Police officer mistakes Wii remote for a gun, kills a teenager

  • Thread starter Madertus
  • 106 comments
  • 4,480 views
Madertus

Madertus

2,028
Poland
Poland
Ultimetal
For one...

Language-y video warning!

EUHARLEE, Ga. — A Euharlee police officer opened fire on 17-year-old Christopher Roupe while serving a warrant for probation violation on the child’s father, claiming the boy pointed a gun at her.



Sources (also in the video's description):
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/c...ring-door-holding-wii-controler/#.UwZVgPldVFq
http://filmingcops.com/young-boy-sh...er-sitting-down-to-watch-a-movie-in-his-home/

What do you guys think about this?

By the way I highly recommend Alpha's channel - he posts videos discussing similar (or not quite similar) issues quite often 👍

Apologies if the thread is misplaced :)
 
Quite sad to think I have actually tried to defend American cops in the past, even when they've shot unarmed men. :rolleyes:

Well, it's over. I feel pity for people who have to live in a police state.

On an offtopic note, I like that guy's style (in the video). Just like me, whenever he doesn't like someone, he sure as hell doesn't bother hiding it.
 
sumbrownkid
How does one exactly mistake a Wii controller for a gun?
Click to expand...

Could have been in that gun wii remote holder.
But it is white, red, black or some other color,is made of plastic.

But that still does not justify it, and the police officer should be charged and if any cover up is done, the department should be looked into by IAB.
 
"Rate, Comment, Subscribe"!!.... Ah yes, the alternative to the self-interested bias of mainstream news.

The only judgement I've made is that there's not enough information to be able to make any judgement.
 
I'm so tired of seeing stuff like this. Sickening that they (Police) have no authority to answer to and therefore can get away with whatever they please.
 
sumbrownkid
How does one exactly mistake a Wii controller for a gun?
Click to expand...
From a distance, I assume.

Thread title is very misleading. It implies the guy was shot because he was holding a Wii remote, but it's pretty obvious that it did not happen that way.

r0llinlacs
Sickening that they (Police) have no authority to answer to and therefore can get away with whatever they please.
Click to expand...
Do you think he was shot for the lulz?

When an officer fires their weapon, whatever the circumstances, they surrender it and a full investigation is carried out internally.

LeMansAid
"Rate, Comment, Subscribe"!!.... Ah yes, the alternative to the self-interested bias of mainstream news.
Click to expand...
There was a case here a while ago about a police officer using excessive force to subdue a teenager. Footage was posted online showing the kid being wrestled to the ground, denying that he had done anything, and an outraged bystander calling the officer out. It made headlines, but what the video did not show was the moments immediately beforehand, where the kid did something that justified an arrest, if not the method. He was clearly under the influence of something in the video. But the officer's guilt was established immediately by a video that was obviously edited to show us what the person who recorded it wanted us to see.
 
Last edited:
prisonermonkeys
... a full investigation is carried out internally.
Click to expand...
Sounds nasty, I hope they use gloves at least.

Seems like you recognise the potential for equal opposite bias in these types of show pony videos, articles, etc. The presenter here has painted a picture that justifies his seemingly somewhat forced and over-dramatised rant. I'm just not sure how much of it is based on real information. Might be a bit more like speculating on speculation.
 
prisonermonkeys
Do you think he was shot for the lulz?

When an officer fires their weapon, whatever the circumstances, they surrender it and a full investigation is carried out internally.
Click to expand...

One of the things that investigation should be looking for is whether or not the officer had been shot at first. Also a public investigation should be done, in court, where the cop is tried for murder.

Here's one (of many) problems with this story. The kid could have answered the door with a gun! It is not even illegal to carry a gun in your home, let alone a capital offense. Cops clearly have no business trying to determine whether someone is about to but hasn't yet used deadly force - because I've read too many stories about them killing innocent people and then finding out that they posed no threat. That's not even to make mention of the people they shoot who did pose a potential threat but were not threatening them. Like, say, someone holding a gun in their own home who was not going to shoot the cop.

