Police in Cleveland fatally shot a 12-year-old boy wielding what turned out to be a replica gun. They were responding to a 911 call in which a man said a juvenile was scaring people with a gun that probably was fake.
The boy, identified by the Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner's Office as Tamir Rice, was shot in the torso in the playground area of a recreation center Saturday afternoon.
Deputy Chief Ed Tomba said one officer fired twice after the boy pulled the fake weapon -- which didn't have the orange safety indicator usually found on the muzzle -- from his waistband but had not pointed it at police. The boy did not make verbal threats, Tomba said, but grabbed the replica handgun after being told to raise his hands. He died Sunday at MetroHealth Medical Center.
The shooting comes amid a continued nationwide focus on police incidents, including the ongoing grand jury investigation in Ferguson, Mo., and the fatal shooting of a Florida policeman during a house fire outside Tallahassee on Saturday.
Cleveland police released Saturday's 911 call from a man who said he was across the street from the park.
"There is a guy with a pistol, it's probably fake, but he's pointing it at everyone," the caller says. The caller later repeats that the gun is probably fake, and adds that "he's probably a juvenile."
The gun was found to be an "airsoft"-type replica gun, a BB-gun type gun that resembled a semi-automatic pistol.
Jeff Follmer, president of the Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association, said the officers were not told the caller thought the gun might be fake.
The police force and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office are investigating.
Contributing: Associated Press
So, this is a thing. A thing that is probably not going to help with the whole police shooting black people anger currently going around.
If we are talking about people getting shot over "toy guns" it would help to have a picture of the toy:
It's not a very toy looking toy gun, and having the orange-tip removed doesn't help anything. There is a reason that there are more and more areas that have laws requiring that replica toy guns get covered in bright ugly paint.
The family (or at the very least the lawyer for the family) also states that they don't think this was a racial issue.
I feel sorry for the officers involved being placed in a situation where they had a choice of either shooting a child or being potentially shot themselves. I just cannot for the life of me fathom why even a 12 year old would be so stupid to as to ignore a police request to put his hands up and then make a grab for a gun. I mean, what on earth did he think they would do? Rank and utter stupidity.
Feel bad for the family and really bad for the officer who shot him. The family have to deal with the child's death, which is sad. The officer has to live with the fact that he essentially smoked an unarmed child. I know he was carrying what looked like a real gun, but the officer will think of it like that ... I know that for sure.
I don't think it helps that some people have the knee jerk reaction of crying 'racist' when an incident of this nature occurs.
A policeman certainly shouldn’t open fire without provocation, but neither should they be required to be shot at first so that then be certain the gun in question is real. If the kid in question reached for the fake gun when challenged I don’t see what else the cop in question could do.
Put yourself in the cops shoes for a second. You know the juvenile has been waving the gun in the threatening manner. Upon challenging him the kid reaches for said gun. Do you just do nothing on the grounds that it’s ‘probably’ fake?
It’s tragic but if the kid chose to reach for the gun as opposed to raising his hands I don’t see how there is anyone to blame but him.
but seeing as it was a kid, couldn't they have shot him in the leg or something?
I don’t claim to be a gun expert so I’m happy to be corrected but I think the whole ‘shoot to disarm’ thing is straight out of Hollywood. You can’t fire a round from a pistol with that sort of precision in a split second. For that reason cops tend to aim for the largest target which is the torso.
but seeing as it was a kid, couldn't they have shot him in the leg or something?
I don’t claim to be a gun expert so I’m happy to be corrected but I think the whole ‘shoot to disarm’ thing is straight out of Hollywood. You can’t fire a round from a pistol with that sort of precision in a split second. For that reason cops tend to aim for the largest target which is the torso.
Exactly. The whole 'shoot to wound' nonsense is a complete fallacy.
OIIIIIIO wrote: I know he was carrying what looked like a real gun, but the officer will think of it like that ... I know that for sure.
He will probably be forever haunted by the feeling of "What if I had waited" and wondering what he could have done. The poor guy will probably be forever haunted by that and quite possibly be unable to do his job as he will question every time he has to draw his gun. Not to mention the witch hunt centered on him that I can guarantee will start within the next three hours as Cleavland wakes up to this and people start to read about his death yesterday over their breakfast.
He reached for the weapon when they told him to get his hands up, I'd think that was a pretty big red light for the officers that this might indeed be a real gun. It also looks like real weapon.
Find a way to express your thoughts that isn't incredibly rude. motyak
Exactly. The whole 'shoot to wound' nonsense is a complete fallacy.
A friend of mine is a British Police officer and is occasionally armed as part of his duties. British armed police tend to use Carbines such as an MP5. I asked him about this once as I didn’t understand why the police needed to use these as opposed to pistols. It struck me as being overkill and was surely likely to lead to bystanders being accidently shot.
He told me that on the contrary it’s the complete opposite. Pistols are not particularly accurate at any range beyond a few meters whereas an MP5 is far more accurate at a longer distance. It’s actually the use of pistols which is far more likely to lead to bystanders being accidently hit.
So if this cop was armed with a standard police pistol the idea that he could just shoot him in the arm or leg is extremely unlikely.
Not really appropriate. What ever he did he was still a 12 year old kid. He made a stupid mistake that got him killed. The blame is mostly on him (and partly on whoever let him have a replica gun in public. I say replica because it is far to realistic to be called a toy, and I don't believe in calling BB guns toys. It's that kind of attitude that causes tragedies like this), but hit was still a stupid mistake.
LuciusAR wrote: I asked him about this once as I didn’t understand why the police needed to use these as opposed to pistols. It struck me as being overkill and was surely likely to lead to bystanders being accidently shot.
He told me that on the contrary it’s the complete opposite. Pistols are not particularly accurate at any range beyond a few meters whereas an MP5 is far more accurate at a longer distance.
Also, the risk of bystanders being shot is down to the ammunition (at least for risks of overpenitration, ricochet and risk of passing through other objects). As far as I am aware the UK police use the MP5 variant with the 9x19 pistol cartage. If they used the MP5 with the Nato rounds that would be more of a risk, and would be overkill. (Some useless off topic information for you). Both have a place, and firearms officers have access to both, and other weapons, depending on the need.
I think MP5s also have a use in the UK for psychological reasons. When firearms officers are deployed proactive (standing around with guns rather than doing things like attending an indecent) an MP5 in their hands is far more obvious than a pistol on their hip.
Medium of Death wrote: He reached for the weapon when they told him to get his hands up, I'd think that was a pretty big red light for the officers that this might indeed be a real gun. It also looks like real weapon.edited by motyak.
Not really appropriate. What ever he did he was still a 12 year old kid. He made a stupid mistake that got him killed. The blame is mostly on him (and partly on whoever let him have a replica gun in public.
Honestly, being a parent with two grown sons and a 12 year old daughter, there is a BIG chance no one 'let him have a replica gun'. Kids manage to get hold of stuff they like and take it where they want, often without parents knowing about it.
I can safely say that 99% of all Dakka members would freely admit to being an idiot when they were 12 years old. I got caught stealing sweets from a shop, at that age.
re my earlier comments about shooting the poor kid in the leg, I went out and looked at a fence post (about the width of an average leg), stepped back ten yards, and came to the conclusion that the earlier posters were right. It's not an easy target.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I can safely say that 99% of all Dakka members would freely admit to being an idiot when they were 12 years old. I got caught stealing sweets from a shop, at that age.
re my earlier comments about shooting the poor kid in the leg, I went out and looked at a fence post (about the width of an average leg), stepped back ten yards, and came to the conclusion that the earlier posters were right. It's not an easy target.
Now picture that fence post moving. And run a couple of sprints to get your heart rate up and to get you breathing hard to simulate the stress the cop may well have felt..
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I can safely say that 99% of all Dakka members would freely admit to being an idiot when they were 12 years old. I got caught stealing sweets from a shop, at that age.
re my earlier comments about shooting the poor kid in the leg, I went out and looked at a fence post (about the width of an average leg), stepped back ten yards, and came to the conclusion that the earlier posters were right. It's not an easy target.
Now picture that fence post moving. And run a couple of sprints to get your heart rate up and to get you breathing hard to simulate the stress the cop may well have felt..
Agreed, it's not easy. The cop might have had the sun in his eyes as well. This may seem a daft question for gun owners but how much of an impact can sweaty hands have on your grip? Do gloves or some sort of grip powder make a difference?
Always a tragedy to see a kid getting killed. Could they not have tasered him instead? Or is that too risky for a teenager's heart?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I can safely say that 99% of all Dakka members would freely admit to being an idiot when they were 12 years old. I got caught stealing sweets from a shop, at that age.
re my earlier comments about shooting the poor kid in the leg, I went out and looked at a fence post (about the width of an average leg), stepped back ten yards, and came to the conclusion that the earlier posters were right. It's not an easy target.
Now picture that fence post moving. And run a couple of sprints to get your heart rate up and to get you breathing hard to simulate the stress the cop may well have felt..
Agreed, it's not easy. The cop might have had the sun in his eyes as well. This may seem a daft question for gun owners but how much of an impact can sweaty hands have on your grip? Do gloves or some sort of grip powder make a difference?
Always a tragedy to see a kid getting killed. Could they not have tasered him instead? Or is that too risky for a teenager's heart?
Tasing may be risky to a kid's heart, but so is a slug from a pistol. I sure would have liked to see the cop zap the kid instead of capping him, but I wasn't there. The info the cop had made deadly force an option.
