Del City Police Officer Charged In Shooting Death Of Teen

[Werewolf]

Many years ago if a guy smarted off to a officer of the law (we didn't call them cops then-that was an insult) it was common practice for the officer to use a sap along side one's head. The boys and i all had respect for a police officer and his authority! These days, it is acceptable to cuss and insult policemen even to the point of spitting on them. We definitely had less crime back then for some reason.

It is more likely that what you really had respect for was the sap along side the head.

 

[Werewolf]

So the moral of the story in Oklahoma County is that if you defend yourself or others, you will be charged with murder/manslaughter. Sounds like it's time for a new DA up there.

the moral of the story is - don't shoot an unarmed kid in the back for a traffic violation because he's stupid and runs from you.

 

[SMS]

That's what happened if I understand correctly. One juror refused a guilty vote, so was replaced with a alternate.

The way I saw it reported, the juror in question refused to vote either way so he/she was replaced. Not because he refused a guilty vote....

 

[Werewolf]

Is our society going soft?? Just like people are protesting for that other thug Trevon or whatever his thug name was. We all need to stand up for this guy that day in and day out put his life on the line for his comunity. Why is he being punished for doing his job? It's just ridiculous.

He's not being punished for doing his job. He's being prosecuted for shooting an unarmed kid in the back for running from a traffic violation.

 

[Mr10mm]

He's not being punished for doing his job. He's being prosecuted for shooting an unarmed kid in the back for running from a traffic violation.

Unarmed? As in the gun was just wrestled away?

 

[1shott]

The way I saw it reported, the juror in question refused to vote either way so he/she was replaced. Not because he refused a guilty vote....

Maybe the juror was not satisfied at that time to vote on a verdict, in which case the jury should have been sent back to the jury room. If that juror had doubts, one way or the other, then they should have worked to satisfy those doubts, rather than pull that juror and replace with one that was fast to vote guilty.
Just how I see it.

 

[1shott]

He's not being punished for doing his job. He's being prosecuted for shooting an unarmed kid in the back for running from a traffic violation.

Maybe if the " unarmed kid" had not fought with the police, and whatever else transpired that day he would be alive. Its not like he had zero fault in all of this.

 

[1shott]

What???? This is... weird. I don't understand... at all.

One juror was pulled and replaced with another one on the second day of deliberation.

I have heard that the juror that was pulled did not want to vote either way or did not want to vote guilty. The replacement juror voted guilty asap. From what I understand. If it is true either way, to me it sounds like the defendant did not have a chance from the word go.

 

[Werewolf]

Unarmed? As in the gun was just wrestled away?

Court documents say "unarmed". You yourself say the gun had been taken away. The kid was running away and had his back to the officer. Where was the threat to the officer?

Scumbag or not? In this case the LEO was wrong.

Turns out - the trial jury agrees.

 

[jstaylor62]

Court documents say "unarmed". You yourself say the gun had been taken away. The kid was running away and had his back to the officer. Where was the threat to the officer?

Scumbag or not? In this case the LEO was wrong.

Turns out - the trial jury agrees.

So based on your logic, if someone shoots and kills somebody, then drops the gun and runs, the police are not justified in shooting them as they flee because they are no longer armed and no longer a direct threat to the police officer ...