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

[a6m5]

First of all, I just read the story from the main stream media, because I had to turn off that bearded dude from youtube babbling off like a emotional lady. Impression I've gotten from lot of spin & very little evidence is that police is at fault. I don't know how this went down, I wasn't there, but from the story that is presented to me, I do think that officer was either careless, or made a huge misjudgement.

Cop should be prosecuted. Cops should not shoot until shot at.

Say you are a cop. You see a thug pick up a gun, start to point it at you, or your partner, you should not fire until the thug has gotten at least one round off? That's just absurd.

Also, sometimes unfortunate things happen, and it's no-one's fault.

I have no idea whether that had anything to do with this particular incident, but I totally agree that is a possibility.

 

[Danoff]

Say you are a cop. You see a thug pick up a gun, start to point it at you, or your partner, you should not fire until the thug has gotten at least one round off? That's just absurd.

If the cop shoots first, the cop needs to be prepared to be treated like any other citizen. If the person was about to shoot him, fine, the court will find the cop not guilty of murder. If the person was holding a Wii remote, cop goes to jail for a very very long time.

The rules of engagement for police officers should be not to shoot until you're shot at. The assumption should be that a citizen picking up a gun doesn't want to kill a police officer and is actually not a rampaging murderer. All people should be expected to be innocent and behave innocently by police officers. If they can't do that after x number of years in the service, time to sit behind a desk.

And again, I cannot stress this enough, it doesn't matter whether it was a Wii remote, it could have been a gun, the cop still should not have shot. It is 100% legal to have a gun in your home!

Police officers should not be able to spot an object that you can have on your person legally and react by saying "AAAAHHHH SHOT TO KILL! Whew, he's dead, I thought he might have tried to shoot me with that legally owned weapon that he had in his own home when I broke in."

 

[Imari]

Say you are a cop. You see a thug pick up a gun, start to point it at you, or your partner, you should not fire until the thug has gotten at least one round off? That's just absurd.

You'd fire, even though it would be breaking the rules. You'd be a moron not to.

It'd be interesting though, if the rule was "don't fire until fired upon". It would mean that any policeman/woman who fired first would have to be either in such fear of their life that they didn't give a **** that they were breaking the rules, or supremely confident that they could demonstrate after the fact that firing first was not only justifiable, but necessary.

It seems in a lot of these incidents that police are quick to use extreme force. It's available, and the consequences of misusing it are demonstrably not that onerous. It'd be nice to have the police held to similar standards to normal citizens. Use deadly force if you must, but if you're using it without a deadly threat having been demonstrated against you there better be exceptional circumstances or you better be prepared to have the book thrown at you.

 

[a6m5]

If the cop shoots first, the cop needs to be prepared to be treated like any other citizen. If the person was about to shoot him, fine, the court will find the cop not guilty of murder.

I'm not even thinking about the Wii remote, just this. I think we all agree that discharging the firearm should be the last resort. I just don't agree with your first statement, as it's not always that cut & dry.

 

[LeMansAid]

If the cop shoots first, the cop needs to be prepared to be treated like any other citizen. If the person was about to shoot him, fine, the court will find the cop not guilty of murder. If the person was holding a Wii remote, cop goes to jail for a very very long time.

The rules of engagement for police officers should be not to shoot until you're shot at. The assumption should be that a citizen picking up a gun doesn't want to kill a police officer and is actually not a rampaging murderer. All people should be expected to be innocent and behave innocently by police officers. If they can't do that after x number of years in the service, time to sit behind a desk.

And again, I cannot stress this enough, it doesn't matter whether it was a Wii remote, it could have been a gun, the cop still should not have shot. It is 100% legal to have a gun in your home!

Police officers should not be able to spot an object that you can have on your person legally and react by saying "AAAAHHHH SHOT TO KILL! Whew, he's dead, I thought he might have tried to shoot me with that legally owned weapon that he had in his own home when I broke in."

Now a cop has to not only instantly know the difference between a possibly weapon-shaped object, but also a legally or illegally owned gun? Maybe if the person in question points an iGun (YouTube "iGun Newstopia") their way, the cop should consider the possibility that they are just wanting to share the latest tunes then.

