer]

I don't saying he doesn't have the right to defend himself, up to and including deadly force if necessary, or that the kid has the right to attack him, but this cop, through his actions, which included disobeying orders and violating procedure (I don't know what his departments procedures for situations like this are, but I'm pretty sure drawing a gun and bursting into an enclosed space with a suspect who you can't see and who has no way to exit the building without your knowledge is not one of them, if it is there is a whole other set of problems that need to be addressed) created a situation in which he felt he had to, and did, shoot a child.

Ok, first of all there probably is no set department procedure for dealing with subjects who may be hiding in an enclosed space without other aggravating factors. It is not possible to come up with a procedure for each and every situation one encounters, nor is it reasonable to make so many because no one would be able to remember them all. If merely hiding inside a shed or something like that meant the police couldn't go in and search for you simply to avoid the possibility of you attacking them and then getting shot, what do you think every criminal would do?

The article states he violated procedures. Given his track record, are you really at all surprised? Given that this officer was specifically assigned to role dealing with minors, I'm sure purview of how you handle a school yard fight is something that was covered. I highly doubt that drawing your gun and hunting down one of the participants is part of that procedure...

Second, the fact that he is a "child" is irrelevant, and the use of the term child is predjudicial because while he is a minor, he's also a teenager, not a small child, which is what usually comes to mind with that word. What matters is whether he actually did have a weapon and move towards the officer aggressively.

Granted, a 14 year old can certainly "pose a threat" to an adult. That's not at issue here. What is at issue is why a cop with such poor judgement was allowed to remain on the force, and if he in fact violated procedure in his actions that resulted in the boy's death.

I can't really think of any charges that should be brought against him, but I can see know reason why he should still be employed as a police officer, as he has repeatedly demonstrated (I think it was reprimanded 16 times, suspended 5 and his termination was recommended, and shot a child in a situation that did not need to occur, and had he followed orders, would not have occurred.) that he does not have the necessary judgement and discipline to be charged with the job, carry a firearm and enforce the law.

What exactly is a "situation that did not need to occur"? The kid did not need to beat up his classmate in the first place, either.

One punch does not constitute "beaten up". If the other student had in fact been "beaten up" then Alvarado would have been severely remiss not to administer aid would he not? Even if the second student had in fact been "beaten up" it does not excuse the Officer's actions that followed.

Second, it's hardly acceptable to say "if he followed orders he wouldn't have shot the kid." Of course not, but since we don't know what would have happened, it hardly matters. What was the supervisor planning to do? Go out and search himself? Send another officer to do it? Just leave it go and get the kid later? Possibly the latter, but it's not acceptable for the police to just let criminals go run off and catch them whenever they get around to it; that just encourages criminals to do exactly that. Had someone else searched, and the kid really DID grab something and charge its possible he STILL would have been shot.

First of all, no one, not even the distrcit has asserted that he "grabbed anything". The only statement by the school's attorney, was that the kid "charged from the shed", which I think to probably be bullshit given that the officer had to go in to the shed to retrieve his body.

Second, its not as if this kid had robbed a liquore store at gunpoint. It was a school yard fight that result in minor if any injuries, certainly nothing requiring immediate medical attention. As you pointed out, the most logical course of action would be to pick up the kid later as most certainly the other kid in the fight could identify him. Chasing him down like he was an escaped convict was ridiculous.

Third, no, this guy does not look like he needs to work as a police officer; his disciplinary record is appalling. However, if they kept him on the force the fact is that unless he was officially placed on some restricted duty (where they should have taken his gun anyhow) he can, and should, enforce the law like he's supposed to. His superiors should not send him out to do the job then decide once he's out there and a situation occurs "oh, wait, now lets have him sit on his hands because he might not handle it well." That's their fault if he doesn't; they've decided to keep him and failed to give remedial training.

That's why everyone involved in this should suffer some form of repurcussions.

