Youth, 14, Is Fatally Shot in Clash With D.C. Police

[jthor99]

This is a tough one here. I dont blame the Officer from protecting himself after being shot at, but i dont see this ended nicely for him public outrage will force them to more than likely can him

[Zguy28]

This world is full of bad people man and they take all manner of career paths.

Including 14 year old thieves.

Do you assume the kid was innocent of a crime?

Just curious to know what you think since there are a lot of bad teens too.

[Destino]

Including 14 year old thieves.

Do you assume the kid was innocent of a crime?

Just curious to know what you think since there are a lot of bad teens too.

I'd rather it be investigated with a somewhat unbias view and see what comes up. The kid could very well have fired at them. If he did the cops acted reasonably IMO. I'd like to see that proven though and the missing gun has to make you at least a little curious.

[Zguy28]

I'd rather it be investigated with a somewhat unbias view and see what comes up. The kid could very well have fired at them. If he did the cops acted reasonably IMO. I'd like to see that proven though and the missing gun has to make you at least a little curious.

I absolutely agree.

In a court of law, a cops testimony does not hold any more weight than anybody else, or at least it shouldn't if the judge is just.

[DjTj]

Do you actually think that the weapon is absolutely necessary in this case to prove the criminality of the kid's act beyond reasonable doubt?

Nobody is going to be trying to prove the kid's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We don't generally put corpses up for trial.

We have a dead body and a guy who admitted to the killing. He is claiming self defense, and the question that needs to be asked is whether there is probable cause to doubt the off-duty cop's story. When asking that question, it doesn't matter whether the kid was a criminal or not; it only matters whether the kid was threatening the cop's life.

[Popeman38]

Granted the kid is wrong if he shot at them. However, think about it for a second. Its dark out, someone jumps out of a car and starts yelling at you about stealing a bike. Are you really going to think they are the police?

First, it doesn't matter if they are police. You don't start shooting. You talk about vigilante justice, then defend the vigilante. If he stole the bike, he had no right to shoot. If it was his bike, he had no right to shoot. If he knew they were cops, he had no right to shoot. If he didn't know they were cops, he had no right to shoot. No one has a right to shoot at anyone, unless they are in mortal danger. Stepping out of a car and yelling is not mortal danger. How about ride away?

[sacase]

First, it doesn't matter if they are police. You don't start shooting. You talk about vigilante justice, then defend the vigilante. If he stole the bike, he had no right to shoot. If it was his bike, he had no right to shoot. If he knew they were cops, he had no right to shoot. If he didn't know they were cops, he had no right to shoot. No one has a right to shoot at anyone, unless they are in mortal danger. Stepping out of a car and yelling is not mortal danger. How about ride away?

I would love to see you step out of quiet little Ashburn and live a couple years in SE. If someone hops out of the car and starts yelling at you and its dark out, chances are you are probably in mortal danger. You don't ask questions you defend yourself. If that means running or shooting you do what you got to do.

If the kid shot, then yes he is wrong because guns are illegal in DC. If he stole the bike then he was wrong for stealing it. The cop was wrong because cops are not suposed to investigate crimes that are committed against them. The cop escalated the situation when he should not have. If I have a conceal carry permit and I live in Baltimore and I am in a rough area of town and someone jumps out of a car in the dark and starts yelling at me, I am going to defend myself since I would feel threatened. The cop was just as wrong as the kid may have been.

[Zguy28]

I would love to see you step out of quiet little Ashburn and live a couple years in SE. If someone hops out of the car and starts yelling at you and its dark out, chances are you are probably in mortal danger. You don't ask questions you defend yourself. If that means running or shooting you do what you got to do.

If the kid shot, then yes he is wrong because guns are illegal in DC. If he stole the bike then he was wrong for stealing it. The cop was wrong because cops are not suposed to investigate crimes that are committed against them. The cop escalated the situation when he should not have. If I have a conceal carry permit and I live in Baltimore and I am in a rough area of town and someone jumps out of a car in the dark and starts yelling at me, I am going to defend myself since I would feel threatened. The cop was just as wrong as the kid may have been.

