Current Events > EX-cop kills black teen for driving erratically.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/r63q86/doorbell_cam_17yearold_killed_after_exchanging/

Ex-cop didnt like the teens driving in his neighborhoood, he confronts them outside of their house, the teen goes out and argues with him, gun fire rings out.

something tells me that those who defended Rittenhouse wont defend this kid for going out there.

---

Is he in custody?

---

When cops retire or get fired they should definitely not be allowed back into the general populace.

Retired to somewhere away from everyone else and checked in on regularly by mental health professionals

MachineJaipur posted...

When cops retire or get fired they should definitely not be allowed back into the general populace.

Retired to somewhere away from everyone else and checked in on regularly by mental health professionals

wut

---

Reddit video is edited, FYI. Check the comments for the full youtube video.

---

Imagine being so bad you're actually fired as a cop

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

wut

Clearly they can't handle the stresses of civilian life and they resort to violence because they were so used to abusing their power as a cop, so when they have to have act like a human, they can't.

(I'm being extremely hyperbolic)

It's hard to make out what happened

Didn't the teen shoot first?

---

MachineJaipur posted...

Clearly they can't handle the stresses of civilian life and they resort to violence because they were so used to abusing their power as a cop, so when they have to have act like a human, they can't.

(I'm being extremely hyperbolic)

You jumped way past hyperbole and landed smack in the middle of ignorant

---

im not 13 posted...

It's hard to make out what happened

Didn't the teen shoot first?

Greedo shot first

---

Ex cops should not be allowed to own guns

---

The kid is White

Kid was white IIRC but that doesnt matter. Point is, he followed and confronted the teens, then continued escalating and arguing with them instead of just fucking leaving. He wont get any charges even though he was clearly the instigator. Kid had every right to think this dude was going to hurt them in some way.

Either way though, I just ultimately see it as another case of People not minding their business and someone ending up dead for it.

People can debate amongst themselves if its fair, next, or not. But people who follow and antagonize should definitely be looked at with a much closer lens than it being completely non-factor once a trial starts.

---

Second example in a week of why you don't follow someone back to their house over a traffic dispute

---

s0nicfan posted...

Reddit video is edited, FYI. Check the comments for the full youtube video.

im not 13 posted...

It's hard to make out what happened

Didn't the teen shoot first?

Yah.

---

VipaGTS posted...

something tells me that those who defended Rittenhouse wont defend this kid for going out there.

@VipaGTS

What an exceptionally off putting thing to say. Rittenhouse is a massive idiot and he has absolutely nothing to do with this case.

And it sounds like the former cop is by far the bigger idiot here. Though the kid should've stayed inside and called the police and he had way more of a right to pull a gun on the former cop than vice versa.


---

TommyG663513 posted...

@VipaGTS

What an exceptionally off putting thing to say. Rittenhouse is a massive idiot and he has absolutely nothing to do with this case.

And it sounds like the former cop is by far the bigger idiot here. Though the kid should've stayed inside and called the police and he had way more of a right to pull a gun on the former cop than vice versa.

How is that offputting? The Rittenhouse case isnt some tiny civil dispute. Its VERY relevant. We're having a conversation about self defense killings, if you didnt notice.

---

Jerry_Hellyeah posted...

How is that offputting? The Rittenhouse case isnt some tiny civil dispute. Its VERY relevant.

The comparison was originally brought up by someone who wanted to get a "hey look it's racism!" gotcha, but didn't actually read beyond the topic title so didn't realise this kid wasn't Black.

---

Jerry_Hellyeah posted...

How is that offputting? The Rittenhouse case isnt some tiny civil dispute. Its VERY relevant. We're having a conversation about self defense killings, if you didnt notice.

Them both being self defense killings is where the similarities end.

They are vastly different cases and TC only made that comment to troll.

Pretty much everyone involved in these stories tends to be an idiot anyways. Just morons getting worked up about things that don't matter.

