In March of 2008, Jose Luis Buenrostro was killed by 3 gang-unit police officers in East Oakland. He was 15 years old. The three officers say that Buenrostro pulled out a rifle from his pants and pointed it at them, at which point they killed the boy. Just recently, the city of Oakland settled with Buenrostro's family, awarding them $500,000.
Buenrostro's parents contested that the three officers drove up to their son, and shot him without cause. The officers were clearly identified as police, wearing raid body armor.
This is ridiculous. The lawyer for the Buenrostro family has ADMITTED that Buenrostro was indeed carrying a rifle, saying "The police overreacted, and although he may have had possession of a (rifle), he did not point the gun at the officers. Witnesses said he was putting his hands up when he was shot." So the officers just happened to go up to a kid in their car, and shoot the kid? And it just so happened that this kid had a rifle in his pants? Right. The boy clearly took out his weapon, brandished it, and did something threatening with it to make the officers react the way they did.
Now I'm not saying that I don't regret the killing; I wish some other alternative could have been employed, and the boy's life could have been spared. But seriously now. He has a rifle. He's fifteen. The setting is Oakland, the country's 3rd most dangerous city as of 2009. I think police have a little right to be cautious. And when they see a rifle and any hint of any movement with that rifle, I think they have a right to PROTECT THEMSELVES, because that moment could potentially be their last. So is the $500,000 really justified? Hell no. Again, do I wish the boy was still alive? Hell yes, but that won't change the fact that the police likely had no viable alternative than to take action when they saw he HAD A RIFLE.
But hey, just my opinion.
5 comments:
I just saw this on the news and also had a "What the ...?" moment. I feel like it is painfully clear that the 15-year old did do something rash and immature with the weapon as to taunt the policemen into some sort of action. But, then again, it is Oakland, where with so many police-related incidents, most community members have become "anti-police" and feel that the police force is out to get them rather than protect them. So, in a way, I can where the Buenrostro family is coming from. But in all honesty, this just looks like a way for people to extort money from the police and the family, apparently, fails to see that the victim did anything wrong and was an innocent, law-abiding citizen.
I agree, and I think the family shouldn't have received that settlement. Although, thinking about it from their perspective... losing a son is by no means an easy thing to go through. I think that his death and their grief over it may have prompted them to seek justice and may have affected them and their decision to go to court. I think it's also unclear as to how big of a threat the boy was. You mention how the boy pointed his gun at the officers, but then how witnesses say he was just putting his hands up when he was shot. It seems a big of an ambiguous case, with the police maybe being a little too enthusiastic and a little too quick to pull out their guns, and with the parents perhaps being so emotionally affected by their sons' death that they blindly pushed for a court hearing.
I agree with Ryan that I don't think the boy should have been killed, if at all possible. I like to think that police should use their guns as a last resort, and can use other tactics for less dangerous situations. However, as the danger of this particular situation seems unclear, I think the police were right in protecting themselves.
I don't think that the parents saw this as an opportunity to extort money from the police, I think they just may have been "emotionally compromised" in the sense that this seemed like the right thing to do in order to respect their son, or something. I know this is all speculation on my part, but I don't like to think they went through all this legal trouble just to get money.
The settlement should have been expected, especially since it's Oakland. The situation seems to be treated similarly to how the New Year's Eve Bart incident happened. People think that because one cop messed up, all of them are bad. It's like one bad apple ruins the whole basket. But it definitely isn't like that. Policemen are trained for all sorts of situations, especially one where lives are at stake. To top off their training, the police officers who killed the teenager were gang-unit officers. They are trained most especially for that type of situation. Hence the word gang in their title. So the teenager couldn't have just been killed without having done nothing. He of course HAD to do something to provoke the THREE officers. If there was only one officer, then there could be more to it; but no, there were THREE.
The money the city of Oakland settled with the family, one could say, isn't much. What I would say about this is that the city gave them money just to shut them up simply because they would've made a HUGE fuss about it and probably would've rallied the whole community and in the long run, start a riot.
Sorry, "ALICE" = Alice Bebbington, just to be clear!
In the first place, I don't think the kid should have had the rifle in his possession. I think the parents should have been a little more careful on what their son was possessing before he leaves the household, especially in a city like Oakland. Therefore, I'm sad and feel sorry for this family who has lost a loved member of their family, but I don't think that the family should have gotten a reward for their son's mistake. Like Ryan said, I think the polic reacted well by pulling out their guns and shooting the kid because they needed to protect themselves rather than protecting a total stranger who could have potentially hurt them. Point is, 15-year old kids should not be carrying weapons AT ALL so that something like this does not happen again.
Post a Comment