Teen robbery suspect dies in shootout with retired police officer

Source: Detroit Free Press

A shootout between a teenager trying to rob a busy Detroit McDonald's and a retired Detroit police officer ended in the teen's death Friday afternoon, police said.

Police said the 16-year-old entered the restaurant at McNichols and Livernois with a gun about 2:45 p.m. and attempted to rob the business before the retired officer intervened. Several shots were fired, and employees and customers were seen sprinting out of the store.

Those at a nearby barbershop watched emergency workers load the shirtless teen from the floor of the store, just inside the door.

Lt. Dwane Blackmon of the Detroit police homicide unit said the incident was under investigation, and it was unclear whether the teen died at the restaurant or the hospital. The retired officer was uninjured.



Read more: http://www.freep.com/article/20110820/NEWS03/108200344/Teen-robbery-suspect-dies-shootout-retired-police-officer

---

One the one hand it's sad that someone so young is dead, but he got what what he deserved for trying to rob people.

There was so much less of it back when they used to hang people for stealing a loaf of bread, doncha know.

wearily,
Bright

Armed robbery is a different crime than theft. Look it up.

When a robber with a weapon threatens death or grievous bodily harm, that's a hell of a lot different than theft.

:sarcasm:

Luckily no one else was killed because of these two.

...you have started something.

I would think the guy who opened fire was the biggest threat to the people around them.

since you don't seem to get it.....

don't ever carry a gun and point it at anyone in a public location, or in any location, for that matter.

Please try to grow out of your sophomoric attitude, while your at it, too!

If you can't realize that brandishing a gun and firing one are not even close to the same thing then do us all a favor and don't buy any.

Now go piss off. LOL

sense. Once you cross that line you are fair game.

Brandishing a gun is not the same as firing it. The thought of someone even thinking that is stupid beyond words.

just a split second for that to change. A small movement on the trigger finger and there could be a dead kid on the floor.

Stupid is waiting to see if that happens.

but if it gives the macho man comfort you need, so be it.

neither does yours. :rofl:

That is a violent act.

Big difference.

...that some young man in some large town will read about this and change his ways before he ends up like this too.

That before he pulled his gun he ordered a happy meal.

What a waste of precious life. What a stupid kid.

Bring back the gallows?

but it is one of the better ways to court it.

The retired cop essentially appointed himself judge, jury, and executioner.

Unless the kid shot directly at a human being, this was unwarranted.

The more likely scenario is that the retired cop saw a dangerous felony in progress and intervened by pulling his gun and ordering the robber to drop his. The felon didn't and pointed his weapon at the officer and the officer was forced to use deadly force. In my scenario, it is completely warranted. When you point a gun at an innocent person trying to make a minimum wage living, you run the risk of dying. Armed robberies are extremely dangerous situations that usually result in innocent people being killed. In this case the only person who died was the one created the situation.

If the cop did nothing, there would be people here calling him a coward.

The guy was just a citizen, like you or I. Mentioning that he used to be a police officer is supposed to make the pill go down easier, but doesn't work for me.

responsibilities in addition to whatever "professional courtesy" that may be extended.

As an ex-cop you know about both kinds.

I think you have never had the terror of a criminal pointing a gun at you. Whatever was necessary to stop him, that's acceptable to me.

...we know the criminal made the personal and voluntary decisions to commit a violent crime and endanger others with a firearm, and we know that he will never do that again.

when he walked into that store w/ a gun. I am not obligated to wait until you open fire before defending myself.

this logic would lead to: anyone with a gun should be shot, no questions asked. Very very quickly we'd only have one person with a gun.

If I walked into a store you were in with my fists, would you beat the shit out of me because you were just "defending yourself" from harm that I could have possibly caused you?

Fists are a whole lot easier to avoid than a bullet. Pointing a gun at someone while in the process of committing a robbery doesn't allow for a lot of questions.

I'm sure RSillsbee didn't mean merely possessing a gun, but pointing it, and likely threatening statements.

...anyone committing robbery with a firearm should be shot. Nothing in the story indicates the criminal would have been shot if....he were not committing a crime.

Given the context, I assumed that the reader would understand that the kid walked into the store w/ a gun and criminal intent.