Something tells me you would feel the exact same way even if it was the cops assigned to investigate it. :2cents:

[sacase]

Something tells me you would feel the exact same way even if it was the cops assigned to investigate it. :2cents:

Not at all, If they were doing this in line with their offical duties instead of acting like they were in a movie playing Clint Eastwood, then I would support them 100%. This is just like when the dude from the chargers got shot. There have been to many instances of people imitating police that I am not going to believe someone just because they say they are a cop. Especially when it is a known fact that the DC police department is corrupt as hell.

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

Look, its pretty simple, after they shoot the kid they are supposed to secure the scene, they are police officiers after all, that means they move the gun out of reach, check the victim, then clear the weapon. The gun disappearing is awfully suspicious.

Granted the kid is wrong if he shot at them. However, think about it for a second. Its dark out, someone jumps out of a car and starts yelling at you about stealing a bike. Are you really going to think they are the police?

You really don't know anything about police work. You should stick to your point about it being ok to shoot people if it's dark outside.

.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I've got a whole bunch of thoughts on this. Let's see if I can put them together in some sort of coherent manner....

There's a reason why officers don't investigate things directly related to themselves or their families. Common sense tells you that they're too close to the crime to be anywhere near objective about it. While I have no problem with the two off-duty officers taking a drive around the neighborhood, the moment they decided to stop the kid and try to question him themselves rather than calling dispatch and getting a uniformed unit out there, they set themselves up for all sorts of problems. Especially if they didn't identify themselves as police officers BEFORE getting out of the vehicle.

The fact that the firearm the officers say was discharged at them is missing creates all sorts of problems in my mind. Unless they're going to try and tell everyone that there were so many people there that securing the scene before somebody made off with the gun was impossible, they've got some SERIOUS explaining to do about the lack of the assailant's weapon being found on scene. If that firearm cannot be located and forensics cannot determine that the bullet hole in the car door is recent and not from any firearm that the officers had access to, their story gets very fishy in my mind.

Let's assume for just a moment that the kid did have a firearm and did discharge it at the officers....

So far as I'm concerned they were well within their rights to return fire; regardless of whether they were on-duty or not. What disgusts me is that it took this officer eight rounds to hit his target, and that he was engaging the suspect in the head initially rather than taking the much safer and easier torso shot. I'd love to know where those other seven rounds ended up, especially in a high density urban neighborhood.

It sounds like there's going to be a lot more to this before it all gets hashed out.

[Commander PK]

It never ceases to amaze me how blind people can be.

1. THE KID BURGLARIZED THE MAN'S PROPERTY

2. THE KID STOLE THE MAN'S MOTORCYCLE

3. THE KID HAD NERVE ENOUGH TO DRIVE IT DOWN THE STREET, AS IF TO SAY "LOOK AT ME ON MY BRAND NEW STOLEN BIKE!!"

4. THE KID WASN'T OLD ENOUGH TO EVEN OWN A GUN, MUCH LESS CARRY ONE.

5. THE KID FIRED AT THE MAN HE HAD ALREADY VICTIMIZED, WHEN HE DARED TO STOP AND ASK HIM WHY HE WAS RIDING ON A MOTORCYCLE THAT DIDN'T BELONG TO HIM.

Despite all this, some of you would have us believe that the officer went out, found out who stole his bike, and then shot him for no reason. I'm sorry the kid is dead, but it's HIS FAULT.

I think most likely one of the little thug wanna-be's standing by probably took the gun. Somebody else up there will get shot by him next week.

[Commander PK]

Where does it say the officer was investigating a crime commited against him? He decided to ride around the neighborhood, and see if anybody was riding his motorcycle. That's something most logical regular joe's would do, cop or not.

[Commander PK]

Lanier said the officer, whose name was not released, was notified of an apparent burglary at his home in Southeast Washington, then got into his personal car with another off-duty officer to drive around the neighborhood and see if he could find the missing bike or other items. A few blocks away, in the 600 block of Atlantic Street, the officers spotted a teenager astride the minibike and stopped to question him, Lanier said.

I would have done the same thing, and I'm not a cop. Can anybody really find anything wrong with this. The guy didn't start kicking in doors, and interogating the populace. He got in his car, and drove around the neighborhood, which he had EVERY right to do.

Laws broke by the off-duty cop

ZERO

Laws most likely broken by the kid.

