Teen Shot Dead By Police Officer

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

artisticsolution
Posts: 1938
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Contact:

Re: Teen Shot Dead By Police Officer

Post by artisticsolution » Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:45 pm

tbieter wrote:You missed the point. I was commenting on the concept of personal responsibility, a concept that is foreign to teen-agers and teachers.

Carl died because of his lack of self-control and his stupidity. Only Carl, his parents and his elementary school teachers are blameworthy for his death.
Hi Tom

Let's not stop there... Dr. Spock, the law and Freud are also to blame for the stupidity of society. Dr. Spock because he championed a new era where it became frowned upon to give a little spank on the bottom to your children and Freud who brought a wave of amateur psychologists who live on a diet of dysfunctional suspicion, frustration with their lack of power, egotistically selfish and self centered, hero wanna-be's who think they know it all but lack the compassion and integrity to admit that perhaps someone knows better.

I don't know all the answers...but I do know before I had kids I would have fought you on this, Tom. I would have said it was the police officer's fault. But now, it's hard for me to lay blame...because the police officer is a product of our insane environment as well...just like Carl.

People just have a hard time knowing the difference between right and wrong...because as we have seen...even doing the seemingly "right" thing...like time outs, stricter laws in order to deter crime, psychological "help" has not fixed the mental problems of society...in fact I think we are worse for the wear. So I could not begin to argue with you here as you may have a point about self control and how leniency in punishment may undermine a happy and well adjusted life.

chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Teen Shot Dead By Police Officer

Post by chaz wyman » Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:53 pm

tbieter wrote:You missed the point. I was commenting on the concept of personal responsibility, a concept that is foreign to teen-agers and teachers.

Carl died because of his lack of self-control and his stupidity. Only Carl, his parents and his elementary school teachers are blameworthy for his death.
This is bullshit. Carl died because he was shot. The shooter has the first responsibility. He was killed by a policeman. A policeman that had other choices at his disposal.
Death by shooting is not the necessary outcome of breaking windows.
The concept of personal responsibility seems to be a foreign one to the policeman.

User avatar
John
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:05 pm
Location: Near Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Teen Shot Dead By Police Officer

Post by John » Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:41 pm

tbieter wrote:Only Carl, his parents and his elementary school teachers are blameworthy for his death.
Unless any of these people exist in a vacuum then to claim they influenced Carl's actions implies that someone must have influenced their actions, which influenced Carl's, and so on and so on.

tbieter
Posts: 1200
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: Teen Shot Dead By Police Officer

Post by tbieter » Thu Sep 23, 2010 4:28 am

John wrote:
tbieter wrote: Note (last two paragraphs) that the writer apparently absolves the 17-year-old Carl of any personal responsibility for his fate. He had no duty to practice self-control. Only “we as a society failed Carl.”


So, if Carl was responsible does that mean that society had no failings in this matter? If society did have failings dies that imply joint responsibility or just societies?

Do you think that society, and by that I largely mean the formative environment Carl was raised in and lived in, had no bearing on his actions?


"Do you think that society, and by that I largely mean the formative environment Carl was raised in and lived in, had no bearing on his actions?"

No, I'm saying that his "formative environment" was deficient and that his deficient "formative environment" influenced his actions which were the proximate cause of his death. This incident basically was a long adult temper tantrum. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictio ... er+tantrum

In the past, the home (Christian, Jewish, Humanist (Plato, Aristotle, Irving Babbitt) and the school (prior to the Progressive education thought of John Dewey) would likely have resulted in the child learning the virtue of temperance (self-control) and the vice of anger.

With the decline of the religious and humanist influences, these sources of the teachings are lost. But Dewey's thought still reigns supreme in the Minnesota public schools; it never was adopted in the Catholic schools, fortunately for me. Dewey explicitly rejected classical education.

Thus, I suspect that Joey Carl was a creature of impulse and a slave to his emotions.

chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Teen Shot Dead By Police Officer

Post by chaz wyman » Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:24 am

tbieter wrote:
John wrote:
tbieter wrote: Note (last two paragraphs) that the writer apparently absolves the 17-year-old Carl of any personal responsibility for his fate. He had no duty to practice self-control. Only “we as a society failed Carl.”


So, if Carl was responsible does that mean that society had no failings in this matter? If society did have failings dies that imply joint responsibility or just societies?

Do you think that society, and by that I largely mean the formative environment Carl was raised in and lived in, had no bearing on his actions?


"Do you think that society, and by that I largely mean the formative environment Carl was raised in and lived in, had no bearing on his actions?"