The kid not the retired cop made the series of choices that lead to his death.

The Gun Rights folks won't like your attitude at all. They want everyone carrying guns out in the open all the time. Of course then we won't know who is ill-intentioned and who isn't, and lots of unwarranted gun battles might ensue, but they are all eager for that to start.

I carry a gun "out in the open" frequently and no one's drawn down on me yet.

That whole 'judge, jury, executioner' thing is a restriction on the state. The state cannot deny a person due process when removing liberties or life. I don't have to offer you due process when you are threatening my life.

If the kid didn't make the retired cop believe that he would shoot someone, he wouldn't be an effective robber- you'd tell the robber to fuck off if you didn't believe him.

No, a reasonable person placed in the same situation would fear death or grievous bodily harm. That's what's required for the use of lethal force in stopping the perpetrator's illegal use of force.

he perhaps shouldn't have received a summary execution. I don't think the cheerleaders for vigilantism here know all the facts. I know I sure don't.

This place is as bad as FR with the murderous attitudes.

by a retired LEO or anyone else, even under Canadian law. In the US, its a slam dunk righteous shoot.

Does not mean I (or any other poster) like seeing young people killed.

The number of people on DU who gleefully cheer the death of a teenager for flashing a gun around sickens me.

I don't know that it has been determined that he actually pointed the weapon at anyone.

that's what it takes for someone to shoot first at the robber?

while in high school. Doing hard time before he was old enough to vote. Got out, hung with ex-cons, enjoyed heroin, died driving drunk when he was twenty-one

There but for fortune

Maybe in some sense it was his own fault. But maybe, in some sense, it was other people's fault too: father gone, mother remarried, stepfather didn't like the kids, mother died, stepfather ditched the kids and moved away. Maybe my fault too: I saw him all the time: friend of a friend. Back then, I was pretty self-absorbed: not intelligent, not creative, not loving enough to slow down and say: I can't ignore the serious problem here

with Phil Ochs, thanks for sharing that.

What a talented fellow, how sad that he died so young. I am going to look for more of his work. :)

process.

comic took place on a street corner. Cops are leading a suspect away from the grisley scene of a robbery gone bad. You can see 3 bodies in the store, all shot multiple times. As the cops are leading suspect away from the store, he's complaining that his wrists are hurting. Bystanders are screaming "Police brutality! They're hurting his wrists!"

entitled to justice. If he wasn't aiming the gun at anyone to start, perhaps killing him was a bit rash.

I do happen to think LEO's are, by and large, a bunch of assholes. I guess I have lived in Los Angeles too long and LAPD has ruined my attitude.

I guess in Detroit, when the sign says "No Shoes, No Shirts, No Service", they really mean it. :smoke:

You're making it hard to get around the thread......

kestrel you seem very adamant about playing devils advocate here. You even by your own admission are biased towards the retired officer. Yes there are corrupt officers and bully officers, this is true for anyone in any field, unfortunately law attracts some really bad ones sometimes. BUT considering that those kinds are NOT the norm I will go ahead and assume this (retired) officer was not of that persuasion. Assuming that, its safe to say that he wouldn't fire unless it appeard the robber was going to either shoot an employee OR that he confronted the robber and he turned the gun on the officer.
So taking all that as a pretty safe assumption I would say I would rather the criminal who started the whole mess be injured or killed rather than the innocent people they tried to take money from. Would most people want him to die? No. But would the better choice be the officer or the cashier? No again.
No one forced this kid to try and rob the place and part of the risk of robbery is injury or death, so yes he made that choice and earned the consequences.

Again I am making assumptions here, which is all any of us can do at this point. You keep saying that we don't have all the details yet, exactly, so don't assume that this robber wasn't pointing the gun at the officer guy.

Also, I'd really like a repost of anyone on this thread "gun happy" or whatever about this...everyone I read only expressed the same opinion as I did, that if someone was going to be shot it is better it was the criminal since he started it by his own free will.

I wouldn't hesitate to shoot them.

Sadly, it seems some on this thread would stop in their tracks and debate the merits of it all and wonder if they would be the bad guy for saving lives.

You don't shoot to scare - you shoot to stop, aim for the largest area (chest), and shoot.