As for the sweaty hands, I've never had much of a problem with that, though I suppose some may benefit from gloves.
Not really appropriate. What ever he did he was still a 12 year old kid. He made a stupid mistake that got him killed. The blame is mostly on him (and partly on whoever let him have a replica gun in public.
Honestly, being a parent with two grown sons and a 12 year old daughter, there is a BIG chance no one 'let him have a replica gun'. Kids manage to get hold of stuff they like and take it where they want, often without parents knowing about it.
I wasn't saying it was the parents, but the kid didn't make the gun himself. Someone, be that the parents, a shop owner, older sibling, friend, or whatever, let a 12 year old get access to that gun and take it away from adult supervision. I understand that 12 year old kids will try and find ways to get what they want, but all I was saying was that some adult, somewhere along the way, did something that enabled the kid to get hold of the gun and they are in some part responsible for the result, along with his parents not teaching him proper respect for guns. Whatever your politics on guns every parent should teach their kids that guns are not toys, even BB guns (Not fear, respect). More so in the US where guns are relatively available, and no parent can control the actions of everyone your kid comes in to contact with.
Tasing may be risky to a kid's heart, but so is a slug from a pistol. I sure would have liked to see the cop zap the kid instead of capping him, but I wasn't there. The info the cop had made deadly force an option.
Could simply be a matter of range. Tazers only have a range of something like 10 meters. If the kid was 12 meters away it may have been the only choice.
Not really appropriate. What ever he did he was still a 12 year old kid. He made a stupid mistake that got him killed. The blame is mostly on him (and partly on whoever let him have a replica gun in public.
Honestly, being a parent with two grown sons and a 12 year old daughter, there is a BIG chance no one 'let him have a replica gun'. Kids manage to get hold of stuff they like and take it where they want, often without parents knowing about it.
I wasn't saying it was the parents, but the kid didn't make the gun himself. Someone, be that the parents, a shop owner, older sibling, friend, or whatever, let a 12 year old get access to that gun and take it away from adult supervision. I understand that 12 year old kids will try and find ways to get what they want, but all I was saying was that some adult, somewhere along the way, did something that enabled the kid to get hold of the gun and they are in some way responsible for that, along with not teaching him popper respect for guns. Whatever your politics on guns every parent should teach their kids that guns are not toys, even BB guns. More so in the US where guns are relatively available, and no parent can control the actions of everyone your kid comes in to contact with.
I disagree. There is no indication some adult 'let' the kid take the gun away from adult supervision. Kids gonna kid.
And at 12, my sons had pellet guns and other toy guns. I never felt the urge to supervise them playing with toy guns. They did have to have permission to take the pellet guns out, and I don't think we let them go shoot unsupervised until they were 14 or 15.
Apparently, in the time before the incident, the kid was repeatedly pulling the gun from his trousers (pants for you amercians ) and threatening others - either for lolz or to get another kind of reaction.
If true then it was either going to be someone who he did this to beating on him, responding in kind (for real) or the police getting involved.
There's probably a lot more to come on this but It looks like the cops had no real choice.
Feel sorry for family who have lost their child though
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I can safely say that 99% of all Dakka members would freely admit to being an idiot when they were 12 years old. I got caught stealing sweets from a shop, at that age.
re my earlier comments about shooting the poor kid in the leg, I went out and looked at a fence post (about the width of an average leg), stepped back ten yards, and came to the conclusion that the earlier posters were right. It's not an easy target.
Now picture that fence post moving. And run a couple of sprints to get your heart rate up and to get you breathing hard to simulate the stress the cop may well have felt..
Agreed, it's not easy. The cop might have had the sun in his eyes as well. This may seem a daft question for gun owners but how much of an impact can sweaty hands have on your grip? Do gloves or some sort of grip powder make a difference?
Always a tragedy to see a kid getting killed. Could they not have tasered him instead? Or is that too risky for a teenager's heart?
If you have a proper grip then sweaty palms wouldn't be a factor. Adrenaline is however. In a stressful situation as this, people fall back to their training that's been most ingrained into them. This is why soldiers and police officers have to practice so often, to get that muscle memory. That training is for shooting center of mass. Taking time to aim at a body part or even the gun like movies like to show, simply isn't realistic in the slightest. In Iraq you seldom had the luxury of aiming like it was an accuracy competition.
It's not a very toy looking toy gun, and having the orange-tip removed doesn't help anything. There is a reason that there are more and more areas that have laws requiring that replica toy guns get covered in bright ugly paint.
And even then, you can have your real guns painted to look just like toy guns. These days, there's just no way for a police officer to be truly certain.
I'm sorry the child got shot, but if if the reporting on this is accurate, it's a justified shooting.
I consider myself a harsh critic of our too-often poor policing, but if the police approach with guns drawn and demand to see you hands, and you instead pick up a firearm*, I can't fault it.
*or so close a facsimile as to render it equivalent.
As a retired officer, I see no problems with this shooting with the information given. Sad to see a child lose his life for this reason, but I would have done the same thing. I left work everyday kissing my kids goodbye, and I was going to do everything I could to make it back to them at the end of the day. A lot of people will say he should have seen that the gun was a fake. I had the pleasure of conducting a car stop a few years back, long story short there was an illegal tech nine under the drivers seat. Thankfully I did not get shot, but the thing about this weapon, the tip was pointed orange, and the gun was coated with a very glossy black spray paint.
I asked the driver why he painted the gun. He said it was so if he was stopped he would have the advantage over the cops thinking it was a toy gun. I've also seen shotguns cut and placed in the shell of a super soaker, and many other crazy setups. So when you see these stories and think the cops over reacted, think about what they see on a day to day basis.
Ouze wrote: I'm sorry the child got shot, but if if the reporting on this is accurate, it's a justified shooting.
I consider myself a harsh critic of our too-often poor policing, but if the police approach with guns drawn and demand to see you hands, and you instead pick up a firearm*, I can't fault it.
*or so close a facsimile as to render it equivalent.
Pretty much this. It's definitely a tragedy, but I have a hard time blaming the police considering the child's actions. That said, I'm most annoyed at the person who called the police in the first place... you're going to get a kid taken away because you're annoyed that he's pointing a toy gun at people? Could they not have just told them to stop themselves?
In all this, I'm also wondering where the parents were.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Were warning shots fired. was the kid told to drop the "weapon"?
Or is the shoot first ask questions later ok?
Warning shots are also a fiction of Hollywood. When you fire your weapon you have to be accountable for every bullet fired. Warning shots are far too dangerous to be practical. Even in a war zone we were told not to fire warning shots because the risk it posed to seen and unseen civilians nearby.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Were warning shots fired. was the kid told to drop the "weapon"?
Or is the shoot first ask questions later ok?
warning shots are illegal for police in my state. Also, if I told someone to put their hands up and they instead reach for a weapon, in my mind, they have made a decision to shoot me. If I have a chance to say something I will, if not, well they made their choice. I'm going home at the end of my shift.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Were warning shots fired. was the kid told to drop the "weapon"?
Or is the shoot first ask questions later ok?
Warning shots get a cop fired.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: You know I read this much earlier and just skimmed this version of it. That dispatch didn't relay that is a tragedy, perhaps even criminal liability.
I initially thought that, but I'm not really sure. Giving the info to a cop may cause a cop to make a decision that costs the cop his life because he goes into the situation thinking it is no big deal. As for criminal liability, I seriously doubt it as I bet there is no legal requirement for the dispatcher to pass on info like that, especially if not confirmed.
CptJake wrote: I initially thought that, but I'm not really sure. Giving the info to a cop may cause a cop to make a decision that costs the cop his life because he goes into the situation thinking it is no big deal. As for criminal liability, I seriously doubt it as I bet there is no legal requirement for the dispatcher to pass on info like that, especially if not confirmed.
Well, it's a dangerous job that they don't get drafted into; I'm not going to buy the argument that the cops life is more valuable that the child's which seems to be the logical conclusion of the idea it's better for the cop to shoot first even if it might just be a toy even when told it might just be a toy. He doesn't know that, it's a fair to shoot, he does know that, he may have approached it differently - he may have been willing to take a chance. He's an adult and can make that decision.
I think it's best to always give the more accurate information with the aim of increasing the chances of no one getting shot, ideally.
Not really appropriate. What ever he did he was still a 12 year old kid. He made a stupid mistake that got him killed. The blame is mostly on him (and partly on whoever let him have a replica gun in public.
Honestly, being a parent with two grown sons and a 12 year old daughter, there is a BIG chance no one 'let him have a replica gun'. Kids manage to get hold of stuff they like and take it where they want, often without parents knowing about it.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Were warning shots fired. was the kid told to drop the "weapon"?
Or is the shoot first ask questions later ok?
Warning shots get a cop fired.
So should killing an unarmed child, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: You know I read this much earlier and just skimmed this version of it. That dispatch didn't relay that is a tragedy, perhaps even criminal liability.
I initially thought that, but I'm not really sure. Giving the info to a cop may cause a cop to make a decision that costs the cop his life because he goes into the situation thinking it is no big deal.
CptJake wrote: I initially thought that, but I'm not really sure. Giving the info to a cop may cause a cop to make a decision that costs the cop his life because he goes into the situation thinking it is no big deal. As for criminal liability, I seriously doubt it as I bet there is no legal requirement for the dispatcher to pass on info like that, especially if not confirmed.