No, I'm saying that his "formative environment" was deficient and that his deficient "formative environment" influenced his actions which were the proximate cause of his death. This incident basically was a long adult temper tantrum. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictio ... er+tantrum

In the past, the home (Christian, Jewish, Humanist (Plato, Aristotle, Irving Babbitt) and the school (prior to the Progressive education thought of John Dewey) would likely have resulted in the child learning the virtue of temperance (self-control) and the vice of anger.

With the decline of the religious and humanist influences, these sources of the teachings are lost. But Dewey's thought still reigns supreme in the Minnesota public schools; it never was adopted in the Catholic schools, fortunately for me. Dewey explicitly rejected classical education.

Thus, I suspect that Joey Carl was a creature of impulse and a slave to his emotions.



THe pair of you are ignoring the basic epistemological facts of the incident. You are also imputing causality to an abstract notion: society, influence, control, anger...

The death of this boy was caused by a speeding bullet, once that caused a loss of blood pressure and the cessation of his heart. The bullet came from a gun fired from a policeman's hand. For causality we have to look a the motivation of the policeman, who chose this course of action, amongst a range of alternatives. Where was his control and anger management?

User avatar
John
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:05 pm
Location: Near Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Teen Shot Dead By Police Officer

Post by John » Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:50 am

chaz wyman wrote: THe pair of you are ignoring the basic epistemological facts of the incident. You are also imputing causality to an abstract notion: society, influence, control, anger...

The death of this boy was caused by a speeding bullet, once that caused a loss of blood pressure and the cessation of his heart. The bullet came from a gun fired from a policeman's hand. For causality we have to look a the motivation of the policeman, who chose this course of action, amongst a range of alternatives. Where was his control and anger management?
You'll have to excuse my stupidity but I'm not entirely sure what point your making here.

Edit: my moment of stupidity has passed and upon a re-read I now get what you're saying.

I'm not commenting on the justification, or otherwise, of what happened to the boy. Just on what may have influenced him to act in the way he did, which was what Tom had been commenting on earlier. From what I've seen there was no justification for killing him.

chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Teen Shot Dead By Police Officer

Post by chaz wyman » Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:54 am

John wrote:
chaz wyman wrote: THe pair of you are ignoring the basic epistemological facts of the incident. You are also imputing causality to an abstract notion: society, influence, control, anger...

The death of this boy was caused by a speeding bullet, once that caused a loss of blood pressure and the cessation of his heart. The bullet came from a gun fired from a policeman's hand. For causality we have to look a the motivation of the policeman, who chose this course of action, amongst a range of alternatives. Where was his control and anger management?
You'll have to excuse my stupidity but I'm not entirely sure what point your making here.
The point is that it is the policeman who ought to look to his role and so should we.
The consequences of breaking windows ought not to be summary execution. The fact that the boy was gunned down by a representative of the law ought to result in an examination of the role of the state in this matter, not a vague notion of the moral conditions of a teenager.

User avatar
John
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:05 pm
Location: Near Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Teen Shot Dead By Police Officer

Post by John » Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:57 am

I edited my earlier post and I agree with you. Any comments I've made on the actions of the teenager were made in response to other posts so I'd consider them legitimate.

I'd agree that examining the role of the state is of more importance though.

artisticsolution
Posts: 1938
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Contact:

Re: Teen Shot Dead By Police Officer

Post by artisticsolution » Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:12 pm

Hi Chaz and John,

I think you are misunderstanding what Tom is trying to say. I think we can all agree that the police officer could have had better job performance and in a perfect world he might have diffused the situation in a way that did not result in death for an out of control teen having a temper tantrum. However, let's forget about the policeman for a moment. Let's instead try to understand Tom's position about the teen. I think Tom has a good point about teaching our children to have some self control. People who behave like this teen did are bound to run into the wrong person eventually...be it cop or some other angry nut case out there. There are consequences for our actions always. If someone came over to my car and started hitting the windshield with a baseball bat, my first response would be to drive off...if that person happened to be in my cars path...oh well...I would have to run him over and face my own consequences...but I would not just sit there and take the chance he would start beating me with the baseball bat. Let's suppose he was in a fight with one of his peers...or in a bar room brawl with drunk...eventually this kid would have met his match. It is just unfortunate this kids didn't learn there are always consequences to pay until too late. He should have learned them from his parents and teachers so that when he eventually met another person like himself...with zero self control and with no filtering system of right and wrong (which unfortunately for the teen...was apparent in the police officer) he might not have been so out of control and might not have to die for having a really bad day.

User avatar
Gustaf
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:03 am

Re: Teen Shot Dead By Police Officer

Post by Gustaf » Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:53 pm

tbieter wrote:Bumper stickers urged people to “Challenge All Authority.”
For a while, I would end my Internet postings with a tagline that said "Question authority? Sez who!?"

