Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

[dhutch]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

LMFAO is it just or me or did the 2nd cop tase that sorry SOB right before he kicked the knife away? You see him holster his handgun, then draw a bright yellow object that looks like a taser, and then you see the kid start to shake like he's being tased, as he's kicking the knife away.

 

[RADcustom]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dhutch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LMFAO is it just or me or did the 2nd cop tase that sorry SOB right before he kicked the knife away? You see him holster his handgun, then draw a bright yellow object that looks like a taser, and then you see the kid start to shake like he's being tased, as he's kicking the knife away. </div></div>

I believe you are correct.

 

[desertrat1979]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ace31</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Trapshooter12</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I was wondering if the Cop hadn't had his Pistol drawn if he would have won that fight. When I took my CCW class in May the instructor talked about how quick someone with a Knife could cover 21 feet. </div></div>

No way, no how. Now he may have won the fight some other way, but if you are wondering if he could have drawn and fired on his target...from my experience. NO!

</div></div>
I agree, the 21 ft rule is based on the defender having the pistol holstered, not with weapon drawn. Still, if the officer had hesitated then I dont think it would have been a positive outcome. The suspect got close enough.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Parallax</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: desertrat1979</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...The only problem I am seeing here is, what makes him a gang-banger? </div></div>

That was added because of additional knowledge of the situation... </div></div>

Gotcha. The difference is in the details.

 

[jericho]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tucker301</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't believe in trying him as an adult.
If he's 16 he's 16. </div></div>
When I was 16 I already knew that trying to stab a cop would more than likely get me killed or in prison,in other words I knew the difference between right and wrong.He deserves to get treated like an adult if he thinks he is man enough to run at a cop.

 

[Parallax]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hydro556</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did I miss the caliber of the pistol? I am assuming 40 S&W probably?</div></div>

I believe Wisconsin Rapids now issues the Smith & Wesson M&P in .40 S&W.

 

[Kinsman]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

Regardless of age, the boy put on a man's shoes when he drew the knife out of his pocket.
I knew the difference between right and wrong, and had a pretty good idea of the outcome when I was 16. I had a Mom and a Dad that taught me.
The perp got what he deserved, and should be tried as an adult.

 

[Maser]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

16 is LEGALLY not an adult so therefore he shouldn't be charged as one. Although he sure is a big guy for being only 16. Maybe I'm just a midget.

 

[RADcustom]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Maser</div><div class="ubbcode-body">16 is LEGALLY not an adult so therefore he shouldn't be charged as one. Although he sure is a big guy for being only 16. Maybe I'm just a moron.

</div></div>

If he commits an adult crime ie. assault with a deadly weapon, then he should be charged as an adult.

 

[TLong]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

Just a little bit of what a knife wielding person can do in just a few movements...
These are bad, but they don't look that deep. Could possibly be a boxcutter or other small blade

 

[cavscout1983]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RADcustom</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Maser</div><div class="ubbcode-body">16 is LEGALLY not an adult so therefore he shouldn't be charged as one. Although he sure is a big guy for being only 16. Maybe I'm just a moron.

</div></div>

If he commits an adult crime ie. assault with a deadly weapon, then he should be charged as an adult. </div></div>

For once I will side with Maser.

I think there is a disconnect in the law. If he was trying to buy cigarettes- he wouldn't be regarded as an adult, if he was a she and spread her legs to some 17 year old- she wouldn't be thought of as an adult. We are all in agreement that he broke the law, paid for it almost with his life. That being said- Is the image we want to present to children that they are only an adult when their grand decision making skills prior to 18 put them on a gurney or in lock up?

If we are going to charge juveniles as adults at 16 we might as well afford them the rights and responsibilities as adults. Including military service. Although I feel they should only serve in a Reserve or Guard role and be non-deployable until 18. Programs exist for this but only to age 17.

Consistency in the law is my biggest pet peeve.

16 year old girl has sex with consent- she's a minor
16 year old boy has sex with same age girl with consent- he is a criminal
16 year old boy can't put on a uniform or buy beer or cigs
16 year old can be tried as adult without ever having experienced adulthood. Seems...off.

 

[Mo_Zam_Beek]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

Meh....

In LA the Mexicans are pissed b/c LE shot a Gwat. with a knife over the weekend...


I don't care how old you are or what language you speak - if you holding a knife and someone with a badge and a gun shows up and starts barking at you, you can be pretty certain they aren't saying "show me what ya got".

Its an intelligence test. They both failed.

Back this joker - try him as an adult or try him as a kid the only real difference (AFAIK) is that his file gets sealed if he is convicted as a minor. The time served will likely be about the same. In OR, (my understanding) kids that do time and carry over to adult time don't transfer to the gladiator pit until after they are 18.