There's also the possibility that most or all of his reprimands come from supervisors who regularly tell their officers, essentially, "don't enforce the law". Given the behavior of his supervisors and their apparent failure to fire him the possibility exists that he was disciplined under circumstances that would be questionable were he actually terminated and he decided to sue.

That's taking speculation to a whole new level. I highly doubt a supervisor would document insubordination where he told the officer to "not enforce the law". As to the incidents, as noted he was suspended without pay on 5 occaisions prior to being recommended for termination:

Specifically, he had been reprimanded for insubordination and failure to follow supervisors' directives seven (7) times. Due to his poor service record, Alvarado was suspended without pay on five (5) occasions. On May 21, 2008, Alvarado was recommended for termination by Page. Despite being recommended for termination for insubordination and for refusal to follow supervisor directives, Alvarado remained on the force without remedial training

Why was he kept on the force? I have no fucking idea. Just like I have no idea why you and Kamakize feel the need to defend him. But its more likely he had naked pictures of police chief than the scenario you just presented...

[Kamakazie Sith]

I want a reinforced door to prevent some gung-ho cop from simply kicking it in, shooting me, and throwing a weapon down by my body and saying "Well he was trying to kill me! It was self defense! You should believe me because I'm a cop". As you noted then, there are ways to breakdown even reinforced doors, however those require additional steps and are highly unlikely to result in a heat of the moment door-kick *SURPRISE* shots fired incident. In short, its not the good cops I'm afraid of, rather its the shitty ones such as the one in the article that I'm concerned about.

That's like me saying I want a firearms for self defense reasons - because the Chinese might invade.

Having a reinforced door to protect yourself from criminals makes sense, especially if you live in a high crime area. Having one to protect yourself from bad cops is tin foil hat level crazy.

[Lord Baal]

nah... having this:

To protect you against shitty cops would be tin foil hat level crazy (cause anyone that have seen the movie can see they fail to do so).

[Kamakazie Sith]

If was his failure to follow orders and proper procedure resulted in the situation escalating to the point where he had to fire his weapon then he should suffer a penalty. It was noted in the article that he did both:

Yes, as I said before he should be fired. In fact, he should never have been employed for this to take place. However, I try not to jump on the witch burning band wagon. Just because he failed to follow orders and policy does not make the shooting a crime. Get that through your thick skull. The only thing that makes a shooting a crime is when it meets the elements of *gasp* a crime.

And that neither was a first time offense for this guy.

Granted, those are the facts as presented by the lawsuit. However, given that either one could EASILY be disproven if false, then I'm going to take the stance that they are accurate.

Really? How will the officer disprove that he did not exit his patrol car with his gun drawn? ?

Strictly put, an officers authority and right to use firearms are governed by laws and procedures.

Mostly by laws and then what would be considered reasonable. There's no policy like "you may draw your firearm in the following circumstances". Clearing a shed with your firearm drawn while looking for someone who ran from police is a reasonable action, especially since he probably wasn't checked for weapons.

Failure to follow either should be prosecuted so you don't have "Dirty Harry" wannabies running around CAUSING situations where they have to discharge their firearm. If the boy did in fact charge him with a pickaxe or something (and there has been no mention of this scenario ANYWHERE, so this is purely hypothetical) then the actual shooting would be justified. However the Officer's fuckups up to that point that resulted in this situation should incurr a severe penalty akin to manslaughter.

Write your legislature and tell them that you'd like cops to be charged with a crime when they violate department policy which results in someone being killed. It won't pass though because it's completely unreasonable. The real issue here is why the department kept this officer on after so many disciplinary actions.

If the admin isn't full of idiots then my guess is those disciplinary actions were minor. Believe it or not police sometimes do get written up for ridiculous things. I once got written up because I returned to the precinct before a certain time to use the restroom. One of our watch commanders didn't like seeing officers at the precinct. He wanted them out in the community. Of course, taking a shit in a public restroom in a gang heavy area isn't what I consider safe. My write up was called "failure to obey". It was minor in nature though.