Well, it's a dangerous job that they don't get drafted into; I'm not going to buy the argument that the cops life is more valuable that the child's which seems to be the logical conclusion of the idea it's better for the cop to shoot first even if it might just be a toy even when told it might just be a toy. He doesn't know that, it's a fair to shoot, he does know that, he may have approached it differently - he may have been willing to take a chance. He's an adult and can make that decision.
I think it's best to always give the more accurate information with the aim of increasing the chances of no one getting shot, ideally.
I agree, giving the cop more info makes sense to me, and sitting safely from behind my computer FAR away from the incident, I would like to think in the cop's position I would have handled the situation differently. No idea what this kid looked like (some 12 year olds look a lot older) but would like to think I would have tazed the kid.
But until we know more, I'm just second guessing.
As for one life being worth more than another, I have a controversial point of view on that. I do think some lives are a lot more valuable than others, and I put mine pretty high up there, way higher than the value I place on the life of someone, regardless of sex or age or most other factors, pointing a weapon at me.
From a neutral observer perspective, I'm not sure how to place a value on a kid's life in comparison to a cop's life. It seems an emotional argument rather than a real value based argument. The fact is some poor kid is dead and his folks are gonna be destroyed by it. And likely the cop that capped him will have issues too. Lots of damage done, that had the situation gone a bit differently, may not have to be endured. The situation sucks, even if it ends up legitimately being a 'good' shoot (as if it could be good considering the outcome at this point).
Jehan-reznor wrote: Were warning shots fired. was the kid told to drop the "weapon"?
Or is the shoot first ask questions later ok?
How about "shoot first, live later?"
When someone, no matter the age or anything, suddenly points a gun at you or is about to reach for a gun despite being asked to stand down, you shoot him. No questions asked.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Were warning shots fired. was the kid told to drop the "weapon"?
Or is the shoot first ask questions later ok?
Warning shots get a cop fired.
So should killing an unarmed child, though.
See my previous post about the impracticality of warning shots. They do more harm than good. Running convoys in Iraq you come up against a cornucopia of varied situations about "escalation of force." It's easy to sit back and armchair something like this but there are so many variables that often come down to split second decisions as to make it very difficult to judge from the comfort of your living room.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Were warning shots fired. was the kid told to drop the "weapon"?
Or is the shoot first ask questions later ok?
Warning shots get a cop fired.
So should killing an unarmed child, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: You know I read this much earlier and just skimmed this version of it. That dispatch didn't relay that is a tragedy, perhaps even criminal liability.
I initially thought that, but I'm not really sure. Giving the info to a cop may cause a cop to make a decision that costs the cop his life because he goes into the situation thinking it is no big deal.
You're fething kidding me, right?
The kid was NOT unarmed. He was armed with a toy gun that looked real, and allegedly proceeded to reach for it, after having had the cops called on him for pointing it at others.
As for kidding you, no I'm not. I have no clue what the rules in that municipality are for passing info. 'May be a toy' from an unknown source calling it in does not negate 'pointing a gun at folks'. Hindsight 20/20 and all, perhaps passing that info on would have been a fantastic thing, at the time...
CptJake wrote: 'May be a toy' from an unknown source calling it in does not negate 'pointing a gun at folks'. Hindsight 20/20 and all, perhaps passing that info on would have been a fantastic thing, at the time...
No, it goes hand and hand with, not negating. After all, this "unknown source" who is clearly not be taken seriously was correct there was a child and correct that there was a firearm so maybe they were also correct that it was a toy?
I mean I don't see why we need to infantilize a man who the state has empowered to protect the public and if need be use lethal force to protect himself or someone else by deciding we don't want to give him too much info.
The shooting itself, I have no beef with. It's a legitimate tragedy for everyone involved.
CptJake wrote: 'May be a toy' from an unknown source calling it in does not negate 'pointing a gun at folks'. Hindsight 20/20 and all, perhaps passing that info on would have been a fantastic thing, at the time...
No, it goes hand and hand with, not negating. After all, this "unknown source" who is clearly not be taken seriously was correct there was a child and correct that there was a firearm so maybe they were also correct that it was a toy?
I mean I don't see why we need to infantilize a man who the state has empowered to protect the public and if need be use lethal force to protect himself or someone else by deciding we don't want to give him too much info.
The shooting itself, I have no beef with. It's a legitimate tragedy for everyone involved.
I wasn't intending to infantilize the cop, nor do I think was the dispatcher. I think the dispatcher passed on what info they thought was relevant. Whether he/she did so because of poor judgement or because they were trained to only pass certain info, or a combination of the two is the question. I guess I was trying to figure out (in my mind) why the dispatcher did not pass on the info and ended up presenting the reasons I could think of.
I've seen some pretty outlandish use of force arguments in here. Didn't someone (dubiously) argue a few months back that it was department policy somewhere in the Nordic regions - I forget where - to shoot legs?
Ouze wrote: I've seen some pretty outlandish use of force arguments in here. Didn't someone (dubiously) argue a few months back that it was department policy somewhere in the Nordic regions - I forget where - to shoot legs?
Yep, but he did show where some Euro cops did indeed shoot legs instead of center mass, but had trouble pointing towards anything showing it was training or policy to do so. The incidents did seem to indicate some countries did encourage their cops to do so.
[size=18]Tamir Rice: US police kill boy, 12, carrying replica gun[/s
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30172433 A 12-year-old boy has died after being shot by police in the US city of Cleveland, after carrying what turned out to be a replica gun in a playground.
Police say an officer fired two shots at Tamir Rice after he failed to obey an order to raise his hands.
He did not make any verbal threats nor point the gun towards the officers.
A lawyer representing his family said it would be carrying out its own investigation into what happened.
Police said the weapon was an "airsoft" replica gun that resembled a semi-automatic pistol, adding that an orange safety indicator had been removed.
An audio recording of the 911 emergency call made by the man who reported the incident reveals that on two occasions he said that the pistol was "probably a fake" and on another occasion that the person holding it "was probably a juvenile".
The caller also said that he was not sure whether the weapon was "real or not".
But Jeff Follmer, president of the Cleveland police association, said the two officers at the scene were not told about the caller's comments.
One of the officers involved was in his first year on the local force, the other had more than 10 years of experience.
The BBC's David Willis in Washington says an official investigation is under way and both officers have been placed on administrative leave.
Tamir Rice's father, Gregory Henderson, said that police should have used a stun gun - or Taser - to subdue his son rather than shoot him.
"Why not Tase him?" he was quoted as asking by Cleveland.com. "[They] shot him twice, not once, and at the end of the day you all don't shoot for the legs, you shoot for the upper body," he said.
Mr Henderson said that Tamir was a "respectful young man" who "minded his elders", and he that it was a mystery to him why son, reported to be tall for his age, allegedly did not follow police orders.
It's not a very toy looking toy gun, and having the orange-tip removed doesn't help anything. There is a reason that there are more and more areas that have laws requiring that replica toy guns get covered in bright ugly paint.
And even then, you can have your real guns painted to look just like toy guns. These days, there's just no way for a police officer to be truly certain.
Which is why many non realistic airsoft guns are made at least partly of clear plastic. You can paint "real" guns pink, floro, yellow, whatever, but you can't make them clear.
One problem for me is that people keep referring to it as a toy gun. It's not a toy gun, it is a BB gun. Most jurisdictions in the world (Including most the US) restrict BB and airsoft guns. Less than other firearms, but they are not considered toys.
This kid was messing around with a gun, one that looked like a real firearm, and acted in a threatening manner when confronted by police. I'm no big fan of the actions of the US police of recent where people have been killed, but talking about a "Toy" does a disservice to the police involved as it implies he was waving a nurf gun around.
"Why not Tase him?" he was quoted as asking by Cleveland.com. "[They] shot him twice, not once, and at the end of the day you all don't shoot for the legs, you shoot for the upper body," he said.
You don't tase someone with a firearm for the simple reason that it convulses the muscles, and you SERIOUSLY run the risk of discharging the weapon. And regardless of whether the caller says they think the gun is a toy/fake, the officer absolutely CANNOT treat it as a fake/toy, until such at time as they can determine for themselves whether it is.
"Probably" a toy gun, for those focusing on that part of the report means it's also "probably" a real gun. It seems there is a video of the incident that will be shown at a press conference Monday.
I also see that the pictures of the victim as a mother's angel are coming out. Perhaps we could balance this in the press with a picture of the officer killing kittens?
"Why not Tase him?" he was quoted as asking by Cleveland.com.
He clearly hasn't played Payday 2. Anyone who has clearly knows why you don't tase people with a gun.
Because they might be full technician and have a magic super power that lets them tase the cop back? Indeed. Those of us with requisite experience do know
"Why not Tase him?" he was quoted as asking by Cleveland.com.
He clearly hasn't played Payday 2. Anyone who has clearly knows why you don't tase people with a gun.
Because they might be full technician and have a magic super power that lets them tase the cop back? Indeed. Those of us with requisite experience do know
...not only tase them back, but actually KNOCK 'EM DOWN.
Noir wrote: Where are the damn parents, their child would be fine if they were acking like parents.
That's a hard one to answer because some of the most out of control kids come from the best parenting. The kid is twelve, maybe he was just being stupid for a moment. There is really no way of knowing with the level of information available at the moment.
Turning this on its head, what would have happened if it was a real gun (in a playground, presumably full of kids), and the cop hadn't fired because he thought it was a toy, and some other kid or kids was/were shot?
The cop would have been crucified by the press/possibly disciplined, and definitely sued.