Again, it is not illegal to own a gun. The kid (17 year old) could have shown up at the door with his loaded firearm and been within the law. Not only should the cop not have shot him for a wii remote, but the alibi "he had a gun" isn't good enough either. Cops should only fire when fired upon. I know it's not the rule, but it should be.
 
If you think the "investigations" aren't biased, boy you need to wake up. You can't expect ANYBODY to police themselves, it doesn't work like that. Very, very, VERY RARELY are cops prosecuted for their crimes. Why? Who's going to prosecute them? Their peers? Riiiiiiiight.....

Not to mention the fact that they have the authority to confiscate anything deemed as evidence... well they have the authority to destroy that evidence and say it never existed as well. Crooked as can be. If you can't see it, I feel sorry for you.
 
Danoff
One of the things that investigation should be looking for is whether or not the officer had been shot at first. Also a public investigation should be done, in court, where the cop is tried for murder.

Here's one (of many) problems with this story. The kid could have answered the door with a gun! It is not even illegal to carry a gun in your home, let alone a capital offense. Cops clearly have no business trying to determine whether someone is about to but hasn't yet used deadly force - because I've read too many stories about them killing innocent people and then finding out that they posed no threat. That's not even to make mention of the people they shoot who did pose a potential threat but were not threatening them. Like, say, someone holding a gun in their own home who was not going to shoot the cop.

Again, it is not illegal to own a gun. The kid (17 year old) could have shown up at the door with his loaded firearm and been within the law. Not only should the cop not have shot him for a wii remote, but the alibi "he had a gun" isn't good enough either. Cops should only fire when fired upon. I know it's not the rule, but it should be.
Click to expand...

I totally get what you are saying, and mostly agree, but say that kid walked up to the door and had the gun aimed at the officer?

The fact is, they are authorized to kill you if they deem you a threat, so you should respect that at all times. The absolute last thing you want to do is make them perceive you as a threat.
 
Slash
I totally get what you are saying, and mostly agree, but say that kid walked up to the door and had the gun aimed at the officer?

The fact is, they are authorized to kill you if they deem you a threat, so you should respect that at all times. The absolute last thing you want to do is make them perceive you as a threat.
Click to expand...

Which couldn't be any more wrong. Nobody should have the authority to kill anybody unless they had a trial and were found guilty of a crime worthy of execution. This is the problem with police, they are the judge, jury, and executioner. Guilty until proven innocent could not be any more true.
 
Danoff
Again, it is not illegal to own a gun. The kid (17 year old) could have shown up at the door with his loaded firearm and been within the law. Not only should the cop not have shot him for a wii remote, but the alibi "he had a gun" isn't good enough either. Cops should only fire when fired upon. I know it's not the rule, but it should be.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue every possible shooting scenario, but answering a door would put an officer (or anyone else) at very close range. On the other hand, that would make a potential "weapon" easier to identify as a threat.

Since we're only getting one side of the story - after all, the officer was serving an arrest warrant, one isn't exactly going to encounter people at their happiest moment - it's pointless to take sides on the issue.

It would seem there's still that whole unjustified excessive force thing, when it's all said and done.
 
r0llinlacs
Which couldn't be any more wrong. Nobody should have the authority to kill anybody unless they had a trial and were found guilty of a crime worthy of execution. This is the problem with police, they are the judge, jury, and executioner. Guilty until proven innocent could not be any more true.
Click to expand...

And I couldn't agree with you more on part of that, but sometimes given circumstances call for drastic measures. Wether you agree with it or not, that's how it is, and I don't see it changing anytime in the foreseeable future.
 
Last edited:
r0llinlacs
Which couldn't be any more wrong. Nobody should have the authority to kill anybody unless they had a trial and were found guilty of a crime worthy of execution. This is the problem with police, they are the judge, jury, and executioner. Guilty until proven innocent could not be any more true.
Click to expand...

