Police shoot and kill 13-yr old boy
 

full story

i heard on the radio today that the family was going to file lawsuit against the city of LA. the attorney sounded pissed and stated 'we've seen the diagrams of the policy and we fail to see what was wrong' or something to that effect.

from the article and what i've heard on the radio, it seems the 13-yr old boy stole a car, went crusing with it at like 3:50 am with a buddy, was ordered to stop, backed the car into a police cruiser, then was shot and killed. if i'm missing anything or misinterpreted any part of this, please feel free to correct me. and if the mod's feel this is inappropriate, delete at will and accept my apology.

so before i voice my opinion, i want to hear if i got most of the story right so as to not sound like an ignorant fool.

The dumb kid should not have stolen the car and the cops the overreacted. Case closed.

I don't think the cops over-reacted at all. If someone runs a car at me, I'm sure as hell gonna shoot at them. A car is a deadly weapon.

Bratton said such a policy should prohibit officers from shooting "unless the officer or other person are threatened by deadly force, other than the moving vehicle," according to The Times.

This is stupid. Someone could take a car into a preschool and start doing donuts, and the police would not really have any good way of stopping it. The police should be able to use deadly force whenever it looks like people's lives are in danger, no matter the method.

I too see nothing wrong with what happened here. It doent matter the age of the person, heck kids today at 13 want to be treated as adults may as well let them have the full dish.

The kid was committing a felony, attacked the officers with the car, and the shooting comes as a surprise? The kid should have thought of it before he stole the car. our child-centric country is going way overboard doting on these kids.

I think after seeing car chases ending up in the criminal getting shot I would definately think twice about running from police let alone backing the car into a patrol vehicle.

He was in a school for gifted children?? Just goes to show you that all the intelligence in the world won't cover for a lack of common sense.

Why is the mother sueing the city instead of having been out hunting down her deliquent child at 3am?? He was 13 - I promise you - my daughter better not think about being out that late when she's that age or she'll be grounded for months or MORE.

Sad - the whole thing is a sad, sad story.

Wow, I am surprised by the first 5 responses in this thread.

When I was reading the artcile I expected a chorus of "cops suck" and "I would have just talked to the boy." Once again I am surprised and impressed by the attitudes of my fellow TFP'ers.

I too support the police in this action, if someone is ramming a car into my car, I don't care who it is.... I'm going to shoot them. Actually I feel very sorry for the cops involved in this shooting, even if they are found to be in the right in the case of this shooting they (he) are still going to be saddled with the guilt if having shot and killed a kid.

Sad situation all around.

Wow, I don't see how the cops were wrong in this case... It's a shame that it happened how it did, but they did what they had to do to protect themselves and anyone else this kid might have gone after with the car. If someone tried to run an average person down with a car, everyone would blame the driver, not the other person for trying to stop him. Police have to be able to do their jobs without worrying about a lawsuit every time they do ANYTHING. I'm really sick and tired of people suing for everything that ever goes wrong or that they don't like. Like I said, it's a shame that they had to shoot, but they were defending themselves.

Ordinarily, I would be the first to champion the police. Dumbass little gangbanger(?) steals a car, refuses to follow police intructions, backs into a police cruiser, and fully expects to be hailed as a hero back in the 'hood. Then, the community gets in an uproar when the little criminal comes to a "bad end". Sorry. I don't care how many girls that he made laugh in school. I don't care how many honors programs he was in. Reap what you sow anyone?
However...10 rounds? As a former cop, I've got a huge problem with that. The degree of force used to subdue the suspect was way in excess of the level of threat exhibited. Had the little gangbanger pulled a weapon and fired on the officer...then I'd have absolutely no problem at all with 10 rounds being inserted into his useless body. But this? This smells like yesterdays dirty diapers. I do believe that we have identified a cop that needs to be removed from the public, if not society.

If I put myself in the cops position, I would have done the same thing.

