Mother of 12-year-old carjacking suspect turned him in to police
Mother of 12-year-old carjacking suspect turned him in to police
The detective testified that surveillance video showed the two suspects approaching the car as they both put their hands on their waistbands, as if to indicate they both had a weapon.
An attempted carjacking Saturday night left a 13-year-old dead after a security officer shot him; another boy, 12, is in custody
You're viewing a single thread.
The worst part of this is that a security guard (not even a police officer) shot and killed a 13 year old child for attempting to steal a car. No one's life is worth more than some vehicle
They approached from both sides of the car with their hand on their waistbands as if they had a weapon. Was he supposed to magic his way out of that? Talk to them? Plead?
He had a gun. They threatened a person with a gun. This is what happens sometimes when you do that. It's the risk you assume when you take up carjacking. It's a high-risk occupation.
Carjacking is not punishable by summary execution.
No, but intentionally making somebody think you have a weapon and are threatening them with it is inherently risky, since people panic and may try to defend themselves (and this isn't exactly unreasonable either, a car might not be worth lives, sure, but cooperating with a criminal threatening you with a weapon isn't necessarily going to prevent them from using it anyway depending on their motivations and what they perceive you to be doing, and people threatened in such a manner can't reasonably be expected to act rationally anyway).
If you are prone to panic, the last thing you should have is a gun.
Pretty much any person in existence is going to panic at least to some degree if you surprise them with a weapon. In any case, I wasn't getting into the weeds about gun control with that, Im generally in favor of gun control myself, though with a few caveats, but what I was more trying to get at is that it isn't unreasonable for someone threatening someone with a weapon to end up dead, not because I personally think they should be killed (I don't), but because when you go out of your way to do something that is by nature going to provoke one heck of a fight or flight response in people, some people are going to fight, and in fights people sometimes die. A gun makes that more likely of course, but it can still happen regardless (such as if other weapons, like a heavy object that can be used as a club, or a car for that matter, are available, or if the attacker does have a weapon but the victim mamages to take it, or just from getting punched in the wrong place). Obviously the intended victim can go too far, like if they continue to attack a fleeing assailant, but in general, the responsibility for someone getting killed in that kind of scenario is primarily on the person who caused that scenario, the attacker. Hence why we often consider someone guilty of murder if they commit a violent crime and someone gets killed as a result, even if that person didn't themselves do the killing.
I see a fuck ton of mental gymnastics here.
You are in a thread about a US Marshal, not acting as a US Marshal, shooting dead a 13 year old who didn't even actually have a gun.
Please. Dive into the weeds. This child needed help, not a bullet.
America needs gun control. Direly.
If he was acting in a way as to trick someone into thinking he had a gun, then you can hardly blame the other party for not realizing that he did not actually have one. And for that matter, even with gun control, a US marshal is exactly the kind of person one would expect to still be decently likely to have one.
I agree that America needs gun control, the reason why I haven't been talking about it as much here is that I think that in this specific instance in particular, it probably would not have helped, and so isnt as good a case for arguing it, as, say, those times when some idiot decides that shooting someone for using their driveway to turn around is somehow justified. I am not doing this as some kind of mental gymnastics to justify private gun ownership. I do not own a gun, nor do I feel particularly comfortable around them. I just don't feel that the issue is especially relevant to what happened in this case, assuming the reporting of the incident or my quick reading of it have not missed some important details.
those times when some idiot decides that shooting someone for using their driveway to turn around is somehow justified.
Which of course is already a crime. Whether the DA decides to bring charges or not it is already a law that you can't do that (iirc except for in texas at night, but c'mon, texas is real fucking weird.)
In a sane country, only a fucken weirdo would think that a couple of kids approaching their car would have guns. So yes in this specific instance it is just as relevant as in virtually every other instance of gun violence in America.
America needs gun control. Direly.
This is true, but doesn't negate any of the other facts of the situation. They were essentially threatening him with weapons. Was the guy supposed to ask the boys nicely to prove that they were armed before defending himself? If they really were armed, that could easily have gotten him shot.
The situation sucks for everyone involved, but most people in that guy's position would have done the same thing.
This child needed help, not a bullet.
Also agreed. But he tried to carjack an armed person with threats of violence. Are you trying to tell me that if two boys were threatening to shoot you, you'd calmly try to get them help?
Why do you keep emphasizing their age? It's not like the shooter knew how old the little shit was.
Let me put this into simpler words. If you're committing a crime, and someone tries to stop you. You put your hands in your pocket like you're about to pull something out of it. The person who stopped you has no idea what you're going to pull out of your pocket, it could be a gun, it could be your phone, it could be something else. We don't know what you're reaching for, and if the other person believed their life was in danger, they have every right to pull out their gun and defend their self. While I do agree that America needs gun control, I also believe that the U.S Marshal was in the right for defending their self. They fucked around, and that 13 year old found out.
