Man, then what was his education? By 8 I knew, and was drilled into me by my school, when you see a cop, a fire fighter or anything like that, you listen to them.
elberkonic wrote: He was a 12yr old kid, He must have thought the police officers were kidding with him. He did not know they would actually kill him.
Long before I reached the age of 12, I was well aware never to play with a toy gun around a police officer, and to follow their instructions. I was especially aware that drawing a gun (toy or not) after a police officer told me to put my hands up was a very bad idea.
elberkonic wrote: He was a 12yr old kid, He must have thought the police officers were kidding with him. He did not know they would actually kill him.
In my opinion his age isn't a significant factor. A 12 year old can do serious harm with a gun just as easily as a 30 year old, and is arguably more dangerous due to immaturity.
elberkonic wrote: He was a 12yr old kid, He must have thought the police officers were kidding with him. He did not know they would actually kill him.
In my opinion his age isn't a significant factor. A 12 year old can do serious harm with a gun just as easily as a 30 year old, and is arguably more dangerous due to immaturity.
And that's what it really comes down to.
Being 12 makes his death more tragic IMO. It might also mean that he didn't know better and didn't realize just how serious his actions were. If the cops were in the wrong his age might be a viable factor when it comes to determining a punishment.
But being 12 doesn't make him any less of a potential thread.
Relapse wrote: Funny that a white 20 year old gets shot and killed under practically the same circumstance by a black officer and no one at the liberal news services thinks twice about it.
In both instances, though, it seems the officer was justified. The difference is there wasn't the big debate, marches, etc. in the Salt Lake case.
The victim, 20-year-old Dillon Taylor, whom family and friends say was unarmed at the time of the shooting, was shot and killed by a police officer, whose name has not yet been released, in Salt Lake City, UT.
According to Police Chief Chris Burbank, the shooting was caught on the officer’s body camera, but he did not say whether Taylor was armed at the time of the shooting, nor, after watching the footage, had he decided whether the use of deadly force was justified.
Police reportedly arrived on scene because of a “man waving a gun around.” Taylor must have matched the description of the suspect, but witnesses claim that Taylor may have been pulling up his pants, causing the officer to think he was drawing a weapon.
The investigation in Salt Lake City, Utah into the officer’s conduct will continue without a riot and looters, without distractions from the DOJ, without Al Sharpton and his race baiting. It will be conducted as all investigations are, much like Ferguson, Missouri should have been.
Just proves what I've been saying, American police are too trigger happy.
elberkonic wrote: He was a 12yr old kid, He must have thought the police officers were kidding with him. He did not know they would actually kill him.
Between the time they arrived and the time that the boy was shot, they told him to put his hands up three times and he reached for the gun.
How did they tell him to put his hands up three times, in any intelligible fashion, in 2 seconds (the time between police arriving and the boy being shot)?
jhe90 wrote: From page one, the gun looks very real, no obvious markings to show its a fake, no orange tip, no bright colours, separate magazine.
The police may have made wrong choice but they had seconds to decide and that looks much like a real firearm
Actually, the debate among here is that the police made the RIGHT choice and that the 12 yo made the WRONG choice.
In another words, the police made a tragic, right choice of action.
So shooting kids with toy guns on sight is a right thing to do?
That is rubbish. If the officer had made the right choice, no one would have been killed. The right choice in this scenario would have been for the cop to react calm and patiently, rather than to charge in guns blazing.
elberkonic wrote: He was a 12yr old kid, He must have thought the police officers were kidding with him. He did not know they would actually kill him.
In my opinion his age isn't a significant factor. A 12 year old can do serious harm with a gun just as easily as a 30 year old, and is arguably more dangerous due to immaturity.
elberkonic wrote: He was a 12yr old kid, He must have thought the police officers were kidding with him. He did not know they would actually kill him.
In my opinion his age isn't a significant factor. A 12 year old can do serious harm with a gun just as easily as a 30 year old, and is arguably more dangerous due to immaturity.
And that's what it really comes down to.
Being 12 makes his death more tragic IMO. It might also mean that he didn't know better and didn't realize just how serious his actions were. If the cops were in the wrong his age might be a viable factor when it comes to determining a punishment.
But being 12 doesn't make him any less of a potential thread.
Between the time they arrived and the time that the boy was shot, they told him to put his hands up three times and he reached for the gun.
How did they tell him to put his hands up three times, in any intelligible fashion, in 2 seconds (the time between police arriving and the boy being shot)?
It'll be interesting to have some context put to that video. I was thinking they might have worked out their tactics on the way, judging by the speed things happened, if that video is real time.
jhe90 wrote: From page one, the gun looks very real, no obvious markings to show its a fake, no orange tip, no bright colours, separate magazine.
The police may have made wrong choice but they had seconds to decide and that looks much like a real firearm
Actually, the debate among here is that the police made the RIGHT choice and that the 12 yo made the WRONG choice.
In another words, the police made a tragic, right choice of action.
So shooting kids with toy guns on sight is a right thing to do?
That is rubbish. If the officer had made the right choice, no one would have been killed. The right choice in this scenario would have been for the cop to react calm and patiently, rather than to charge in guns blazing.
No, but shooting someone about to point a gun at you is the right thing to do. The gun turning out to be fake doesn't matter at all.
Hordini wrote: Between the time they arrived and the time that the boy was shot, they told him to put his hands up three times and he reached for the gun.
There was no audio on the tape, so I don't know if this is true. However, I find it difficult to believe that they could relay an instruction, have it understood and disobeyed 3 times in about a second and a half; which is how long it took between when they arrived and when they opened fire. They allegedly yelled "show your hands" specifically, I don't believe you can yell that in an intelligible manner 3 times in that timeframe.
jhe90 wrote: From page one, the gun looks very real, no obvious markings to show its a fake, no orange tip, no bright colours, separate magazine.
The police may have made wrong choice but they had seconds to decide and that looks much like a real firearm
Actually, the debate among here is that the police made the RIGHT choice and that the 12 yo made the WRONG choice.
In another words, the police made a tragic, right choice of action.
So shooting kids with toy guns on sight is a right thing to do?
That is rubbish. If the officer had made the right choice, no one would have been killed. The right choice in this scenario would have been for the cop to react calm and patiently, rather than to charge in guns blazing.
Easy to say when you don't have to make a snap decision when someone pulls out a gun. It's not a film, guns kill. In the UK you might have more reason to suspect a replica, but guns are common place in the US and easy to acquire. It's not that unreasonable to assume they are the real thing.. I completely understand police who don't want to gamble with leaving their wife a widow when someone pulls a gun.
He was a kid and didn't deserve to die. But nor did the cops, and that's what they're thinking when someone draws a weapon. It's unfortunate, but what do you expect if you pull out a replica gun in front of armed police. I don't see the need to point fingers here. The kid was dumb and the consequences serious, sacking or prosecuting people won't change a thing or make any difference in future.
To those who are saying "In two seconds they could have not said put your hands up"
You do realize cop cars have speakers in them right? Allowing for them to drive up while saying "Put your hads up"
jhe90 wrote: From page one, the gun looks very real, no obvious markings to show its a fake, no orange tip, no bright colours, separate magazine.
The police may have made wrong choice but they had seconds to decide and that looks much like a real firearm
Actually, the debate among here is that the police made the RIGHT choice and that the 12 yo made the WRONG choice.
In another words, the police made a tragic, right choice of action.
So shooting kids with toy guns on sight is a right thing to do?
That is rubbish. If the officer had made the right choice, no one would have been killed. The right choice in this scenario would have been for the cop to react calm and patiently, rather than to charge in guns blazing.
Easy to say when you don't have to make a snap decision when someone pulls a gun. It's not a film, guns kill. In the UK you might have more reason to suspect a replica, but guns are common place in the US and easy to acquire. It's not that unreasonable to assume they are the real thing.. I completely understand police who don't want to gamble with leaving their wife a widow when someone pulls a gun.
He was a kid and didn't deserv to die. But not did the cops, and that's what they're thinking when someone p"draws a weapon. It's unfortunate, but what do you expect if you pull out a replica gun in front of armed police. I don't see the need to point fingers here. The kid was dumb and the consequences serious, sacking or prosecuting people won't change a thing or make any difference in future.
I dunno.
For the kid, absolutely not.
For the police? Maybe.