Good luck

 

[TLong]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

Those of you saying try him as a juvy;
If he would have died because of the officer shooting him, how would you feel then? Would you still be compassionate about the "kid"?
If the officer would have said, "Hey this is a kid don't shoot" and got his ass handed to him like the pics above, how would you feel? Well at least the "kid" gets to live to fight another day, but let's try him as "kid" so he don't have to spend the rest of his life in jail.
Sometimes I think people are too caught up in the what if's and don't realize the potential outcomes of peoples actions.

The original story was police were called to armed subjects attacking a car (whatever the hell that means). So, right away you know someone's got a weapon and they are attempting to use it or are actively using it. Whose to say this "kid" didn't just rob someone at knife point and this was the first time that he had been caught?

You make adult decisions, you should pay adult prices. The juvy laws are so fucked up in theis country, not to mention the laws for adults, that this "kid" will probably only get probation because the judge feels that the "kid" paid for his actions by getting shot. In other words, slap the justice systems wrists instead of this "kid" and lets let him go to live his life of crime that he so loved before the police messed things up for him.
I say give him 10-20 and let some big ex-bodyguard ass rape him until his intestines fall out. Then pick his guts up and shove 'em back in.

 

[cavscout1983]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

I am not being compassionate, I am just asking the law to maintain a consistent logic.

If he had died? A life lost is a life lost. It neither goes up or down in value over time. It is bought and paid for if we just sign the contract with a word.

I believe in true equality. Not liberalism mind you, but true equality. All things being equal is not an easily stomached concept in its true form. It is against man's nature of excelling and succeeding. But it is how we are judged eternally, so should we not be willing to apply that here?

Is he a kid or not? I didn't ask what you want him to be tried as, I asked: " Is he a kid, or not?"

If you answer not, there's your answer. Be prepared to take a moral position in defense of the adult rights of 16 year olds everywhere. Note: your position is not always empirically better, though it may be your system of morality. Truth is truth.


If you answer is, then, there's your answer.

The great thing about cultures that have a presentation where they declare a new man has joined the community, are much better off in the acting out of justice. We have it too mucked up here. Is it 15 for a heinous crime and 17 for a not-so-heinous crime? why 18 for porn and cigs and rifles but 21 for hand guns and alcohol? 18 to vote, but not taken seriously until late 20s early 30s.

What constitutes definable manhood to you?

These have to be answered if you are to stand by your position.

 

[jericho]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

CavScout you make very solid arguments.

 

[Mo_Zam_Beek]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

I think many are operating under the assumption that if he is charged as a juvy he would do little or no time.

I don't know if that is true or not and it likely needs to be answered by someone familiar with the legal system in that state.

I am operating under the assumption that regardless of him being charged as a juvy or a 'dolt, he isn't gonna get the time he deserves and the primary difference is that if he takes it as a juvy his file will likely be sealed. Now if your an employer or an employee that may work along side him in the future - don't you think that is relevant information that should be considered in the hiring process? How about when he goes to lease an APT next to yours? You know, the one you leave every day with your wife / GF / baby inside.

Cav - got what your saying but I'd turn the question around for you - are there big boy decisions out there that transcend age barriers?

I agree with you on the note of the law should be consistent - as in - regardless he gets the same amount of time. I also think that consistency should be extended in matters of disclosure after certain thresholds have been crossed.


Good luck

 

[Parallax]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think many are operating under the assumption that if he is charged as a juvy he would do little or no time.</div></div>

And that, in Wisconsin, is exactly correct. The only juveniles in our State that "serve time" in any way other then "reform school" are those waived into adult court.

If, for example, a 17 year old juvenile is convicted for a serious Felony as a juvenile (even if he's convicted after 18... the crime happened at 17), then that individual can only be incarcerated in a juvenile detention facility until their 21st birthday. They are then released from custody, and the juvenile record is sealed. I don't know about you, but I think 4 years for, say murder, is pretty unfair... hence the ability to waive older juveniles into adult court where the sentence could be life in prison.

Wisconsin's Chapter 48 (Juvenile Code) was designed in the 1960's to be "rehabilitative" and not "punative". Times, kids and their criminal sophistication has changed but the law hasn't. Ask any Copper or crime victim in this State how that works...

The answer is to eliminate all juvenile code "perks" and hold everyone to the same legal standard. I don't see that ever happening, we are bleeding hearts these days... we still believe all criminals can be rehabilitated and that people under 18 don't have the smarts to know wrong from right or the possible consequences of their actions. After all, their only "kids" right ?

 

[Ratbert]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

Being tried as a juvi or an adult should be based on his psychological and developmental maturity, not the extent to which we despise his actions. Serious crimes by children should be handled seriously, but not necessarily the same way they would be handled if committed by an adult. We have the concept of a 'minor' in our system of law because our society purportedly has a consensus that a child simply cannot be expected to be as responsible for their actions as someone who has a more developed composure.

