• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Prosecutor: No charges for officer in Tony Robinson case

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,463
Reaction score
7,252
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Tony Robinson case: No charges for officer - CNN.com
CNN Article said:
Officer Matt Kenny of the Madison Police Department will not face charges in the March shooting death of biracial teen Tony Robinson, Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne said Tuesday.
"I conclude that this tragic and unfortunate death was the result of a lawful use of deadly police force and that no charges should be brought against Officer Kenny in the death of Tony Robinson Jr.," he said.

"My decision will not bring Tony Robinson Jr. back," Ozanne told reporters. "My decision will not end the racial disparities that exist in the justice system, in our justice system. My decision is not based on emotion. Rather, this decision is based on the facts as they have been investigated and reported to me."


I think the Prosecutor got the decision correct based upon the information he gave during his press announcement speech.

What are your thoughts????
 
This one was pretty clear from day 1. If an officer is getting assaulted the shooting is going to be justified just about every time.
 
First, I've never seen a guy sweat that much. Looked like he expected to be hit by a sniper bullet at the podium.

Second, at first I was bored by the "I'm the product of a bi-racial family, raised by a single black woman..." blah blah blah, but pretty soon it became evident why he did so. As he laid out the enormous volume of evidence... eye witnesses, video, audio, dash cam... all backing the fact that the victim was out of his mind on drugs, yelling at invisible people, and attacking others, it was obvious that there was no prosecutable case there.

I think laying out the evidence the way he did was a good thing, in this case, because the crowd that was gathered to hear the announcement didn't even make a peep after having everything laid out, step by step, that happened that day.
 
I don't love the idea of a cop immediately going to deadly force after taking a single sucker punch, because far too frequently deadly force is the first line of defense for cops in ANY use of force situation.

I recognize that Robinson was out of control, breaking the law, and needed to be arrested.

But I'm not convinced he needed to be killed.

All of that said, I can further recognize that the law in respect to use of force has become so pussified in the interest of "officer safety" that simply giving a cop a dirty look is legal grounds for his use of deadly force.

While I'd like to see those laws change, cops held to a higher standard, and coward cops drummed of our police forces, the law is what it is at the moment and if a cop simply being afeared is sufficient justification for shooting someone, and this guy is to be taken at his word that he was scared, I guess it's a clean shoot.
 
I don't love the idea of a cop immediately going to deadly force after taking a single sucker punch, because far too frequently deadly force is the first line of defense for cops in ANY use of force situation.

I recognize that Robinson was out of control, breaking the law, and needed to be arrested.

But I'm not convinced he needed to be killed.

All of that said, I can further recognize that the law in respect to use of force has become so pussified in the interest of "officer safety" that simply giving a cop a dirty look is legal grounds for his use of deadly force.

While I'd like to see those laws change, cops held to a higher standard, and coward cops drummed of our police forces, the law is what it is at the moment and if a cop simply being afeared is sufficient justification for shooting someone, and this guy is to be taken at his word that he was scared, I guess it's a clean shoot.

Good afternoon, Ms. Mosby.
 
Tony Robinson case: No charges for officer - CNN.com



I think the Prosecutor got the decision correct based upon the information he gave during his press announcement speech.

What are your thoughts????

I watched the press conference live and the Prosecutor was quite comprehensive and reasoned in the way he laid out the case and his decision. It was also wise of him to speak to the reactions in other cities in an attempt to avoid such a reaction in his city. It was handled very professionally.
 
I was initially confused as to how an elderly British actor managed to get himself shot by a police officer in Madison.
 
I don't love the idea of a cop immediately going to deadly force after taking a single sucker punch, because far too frequently deadly force is the first line of defense for cops in ANY use of force situation.

I recognize that Robinson was out of control, breaking the law, and needed to be arrested.

But I'm not convinced he needed to be killed.

All of that said, I can further recognize that the law in respect to use of force has become so pussified in the interest of "officer safety" that simply giving a cop a dirty look is legal grounds for his use of deadly force.

While I'd like to see those laws change, cops held to a higher standard, and coward cops drummed of our police forces, the law is what it is at the moment and if a cop simply being afeared is sufficient justification for shooting someone, and this guy is to be taken at his word that he was scared, I guess it's a clean shoot.

This part is really why he was justified in using lethal force and is pretty much the same for citizens as well. If you are disabled or vulnerable...your assailant has access to your firearm. You dont know if he'll use it. Why would you 'choose to believe that' if they had attacked you already? And for the police, then the public is at risk as well if they get the gun.

"Kenny reported that Robinson hit him and knocked him into the wall inside the apartment, an account that the prosecutor said was supported by damage to drywall.

