Cop shoots 7 yr old girl

[SirBrass]

The family could have picked a better guy than the scumbag who defended Kevorkian.  Seriously, this now looks like they're trying to win at all costs, including the truth.

Probably the most honest quote in there was, "This won't be pretty."  Knowing who that lawyer is, I doubt all of his public statements.  They may be partially true, but lawyers like him are experts at telling half-truths.

This would have been more responsibly handled if the family had filed suits AFTER the MI State Police had finished the investigation and the case had been adjudicated.  As it is, they're jumping the gun here.

Lots of emotions running high there, and the last thing needed is for the grieving family to be allowed to irresponsibly lash out before the investigation is complete and adjudicated.  Due process still applies no matter how angry one is.

[Kevin]

I know this has been on here before, but it happens like this...
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/5Ez34Kg86AU&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/5Ez34Kg86AU&rel=0</a>
Glad I'm not a cop. I'd be shootin' everybody...
-Kevin

[xmunckx]

while this is all clearly tragic and all, , i have to say i find it more than a little annoying that its takes until nearly the second page of that article before they mention that  "oh yeah the murder suspect was in fact upstairs."

Honest question: are there not laws against harboring a murder suspect?

[Chemsoldier]

while this is all clearly tragic and all, , i have to say i find it more than a little annoying that its takes until nearly the second page of that article before they mention that  "oh yeah the murder suspect was in fact upstairs."

Honest question: are there not laws against harboring a murder suspect?

Some Detroit news sources are reporting that the building was a duplex, with the second floor having no internal connection to the first floor.  Also from news reports, many people knew the guy was there so it stands to reason the downstairs residents may have as well.  In the end though it still comes down to, did the officer shoot someone he did not intend to?  Why?  Wrestling for retention? did he just trip?  Bump into someone?  If they are correct and the flash bang burned the girl...whew...that sounds like something that could easily be negligence in analysis and planning. Especially with cameras watching, I would hope they were at their most i dotting and t crossing since they were being filmed.  Think this is a goat screw?  What happens if they figure out the suspect is not the guy who committed the murder?

Question for the crowd.  In light of the anger and such in the community, is catching one criminal worth the increased friction between the population and the police?  You can never get everyone to like you, but there is a big question about risk vs. reward.  The end state you are striving for as a law enforcement agency is not the apprehension of criminals.  It is providing security (physical and mental) to the municipality to facilitate life, commerce and civil society.  While part of providing security is the apprehension of criminals (a big part of it in fact), it is not the only only part of providing security.

-Chem

[xmunckx]

-Chem,

Love that question you posed.  Also, if it is a Duplex home that does change things a bit.

to the matter of your question though:

I think my reply would be that in a situation such as this one really needs to measure the level of the criminal against the potential community backlash.

If we are talking about someone sitting in their own home taking drugs and waisting away their own life then no, it may not be worth it to go storming in to the home.

However when you are talking about a suspect who just gunned down a 17-year-old in broad daylight, , the balance starts to shift.
At what point to you then consider the backlash of good citizenry that feel the police are not doing enough to go after murderers?

[gitt1]

In light of the anger and such in the community, is catching one criminal worth the increased friction between the population and the police?

Location doesn't matter, crowd only matters in determining the team  or backup size. If a criminal is worth getting, get him when you know where he is barring a hostage situation. I'm surprised you're thinking along these lines- let's go to the next step.
Attitudes of people may be wrong, may be stupid, even group insanity. Example: Greece, people paying no taxes are rioting because they may get benefits cut because the government has no money. Shouldn't the top 5% tax payers be rioting because they are threatened with more taxes? Lesson-you cannot begin to guess what will torque people off in the future and it will happen eventually anyway. If they want a reason they will find it or make it up.
Let's not send the police in because someone, even someone doing an illegal act like harboring a fugitive, might get miffed. When is that not going to happen? How about let's not send the police in because too many people supportive of the fugitive are there. Isn't that called a gang? How's that working so far? The gangs will just get big enough to intimidate the police and then control everything. Once people know a person can't be touched the farce is over. Police protect the peace and little more, the thin blue line will break and third world violence will be on our doorstep.
Make any sense?
Larry

[HRCNICK11]

http://detnews.com/article/20100524/METRO/5240401/1409/rss36

The guy they were arresting shot a guy cause he looked at him the wrong way.