Altercation between Off-duty officer and teenagers

[Dr. NarwhalsNumbNuts IV 2291]

1 hour ago, Ironic said:

But they also don't have any proof that the kid didn't say it. It goes both ways.

 

I would totally agree, however most likely they are saying the gun discharged or it was a misfire. Which, he should still get in trouble either way, but it doesn't look like he fired on purpose. 

Ummm no it fucking doesn't

 

It's "innocent until proven guilty". Not, "you're a fucking suspect until proven otherwise". Dude, you're better than this. It's alright to admit you're in the wrong. 

 

Even if the gun misfired, then he's clearly incapable of securing his firearm, which is especially troubling when the "suspects" here are all fucking under the age of 16

[Ironic 2278]

9 hours ago, Dr. NarwhalsNumbNuts IV said:

Ummm no it fucking doesn't

 

It's "innocent until proven guilty". Not, "you're a fucking suspect until proven otherwise". Dude, you're better than this. It's alright to admit you're in the wrong. 

 

Even if the gun misfired, then he's clearly incapable of securing his firearm, which is especially troubling when the "suspects" here are all fucking under the age of 16

Yes, it does go both ways. The man who made the citizens arrest on him can't get in trouble for doing it, unless there's 100% proof that the kid did say "sue" instead of "shoot". So, the man is also innocent until proven guilty, as some people already think he's guilty, but there's no proof of it yet. The problem with this is we don't have any video (that we know of) of the before stuff. So it's mainly just the mans word vs the kids word. 

I don't need to say anymore about the misfire or discharge of the gun. I already stated multiple times that he will most likely get introuble for it. Whether that be losing his job as a cop, or something else idk.

[Dakota 4722]

Yes, it does go both ways. The man who made the citizens arrest on him can't get in trouble for doing it, unless there's 100% proof that the kid did say "sue" instead of "shoot". So, the man is also innocent until proven guilty, as some people already think he's guilty, but there's no proof of it yet. The problem with this is we don't have any video (that we know of) of the before stuff. So it's mainly just the mans word vs the kids word. 
I don't need to say anymore about the misfire or discharge of the gun. I already stated multiple times that he will most likely get introuble for it. Whether that be losing his job as a cop, or something else idk.

So if there is no proof on either side then why did only one side get charged? Charged with no evidence other than somebody's word.

[Ironic 2278]

5 minutes ago, Beerman said:

So if there is no proof on either side then why did only one side get charged? Charged with no evidence other than somebody's word.

I'm pretty sure all the kid did was get arrested (the supposedly threatened the off duty cop), while two other kids got arrested and charge for assaulting the off duty cop. I don't think the kid that threatened him got any charges. 

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

3 minutes ago, Ironic said:

 while two other kids got arrested and charge for assaulting the off duty cop. 

So in the theoretical situation where my friend insulted someone and they decided to grab my friend and potentially kidnap them me going over to stop the person could lead to me getting charges as long as the guy yells "citizens arrest" over and over 

[Ironic 2278]

27 minutes ago, Ordinarygamer96 said:

So in the theoretical situation where my friend insulted someone and they decided to grab my friend and potentially kidnap them me going over to stop the person could lead to me getting charges as long as the guy yells "citizens arrest" over and over 

According to the law, Nope. If someone is grabbing your friend saying they're making a citizens arrest, you are allowed to stay there with them though. 

Insulting someone isn't a valid reason to make a citizens arrest though, so you could potentially fight back because the law would be in your side there.

However, there's a big difference in someone just grabbing someone to make a citizens arrest, and then actually acting like they're going to kidnap them. When making a citizens arrest, they need to stay in the location where they originally made the arrest, they can't take your friend anywhere new. The only reason I think the off duty cop was moving at all was because of the group of kids that kept surrounding him.

 

Edit: Here's the thing. Morally, I can completely understand why some of you don't agree with what happened and why the off duty officer wasn't arrested, but lawfully, nothing illegal was done by him (besides the misfire/discharge of the gun). I wasn't coming into this topic to get into arguments with anyone, I just wanted to inform all of you why the off duty officer was not arrested. Maybe in the future, America needs to reevaluate how citizens arrests are done, due to this massive outrage with what happened.