The police officer (in my opinion) did the right thing.
With an airsoft gun, the only way you can tell it's not real is after the trigger is pulled, by which time it's too late.
The orange tip had been removed, which strikes me as the act of someone who wanted the gun to look real.
Well they succeeded.
marv335 wrote: Turning this on its head, what would have happened if it was a real gun (in a playground, presumably full of kids), and the cop hadn't fired because he thought it was a toy, and some other kid or kids was/were shot?
Yep. Classic case of dammed if they do, damned if they don't.
Cop shoots and the usual suspects scream 'murderer'! Cop doesn’t shoot and they scream 'incompetent'! That way they always get to keep the moral high ground.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Why do people insist on removing the orange tip? That is just stupidity to the nth degree.
As a kid who grew up well before the time of brightly colored toy guns being the norm, I can tell you I would have done so because I wanted it to look real. Heck I had a toy tommy gun that was all one color and my brothers and I painted the stock a nice wood color so when you were being SGT Rock or SGT Saunders you would more look the part. We would have laughed you off of the playground if you showed up with some neon colored thing. I had a neat little carbine that was actual wood with metal parts, and when you worked the bolt action you could see a realistic looking wooden bullet int he chamber. It was cool as all heck.
Of course, we didn't point them at cops...
Of course, now you can buy real guns that look like this color may not be the best indicator of Real or Toy:
(my daughter wants one, it is a bolt action .22, she wants it in blue though)
Noir wrote: Where are the damn parents, their child would be fine if they were acking like parents.
Given the obviously tragic nature of what happened, and our severely limited information why is your first reaction so devoid of empathy? With nothing even resembling evidence, on what basis do you hear of child shot to death and lay the blame on those suffering the loss? This post is beyond crass.
I'm pretty leery of police over stepping their bounds, but I think in this case it would have been pretty difficult to make the right call, if there even was one without the benefit of hindsight. A gun, even a realistic replica, changes the situation a lot. It's terribly sad that the kid didn't do as he was told and the officer decided to shoot him and it turned out this way. It could also have turned out a different way though. Hopefully, this gets it across to people that realistic replica guns aren't really suitable toys for kids.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Could they not have tasered him instead? Or is that too risky for a teenager's heart?
Less risky than shooting him.
CptJake wrote: The info the cop had made deadly force an option.
Except for the part where the person involved was 12 years old.
Steve steveson wrote: This kid was messing around with a gun, one that looked like a real firearm, and acted in a threatening manner when confronted by police.
...but was 12 years old.
Does anyone else remember a time when police weren't supposed to use deadly force unless it was first directed at them?
Yes, that kind of sucks when you're a police officer... But that's the job. If police officers don't shoot until the 'bad guy' does, then 12 year olds don't get shot for being 12 year olds.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Could they not have tasered him instead? Or is that too risky for a teenager's heart?
Less risky than shooting him.
CptJake wrote: The info the cop had made deadly force an option.
Except for the part where the person involved was 12 years old.
Steve steveson wrote: This kid was messing around with a gun, one that looked like a real firearm, and acted in a threatening manner when confronted by police.
...but was 12 years old.
Does anyone else remember a time when police weren't supposed to use deadly force unless it was first directed at them?
Yes, that kind of sucks when you're a police officer... But that's the job. If police officers don't shoot until the 'bad guy' does, then 12 year olds don't get shot for being 12 year olds.
How does the fact (at the time unknown to the cop by the way) that the kid was 12 have any relevance to the situation? Are you suggesting no 12 year old has ever or would ever shoot someone, and that cops should inherently know this?
CptJake wrote: How does the fact (at the time unknown to the cop by the way) that the kid was 12 have any relevance to the situation? Are you suggesting no 12 year old has ever or would ever shoot someone, and that cops should inherently know this?
No, I'm suggesting that the fact that he's 12 increases the likelihood that he's just a kid being stupid rather than someone who is seriously intending to shoot anyone.
If we start shooting 12 year olds just because they do something stupid and dangerous, there will be precious few 13 year olds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: How does the fact (at the time unknown to the cop by the way) that the kid was 12 ...
CptJake wrote: How does the fact (at the time unknown to the cop by the way) that the kid was 12 have any relevance to the situation? Are you suggesting no 12 year old has ever or would ever shoot someone, and that cops should inherently know this?
No, I'm suggesting that the fact that he's 12 increases the likelihood that he's just a kid being stupid rather than someone who is seriously intending to shoot anyone.
If we start shooting 12 year olds just because they do something stupid and dangerous, there will be precious few 13 year olds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: How does the fact (at the time unknown to the cop by the way) that the kid was 12 ...
Did the cop have his eyes closed at the time?
So, cop gets called out for a juvenile pointing a gun at people. Finds said juvenile and says 'put your hands up'. Said juvenile attempts to draw the gun he had been pointing at people. What part of that sequence do you not grasp, and how does the 12 year old age of the kid make any difference?
Your comment asking if the cop's eyes were closed is asinine at best. Unfortunately for the kid and the cop, his eyes were open and he saw the kid pulling a gun.
If we start shooting 12 year olds just because they do something stupid and dangerous, there will be precious few 13 year olds.
And that's a bad thing because??????
All joking aside, seriously, where a firearm is involved, whether it's real or not, loaded or not, capable of being fired or not.... People absolutely MUST act as though it is loaded and real. In this situation, it doesn't matter that the person shot was 12, or 80. When an officer (apparently) tells you to put down a gun, step away from a gun, etc. you comply with the order, not continue to wave it around, or point it at anyone.
curran12 wrote: Question. If the situation was completely identical, except the person with the toy gun was 30, would it be different? If so, why?
I don't like the police using deadly force at all. Certainly if we must be empowering individuals to be taking the lives of civilians on behalf of the state only on the basis of their personal judgement, that judgement must be held to the highest scrutiny and strictest standards. Deadly force should be a means of last resort only in the most dire and extraordinary circumstances. That somebody 12 or 30, is kind of waving around something that may or may not be a real weapon really has a hard time qualifying in my mind.
I agree strongly with insaniak's sentiment that police should not be the ones shooting first.
If police officers don't shoot until the 'bad guy' does, then 12 year olds don't get shot for being 12 year olds.
If the police did that you would end up with lots of dead officers. I don't know of any police force in the world that would have a "don't shoot till they do" policy.
curran12 wrote: Question. If the situation was completely identical, except the person with the toy gun was 30, would it be different? If so, why?
I don't like the police using deadly force at all. Certainly if we must be empowering individuals to be taking the lives of civilians on behalf of the state only on the basis of their personal judgement, that judgement must be held to the highest scrutiny and strictest standards. Deadly force should be a means of last resort only in the most dire and extraordinary circumstances. That somebody 12 or 30, is kind of waving around something that may or may not be weapon really has a hard time qualifying in my mind.
I agree strongly with insaniak's sentiment that police should not be the ones shooting first.
So if you were king for a day, cops would have to either accept being shot at, or accept watching others get shot, before they could fire?
Okay. Glad you won't be king for a day anytime soon..
Ensis Ferrae wrote: All joking aside, seriously, where a firearm is involved, whether it's real or not, loaded or not, capable of being fired or not.... People absolutely MUST act as though it is loaded and real
I think this is probably the saddest part of the whole thing. Once upon a time, if you saw a 12-year-old waving a 'gun' around, it would have been fairly safe to assume that it wasn't real.
The fact that it now has to be assumed that the kid could be lethal is a sad, sad reflection on today's society.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Steve steveson wrote: If the police did that you would end up with lots of dead officers. I don't know of any police force in the world that would have a "don't shoot till they do" policy.
It wasn't that many years ago that your police officers didn't even carry guns...
The fact that it now has to be assumed that the kid could be lethal is a sad, sad reflection on today's society.
Honestly, I wouldn't chalk that up to society, I'd chalk it up to "basic" firearm safety.
Muzzle awareness, checking to ensure the weapon is unloaded, and trigger discipline were the FIRST things drilled into me, when I was being taught firearm safety.
Seriously, the ONLY "guns" I was allowed to point at another human being/animal were Nerf guns and Water guns. Orange tip or not, I treat all firearms as though they are real, especially if they shoot any kind of actual projectile (so, things like cap guns that make a snapping/pop noise but nothing but smoke ejects from the gun are more "lenient" than airsoft, pellet, etc)
All joking aside, seriously, where a firearm is involved, whether it's real or not, loaded or not, capable of being fired or not.... People absolutely MUST act as though it is loaded and real..
Which goes for the police and anyone else. Basic gun safty everyone should be taught. Treat all guns as real and loaded at all times.
It is rediculous to expect the police to do anything else. They are employed to enforce the law, not to commit suicid. The kid was waving a gun and went for it when he was told to put his hands up because they thought he had a gun. Kids in Cleveland, and other places, even as young as 12, do have access to guns, are involved in gangs, and will shoot police officers given the chance.
Steve steveson wrote: If the police did that you would end up with lots of dead officers. I don't know of any police force in the world that would have a "don't shoot till they do" policy.
It wasn't that many years ago that your police officers didn't even carry guns...
Eh? Not sure when that was. Fire arms officers have always existed in the UK, and most police still don't have guns. Non firearms officers would never be responding to an incident knowingly involving a gun, and would exit the area as soon as there was one and stay safe, not try and resolve it, so not sure what the relevance of our non firearms officers is. The policy would still be the same as I have said. No officer would wait until they were shot at to act.
curran12 wrote: Question. If the situation was completely identical, except the person with the toy gun was 30, would it be different? If so, why?