---

1. the cop has no right to follow them home and tell them that. Sure, he can but its not a justification that he only wanted to tell themyou dont know what he might have wanted to do. The teens dont know what he might have wanted to do.
2. it was right outside their house. Even after the teens went inside, including the shooter, he continued to idle outside their home. If we can keep giving more and more rope for self defense, at what point is anyone in that home no longer allowed to say the strange angry man posted up outside of our house seemed like a threat?

---

MachineJaipur posted...

Clearly they can't handle the stresses of civilian life and they resort to violence because they were so used to abusing their power as a cop, so when they have to have act like a human, they can't.

(I'm being extremely hyperbolic)

Sigless user logic

---

ClunkerSlim posted...

Well... not so fast.

Heres some things that separate this from the Kyle Rittenhouse and Ahmaud Arbery case. The former cop only returned fire after being shot. It also appears like he didnt stop these teens. Based on the footage, I assume this teen was dropping these girls off back at their house. So the teen stopped there willingly and the former cop stopped next to him to talk (or yell most likely.) That means the former cop didnt run them off the road or pin them in to stop. Its not like this former cop pinned them in and tried to make a citizens arrest. He literally just got out to tell them to stop joyriding through the neighborhood. It also seems like the kids are hauling ass to the porch because they know the teen is about to pop off.

So its really hard to tell what happened from the YouTube video alone. The comment section makes it even more confusing. 99% of the comments seem to back the former cop, if that matters to anyone. But we really need more testimony from the girls to determine what really happened. This one could go either way.

I was under the impression that house was the teens property (their parents).

And that the former cop had pulled a gun out first. So he was essentially standing on the edge of the property brandishing a gun.

Seemed reasonable to assume that although the former cop didn't shoot first he pulled a gun out first while on the edge of someone else's property. Seems like a very threatening move.

I don't know in what ways this could be similar to Rittenhouse and the Ahmaud Arbery case had like laughably zero self defense argument though that was still their best defense for committing murder.

But yeah some of the facts I have are probably wrong and I've seen numerous different interpretations of the events and the video isn't the best so I won't try to sound too confident.

---

GregShmedley posted...

Based on the video and summary, the 17 year old kid shouldn't have run back out there with a gun.

What is it on his property?

I don't know in what ways this could be similar to Rittenhouse and the Ahmaud Arbery case had like laughably zero self defense argument though that was still their best defense for committing murder.

its similar when you consider that they are both 17 year olds with guns, they both went towards the potential threat, and when one party saw them as a threat they were ready to square up. Main difference is this case actually happened on the victims property so they had more of a right to act the way they acted. In this case that latter group had a gun. In Rittenhouses, luckily for him, they didnt. I dont see how you(no specifically the person i quoted. Just you in general) can say this 17 year old has no argument for self defense if you feel Rittenhouse did (which I now do, I changed my stance on that before the verdict).

---

Two assholes with guns shot at each other, one of them died.

---

VipaGTS posted...

its similar when you consider that they are both 17 year olds with guns, they both went towards the potential threat, and when one party saw them as a threat they were ready to square up. Main difference is this case actually happened on the victims property so they had more of a right to act the way they acted. In this case that latter group had a gun. In Rittenhouses, luckily for him, they didnt. I dont see how you(no specifically the person i quoted. Just you in general) can say this 17 year old has no argument for self defense if you feel Rittenhouse did (which I now do, I changed my stance on that before the verdict).

Yeah this has like extremely little in common with Rittenhouse. That occurred during an active riot.

Not gonna defend Rittenhouse and not gonna defend these two idiots though the kid did have more right to fire a gun than the former cop. Kid was still a giant moron though.

To be fair, everyone Rittenhouse shot was still being a massive moron too.

Like damn near everyone in these cases is being a gigantic idiot and is just playing with fire.

Ahmaud Arbery was just a dude going for a jog getting chased by racist crazy people though and did absolutely nothing wrong.

---