1. Buglary

2. Theft

3. Assault with a Handgun

4. Reckless Endangerment

5. Possession of stolen property

etc. etc. etc. Even for the sake of argument, let's say he bought the bike from the person that did actually steal it from the cops house. Why shoot at the people asking about it?

[sacase]

The only facts that are presented in the article are

The kid was shot and killed by an off duty DC police officer in plain clothes who was looking for his bike which was stolen.

A minibike (which is illegal in DC) was stolen from the officer.

There is a bullet hole in the door of the officer's POV.

Everything else is an assumption and to me looks fishy and there needs to be a lot more scruitiny of the situation.

Did the kid steal the bike? Maybe, maybe not.

What did the officer say to the kid? Well no one knows since the kid is dead.

Could the officer have said something to the kid that made him fear his life? Yes.

Could the officer who shot the kid identified himself and the kid shot anyways? Yes.

If the situation would have been handled the right way the kid would probably not be dead. The officer would have his bike back. Honestly, a 14 y/o kids life is not worth a $200 bike. If you think that is the case then you are just plain stupid.

[Commander PK]

I would love to see you step out of quiet little Ashburn and live a couple years in SE. If someone hops out of the car and starts yelling at you and its dark out, chances are you are probably in mortal danger. You don't ask questions you defend yourself. If that means running or shooting you do what you got to do.

Right, and by the same token if you STEAL from somebody who lives in south east, you probably should prepare for repercussions. The kid was riding this man's property. If he had stolen the bike from a drug dealer, or gangster instead of the cop, he probably wouldn't have even have gotten the chance to shoot first.

If the kid shot, then yes he is wrong because guns are illegal in DC. If he stole the bike then he was wrong for stealing it. The cop was wrong because cops are not suposed to investigate crimes that are committed against them. The cop escalated the situation when he should not have. If I have a conceal carry permit and I live in Baltimore and I am in a rough area of town and someone jumps out of a car in the dark and starts yelling at me, I am going to defend myself since I would feel threatened. The cop was just as wrong as the kid may have been.

WRONG

How do you know the cop escalated the situation? Was merely approaching the kid escalating the situation? Do you consider the cop getting into his car, and looking around the neighborhood to see if anybody is driving it "investigating" the incident. Did he process his house for prints? Did he take pictures? Did he question the neighbors? Nope, just got in his car, and went to look for his property.

[sacase]

I would have done the same thing, and I'm not a cop. Can anybody really find anything wrong with this. The guy didn't start kicking in doors, and interogating the populace. He got in his car, and drove around the neighborhood, which he had EVERY right to do.

Laws broke by the off-duty cop

ZERO

Laws most likely broken by the kid.

1. Buglary

2. Theft

3. Assault with a Handgun

4. Reckless Endangerment

5. Possession of stolen property

etc. etc. etc. Even for the sake of argument, let's say he bought the bike from the person that did actually steal it from the cops house. Why shoot at the people asking about it?

Laws broken by cop:

Murder 1st degree

Numerous violation of department policy.

Dude you can't tell me that a cop with 15 years expereince is not going to secure the weapon at a shooting. That is the first thing he is going to do. He is going to clear it and secure it.

[Commander PK]

The only facts that are presented in the article are

The kid was shot and killed by an off duty DC police officer in plain clothes who was looking for his bike which was stolen.

A minibike (which is illegal in DC) was stolen from the officer.

There is a bullet hole in the door of the officer's POV.

Everything else is an assumption and to me looks fishy and there needs to be a lot more scruitiny of the situation.

Did the kid steal the bike? Maybe, maybe not.

What did the officer say to the kid? Well no one knows since the kid is dead.

Could the officer have said something to the kid that made him fear his life? Yes.

Could the officer who shot the kid identified himself and the kid shot anyways? Yes.

If the situation would have been handled the right way the kid would probably not be dead. The officer would have his bike back. Honestly, a 14 y/o kids life is not worth a $200 bike. If you think that is the case then you are just plain stupid.

How do you know how the situation was handled? The officer and the kid would never have even met if the kid wasn't riding his bike! You should probably check your laws in D.C. also, because I doubt it's not illegal to own a mini-bike in D.C, just to drive one on the street. (Another law the kid broke) Maybe the cop likes to go to dirt bike parks and drive it there.

and I never said that a dirt bike was worth the kids life. Maybe he thought it was since he shot at the cop over it.

