Monday, May 30, 2011

Trigger-Happy Cops and Felony Murder

The Chicago Tribune reports

(Tatioun Williams)

A 16-year-old boy has been charged with murder after his 15-year-old companion pointed a gun at Chicago police and was shot and killed by one of the officers, authorities said.

Brandon Ross, 16, of the 6800 block of South Jeffery Boulevard, was charged as an adult with felony murder and armed robbery, according to state’s attorney spokesman Andy Conklin. Ross was expected to appear at a bond hearing at noon.

The teens made off with an iPod, credit cards and a car key, the victim said.

The two sergeants, responding to the robbery, were flagged down by a witness a block away, near 69th Street and Bennett Avenue, who pointed them in the direction of the teens, authorities said.

One of the teens turned and pointed a gun at the sergeants, and one of them opened fire, striking the teen in the back.

"IN THE BACK," did you hear that part?  Does that make sense to you, I mean without stretching it to fit a pre-conceived story? It should be a given that if you kill someone by shooting them in the back they were not posing a lethal threat, they were running away.  What is so hard about that?

"They did an excellent job," said the robbery victim, who asked not be identified. "If they respond as speedy as they did yesterday, that could cut down on criminals getting away."

Yes, for stealing an i-pod, the murdering cops did an excellent job, at least according to this outstanding citizen. I'm sure he approves of charging the other juvenile delinquent with the murder. That makes perfect sense, don't you think.  Two kids steal an i-pod, the cop kills one of them and the other one is charged with the murder.

What's your opinion of this sick and twisted travesty of justice?  Please leave a comment.


  1. I filed this same story a number of posts back under 'another stupid gun death'.

    The kid who was killed allegedly turned towards a cop with the gun in hand, rather than putting it down.

    That was stupid.

    You noted that the kid was shot in the back. I'm not sure that given the crime and that the kid wouldn't stop OR put down the gun, that they could allow him to leave the scene without shooting him.

    One would hope that if they could, they would have repeated an order to the kid to drop the gun, but if he was moving......I hesitate to second guess that action too much.

    He had already threatened the robbery victim; then not cooperating with the police, I think the argument could be made he was a danger sufficient to justify the force.

    There were two kids, and two officers; I'd be interested in knowning where each of them was relative to each other. If the police had spread out a bit to cover each other, one might have been in a position where the kid was shot in the back while he was pointing the gun at the other officer.

    If one police officer moved into a flanking position to protect the other, and if the kids turned first towards the other officer and then turned away, I could see the kid with the gun legitimately getting shot in the back.

  2. Sorry-- if you point a gun at a police officer and turn your back, you are as much an idiot for robbing someone. What if you turn around and shoot someone, like the person you just robbed? Then the police are responsible for what you did, and for you getting away.

    This post is what puts all liberals into a bad light, as if we are stupid and don't get it. One of my children just got beat up at school by a kid with a long history with the police. In truth, the kid should be in jeuvie hall for other things he has done in the past, but he was a kid, 12 years old! What could they do? They wanted to give a child with few role models a second chance. I'm not mad at the school or the justice system-- but they are acting now and I am being gracious by going behind the scenes and trying to help in finding this young viscous person a mentor.

    How many times did the boys in this article have run-ins with the police? You have people in these neighborhoods who live in 3rd world country conditions, and live like animals. Their rules are different than the dominant culture's rules except to play victim like that governor from Alaska. The cops are to blame, the cops like to go deal with them-- can you imagine being a police officer and having to deal with that scum? They don't like it! The tragedy here is the lives of those kids, the shooting was a symptom of a bigger problem.

  3. "Yes, for stealing an i-pod, the murdering cops did an excellent job, at least according to this outstanding citizen."

    The iPod is irrelevant. It was the pointing the gun at people that got the kid shot and rightfully so. Society is better off without armed robbers. Especially the dumb ones who point guns at cops.

  4. I question whether he did point the gun at anyone. How do you police-defenders picture that exactly? To me, the possibility of a kid running away and turning momentarily to point the gun is unlikely. What's more likely is that he had a gun, he was running like his life depended on it and the cop murdered him by shooting him in the back.

    That's bad, but it happens in the heat of the moment. What's a cop to do afterwards? If there is a gun on the scene, it's easy, the kid pointed it. If there is no gun, then the cop thought there was and again it's cool.

    White cops shoot black kids in the ghetto every day. Sometimes they're justified.