I feel bad for the kid, but he brought it upon himself. The kid's parents are what pisses me off. It's not like cops are out trying to find excuses to shoot 13-years old kids. It was a split-second decision and he acted on instincts of self-preservation.

I'm saddened to read that so many of you support on-the-spot death penalty as punishment for reversing into a police car.

What's wrong with following the stolen car until some back-up arrives so it can be boxed in or rammed off the road?

I thought it was 10 rounds into the car with many probably missing the boy. Not 10 rounds in the kid.

Really depends if other lives were in immediate danger IMHO.
If they were, then there is a situation where it could be justified.
If they wern't, and only property was likely to be damaged, then it is hugely out of line.

Sad story, anyway you look at it, though :(

Sounds to me the police overreacted. There in a freakin police car, putting a car in reverse to hit their car is NOT going to endanger their lives (they're in the car). There is no reason why they needed to shot the car, aim for the tires or something but jesus they shot the kid to death for that. Give me a break.

Yep, without big assumptions there's no way to know from the details if it was justified. It isn't going to help the officer's case that his partner didn't fire a single round.

Wasn't one of the officers outside of the car.

And when a cop is yelling at you from outside of a car he is usally behind you. So, How can you fault him because I would empty a clip as well at a car coming towards me. Because you probably won't hit the driver, and that should scare the driver from doing anything else.


Sucks for everyone here. Seems the kid had a real good chance to get out and make a good life for himself and then he went and did something llike this. It's just sad.

After reading the story and the responses I would have to agree that I don't see anything wrong with shooting the kid. It is sad that the kid died and will not have a chance to turn his life around, do the crime, gotta take the punishment.
In tornoto in the summer there was a kid around 17 I think that was in a gang fight and was holding a knife, the cops busted the fight up and the kid made a move toward the cops, the cops told him to drop the knife, another move, bang kid is dead. now that might not be all the details of my foggy memory but its the same sorta thing. cop asks you to drop the knife you better drop the knife or.......
oh and with the kid, his family i think sued for some racisim thing as the cop was white. stupid. family said he was a good kid....a good kid that gets into gang fights with knifes...lovely.

You never know when reversing into another car might cause it to spontaneously explode! :crazy:

I'm not surprised that people are supporting the cops, this always happens. An untrained cop overreacts and nobody wants to assign any slight amount of blame on the cops.

This is usually what happens but in some cases, this being one of them, that wasn't an option:

Basically, the kid ran off the road into a fence, it was either give up or back up and by that time, the squad had already stopped behind the vehicle in an attempt to block it in. The kid obviously wasn't thinking about giving up so he went with option #2. In this case, the cops had to act before waiting for back up.

Coming from a country where very few police officers carry weapons and shooting the child would never be an option, I just think it seems a bit drastic.

So...after nine years on the LAPD, when do you suppose his training was to commence?

First of all, they might not have been in their car at the time. Secondly, if he has already shown himself willing to run down police officers how do you think he will react to pedestrians? They needed to stop him right then.

As for the shooting, a lot of people seem to have been watching way too much TV. There are rules about when and how you should shoot.

1) If you decide to fire your gun you have a good reason; shoot at the target, not tires or their weapons. The police are not the Waco Kid. Bullets flying around are bad news, so shoot at something you know will stop the situation instantly.

2) If you have already decided to shoot, do so until you have accomplished your goal. A "shoot and check" attitude will get you killed. 10 rounds can go off very quickly, and I am certain many of them did not hit the kid.

I'm not a big fan of the police, but in this case I support them. How were the cops to know this was a 13 year old kid, he could have been any age and off his head on drugs. If you are committing a crime which could endanger the life’s of others, and you refuse to stop when the police have caught you then, unfortunately the consequences could be losing you life.

if you choose to be a criminal, you should know the law of your country or state and except the penalties when you break those laws. and also, Phage is spot on. shooting out tyres or such other nonsense is exactly that, nonsense. you use a car as a potentially lethal weapon, expect to get lethal resonse. if he didnt steal a car, and didnt try to ram the police, he would never have been in harms way.

when you commit a criminal act, you should be held totally responsible for anything that is a direct or indirect result of that criminal action. The kid STOLE a car and then RAN from the police and then HIT a patrol car. sorry the kids dead but its his fault.