Yes, that sounds like a great plan when my job involves risking my life day by day. Imagine you're a cop, responding to a call, and you have no idea what is in that house. You're not supposed to assume that the people inside that house are going to be welcoming you with open arms. If someone comes at you and appears to be a threat, you're going to say "I'll take you to court!" instead of taking action? Alright, see you on the nightly news.
 
Danoff
One of the things that investigation should be looking for is whether or not the officer had been shot at first. Also a public investigation should be done, in court, where the cop is tried for murder.
Click to expand...
The rules of engagement for police do not demand that they cannot shoot unless shot at first. If they believe that a person is armed and poses an immediate danger to themselves, a police officer, or another civilian, then they are able to shoot first.

Remember, we are only hearing about this after the fact from someone who is clearly outraged by the incident. In retrospect, yes, it was obvious that the kid was holding a Wii remote. But what about at the time of the shooting? It is possible to hold a Wii remote in such a way that it might be mistaken for a gun.

Also, you cannot investigate and try a person at the same time. The investigation has to be carried out before a person can be charged, and the person must be charged before they can be tried. To carry out the investigation and the trial concurrently assumes guilt on the part of the defendant.

Danoff
Cops should only fire when fired upon. I know it's not the rule, but it should be.
Click to expand...
Great idea. Criminals should absolutely get one free shot before police can do anything about it.

r0llinlacs
If you think the "investigations" aren't biased, boy you need to wake up.
Click to expand...
Says the man who is willingly ignoring the way the video in the opening post is clearly biased and based on no evidence at all. You are assuming the officer is guiltly before that guilt has been proven, and are claiming that any investigation or trial that might prove otherwise us corrupt because it contradicts an angry YouTube video with an agenda.

LeMansAid
Seems like you recognise the potential for equal opposite bias in these types of show pony videos, articles, etc. The presenter here has painted a picture that justifies his seemingly somewhat forced and over-dramatised rant. I'm just not sure how much of it is based on real information. Might be a bit more like speculating on speculation.
Click to expand...
Precisely. Everyone automatically takes the victim's side based on nothing more than an agenda. In that video of the kid being taken down by the officer, are we supposed to believe that someone got their camera out just in time to see the officer tackle the kid, get the bystander's angry reaction and the kid protesting his innocence? Of course not. He obviously did something to attract the officer's attention and justify an arrest, but that was conveniently missing.
 
Pupik
After all, the officer was serving an arrest warrant, one isn't exactly going to encounter people at their happiest moment
Click to expand...

Don't police serve warrants in pairs or with some backup?
Only thing we heard was the a female officer shot the kid.
 
Grayfox
Don't police serve warrants in pairs or with some backup?
Only thing we heard was the a female officer shot the kid.
Click to expand...

Euharlee, Georgia is a really small town; they probably don't have a very large police force.
 
prisonermonkeys
The rules of engagement for police do not demand that they cannot shoot unless shot at first. If they believe that a person is armed and poses an immediate danger to themselves, a police officer, or another civilian, then they are able to shoot first.

Remember, we are only hearing about this after the fact from someone who is clearly outraged by the incident. In retrospect, yes, it was obvious that the kid was holding a Wii remote. But what about at the time of the shooting? It is possible to hold a Wii remote in such a way that it might be mistaken for a gun.

Also, you cannot investigate and try a person at the same time. The investigation has to be carried out before a person can be charged, and the person must be charged before they can be tried. To carry out the investigation and the trial concurrently assumes guilt on the part of the defendant.


Great idea. Criminals should absolutely get one free shot before police can do anything about it.


Says the man who is willingly ignoring the way the video in the opening post is clearly biased and based on no evidence at all. You are assuming the officer is guiltly before that guilt has been proven, and are claiming that any investigation or trial that might prove otherwise us corrupt because it contradicts an angry YouTube video with an agenda.


