Lethal force in Tempe teenager shooting

I was more interested in this statement, from the parents:

"I didn't know that it would hurt so much, my boy...in this location this is where my son, a child of 14-years-old who doesn't know the difference of what's good and what's bad because he hasn't lived long enough," Arce’s parents said at the vigil.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that if a "child" of 14 years of age doesn't know the difference between what's right and what's wrong, the parents have failed miserably at the job of parenting. I'm pretty certain I knew long before the age of 14 that (a) breaking into other people's cars was not a good thing, and (b) running away from cops while holding something that looks a lot like a gun is not a good thing.
 
Seems to me that if a "child" of 14 years of age doesn't know the difference between what's right and what's wrong, the parents have failed miserably at the job of parenting.
Click to expand...


If a child of 14 doesn't know the difference between right and wrong, then you absolutely have failed in your duty as a parent. (or the child has a learning disability)

However, we see, time after time, a child knowing the difference, but doing the "wrong" thing, anyway. Sometimes, it is willful, deliberate forethought, sometimes it is panic, and sometimes its uncertainty, and the incorrect "advice" of a friend is used.


Example: Friend of mine's daughter was just beginning to drive on her own. Narrow street, backed out of driveway, backed into parked car across the street. Driver kind of freaks, OMG I hit a car...etc Her girlfriend with her (another late teen) starts yelling at her, "go! go go! get out of there!!!" and she drives off. Knowing not to, but doing it anyway because of confusion and someone telling her to do it. She got a lesson in the legal process of hit and run...

A kid breaking into other people's cars KNOWS its wrong. Any (and about every) parent's protests that their "good" child didn't know what they were doing is grief talking, not reason. They knew. They just chose to do the wrong/bad thing.
 
Seems to me that if a "child" of 14 years of age doesn't know the difference between what's right and what's wrong, the parents have failed miserably at the job of parenting. I'm pretty certain I knew long before the age of 14 that (a) breaking into other people's cars was not a good thing, and (b) running away from cops while holding something that looks a lot like a gun is not a good thing.
Click to expand...

Not supported by research on moral development and physiological development of the frontal lobes.
 
Shooting someone running away in the back...

It really does depend on the situation.

The following is not the situation described in the original post, but imagine a bad guy being chased by the police down a street with an average number of everyday folk around. The bad guy stops in a doorway, takes a couple shots then runs a ways down the street, stops in another doorway, takes a few shots...you get my point. The bad guy is endangering the public. As he's leaving one doorway, maybe headed for another doorway do you think the police should shoot or not?

Yep. Again this is not the scenario this thread is based on but I'm just pointing out (with a scenario that's not too absurd) that it really does depend on the specific situation being faced.
 
It is, quite different in America.

While shooting someone running away in the back is generally not justified, or moral, there are specific circumstances where the recognizes it as justifiable, by POLICE officers but not for regular citizens.
Click to expand...

There is no law that stipulates where a bullet is to impact or from what direction it must be fired to be considered justifiable.


"Running away" is a bit of a misnomer. It the person really trying to just get away or simply moving to a different position? Does their direction of travel put others into danger?
 
Shooting someone running away in the back...

It really does depend on the situation.

The following is not the situation described in the original post, but imagine a bad guy being chased by the police down a street with an average number of everyday folk around. The bad guy stops in a doorway, takes a couple shots then runs a ways down the street, stops in another doorway, takes a few shots...you get my point. The bad guy is endangering the public. As he's leaving one doorway, maybe headed for another doorway do you think the police should shoot or not?

Yep. Again this is not the scenario this thread is based on but I'm just pointing out (with a scenario that's not too absurd) that it really does depend on the specific situation being faced.
Click to expand...

In the situation you describe yes, but as you say that is not what happened in this case.
 
"Running away" is a bit of a misnomer. It the person really trying to just get away or simply moving to a different position? Does their direction of travel put others into danger?
Click to expand...

If you are ruining away, then you are ruining away. If you then take up a position to shoot, shooting back would be justified. Follow that logic then the police should shoot anyone running away, just in case.
 
Follow that logic then the police should shoot anyone running away, just in case.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are some people who think that the police should shoot fleeing suspects in the back. But that's not official policy, police are neither required nor encouraged to shoot people in the back. But, if they do, because they felt they had to, (and the evidence bears this out after investigation) they won't be prosecuted.
 
At the end of the day, the matter of justification will not reside with whether he was "running away", or whether or not the gun was real, or whether or not he was developmentally challenged, or any one circumstance. It will, and SHOULD rest on one thing -

Would a REASONABLE PERSON, without the luxury of hindsight, have done the same thing in those circumstances knowing ONLY what the officer knew at the time he pulled the trigger?

Everyone tends to get hung up on one aspect of a situation, like "he was running away". Got to look past the tree to see the woods.................
 
A thief running away empty-handed, or with Suzie Soccermom's purse dangling from his hand, isn't much of a threat to anyone.

A mugger running away with a handgun in his hand is an immediate threat to anyone within range of the handgun. I believe most reasonable people would view a police officer as being justified in shooting a thief with a gun in his hand. If it subsequently turns out that the gun was a realistic-looking replica/toy/airsoft ... well, as the saying goes, "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."
 
Would a REASONABLE PERSON, without the luxury of hindsight, have done the same thing in those circumstances knowing ONLY what the officer knew at the time he pulled the trigger?
Click to expand...

I like to think i am a reasonable person, in the situation in the video i would not have shot there was no need to. But i assume there will be a investigation and others will decide, if it was justified or not. Who will investigates the officers actions. ?
 
Would a REASONABLE PERSON, without the luxury of hindsight, have done the same thing in those circumstances knowing ONLY what the officer knew at the time he pulled the trigger?
Click to expand...

police officers are not held to the reasonable person standard, they are held to the reasonable police officer with the same experience and training standard.
 
Jaen is currently on paid leave pending an administrative and criminal investigation. Tempe police plan to submit their investigation to the Maricopa County Attorney's Office to determine whether any charges should be filed against Jaen.
Click to expand...

I found this, police investigating police would not be allowed or seen as acceptable here.
 
If you are ruining away, then you are ruining away.
Click to expand...

Thus illustrating the Suzy Soccermom viewpoint. Was he running away, or was he headed for cover to begin shooting at the officer? IIRC in the vestcam video, the "victim" was about to reach the corner of a wall. The officer had a choice of stopping him then, or waiting until he (1) was at a disadvantage because an armed felony suspect now had cover, or (2) losing sight of an armed suspect running into an inhabited neighborhood where he might attempt a carjacking, shoot an innocent bystander he might believe posed a threat, or take hostages.

A lot to think about in a couple of seconds! :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top