Police risk their lives everyday, this kid was breaking the law and attempting to drive over an officer (if not, then what was he doing backing into the car?)

They didn't know what was in the car, only that it was a danger to everyone.

It is a sad thing, but what was he doing out so late stealing cars anyway?

There are some people who instantly hate the police. They have issues with authority, maybe because they are always on the wrong side of the law.

Count me as a vote with the cops. A vehicle is a deadly weapon, and they had reason to fear for not only their own lives, but the lives of any pedestrians.

I see no problem with the police action. A car is a deadly weapon. The kid used the car as such when he rammed the cruiser. Had the kid surrendered when he hit the fence he'd likely be alive right now.

It was an unfortunate situation all around.

As a former cop, you should know that isn't uncommon.

Most of the guys don't even know how many rounds they fire. They usually say 2-3 rounds and it turns out to be at least twice that many.

Ever since the switch over to high-cap magazines, this has become increasingly more common--especially when you are running on adrenaline.

In the old days, they would empty their chamber firing all six rounds--not smart--but many do. Now, with 15 and 16 round magazines, a lot of these guys keep firing until they hear "click". The only problem I have is that after the first round, their accuracy goes in the toilet. I'd didn't catch it, but I would bet the kid got hit one or two times out of the ten rounds fired.

Now that I am typing this, I am kinda changing my opinion. Control isn't taught like it used to be in the old days of the acadamy. It sounds like these guys need to train more at "Hogan's Alley"--do they even use training aids like that anymore?

/still a justified shooting

I don't think the car backed into the police car at 90 miles an hour, so I hardly think the police officer's lives were in danger. I have seen many an episode of "America's Wildest Police Chases" and the officers did not unload ten rounds into a car each time a police car was struck. I think the cop should be canned. I wouldn't want his trigger happy ass patrolling my neighborhood.

Oh yeah? Well I watched many an episode of Law and Order so I happen to know that thats slander. And don't even THINK about getting rude with me man, I've watched Bruce Lee and know how to unload, man. Kung FU style, if you know what I mean.

:thumbsup:

It is kinda soon to assume the shooting was justified when all the facts have not come out. It takes a little longer than a day to make a case, usually it takes about a few weeks before they can determiine justification. I know what I said earlier says that I'm completely against the cops, but if one of them were outside the car or their was a pedestrian near by, I might understand the shooting. Maybe not the 10 rounds (unless it was a life or death situation). But they still need to interview witnesses and get all sides of the story. I wouldn't pin an opinion on one news report.

It has been much longer than a day, this happened 2/6/05--there have been many, many stories about it.

The kid backed up about 20 ft to hit the patrol car. At night, in a bad neighborhood, this could be construed as intent, especially since they didn't know anything about the driver, the car is only listed as stolen at this point.

Backing up 20 feet to hit me tells me you are doing it on purpose. Now, after the fact, we know it was a kid who probably had no control of the car. The officer in this case, couldn't have known it so most likely took the event as an attempt to hurt him or his partner.

Now, the next thing is key for me.

After backing up 20 or so feet to hit the patrol car, the car moves more and hits the back of the patrol car as well.

Here is where I probably would have fired as well....

The kid pulls up virtually side-by-side with the patrol car.

With 20/20 hindsight, we now that the kid probably had no control of the car, was panicking and didn't want to hurt anybody.

For the cop, in a bad neighborhood, at night, being hit twice by this car....then the car pulls up along side....he probably felt that the guy was lining up for a shot. Most people would have stopped after hitting the patrol car once, if it is an accident.