"Rampaging murderer". Really? You had to go for that sort of hyperbole?

 

[r0llinlacs]

I know, shame on me. Whatever was I thinking?

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.

I can say the same about you, cop lover. You seem to think that just because they are officers that they are completely innocent and any evidence or situation, including the above incident, has to be based on inconclusive or non-existent evidence, or that the incident didn't happen as stated at all and the source must be biased.

Whine and cry all you want about circumstantial "evidence", you can't refute the fact than an unarmed MINOR was shot and killed by an officer of the law. The very fact that he was unarmed is evidence enough of the officers guilt.

It erks me bad enough when they kill anybody, but when they kill a defenseless unarmed person it rips a hole in my heart and I can't watch it anymore. Just the other day I read an article about a gang of cops that beat a father to death after they interrupted him while he was trying to break up a dispute between his wife and daughter. BEAT HIM TO DEATH. There is NO justification for that AT ALL. I don't care if the cops thought he was acting "aggressively", assaulting an officer is NOT justification for DEATH. Oh, and don't forget that all cell phone video evidence was confiscated and destroyed. But you better bet, I will bet 100%, I will put my life savings on a not guilty verdict for all of them, while at the same time they get paid vacation.

How could you stick up for something like that? These are real people we are talking about and they are dying at the hands of who they believe to be, and who are supposed to be the "good guys".

[quoteThe rules of engagement for police officers should be not to shoot until you're shot at. The assumption should be that a citizen picking up a gun doesn't want to kill a police officer and is actually not a rampaging murderer. All people should be expected to be innocent and behave innocently by police officers. If they can't do that after x number of years in the service, time to sit behind a desk.

Police officers should not be able to spot an object that you can have on your person legally and react by saying "AAAAHHHH SHOT TO KILL! Whew, he's dead, I thought he might have tried to shoot me with that legally owned weapon that he had in his own home when I broke in."[/quote]

Guilty until proven innocent. Only officers are innocent until proven guilty, and even then it's very rare for them to be proven guilty.

 

[LeMansAid]

@r0llinlacs You seem to not grasp the concept of reserving judgement. Or at least identifying it in others. You're trying to rip into people who are doing just that.

 

[Slash]

By that logic, there would be far more people in jail than we would know what to do with. As if that isn't the case already.

 

[Imari]

Now a cop has to not only instantly know the difference between a possibly weapon-shaped object, but also a legally or illegally owned gun?

Yes, the cop absolutely has to be able to tell the difference between a weapon-shaped object and a gun. I don't see how that's even a thing. Nobody said instantly, but if you're not sure then that's a pretty good sign that you should wait for more information instead of assuming that the weapon-shaped object is a weapon.

As far as legally and illegally held weapons, no, they don't need to know the difference. Surely if you see a citizen with a gun in a situation in which it could be legally held, the immediate assumption is that it's legally held? You can investigate to see if that's the case or not, but taking action based on the assumption that a crime is being committed with no evidence at all seems pretty shaky.

Police aren't expected to know the difference between a legally and illegally driven car. It doesn't seem to cause a problem, because they don't assume every driver is driving illegally unless shown evidence otherwise. The pull over people who actually break laws, and they do random checks sometimes. But they don't PIT manoeuvre people because they were in a Ferrari so they could have been going to speed.

I don't see why the same logic doesn't apply to weapons. If we all treated each other as though we were going to do the worst thing possible at any moment, everyone would be dead by next Tuesday. I'm sure it's tough as a cop, you see a lot of pretty messed up people doing ****ed up stuff. I'm sure it's pretty easy for that to get on top of a person, but that is still absolutely not a reason to assume that anyone and everyone is a criminal who is out to getcha.

 

[r0llinlacs]

@r0llinlacs You seem to not grasp the concept of reserving judgement. Or at least identifying it in others. You're trying to rip into people who are doing just that.

