11-year-old Mississippi boy who called 911-- wait for it-- shot by responding officer:

This kid, didn't really have a choice, in the matter.

As you say, we do not know the particulars, but I am skeptical of some of your assumptions. I do not see why an 11 year old could not express the basic idea that his mom had wanted him to call, because a man who does not live with them, is there, causing problems. If the officer was in the house, I see no excuse for his not having asked:
1) Who is the homeowner?

2) Where is the boy who called 911 (if he had even received that specific information, which I do not think we can just assume to be so)?

3) What's the problem?

To have just, seemingly, have begun with ordering everyone out of the house, seems indicative of an excess of concern, on his part-- beyond healthy, situational awareness, into nervous, jittery anxiety. If we're just looking for possible explanations for the cop's apparent paranoia, I could only speculate the possibility of his being used to always having a partner but, that night, for whatever reason, his flying solo. Possible. But probably not what happened.

Regardless, if he was so intimidated by this call, as @9royhobbs mentioned, he could have called for backup. And if that were not realistic, again-- his entering the domicile would then have been a foolish move, on his part. He must have (or it seems highly likely he'd) knocked at the door: at that first encounter, is where he should have begun filling in his gaps in understanding of the situation.

Uh, maybe the kid was in bed (or even asleep). Even I, as an adult, would not expect, in that scenario, that I would be expected to leave my home. Maybe he had just thrown some clothes on, over his PJs. Besides, that is still no excuse. In that "long time," why could he have not asked the mother, "Is there anyone else in the house?"

 

How many conversations have you had, with other human beings?-- What you are saying has nothing to do with the flow of our exchange.

You had offered the ridiculous argument, seemingly in support of the cop, that "Kids have shot police." This is an irrational argument, to justify a shooting. By that argument, I pointed out, any person who has at least one arm, could potentially be a shooting threat-- since that seemed your implication: because it is not unknown for a kid to shoot a cop, therefore it is possible, if a cop sees a kid, this could be a threat to his life, and therefore it would be completely understandable to shoot immediately, without assessing that threat. That was your ridiculous point, at least as it came across. So I'd pointed out, how silly of a thing, this was for you to say.

You then responded to my merely showing you the logical implication of your own argument, by calling what I had laid out, "idiotic." So I had reminded you, that the basis of that idiotic idea, was your own contention, that kids have been known to shoot cops.

That is what you are here, replying to, with your non sequitur question, about how many gun fights I have been in, and the unquoted rest of your post, which only continues on other tangents. FYI, one need not have been in a gunfight, to recognize defective logic.

But having even, perhaps, been in a gunfight-- on the off-chance that you have-- clearly does not prevent a person, from using it.

 

agree 100%

 

It's an incredibly easy way to restore faith in policing. And if they get fired for it they shouldn't be able to just go to the next county over and get a job as a cop again.

Which is what happens a lot of times the cops get fired for doing dirt

 

Ding ding ding. If a cop shot an 11 year old kid for no reason the cop should go to jail for life or get the chair... Nobody disputes that. But, it needs to be verified first.

 

Was? Has it been disbanded?

 

Re:

I very much disagree with the opinion that the LEO in this case: "...should go to jail for life or get the chair..." and feel that anyone who agrees has clearly never been called on to settle a "domestic disturbance" where anyone in the house can pop around a corner and shoot you in the back.

Anyone who has helped to settle a "domestic dispute" can imagine the scene that you walk into; a strange house full of angry, intoxicated people who are possibly both armed and hostile.

I think that most LEOs would agree that attempting to deal with a situation that volatile is a job for at least 2 people and probably more.

Thanks,

 

When my father was a police officer, the value of a citizen's safety was placed above that of law enforcement. Something has changed and not for the better.

 

traffic stops and Domestic violence calls are widely reported as the two most dangerous activities police engage in

 

as usual-a ton of verbiage that ignores the point. domestic violence calls are very dangerous for the police.

 

I worked on an Emergency Psychiatric Unit for a large inner-city and the police would bring us the most dangerous individuals to us instead of going to a private hospital.

Anyway, I had frequent contact with LEOs who were called to settle domestic disputes and even I can imagine the number of dangers in going into a strange house with an unknown number of people all of whom could be intoxicated, deranged, armed and / or hysterical.

I agree that traffic stops include a significant number of dangerous unknown factors but the potential threat can come from only one location, the vehicle.

On the other hand, if you are inside someone else's home, someone could come at you from any angle.

It is really impossible to state which of the two dangerous activities poses the greatest threat but it's a job that I wouldn't want and have great respect for those who do that job honestly, respectfully and calmly.

Enjoy your weekend,

 

Whoever implied that it wasn't? And how does that explain the cop's behavior? Why then, would he go into the residence, prior to verifying the situation? And how does this explain his ordering everyone out, without asking the home owner, who was in the home, so the officer might have some idea, of what to expect? And since the whole point of the call, had been to get an unwanted visitor to leave, why would there be any need for the cop to order the residents out?

Your point, on its own, has no real meaaning-- as usual.

 

your understanding of law enforcement protocols and procedures need some work

 

we had two officers killed in Cincinnati when they responded to a Domestic call. The wife called the cops and the abuser ambushed them. Another case I reviewed- the cops grabbed the attacking man-who had beaten the woman severely-SHE KNIFED the cop when he was putting cuffs on the abuser he survived she got a felony one and IIRC 10-20 year sentence

 

If you say so-- since you apparently consider yourself an expert, in many areas.

An expert, who nonetheless has great difficulty, explaining or demonstrating any of his advanced knowledge-- as, for example, by answering any of the questions, posed to him. If you are wondering "what questions?" you can start with my last post, to which your reply here, is only claiming that my understanding "needs some work." That entire post was, in fact, a list of questions, as to how your supposed point from the prior 4 posts, finally stated clearly, actually applied. Your reply, did not accompany your implied boast of your own expertise, with any answers, to those questions (as usual).

 

cops never know what to expect in a domestic violence issue. Why not wait until the facts come out. My main point is that those who are most likely to bash cops are gun banners

 

Non sequitur.

And your broken record, pat answer, to so many things.

 

Can someone explain how this became a racial issue? Everyone involved is black, so it's hard for me to see what the racial angle could possibly be.

 

what exactly is your point?

 

perhaps because some on the left consider black cops to be part of the "white privilege" power structure?

 

cops still need to not just shoot to kill anything that moves, shoot first is not the answer

that is why we need the copcam, did he even give himself time to judge if this was a treat, or just shoot just in case

no one is safe around a cop in dangerous situations if cops are shooting victims just in case...

 

That your "main point"-- mentioning "gun banners"-- is completely off topic.

And it certainly does not corroborate the place of authority, on law enforcement issues, in which you have promoted your opinion, as deserving to sit.

 

I did not quote the entire post the first time, so my post was deleted, so reposting with entire post

that is when you need to call the cops, when dangerous stuff happening around you... and I agree, need the bodycam, what made the guy shoot the child, was it shoot at first sight or more too it, could he not tell it was a child, did he even look, we need the video to see what the cop saw

 

While the odds are you were being facetious, that was a legitimate answer. Not that I would endorse it-- if, for no other reason, because of your terms being left so undefined. But it indicates your somewhat following the ideas of the thread.

You do not think it possible for a person to be racist against members of his own race?

The police propensity to overuse violence, seems more unrestrained when they are dealing with blacks and other minorities, as opposed to whites, generally speaking.

 

I agree with that