The kid didn't stop though, he kept going. If I was the cop, I would think that something crazy is going on, that this situation is going from bad to worse very fast and then begin to take steps to protect myself.

I've been in patrol cars in this area, you are a friggin' target.

That is why I think it is justified....not because of the story linked on the first post.

Two words: Good shoot.

YOu know Randy Moss hit a cop with his car and got off scott-free. That's messed up too. So it's not a "race" thing.

I agree. We are talking about a CHILD here... :|

oops... That last post was me. I was on Moobie's computer. :D

I agree that 10 rounds is VERY DRASTIC, however I don't disagree with the principle. It was 3-4 am, they didnt know anything about the driver, the driver chose to back the car into the patrol car, and cars are a deadly weapon. He didnt deserve to die, but he definately put on some big shoes that morning. No matter how good your kid is in school it doesnt make up for the fact that they can still be a bad kid. I also agree that this officer needs to be removed from the force and severely punnished for his actions. A round or 2 into the car was probably more than enough to scare the shit out of the kid, had he made a second attempt to ram the car into the police cruiser, or ran off again that would warrant further action, but if he had come to a stop, theres no need for more.

Do you guys get the feeling that the entire news article posted was anti-cop?

"Police kill and shoot 13 year old boy"

Kind of seemed like it was presented in a way to construe the police as having knowingly killed a 13 year old boy.

My opinion on wether the shooting was justified?
I don't know... I would say no at first glance but I don't really have a solid opinion since I don't know what happened.

10 rounds ARE quite a bit ...

Huh? They did shoot and kill a 13 year old boy. How many other ways are there to put it?

Well you got me this time. I missed the part in the article that said it was ten days old. Stupid me :crazy: I'll agree with almost all of what you said when comparing what you said to the new articles on it. I assumed it just happened (won't happen again). But I do feel 10 shots might have been a bit too much. Could have the police car manuevard to a better position to shoot out the tires or to ram the car itself....their car could have been used as a weapon too (can any retired cops respond to this point)? Anyways KMA, that brief moment of stupidity won't happen again so bask in the light of rightness. :thumbsup:

You do not fire a gun to scare people! 10 rounds is hardly drastic when you consider the decision had already been made to shoot him.

The kid was wielding a deadly weapon in a manner intended to severely injure or kill the police, and was showing a complete lack of respect for the safety of local citizens. An officer decided that he was dangerous enough to warrant using deadly force, and did so. He was not shooting to scare. He was not shooting to disarm. He was not shooting to wound. Those are not reasons to shoot. He was shooting to kill, just like he was supposed to.

"Police shoot and kill 13 year old criminal fleeing from scene of a crime"?

"Police shoot and kill 13 year old as he recklessly endangers their lives"?

"Police shoot and kill 13 year old as he attempts to run them down"?

"Police shoot and kill 13 year old during early morning high speed chase"?

As it stands, the headline leaves it to you to fill in the gaps and usually, people put themselves or their kid in the position of the "13 year" and the cops in the position of the bad guy.

I've seen too many headlines that show bias now to take any at face value.

I wouldn't consider this the best choice of words in responding to the people posting here.

Now, back to the topic.

I spend my days around kids like this. I'm not a cop, though. But speaking from experience, even at 13, some of the kids don't give a fuck about the police or authority. One of the volunteers in our school is a cop. He works nights and can't sleep so helps us out in the school during the day. 3 days ago, there was a fight in the hallway between two 6th graders. The kids in this neighborhood fight for keeps.

The cop went to break up the fight. One of the 6th graders, who is twelve years old, told him, "Get the fuck off me, motherfuckin' pig, unless you want a bullet in your ass, too." This was a 12 year old talking to an off-duty cop. He was arrested of course. These are the "children" many of these police officers deal with. Before we get weepy over the death of this kid, keep in mind what they're dealing with on a daily basis.