To know right from wrong is only a small portion of the question. My 4 year old knows when he's doing something wrong. Frequently he is even fully aware that the consequence will be punishment. I can stand be standing right there warning him not to but he will still do it because he simply has not yet learned to temper his actions and control his impulses. This is what it means to be a child and though a 16 year old may have grown into the body of a man his mind and character usually have not quite kept pace. Clearly many have not matured by even age 18, but you cannot shelter someone forever and THAT is the age we have chosen to admit someone, ready or not, into the ranks, responsibilities, and privileges of the adult citizenry.

A child learns and does as he is taught. If the crimes committed by our children are becoming more serious and pervasive as many seem to believe (and I would not argue against,) perhaps we should consider taking a hard look at the way we as a society treat corruption and criminal neglect of a minor.

 

[HOGGHEAD]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

The bottom line-juvenile or not-he pulled a weapon on a Police Officer, and did not drop it. There is no hope for that idiot. Let him out of jail, and seal his record in a couple of years?? And all he was taught was he can pull a knife on an officer and walk free in a couple of years.

So for you bleeding hearts who want to treat him like a juvenile. Well you can pretty well bet this idiot will be doing it again in the future. Do you want him to be doing it to your daughter next time??

What the hell is two more years of age in prison going to teach this guy?? Honestly I can not believe the bleeding hearts. This guy screwed up so bad that he DOES NOT deserve another chance!!

How does any of your examples of age crimes compare to a guy trying to kill a Police Officer?? Please explain that to me?? The guy is out of control. He does not need to be put in jail. He needs to be put in the ground.

Things are getting out of control out there on the streets. Just ask any Police officer they will tell you what is really going on. And the reason why it is going on is because bleeding hearts say treat him like a juvenile. Or give him another chance. Or the jail is inhumane. Or he is just misunderstood. Bull Crap. Take em down.

Psychology should never be taken into acount. If the guy is nuts then I am sorry, but that is too bad. What if that same nut kills your daughter. I bet you would not say-Oh well he had a bad childhood!! If you kill somebody or attempt to kill somebody wrongfully then IMO you used up your one and only chance. Nuts or not. Why give them another chance to ruin a perfectly normal persons life. Oh ya, I forgot, a bleeding heart.

Temporary insanity?? Bull crap. Tom.

 

[Mo_Zam_Beek]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Being tried as a juvi or an adult should be based on his psychological and developmental maturity, not the extent to which we despise his actions. Serious crimes by children should be handled seriously, but not necessarily the same way they would be handled if committed by an adult. We have the concept of a 'minor' in our system of law because our society purportedly has a consensus that a child simply cannot be expected to be as responsible for their actions as someone who has a more developed composure.....


A child learns and does as he is taught. If the crimes committed by our children are becoming more serious and pervasive as many seem to believe (and I would not argue against,) perhaps we should consider taking a hard look at the way we as a society treat corruption and criminal neglect of a minor. </div></div>


Thank you for saying this and while I don't know if this is your opinion, I would garner it is a view point that many in America share. It is a force fed opinion by the liberal left that worked their way into positions to teach, administrate, and rule.

Bottom line, America is the way it is b/c when we say it - we don't really mean it. There are no absolutes. We also have entertained the idea that "it isn't my fault" for so long it has become ingrained. We live in an era in which we see 40+ yr old men act like little boys. Stop and think about this for a minute in the 19th century they'd have been forced to become responsible at around 15 and be close to death in their 40's. Today however, it is an excepted notion that American children (particularly of middle and upper class households) enjoy an "extended adolescence" generally running into the mid to late 20's. However, most every one of us knows at least one 'emotionally immature' 50+ yr old. That is the one true thing about America - if you have the will to continually cross the line and don't mind (or can even make effective use of penalty time) - no one is really gonna stop you. You are free to be the biggest fuck up you can at the expense of others.

Particularly in the case of violence - we as a society need to get over the fact that 'a child committed the crime' - b/c the results to the victim, the victim's family, the victim's friends, and to society as a whole are the same as if a 40 yr old did the same.

As for <span style="font-style: italic">perhaps we should consider taking a hard look at the way we as a society treat corruption and criminal neglect of a minor</span>. I am all for this providing we start the conversation on the right note. It doesn't take a village, it is solely the responsibility of the two people that created that child in the first place. I am 100% for joint punishment in cases where there was little positive parental input for the child. 5 yrs with a sledge hammer in hand - Mom / Dad / and Son - turning big rocks into little pebbles. I am just willing to bet there would be more than a few conversations about where things went off the tracks and how none of them want to end up doing the same, again.


Good luck

 

[Parallax]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ratbert</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Being tried as a juvi or an adult should be based on his psychological and developmental maturity, not the extent to which we despise his actions...</div></div>

In a perfect world, I agree with what you have said...

