Officer Shoots 18 yr old

[ebonyknight]

What's the answer to police corruption and brutality?

I have been saying it for years. Education. Make a college education (B.S. minimum) a requirement to be a police officer. A college education offers a lot more than just a sheepskin.

One of the (unintended?) side effects of a college education is that most people learn to tolerate other races and creeds. It has been shown that in police departments where a college degree is mandatory, shooting incidents and other incidents of misconduct are very rare, and they community they serve responds better to them.

In most cases is takes a college degree to work with and guard national secrets, yet a person with the power to legally kill people doesn't require one?

<sigh>

[lordlundar]

I am extremely tired of hearing these lame excuses that cops come up with to cover their own. "I can't say if he fired his weapon". I got it, it's a case of Saturday Night Live spontaneous bleeding (+1 internet points if you remember the skit).

While I agree with you I don't see as this response as being the case. I see it as no different from newspapers having to put down "alleged" in their articles or anyone here saying they don't have all the info. The chief can't say for certain that the officer fired because he wasn't there and he's not doing the investigation. For him to say so before the investigation is concluded could result in a lawsuit from the suspected detective for slander.

[ebonyknight]

While I agree with you I don't see as this response as being the case. I see it as no different from newspapers having to put down "alleged" in their articles or anyone here saying they don't have all the info. The chief can't say for certain that the officer fired because he wasn't there and he's not doing the investigation. For him to say so before the investigation is concluded could result in a lawsuit from the suspected detective for slander.

Yeah, I know...I acknowledged that originally.

There are plenty of cops who never manage to draw their sidearms in anger, in their entire careers. Yeah, I know the police chief can't comment on whether he fired or not, but accountability IS a problem in police departments, "rare" incidents aside.

It just gets REALLY VERY old hearing these types of stories. "I don't have time for this", really? What tha hell was he even doing there, in the first place?!?!?

[ebonyknight]

Wow....just, wow.

http://forums.officer.com/t191428/

That blue wall is just as cold as it is unbreakable.

Sorry, I'll shut up now. Must be too much coffee.

[Gravekeeper]

Both agencies for the first two officers have cleared their officers. Stating that neither officer nor the sheriff's deputy broke any department policies or laws. That seems to lend more credence to everything being under control until the Southport detective showed up.

So, somehow, within 30 seconds or so of arriving on scene the detective shot the kid then radioed in that he had shot him in self defense.

[crashhelmet]

Is it possible that the cop who shot the kid thought he was shooting him with his tazer? It wouldn't be the first time a cop grabbed the wrong weapon by mistake.

While it is technically remotely possible, it's very highly unlikely.

For starters, a detective doesn't typically carry a taser or any other form of less-lethal defense. it is very much like movies and tv. A detective promotion means a suit and tie with a shoulder holster. No more blues and belts.

Secondly, tasers issued to LEOs are big, bulky, and typically bright yellow to avoid any kind of visual or physical confusion.

Thirdly, if they're carried by an LEO, they're carried somewhere away from their handgun. Either on the opposite hip or further down their leg. Again, to avoid confusion from heat-of-the-moment-type situations.

[s_stabeler]

yeah- it's looking unlikely that it was a good shot.

[Panacea]

I'm not calling myself an expert on procedures or anything, but I'd find it strange if police were not trained to first disarm someone (even if it's a melee or non-firearm weapon) before attempting to restrain them. Again, I could be wrong, but it just seems like common sense to remove anything that could injure an officer, someone else, or the suspect him/herself before approaching them, and certainly before physically restraining them.

Trying to physically disarm a suspect is very dangerous, even with training. There is a high risk of injury. Tazers are used because they are safer for officers.

That seems odd. What was a detective doing there?

A good question. Detectives will respond to serious calls if they are closest backup to an officer in trouble, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Thirdly, if they're carried by an LEO, they're carried somewhere away from their handgun. Either on the opposite hip or further down their leg. Again, to avoid confusion from heat-of-the-moment-type situations.

And forthly, they require special training before the officer can carry one, which is why every officer doesn't carry one.

[ebonyknight]

yeah- it's looking unlikely that it was a good shot.

First he was claiming that he was defending himself (IE I was scared).

Now he has changed his tune since since Keith Vidal was under two other officers and he was out of danger to, he was defending the officer. He says that the kid still had the screwdriver and was stabbing the officer's vest. While he was not doing damage, he noticed that he was gravitating to exposed areas, and then that's when he decided to use lethal force.



I still want to know what he was doing there in the first place.

[Gravekeeper]

Now he has changed his tune since since Keith Vidal was under two other officers and he was out of danger to, he was defending the officer. He says that the kid still had the screwdriver and was stabbing the officer's vest.

Yes, I see the statement from the "North Carolina Police Benevolent Association" ( That's not Orwellian or anything. ).

The detective fired after Vidal "made physical contact with the (Boiling Spring Lakes officer) using the hand holding the deadly weapon," the police association said in its statement.

"The officers present realized the immediate and deadly threat to (the officer's) life," said the group.

Even if this is 100% God's honest truth it still doesn't parse right because the kid had been tazed and had two officers on top of him + his step father grabbing for the arm with the screw driver. If that arm was free and trying to stab an officer, you grab that arm, thats the whole point of police being trained to restrain someone and get them in handcuffs.

Firing a gun directly into a melee with 4 bodies is still dubious if not downright idiotic. Plus this whole scenario was triggered by the third officer to begin with. The first two officers had the situation under control before his arrival.

I saw one passing mention as well that the second officer on scene, the sheriff's deputy, was treated at hospital as well. Because third officer's gun was fired next to her head.

[s_stabeler]

Yes, I see the statement from the "North Carolina Police Benevolent Association" ( That's not Orwellian or anything. ).

actually, it ISN'T Orwellian. It's simply an organisation for current or retired cops.

[Gravekeeper]

actually, it ISN'T Orwellian. It's simply an organisation for current or retired cops.

I'm referring to the name sounding Orwellian. IE Ministry of Peace.

[Anthony K. S.]

It's the word "Benevolent."

Any time that an organization refers to itself with adjectives like "benevolent," people naturally get suspicious.

[wolfie]

Any time that an organization refers to itself with adjectives like "benevolent," people naturally get suspicious.

Just like you can be sure that any country with "Democratic" in its name is NOT a democracy.