It's easy for us to sit in our homes, away from these neighborhoods, and say how the police overreacted or how it was only a child and such, but the reality is that in these neighborhoods, a 13 year old is just as violent and deadly as a 23 year old.

I think we, as a society, are missing the Titanic of a boat on this issue. Instead of questioning why the police killed a 13 year old, we need to be figuring out why 13 year olds are engaging in this kind of behavior. Changing the way the police handle these situations isn't going to stop 13 year olds from stealing cars or engaging in violent behavior. Our energy needs to go into programs and initiatives that prevent these things from happening in the first place.

I don't know, are you?

I'm still laughing at this........

At least come back and edit this.

Hahahahaha...Good call, KMA. Shooting your argument in the foot. Is I retarded? No. I have to say that this is hard to call. Of course the kid was driving and was a danger. Of course the cops are responsible for stopping people from endangering others. Of course the kid was doing something stupid.

Of course the police officer fired 10 rounds into a car he wasn't sure was a direct danger (thinkining one is sure is different than actually being sure). Of course a 13 year old doesn't look like an adult, so either the cop didn't see the perp or the cop made a horrible decision. Of course the cop aimed at the driver instead of the tires or some other non fatal target.

The kid didn't need to die and this is a terrible tragety. Either way, a 13 year old boy won't have a chance at life. That's the important part. Everything else is semantics.

I couldn't agree more....my suggestion is make parents responsible for their kids....Out of the house in the wee hours stealing a car, man my dad would have pulled the trigger on....I would never have considered it.

I learned to drive when I was 14 on the farm. As I recall it took a while before I could drive very well. Maybe this 13 year old kid just didn't know how to drive. From what I've read so far he didn't seem to go over 40 or 50 mph. Scared, nervous, backs it up and hits the cruiser. Of course how were the police to know they were dealing with a child.

Please, the kid had his chance at life, and he fucked it up. No one made his dumb ass steal that car or try to run down police officers. If you want to play with the big boys, you have to be willing to face the consequences.

The biggest problem I see here is all the assumptions. No one here knows what ACTUALLY happened. All we hear is second or third or fourth hand information. Were the cops in or out of the cruiser? I don't know, do you have a report stating if they were? If I was in the officer's shoes, and was outside the car when the kid backed up towards me, I would have fired as well.

If it happened like KMA said it did, with the kid ramming the cruiser twice, then pulling up parallel, I would have shot. It was dark, I highly doubt that in the fleeting amount of time, that the cop could have seen what the kid was doing. Were the windows tinted? That would have added to the uncertainty of the situation.

This sure doesn't sound like a trigger happy cop to me. Does he have a past history of blowing away suspects? If he did, I'm willing to bet the news article would have mentioned it. It sounds to me like this guy was scared shitless by this situation that he didn't want, but had to handle anyway.

If you people want to demonize some cops, I know a couple assholes that work here in the Denver PD. A year or two back, there was a retarded boy who was menacing his family with a knife. It was in the middle of the afternoon. By the time the cops got there, he was out on the front yard. One of the cops shot him to death. Mind you, the kid wasn't charging or attacking anyone, he was just being obstinate, and wouldn't put down the knife. The cop didn't try to use pepper spray or a taser first. He just blew the kid away. It was his second kill as well, and if I remember, he had been on the force for only a couple years. Now THAT'S a trigger happy cop.

Or the brother of the guy the cops were looking for being shot to death in his bed because he had a soda can in his hand. Or the no knock raid a few years back, on the wrong house, that ended up with the home owner being killed because he pulled out a shotgun to defend himself from armed intruders breaking into his house.

All of those cops are dickheads. But this guy doesn't sound like that to me.