But alas, who decides this ? And, what comparitive standard do we use... do we employ the same standard for everyone ? Clearly our system does take into consideration psychological and developmental maturity. But should we at all ages and for all crimes ? Anyone finding an expert to testify could plead that their conduct should be excused do to factors beyond their control, well I guess they already do that. Experts can be bought quite cheaply these days...

I frequently saw juries and even DA's and Judges befuddled by experts testifying about science and related issues that a juror or justice official simply can't digest. It's way above their heads. Now we'd also expect them to have expertise in child/adolescent psychology ?

No easy answer for this one. Youths these days, like I said, are far more mobile, savy and violent then when most juvenile code was written. The law, as it exists, simply hasn't kept up with the young criminals of today. I saw it developing when the loosely organized gangs who fought each other with fists, lead pipe and an occasional knife became organized criminal enterprises and switched to pistols, AK-47's and explosives... violence and how we respond to it is simply out of hand.

 

[AXEMAN]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

one thing i saw is that when the car is first rolling up on the guy he goes into his pocket for the blade. he made that choice and the choice not to drop it and the choice to run at a gun. pop pop drop. case closed.

 

[Mo_Zam_Beek]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

Something to ponder:

The left has shrewdly manipulated the populace to accept certain concepts as fact (to name a few):

- there are always mitigating factors
- it isn't my fault
- it takes a village

All of these are loosely related in that they remove personal responsibility and place it in the hands of the collective.

However, when it is everybody's responsibility - it is no one person's responsibility. This is what creates opportunity for the left. Government needs to step in and force compliance.



Good luck

 

[Parallax]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Bottom line, America is the way it is b/c when we say it - we don't really mean it. There are no absolutes. We also have entertained the idea that "it isn't my fault" for so long it has become ingrained.</div></div>

I robbed and killed the victim because....

... I'm too stupid to realize it was wrong.
... my father beat me as a child.
... my mother bet me as a child.
... (fill in blank) beat me as a child.
... it's the victims fault for showing off that he/she had money.
... it's the victims fault for letting me in the door.
... it's the victims fault for walking alone at night.
... no one stopped me.
... I needed the cash.
... I'm 15, what you gonna do about it ?
... I wanted to buy drugs.
... It sounded like fun.
... because my family was poor.
... because the victim disrespected me.
... I'm too young to know any better.
... (fill in blank) told me to.

etc...etc...etc... real excuses, just a few, of the hundreds I've heard over the years. It got so I actually had some sort of twisted respect for criminals that simply admitted what they did without excuse.

 

[Ratbert]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

We seem to have shifted a bit from a debate of the issue into a forum for the venting of frustrations regarding a somewhat broader range of topics. That's all well and good, I suppose, but since my original argument was based on a dispassionate examination of a very narrow and specific point of public policy I doubt very much that I will be able to provide a back and forth that will satisfy.

 

[Oldsmobiler]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

Why in the hell did the dude with the knife charge at a cop with a gun pointed at him? "Generally" when a police officer gives you a command you obey. Thats how I was raised....WTF is wrong with people nowadays?

 

[seanmyhre]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

Think about these crimes (adolesent crimes listed earlier in the thread) and how they would have been handled in our country since the 1500's to present. Things have changed a lot, and one thing that is consistant in any legal system is the ability to change with it's societies sense of right and wrong. I, for one, am very pleased there exists an ability of the modern day prosecutor, LE, and judge to use disgression in every individual case to better meet the circumstances of the crime. Essentially, a 16 year old using a fake ID to buy cigrettes and beer is hardly comparible to the actions of the 16 year old in this LE shooting.

Drawing a delineating line by age as to a crime of an adult and a crime of an adolescent would do way more harm than good. Consistantly, legal decisions like this always lead to unintended concequences and violate the 6th amendment. The most recent example of this is manditory drug sentencing, ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in US v Booker (2005). Measures like these sound really appealing prima faca, but never see the deeper ramifications.

 

[border_reiver]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

Bang Bang. You lose.

 

[hipshot]

Re: Gang banger's bad choice of the week...

For many people the deciding factor is that children are too immature and inexperienced to exercise good judgement; they "make bad decisions" or "make mistakes" that an adult would theoretically not make. Most of us know that real life isn't quite that simple. If a child can be shown to know better; if he or she has been handled for a similar situation in the past and disregards the lessons learned -- and commits a serious (as in potentially life-threatening) offense, I believe that adult status is warranted. I think that each case should be determined on its individual merits; I doubt anyone could adequately define a comprehensive set of parameters that would cover all cases to determine how a child would be charged. Both sides of the issue have valid points.

Consistency in the application of the law would be a wonderful thing, but as long as attorneys and politicians (elected judges, prosecutors, lawmakers, etc.) are involved in the process we will never see that happen.