I don't like the police using deadly force at all. Certainly if we must be empowering individuals to be taking the lives of civilians on behalf of the state only on the basis of their personal judgement, that judgement must be held to the highest scrutiny and strictest standards. Deadly force should be a means of last resort only in the most dire and extraordinary circumstances. That somebody 12 or 30, is kind of waving around something that may or may not be a real weapon really has a hard time qualifying in my mind.
I agree strongly with insaniak's sentiment that police should not be the ones shooting first.
Wait so police should only shoot if they are shot first? What world do you live on?
curran12 wrote: Question. If the situation was completely identical, except the person with the toy gun was 30, would it be different? If so, why?
I don't like the police using deadly force at all. Certainly if we must be empowering individuals to be taking the lives of civilians on behalf of the state only on the basis of their personal judgement, that judgement must be held to the highest scrutiny and strictest standards. Deadly force should be a means of last resort only in the most dire and extraordinary circumstances. That somebody 12 or 30, is kind of waving around something that may or may not be a real weapon really has a hard time qualifying in my mind.
I agree strongly with insaniak's sentiment that police should not be the ones shooting first.
Wait so police should only shoot if they are shot first? What world do you live on?
I would agree with him if only the police comes out in bullet proof terminator armor that is impervious to small arms fire. that or robocops.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I can safely say that 99% of all Dakka members would freely admit to being an idiot when they were 12 years old. I got caught stealing sweets from a shop, at that age.
re my earlier comments about shooting the poor kid in the leg, I went out and looked at a fence post (about the width of an average leg), stepped back ten yards, and came to the conclusion that the earlier posters were right. It's not an easy target.
When I was 12 years old children routinely played in public with toy guns that ranged from the spud pistol to cap firing weapons that were practically replicas. I had an SLR and a Luger, for instance. A friend of mine had a Lee Enfield. (I still have the Luger, actually.)
There were no laws about painting them orange and stuff. We didn't keep getting shot all the the time.
It wasn't that many years ago that your police officers didn't even carry guns...
What? They've always carried firearms here. In other countries they carry machine guns.
Even worse, in Bavaria they carry kegs of beer. one wrong move and Bam! they throw it at you. On the positive, one right move and Bam! they draw you a pitcher.
I agree strongly with insaniak's sentiment that police should not be the ones shooting first.
So you're okay with police officers to get shot.
Wow. Police hate much?
Certainly not. I'm not "OK" with anyone getting shot. However, police are human and make calls based on their judgement, and they're also agents of the state, their actions are the actions of our government. I have an intense dislike of governments killing their citizenry, in any context but especially so in contexts without process. In these incidents my default position is one of skepticism. I feel like it has to be. When the state kills someone, I'm not giving the benefit of the doubt.
Police should have the right to proactively deal with situations and defend themselves, but the focus here should be less lethal methods. In other words it should be a top priority to provide the police with effective, reliable methods of stopping someone that does not also probably kill that person. The first reaction of police officers to danger should be if at all possible to pull out a means of defense that is something other than a gun shooting bullets.
Perhaps "shoot first" is too literal a phrasing here. Certainly lethal force is appropriate in circumstances other than ones where bullets have already starting flying. However I do think that some level of intent and ability to harm have to be shown to standards that are somewhat higher than what is generally in use.
I agree strongly with insaniak's sentiment that police should not be the ones shooting first.
So you're okay with police officers to get shot.
Wow. Police hate much?
Certainly not. I'm not "OK" with anyone getting shot. However, police are human and make calls based on their judgement, and they're also agents of the state, their actions are the actions of our government. I have an intense dislike of governments killing their citizenry, in any context but especially so in contexts without process. In these incidents my default position is one of skepticism. I feel like it has to be. When the state kills someone, I'm not giving the benefit of the doubt.
Police should have the right to proactively deal with situations and defend themselves, but the focus here should be less lethal methods. In other words it should be a top priority to provide the police with effective, reliable methods of stopping someone that does not also probably kill that person. The first reaction of police officers to danger should be if at all possible to pull out a means of defense that is something other a gun shooting bullets.
Perhaps "shoot first" is too literal a phrasing here. Certainly lethal force is appropriate in circumstances other than ones where bullets have already starting flying. However I do think that some level of intent and ability to harm have to be shown to standards that are somewhat higher than what is generally in use.
I get what you're saying and to a degree, agree with you. However, having been in such situations, it sometimes comes down to shooting first as fast as you can. If police are trained not to shoot when they see imminent danger (such as a gun being pulled) then you will have a lot of dead cops.
I'm sorry, but when someone threatens another person with a gun, they surrender their rights of personal safety. They made the choice and the cop has to react to it.
It certainly would be nice if one day we had actual stun rays that instantly incapacitates the target with no threat of actual death, injury or accidental weapons discharge.
Tazers Pepper spray n the likes are just not remotely up to snuff yet.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I can safely say that 99% of all Dakka members would freely admit to being an idiot when they were 12 years old. I got caught stealing sweets from a shop, at that age.
re my earlier comments about shooting the poor kid in the leg, I went out and looked at a fence post (about the width of an average leg), stepped back ten yards, and came to the conclusion that the earlier posters were right. It's not an easy target.
When I was 12 years old children routinely played in public with toy guns that ranged from the spud pistol to cap firing weapons that were practically replicas. I had an SLR and a Luger, for instance. A friend of mine had a Lee Enfield. (I still have the Luger, actually.)
There were no laws about painting them orange and stuff. We didn't keep getting shot all the the time.
The spirit of the times has changed.
It is very sad.
I had cap guns, water pistols that looked like guns, spud guns, along with several air rifles, as a child. We used to play with them in public (apart from the air rifles obviously), and kids do today. There is a big difference between running around playing army or Cowboys and Indians and waving the gun around in the park threatening people, which is what this kid seems to have been doing according to reports. He was acting like he had a real gun, in a city well known for gun violence.
Desubot wrote: It certainly would be nice if one day we had actual stun rays that instantly incapacitates the target with no threat of actual death, injury or accidental weapons discharge.
Tazers Pepper spray n the likes are just not remotely up to snuff yet.
Are you making the assertion that standard guns instantly incapacitate a target, with no risk of injury to unintended targets or accidental discharge? I'm unsure of the exact contrast you're trying to draw with less-lethal weapons.
Chongara wrote: The first reaction of police officers to danger should be if at all possible to pull out a means of defense that is something other than a gun shooting bullets.
The question is "What?".
Pepper Spray is out because of its low range and inability to disarm an opponent. Even if you *were* in critical range, you spray, he shoots. Dead.
Tazers are out because you shoot, he gets stunned, he pulls the trigger. Dead. Also: low range.
Melee disarming is out because of the short range. Really, it's super short. I'm trained and I don't stand a chance against an armed combattant at a few meters. It's highly effective in close range, but quickly falls off.
Hard plastic bullets are out because they irritate the opponent without knocking him out. He shoots, dead.
There simply isn't anything else to counter guns bar...guns.
If we do have all the info that there is on the case, then the officer isn't to blame. It's a tragic incident, it certainly is, and both the boy's family and the officer will suffer for a long, maybe lifetime, from the day's consequences. In this very situation, however, the officer reacted correctly and followed protocol. It doesn't make the whole thing any better, but I am both enraged and saddened by so many people immediately shouting "RACIST! RACIIIIIIST!" or "COPS ARE MURDERERS! THIS MONSTER KILLED A CHILD!" when in fact, he didn't do anything wrong.
Desubot wrote: It certainly would be nice if one day we had actual stun rays that instantly incapacitates the target with no threat of actual death, injury or accidental weapons discharge.
Tazers Pepper spray n the likes are just not remotely up to snuff yet.
Are you making the assertion that standard guns instantly incapacitate a target, with no risk of injury to unintended targets or accidental discharge? I'm unsure of the exact contrast you're trying to draw with less-lethal weapons.
They have the highest chance, yes. Double-tap someone and he is most likely to instantly pass out. Is there a risk left? There most certainly is. But it's the best we have right now.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Were warning shots fired. was the kid told to drop the "weapon"?
Or is the shoot first ask questions later ok?
How about "shoot first, live later?"
When someone, no matter the age or anything, suddenly points a gun at you or is about to reach for a gun despite being asked to stand down, you shoot him. No questions asked.
I actually think this is the case. Depending on the extent of police training, drawing your weapon and shooting is likely instinct in a potential life-or-death scenario - doubly so to shoot a minor.
marv335 wrote: Turning this on its head, what would have happened if it was a real gun (in a playground, presumably full of kids), and the cop hadn't fired because he thought it was a toy, and some other kid or kids was/were shot?
The cop would have been crucified by the press/possibly disciplined, and definitely sued.
The police officer (in my opinion) did the right thing.
With an airsoft gun, the only way you can tell it's not real is after the trigger is pulled, by which time it's too late.
The orange tip had been removed, which strikes me as the act of someone who wanted the gun to look real.
Well they succeeded.
Yeah... I might not be totally able to identify with the kid since I didn't live in a city, so I had plenty of private space to run around with toy guns, but I can clearly remember my dad saying (on multiple occasions) to keep the guns out of sight (whether they were BB rifles or toys) when people you didn't know were around for this very reason. I'm not necessarily blaming the parents here, because maybe they said the same to the kid, but it's hard to blame the victim as well since he's so young...