First off, last I checked, stealing a car and running from the Police was a crime. look at the time of day, 3am. Typically not a lot of 13 year olds out and about at that time of day. Second, does age of the driver matter? I'm sure if any of the officers involved had seen another way out of the situation, they would have tried. There are a lot of cops, and crime victims in general, who have been injured or killed by 13 year olds. Third, typical of the family to rush forward and scream after the fact!! Where were they for the 13 years prior to this in raising a responsible, law abiding child?

Sad to see the back peddling that APD is now doing, same as the Rodney king incident. Current lapd policy allows and trains for this use of force, just like in the king case, they acted as they were trained, then abandoned by their agency. Its a tough job, split second decisions which result in living or dying. Try it.

And this is information gained after the fact. We aren't talking about a child who slowly let a car roll down the road. This was a CHILD who was able to operate a vehicle well enough to lead police on a chase. How is a cop to know at this point that the driver is 13? And, if a 13 y/o can maneuver a vehicle well enough to cause a chase, the same child is capable of running over someone who gets in their way. Any type of weapon is deadly in the hands of someone capable of using it, cars are no exception.

Exactly. If by the age of 13 this kid doesn't know the consequences of stealing a car, leading police on a chase and then ramming said stolen car into a police cruiser, then this kid is damaged goods.

At 13 I sure as fuck knew better than to do that stupid shit. No, I wasn't perfect, but I sure as shit didn't steal cars and attack police with them. He had his chance and he showed the world he couldn't function by society's rules. He gets no pity from me.

And... no one is checking the interweb for updates? :crazy:

Here's your Google News Search results, ordered my most recent posting. There's lots of opinion pieces in there, Johnnie Cochran was hired by his family to sue the police, the police are changing their rules on use of deadly fire, it may drive the current mayor out of office in the upcoming elections, and apparantly this is even uniting the Crips and Bloods. There's plenty more to discuss...

wow, i'm really suprised to see how little sympathy there is for the child...maybe its just me but i've done some pretty stupid things and as far as i can see this is just a kid who messed up. if the officers lives were really in immediate danger then they just did their jobs.. but i don't see anything about an officer getting hurt...so he messed up and did something as dumb as hitting a cop car..maybe it was by mistake? how good a driver can a 13 year old be...i feel sympathy for the child not the cops..i respect police because they put their lives on teh line everyday..but they knew they would when they became police...i have to say i would hope that not every officer decides to gun people down everytime he/she feels intimidated

Sure someone is... you. We have faith in your investigative skills and know you'll turn up any information we need Mr. Librarian. :D

#1 could cause an accident and kill an innocent person ( the kid was in no way innocent)
#2 its not an on the spot death penalty. the cop might have over reacted (shot to much) but nowhere in the article did i see how many times the kid was shot. the officer fired 10 times but how many was the kid hit. maybe the cop was trying to disable the vehicle ( no one can know or will know but that guy)

for me to hear on the spoth death penalty is outragous. was the office outside the car approaching the other car, did he just step out? or did he fire through the windsheild of his car?

each diffrent detail determins how you react. if the pope was charging at me with his car in an attempt to hurt me or because he wanted to be a hero i would have done the same as the officer. the ammount of times i shot would probably depend on if i was outside the car... ect

Just briefly reading through these articles that Redlemon posted a link to it appears it's turning into a racial thing again.

I don't see how in the world they can do this again. It's a hispanic (minority) who shot a black (another supposed minority) and they're calling it racism??

I'm outta here.

My grandfather died fighting for our country. He knew what he was getting into when he signed up for the military. No one made my grampas dumb ass sign up or go to the front lines. He wanted to play with the big boys, and he faced the consequences.