After that, Kenny said he was afraid Robinson would hit him again or take his gun, and opened fire as the 19-year-old continued to come at him."
 
This part is really why he was justified in using lethal force and is pretty much the same for citizens as well. If you are disabled or vulnerable...your assailant has access to your firearm. You dont know if he'll use it. Why would you 'choose to believe that' if they had attacked you already? And for the police, then the public is at risk as well if they get the gun.

By all appearances Kenny wasn't disabled.

He got his bell rung.

He still had the presence of mind to draw his weapon, fire several rounds hitting his target (in a dynamic engagement in an enclosed space) three times including once in the head (actually pretty incredible shooting for an "average" cop - I don't know if Kenny was "average" or "highly trained" in pistol marksmanship or what).

He then called in the shoot and rendered first aid.

I've been punched in the head and continued to fight and I've been punched in the head and disabled.

If Kenny was able to do all those things that he did - he wasn't "disabled" in any way.

He was scared.

He could have gone hands on with the kid, he could have gone to a baton or other less than lethal.

But he was frightened so he killed a kid that probably didn't need to be killed.

And that's *cool* because the law says that frightened cops (in their own determination - there is no standard for what frightened really is and we take their word for it every time that "I feared for my life" is the Bible truth) can shoot people.

Okay, fair enough, but if simply being punched in the head is enough to frighten you to the point that your next immediate act is to draw a gun and kill someone then you really don't have any business being in a position where there's a good possibility that you'll run in to such a situation again.

I don't think Kenny should be prosecuted, but I don't think he should be a cop either.

I think he's a coward with an itchy trigger finger and the public would be better served by having someone with a little more personal courage enforcing its laws.

By comparison, I've read that Kenny had previously been involved in another use of lethal force incident where he shot (killed?) a kid who pointed a bee-bee gun at him.

I have NO problem with that.

I don't know all the details of that incident, but if someone points ANYTHING that looks like a weapon at a cop I'm totally cool with the cop shooting.

Again, legally Kenny did nothing wrong.

It is my opinion that we should hold cops to a higher standard than they're currently held, but by the current standard Kenny is good to go.

I don't think Kenny is a racist, or did what he did out of racial motivations in any way.

I could be wrong about that.

It could very well be that Kenny was particularly frightened because Madison was black, and if he'd been a white kid Kenny would have considered him less a threat.

But I see no evidence to support that so I'm not accusing him or bigotry.

So while I don't think Kenny is cut out for law enforcement work I don't think he's a criminal or necessarily a bad guy.

You're free to feel however you feel about the guy.

Can him a "hero" or a "sheepdog" or whatever you want.

I think you'd be wrong, but I respect your right to be wrong.
 
By all appearances Kenny wasn't disabled.

He got his bell rung.

He still had the presence of mind to draw his weapon, fire several rounds hitting his target (in a dynamic engagement in an enclosed space) three times including once in the head (actually pretty incredible shooting for an "average" cop - I don't know if Kenny was "average" or "highly trained" in pistol marksmanship or what).

He then called in the shoot and rendered first aid.

I've been punched in the head and continued to fight and I've been punched in the head and disabled.

If Kenny was able to do all those things that he did - he wasn't "disabled" in any way.

He was scared.

He could have gone hands on with the kid, he could have gone to a baton or other less than lethal.

But he was frightened so he killed a kid that probably didn't need to be killed.

And that's *cool* because the law says that frightened cops (in their own determination - there is no standard for what frightened really is and we take their word for it every time that "I feared for my life" is the Bible truth) can shoot people.

Okay, fair enough, but if simply being punched in the head is enough to frighten you to the point that your next immediate act is to draw a gun and kill someone then you really don't have any business being in a position where there's a good possibility that you'll run in to such a situation again.

I don't think Kenny should be prosecuted, but I don't think he should be a cop either.

I think he's a coward with an itchy trigger finger and the public would be better served by having someone with a little more personal courage enforcing its laws.

By comparison, I've read that Kenny had previously been involved in another use of lethal force incident where he shot (killed?) a kid who pointed a bee-bee gun at him.

I have NO problem with that.

I don't know all the details of that incident, but if someone points ANYTHING that looks like a weapon at a cop I'm totally cool with the cop shooting.

Again, legally Kenny did nothing wrong.

It is my opinion that we should hold cops to a higher standard than they're currently held, but by the current standard Kenny is good to go.

I don't think Kenny is a racist, or did what he did out of racial motivations in any way.

I could be wrong about that.