If police officers don't shoot until the 'bad guy' does, then 12 year olds don't get shot for being 12 year olds.
If the police did that you would end up with lots of dead officers. I don't know of any police force in the world that would have a "don't shoot till they do" policy.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I can safely say that 99% of all Dakka members would freely admit to being an idiot when they were 12 years old. I got caught stealing sweets from a shop, at that age.
re my earlier comments about shooting the poor kid in the leg, I went out and looked at a fence post (about the width of an average leg), stepped back ten yards, and came to the conclusion that the earlier posters were right. It's not an easy target.
When I was 12 years old children routinely played in public with toy guns that ranged from the spud pistol to cap firing weapons that were practically replicas. I had an SLR and a Luger, for instance. A friend of mine had a Lee Enfield. (I still have the Luger, actually.)
There were no laws about painting them orange and stuff. We didn't keep getting shot all the the time.
The spirit of the times has changed.
It is very sad.
I had cap guns, water pistols that looked like guns, spud guns, along with several air rifles, as a child. We used to play with them in public (apart from the air rifles obviously), and kids do today. There is a big difference between running around playing army or Cowboys and Indians and waving the gun around in the park threatening people, which is what this kid seems to have been doing according to reports. He was acting like he had a real gun, in a city well known for gun violence.
This is not the same as kids playing with toys.
The point is why a child would feel the need to playact as a criminal with a gun (rather than a cowboy or a soldier -- admittedly I sometimes played Cops and Robbers too) and why the police would be so open to the idea that criminal children with real guns would be likely to be encountered.
That is what I mean by the spirit of the times changing.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I can safely say that 99% of all Dakka members would freely admit to being an idiot when they were 12 years old. I got caught stealing sweets from a shop, at that age.
re my earlier comments about shooting the poor kid in the leg, I went out and looked at a fence post (about the width of an average leg), stepped back ten yards, and came to the conclusion that the earlier posters were right. It's not an easy target.
When I was 12 years old children routinely played in public with toy guns that ranged from the spud pistol to cap firing weapons that were practically replicas. I had an SLR and a Luger, for instance. A friend of mine had a Lee Enfield. (I still have the Luger, actually.)
There were no laws about painting them orange and stuff. We didn't keep getting shot all the the time.
The spirit of the times has changed.
It is very sad.
I had cap guns, water pistols that looked like guns, spud guns, along with several air rifles, as a child. We used to play with them in public (apart from the air rifles obviously), and kids do today. There is a big difference between running around playing army or Cowboys and Indians and waving the gun around in the park threatening people, which is what this kid seems to have been doing according to reports. He was acting like he had a real gun, in a city well known for gun violence.
This is not the same as kids playing with toys.
The point is why a child would feel the need to playact as a criminal with a gun (rather than a cowboy or a soldier -- admittedly I sometimes played Cops and Robbers too) and why the police would be so open to the idea that criminal children with real guns would be likely to be encountered.
That is what I mean by the spirit of the times changing.
I certainly played around with black toy guns when I was a kid. And some weird old lady neighbor with nothing better to do certainly could have seen that and called the police any number of times. And I certainly could have acted scared/had a "WTF is going on" moment/acted squirrely after some police cruisers came roaring up, with officers yelling at me.
These are all reasonable circumstances, and yet we're left with an unreasonable ending -- an innocent kid shot to death in the name of protecting LE officers who were never actually at risk.
I'm not saying that the officer in question should be jailed or drawn and quartered, but IMO he should be fired and never get the chance to work in LE again. You don't get mulligans for bad, costly mistakes in plenty of other careers, and I don't see why LE should be any different, *especially* when we're talking about life or death.
He fethed up big time -- plain and simple -- and should pay a real price for that. And the department should pay the price for failing to fully explain the situation to the officer.
Desubot wrote: Im not sure where i said a gun has NO risk of the above.
what im saying is non lethal Has too much of the above risk.
Where do you personally set these thresholds, exactly? It'd be an interesting point to examine at the very least. I'm wondering just how far off currently technologies are from the standards you hold and how well current (lethal) methods meet them as well. You seem very certain that they're nowhere near those standards, so assuming you're making these statements in good faith:
A) You must have those standards well and clearly defined in your mind.
B) Lethal methods should easily and apparently pass those standards.
C) Any readily available information on existing less-lethal methods should indicate they unambiguously fail to meet them.
He fethed up big time -- plain and simple -- and should pay a real price for that. And the department should pay the price for failing to fully explain the situation to the officer.
This is wrong on so many levels. I assume you have not received any sort of training in such situations and (hopefully) have never been in one either.
What you do is the reaction most people have - "POLICE OFFICER SHOOTS CHILD". And then, people instantly react with a "POLICE IS EVIL!" reaction. Which is just wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It's an instant, fully emotional and irrational reaction based on the facts you know NOW.
In this very situation, the officer was confronted with a child that was asked to stand down and then decided to go for the weapon in his belt, about to draw it. Shooting was the only correct solution in this situation as cruel as that may sound. Asking a police offer to be fired for doing his job and following protocol 100%, not thinking about him maybe (!) not being so super-happy about it either shows a lack of empathy and general understanding of the situation at hand.
If police officers don't shoot until the 'bad guy' does, then 12 year olds don't get shot for being 12 year olds.
If the police did that you would end up with lots of dead officers. I don't know of any police force in the world that would have a "don't shoot till they do" policy.
Dead innocent citizens isn't a better result.
How does police shooting an assailant with a gun before they are shot at result in dead innocent citizens? Or are you trying to use emotive words inappropriately to prove a point?
If police officers don't shoot until the 'bad guy' does, then 12 year olds don't get shot for being 12 year olds.
If the police did that you would end up with lots of dead officers. I don't know of any police force in the world that would have a "don't shoot till they do" policy.
Dead innocent citizens isn't a better result.
It is actually. There are relatively few dead innocent citizens.
This 12 year old was not an assailant, he did not have a gun, and he could not have shot at the police. Apart from the crime of not putting his hands up, he was an innocent civilian.
IDK how this situation arose or how it could have been resolved less lethally, but let us not forget the above points.
Kilkrazy wrote: This 12 year old was not an assailant, he did not have a gun, and he could not have shot at the police. Apart from the crime of not putting his hands up, he was an innocent civilian.
IDK how this situation arose or how it could have been resolved less lethally, but let us not forget the above points.
Again how could ANYONE have known he did not actually have an actual not toy gun.
Kilkrazy wrote: This 12 year old was not an assailant, he did not have a gun, and he could not have shot at the police. Apart from the crime of not putting his hands up, he was an innocent civilian.
IDK how this situation arose or how it could have been resolved less lethally, but let us not forget the above points.
Pro-tip: Don't act aggressively towards someone armed.... then, you won't get shot.
If police officers don't shoot until the 'bad guy' does, then 12 year olds don't get shot for being 12 year olds.
If the police did that you would end up with lots of dead officers. I don't know of any police force in the world that would have a "don't shoot till they do" policy.
Dead innocent citizens isn't a better result.
It is actually. There are relatively few dead innocent citizens.
What's "relatively few"?
Better yet, here's a question: How many people do the police kill each year like at all , innocent or otherwise? How many shootings are they involved in? That's the kind of information one needs to make the assertion you just did, but that's not information that's made available in any fashion even resembling comprehensive. So i'm not really sure how you could make that claim in good faith because it's not a figure that's knowable by the public.
We don't have comprehensive records of who our police are killing or why. The best numbers I've been able to find peg it at "Some number more than about 400 year".
Kilkrazy wrote: This 12 year old was not an assailant, he did not have a gun, and he could not have shot at the police. Apart from the crime of not putting his hands up, he was an innocent civilian..
Kilkrazy wrote: This 12 year old was not an assailant, he did not have a gun, and he could not have shot at the police. Apart from the crime of not putting his hands up, he was an innocent civilian.
IDK how this situation arose or how it could have been resolved less lethally, but let us not forget the above points.
Pro-tip: Don't act aggressively towards someone armed.... then, you won't get shot.
Perhaps the police should have left him alone.
To address Desubot's point, why should the police assume the boy was armed?
What is the change in society that has resulted in the situation that kids running around with apparent guns are automatically assumed to be dangerous armed criminals?
Kilkrazy wrote: This 12 year old was not an assailant, he did not have a gun, and he could not have shot at the police. Apart from the crime of not putting his hands up, he was an innocent civilian.
IDK how this situation arose or how it could have been resolved less lethally, but let us not forget the above points.
Pro-tip: Don't act aggressively towards someone armed.... then, you won't get shot.
Perhaps the police should have left him alone.
Did you read the OP? The police were called in by neighbors.
To address Desubot's point, why should the police assume the boy was armed?
What is the change in society that has resulted in the situation that kids running around with apparent guns are automatically assumed to be dangerous armed criminals?
When I joined the army, I did so with the expectation that at some point I might get shot at. It sort of comes with the job. Anyone joining a police force should, as far as I can see, have a similar expectation.
I'm not 'ok' with police officers getting shot. But I would much rather see the headline 'Police officer shot in the line of duty' than '12 year old shot for being stupid'.
Kilkrazy wrote: This 12 year old was not an assailant, he did not have a gun, and he could not have shot at the police. Apart from the crime of not putting his hands up, he was an innocent civilian.
IDK how this situation arose or how it could have been resolved less lethally, but let us not forget the above points.
Pro-tip: Don't act aggressively towards someone armed.... then, you won't get shot.
Perhaps the police should have left him alone.