Precisely. Everyone automatically takes the victim's side based on nothing more than an agenda. In that video of the kid being taken down by the officer, are we supposed to believe that someone got their camera out just in time to see the officer tackle the kid, get the bystander's angry reaction and the kid protesting his innocence? Of course not. He obviously did something to attract the officer's attention and justify an arrest, but that was conveniently missing.
Click to expand...

I didn't even watch the video. I don't care. I see this type of thing too often for me to care anymore. I'm speaking on a broad level here, not specific to this video at all. I agree there is bias on both sides of the issue. It's up to the individual to decide which information is true and what is not.

But you can't deny the fact that there is a problem with the system, no matter who you're biased towards or against. You can't expect anybody to police themselves and the "internal" investigations are a joke. It's like if I were tried for murder with my father or best friend as the judge. It doesn't, and never will, work like that.
 
prisonermonkeys
Well, all I can say is that nothing you have to say on the subject will hold any water until you bother to watch it.
Click to expand...

Considering the subject is excessive police force along with their ability to get away scot-free, I'd say based on the articles I have read in the past, that my opinion is perfectly relevant without watching the video. Same situation, different day.

But if you want my opinion on this story alone, without even reading it, I can tell you that the killing is not justified. I don't care if you point your finger, a WII remote, or a realistic looking Airsoft gun at a cop, it is the officers job to know the difference between a real gun and a WII remote for Gods sake. She should be executed in the same manner, it is murder, nothing more, nothing less, I don't care that the officer is trigger-happy paranoid power-hungry psycho, those are her problems and not ours.


All I can say is if you disagree, I can only hope one day it happens to you or someone close to you. That is the only way you'll learn.
 
prisonermonkeys
It is possible to hold a Wii remote in such a way that it might be mistaken for a gun.
Click to expand...

It's probably possible to hold just about any small object in such a way that it could be mistaken for a gun or other deadly weapon. Including holding nothing at all, but positioning yourself to indicate that you are armed or reaching for common concealed carry locations.

A police officer has to be aware that in certain situations there's relatively high potential for misidentification. I don't think it's reasonable to respond with deadly force to a perceived "gun" in that kind of situation, because it opens up nearly any shooting situation to the "I thought it was a gun" defense.

In cases like the one where an airsoft was pointed at the police some time back, there was reasonable basis for believing that the officer was about to be fired upon. In the case of someone holding a Wii remote, there's a reasonable basis for believing that the officer didn't have nearly enough information to be even thinking about drawing her weapon. Any position in which a Wii remote looks like a gun is one in which the object hasn't been clearly identified, and so not one in which deadly force is appropriate.

Commanding the boy to take actions to reveal what's in his hand for identification, certainly. Ordering him into a position where you can confirm your own safety, sure. Placing your hand on your weapon, probably not a bad idea, just in case. Drawing and firing, nuh uh.
 
r0llinlacs
All I can say is if you disagree, I can only hope one day it happens to you or someone close to you. That is the only way you'll learn.
Click to expand...


Is expressing the hope for someone's death against the AUP? If not, I might start using it too.

The video is only one example of the tendency to jump to conclusions. For all we know the kid opened the door shouting "I'm gonna kill you M@#%$ F$@$!#% !!!" and pointing his controller, thinking he was going to be mucking around with a friend at the door. Point is, we don't know.

Also, sometimes unfortunate things happen, and it's no-one's fault.
 
=Also, sometimes unfortunate things happen, and it's no-one's fault.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. Every effect has a cause.

And I don't wish death upon anybody. I wish for people to realize the wrongs in this world, if death or near death experience is the only way for a person to learn, then so-be-it.
 
I know, shame on me. Whatever was I thinking?
r0llinlacs
Considering the subject is excessive police force along with their ability to get away scot-free, I'd say based on the articles I have read in the past, that my opinion is perfectly relevant without watching the video.
Click to expand...
Your opinion is that they are guilty, despite the fact that you have no access to any evidence. You further assume that any investigation which turns up any other result - even if it is based on rock-solid evidence - is corrupt.
 

Latest Posts

Back