Last night Chicago Police shot a 14 year old boy who was accused of armed robbery. They shot him five times in the torso. Witnesses say he reached into his pants and pulled out the gun. Some witnesses say he aimed it others say he was putting it down. Did police have the right to shoot him?
I say yes. When you're being chased and you want to surrender the first thing you do is raise your hands in the air. If you reach for anything they will shoot. And i'm sick of all the protests. Don't put the blame on the police. They are not at fault. The problem with america these days is we don't take responsibility for our actions. There are consequences to our decisions. That kid decided to rob somebody and not surrender when asked to. Instead he ran. The public is speaking out. I say the boy did it to himself. He knew the consequences. It's tragic, but he made his choice.
2006-08-08 02:49:10 · 11 answers · asked by Badger5678 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
If you're old enough to do the crime... you're old enough to take the punishment for that crime.
He committed armed robbery and then drew his weapon at police so they already knew he was dangerous.
I will bet my life that half of those witnesses didn't have a good view of the entire situation evolving to begin with... let alone to see it in the dark from a distance.
2006-08-08 03:01:04 · answer #1 · answered by MadMaxx 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The 14 year old make a bad choice when he used a gun in an armed robbery. He must have known there could be consequences. If one of the officers had been a family member, would people feel differently? The officers did what they had to do in the split second of time they had to react.
A 14 year old boy should have been with his family. Where were they? How did he get a gun? No excuses! The family is supposed to raise a child and teach him right from wrong.
2006-08-08 03:01:39 · answer #2 · answered by physandchemteach 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Officers are allowed to protect themselves. If the boy reached for a gun, then they had the right to shoot him. The order is shoot to kill, not shoot to maim or stop. This is understandable because if an officer shot to maim, the perp could retaliate or get healed and sue the police department!
My daughter was injured by a police officer and she sued and won but, her injury was from him T boning her car while he raced to "see" a car fire where there were already 5 officers in attendance and no crime or injured parties! This was his 6th accident in 5 years on the force. The guy wasn't hurt but my daugher and her two friends were all seriously injured.
The police have strict behavior rules, how and when they are applied is subject to human error just like any rules set for the rest of humanity.
Concious thought and decision making lead one to their own fate.
2006-08-08 02:58:50 · answer #3 · answered by mrscmmckim 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That kid got what he was looking for, trouble. Speaking from experience, police are NOT trained to merely 'skin' you with a bullet. A criminal can fire off several rounds before dying from gunshot wounds and like 'mrmsc..'said above, can heal and sue, so police are actually TOLD to shoot to kill. No police officer is going to deny that on here.
All the Jessy Jackson's and Al Sharpton's are not hitting the streets in protest when a criminal brutally kills someone or heartlessly robs and injures someone...so they get to pick and choose the event that will give them the attention of the ignorant and two-standard following.
2006-08-08 03:08:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They had a write to cap his ***. However we won't know the true story until the Illinois Bureau of Investigation, or anyother state-level detective agency, completes the investigation. Anytime police engage in a firefight that injures or kills the suspect(s) it is a standard procedure for the officer(s) engaged in the shooting to be on a routine paid administrative leave while police and the DA's office investigate the shooting.
2006-08-08 06:22:36 · answer #5 · answered by bananawarriors2002 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its sad but yes, that is there job shot and ask questions later the child was reaching for a gun wether or not he was actually going to shot the cops well never know but that is there job he wanted to act like a grown up he got treated like a grown up it sad and terable and im sure the cop s feel horable because it WAS a CHILD but we give them the right to protect use qas citizanse and thats what they did
2006-08-08 03:03:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I say yes too. In this violent world we live in, our police have to expect the unexpected and protect themselves. The boy should never have reached for his gun. How stupid can you be?
2006-08-08 03:26:00 · answer #7 · answered by Gorgeoustxwoman2013 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The world is full of stupid people. That kid was one of them.
2006-08-08 02:54:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well said!
2006-08-08 03:16:11 · answer #9 · answered by Chug-a-Lug 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think so.to bad do
2006-08-08 02:52:14 · answer #10 · answered by idontkno 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