To address Desubot's point, why should the police assume the boy was armed?
What is the change in society that has resulted in the situation that kids running around with apparent guns are automatically assumed to be dangerous armed criminals?
Because it was there job to do so. this officer was dispatched knowing some one was threatening people with a gun.
If anything the probably fake line should of been relayed to the officer and even then he still needs to be cautious.
A normal well anything playing around with a fake gun being told to put there hands up would probably not reach for it when told to do so by an officer.
and with no indicators that it is fake what options does he have? risk getting shot? or let others around get shot?
I think the lack of gun control in the US is crazy
and I'm certainly not impressed by the way the police have been shown to behave in a wide number of supposedly 'first world' countries
but even I can't see this as anything but a tragic situation where the officer involved had no choice but to act as he did. You can't take chances with what you believe is an armed suspect...
especially when they appear to be a juvenile who is far LESS likely to act in a rational matter than an adult when told to put down/drop a weapon. Kids are far more likely to do something stupid and shoot as they have even less understanding or respect for consequences of their actions
Kilkrazy wrote: This 12 year old was not an assailant, he did not have a gun, and he could not have shot at the police. Apart from the crime of not putting his hands up, he was an innocent civilian.
IDK how this situation arose or how it could have been resolved less lethally, but let us not forget the above points.
Pro-tip: Don't act aggressively towards someone armed.... then, you won't get shot.
Perhaps the police should have left him alone.
To address Desubot's point, why should the police assume the boy was armed?
Because they were told he was armed and he had a visible gun?
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: . Kids are far more likely to do something stupid and shoot as they have even less understanding or respect for consequences of their actions
Which is all the more reason to resolve the situation without shooting the poor sod.
This isn't a case of someone willfully trying to kill police. It's a kid, being a kid. Who is now dead, because he acted like a kid.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: . Kids are far more likely to do something stupid and shoot as they have even less understanding or respect for consequences of their actions
Which is all the more reason to resolve the situation without shooting the poor sod.
This isn't a case of someone willfully trying to kill police. It's a kid, being a kid. Who is now dead, because he acted like a kid.
And that is at the heart of this tragedy. That doesn't mean the officer did anything wrong.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: . Kids are far more likely to do something stupid and shoot as they have even less understanding or respect for consequences of their actions
Which is all the more reason to resolve the situation without shooting the poor sod.
This isn't a case of someone willfully trying to kill police. It's a kid, being a kid. Who is now dead, because he acted like a kid.
Dude.
Flip a fething coin on whether or not the kid had a real weapon.
You're advocating the Police to play Russian Roulette.
Sigvatr wrote: Where is Captain Hindsight when we need him?
Presumably, hiding in a box with Captain Don't Kill People Unless There is No Other Way Of Resolving The Situation.
"Officer Killkrazy, there's a kid with a gun presumably threatening civilians. Please check." >> Arrives at place "Stand down, kid! Hands in the air! Everything is ok. Don't grab for the weapon. Please, don't. Okay, I see you are going for it. Did you unders-"
BAM BAM BAM YOU'RE DEAD.
Now, explain to me how this situation is any better. Please.
Sigvatr wrote: Where is Captain Hindsight when we need him?
Presumably, hiding in a box with Captain Don't Kill People Unless There is No Other Way Of Resolving The Situation.
"Officer Killkrazy, there's a kid with a gun presumably threatening civilians. Please check."
>> Arrives at place
"Stand down, kid! Hands in the air! Everything is ok. Don't grab for the weapon. Please, don't. Okay, I see you are going for it. Did you unders-"
BAM BAM BAM YOU'RE DEAD.
Now, explain to me how this situation is any better. Please.
No, I'm advocating that police do their fething job, and establish whether or not a kid is actually dangerous before shooting him.
You claim to having joined the army. I learned that people reported to be armed and about to reach for a gun could be considered potentially dangerous.
That is exactly what he did. 100% did his job. 100% correct decisions.
Aside from the part where a 12 year old with a pellet gun in his pants wound up shot dead.
He may have 100% followed his training ... but the end result of that scenario should simply not be acceptable by anyone's standard, and the fact that so many people seem so prepared to just shrug and accept it saddens, angers and appalls me.
He may have 100% followed his training ... but the end result of that scenario should simply not be acceptable by anyone's standard, and the fact that so many people seem so prepared to just shrug and accept it saddens, angers and appalls me.
No one is shrugging this off insaniak.
It is a sad situation, but your ire is misplaced imo.
This is the reality of the situation. The officers CANNOT know whether or not it's a real gun, and thus for their safety and everyone else in their immediate surrounding, these officers MUST treat it as an armed weapon.
Sigvatr wrote: Where is Captain Hindsight when we need him?
Presumably, hiding in a box with Captain Don't Kill People Unless There is No Other Way Of Resolving The Situation.
"Officer Killkrazy, there's a kid with a gun presumably threatening civilians. Please check."
>> Arrives at place
"Stand down, kid! Hands in the air! Everything is ok. Don't grab for the weapon. Please, don't. Okay, I see you are going for it. Did you unders-"
BAM BAM BAM YOU'RE DEAD.
Now, explain to me how this situation is any better. Please.
Kilkrazy wrote: This 12 year old was not an assailant, he did not have a gun, and he could not have shot at the police. Apart from the crime of not putting his hands up, he was an innocent civilian.
IDK how this situation arose or how it could have been resolved less lethally, but let us not forget the above points.
The above points are wrong. The kid clearly DID have a gun. It may have been a toy gun, but it was a toy gun that looked a lot like a real gun. Once that fact (and it IS a fact) is accepted, your point falls apart completely. You can then start to add in other facts that have been reported, such as the kid had the cops called on him for pointing that gun at others (thereby kind of making him a potential assailant in the eyes of the cops responding, in that he had been brandishing what appeared to be a weapon). To claim he did not have a gun is just silly. He very clearly did.
insaniak wrote: but the end result of that scenario should simply not be acceptable by anyone's standard, and the fact that so many people seem so prepared to just shrug and accept it saddens, angers and appalls me.
People in here are not discussing the result. Everyone in here fully agrees with the result being a tragic event for all parties involved. That's not up to debate.
What we...most of us are discussing here is the situation at hand. The clear, cold facts are:
- 911 was called. Caller said there was a person with a gun. Not sure if real or not.
- Police arrives at the scene, see kid
- Kid is visibly armed
- Kid is asked to stand down
- Kid refuses
- Kid is about to grab the gun from his belt
- Kid is shot
That's it. Correct if wrong.
If we only look at those facts, then the only solution is that the officer at hand reacted in the only correct way. The result is tragic. Yes.
CptJake wrote: The kid clearly DID have a gun. It may have been a toy gun, but it was a toy gun that looked a lot like a real gun. .
...and so was not a gun.
But how would we have known untill after?
Again Orange cap was removed. Dont get me wrong this is a 100% different story had the gun looked like nerf dart gun, but this was apparently a airsoft replica that basically looks exactly the same as the real deal.
and anything short of it being clear plastic or having it physically in your hand to tell its plastic there is NO way to tell the difference.
Desubot wrote: But how would we have known untill after?
Not pushing the situation into shots being fired would have been a good start.
From the original article, when police arrived, he had the gun tucked into his pants. Police escalated the situation by drawing on him, rather than trying to talk to him to establish what was actually going on.
It seems entirely possible that the situation could have been resolved without any shots being fired if police hadn't raced in expecting a shootout with a child.
Desubot wrote: But how would we have known untill after?
Not pushing the situation into shots being fired would have been a good start.
From the original article, when police arrived, he had the gun tucked into his pants. Police escalated the situation by drawing on him, rather than trying to talk to him to establish what was actually going on.
It seems entirely possible that the situation could have been resolved without any shots being fired if police hadn't raced in expecting a shootout with a child.
Pushing or escalating what he sees a weapon tucked in his pants. Step one to get ready. If it was a real gun then you need to have advantage (check) Step two call him to stand down: that would be the put your hands on your head (check) Step three would normally be to subdue and detain (cuffs) then pat down for weapons followed by questioning
Instead we get the child going for the weapon (which we for all intents and purposes DO NOT KNOW IS FAKE) there for he is now 100% a full danger to him self and everyone around him.
Officer now has 100% authority to use lethal force. its done and over with.
Obviously non of us where there and no videos from what i can tell. so take this with some salt
Kilkrazy wrote: This 12 year old was not an assailant, he did not have a gun, and he could not have shot at the police. Apart from the crime of not putting his hands up, he was an innocent civilian.
IDK how this situation arose or how it could have been resolved less lethally, but let us not forget the above points.
No. He totally was an assailant with a firearm. You ALWAYS assume the gun is real until its proven otherwise.
The kid went to draw a weapon and was treated accordingly. The only wrongdoing was his. The cops did everything right.
Grey Templar wrote: The only wrongdoing was his. The cops did everything right.
I'm glad you know this with such certainty. From the article I read I certainly didn't get a moment-to-moment rundown of everything the cops did, and saw and how that was verified by multiple outside sources. However since you know for a fact the cops did everything right, you must have access to these kinds of materials and reports. I mean certainly you wouldn't just assume a situation where a kid wound up dead is on the level. I mean we can both agree that kind of situation demands thorough investigation by multiple external parties....right?
I understand given the immediacy of the incident, you probably can't release your sources but if you give as detailed a rundown as possible that'd be great.