I'll be right up front and say I don't like police. A lot of them that I've dealt with are the uber macho, I'm-in-uniform-and-I'm-in-charge-MoFo! type of people. Could be just my area, but whatever.
On one hand, I can understand and even agree with shooting the kid; Ignorance/pretend means that the kid is probably more dangerous than a 20 something with a gun, simply because (Hopefully) the 20 something knows what it can do. Yes, the cop shouldn't have left it up to chance and no, he shouldn't have risked making his wife a widow (If he has one. Point stands either way).
On the other...... Shouldn't the police figure out some way to prevent this kinda gak? Like a mini Riot Shield or something to protect themselves in cases like these? A riot buckler would've allowed them to get closer to the kid to taze (While not exactly healthy, better to be not-exactly-healthy than dead.) him.
I mean, as much as I hate the Po-Po, and they are kinda necessary to civilization, but I'm not sure I see the reason for them to go in guns blazing. That's the Swat Team's job.
All I'm saying, is they need to stop with the shootings if they want to be seen with any sort of positive light, and persecuting the people responsible is kinda the easiest way to do it. Not the best, but the easiest.
hotsauceman1 wrote: To those who are saying "In two seconds they could have not said put your hands up" You do realize cop cars have speakers in them right? Allowing for them to drive up while saying "Put your hads up"
And of course the kid would have known 100% that the police were directing that at him rather than someone else?
After all, whenever any car drives past a public park and someone shouts something we know exactly who they're shouting at.
Don't think the cruiser was equip with speaker system. Though a I read somewhere that LEO's yelled three times "hands up" before the kid got opted up for making the wrong move
jhe90 wrote: From page one, the gun looks very real, no obvious markings to show its a fake, no orange tip, no bright colours, separate magazine.
The police may have made wrong choice but they had seconds to decide and that looks much like a real firearm
Actually, the debate among here is that the police made the RIGHT choice and that the 12 yo made the WRONG choice.
In another words, the police made a tragic, right choice of action.
So shooting kids with toy guns on sight is a right thing to do?
That is rubbish. If the officer had made the right choice, no one would have been killed. The right choice in this scenario would have been for the cop to react calm and patiently, rather than to charge in guns blazing.
Easy to say when you don't have to make a snap decision when someone pulls out a gun. It's not a film, guns kill. In the UK you might have more reason to suspect a replica, but guns are common place in the US and easy to acquire. It's not that unreasonable to assume they are the real thing.. I completely understand police who don't want to gamble with leaving their wife a widow when someone pulls a gun.
They should have waited to see what the kid was going to do with the gun he pulled out. He might have probably and tried to put the gun on the ground or throw it away. In my opinion, the police should never be the agressors, they should never fire unless fired upon. Agression begets agression. The police charging in like that was just begging for someone to get killed.
He was a kid and didn't deserve to die. But nor did the cops, and that's what they're thinking when someone draws a weapon. It's unfortunate, but what do you expect if you pull out a replica gun in front of armed police. I don't see the need to point fingers here. The kid was dumb and the consequences serious, sacking or prosecuting people won't change a thing or make any difference in future.
Being shot and killed is one of the risks you are supposed to accept when becoming a police officer. A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second.
If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.
Iron_Captain wrote: A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second.
If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.
Protecting others becomes much more difficult if you allow yourself to be shot.
Iron_Captain wrote: A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second. If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.
Protecting others becomes much more difficult if you allow yourself to be shot.
It is even harder when you are the one shooting those you are supposed to protect.
Yes, with hindsight things are always easy. The police officer did not have this benefit of course, and that makes his decision more understandable. It does not make it any less wrong however.
Iron_Captain wrote: A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second.
If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.
Protecting others becomes much more difficult if you allow yourself to be shot.
It is even harder when you are the one shooting those you are supposed to protect
It's also difficult when you look the other way when vigilante groups(often including members of the police force) beat the ever living crap out of the "people you're supposed to be protecting"; but I don't see you whining about the Russian police.
So very kindly?
Stop posting. You have NO CLUE whatsoever of what you're talking about, and quite frankly the ignorance you display in posting in topics regarding the United States and policies here is downright pathetic and makes me pity you.
Iron_Captain wrote: A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second.
If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.
Protecting others becomes much more difficult if you allow yourself to be shot.
It is even harder when you are the one shooting those you are supposed to protect
When someone tries to draw a gun on a police officer, the priority of who the police are supposed to be protecting shifts extremely rapidly.
Iron_Captain wrote: A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second. If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.
Protecting others becomes much more difficult if you allow yourself to be shot.
It is even harder when you are the one shooting those you are supposed to protect
It's also difficult when you look the other way when vigilante groups(often including members of the police force) beat the ever living crap out of the "people you're supposed to be protecting"; but I don't see you whining about the Russian police.
Psienesis wrote: The police of the United States are not, in the main, deserving of respect. They are little more than jack-booted thugs.
Obviously you have never encountered the Russian police. American police only murder innocent people. Russian police will frame, rob, imprison, torture and only then murder innocent people. Then they will get started on robbing their family. And if you are a f̶a̶s̶c̶i̶s̶t̶ ̶s̶p̶y̶ foreigner, things will be even worse. Cossacks are much friendlier. They will only burn down your house after they have whipped you into coma.
Clearly you did not look good enough. Russian police is even worse than American police. Nonetheless, "but Russian police is even worse" is no excuse for the violence employed by American police. I think we should all learn from Dutch police.
Kanluwen wrote: Stop posting. You have NO CLUE whatsoever of what you're talking about, and quite frankly the ignorance you display in posting in topics regarding the United States and policies here is downright pathetic and makes me pity you.
So now you know how it feels when ignorant foreigners come in and start posting about things involving your country they have absolutely no clue about. Happy I could return the favour.
Iron_Captain wrote: A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second. If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.
Protecting others becomes much more difficult if you allow yourself to be shot.
It is even harder when you are the one shooting those you are supposed to protect
When someone tries to draw a gun on a police officer, the priority of who the police are supposed to be protecting shifts extremely rapidly.
You only post things critical of Russia whenever someone else calls you on it prior. And even then, you only do it whenever someone is already saying something critical of the United States.
You have a pattern of doing such things. It completely invalidates ANY kind of "high ground" that you have here.
Hordini wrote: When someone tries to draw a gun on a police officer, the priority of who the police are supposed to be protecting shifts extremely rapidly.
But why did he draw the gun?
It's hard to say, and not particularly relevant at this point. If the police are giving you lawful commands and you choose to do something else, the consequences are on you.
Iron_Captain wrote: They should have waited to see what the kid was going to do with the gun he pulled out.
I thought this was the most ridiculous thing I'd read on dakka in a while until I read this:
A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second.
If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.
Iron_Captain wrote: They should have waited to see what the kid was going to do with the gun he pulled out.
Sorry, but that's just pants on head stupid right there. It seriously doesn't matter what the intentions of the kid were. We have allegations that the police told him repeatedly to put his hands up, instead he went for a gun, instead of complying with orders.
I agree with the second paragraph of your post though... It's a gakky situation foe everyone. The kid, by no means deserved to die, and there are so many "what ifs" that could have prevented this, but the one thing that remains blatantly true: do not pull any sort of weapon, toy or not when police are telling you to do something, or are already in an agitated state.
Iron_Captain wrote: They should have waited to see what the kid was going to do with the gun he pulled out.
I thought this was the most ridiculous thing I'd read on dakka in a while until I read this:
A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second.
If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.
That really takes the cake.
Mark the day, Me and Cincy agree.
I mean.......How do you knnow the gun is fake? Take the criminals word for it? A cop has a split second to decide not only for his life, but those around him. Imagine this scenarios
Cop rolls up, tells the kid to put his hands up,Kid pulls out a gun. The cop sees its a kid and thinks it is fake. Until the kid fires, and misses because he sucks at aiming. The shot goes into a nearby newborns skull. The only defense the cop has is "I thought it might have been a fake"
Iron_Captain wrote: Being shot and killed is one of the risks you are supposed to accept when becoming a police officer. A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second.
If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.
I thought bout this a little after about the third or so shooting and I did come up with about the same conclusion. If given the choice, I would rather a police officer be hot then a innocent person be shot. No option is a good option mind you, but when you become a officer, you understand there is a risk and you accept that risk. You don't accept the same risk when you walk down the street, or you at the least shouldn't have to accept that risk.
