DENVER | Prosecutors will not file criminal charges against the man who fatally shot a 12-year-old boy inside a stolen car in Denver during a shootout.
The Denver District Attorney’s Office does not believe it can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the Feb. 5 shooting, an ethical standard it must meet in order to file charges, office spokesperson Carolyn Tyler said Friday.
Police have said the owner of the stolen car used an app to track and find his vehicle — and that when he approached it, there was an “exchange of gunfire” with at least one person inside the car. The boy, identified as Elias Armstrong, drove a few blocks away, and police said they found him inside with a gunshot wound.
He died after being taken to the hospital.
Other people who were in the vehicle appeared to run away before officers arrived, police said.
Police said Friday that they are still investigating who stole the vehicle, who else was inside, and who fired at the car’s owner and was seeking tips from the community.
In 2021, police issued an alert for Armstrong, then 10, after he ran away from home.
Sorry thathe young criminal did not survive and possibly cease being a criminal.
Also.rry thathe vehicle owner did not call police when he found his vehicle.
Hope thathe other criminals are found and prosecuted.
Ifired upon, I cannot blame the vehicle owner for firing back. I would.
Reading this article, I cannot say who fired first. So without that, it’s impossible to say the owner was in the right, at least from this.
But a couple of things stand out from this incident:
First, since when is it okay to hunt someone down while armed with deadly force for taking property? If this is okay, we can save a lot of money by just abolishing police forces and arm everyone to be their own personal vigilantes.
And second, if we are indeed to be just a nation without the rule of law, where every man is allowed to use deadly force without any legal restraint, could you codify that? The people can then make a choice whether they want to remain in this society, understanding that to do so poses an outsized risk of death, or whether there might be somewhere a little less lethal to hang their hat.
People sometimes point to the “Wild West”” and say this is the Western tradition, when men were men and settled their differences at high noon on the streets of the town. But when Dodge City was founded, the first law they passed was a gun control law. When entering town in most places in the West, you were put on notice that strutting around packing heat was illegal. In many towns, you were simply relieved of your weapon, handed a chit, and told you could have your gun back when you left town.
In a country where the Supreme Court cites 14th century witch hunters as authority to outlaw abortion (who knew “original intent” meant what English clergy said while burning witches?), we look to the law and find no relief. And states are passing, or contemplating passing, what one sheriff called “Make Murder Legal” laws. In such a law, when someone shoots another person to death, there is a presumption that the shooter was acting in self-defense. Give him his gun back and send him home, maybe with an “Attaboy!” and a hearty slap on the back.
This is not a civilized country. It’s a country that’s lost its mind.
Well said. Problem is, there’s no real answer. There’re more guns then people in our country. And our prisons are overflowing now.
I would require every new gun made to have digital ID to fire it.
All guns would be single shot.
Marksmanship would be the goal not firepower. Training, insurance, background checks.
At the very least the owner/killer now has to live with killing a 12 year old boy over his chasing a stolen car, which he didn’t have to do.
This is what happens when cops are too busy to follow-up and criminals have no fear of the law or consequences of their actions. I feel sorry for the cars owner as this will haunt him for the rest of his life even though it was justified.