You are asking me to believe that a 15 year veteran of the force, shot at a kid 8 times, unprovoked, only because he stole his bike? Sorry, the cop gets my benefit of the doubt, because nothing else makes sense. Like I said, I bet somebody else on the scene took the gun. It very easily could have happened.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

It never ceases to amaze me how blind people can be. ....

....Despite all this, some of you would have us believe that the officer went out, found out who stole his bike, and then shot him for no reason. I'm sorry the kid is dead, but it's HIS FAULT.

I think most likely one of the little thug wanna-be's standing by probably took the gun. Somebody else up there will get shot by him next week.

Painkiller, let's allow the District of Columbia Police Department to find that firearm and match it to the bullet in the car door before we start writing this guy in for a Congressional Medal of Honor. As far as I can see right not, while I'll definitely give the officer the benefit of the doubt, there's plenty of that doubt swimming around in my head. Especially since only one of the shooter's bullets hit the off-duty officer's car and the ONLY shot that hit the suspect was a cranial hit, something most departments train and advise against in all but the most severe situations.

Where does it say the officer was investigating a crime commited against him? He decided to ride around the neighborhood, and see if anybody was riding his motorcycle. That's something most logical regular joe's would do, cop or not.

You're missing a HUGE piece of the puzzle here, Painkiller. The man in question is not a "regular joe". He's a badged police officer. Whether any of us like it or not, that means he is going to be held to a higher standard than a "regular joe".

Believe me, as a CCW holder who is also trained as a NRA pistol instructor, has taken self-defense classes, and is involved in self-defense oriented shooting sports, I understand that with training and practice comes a much greater requirement to act responsibly with that firearm in my hand. Sometimes that really stinks, especially for police officers, both in and out of uniform. I'm sure that a lot of this investigation is going to rightly focus on whether or not this gentleman HAD TO shoot the kid. I hate to say it, but I'm guessing the answer is likely going to be "No, he didn't."

I would have done the same thing, and I'm not a cop. Can anybody really find anything wrong with this. The guy didn't start kicking in doors, and interogating the populace. He got in his car, and drove around the neighborhood, which he had EVERY right to do.....

....Even for the sake of argument, let's say he bought the bike from the person that did actually steal it from the cops house. Why shoot at the people asking about it?

The fact that you aren't a police officer makes all the difference in the world, Painkiller. With that training comes certain responsibilities and liabilities, both in and out of uniform.

Yes, he had every right to drive around the neighborhood and look for the bike. However, unless he was going to make a citizen's arrest, his off-duty status creates a question as to whether or not the deceased could have made a case for assault before the alleged shooting at the off-duty officer took place.

Let's make sure that there WAS shooting at the off-duty officers that took place before we make them out to be saints. Until a firearm is found and the forensic people have a chance to inspect it and the bullet recovered from the car door, I'm going to be a little skeptical about what really transpired prior to the officer's sidearm cleared leather.

[sacase]

Right, and by the same token if you STEAL from somebody who lives in south east, you probably should prepare for repercussions. The kid was riding this man's property. If he had stolen the bike from a drug dealer, or gangster instead of the cop, he probably wouldn't have even have gotten the chance to shoot first.

WRONG

How do you know the cop escalated the situation? Was merely approaching the kid escalating the situation? Do you consider the cop getting into his car, and looking around the neighborhood to see if anybody is driving it "investigating" the incident. Did he process his house for prints? Did he take pictures? Did he question the neighbors? Nope, just got in his car, and went to look for his property.

How do you know he did not. By him getting out of his car and confroting the kid he escalated it. If he would have called in he could have had one of his buddies there in 2 minutes or less. All because this cop wanted to be billy bad ass, a 14 y/o kid is dead.

[Commander PK]

D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said.

"It's not standard procedure for an officer to investigate a burglary in his own home," Lanier said at a news conference outside police headquarters.

"I can't say he was doing anything wrong looking to see whether the minibike had been dumped somewhere,"

The Police Chief states, that it is not standard procedure, not that he violated agency policy. I doubt anywhere in their SOP manual does it say "officers will not investigate crimes commited against them."