Iron_Captain wrote: Being shot and killed is one of the risks you are supposed to accept when becoming a police officer. A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second.
If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.
I thought bout this a little after about the third or so shooting and I did come up with about the same conclusion. If given the choice, I would rather a police officer be hot then a innocent person be shot. No option is a good option mind you, but when you become a officer, you understand there is a risk and you accept that risk. You don't accept the same risk when you walk down the street, or you at the least shouldn't have to accept that risk.
Again, the officer puts more lives in danger by not acting, look at my scenario above. Or if the coo is alone, shot because he hesitated the shooter may now at large to kill more
You could argue back in forth about what the officer should have done but at least to me it seems to that at the time for the officer it was the no win situation for him. He could have waited risking his own life by not shooting which you could say is the thing he should have done as an officer of the law but you've got to remember he is a human like everyone else he has self preservation like everyone else and he probably has people he loves as will that he wants to be with. Or he could shoot which is what he did because he did not no if the gun was real or not and he had to make a decision. Again to me it seems like the no win situation.
Iron_Captain wrote: Being shot and killed is one of the risks you are supposed to accept when becoming a police officer. A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second.
If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.
I thought bout this a little after about the third or so shooting and I did come up with about the same conclusion. If given the choice, I would rather a police officer be hot then a innocent person be shot. No option is a good option mind you, but when you become a officer, you understand there is a risk and you accept that risk. You don't accept the same risk when you walk down the street, or you at the least shouldn't have to accept that risk.
Again, the officer puts more lives in danger by not acting, look at my scenario above. Or if the (officer) is alone, shot because he hesitated the shooter may now at large to kill more
First I just have to point out that the word cop is kind of a slander.
I did see your examples and they don't really conflict with my own. Your examples add extra bits on top of my own pondering. Your not going to get a perfect innocent Vs officer type scenario in real life.
1. Drive up, see kid waving around a gun that might be real. He has not shot someone yet so he is probably not on a killing spree. As long as he does not seem like he intends to shoot someone but rather just waving around the gun, do not shoot him just yet. If the danger actually looks critical and he looks like he is about to fire on someone, tase him (US police has tasers, right?) Otherwise, shout to him to put down the gun throughout.
2. Take cover (such as behind the police car.) Continue telling him to put down the gun. If he refuses, fire a warning shot (and be careful not to hit someone).
2. Take cover (such as behind the police car.) Continue telling him to put down the gun. If he refuses, fire a warning shot (and be careful not to hit someone).
.
Shoot to kill, Warning shots are a fabrication. you have no idea where that shot may go who it will hit.
2. Take cover (such as behind the police car.) Continue telling him to put down the gun. If he refuses, fire a warning shot (and be careful not to hit someone).
.
Shoot to kill, Warning shots are a fabrication. you have no idea where that shot may go who it will hit.
Hm, true. A shame, it would otherwise be a pretty good way to tell him it's serious.
Tazers have limited range and not all LEOs are even equipped with them.
Not only that, but tazing a subject with a firearm in hand is incredibly dangerous. Tazers can cause the muscles in the hand to contract and inadvertently fire of a round or three.
Another fun fact, if he had his finger on a trigger, tazing could make it worse, muscles lock up when voltage goes threw the boy again, the gun could go off in bad directions.
But surely risking that is better than to just kill him?
I don't know about the range, though, as I don't know what the range was in the actual case - but they had a car so surely that should not be a big deal unless it was less than 10m.
At this point I am just arguing what ifs though, which is unlikely to lead anywhere useful.
Ashiraya wrote: But surely risking that is better than to just kill him?
I don't know about the range, though, as I don't know what the range was in the actual case - but they had a car so surely that should not be a big deal unless it was less than 10m.
At this point I am just arguing what ifs though, which is unlikely to lead anywhere useful.
The Risk in other actually innocent bystanders is worth the death of a suspect when said suspect (ignore the hind site is not fair to use) is armed dangerous and not complaint.
jhe90 wrote: From page one, the gun looks very real, no obvious markings to show its a fake, no orange tip, no bright colours, separate magazine.
The police may have made wrong choice but they had seconds to decide and that looks much like a real firearm
Actually, the debate among here is that the police made the RIGHT choice and that the 12 yo made the WRONG choice.
In another words, the police made a tragic, right choice of action.
So shooting kids with toy guns on sight is a right thing to do?
That is rubbish. If the officer had made the right choice, no one would have been killed. The right choice in this scenario would have been for the cop to react calm and patiently, rather than to charge in guns blazing.
Easy to say when you don't have to make a snap decision when someone pulls out a gun. It's not a film, guns kill. In the UK you might have more reason to suspect a replica, but guns are common place in the US and easy to acquire. It's not that unreasonable to assume they are the real thing.. I completely understand police who don't want to gamble with leaving their wife a widow when someone pulls a gun.
They should have waited to see what the kid was going to do with the gun he pulled out. He might have probably and tried to put the gun on the ground or throw it away. In my opinion, the police should never be the agressors, they should never fire unless fired upon. Agression begets agression. The police charging in like that was just begging for someone to get killed.
He was a kid and didn't deserve to die. But nor did the cops, and that's what they're thinking when someone draws a weapon. It's unfortunate, but what do you expect if you pull out a replica gun in front of armed police. I don't see the need to point fingers here. The kid was dumb and the consequences serious, sacking or prosecuting people won't change a thing or make any difference in future.
Being shot and killed is one of the risks you are supposed to accept when becoming a police officer. A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second.
If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.
You never wait if someone has a gun. The fact that he's twelve is irrelevant. The pulling out of a gun is a threat. And in this situation, the result is to neutralise the threat. And as it has been pointed out, police are trained for center mass.
You say a good police officer would let himself get shot. What if he did, and the child killed others? You are viewing this scenario with a, frankly, brazen disregard for the safety of the public. If someone pulls out a gun, you don't say, "Oh. He might not shoot people with that." And I say that having grown up in Hackney, where children start carrying knives at the age of eleven. But I guess you'll say that if they pull out a knife, you should wait until they stab someone.
It must be difficult for the police. Being shot in the line of duty is probably a constant worry for them, and for their families. They have to be aware of potential for danger all the time, and they are no doubt reminded of it regularly, either through their training, or through bad experiences, and hearing about colleagues getting killed or injured. Psychologically speaking, that would be enough to make anyone a bit paranoid. It's no wonder they are jumpy.
In this particular case it doesn't sound like there was much else the police could have done (or done differently). They didn't know the kid was 12, he could have been a young looking 15 or 16 easily enough, and even if they had known, he was being threatening with a gun. They responded exactly how they are trained to respond in exactly that situation.
I suppose I couldn't let this pass though without commenting on "gun culture". One of the problems of having so many guns in society is that situations are able to escalate quickly. Citizens are paranoid, the police are paranoid etc... Thing like this are inevitable.
In the UK the police don't usually carry guns, and they know that replica guns are actually far more common than real ones. I'm not saying it couldn't happen here, as there have been cases where unarmed people were shot by police -- if an armed response unit is called out, you're pretty much getting shot whether you're being threatening or not -- but it's much less common. I think the kid's chances would have been a lot better over here.
You say a good police officer would let himself get shot. What if he did, and the child killed others? You are viewing this scenario with a, frankly, brazen disregard for the safety of the public. If someone pulls out a gun, you don't say, "Oh. He might not shoot people with that." And I say that having grown up in Hackney, where children start carrying knives at the age of eleven. But I guess you'll say that if they pull out a knife, you should wait until they stab someone.
In this case, the boy couldn't have shot others because they didn't have a real gun. It's not always clear if someone is a threat. Some times they aren't a actual threat.
You say a good police officer would let himself get shot. What if he did, and the child killed others? You are viewing this scenario with a, frankly, brazen disregard for the safety of the public. If someone pulls out a gun, you don't say, "Oh. He might not shoot people with that." And I say that having grown up in Hackney, where children start carrying knives at the age of eleven. But I guess you'll say that if they pull out a knife, you should wait until they stab someone.
In this case, the boy couldn't have shot others because they didn't have a real gun. It's not always clear if someone is a threat. Some times they aren't a actual threat.
how is it relevant that the child had a fake gun when making the split decision to protect them selves and EVERYONE AROUND HIM when they didnt know it was fake.