Periodically, it would get commented on by people who would tell me why it is important to question authority, missing my point entirely.

As far as I am concerned, anyone telling me to question authority can go to hell. If I want to obey authority, I will obey authority, goddamnit, and I don't care what anyone thinks!

That's what I tell my kids too. If anyone tells you to question authority - doesn't matter whether they are a university professor with a big important looking beard and gobs of publications, your friend, a celebrity, whatever - ask them why you should do as they say.

User avatar
Gustaf
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:03 am

Re: Teen Shot Dead By Police Officer

Post by Gustaf » Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:57 pm

chaz wyman wrote:Try and use your imagination! It is not a capital offence for a boy to vandalise a police car.
It is also not a capital offence to take a realistic-looking toy gun, walk up to someone, thrust it in their face and yell "die motherfucker!"

Do that to someone who has a real gun (e.g. a cop), and you could end up dead - and it would probably be considered self-defense. That you would not have been executed had you not been shot is neither here nor there.

User avatar
Gustaf
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:03 am

Re: Teen Shot Dead By Police Officer

Post by Gustaf » Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:00 pm

chaz wyman wrote:Summary execution is not a punishment that is befitting of such a crime, and it is not the duty of a police officer to carry out such a punishment.
Even if the police officer did not handle the situation as well as he might have, even if the police officer handled the situation incompetently, describing it as a "summary execution" is highly inaccurate.

Now if the officer pepper sprayed or tasered the kid, hog-tied him, said "The gene pool is dirty and I am the filter!" and shot him the head, that would have been a summary execution.

User avatar
Gustaf
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:03 am

Re: Teen Shot Dead By Police Officer

Post by Gustaf » Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:09 pm

chaz wyman wrote:Challenging authority is a completely essential element of democratic thinking and the democratic process.
How is it essential? And to what authority are you referring?

Until recently, I was a school bus driver. I had no sympathy for kids who challenged my authority to tell them to sit down, not to whack other kids, not to throw garbage on the floor, not to use the word 'fuck' too much, to tell them that they are only allowed to get off on their own stop, etc. Challenging my authority would in no way benefit the democratic process. (It could, if overdone, lead to the parents having to drive the kid to school though.)
Laws need to be in place and acted upon which protect the individual from 'authority' figures from overstepping their powers.
Yes but you still need authority to enforce them. When the police get sued for shoving a plunger up some guy's asshole, and the courts rule against the police - do you think the victim would see ANY money without authority being there?

tbieter
Posts: 1200
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: Teen Shot Dead By Police Officer

Post by tbieter » Thu Sep 23, 2010 4:00 pm

Here is the Minnesota law that applied to Joey Carl's encounter with the police officer who responded to the 911 call from someone in the neighborhood:


1 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2009 609.066

609.066 AUTHORIZED USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY PEACE OFFICERS.

Subdivision 1. Deadly force defined.

For the purposes of this section, "deadly force" means
force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know
creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a
firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within
the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another
person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force.

"Less lethal munitions" means projectiles which
are designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person.

"Peace
officer" has the meaning given in section 626.84, subdivision 1.

Subd. 2. Use of deadly force.

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065,
the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only when necessary:

(1) to protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm;

(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer
knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony
involving the use or threatened use of deadly force; or

(3) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the officer
knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony
if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm if the
person's apprehension is delayed.

Subd. 3. No defense.

This section and sections 609.06, 609.065 and 629.33 may not be used
as a defense in a civil action brought by an innocent third party.

History: 1978 c 736 s 2; 1986 c 444; 2001 c 127 s 1
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.066

I think that Subdivion 2 (1) applies. From the video, it appears that the officer fired his weapon when Carl swung his bat at the driver's side window.

After carefully reviewing this statute, look at the above video again and tell me if you think that the shooting was legally justified.

And note the first paragraph of the newspaper report in my initial post:
"

Teen shot dead by police officer

A 17-year-old boy whose friends said had been drinking earlier in the night died in the street near his Norton Park home late Thursday, shot by a Duluth police officer sitting behind the wheel of a squad car as the boy broke out the driver’s side window with a baseball bat. (Emphasis by underlines added)

chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Teen Shot Dead By Police Officer

Post by chaz wyman » Thu Sep 23, 2010 4:12 pm

John wrote:I edited my earlier post and I agree with you. Any comments I've made on the actions of the teenager were made in response to other posts so I'd consider them legitimate.

I'd agree that examining the role of the state is of more importance though.
I presume this is to me?
Okay fair enough.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests