heres the scoop...the parents of a teen are suing the police department because their son was shot. the teen was climbing a fence and the officer shouted cease and desist. the teen turned to the right...the officer thought his life was in danger so he shot the teen ONE time. The teen was actually reaching for a cell phone located on his right hip...but the officer was unaware of this. it is important to the note that the victim continued to make movements after the officer said cease and desist.
2006-10-09 14:32:04 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
He was a teenager.(teenagers don't usually think straight during deres).....with a cop shooting at him. No defense, that was a overzealous kid killing cop...
2006-10-09 14:34:58 · answer #1 · answered by Diamond in the Rough 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Well, you've already starting making out a defense, so you're off to a good start. The idea to promote is that a 'reasonable police officer,' if in the same position, would make the same choice. You can show that by pointing to police procedure for instances like what happened and also by securing expert witnesses who can testify that the officer acted within professional standards.
The teen's parents will have a compelling case, too. They will argue that the officer's actions were not reasonable and were outside professional standards. They will look to demonstrate that police procedure was somehow violated.
Whoever wins, I hope justice is done.
2006-10-09 14:42:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Law and Order and a few movies I've seen essentially have this type of scenario.
It is unfortunate that this happened, however, it should be a no-brainer that if the police tell you to "freeze" that's what you should do to avoid being shot. Your statement, however, doesn't say what movements the teen continued to make, nor other circumstances I would like to know if I was on the jury. For example, was the officer alone? Was the teen alone? What was robbed? What was taken?
This must be the civil action for wrongful death. I do not think you are going to have a lot of sympathetic jurors for a teen, breaking the law, stealing belongings, ignoring the law and refusing to surrender. I would concentrate on picking the right jury rather than a "theme" - the "theme" is he was performing his job to the best of his ability and we, as taxpayers, pay him to do just that.
2006-10-09 14:41:20 · answer #3 · answered by D 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I dont blame the officer. Its really sad what happened but it was reasonable why the officer thought he was armed. Sadly we cant use the excuse he is only a teenager anymore because more and more teenagers are becoming violent. Its too bad the kid didnt accept the fact he was caught and stopped moving. Why was he going for the phone anyway? He should have stopped and made it clear he wasnt armed. I dont know what else the officer could of done. Tranquilizers? I feel bad for the family. And the officer, he must feel horrible.
2006-10-09 14:43:40 · answer #4 · answered by A* 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Taxpayer money saved as far as I'm concerned. This way the citizens don't have to pay for him to saty at the country club; I mean juvenile Hall! The cop should get a merit raise!
2006-10-09 14:41:34 · answer #5 · answered by Lesleann 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Who the hell answers a cell phone while they are climbing a fence , let alone when a police officer is in pursuit.......
2006-10-09 14:35:11 · answer #6 · answered by mld m 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The stupid kid should have stopped, the police don't know what people are reaching for at times like that, the parents don't have a case.
2006-10-09 14:40:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
When someone says stop...and they are holding a gun....it's usually a good idea to not flinch.
Cause a cop is determined to go home at the end of the day...mistake or not.
2006-10-09 14:40:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