You say a good police officer would let himself get shot. What if he did, and the child killed others? You are viewing this scenario with a, frankly, brazen disregard for the safety of the public. If someone pulls out a gun, you don't say, "Oh. He might not shoot people with that." And I say that having grown up in Hackney, where children start carrying knives at the age of eleven. But I guess you'll say that if they pull out a knife, you should wait until they stab someone.
In this case, the boy couldn't have shot others because they didn't have a real gun. It's not always clear if someone is a threat. Some times they aren't a actual threat.
But you dont KNOW, that is the point.
That is actually one of the more depressing parts of this case. People did know it was fake. (or at least strongly suspected it was fake.) Then that information wasn't passed on to the officers.
You say a good police officer would let himself get shot. What if he did, and the child killed others? You are viewing this scenario with a, frankly, brazen disregard for the safety of the public. If someone pulls out a gun, you don't say, "Oh. He might not shoot people with that." And I say that having grown up in Hackney, where children start carrying knives at the age of eleven. But I guess you'll say that if they pull out a knife, you should wait until they stab someone.
In this case, the boy couldn't have shot others because they didn't have a real gun. It's not always clear if someone is a threat. Some times they aren't a actual threat.
Fun fact: If you walk into a bank or any store with a fake gun that looks real, or even if you claim to have a weapon but don't show it, and rob the bank/store you get charged with armed robbery, wether a real gun was present or not, and even if NO gun was present but you claimed to have had one. The sentencing guidelines take into account wether you actually fire a round or not, but the presence or threat of the presence of the gun is enough to get you the charge and if convicted a decent sentence.
That is pretty important to understand. The law treats a toy gun or even the threat of a gun as if that toy or threat were a real gun because that toy or threat puts a real fear into the poor schmuck facing it who has to assume it is real and that they are in danger.
The LEO is not just allowed to, but is supposed to assume the same thing.
You say a good police officer would let himself get shot. What if he did, and the child killed others? You are viewing this scenario with a, frankly, brazen disregard for the safety of the public. If someone pulls out a gun, you don't say, "Oh. He might not shoot people with that." And I say that having grown up in Hackney, where children start carrying knives at the age of eleven. But I guess you'll say that if they pull out a knife, you should wait until they stab someone.
In this case, the boy couldn't have shot others because they didn't have a real gun. It's not always clear if someone is a threat. Some times they aren't a actual threat.
But you dont KNOW, that is the point.
That is actually one of the more depressing parts of this case. People did know it was fake. (or at least strongly suspected it was fake.) Then that information wasn't passed on to the officers.
The 911 caller did not 'strongly suspect' it was fake, you can see him bug out pretty quickly and he was worried enough that he called 911. In other words, his suspicions on how fake the threat was were not strong enough for him to risk his ass. That should say something to you.
You say a good police officer would let himself get shot. What if he did, and the child killed others? You are viewing this scenario with a, frankly, brazen disregard for the safety of the public. If someone pulls out a gun, you don't say, "Oh. He might not shoot people with that." And I say that having grown up in Hackney, where children start carrying knives at the age of eleven. But I guess you'll say that if they pull out a knife, you should wait until they stab someone.
In this case, the boy couldn't have shot others because they didn't have a real gun. It's not always clear if someone is a threat. Some times they aren't a actual threat.
But you dont KNOW, that is the point.
That is actually one of the more depressing parts of this case. People did know it was fake. (or at least strongly suspected it was fake.) Then that information wasn't passed on to the officers.
No. The 911 caller said "It might be fake", which doesn't mean anything. You ALWAYS treat a gun as real until proven fake. A 911 caller who himself doesn't know one way or the other is about as far from proof you can get.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Another fun fact, if he had his finger on a trigger, tazing could make it worse, muscles lock up when voltage goes threw the boy again, the gun could go off in bad directions.
He didn't have his finger on the trigger in this case, though, did he?
The gun was in his pants until police officers charged in pointing their guns at him.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Another fun fact, if he had his finger on a trigger, tazing could make it worse, muscles lock up when voltage goes threw the boy again, the gun could go off in bad directions.
He didn't have his finger on the trigger in this case, though, did he?
The gun was in his pants until police officers charged in pointing their guns at him.
So is it now your position they should have immediately tazed the kid before he grabbed the gun?
That would have gotten them fired and the city involved in a lawsuit.
Once he grabbed the gun, unless you have some evidence I have not seen, we don't know if his finger was on the trigger or not, do we?
CptJake wrote: So is it now your position they should have immediately tazed the kid before he grabbed the gun?
No. That was just a response to the suggestion that a tazer would have been a bad idea against someone with a gun in their hand.
My position is the same as it's been from the start - That police bungled this by running in with guns drawn, when a more cautious approach might have been able to defuse the situation without anyone getting shot.
CptJake wrote: So is it now your position they should have immediately tazed the kid before he grabbed the gun?
No. That was just a response to the suggestion that a tazer would have been a bad idea against someone with a gun in their hand.
My position is the same as it's been from the start - That police bungled this by running in with guns drawn, when a more cautious approach might have been able to defuse the situation without anyone getting shot.
But at least you are willing to admit that when you stated the following you were being less than honest:
He didn't have his finger on the trigger in this case, though, did he?
You actually have no clue if he did have his finger on the trigger when he grabbed the gun, right?
And frankly, it doesn't make much of a difference, the act of grabbing the gun at all was got him shot.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Another fun fact, if he had his finger on a trigger, tazing could make it worse, muscles lock up when voltage goes threw the boy again, the gun could go off in bad directions.
He didn't have his finger on the trigger in this case, though, did he?
The gun was in his pants until police officers charged in pointing their guns at him.
Here's how reality works. Police are allowed to point guns. You aren't.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Another fun fact, if he had his finger on a trigger, tazing could make it worse, muscles lock up when voltage goes threw the boy again, the gun could go off in bad directions.
He didn't have his finger on the trigger in this case, though, did he?
The gun was in his pants until police officers charged in pointing their guns at him.
Here's how reality works. Police are allowed to point guns. You aren't.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Another fun fact, if he had his finger on a trigger, tazing could make it worse, muscles lock up when voltage goes threw the boy again, the gun could go off in bad directions.
He didn't have his finger on the trigger in this case, though, did he?
The gun was in his pants until police officers charged in pointing their guns at him.
Here's how reality works. Police are allowed to point guns. You aren't.
Repression and despotism!
Witness the violence present in the system! Help help! I'm being repressed!
My position is the same as it's been from the start - That police bungled this by running in with guns drawn, when a more cautious approach might have been able to defuse the situation without anyone getting shot.
The kid following instructions from the police officer would have also certainly defused the situation without anyone getting shot.
I'm pretty tired of people blaming the cops in situations like these. How about we start blaming parents that don't teach their children to have respect for authority figures?
My position is the same as it's been from the start - That police bungled this by running in with guns drawn, when a more cautious approach might have been able to defuse the situation without anyone getting shot.
The kid following instructions from the police officer would have also certainly defused the situation without anyone getting shot.
I'm pretty tired of people blaming the cops in situations like these. How about we start blaming parents that don't teach their children to have respect for authority figures?
Parents are not agents of the state.
Parents are not bought and paid for with our taxes.
Parents are not obligated to be acting in the public's best interest.
Parents are not bound to any procedures & practices developed with the intention of being for our benefit.
Cops are. When something tragic happens and police are involved it is only right and reasonable for the scrutiny to first be placed on the police. That's what scares me here. Not that the prospect that shooting kid might have been the right call, but that so many assume out of the gate that it must have been.
With little more than overview from an article so many are eager to passionately defend the position that the police are 100% in the right, the parents and kid are 100% to blame and there exists no space for the possibility even the smallest error may have been made on the part of the officers. No investigations, no reports, no expert analysis, no questioning. The state killed a citizen, a child, and only the most preliminary description of the circumstances is sufficient to wholly preclude even the smallest fraction of blame on their part.
This kind of doubtless faith is rarely even afford to gods.
This was a split second decision facing a person actively waving a real looking gun around, after the police told him not to, with guns pointed.
I see no reason why the police officer should put the targets life above his own. Too many ways he could have been shot.
Every stupid option from warning shots to wounding shots, to 'giving the kid a break', to approaching him, to simply waiting and seeing what happens next could have resulted in him/her taking a hit, or several.
And no different if the gun wielder is a child. Children can be killers too. If the child is desensitised to gun crime they are more likely to pull the trigger not less, as children and teens are not mature enough to consider consequences the same way and degree as adults..