If they were serious write ups then the admin should be held accountable but not for the minors death. As SVPD pointed out that could have happened anyway.

If he did not believe the boy to be armed or a threat why draw his weapon? Oh apparently, as the officer reported, he had just witnessed a "violent attack" on another student - which was described as a SINGLE PUNCH. I will also note that the victim of the "violent attack" did not require immediate medical attention because the officer choose to put the other student in his car and chase the boy into the neighborhood...

Because you prepare for the worst when searching for people running from the police that you haven't checked for weapons. Duh.

But given the officer's behavior of drawing his gun immediately upon exiting the vehicle, the boy's hands clearly should have been considered lethal weapons, and thus he should have been considered "barricaded" in the shed.

Except Alvarado never called for medical personnel. It was a neighbor that made that call and administered what aid he could.

So you're assuming that this EMT neighbor didn't inform Alvarado that medical was enroute. Interesting.

If this had been a decorated officer, or one with a better record then maybe you could give him the benefit of the doubt. But even when its clear he was a shitty cop and a shitty human being why are you still defending him? It seems like its typical "defend a brother officer" bullshit even when its plainly obvious he fucked up in a major way that resulted in unneccessary death.

Defending him? You asked a question and I gave you an answer. Don't be an asshole.

[Kamakazie Sith]

nah... having this:
<snip video>
To protect you against shitty cops would be tin foil hat level crazy cause anyone that have seen the movie can see they fail to do so.

Nah. That's like militia level crazy. Tin foil hat level crazy people are usually pretty harmless but it certainly is a gateway to militia level. Yes, these levels are completely arbitrary.

[SVPD]

The article states he violated procedures. Given his track record, are you really at all surprised? Given that this officer was specifically assigned to role dealing with minors, I'm sure purview of how you handle a school yard fight is something that was covered. I highly doubt that drawing your gun and hunting down one of the participants is part of that procedure...

All this is assumption on your part. You're assuming the procedure in question was how to handle the fight, and you're assuming that its possible to write out a nice neat procedure that can always be followed.

No police department ever issues procedures that state whether you can draw you gun or not. They issue policies which contain highly generalized guidlelines for the use of force but ultimately the responsibility is on the individual officer to do so when it is appropriate.

Granted, a 14 year old can certainly "pose a threat" to an adult. That's not at issue here. What is at issue is why a cop with such poor judgement was allowed to remain on the force, and if he in fact violated procedure in his actions that resulted in the boy's death.

Why he was allowed to remain is unknown. However, since he was allowed, he should handle any situation he encounters the way any other officer should.

Him violating procedures did not result in the boy's death. That resulted from one of two things: the boy attacked him, or he incorrectly believed the boy was attacking him. In the first case he was within both his power as a police officer and his rights as a citizen to defend himself. In the second case, he is outside the scope of law. Either way, whether he followed procedure is irrelevant to whether he properly defended himself once he arrived at the shed. His failure to follow procedure in no way makes him responsible for the boy attacking him, if that was what happened.

One punch does not constitute "beaten up". If the other student had in fact been "beaten up" then Alvarado would have been severely remiss not to administer aid would he not? Even if the second student had in fact been "beaten up" it does not excuse the Officer's actions that followed.

Maybe he would and maybe he wouldn't. "Beaten up" is hardly a precise term, and sure, it could be one punch. All you're doing here is nitpicking semantics.

As for whether it excuses his actions, obviously not. What would excuse his actions is if he was, in fact, attacked.

First of all, no one, not even the distrcit has asserted that he "grabbed anything". The only statement by the school's attorney, was that the kid "charged from the shed", which I think to probably be bullshit given that the officer had to go in to the shed to retrieve his body.

You're nitpicking semantics again. "Charged from the shed" doesn't necessarily mean he actually managed to exit; it just means he was in the process of trying to do so. Second, we know perfectly well what's been asserted. That's why we've repeatedly said IF he had picked up a potential weapon. Just because the school's attorney didn't specifically cover that in his statement means little; all that shows is that there's a lack of sufficient information.

