yeah forgot to add this part

OK, I was really, really pissed off when I wrote that rant yesterday. I'm well aware that there are good cops out there. Unfortunately, all the bad stuff the police do gets pushed into the spotlight as opposed to the many good things they do, like arresting the guy who was stalking Scott's mother. That doesn't make what I said correct. I admit I was out of line there and I apologize for that.

With that being said though, this incident is still completely unjustifiable! I mentioned in that rant that officers are trained to know what is and is not a weapon. The officer didn't even tell the kid to drop the Wii remote, she just immediately shot him in the chest without saying a word! That's not an officer doing their job! That's not the "heat of the moment"! I don't know WHAT the hell to call that!

I can't say for sure what the officer was thinking when she murdered that kid. No one can but that doesn't change the fact that she's committed a heinous act and her department is trying to cover it up.

The fact of the matter is that that officer is guilty of second degree murder and something should be done about it.

Were you there? No. Stop saying "SHE COULD TOTALLY SEE IT WASN'T A WEAPON" when you don't know what it looked like to her.

What part of "Cops are trained to know what is and is not a weapon" are you not getting here, Kyuubit? When I see a stranger holding a TV remote in his hand, I don't immediately jump to the conclusion that it MUST be a lethal weapon! My very first instinct is CERTAINY not to attack with the intent to kill!

You see, there's this thing called "common sense". I know you know what it is.

have you received police training or are you just assuming that's how it works

My father and I have actually visited shooting ranges with officers and we've had numerous conversations about their experiences with firearms identification training. It's actually a very important part of the rudimentary training just because of how many mistakes can be made in that regard.

So yes, I do know for a fact that officers are trained to know a gun when they see one.

Once again

You weren't there

You don't know what she saw and what she thought she saw

Oh yes, because a white baton with an infrared sensor at the tip can easily be mistaken for a firearm. It happens all the time... NOT!!

Seriously, I don't know what's worse, the fact that this happened or the fact that people seriously think that the cop's actions were justifiable when it's insultingly obvious that they weren't.

Also, I DO in fact know what she saw because there was no gun found at the crime scene. Not even a gun planted by the corrupt f*** who murdered that kid.

not once was it stated that the wii remote was white

Reminder that 3D printing exists and a gun can be whatever f*** colour the plastic used to make it is

alright listen you s***
every time a cop opens a door or walks up to a car they know that this could be the time where someone could shoot them to death
police training does not overwrite millions of years worth of fight-or-flight instinct, and a cop can't just run away

and the police are actually supposed to keep these things on the down low so that people trust them
instead of pissing off the people who already want them dead, like gangsters

the way he was holding the remote, the lighting in the doorway, the way he opened the door (fast, slow, violently?) and many other factors could all play into this scenario

examining the context, it becomes apparent as to why the officer might've opened fire - answering a warrant callout can be a tense business, especially in a society like America where everyone can be armed. the time it takes you to stop and process the situation entirely or ask the suspect to drop the weapon can easily be the time it takes for you to be shot dead by a criminal with initiative, so acting first can be what saves a cops life

while the shooting of a minor is a harrowing thing, and perhaps aiming for the chest was not the best course of action, you can't simply dismiss the cop in question as a pig based on the context provided by a libertarian publication

The irony of this is you're a assuming tons of stuff, while complaining that the woman shouldn't have assumed it was a gun.

By the way, the only justifiable reason imo is if she fired because it had a accessory that resembled a gun.

instead of going rampant on the police officer, lets think about it. what could possible cause this?

1 - a wii-mote accessory in the shape of a gun. it could be black.
2 - the young guy opened the door too quickly, violently, and startled the cop. (for your information THIS ALREADY HAPPENED TO ME ONCE - during a paintball game, when i returned to our base, i was unsure if it was still being used by my tam of conquered( we didnt have microphones at the time) and when i went there, a guy opened it too quickly, and i instinctively fired... into my CO. he was NOT pleased.)
3 - bad lighting / a strange noise e.g. un-ataching the Nunchuk or something could resemle c*** a gun.
4 - something in the guy's attitude scared the police.
5 - a mixture of the above.

so, we know that there was no weapon found in the crime scene.
the wiimote colour is not specified.
accessories are not specified, so this could make point 1 void. (i believe that having the wiimote in a gun prop for Call of Duty or something would be relevant enough)
point 2 COULD have happened. people can get nervous. but i doubt it alone would make the police panic and shoot. (assuming thats what happened)
point 3 seems pretty valid. if i heard something like c*** a gun, i would deffinitely shoot first. however, its not that much of a solid chance, since policemen have pretty decent training with firearms, and i am pretty sure they can distinguish c*** sounds from other similar ones.

draw your own conclusions, but i think it was a mix of everything.

Okay, that explains what the cop did but it doesn't justify it by any stretch of the imagination. Why are people seriously defending the cop when it's perfectly clear that SHE'S the one in the wrong?

Problem with your theory, if the witnesses at the scene had seen an accessory on the wii remote, the article would have mentioned it and I've stated earlier that the vast majority of remotes are black so that doesn't excuse the cop.

And the lighting of the house is irrelevant. We don't know what time of day the murder took place but it doesn't matter because if it had taken place at night, the cops would have used flashlights as it would be incredibly irresponsible, not to mention DANGEROUS not to (another part of basic police training) and if the crime had taken pace during the day then the sunlight would have taken care of that naturally. Also, it goes without saying that the bad lighting argument would have to mean that it was pitch black inside the house and even if it was, I already explained why that doesn't hold water.

You've discredited your own point about the accessory making a noise and how cops are trained to know the difference between the noises (again, firearm identification training, it's a thing!)

It wouldn't have made a difference what the kid's attitude was because he didn't even get to say a word. Remember, the cop IMMEDIATELY shot him without saying anything.

Stop pretending that the cop was morally in the right! That's complete and utter s***!!