One thing I have been wondering about... Would this have happened 100 years ago?
If we put racial issues to one side, and imagine it was a white kid, 12 years old, out playing with a 'toy' gun in 1914. Would the police have even batted an eyelid? Would they have perhaps known the kids name and where he lived and who his family was? Given him a 'clip round the ear'. I known it's just speculation, but I find it interesting. Even though I can't fault the logic of how the police responded, it does seem like a rather automated and impersonal response, which ultimately turned out to be wrong. It seems more distressing because the human element that might have caught the mistake was missing. Is this something that we have lost over time? Along with things like community?
Smacks wrote: One thing I have been wondering about... Would this have happened 100 years ago?
If we put racial issues to one side, and imagine it was a white kid, 12 years old, out playing with a 'toy' gun in 1914. Would the police have even batted an eyelid? Would they have perhaps known the kids name and where he lived and who his family was? Given him a 'clip round the ear'. I known it's just speculation, but I find it interesting. Even though I can't fault the logic of how the police responded, it does seem like a rather automated and impersonal response, which ultimately turned out to be wrong. It seems more distressing because the human element that might have caught the mistake was missing. Is this something that we have lost over time? Along with things like community?
1914 was even more despot then now. It's likely the Pinkerton agents would have killed him and not bat an eyelash
Smacks wrote: One thing I have been wondering about... Would this have happened 100 years ago?
If we put racial issues to one side, and imagine it was a white kid, 12 years old, out playing with a 'toy' gun in 1914. Would the police have even batted an eyelid? Would they have perhaps known the kids name and where he lived and who his family was? Given him a 'clip round the ear'. I known it's just speculation, but I find it interesting. Even though I can't fault the logic of how the police responded, it does seem like a rather automated and impersonal response, which ultimately turned out to be wrong. It seems more distressing because the human element that might have caught the mistake was missing. Is this something that we have lost over time? Along with things like community?
1914 was even more despot then now. It's likely the Pinkerton agents would have killed him and not bat an eyelash
I really doubt that. I doubt that this would even play out the same in different part of the country. Around where I live, we have a lot of people with guns. They even point them and wave them around without getting shot.
I really doubt that. I doubt that this would even play out the same in different part of the country. Around where I live, we have a lot of people with guns. They even point them and wave them around without getting shot.
Where are you so i can completely avoid where ever you are.
I really doubt that. I doubt that this would even play out the same in different part of the country. Around where I live, we have a lot of people with guns. They even point them and wave them around without getting shot.
Where are you so i can completely avoid where ever you are.
Northern Michigan. I recall when people use to bring their rifles to school during hunting season.
Smacks wrote: One thing I have been wondering about... Would this have happened 100 years ago?
If we put racial issues to one side, and imagine it was a white kid, 12 years old, out playing with a 'toy' gun in 1914. Would the police have even batted an eyelid? Would they have perhaps known the kids name and where he lived and who his family was? Given him a 'clip round the ear'. I known it's just speculation, but I find it interesting. Even though I can't fault the logic of how the police responded, it does seem like a rather automated and impersonal response, which ultimately turned out to be wrong. It seems more distressing because the human element that might have caught the mistake was missing. Is this something that we have lost over time? Along with things like community?
His body would have just been found.
Thats not correct. He would be working about 70 hours a week at 12.
Frazzled wrote: Here's how reality works. Police are allowed to point guns. You aren't.
Sure, they're 'allowed' to point guns. That doesn't mean it's automatically the best solution to a given situation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: I'm pretty tired of people blaming the cops in situations like these.
If the cops hadn't shot a 12 year old boy armed with a toy gun, I wouldn't be blaming them for shooting a 12 year old boy armed with a toy gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smacks wrote: If we put racial issues to one side, and imagine it was a white kid, 12 years old, out playing with a 'toy' gun in 1914. Would the police have even batted an eyelid? Would they have perhaps known the kids name and where he lived and who his family was? Given him a 'clip round the ear'. I known it's just speculation, but I find it interesting. Even though I can't fault the logic of how the police responded, it does seem like a rather automated and impersonal response, which ultimately turned out to be wrong. It seems more distressing because the human element that might have caught the mistake was missing. Is this something that we have lost over time? Along with things like community?
This pretty much sums up a lot of my issue with this situation. It's ridiculous that the first response in this case was to charge in with guns drawn. It's not just the sense of community that's missing here... it's any sense of perspective.
Protecting others becomes much more difficult if you allow yourself to be shot.
Cops should be held to a higher moral standard. Giving up their lives is something that they should be prepared to do. Otherwise they don't deserve authority.
Protecting others becomes much more difficult if you allow yourself to be shot.
Cops should be held to a higher moral standard. Giving up their lives is something that they should be prepared to do. Otherwise they don't deserve authority.
But should they be prepared to sacrifice others lives to save the suspect?
Cops should be held to a higher moral standard. Giving up their lives is something that they should be prepared to do. Otherwise they don't deserve authority.
What makes allowing yourself to be shot at a "higher moral standard?"
Again, kid listens to cops, no one gets shot.
I mean, they seem to have figured out this hands up thing in Missouri......
No. I didn't. You assumed thats what I meant do not attribute it to me please!
Thank you.
It is not fine to shoot anyone, no matter what you look like, unless you are covered in blood and wielding a knife and you are not a chief or work with blood on a regular basis.
No. I didn't. You assumed thats what I meant do not attribute it to me please!
Thank you.
It is not fine to shoot anyone, no matter what you look like, unless you are covered in blood and wielding a knife and you are not a chief or work with blood on a regular basis.
What if said blood covered knife wielder drops his weapon when prompted?
No. I didn't. You assumed thats what I meant do not attribute it to me please!
Thank you.
It is not fine to shoot anyone, no matter what you look like, unless you are covered in blood and wielding a knife and you are not a chief or work with blood on a regular basis.
What if said blood covered knife wielder drops his weapon when prompted?
I mean, that's the ACTUAL issue here.
Thats fine. How many times has someone mid slaughter stopped? If someone like a serial killer is being chased and they know it they are most likely not going to get caught, but get shot and killed by an officer.
Which is undoubtedly sad.
Everyone should have their fair chance to go to court, not get shot by an officer.
If cops don't shoot anyone, no one gets shot by cops. You talk about them like they're some elemental force of nature or some kind of robot that responds strictly to input along rigid guidelines. A cop should always be prepared to risk their life making sure that someone is actually dangerous before force is authorised.
Wait....the "weapon" was in the kid hand you say? I thought he was reaching for it..the weapon
Yes, that's the point.
The 'weapon' was supposedly tucked into his pants. Cops charged in with guns out, shouting at him to raise his hands, he seemed to be reaching for the gun, and so they shot him.
We'll never know if he was intending to grab it to point it at the cops (although that seems unlikely) or to throw it away (which seems more likely)... The cops didn't wait to find out.
Wait....the "weapon" was in the kid hand you say? I thought he was reaching for it..the weapon
Yes, that's the point.
The 'weapon' was supposedly tucked into his pants. Cops charged in with guns out, shouting at him to raise his hands, he seemed to be reaching for the gun, and so they shot him.
We'll never know if he was intending to grab it to point it at the cops (although that seems unlikely) or to throw it away (which seems more likely)... The cops didn't wait to find out.
Why do you think its "most likely" he was reaching to throw it away?
If he was in a compliant mood, he would have obeyed police orders to raise his hands. If he was in a belligerent mood, he would reach for the gun.
You don't disobey people you are trying to cooperate with.
Wait....the "weapon" was in the kid hand you say? I thought he was reaching for it..the weapon
Yes, that's the point.
The 'weapon' was supposedly tucked into his pants. Cops charged in with guns out, shouting at him to raise his hands, he seemed to be reaching for the gun, and so they shot him.
We'll never know if he was intending to grab it to point it at the cops (although that seems unlikely) or to throw it away (which seems more likely)... The cops didn't wait to find out.
Grey Templar wrote: Why do you think its "most likely" he was reaching to throw it away?
Because it wasn't a real gun. So the chances that he was preparing to shoot at police with it are slim.
Note: to avoid a repeat of the silliness from earlier in the thread, no, I'm not saying that the cops should have read his mind and known that it wasn't a real gun. What I'm saying is that throwing it away is most likely what he was trying to do.