Second, its not as if this kid had robbed a liquore store at gunpoint. It was a school yard fight that result in minor if any injuries, certainly nothing requiring immediate medical attention. As you pointed out, the most logical course of action would be to pick up the kid later as most certainly the other kid in the fight could identify him. Chasing him down like he was an escaped convict was ridiculous.

I didn't point out that picking him up later was the most logical course of action, nor is there anything at all ridiculous about chasing him down. Police chase criminals every day. The only thing ridiculous is people trying to suddenly pretend that's a problem just because of this incident.

That's why everyone involved in this should suffer some form of repurcussions.

Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't. We don't know yet.

That's taking speculation to a whole new level. I highly doubt a supervisor would document insubordination where he told the officer to "not enforce the law". As to the incidents, as noted he was suspended without pay on 5 occaisions prior to being recommended for termination:

Obviously the supervisor would not use those words, but I ahve seen supervisors issue instructions that amount to the same thing before, more than once. Clearly I'm specualting to some degree, but if you can't get rid of a guy with a disciplinary record this long, that carries a strong possibility that the disciplinary record would not really hold up to scrutiny.

Specifically, he had been reprimanded for insubordination and failure to follow supervisors' directives seven (7) times. Due to his poor service record, Alvarado was suspended without pay on five (5) occasions. On May 21, 2008, Alvarado was recommended for termination by Page. Despite being recommended for termination for insubordination and for refusal to follow supervisor directives, Alvarado remained on the force without remedial training

Why was he kept on the force? I have no fucking idea. Just like I have no idea why you and Kamakize feel the need to defend him. But its more likely he had naked pictures of police chief than the scenario you just presented...

Uh, no, it isn't. No one is contesting what his disciplinary stats are, and yet the fact is that he wasn't fired. KS and I are not "defending" him at all, neither of us have said he is in the right. We are pointing out how incomplete the information is, and the holes in the story.

[TheHammer]

I want a reinforced door to prevent some gung-ho cop from simply kicking it in, shooting me, and throwing a weapon down by my body and saying "Well he was trying to kill me! It was self defense! You should believe me because I'm a cop". As you noted then, there are ways to breakdown even reinforced doors, however those require additional steps and are highly unlikely to result in a heat of the moment door-kick *SURPRISE* shots fired incident. In short, its not the good cops I'm afraid of, rather its the shitty ones such as the one in the article that I'm concerned about.

That's like me saying I want a firearms for self defense reasons - because the Chinese might invade.

Having a reinforced door to protect yourself from criminals makes sense, especially if you live in a high crime area. Having one to protect yourself from bad cops is tin foil hat level crazy.

I guess it all depends on the type of neighborhood you live in right? The nice thing about a reinforced door is that it helps in both instances.

I've said all I need to say on this matter, and I don't care to delve into the realm of the hypothetical (if this, then that). As the facts come out, I'd be glad to revist and or revise anything I've said, however at this point I stand by all my statements.

[TheHammer]

If was his failure to follow orders and proper procedure resulted in the situation escalating to the point where he had to fire his weapon then he should suffer a penalty. It was noted in the article that he did both:

Yes, as I said before he should be fired. In fact, he should never have been employed for this to take place. However, I try not to jump on the witch burning band wagon. Just because he failed to follow orders and policy does not make the shooting a crime. Get that through your thick skull. The only thing that makes a shooting a crime is when it meets the elements of *gasp* a crime.

And that neither was a first time offense for this guy.

Granted, those are the facts as presented by the lawsuit. However, given that either one could EASILY be disproven if false, then I'm going to take the stance that they are accurate.

Really? How will the officer disprove that he did not exit his patrol car with his gun drawn? ?

Strictly put, an officers authority and right to use firearms are governed by laws and procedures.

Mostly by laws and then what would be considered reasonable. There's no policy like "you may draw your firearm in the following circumstances". Clearing a shed with your firearm drawn while looking for someone who ran from police is a reasonable action, especially since he probably wasn't checked for weapons.