Maybe don't carjack anyone and put yourself in a position where someone feels threatened enough to do this? By the other article linked, this kid went on a little crime spree and fucked around enough to find out. Sucks for his family, but this was inevitable.
They were 12 and 13. "Fuck around and find out" they're children. Get some fucking empathy
Children doing very adult crimes.
We're all children. I don't give a damn how old they were, they fucked around and found out and now they have to face the consequences. Your age, your race, and other things don't excuse you of the crimes you committed, or attempted to commit.
Thanks captain obvious.
"Just stop it or die" isn't a rally cry I can get behind.
Kid needed help, not a bullet.
He decided to trick someone into believing he's a mortal threat. Victims shouldn't have to risk their life because you don't like the result. It's a tragic outcome, but it's a story he wrote.
I hope we can all agree he needed help rather than a bullet.
I would agree unless the carjacker appears to have a gun. Like its not great a 13 year old died but with how weapons are designed. Its quite easy for a 13 year old to end a life (intentionally or not) if armed.
Please take a moment.
A 13 year old without a gun was shot dead by an off duty US Marshal.
Now please consider what you just said, while acknowledging the context.
Please take a moment.
A detective testified that surveillance video showed the two suspects going to the car as they both put their hands on their waistbands, as if to indicate they both had a weapon.
Now please consider what you just said, while acknowledging the context.
On a more serious note, are you implying cops have futuresight? I sure hope that is what you are implying. Since you have to be a fool to take a fucking threat lightly no matter the age of the individual who is perpetrating it. I'm sorry but a 5 year with a fucking gun can kill someone, sure as hell a 13 year old implying they have a gun who is trying to car jack someone may be seen as a credible threat. its unfortunate that this young man didn't find a way to be a productive member of society and with his death he will never find that. We can't lose sight that if you bring/suggest you brought a deadly weapon into a situation you have forfeited your right to life (you can't infringe on another person's right to life and expect no pushback for it) until you are disarmed and immobilized. You may take this as pro cop talking points but no this is being a fucking realist, it can happen to anyone at anytime.
Cops should be held to some of the highest standards. They are in theory the enforcers of the law and the public would lose trust if that gets abused. That is why we are currently in the situation we are in right now. Cops are being recorded and rightfully so. The justice system already favors cops. So I'm 100% down for being skeptical of cops but in this case I'm sorry you are way out of line.
As people say: FAFO.
Dude, stop trying to justify violent crime.
It appears you are incorrect
Sadly.
Threatening a persons life is though
Carjacking is an extremely violent and confrontational crime which generally involves shoving a gun in someone's face while screaming that you're going to kill them. Many people get shot every year by trigger happy carjackers.
It would seem the gun lovin’ boot lickin’ rootin tootin reddit fuckwads have well and truly moved in to Lemmy, if your up and down vote counts are anything to go by.
No one’s car is worth more than a human life.
Carjackers (especially young carjackers) kill cooperating victims on the regular around here. My car isn't worth a human life, but my car isn't what's being threatened in a carjacking.
Its a bit funny since isn't a large following for lemmy in the super super far left end of it to the ends of communism and Karl Marx states
Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary
― Karl Marx
So you are trying to label your opposition as "redditors". Your human life is being threaten, not your car you numbnuts
Your own life and safety is worth shooting and killing someone over, you don't know what someone's intentions are when they approach you.
Also, just let them take your stuff? Fuck you. Do you think I have the money to just go and buy a new car at the drop of a hat?
it looked like it was a US marshal. it doesn't justify a life, but i would be hard pressed to find a marshal that would react differently to an attempted car jacking.
Actual law enforcement need to he prohibited from moonlighting as security guards.
Nothing good ever comes of it.
They just get a taste for doing what they consider to be their day job without official oversight.
He was a security officer with the U.S. Marshals Service; that was his actual full-time job. He was not moonlighting, he was just off duty.
"Security guard" = US Marshall
"13 year old" = person on a crime spree who had a loaded firearm (deadly weapon)
"Steal a car" = steal a car with the US Marshall still inside, most likely while threatening them with previously mentioned firearm.
This person is the one who put the value of a car above a human life. If someone is willing to put a gun in my face for the sake of personal gain, I see no way how defending myself, even with deadly force, would be not justified.
Carjacking ≠ car theft
Imagine youre sitting on the toilet taking a shit and I kick the door down and throw you to the ground and start overflowing your porcelain throne with gallons of sticky, oily poo juice.
It's a tad worse than me breaking in and just taking your toilet back to my place and having my way with it there.
Permanently Deleted
For me that's the best part, guess we'll agree to disagree!