If the cops had waited to determine what he was trying to do, given that they already had guns trained on him, they still could have shot him when it became apparent he was trying to point it at them... but if it had turned out that he was just trying to ditch it, he'd still be alive.
If he was in a compliant mood, he would have obeyed police orders to raise his hands. If he was in a belligerent mood, he would reach for the gun.
And if he was a 12 year old in a panic because there are suddenly police officers pointing guns at him and shouting at him, he may well have just tried to get rid of the 'gun' on instinct.
You don't disobey people you are trying to cooperate with.
Once you enter 'flight or fight' mode (because, say, you have cops pointing guns at you, and you're, say, 12) pretty much anything goes. I very much doubt he was thinking straight at the time, and it's entirely possible that he didn't actually comprehend what was being shouted at him.
We don't need to be mind readers, we have the advantage of hindsight and knowing that the gun wasn't real. Regardless of why he was reaching for the gun, we can say with 100% certainty that he wasn't going to use it to kill a cop, because that was never a possibility.
Jihadin wrote: Then we need to de-trained and re-train every LEO/Military personnel then to take a chance of getting shot first thereby authorizing Deadly Force
Or anyone else near by
which everyone seems to still ignore.
There many reasons not to wait. MANY that include other actually innocent civs.
While we are at it can we train all civilians to actually listen to and follow orders from the authority so we dont get into these messes? seems no one wants to suggest such a ting.
While we are at it can we train all civilians to actually listen to and follow orders from the authority so we dont get into these messes? seems no one wants to suggest such a ting.
If you can come up with a way to train kids to behave rationally when they're scared, make sure you patent that gak.
Jihadin wrote: Then we need to de-trained and re-train every LEO/Military personnel then to take a chance of getting shot first thereby authorizing Deadly Force
Pretty much, yes.
Because, frankly, if police officers aren't trained to be able to make these sorts of split second decisions correctly, but are allowed to carry guns anyway, then that's pretty damn frightening.
Jihadin wrote: Then we need to de-trained and re-train every LEO/Military personnel then to take a chance of getting shot first thereby authorizing Deadly Force
Pretty much, yes.
Because, frankly, if police officers aren't trained to be able to make these sorts of split second decisions correctly, but are allowed to carry guns anyway, then that's pretty damn frightening.
The only thing that was "incorrect" about their decision making was that it wasn't a real firearm.
Rather, it was as close an approximation as one can get.
Presumably had this kid been practicing #HandsUpDontShoot he'd be alive.
Jihadin wrote: Then we need to de-trained and re-train every LEO/Military personnel then to take a chance of getting shot first thereby authorizing Deadly Force
Pretty much, yes.
Because, frankly, if police officers aren't trained to be able to make these sorts of split second decisions correctly, but are allowed to carry guns anyway, then that's pretty damn frightening.
Im pretty sure the split second decision was the right decision considering the fact that all he could of possibly know at the time was
A) Suspect is armed and dangerous
B) Suspect is a Juvenile (which can range up to 18ish area)
C) He when told to put his hands up went for the fethin gun
Waiting to get shot is fethin rediculus in pretty much any situation when bystander can possibility be involved.
Waiting to get shot is fethin rediculus in pretty much any situation when bystander can possibility be involved.
I didn't say they should have waited to get shot. I said they should have waited to see what he was actually doing.
Again, reaching for a gun is not the same as pointing a gun at someone.
The problem is that it literally takes about 3 seconds to pull the gun and bring it to bear from your waist, and that's being generous. If it's a real gun there's plenty of likelyhood that one of the cops gets shot.
It's precisely why LEOs and the Military are trained to shoot if you appear to be going for a weapon.
Waiting to get shot is fethin rediculus in pretty much any situation when bystander can possibility be involved.
I didn't say they should have waited to get shot. I said they should have waited to see what he was actually doing.
Again, reaching for a gun is not the same as pointing a gun at someone.
The problem is that it literally takes about 3 seconds to pull the gun and bring it to bear from your waist, and that's being generous. If it's a real gun there's plenty of likelyhood that one of the cops gets shot.
It's precisely why LEOs and the Military are trained to shoot if you appear to be going for a weapon.
Dont forget its not even just the cops.
Its possible anyone within the vicinity could of been shot by mistake.
No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that if there is more than one thing that someone could have been doing, then claiming that there is only one thing that he could possibly have been doing is demonstrably false.
The problem is that it literally takes about 3 seconds to pull the gun and bring it to bear from your waist, and that's being generous. If it's a real gun there's plenty of likelyhood that one of the cops gets shot.
No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that if there is more than one thing that someone could have been doing, then claiming that there is only one thing that he could possibly have been doing is demonstrably false.
Except that, IN THAT SITUATION, the officers, under no circumstances can treat the "firearm" as a toy. They MUST treat it as though it were a real, 9mm Glock, or whatever the hell the toy was modelled after. The 911 call even told them "there's a kid waving what looks to be a gun around, in the park" the ", but it might be a toy." can NEVER be taken as gospel truth by the people responding to the call, because there is a chance, however small or large, that it isn't a toy gun, and is actually a real one.
The problem is that it literally takes about 3 seconds to pull the gun and bring it to bear from your waist, and that's being generous. If it's a real gun there's plenty of likelyhood that one of the cops gets shot.
Killing a 12 year old, who (in hindsight) wasn't a danger to anyone, is not an ideal outcome. I think that is something that everyone can agree on. The ideal outcome would have involved the kid surviving and tragedy averted.
The argument really hinges on whether the police could have done anything differently. It is important to ask that question, because the answer might be instructive in averting a future tragedy. A lot of people seem to think that the police did what they were supposed to do, and yet the outcome was still sub-optimal. This would imply it was a no win situation.
I would agree that by the time police are yelling "freeze" and the kid is reaching for the gun, the situation was already lost. But I think insaniak has a point regarding how it all developed. There was some suggestion prior to the incident that the gun might be fake. So riding up guns drawn like this kid was public enemy #1 may not have been what the situation required.
Smacks wrote: There was some suggestion prior to the incident that the gun might be fake.
And the fact that he didn't actually have the gun out and waving about when the police arrived. And was a kid.
So this:
So riding up guns drawn like this kid was public enemy #1 may not have been what the situation required.
A person who is reported to be brandishing a gun should ALWAYS be treated like they might start shooting. Its the only proper response to ensure as few people get hurt as possible.
Frankly, any assertions to the contrary are brain dead slowed. They show no regard for public safety or the safety of the officers.
Desubot wrote: So Run by me exactly what you think would of been better?
and of those how many people would of been in possible danger? (No hindsight or mind reading allowed)
I don't know what could have been better, but I'm not going to criticize someone for asking the question. It doesn't look like anyone was in any immediate danger. The kid seems to be in a fairly deserted park messing about. Then the police roll right up within about three feet of him and drop him before the car has even stopped moving.
Smacks wrote: There was some suggestion prior to the incident that the gun might be fake.
And the fact that he didn't actually have the gun out and waving about when the police arrived. And was a kid.
So this:
So riding up guns drawn like this kid was public enemy #1 may not have been what the situation required.
With no way to confirm what so ever.
You cant treat a potential gun as anything but a gun.
Otherwise lives really are in danger.
and again Still not a "Kid" untill after all was said and done. riding up against a armed suspect with guns drawn would of been the only good option that involved minimal danger to others.
So what would of been better? getting shot?
Edit at smacks: while true we dont know what it looks like behind the police ether. If it was residential or not as well as a street which people driving could of been on.
Grey Templar wrote: A person who is reported to be brandishing a gun should ALWAYS be treated like they might start shooting..
So there's no responsibility on the attending officers to actually assess the situation when they arrive? Someone said 'Here's someone waving a gun around!' so they should just charge up and shoot them?
Grey Templar wrote: A person who is reported to be brandishing a gun should ALWAYS be treated like they might start shooting..
So there's no responsibility on the attending officers to actually assess the situation when they arrive? Someone said 'Here's someone waving a gun around!' so they should just charge up and shoot them?
Well the problem is in training mostly at that point.
I don't know what could have been better, but I'm not going to criticize someone for asking the question. It doesn't look like anyone was in any immediate danger. The kid seems to be in a fairly deserted park messing about. Then the police roll right up within about three feet of him and drop him before the car has even stopped moving.
Grey Templar wrote: A person who is reported to be brandishing a gun should ALWAYS be treated like they might start shooting..