So this child dying isn't a tragedy?
"tragedy: A disastrous event, especially one involving distressing loss or injury to life."
The word tragedy does not go to intent of the victim, therefore this IS a tragedy. It's arguable that when any child dies that it is a tragedy.

yeah. so it seems i have gotten most of my facts straight. while it is sad that a child was shot, we can't blame the cop for shooting the child. he didn't know at the time that the driver was a child and he did what any one of us would have done, protected ourselves.

there's much scrutiny over the amount fired into the car and some point out the uncertainty of times the child was shot. however we don't know whether or not the car continued to move after x amount of rounds were shot.

while this is a far shot comparison, while playing on the paintball field there have been many times, and you fellow paintballers know, that you think you've shot someone, can swore you shot someone so as common courtesy, stop shooting. only to end up getting shot up by the initial target person. following from enough of those instances, we have been influenced to shoot at said target until they pronounce themselves out or if there is un-arguable proof he/she is out.

reasoning for this analogy is that we don't know if the vehicle continued to move after the first 4 shots or not. if the vehicle continued towards the officer, i can totally understand why the 5th, 6th, and even 7th shots would be fired. the officer would want to know his target is controlled -- be it by death or not.

just a thought also, didn't the FBI up the caliber in their standard issue guns from 9mm to .40 because many criminals weren't getting put down with 9mm bullets? even after many shots to the chest, criminals were still capable of attacking agents. i was told this by my gun enthusiast uncle but have yet to look this up.

i absolutely can not stand how the officers and the city are so quick to be blamed by this. i don't have the greatest feelings towards officers because of my own personal experiences, but that hasn't blinded me in this situation. no one is blaming the parents for allowing their child to be out at 3:50 am. no one is blaming the child for stealing the car. heck, i'm 28 and my parents still demand to know where i am at all times, let alone be out at 3:50 am stealing cars and running from police. what next? do we sue the car company for making a car so easily stolen?

and i absolutely can not stand how they are making this a race issue. i have sympathy towards many of our african-american (or whichever pc way you want to put it) counter-parts, but it seems many scream racism for anything that happens to them because of the oppression their ancestors have undergone.

now the bloods and the crips are coming together? what in the world do they know about this? don't most of them shoot and maim innocent people/kids/pregnant women/elderly all the time? it's like hitler preaching to the cowboys how killing indians is wrong. i hate how people are quick to yell racism.

i love kids. as a matter of fact, my cell phone has a picture of myself and my 4 yr-old nephew as the wallpaper. but if i was in the officer's shoes, hell, if i were some bystander, i would've shot the kid myself then slapped the parents.

sorry if this offends anyone, this is just how i feel. and what sucks is that the negligent parents are gonna win this case and make tons of money over a child they apparently didn't care <i>enough</i> about. and the officer who was just doing his job, and acting as any one of us would, is going to get punished for taking a shitty shift (patrolling la at 3 am is, in my opinion, a really really shitty shift), and for trying to protect any bystanders/commuters who may have been hurt due to the initial thoughts of this being a drunk driver.

good luck to the city of la and to the officer(s) involved.

yeah, thats what I was talking about.
the news article headline made me think the cop saw a teenager and just shot him. pow pow dead, face off.

Wow, just wow. That's one of the worst analogies I've ever heard.

Exactly. I'm arguing that it wasn't a tragedy that this little idiot got himself killed.

I think your being a little harsh. Obviously, he had a troubled childhood. Most kids don't just go around trying to drive cars when their 13 years old. He was still just a kid, you have to remember that. Their brains still aren't fully developed to make good and wise decisions. That's why the age 18 has been designated for the age when you are considered responsible for your reactions. You can't assume every kid has the capability to make good decisions. Cut the kid a little slack, he is dead you know.

I'm surprised no one mentioned this story
It's a very similar story and they happened on the same day, or a day apart. I wonder what would have happened if the cops opened up on this 4 year old?

The real lesson here is stay the hell out of black neighborhoods, the police feel they're targets and are paranoid and likely to shoot. 'Their lives were in danger' is such a B.S. excuse; cops are supposed to risk their lives, that's why we have them.