The lawsuit says he violated procedure, as well as disobeyed orders. I can't speak to specifics since they aren't included, hopefully they will emerge later.

Failure to follow either should be prosecuted so you don't have "Dirty Harry" wannabies running around CAUSING situations where they have to discharge their firearm. If the boy did in fact charge him with a pickaxe or something (and there has been no mention of this scenario ANYWHERE, so this is purely hypothetical) then the actual shooting would be justified. However the Officer's fuckups up to that point that resulted in this situation should incurr a severe penalty akin to manslaughter.

Write your legislature and tell them that you'd like cops to be charged with a crime when they violate department policy which results in someone being killed. It won't pass though because it's completely unreasonable.

WHY is that unreasonable? Society gives police a gun and authority to use it. I don't think its unreasonable to expect them to comply with policies or orders from their superiors, or hold them accountable for failing to do so. I'm not saying it would apply in all cases, but in cases such as above the officer in question's behavior was akin to Criminally negligent manslaughter as defined here http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... nslaughter

A homicide resulting from the taking of an unreasonable and high degree of risk is usually considered criminally negligent manslaughter. Jurisdictions are divided on the question of whether the defendant must be aware of the risk. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk, although, under some codes, the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious homicide.

There are numerous cases in which an omission to act or a failure to perform a duty constitutes criminally negligent manslaughter...

The Officer's refusing to obey orders and not following proper procedures could easily be construed as a failure to perform his duty. There do not appear to be any extenuating circumstances that would excuse his doing so. It may well be that ultimately the Kid "charged out" of the shed, However it is clear that the Officer needlessly escalated the situation. So, while the shooting may be justified, the officers recklessness that lead to the situation was not. And yes there may not be a particular statute for this, but there damn well should be.

The real issue here is why the department kept this officer on after so many disciplinary actions.

If the admin isn't full of idiots then my guess is those disciplinary actions were minor. Believe it or not police sometimes do get written up for ridiculous things. I once got written up because I returned to the precinct before a certain time to use the restroom. One of our watch commanders didn't like seeing officers at the precinct. He wanted them out in the community. Of course, taking a shit in a public restroom in a gang heavy area isn't what I consider safe. My write up was called "failure to obey". It was minor in nature though.

If they were serious write ups then the admin should be held accountable but not for the minors death. As SVPD pointed out that could have happened anyway.

He was suspended without pay 5 times. One would assume they were pretty severe violations for that to occur. But again, this is why I don't want to get too deep into hypotheticals. At this point I'd rather see how the case plays out before commenting further.

But given the officer's behavior of drawing his gun immediately upon exiting the vehicle, the boy's hands clearly should have been considered lethal weapons, and thus he should have been considered "barricaded" in the shed.

Exactly

[Kamakazie Sith]

The lawsuit says he violated procedure, as well as disobeyed orders. I can't speak to specifics since they aren't included, hopefully they will emerge later.

Yeah, the attorney that the family hired is doing his job. He's alleging these policy violations. Doesn't mean any actually took place. The only thing we know that did happen was he disobeyed orders.

WHY is that unreasonable? Society gives police a gun and authority to use it. I don't think its unreasonable to expect them to comply with policies or orders from their superiors, or hold them accountable for failing to do so. I'm not saying it would apply in all cases, but in cases such as above the officer in question's behavior was akin to Criminally negligent manslaughter as defined here http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... nslaughter

Yes, so do I. The same way I hold you accountable for not following the policies in your job. You get fired. You only get charged with a crime if you actually commit a crime. However, regardless of whatever policies you violate you did not force the other person to try and take your life. If that is what took place the responsibility and consequences for that action rest upon the shoulders of that kid and he paid the price for trying to take the life of another person.