So there's no responsibility on the attending officers to actually assess the situation when they arrive? Someone said 'Here's someone waving a gun around!' so they should just charge up and shoot them?
The assessment is quite obviously "Guy was waving a gun around"
The response is to do exactly what they did. Tell him to put his hands up, then approach and disarm the subject. If he goes for the gun, use lethal force.
If the subject is not currently touching the weapon, you do not allow them to touch it again. You would never say "pull the gun out and throw it away". You would have an officer approach behind them while keeping him covered, cuff the subject, and then remove the weapon.
If cops don't shoot anyone, no one gets shot by cops. You talk about them like they're some elemental force of nature or some kind of robot that responds strictly to input along rigid guidelines. A cop should always be prepared to risk their life making sure that someone is actually dangerous before force is authorised.
If nobody pulls what looks like a real gun on the cops then nobody gets shot by cops, either.
Grey Templar wrote: A person who is reported to be brandishing a gun should ALWAYS be treated like they might start shooting..
So there's no responsibility on the attending officers to actually assess the situation when they arrive? Someone said 'Here's someone waving a gun around!' so they should just charge up and shoot them?
I take it you have never undergone active shooter training?
This thread is going around in circles now with the mind readers and people able to time travel and read tomorrow's news stories or those saying a cop should be happy to get shot, clearly ensconced.
This in spite of people who have been in similar life or death situations saying the cops should not be accused of being trigger happy.
CptJake wrote: I take it you have never undergone active shooter training?
Does it have anything to do with treating someone as if they are brandishing a weapon when they are not, based on nothing more than hearsay? Because if not, I'm not seeing the relevance of the question.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: This thread is going around in circles now with the mind readers and people able to time travel and read tomorrow's news stories or those saying a cop should be happy to get shot, clearly ensconced.
Seriously, can we please dispense with the 'mind reading' nonsense?
Nobody is asking for anyone to read minds. It doesn't take a mind reader to ascertain that somebody who isn't currently waving a gun around is not, in fact, currently waving a gun around.
CptJake wrote: I take it you have never undergone active shooter training?
Does it have anything to do with treating someone as if they are brandishing a weapon when they are not, based on nothing more than hearsay? Because if not, I'm not seeing the relevance of the question.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: This thread is going around in circles now with the mind readers and people able to time travel and read tomorrow's news stories or those saying a cop should be happy to get shot, clearly ensconced.
Seriously, can we please dispense with the 'mind reading' nonsense?
Nobody is asking for anyone to read minds. It doesn't take a mind reader to ascertain that somebody who isn't currently waving a gun around is not, in fact, currently waving a gun around.
It would, however take a mind reader to know the real looking toy gun is in fact, not real, or that there is no danger as the gun is being reached for. The expressed view of a fair number of posters here state the officer should have known it was a toy and that he was in no danger of being shot. This is why myself and a few others here think there must be mind readers on this thread.
Nobody in this thread has suggested that the officer should have known it was a toy.
It was suggested that the likelihood of it being a toy, given the fact that it was a kid involved, should have been factored into their approach, however.
cop sees a kid with a gun, tells the kid to put his hands up, and the kid reaches for the gun.
what does cop do?
shoot. that is the only correct answer. it is ridiculous to say "but the cop should have known" or "he should have checked" or "if he'd waited".
to the cop, if he'd waited he would have died. you know who would suffer if he died? him? no. his family. so it was shoot this kid, or die and have his family suffer. that is what the situation was to the cop. end of discussion. this is a tragic accident, one that could so easily have been avoided if the child had an ilk of common-sense, or if he hadn't had the gun, and been brandishing it or whatever. in the end, there is only one person to blame. the kid.
insaniak wrote: Nobody in this thread has suggested that the officer should have known it was a toy.
I came real close and I'm talking mental break down close because it did fethed me up along with a few others afterwards of us almost opting a kid out because the little SoB popped up between us and the insurgents. "Armed" with a shovel. He popped up and four of us almost gunned him down
Yes I bypass the bad word filter but in all seriousness I've a feeling the cop did not have experience of "combat" or a sense of situational awareness that's common to some of us who's been to the Box.
Edit
I'm not condemning the cop nor the victim of the unfortunate shooting I am condemning whoever removed the identification markers or the lack "obedience to authority"
I also wonder though if the kid was "influence" by the Michael Brown incident
1) You keep using the word "child" like it should be a factor. Its 100% irrelevant.
2) Assumptions like the one you propose will get way more people killed.
Of course its a factor.
If you see a kid in a park with a handgun, what's more likely? That it's a kid setting out to shoot people with a real firearm? Or that it's a kid playing around?
And for that specific response, it was valid. Whether or not the cop knew it was a real gun, he wouldn't have died if he had waited to see what the kid was going to do.
1) You keep using the word "child" like it should be a factor. Its 100% irrelevant.
2) Assumptions like the one you propose will get way more people killed.
Of course its a factor.
If you see a kid in a park with a handgun, what's more likely? That it's a kid setting out to shoot people with a real firearm? Or that it's a kid playing around?
A kid playing around with a gun is honestly just as dangerous as a guy deliberately trying to shoot you. The gun could go off any direction. And if he really is just a kid playing, he would do what the police officers pointing definitely real guns at him were telling him to do.
And finally, no. This was not a kid playing in a park. It was a guy brandishing a gun and scaring people with it. Look at the pictures, he's not a cute little kid. He could easily have been 16-17.
1) You keep using the word "child" like it should be a factor. Its 100% irrelevant.
2) Assumptions like the one you propose will get way more people killed.
Of course its a factor.
If you see a kid in a park with a handgun, what's more likely? That it's a kid setting out to shoot people with a real firearm? Or that it's a kid playing around?
I want to point out how irresponsible some parents are in securing live fire arms. We have multiple threads regarding how kids get a hold of weapons
1) You keep using the word "child" like it should be a factor. Its 100% irrelevant.
2) Assumptions like the one you propose will get way more people killed.
Of course its a factor.
If you see a kid in a park with a handgun, what's more likely? That it's a kid setting out to shoot people with a real firearm? Or that it's a kid playing around?
1) You keep using the word "child" like it should be a factor. Its 100% irrelevant.
2) Assumptions like the one you propose will get way more people killed.
Of course its a factor.
If you see a kid in a park with a handgun, what's more likely? That it's a kid setting out to shoot people with a real firearm? Or that it's a kid playing around?
Yep, so that's 5. And while those were happening, how many kids around the country were playing with guns that weren't real?
Grey Templar wrote: A kid playing around with a gun is honestly just as dangerous as a guy deliberately trying to shoot you.
...if it's a real gun. Which it's not likely to be.
And if he really is just a kid playing, he would do what the police officers pointing definitely real guns at him were telling him to do.
Which brings us right back to kids doing unpredictable things when they panic.
I dunno. Maybe I need to just chalk this up as one of those cultural things... Our countries are similar in a lot of ways, and completely alien in other, often unexpected ways. And the idea that we should assume that every kid we see with a gun must be just waiting for the opportunity to shoot someone? That's one of the alien ones, and makes me glad I live where I do. For all this country's faults, at least I'm not going to fear for my life if I happen to see a couple of kids playing cops and robbers in the park..
And finally, no. This was not a kid playing in a park. It was a guy brandishing a gun and scaring people with it. Look at the pictures, he's not a cute little kid. He could easily have been 16-17.
In fact, if you listen to the dispatch call, the officer says, "Shots fired. Male down. Black Male. Maybe 20. Black handgun by him. Send EMS this way."
Jihadin wrote: I lost my faith in humanity from seeing Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan
Well duh. Those are interesting places.
I know you were a service men so basically yes, I would expect you would have. I know a lot of military guys who come back, after working at a place that works with PTSD soldiers, I have some experience in that regard. just hearing the stories was enough for me to have night terrors. *sigh* Then I got PTSD and the whole thing came full circle hurray. *Grumble* but anyway Humanity has lost my faith in it a while ago.
I am going to place To The Moon to restore it and cry like a baby.
Grey Templar wrote: A kid playing around with a gun is honestly just as dangerous as a guy deliberately trying to shoot you.
...if it's a real gun. Which it's not likely to be.
And how exactly do you know that?
Are you willing to be the guy who didn't shoot the guy before he fired off a round which injures of maims a kid 200 yards down the street or leaves your(or your buddy's) wife and kids without a husband or father?
