219

Mother of 12-year-old carjacking suspect turned him in to police (www.nbcwashington.com)

submitted 11 months ago by Salamendacious@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

An attempted carjacking Saturday night left a 13-year-old dead after a security officer shot him; another boy, 12, is in custody

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Hillock@kbin.social 77 points 11 months ago

A lot of people seem to mistake carjacking for car theft. Especially mentioning that the person who shot the 13 year old was a security officer gives a wrong impression on what happened.

Carjacking is when the robber(s) take control of a car with a person inside the car. This is what happened here, with the security guard being inside the car. Under these circumstances it's perfectly reasonable to consider shooting the robbers and it's unreasonable to expect the security guard being able to identify the robber as a 13-year old harmless child. There is significant plausible risk to the person inside the car to warrent lethal force during self-defense.

Car theft is stealing an empty car. Shooting someone would be entirely unreasonable during a car theft.

The article doesn't mention wether the car had window tint and the two kids where unaware of the person inside or if they intentionally tried to rob the person. That information might change what can be considered reasonable response.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world 56 points 11 months ago

Imagine how fucked and shitty your life has to be, to be a 12 or 13 year old trying to carjack people.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 56 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Not bad at all. Rich kids do horrific shit all the time. Like rape people, drive drunk and kill people, etc etc forever. This is just some kid who played gta, had some mental issues, went out and did shit, then didn’t have rich immoral parents to pay people off and bury it.

[-] thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago

I didn't suggest rich kids were immune?

[-] soloner@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago

It's lemmy! Where regardless of what topic you bring, you'll just get "rich people suck" and "fuck capitalism" as incoherent, tone deaf responses.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 9 points 11 months ago

I’m not tone deaf. They’re saying that their life must suck. I’m saying that shitty behavior isn’t related to quality of life. I get that you’re center-right and middle class and tired of having to hear people talk about topics that don’t apply to you personally. But… grow up.

[-] velxundussa@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 months ago

Being rich doesn't mean your life doesn't suck, just that you don't have money problems.

[-] pozbo@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Did you have a shitty childhood too?

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago

But they are. 🤷‍♂️

[-] danjr@feddit.nl 7 points 11 months ago

Being rich and having a fucked up and shitty life aren't mutually exclusive.

[-] Neon@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

rape people, drive drunk and kill people

one of those is not quite as bad as the others

[-] randon31415@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

I think you think there are three items in that list when there are only two.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The article links to another article and identified it with the boy who was killed. He went on a one night crime spree brandishing a gun and carjacking two cars and assaulting another in a failed carjacking. It's a crazy world.

[-] piecat@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago

That's not normal behavior, it's just sad. Society is failing

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] squiblet@kbin.social 12 points 11 months ago

We did some pretty fucked up things when I was a teenager and while our lives did suck, the risky choices and crime were from being young and stupid, not poverty.

[-] piecat@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

Having nothing to lose is a hell of a thing

[-] squiblet@kbin.social 6 points 11 months ago

Being in prison or the juvenile court system is rarely an improvement regardless of how much your life sucks.

[-] eatthecake@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

Imagine how many people have shitty lives and don't carjack people at 12.

[-] BigBlackCockroach@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Imagine how many people have refrained from writing a wholier than thou comment about a 12 year old child

[-] eatthecake@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Sorry, i have shitty childhood disorder, couldn't help it.

[-] Jelly_mcPB@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

Some shitty 12 and 13 year old kids have great childhoods and are just shitty.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Heresy_generator@kbin.social 25 points 11 months ago

Note to thread: An off-duty security officer with the U.S. Marshal's Service is not a security guard.

[-] sik0fewl@kbin.social 22 points 11 months ago

Rumour has it that she called him by his full name -- middle name and all.

[-] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

And took off her slipper?

[-] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

La Chancla! 🩴

[-] bloopernova@programming.dev 3 points 11 months ago

Kamehamechancla!

[-] Melkath@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago

Self-defense is one thing.

Car-defense is another.

[-] Fosheze@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago

If somebody is threatening your life for your stuff then they are still threatening your life. Their motive doesn't change the fact that they are threatening to kill you.

[-] Melkath@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago

But no lives were actually threatened.

An unarmed 13 year old who could pantomime met a grown ass US Marshal.

[-] Fosheze@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago

Once again the actual intent doesn't matter because that was only known to them. The only people who knew if they actually had weapons or not were them and you're going to fault people for believing them when they said they did. They were threatening another persons life (once again no one knew they were faking it except them) that is the only thing that maters in this situation.

They knowingly made the marshal believe they had weapons, was the marshal just supposed to let themself get shot? There are a lot of things to criticize US police for, but protecting themselves when there is a clear, deliberate, and imminent threat on their lives is not one of them.

Yes it's sad that a troubled kid with an underdeveloped brain made a stupid decision and was killed for it. But that doesn't make it ok to victim blame someone for defending themself from a threat upon their life.

[-] Melkath@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

"Once again the actual intent doesn’t "

The fuck it doesn't, you absolute goddam monster.

[-] Fosheze@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Ok rather than childish name calling, explain to me how that marshal had any way of knowing what their intent was. Also it is convient how you left the last part of that sentence off.

[-] sugartits@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Name calling is all he knows.

Well, that and the very clearly made up stories

[-] wanderingmagus@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

Seems most people here think you are the monster.

[-] Harvey656@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

That person cannot know the intent, only that it appears their life is threatened, your shortsighted if you cannot see that.

[-] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

Courts tend to disagree with you. Even if a weapon is simulated, if used as a threat, it's often considered the same as actually having the weapon, because the victim is threatened just the same.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1351-assaultuse-dangerous-weapon-during-bank-robbery

[-] sugartits@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

pardon me sir, please may I verify the lethality of your weapon before we continue this discourse?

[-] sugartits@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

If I poke you in your back with a stick and say "do exactly as I say and you might, just might, live through this"

Are you seriously going to:

go "nah bro, I don't believe you, go home, you're drunk" or
are you going to take me very fucking seriously and not only comply but also try to think really hard and fast about getting out of dodge using any (and I do mean any) means necessary because you reasonably assume I have a loaded gun pressed against your back?

If you answer the first option, then we stop now, as you're clearly being dishonest.

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] tym@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago

What about self defense when in a car?

What about self defense in a box?

Self defense from a fox?

[-] bloopernova@programming.dev 5 points 11 months ago

Self defense on top of rocks?

Self defense like fort Knox?

[-] Melkath@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

Your levity at the summary execution of a 13 year old speaks for itself.

[-] Stuka@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

Your inability to comprehend basic written information is concerning.

[-] wanderingmagus@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

Maybe block this instance, your opinions seem incompatible with the majority opinion here.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023

219 points (100.0% liked)

News

23167 readers

2518 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world