The Officer's refusing to obey orders and not following proper procedures could easily be construed as a failure to perform his duty. There do not appear to be any extenuating circumstances that would excuse his doing so. It may well be that ultimately the Kid "charged out" of the shed, However it is clear that the Officer needlessly escalated the situation. So, while the shooting may be justified, the officers recklessness that lead to the situation was not. And yes there may not be a particular statute for this, but there damn well should be.

I disagree. Fire this cop. Charging him with a crime for protecting himself is retarded and unreasonable. He didn't escalate the situation. He did what a cop is suppose to do. Using your logic any cop that chases a suspect is "escalating" the situation. As I've stated before this officer didn't do anything that another officer wouldn't do in a similiar situation. What makes it unique is he was given an UNUSUAL order to not pursue the suspect. The only time you'd hear that in my city is for a vehicle pursuit that is endangering the lives of OTHER CITIZENS not the fucking suspect.

He was suspended without pay 5 times. One would assume they were pretty severe violations for that to occur. But again, this is why I don't want to get too deep into hypotheticals. At this point I'd rather see how the case plays out before commenting further.

We agree on this issue.

Exactly

I'll consider this a concession on that point.

[Alkaloid]

What exactly is a "situation that did not need to occur"?

He had no need to go into that shed. Most of the other things he did I can rationalise. Ok, he went after the kid after being ordered not to, but yes, the kid is a criminal and is running away, I understand how that happens. Yeah, drawn gun, I think its an overreaction, but I get it. Kid is in the shed. Goes charging in. Why? It's not like there were hostages he was about to start executing, or a bomb he had to defuse. He had no business bursting in like that, because it is the course of action most likely to result in something like this happening.

In regards to the fact that it was a child being irrelevant. It is relevant, very relevant. It is legally acknowledged that the laws applying to children and teenagers are different that to adults. That's why we have childrens courts and childrens detention centres and legal records from childhood are sealed. Because as a result of the fact that their brains are still developing, they make stupid decisions all the time. Case in point, running from a cop because you punched another kid once is stupid. Its possible, that if you stay there you can sort the whole thing out with an apology at worst, and a childhood conviction that's unlikely to result in jail time at worst, (he hit the kid once, its not like he knocked him down and kicked him unconscious) but to this kid the best option seemed to be to run. Bu the same token, bursting in on a cornered teenage is going to make him panic, and probably do something stupid, like charge a man with a gun. Sure, searching the shed aggressively is appropriate in some situations, and not allowing the police to do it is stupid, but is there any reason in this case why maybe giving the kid some time to think, calling out and asking him to come out of the shed so you can chat about why he was punching another kid in the first place. Is non violent conflict resolution not part of his training?

As for the whole 'not doing his job' thing. I assume his supervisor had a reason for ordering him to stay with the victim, (and given this guys record, I wouldn't blame him if it was just because he thought he might run off and do something stupid, half the work most people do is trying to stop their colleagues from fucking up) but there is another issue at work here. There is a reason that most law enforcement agencies have mottoes like 'protect and serve' and there is a principal of 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'beyond reasonable doubt.' Modern society generally subscribes to the view that it is more important to protect the innocent than it is to punish the guilty. Inevitably, thins means that it might take time for criminals to be prosecuted, if it happens at all. If police take on the mentality that their only job is to catch and punish criminals, then the way they deal with people that aren't criminals will reflect that, and you will get people like Hammer, who clearly doesn't trust the police to not shoot him because its easiest, let alone help him if he needs it. Overly paranoid? Probably, but the attitude comes from somewhere, and having a bunch of cops without the discipline to stop, take a breath and obey their (presumably reasonable) superiors orders to wait with a victim of a crime rather than go haring off after a minor and mostly harmless suspect, which results in the shooting death of a child, is far more likely to result in the public fearing the police than it is to trust them.

[LaCroix]

Is it safe to assume that the supervisor didn't want him to pursue the kid because people knew him? I mean, the other kids on campus would know him, even the supervisor might know him, so they could just look up his address and conveniently pick him up later.

No need to run after him...

[Thanas]

^Yeah, that is what I thought as well.