Grey Templar wrote: A kid playing around with a gun is honestly just as dangerous as a guy deliberately trying to shoot you.
...if it's a real gun. Which it's not likely to be.
And how exactly do you know that?
Are you willing to be the guy who didn't shoot the guy before he fired off a round which injures of maims a kid 200 yards down the street or leaves your(or your buddy's) wife and kids without a husband or father?
Sadly I actually know of a kid who shot himself, well Knew that is. You don't recover from a bullet through the head. Kid thought it was a toy. But techincally it wasn't personal relation just hearing about it.
Kids will reach for things that they shouldn't. Thats why they should always be surprivised if there is a weapon in the house.
CptJake wrote: I take it you have never undergone active shooter training?
Does it have anything to do with treating someone as if they are brandishing a weapon when they are not, based on nothing more than hearsay? Because if not, I'm not seeing the relevance of the question.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: This thread is going around in circles now with the mind readers and people able to time travel and read tomorrow's news stories or those saying a cop should be happy to get shot, clearly ensconced.
Seriously, can we please dispense with the 'mind reading' nonsense?
Nobody is asking for anyone to read minds. It doesn't take a mind reader to ascertain that somebody who isn't currently waving a gun around is not, in fact, currently waving a gun around.
Thats exactly what they are doing. Guy in winter clothing is IN FACT WAVING A GUN AROUND.
There's no reasoning with mind readers and time travelers. I think I'll just check in every now and then without posting and let this thread die the death.
1) You keep using the word "child" like it should be a factor. Its 100% irrelevant.
2) Assumptions like the one you propose will get way more people killed.
Of course its a factor.
If you see a kid in a park with a handgun, what's more likely? That it's a kid setting out to shoot people with a real firearm? Or that it's a kid playing around?
So did the kid actually pull the gun or only reach for it? If he pulled the gun it could have been to put it on the floor.
Sure that's not a sensible action but this is a kid we're talking about. Think back to how you reacted when adults shouted at you when you were a kid, willing to bet its not completely sensible and rational. And, quite frankly, shouting at anyone who is possibly armed and dangerous when it is not necessary due to noise levels seems like a really bad move which will escalate the situation, more often than not.
What if the kid was reaching for his ID or just needed to scratch?
Should the police shoot anyone who reaches for their trousers just in case they have a concealed firearm?
Looking at the video, the kid isn't waving it around as the police arrive. They pull up, he reaches towards his waist (which could be towards his trousers or coat pocket) and then the police officer shoots him as he is getting out of the car. There is no way they had enough time to give him any understandable commands multiple times before shooting him.
Also, he did not have the gun out so a taser was a possible non-lethal option. Hell, at that distance the police officer could have tackled the kid.
I can't help but think, that things might have gone differently in a different country where the likelihood of a 12-year old actually being in possession of a real gun is close to zero.
There's that omniscient time traveling knowledge again.
I feel these kind of comments are unnecessarily adversarial. Insisting 100% that there was nothing the cop (or anyone) could have done is equally omniscient. I agree with you that it seems unlikely things could have been different since the police were following protocol. But when that protocol leads to a 12 year old kid playing in the park, being gunned down, then it is worth discussing how it might be improved, instead of just shouting people down and popping the face palm smiley.
No one is saying the cop should be prosecuted. We all know that the shooting can absolutely be justified. But maybe it could also have been avoided. Even if the kid had been 20, and did have a real gun, the decision to use lethal force first is still questionable. In fact driving right up within a few feet of an armed man seems pretty reckless anyway. What did they think was going to happen?
I can't help but think, that things might have gone differently in a different country where the likelihood of a 12-year old actually being in possession of a real gun is close to zero.
I thought about this a few times too, but I feared that mentioning it in this forum would get my throat bitten off.
In fact driving right up within a few feet of an armed man seems pretty reckless anyway.
Why? The effective range of a hand gun is limited. There is no other choice but to get close. It puts the police at more risk, but much reduces the risk of stray bullets or it turning in to a firefight. If the police are close they have the chance to physically tackle the offender, or use a tazer. If they are a long way away there is much more chance of it becoming a shoot out. The problem in this case is the kid went for the gun before the police had chance to do anything. Had he not grabbed the gun for another 5-10 seconds they would probably have jumped on him and it would all have ended differently.
I can't help but think, that things might have gone differently in a different country where the likelihood of a 12-year old actually being in possession of a real gun is close to zero.
I thought about this a few times too, but I feared that mentioning it in this forum would get my throat bitten off.
Oh well, here goes nothing, I guess.
Unlikely. Had this been in the UK somewhere with high crime levels and gang problems, much like Cleveland, and the situation had been the same, the outcome would probably have been the same. If it was somewhere like Peckham or Croxteth and police had been called out to a kid waving what looked like a real gun, and the kid had reached for it seconds after they stopped, the outcome may well have been the same. I can't speak for every country int he world, but whilst the odds of most kids in the UK ever gettign hold of a gun are zero, in some areas with high levels of gang activity and violent crime, some children in that gang culture are not only likely to be aware of hand guns, but are often used to store them. It is often an early job given to young gang members.
I can't help but think, that things might have gone differently in a different country where the likelihood of a 12-year old actually being in possession of a real gun is close to zero.
...
How about in a different country where the likelihood of a real gun was close to 100%?
Insisting 100% that there was nothing the cop (or anyone) could have done is equally omniscient. I agree with you that it seems unlikely things could have been different since the police were following protocol. But when that protocol leads to a 12 year old kid playing in the park, being gunned down, then it is worth discussing how it might be improved, instead of just shouting people down and popping the face palm smiley.
No one is saying the cop should be prosecuted. We all know that the shooting can absolutely be justified. But maybe it could also have been avoided. Even if the kid had been 20, and did have a real gun, the decision to use lethal force first is still questionable. In fact driving right up within a few feet of an armed man seems pretty reckless anyway. What did they think was going to happen?
I agree with you on some of these things. Given the protocol as they stand, this went down exactly as it was "supposed" to. Now, if we ask ourselves what "needs" to change? Perhaps it's actually nothing, perhaps it is something. Perhaps it's more police "training" in schools (as in, officers talking gun safety and what to do when police show up around you type stuff... not just the pointless anti-drug D.A.R.E. crap)
I am of the belief that, if the involved parties are correct in the way things went down, that nothing really needs to change, except the culture that some groups have regarding "feth the police". It could be that very "culture" that lead to a kid reaching for a gun, instead of complying with lawful orders from LEOs.
I can't help but think, that things might have gone differently in a different country where the likelihood of a 12-year old actually being in possession of a real gun is close to zero.
...
How about in a different country where the likelihood of a real gun was close to 100%?
I see we agree.
Yes, I think that in such a country things would also have gone differently to what we saw in this particular situation.....just in the opposite direction of what I am suggesting.
In fact driving right up within a few feet of an armed man seems pretty reckless anyway.
Why? The effective range of a hand gun is limited.
All the more reason to not get close.
There is no other choice but to get close.
What? the police don't have rifles, shotguns and megaphones anymore? What happened to all those military style vehicles the police are supposed to have. Or is that just too much effort to save a black kids life?
Had it been a hostage situation, where "kill everyone" was not an acceptable solution. Then they would never have rolled up there with guns drawn. It would be asking for trouble.
Smacks wrote: What? the police don't have rifles, shotguns and megaphones anymore? What happened to all those military style vehicles the police are supposed to have. Or is that just too much effort to save a black kids life?
Had it been a hostage situation, where "kill everyone" was not an acceptable solution. Then they would never have rolled up there with guns drawn. It would be asking for trouble.
EOF dude.... Seriously, police can't just willy nilly "I feel like carrying the rifle today...hurrr". And what good does a megaphone do? Unless you're in a hostage situation... even then, more police prefer a cell phone, or land line phone, so that the rest of the neighborhood isn't hearing/dealing with the hostage situation as well.
All those "military style vehicles", as well as the rifles and such are, again EOF measures that this situation clearly didn't warrant.
Ohh, and the initial 911 call did not say, hint or even suggest a hostage situation.... so why bring it up?
What? the police don't have rifles, shotguns and megaphones anymore? What happened to all those military style vehicles the police are supposed to have. Or is that just too much effort to save a black kids life?
Are you for real?
This was an ON PATROL car responding to a call.
My incredulity at this statement is mind boggling I'm not even sure how to respond.