It could very well be that Kenny was particularly frightened because Madison was black, and if he'd been a white kid Kenny would have considered him less a threat.

But I see no evidence to support that so I'm not accusing him or bigotry.

So while I don't think Kenny is cut out for law enforcement work I don't think he's a criminal or necessarily a bad guy.

You're free to feel however you feel about the guy.

Can him a "hero" or a "sheepdog" or whatever you want.

I think you'd be wrong, but I respect your right to be wrong.

No one cares if you got punched in the head (although it definitely shows in your posts).

You can't honestly assault a cop and continue to try assaulting him without expecting to get shot. The police officer was in his right mind to shoot the guy considering the fact that he wasn't likely to let up on the attack and at some point he can do something. A 19 year old isn't physically a kid. A 19 year old is a grown man who can put a hurting on you and can easily take the gun and start pulling the trigger.

It was justified.

YOU are wrong. Why? Well simple, there will be no case.

You're incessant crying about some pussification of the use of deadly force is nothing but crying because neither the general populace nor the law agrees with you.
 
You're incessant crying about some pussification of the use of deadly force is nothing but crying because neither the general populace nor the law agrees with you.

I agree.

Very few people agree with me that Americans need to grow a collective pair of balls and stop living in fear of every boogyman they can possibly imagine.

Those people disagree with me because they're cowards and agreeing would force them to take a good hard look in the mirror.

And they can't do that because then they'd see the yellow streak running down their spine and they'd have to admit, if to no one but themselves, themselves, that they're what's wrong with this country.

If Teddy Roosevelt came back from the grave he'd dick whip the lot of you.

A nation of cowards, who are so cowardly that they encourage their "sheepdogs" to be cowards too.

Rock on Cav Scout - "Why walk when you can ride, whay fight when you can hide!" ;)
 
I agree.

Very few people agree with me that Americans need to grow a collective pair of balls and stop living in fear of every boogyman they can possibly imagine.

Those people disagree with me because they're cowards and agreeing would force them to take a good hard look in the mirror.

And they can't do that because then they'd see the yellow streak running down their spine and they'd have to admit, if to no one but themselves, themselves, that they're what's wrong with this country.

If Teddy Roosevelt came back from the grave he'd dick whip the lot of you.

A nation of cowards, who are so cowardly that they encourage their "sheepdogs" to be cowards too.

Rock on Cav Scout - "Why walk when you can ride, whay fight when you can hide!" ;)

#1 Cav scouts are on the front line and they can conduct operation that aren't mounted.

#2 number one is off topic so let's not discuss that any further

#3 oh everyone in the USA is wrong and a ***** but you're obviously correct because you're important and smart right? Go out and preach if you're that smart and make a change since you apparently have some answer that all of America must hear and learn.

#4 go live somewhere else if you're that disillusioned (over an illusion, how ironic!) about the USA
 
By all appearances Kenny wasn't disabled.

He got his bell rung.

He still had the presence of mind to draw his weapon, fire several rounds hitting his target (in a dynamic engagement in an enclosed space) three times including once in the head (actually pretty incredible shooting for an "average" cop - I don't know if Kenny was "average" or "highly trained" in pistol marksmanship or what).

He then called in the shoot and rendered first aid.

I've been punched in the head and continued to fight and I've been punched in the head and disabled.

If Kenny was able to do all those things that he did - he wasn't "disabled" in any way.

He was scared.

He could have gone hands on with the kid, he could have gone to a baton or other less than lethal.

But he was frightened so he killed a kid that probably didn't need to be killed.

And that's *cool* because the law says that frightened cops (in their own determination - there is no standard for what frightened really is and we take their word for it every time that "I feared for my life" is the Bible truth) can shoot people.

Okay, fair enough, but if simply being punched in the head is enough to frighten you to the point that your next immediate act is to draw a gun and kill someone then you really don't have any business being in a position where there's a good possibility that you'll run in to such a situation again.

I don't think Kenny should be prosecuted, but I don't think he should be a cop either.

I think he's a coward with an itchy trigger finger and the public would be better served by having someone with a little more personal courage enforcing its laws.

By comparison, I've read that Kenny had previously been involved in another use of lethal force incident where he shot (killed?) a kid who pointed a bee-bee gun at him.

I have NO problem with that.

I don't know all the details of that incident, but if someone points ANYTHING that looks like a weapon at a cop I'm totally cool with the cop shooting.

Again, legally Kenny did nothing wrong.

It is my opinion that we should hold cops to a higher standard than they're currently held, but by the current standard Kenny is good to go.

I don't think Kenny is a racist, or did what he did out of racial motivations in any way.