Here is an image of the L.A. accident, that's [sarcasm] pretty vicious[/sarcasm]

Just because cops are expected to risk their lives doesn't mean that they are expected to lose it being mowed down by a out of control 13 year old. The big difference here is the lack of intent by the driver to evade the cops and arrest. Cops rely on a number of different signs to determine what action to take. When someone flees at a high rate of speed, that shows intent to elude police and a disregard for the safety of every other person. This 4 year old rolled slowly down a road bumping into a few cars in his travels. Big difference from a high speed chase.

Exactly! Cops are trained to take action before they or someone else gets hurt. Do you really think a cop is going to wait until the 13 year old runs him over a couple of times and then decide to take action? I'll agree with one thing, this was certainly a mistake on the 13 year olds part. I've made plenty of mistakes in my life too but none of them involved speeding away from the cops and ramming a squad car.

while that is a very similar situation you posted there, there are also many differences that we need to look at. i mentioned that the speed of the 'attacking' car is to be taken into consideration. in the article you posted, it was stated that the car was driving under 10 miles an hour whereas the photos you showed of the case in la showed prelim speeds of 40-50 mph. obviously you can distinguish the difference between a speeding car and a rolling car and tell which is deadly. not saying that a rolling car can't kill you, but it rolling shows me that it wasn't used to attack the officers.

much also is attributed to the neighborhood and the surroundings. we all change the way we react to things and situations while we are in a dark alley in say harlem as opposed to bein out late in say aspen coloroda. if a firecracker goes off in beverly hills, it's just a firecracker. if a car backfires in la, it's a gunshot.

the officers put their lives in danger but they are not supposed to take that risk. that's why they too have guns and bullet proof vests. so you mean to tell me that when an officer is wrongfully gunned down, we say 'oh well, he was paid to take the risk'?

I don't think it was mentioned anywhere but it could have been a 5'10" 160 lbs 13 year old who was under the influence. The cop could have "just" injured the teen instead of emptying a whole clip.

biggest thing is a 4 year old dosent really know what he is doing... but a 13yr old does. the 4 year old wants to be like mommy or daddy....

when i was 4 i backed the family car into a tree..lol (it was a manual car just rolled down a hill

when i was 13 hell when i was 7 or 8 i knew better than that

I don't think rolling at idle speed being "driven" by a 4 year old in mid evening can really even be compared to a 13 year old boy stealing a car at 3 in the morning leading the police on a high speed chase before ramming into them.

The four year old probably had about as much control of that car as a dog would have in the same situation. *arf arf*! :p

If I remember correctly, the police in the 4 year old incident thought the car was driverless as well.

Anyway, thank you M.T. Promises for posting that picture. It shows that yes, the kid pulled the car right next to the cruiser. If someone did that after ramming me twice, I would assume they were going to be shooting at me next.

I wonder if the police were confused by the fact that the car was going so slow when they were chasing it (only 40-50 mph) and then instead of trying to escape it backed into them when it had plenty of room to maneuver around them. The kid probably didn't know how to drive and back up very well. I imagine after they shot him and realized he was only 13 it all began to make sense.

What is that other mother thinking letting her child sit in her lap while driving? Why isn't she being charged? What do you think is going to happen when that kid turns 13?

The mother needs to take responsibility: Maybe not jail or maybe just 30 days but at least a hefty fine. Not too much, say $10,000 to teach her a lesson. It's only a slap on the wrist but we need to send a message: Parents, take responsibility for your kids. If I was the neighbor, and it happened before already, then I would definitely be pretty miffed.

i think they probably got scared when he backed into the police car, because that is a dangerous thing and the policeman couldve been hurt... i mean in the heat of ordeal i'm sure noone was really thinking clearly and it was a stupid desicion, but that doesnt mean he did it intentionally or something. i mean if he had the rationale to think "i'm gonna murder this kid" then he'd realize the reprocussions too, he'd know he'd get in trouble - i'm sure he was just paniced. when shots were fired, the other officers probably paniced and started shooting too, unless it was just one officer, i didnt have hte patients to read it that thoroughly