The last line says it all. A resonable person can't sit there and say the cop was breaking some law, or really even being un-ethical. What is un-ethical about driving around the neighborhood looking for your property?

[No_Pressure]

I had a crazy teacher tell our class once that if you shoot someone who is breaking into your home, after shooting him, always fire a shot or two into the ceiling to make it look like there was a struggle. Of course that was in MD, in AZ it isn't even a question, you shoot someone breaking into your house it's legal but it always makes me think... these are the same D.C. cops I know right?

I wonder what caliber bullet is lodged in the door of that car...9mm that the police use? They need to match up the rifling pattern with the cop's gun, cause 1 body, minus a gun seems a little fishy to me.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

The last line says it all. A resonable person can't sit there and say the cop was breaking some law, or really even being un-ethical. What is un-ethical about driving around the neighborhood looking for your property?

Absolutely nothing. At least unless or until you're doing it with the direct intention of drilling the suspect full of lead/copper holes if you find him. Especially when you're a police officer who should know considerably better than that.

I'm one of the few people around here who has actively said that I'm more than willing to fatally shoot another human being over things as trivial as my wallet or other personal belongings. However, I know that if I allow my emotions to get the better of me and do that, I'm probably gonna end up in jail for the rest of my life. This guy should know that even better than I do because he's a police officer.

IF there is a firearm found, or other proof that the kid DID shoot at the officers first, they'll get a LITTLE more leeway from me; but until that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, this officer has a lot of explaining to do in my mind.

[sacase]

Police: Teen Fired Before Being Killed In Shootout

Teen Shot By Police Officer

POSTED: 9:58 pm EDT September 17, 2007

UPDATED: 5:12 pm EDT September 18, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Police said Tuesday that a 14-year-old who was shot and killed during a shootout involving District officers apparently provoked the incident.

Authorities said that just before 7 p.m. Monday, two off-duty officers in plain clothes, responded to a report that one of their homes had been burglarized.

Police Chief Cathy Lanier said the officers drove around the area in hopes of finding one of the stolen items -- a mini bike. Lanier said one of the officers saw the teen on a mini-bike in the 600 block of Atlantic Street in Southeast at about 7:40 p.m. and approached in a civilian vehicle. At that point, police said, the teen opened fire and struck the officer's car at least once.

Lanier said the officer returned fire without having a chance to identify himself, hitting the teen once in the head.

"My understanding is that when the officer pulled up next to the decedent on the mini-bike to ask him about the mini-bike, as soon as the officer pulled up, the decedent opened fire, striking the officer's vehicle while the officer was still in the vehicle, and the officer's initial return of fire he was still in the vehicle so he did not have time to identify himself," Lanier said.

According to Lanier, the officer who fired was the officer whose home was burglarized. He fired eight shots, and the teen fired three shots, police said.

The teen later died at a local hospital. He was identified as Deonte Rawlins. His stepmother, Sheila Rawlins, questioned the shooting.

"Off duty, in plain clothes, carrying pistols?" she said. "You were looking for trouble. You were looking for trouble. You were determined you were going to kill somebody. How would you feel if someone did that to your child?"

Police have not recovered the teen's weapon, and the officers are on routine paid administrative leave.

Mayor Adrian Fenty said it has not been confirmed that the mini-bike that Deonte Rawlins was riding is the property of the officer.

"My sympathies go out to the family. It is never easy to lose a loved one, especially a young person," Lanier said. "I have promised the family that my Department will conduct a thorough and detailed review of the officers' actions. And as always, whenever there is a police-involved shooting, the United States Attorney's Office will conduct an independent review."

The officer who fired the shots is a 22-year veteran assigned to the department's special operations division. The other officer is a 19-year veteran with the training academy.

----------------------------

The more information there is the worse it sounds.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I wonder what caliber bullet is lodged in the door of that car...9mm that the police use? They need to match up the rifling pattern with the cop's gun, cause 1 body, minus a gun seems a little fishy to me.

That's a lot of where I'm coming from right now too, Rock. Though I'll tell you that a lot of departments across the country are switching over to .40S&W or .45 ACP for their sidearms at this point in time.