I read a story in the newspaper yesterday that had me wondering...
A fifteen year old girl robbed a grocery store at gunpoint, then when she was confronted by the police after leaving the store she pointed the gun at them. The officers shot her and killed her.
The mother of the dead robber girl is quoted as saying "They shouldn't have shot her. She was just a baby."
I don't know whether to be more upset that the mother said the police officers shouldn't have shot the fifteen year old who was stupid enough to point a gun at them, or that the robber was FIFTEEN YEARS OLD!
What is our world coming to when a fifteen year old girl robs a store at gunpoint?
I would bet on one of two scenarios...
First, mama let her play Grand Theft Auto til her thumbs bled. Finally the game became real life and she decided to go out and rob for real since she had always gotten away with it in "video game life".
Or, the girl was affiliated with a gang behind mama's back and robbed the store to "prove herself".
The only other option I can think of is that the girl was just inherently unstable, and mama wasn't paying attention.
Either way, fifteen year old made the decision to rob a store and point a gun at cops, and she died for it.
"She was just a baby" is not a defense...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
If the family thinks that the police are lying about the circumstances of the shooting then they should get the dashcams involved and see whether the audio / video matches what the police are saying in the media. If it does match then the family can believe the police and get the closure it seeks.
Have they said whether it was a real gun yet?
If only it were that simple. The family would just say that the tape was doctored somehow, witnesses were lying, ect... It's never THEIR fault!
They are always a "good kid" after they get shot up. I'm willing to bet she was allowed to run wild from an early age. Now she is nothing but a potential paycheck for the family.
The police should definitely give undoctored, unedited audio and video to the family, without cropping or audio dropouts or skips or weird cut off pts.
That way, if the family doesn't want to believe the police, nobody will sympathize with them. If the police give the family edited audio or video, then that egins to make the incident look suspicious.
This doesn't surprise me. When we had that recent pirate incident with the Maersk, didn't the mother of one of the "kids" who was directly involved tried to get him out of it with a similar pathetic, "he's only a boy" excuse? She expected leniency and tried to beg us to go easy on him.
We need more of those scared straight programs because many kids today really believe that life IS just like a video game...just hit restart and you will re-spawn. Consequences are merely temporary and a nuisance.
David Woycechowsky said...
"Have they said whether it was a real gun yet?"
What difference does that make?
David Woycechowsky said...
"The police should definitely give undoctored, unedited audio and video to the family"
Not all agencies have dash-cams. What then?
All of this aside...
"Smith", you can't go blaming GTA. That's like blaming Metallica for some unstable kid hearing "Fade to Black" and committing suicide.
And why does no one look at the parent(s) by the way? Think maybe there was some f'd upbringing going on in that house? I'm going with yes.
I hesitate to engage, but...David, I hear what you're saying with regard to unedited video/audio. Unfortunately, there's a little thing called chain of evidence. We can't do our jobs worrying about civil suits and what the by and large uniformed and inexperienced public would like to see. It's an unfortunate reality we have to live in.
"Babies" aren't out robbing stores with guns.
Honestly, it will somehow end up being the PD's fault. It always is, regardless of the circumstances of the situation... somehow it always comes back to the PD.
Honestly, it will somehow end up being the PD's fault. It always is, regardless of the circumstances of the situation... somehow it always comes back to the PD.
Now c'mon, that is not always true. Yesterday the jury cleared Officer Higbee of all charges, for example, even though he misremembered stopping for that STOP sign. Check GOOGLE news for "Higbee" if you don't believe me.
The girl was 15 years old. Her parents had 15 years to raise a good child, and they failed miserably. I hold the parents responsible more than the child.
When it comes to a deadly threat, age is irrelevant. Col. Colt made us all equal, meaning that an eight year old with a Peacemaker is every bit as deadly as a 40 year old with a Peacemaker. Anyone who doesn't believe that should try looking down the wrong end of the barrel on Saturday night.
I'm sorry this child is dead, and I'm sorry the policeman had to shoot, and I'm sorry for her mother. But I'll tell you what, I'd have shot too.
It's too bad many agencies will just fork over some amount of cash to circumvent any possible civil suit, understandably because it's cheaper. It sure makes the uninformed and uneducated general public believe that some wrong doing has occurred.
The same public who always ask "why didn't they shoot her in the hand or leg?"
It's a bad situation all around. You have an Officer who has to deal with being forced to use deadly force on a 15 year old. You have a mother who has lost a child.
The only upside is the FFA (future felons of America) have lost a member thus saving future tax payer dollars.
We see this type of response here as well, particularly in situations where a young man is gunned down in a hail of gang war fare bullets.
"He was a good boy," is the typical comment from the family.
As for this situation, I too am sorry for all involved (the officers who had to shoot, the 15 year old for making such a poor descision, and for the mother/family).
But I totally agree with most of the other commentors on the fact that a gun is a deadly weapon, regardless of the age of the person weilding it.
It is a tragedy not only for the family. But for the Officers that were involed. As so many people forget Police officers are human also. And the have children. This will haunt this Officer for years.
Not all agencies have dash-cams. What then?
They are now claiming they have video and it shows her point the gun at police. I don't know whether they have showed it to the family yet. They should have done that straight off.
Maybe, since it's an ongoing investigation, they can't show it to the family yet.
And even if they do, do you really think the family wants to see the kid die. Or should they edit that part out?
And you still never answered my question. What does it matter if the gun was real?
As long as they show the video to the family, it doesn't matter.
And, David, this is why you are ONLY A PATENT LAWYER and NOT A REAL LAWYER!!!!! You have no common sense and have no clue what goes into an investigation. The only thing you know is patent-related crap. So go stick your head back in your sandhole if you don't know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to Law Enforcement related issues.
David Woycechowsky said...
"As long as they show the video to the family, it doesn't matter."
Well then why in Hell did you bring it up when you asked...
"Have they said whether it was a real gun yet?"
...waaaaay up there in the first comment? It must matter to you, because you brought it up.
Well then why in Hell did you bring it up when you asked...
. . .
...waaaaay up there in the first comment? It must matter to you, because you brought it up.
It mattered when it was not clear that they had video to show the parents. Once they announced that they had a good vid (and assuming they are telling the truth about that), it becomes what lawyers call a "moot" point.
Post a Comment