I know that concept very well. I can't reserve my judgment because there is no other logical judgment but guilt. If I had killed an unarmed man because I thought he had a gun and wanted to shoot me, I would feel guilty as all hell and my conscience wouldn't let me feel otherwise. Tell me you would not feel guilty in the same situation? Just think about it, if you really thought you were going to die and then found out after killing the person that they did not even have a gun, would you not feel guilty?

 

[niky]

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. That includes the police.

@r0llinlacs: Calling people "cop lovers" here indicates you've already made up your mind over the officer's guilt even before the results of the investigation are out.

-

What happens in one case doesn't apply to another. Given, there are police who have gotten off lightly, there are also perpetrators who have gotten off just as lightly due to a lack of evidence or poor legwork by the prosecution.

That's just the way the courts work. Reasonable doubt.

-

While I find it inexcusable for the cop to have shot a homeowner at his front door just because she thought he was armed, we don't have all the information we need yet. He was holding a Wii Remote. What kind of Wii Remote? What color? Was he holding something else? Did he gesture menacingly in her direction? Did she go into this situation looking to kill someone? Or did she simply panic and shoot him?

Her actions right after the shooting indicate possibly the latter... and that she did indeed feel guilt and remorse over her action. But we can't say much else about it until all the facts are in.

If that's the case, though, that's pretty 🤬-up police work, and she deserves whatever disciplinary or legal sanction that's coming to her.

 

[LeMansAid]

I don't see why the same logic doesn't apply to weapons.

Because in some cases it'll be a situation at close range, in dim lighting, and unfold almost instantaneously.
I've reserved judgement on this case. I just don't understand how anyone else can think that there's enough to go on to deem it malicious one way or the other, or even merely unfortunate, with nothing malicious on the table. They're all distinct possibilities at this point.

I sometimes think of The Hurt Locker. The beginning of the film with the mobile phone situation, and the uncertainty of what was actually going on. Even with the benefit of precious seconds, it'd be damn difficult. I don't know how many cops are Sherlock-like, but I know it's not all of them.

 

[Grayfox]

While I find it inexcusable for the cop to have shot a homeowner at his front door just because she thought he was armed, we don't have all the information we need yet. He was holding a Wii Remote. What kind of Wii Remote? What color? Was he holding something else? Did he gesture menacingly in her direction? Did she go into this situation looking to kill someone? Or did she simply panic and shoot him?

"If" it was one of these and he was holding it like a person would hold a gun, would be quite easy for someone to think it is a gun.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I can say the same about you, cop lover. You seem to think that just because they are officers that they are completely innocent and any evidence or situation, including the above incident, has to be based on inconclusive or non-existent evidence, or that the incident didn't happen as stated at all and the source must be biased.

No, I just believe in innocence until guilt us proven. If they did the wrong thing, then by all means they should be punished accordingly. If you were dragged before the courts, you would expect the exact sane treatment, but you hold authority figures to a different standard. If you were assumed to be guilty of a crime before it was proven, you would immediately scream about your civil rights being violated, and yet you happily violate the rights of others on a whim.

 

[niky]

I doubt they would have called it a Wii Remote in the news. They would have simply said "toy gun."

Simply too early to tell.

 

[frenzal]

If I am a police officer in a country where there seems to be an almost cultural propensity or readiness for the use of weapons and popcorn against the police, and there is what seems to be a weapon being pointed at me in the execution of my duty, it would not be unreasonable for me to respond instantly in kind.

And to wait for the potential/possible lawbreaker to get the first shot away to determine absolutely that they are a threat or that the item is real or a replica before responding is 🤬 ridiculous. If it looks like a gun and it is being pointed towards me I have every right to believe my life is in danger and respond in kind if I am able.