I could be wrong about that.

It could very well be that Kenny was particularly frightened because Madison was black, and if he'd been a white kid Kenny would have considered him less a threat.

But I see no evidence to support that so I'm not accusing him or bigotry.

So while I don't think Kenny is cut out for law enforcement work I don't think he's a criminal or necessarily a bad guy.

You're free to feel however you feel about the guy.

Can him a "hero" or a "sheepdog" or whatever you want.

I think you'd be wrong, but I respect your right to be wrong.

You dont know anything about the Tueller Drill then do you? That research and testing shows that someone within 21 feet of an armed person can get to the armed person and kill them before the armed person can draw and fire? It is used in court all the time as a standard. You can google it for more.

And 'bell rung' means automatically that you are not 100%, and at a disadvantage. Did you know that if you are confronted with a gun within arm distance, up to say 5 or 6 feet, you are not supposed to draw your own gun, but step in and try to take/control the other gun? That is how self-defense for that scenario is trained.

Did you know that it's fairly easy for a suspect to do this to police (or anyone) and then fight over the gun? This is why police tell people to get on the ground with their hands behind their heads...so that they take that option (mostly) away from the suspect. So they dont end up grappling for the gun.


You should be better informed on the realities of self-defense before you judge people who are in life or death situations...and you arent.

No one says he's a hero, he was doing his job. And of course he was frightened....you think people get into struggles with people stupid enough to attack a cop and arent scared? Scared doesnt mean you cant function properly. Millions of cops do it every week. Scared means you have a brain. Training and preparation help you function when afraid.
 
Last edited:
Very few people agree with me that Americans need to grow a collective pair of balls and stop living in fear of every boogyman they can possibly imagine.

What if the boogeyman is on a cocktail of narcotics, 6'5, already assaulted several people, ran through oncoming traffic, and just punched you in the side of the head? THEN are we allowed to have fear?
 
What if the boogeyman is on a cocktail of narcotics, 6'5, already assaulted several people, ran through oncoming traffic, and just punched you in the side of the head? THEN are we allowed to have fear?

Here in Bellevue, WA in 2000, a cop tried to get a naked guy out of an intersection. The naked guy got his gun and killed him. Did the veteran cop make at least one mistake? Sure.

But if he had even drawn his firearm, the public and the media would have screamed. If he had actually shot the guy? He'd have been crucified in the media...even if found innocent, he never would have gotten past it, he would have been destroyed professionally.

Someone doesnt have to have a gun to be a lethal threat and this is a good example of how giving the benefit of the doubt can get a cop killed.
 
I agree.

Very few people agree with me that Americans need to grow a collective pair of balls and stop living in fear of every boogyman they can possibly imagine.

Those people disagree with me because they're cowards and agreeing would force them to take a good hard look in the mirror.

And they can't do that because then they'd see the yellow streak running down their spine and they'd have to admit, if to no one but themselves, themselves, that they're what's wrong with this country.

If Teddy Roosevelt came back from the grave he'd dick whip the lot of you.

A nation of cowards, who are so cowardly that they encourage their "sheepdogs" to be cowards too.

Rock on Cav Scout - "Why walk when you can ride, whay fight when you can hide!" ;)

Here is the problem I have with your "analysis" if you will.

Its bred in some kind of "tough guy" attitude.

We are talking about a physically fit 19 year old hallucinating on shrooms, fighting with ghosts while tearing holes in the walls and not feeling it.

We are talking about a guy tripping on drugs in such a way that he had already proved himself to be a menace to society by assaulting 3 people and running in traffic.

We are talking about a guy who punched a police officer... ONCE... hard enough to put him into a wall and cave the ****ing wall in. ONE of those punches in the right spot would knock that Officer out, giving an insane, drugged out person who already assaulted random pedestrians on 2 other seperate occasions the opportunity to obtain a lethal firearm and other tools of police trade from the Officer, including his vehicle, to use for whatever nefarious reasons he should choose.

If anyone thinks a guy tripping on mushrooms who assaulted 3 people and tore up an entire apartment fighting with his imagination wouldn't use that firearm to shoot random innocent civilians at a much greater loss of innocent life than that of one person who, at the time was a violent assailant and menace to society......... they are just arguing to be arguing, or are an incredulously ignorant person.


Whatever the case may be....... this is the case against the use of any form of hallucinogen for "recreational purposes".




Also.... stop trying to be such an "Internet Tough Guy"...... its really pathetic to watch.
 
There have been plenty of bad behaviors by cops recently that got covered up by phony investigations. This isn't one of those situations.
 
Back
Top Bottom