And because this was brought up earlier: In Germany, if a pursuit of a suspect is deemed too hazardous to the officers, bystanders and/or the suspect it can and will be stopped. The safety of all these people is rated higher than potentially letting somebody get away with something, especially considering they'll have a lot of info to get him later anyway.

And of course the kid would most likely not have been shot anyway, but that is rather due to the fact that we are rather sane when it comes to guns in society.

[Kamakazie Sith]

^Yeah, that is what I thought as well.

And because this was brought up earlier: In Germany, if a pursuit of a suspect is deemed too hazardous to the officers, bystanders and/or the suspect it can and will be stopped. The safety of all these people is rated higher than potentially letting somebody get away with something, especially considering they'll have a lot of info to get him later anyway.

And of course the kid would most likely not have been shot anyway, but that is rather due to the fact that we are rather sane when it comes to guns in society.

Some US law enforcement agencies have a similar policy but only involving vehicle pursuits. I imagine Germany is the same since the risk to the public generated by a foot pursuit is quite small.

As for the kid not being shot. Not sure how you can say that. Are German police officers not allowed to defend their lives from a threat that could seriously injure or kill? So, to be sure I under if this was in Germany and the boy came out of the shed and charged a German police officer with a dangerous weapon the officer could not use deadly force against him?

[LaCroix]

^Yeah, that is what I thought as well.

And because this was brought up earlier: In Germany, if a pursuit of a suspect is deemed too hazardous to the officers, bystanders and/or the suspect it can and will be stopped. The safety of all these people is rated higher than potentially letting somebody get away with something, especially considering they'll have a lot of info to get him later anyway.

And of course the kid would most likely not have been shot anyway, but that is rather due to the fact that we are rather sane when it comes to guns in society.

Some US law enforcement agencies have a similar policy but only involving vehicle pursuits. I imagine Germany is the same since the risk to the public generated by a foot pursuit is quite small.

As for the kid not being shot. Not sure how you can say that. Are German police officers not allowed to defend their lives from a threat that could seriously injure or kill? So, to be sure I under if this was in Germany and the boy came out of the shed and charged a German police officer with a dangerous weapon the officer could not use deadly force against him?

Because a German police officer would not have a gun in hand when he stands outside of the shed, telling the kid to be clever and come out of it. German police does not pull a gun when they pursuit a child that has smacked another child.

(As far as I know, he would probably at least get a stern lecture by his superior if he had pulled a gun at the point the police officer in the article did. Maybe even get suspended.)

[Thanas]

Because a German police officer would not have a gun in hand when he stands outside of the shed, telling the kid to be clever and come out of it. German police does not pull a gun when they pursuit a child that has smacked another child.

This.

If the kid had charged at the officer with a weapon, I doubt that he would have had time to draw his pistol (if he even had one with him - most do but some do not). German police are expected to defend themselves with other means first and then only use the weapon as a last resort.

That said, even if the kid had charged at the guy, policy would have required the officer to shoot to wound first. BTW Kamakazie, we have gone over this in the past with statistics as well so I wonder why you bring it up again (especially with the same old GERMAN POLICE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES OMG argument).

(As far as I know, he would probably at least get a stern lecture by his superior if he had pulled a gun at the point the police officer in the article did. Maybe even get suspended.)

Also true. A german officer is not allowed to draw his gun in just any situation. Gun use is the very, very last resort. The most he would draw in such a situation is a baton, if that at all.

People wonder why Europeans consider the USA police to have a bit of a cowboy mentality. Maybe that mentality is warranted, maybe not. However the notion of drawing a gun in pursuit of an adolescent sounds pretty insane and gung-ho to me. And the mere possibility of this being a freak accident and the officer having a risk of harm does also not justify pulling a gun while in pursuit of an adolescent to me.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Because a German police officer would not have a gun in hand when he stands outside of the shed, telling the kid to be clever and come out of it. German police does not pull a gun when they pursuit a child that has smacked another child.