I am reminded of a visit to Paris back in late '86. It was not long after there had been a series of bombings in the French capital that year. The group of blokes I was with were walking past the South African embassy which was guarded by two blokes armed with very real looking submachine guns/automatic pistols (hazy recollections were that they were possibly Uzis). There could have been a bit of the idiotic yobbo (and at the time alcohol-affected) behaviour to make out like we were going to our pockets as if we were going for guns. When police search our now lifeless bodies they find packets of cigarettes in our hands (if we had gotten that far). Who is in the wrong...the guards who working in a semi-lawless environment where their lives can be snuffed out in an instant and responding accordingly, or us for acting like dickheads and playing games in a world where reality happens. Fortunately for us we were very clear and intentional in keeping our hands well clear of pockets and such. However how many headlines (both mainstream and internet/youtube based) would have played to the line that over-zealous guards shot had dead someone with a packet of cigarettes in his hand.

 

[Imari]

Because in some cases it'll be a situation at close range, in dim lighting, and unfold almost instantaneously.

I don't think that changes a thing. Just because someone is close to you, the lighting is bad and they're holding someone doesn't mean you get to make a split second decision that it's a weapon and that they mean to use it on you. God forbid a police officer ever walks into a nightclub.

Situations like that are potentially dangerous for a police officer because of the difficulty of identifying a threat accurately and in a timely manner. The solution is to either take pre-emptive steps to identify potential threats or to simply move the field to somewhere safer for you. The solution is NOT to assume that everyone is a threat and respond as such.

The solution to a bunch of people holding objects in a small, dark room is to turn the light on, or ask them to step outside. You do not shoot them on the basis that they could have been going to shoot you.

I've reserved judgement on this case. I just don't understand how anyone else can think that there's enough to go on to deem it malicious one way or the other, or even merely unfortunate, with nothing malicious on the table. They're all distinct possibilities at this point.

In this particular case I agree, I don't know. It seems like there is more to the story than we've heard so far, or at least there should be. Even the most hinky cop doesn't just pull and fire through a just opened door without warning.

I don't know enough about this specific case, but there's still debate to be had about the topic of how much provocation is acceptable for a police officer to respond with deadly force.

 

[LeMansAid]

Oh yeah, there'd still have to be more to the situation to deduce that there was an immediate risk. To be honest, my guess is that she mis-read the sitution, panicked, or made some sort of error that should hold her responsible. I'm just not willing to jump to that. Crucial information is likely still missing.

 

[Carbonox]

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.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. Nobody has the right to kill just because they think their victim's a threat.

 

[Grayfox]

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. Nobody has the right to kill just because they think their victim's a threat.

Only person that can kill anyone is James Bond with his "License to kill" but that is fiction and Kim Jong Un can in real life since he can do anything he wants.

But in the real world. you are correct.

 

[Carbonox]

Only person that can kill anyone is James Bond with his "License to kill" but that is fiction and Kim Jong Un can in real life since he can do anything he wants.

But in the real world. you are correct.

According to his crazy ideology, at least. However, I doubt the rest of the world approves of his doings.

 

[Imari]

Only person that can kill anyone is James Bond with his "License to kill" but that is fiction and Kim Jong Un can in real life since he can do anything he wants.

But in the real world. you are correct.

Congratulations, you have found the only thing in common to James Bond and Kim Jong Un.

 

[Grayfox]

He would be more like a bond villain.

Like Dr No.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. Nobody has the right to kill just because they think their victim's a threat.

I don't believe they have the moral right to take the life... but legally they inarguably do in certain circumstances. An officer who reasonably (in their own mind) feels that they need to defend themselves from deadly force has the right to respond with deadly force.

Does that mean that all officers who shoot do so justifiably? The evidence shows that it doesn't unfortunately, sometimes through human error, sometimes through human flaw.

 

[Bigbazz]

You seem to have this cop guilty until proven innocent.

Are they to prove the Wii remote posed a deadly threat?

 

[Imari]

Are they to prove the Wii remote posed a deadly threat?

I hear they're pretty deadly if you're a TV.

 

[Danoff]

Now a cop has to not only instantly know the difference between a possibly weapon-shaped object, but also a legally or illegally owned gun?

Nope!

A cop is required to assume that the people around him or her are law abiding citizens. Especially if that citizen is in their own home.

"Rampaging murderer". Really? You had to go for that sort of hyperbole?

