Shaaliver Douse died of a single gunshot to his jaw after the confrontation in the Bronx.
The case was still open, Mr Reed said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...r-old-boy.html
Well done NYPD
Crocodile tears from the aunt
Shaaliver Douse died of a single gunshot to his jaw after the confrontation in the Bronx.
The case was still open, Mr Reed said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...r-old-boy.html
Well done NYPD
Crocodile tears from the aunt
Toerag this lad may have been ... but he was still some mother's son - her only child - and just 14 years of age. What a tragic end to a young life.
Already a hardened gangsta - untold Police, Court & Jail costs saved. Where was Mum when he was out on the street with firearms ?
old enough to carry a gun, old enough to shoot,old enough to kill someone , then he's old enough to die,
he obviously had no thought to the pain he would bring on his family , or the families of any victims he would have shot had he been given the chance to pursue his career
The world is a safer place without this vermin
Sadly despite his young age he does appear to have been a nasty piece of work.
The aunt is quite right "you shouldn't have to bury your child". Perhaps if she and her sister had been more proactive in bringing him up then he wouldn't have been roaming the streets at 14 years of age with a gun in his hand.
Having already been charged with attempted murder I think it's fair to say that NYPD probably saved a few more lives by killing this kid.
BTW I totally agree with the commissioner, when you're in those situations you shoot to kill as your life is on the line.
Scum blown away,at 14 you know right from wrong good riddance
Sorry Arthur, normally I agree with what you say but this time I have to strongly disagree.Originally Posted by Arthur Little
Toerag this lad may have been ... but he was still some mother's son - her only child - and just 14 years of age. What a tragic end to a young life.
What mother let's her only son out at 3am with a gun, especially as he'd already been charged with attempted murder. The only good things that have come out of this is the fact he was an only child, and now the local neighbourhood may be a slightly safer place.
BTW I totally agree with the commissioner, when you're in those situations you shoot to kill as your life is on the line.
He did not actually say that. He said shoot to stop.
The same as in UK.
However, the only way to prevent an armed person from being able to shoot again is either to physically restrain him/her, or of you cannot do that, kill them.
John,
(former police officer in UK, authorised to carry a gun)
I think not John. I rather suspect that NYPD's interpretation of shoot to stop is slightly different to that of the Met. I'm sure an NYPD officer doesn't have to consider the health and safety implications within a 3 mile radius before he shoots a scumbag.
I rather suspect that if NYPD had turned up to Woolwich in the aftermath of that awful incident we wouldn't be putting the scumbags up in prison whilst awaiting their no doubt expensive trial .
I think not John. I rather suspect that NYPD's interpretation of shoot to stop is slightly different to that of the Met. I'm sure an NYPD officer doesn't have to consider the health and safety implications within a 3 mile radius before he shoots a scumbag.
I rather suspect that if NYPD had turned up to Woolwich in the aftermath of that awful incident we wouldn't be putting the scumbags up in prison whilst awaiting their no doubt expensive trial .
Marco - You forgot the Met also have to do a quick race/gender/equality assessment of any lethal threats they come up against and then have to tie one hand behind their backs before taking aim
Whatever anyone thinks, the police were right to kill him, he can't kill anyone in the future!
Marco, I rather suspect that if NYPD had turned up to Woolwich in the aftermath of that awful incident we wouldn't be putting the .......... up in prison whilst awaiting their no doubt expensive trial .
I can tell you shooting at an armed person in a street, with civilians all around, is very different from shooting at man-shaped targets on the practice range, and even there, officers often miss the targets completely or (if the target had been a gun man) the hits would not have killed the gun-man.
(Michael) UK armed police are not, and would not wish to be, judge, jury and hangman. If a suspect is killed it is not to be celebrated; a live prisoner who can stand trial is much preferred.
he pointed the gun at the officer, what is he supposed to dowhat would you do, hesitate and get yourself shot, so he can stand trial after he shoots you
There are what, 7 or 8 billion people on this overcrowded planet ?
One of them has just proved why he is surplus to requirements.
They should jail his mother for a few years too, as a lesson to other irresponsible parents.
I was speaking as a retired UK police officer, who when situations required it, carried a gun. In 39 years, I thus spent a lot pf time considering what I would do in a variety of dangerous circumstances.he pointed the gun at the officer, what is he supposed to do
i think maybe i misunderstood
ok what would you do in the same situation, a gun pointing at you, i know what i would do,
a cop is not a cold killer, he has tough situatations he has to decide instantly what to do, instinct says hes got to stay alive, he has to carry a heavy load of the things he had to do while on duty with him to his grave
I did say however, "The only way to prevent an armed person from being able to shoot again is either to physically restrain him/her, or of you cannot do that, kill them."
The point of my posts were that police officers do not rejoice in a suspect being killed and have no desire to be 'judge, jury and executioner.' It appeared that some here think that police should deliberately decide to kill rather that detain.
As for, "he has to decide instantly what to do, instinct says hes got to stay alive"
That is not correct. Throughout all their training (not just with firearms) officers examine as many scenarios as possible, so that when they act, albeit in a spit second, it is a trained reaction not an instinctive one, as maybe would be the case with an untrained person.
I would hope that in the USA case the officer had no alternative but to shoot, and as I said, in shooting, to aim to kill. Nonetheless, that was a tragedy, not something to be applauded here or elsewhere.
... that's been my view, all along! (See #2). Glad someone else here recognises it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Quote Reply