(As far as I know, he would probably at least get a stern lecture by his superior if he had pulled a gun at the point the police officer in the article did. Maybe even get suspended.)

Let's be clear on one thing. Reasonable US cops don't do that either. And you dodged my question.

[Kamakazie Sith]

This.

If the kid had charged at the officer with a weapon, I doubt that he would have had time to draw his pistol (if he even had one with him - most do but some do not). German police are expected to defend themselves with other means first and then only use the weapon as a last resort.

That said, even if the kid had charged at the guy, policy would have required the officer to shoot to wound first. BTW Kamakazie, we have gone over this in the past with statistics as well so I wonder why you bring it up again (especially with the same old GERMAN POLICE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES OMG argument).

Listen small fry. I brought it up again because you made a conflicting statement. The answer is yes, a german police officer could use deadly force to defend himself in the same situation and as far as I'm concerned shooting to wound is still considered deadly force because you're using a firearm.

Also true. A german officer is not allowed to draw his gun in just any situation. Gun use is the very, very last resort. The most he would draw in such a situation is a baton, if that at all.

In the US the officer must be reasonable when drawing a firearm. Depending on the location it is not unreasonable to be concerned that a teenager may be armed with a gun. Just the other day we had two 16 year olds shoot at each other with pistols. After an investigation we seized a SKS rifle from his house and two other guns. A 16 year old! So you'll do well to remember that your world isn't like mine. A 16 year old having a gun in Germany is probably a crazy unheard of thing. Here it happens all the time.

Honestly, have you even heard of the above situation happening in Germany? I'd guess not but I will say that's a win for you. Being a cop in Germany sounds a lot better than being one in the US.

My example is from the area of SLC, Utah. This story is out of San Antonio, Texas where young teenage gun violence is much higher. In Vegas, they had a 13 year old steal beer (harmless crime) from a local convience store. A police officer began a chase. This 13 year old drops his beer turns around and assumes a good platformed stance and fires several rounds at the Vegas cop. Also, in Vegas they have 16 year old gang members going out and robbing convience stores at gun point and then fleeing in vehicles from police.

People wonder why Europeans consider the USA police to have a bit of a cowboy mentality. Maybe that mentality is warranted, maybe not. However the notion of drawing a gun in pursuit of an adolescent sounds pretty insane and gung-ho to me. And the mere possibility of this being a freak accident and the officer having a risk of harm does also not justify pulling a gun while in pursuit of an adolescent to me.

I don't wonder. I know why. Ignorance and national pride. Though I'll admit to being guilty of the same.

[LaCroix]

Let's be clear on one thing. Reasonable US cops don't do that either. And you dodged my question.

You asked why the kid wouldn't be shot in Germany.

Fact is, in the US, a cop is allowed to pull his gun in such a situation (although a reasonable cop won't...), in Germany, he is NOT even allowed to pull a gun in this situation. So the fact stands that the German cop would not already have a gun in hand at pursuit, and he would not have a gun in hand in front of the shed.

Is he allowed to defend himself? Yes, of course.
You are trying to create this usual, and ridiculous "Guy is storming at you in an alley, you have a gun" scenario - yes, if he were attacked with a weapon, he is allowed to fire his gun.

But if, like in your scenario, the kid storms out of the shed at a distance that makes the cop feel threatened without having time to assess whether the kid is armed or not, the time would not suffice to pull a gun. So the question if he may shoot to kill is moot.

Also, there are higher standards of conduct in German police than US police when it comes to drawing a gun. Just storming out of the shed is NOT sufficient reason to pull, unless you can clearly see him having a weapon before he got inside or when he comes out.

In most cases, self-defence would not include firearm use. Even if, he is mandated to try a non-lethal shot. In whole Germany (~80 mil. people), there are usually around 50 cases (Source, 2000-2004) of police officers using a firearm against a human, with about 10 % resulting in death, and 30% in no harm (warning shot).

Also, if he were a German cop, he would already be fired and would probably face charges for what happened in this incident.