Think about the mentality of a person who shoots to kill if anyone around them has a weapon. Weapons are legal to own and carry. 99.9% of citizens want to obey the law, and aren't looking to shoot police. So why would you assume that any gun you saw was a threat? Do you know what it takes for someone to be willing to shoot the police? For a police officer to assume that everyone around them holding a gun is that kind of psychopath is insane.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. That includes the police.

If you shoot someone, you will be arrested, taken to the police station, a statement taken, possibly locked up, and definitely investigated, and in many cases prosecuted (prosecuted does not mean convicted). None of that assumes that you're guilty. Zimmerman fits that description. In court, you're still innocent until proven guilty. That is what should have happened to this cop. She shot a kid with a Wii remote, she needed to be arrested, statement taken, possibly locked up, and definitely investigated and prosecuted. If the court finds her innocent (with the going in assumption being that she's innocent), then she will be cleared of charges.

While I find it inexcusable for the cop to have shot a homeowner at his front door just because she thought he was armed, we don't have all the information we need yet. He was holding a Wii Remote. What kind of Wii Remote? What color? Was he holding something else? Did he gesture menacingly in her direction? Did she go into this situation looking to kill someone? Or did she simply panic and shoot him?

Her actions right after the shooting indicate possibly the latter... and that she did indeed feel guilt and remorse over her action. But we can't say much else about it until all the facts are in.

If that's the case, though, that's pretty 🤬-up police work, and she deserves whatever disciplinary or legal sanction that's coming to her.

She should be taken to court and prosecuted for murder, where the details of the incident can be reviewed by a judge or jury and her guilt proven or not proven. You can definitely say that much without knowing the rest of the facts. And I'll state again, even if it had been a gun instead of a video game controller, she should not have shot.

If I am a police officer in a country where there seems to be an almost cultural propensity or readiness for the use of weapons and popcorn against the police, and there is what seems to be a weapon being pointed at me in the execution of my duty, it would not be unreasonable for me to respond instantly in kind.

You shouldn't be a cop then. As a cop, it would be your job to make sure that you protect the innocent. That includes people with firearms, and it includes startled homeowners that just might even point that firearm at you thinking you're a criminal. If they don't figure out that you're a cop before they shoot, that's your own fault. So no, absolutely not, you don't get to blow away anyone that points a gun at you just because you're a cop. You need to assume that the people around you are innocent, scared, startled, whatever - and that these people have every right to own and carry the firearm they carry. Especially if you're in their home!

And to wait for the potential/possible lawbreaker to get the first shot away to determine absolutely that they are a threat or that the item is real or a replica before responding is 🤬 ridiculous. If it looks like a gun and it is being pointed towards me I have every right to believe my life is in danger and respond in kind if I am able.

If you're a cop, your job is to protect the innocent, not cover your ass.

I am reminded of a visit to Paris back in late '86. It was not long after there had been a series of bombings in the French capital that year. The group of blokes I was with were walking past the South African embassy which was guarded by two blokes armed with very real looking submachine guns/automatic pistols (hazy recollections were that they were possibly Uzis). There could have been a bit of the idiotic yobbo (and at the time alcohol-affected) behaviour to make out like we were going to our pockets as if we were going for guns. When police search our now lifeless bodies they find packets of cigarettes in our hands (if we had gotten that far). Who is in the wrong...the guards who working in a semi-lawless environment where their lives can be snuffed out in an instant and responding accordingly,

Yes! You don't get to kill someone just because you can envision a scenario in which they might try to kill you.

To be honest, my guess is that she mis-read the sitution, panicked, or made some sort of error that should hold her responsible. I'm just not willing to jump to that. Crucial information is likely still missing.

That's for the court to decide.

 

[IneedSchool]

That dude's death will be avenged!

 

[Eric Demory]

From what I got from the video in the first post, the officer came a knockin' on the front door when the kid answered it with the Wii gun in his hand. Here's what I don't understand... how could the officer, standing two or three feet away, not notice the abnormal buttons and design that you wouldn't normally notice on a real gun. There are officers like this on the force??? Get them the hell off!!!

 

[Sage Ages]

From what I've seen they only said it was a normal Wii remote.