So many people here blessed with 20\20 hindsight. That the gun turned out to be a replica is knowledge we are blessed with possessing from the conform of behind our keyboards after the event.
Put yourself in the cops shoes. He has a reports of someone behaving in a threatening manner with a gun. He seeing the kid with the gun which appears no different to a regular functional gun. He challenges the kid who then rather than surrender reaches for the gun.
You have a split second to make a decision to defend yourself or not. What else is he supposed to do?
I've not heard a single credible alternative course of action from the police bashers. Most just seem to be suggesting the cops should allow themselves to be shot at because guns might turn out to be fake. That's a very brave suggestion to make from behind your keyboard. In reality I'm willing to bet most of you would pull the trigger as well.
CptJake wrote: Wrong. And you're smart enough to know that. It is a shame you cannot admit that you grasp the concept being presented.
What I 'grasp' is that a 12 year old with a toy gun tucked into his pants has been shot dead by police.
There is no excuse for that. The situation was badly handled. We can tell that the situation was badly handled, because adult, apparently professional police officers shot dead a 12 year old with a toy gun tucked into his pants.
CptJake wrote: Wrong. And you're smart enough to know that. It is a shame you cannot admit that you grasp the concept being presented.
What I 'grasp' is that a 12 year old with a toy gun tucked into his pants has been shot dead by police.
There is no excuse for that. The situation was badly handled. We can tell that the situation was badly handled, because adult, apparently professional police officers shot dead a 12 year old with a toy gun tucked into his pants.
No. A kid(irrelevant fact) with a gun in his pants was told to put his hands up by police. Instead he drew the weapon, and was thus shot as an immanent threat.
The fact the gun turned out to be a fake is also irrelevant as that was not known, nor could anyone possibly have known.
Even the 911 caller only said "its probably a toy", probably isn't good enough to not treat the gun as a real one.
CptJake wrote: Wrong. And you're smart enough to know that. It is a shame you cannot admit that you grasp the concept being presented.
What I 'grasp' is that a 12 year old with a toy gun tucked into his pants has been shot dead by police.
There is no excuse for that. The situation was badly handled. We can tell that the situation was badly handled, because adult, apparently professional police officers shot dead a 12 year old with a toy gun tucked into his pants.
So you continue to ignore the situation and use information you got in hindsight in order to re-evaluate the situation and draw your conclusions.
And that, I think, is the crux of the problem. Because I'm not going to agree that the fact that a child was involved was irrelevant.
The fact that it was a child should have affected how the situation was dealt with, because that fact that it was a child for one affected the liklihood of it being a real gun, and for two had an impact on how they were likely to react.
If police officers don't shoot until the 'bad guy' does, then 12 year olds don't get shot for being 12 year olds.
If the police did that you would end up with lots of dead officers. I don't know of any police force in the world that would have a "don't shoot till they do" policy.
Dead innocent citizens isn't a better result.
Dead innocent civilians that acted in a way to make the officer feel his life was threatened is not a better result, but an understandable one.
And that, I think, is the crux of the problem. Because I'm not going to agree that the fact that a child was involved was irrelevant.
The fact that it was a child should have affected how the situation was dealt with, because that fact that it was a child for one affected the liklihood of it being a real gun, and for two had an impact on how they were likely to react.
I see you have ignored the plethora of news stories, two of which were linked here about kids shooting people.
Tell you what, read back over some of the posts in this thread that talk about real guns being painted to look like toy guns and shotguns being disguised by being put inside super soakers. After that, go talk to some cops to see what happens to them on a daily basis and see if your attitude changes any.
Better yet, here's a question: How many people do the police kill each year like at all , innocent or otherwise? How many shootings are they involved in? That's the kind of information one needs to make the assertion you just did, but that's not information that's made available in any fashion even resembling comprehensive. So i'm not really sure how you could make that claim in good faith because it's not a figure that's knowable by the public.
We don't have comprehensive records of who our police are killing or why. The best numbers I've been able to find peg it at "Some number more than about 400 year".
It may not fully answer your questions, but here's an article that I found earlier today:
It may or may not be entirely accurate, but, if it's true.... then in some places in the US, the police are definitely "worse" than your average criminal.
I think the lack of gun control in the US is crazy
The "lack" of gun control in the US is exactly where it should be. Afterall, we founded the whole dang country on the principle that men should be able to defend themselves.
Of course, the founding fathers viewed the "militia" which they defined as "the whole of the population" as all the army they'd need, and that much of the navy would be supplied by well-to-do people with a vested interest in maritime happenings.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Who is to say the cophone in Germany didn't get lucky and miss the center of mass and hit the leg?
This is actually probably down to the "panic" mode that people get into... when you have less than a second to (I'm presuming a bit here) draw, take off safe, aim, and fire.... Your shot isn't going to be Patton at the Olympics accurate.
@zombiekilla.... It may be "wrong" for cops to "shoot to kill" vs. shooting to wound in order to avoid litigation, but there is a very good reason for it as well..... If you're aiming center mass, or "aiming to kill" you are aiming for the largest portion of the human body, the odds of missing, depending on range is much much lower than if that same cop were purposefully aiming at an arm or a leg. And litigation is more a state of the US, as opposed to strictly a state of Law Enforcement. IIRC, there was a case in Oregon when I was growing up of a man who busted in a house window (breaking and entering) and the home owner was home, defended his home, and shot the guy, either in the thigh, or the arse (I don't really remember that detail). The guy was very quickly picked up by the police and received treatment. The criminal turned around and tried to sue the homeowner for "wrongful injury"
To put this another way: IF you were out hunting a deer or elk, where would you aim? You'd aim for the heart/mass of the animal to put it down, you wouldn't aim for a leg in hopes of "immobilizing" it.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Who is to say the cophone in Germany didn't get lucky and miss the center of mass and hit the leg?
Nope just wanted to stop the assailant in non lethal means. My point is America we shoot to kill and every other week someone gets shot by a cop for having a knife or plastic gun now those cops not only aim for the head (which in certain circumstances I can understand) But they blow the whole clip at the suspect making sure they are dead.
Not saying america is a police state! But I think its wrong for a cop to blast a kid for holding a toy gun when he could have shot him in the leg or arm or even in the body Which is still a high chance that he could survive.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Who is to say the cophone in Germany didn't get lucky and miss the center of mass and hit the leg?
This is actually probably down to the "panic" mode that people get into... when you have less than a second to (I'm presuming a bit here) draw, take off safe, aim, and fire.... Your shot isn't going to be Patton at the Olympics accurate.
@zombiekilla.... It may be "wrong" for cops to "shoot to kill" vs. shooting to wound in order to avoid litigation, but there is a very good reason for it as well..... If you're aiming center mass, or "aiming to kill" you are aiming for the largest portion of the human body, the odds of missing, depending on range is much much lower than if that same cop were purposefully aiming at an arm or a leg. And litigation is more a state of the US, as opposed to strictly a state of Law Enforcement. IIRC, there was a case in Oregon when I was growing up of a man who busted in a house window (breaking and entering) and the home owner was home, defended his home, and shot the guy, either in the thigh, or the arse (I don't really remember that detail). The guy was very quickly picked up by the police and received treatment. The criminal turned around and tried to sue the homeowner for "wrongful injury"
To put this another way: IF you were out hunting a deer or elk, where would you aim? You'd aim for the heart/mass of the animal to put it down, you wouldn't aim for a leg in hopes of "immobilizing" it.
Now this is where it gets shaky I total understand the whole breaking and entering and how if you are drawing on someone breaking into your home you:
1)wait till they are in your house.
2)shoot them in the head.
3)call the cops.
Because that robber can sue the crap out of you! The difference is that we are talking about a kid. This thing also has happens at least 10 or 15 times a year. Hell in my town alone some kid was shot as well little more then a year ago.
zombiekila707 wrote: Police officer in Germany shoots a man charging him with a knife (in the leg)- guy lives.
Police officer in America shoots a kid for holding a toy gun (In the head)-kid dies
Only in America.
Sorry but I have talked to cops the reason why they shoot to kill is because they would hate to get sued.
That's wrong
German cop is very very very very lucky his leg shot stopped the guy.
Legs are actually surprisingly durable. Outside of the bullet getting lucky and shattering the femur, its not going to significantly impede your movement by getting shot there. Especially if you are in the middle of a charge.
95% of the time, the guy would still make it to the Cop and begin stabbing, all you've given him is a lot of extra incentive to hurt you.
And that, I think, is the crux of the problem. Because I'm not going to agree that the fact that a child was involved was irrelevant.
The fact that it was a child should have affected how the situation was dealt with, because that fact that it was a child for one affected the liklihood of it being a real gun, and for two had an impact on how they were likely to react.
lol. I posted links to two stories where 12 year olds murdered people using guns.
You're right, it was badly handled, by the kid.
What happened was the logical conclusion of his act.
Even a 12 year old should know that waving a(n apparently real) gun around in a playground, especially in a US city, is going to get you shot.
Trying to pull a(n apparently real) gun on a cop is going to get you shot.
This kid died of a bad case of stupid.
Sadly it's a condition that is often fatal.
The cop had no choice but to assume the gun is real.
The subsequent events were only to be expected.
The cop also didn't know the kid was 12, news reports have him as tall for his age, and 12 or not, still old enough to pull a trigger.
Now this is where it gets shaky I total understand the whole breaking and entering and how if you are drawing on someone breaking into your home you:
1)wait till they are in your house.
2)shoot them in the head.
3)call the cops.
Because that robber can sue the crap out of you!
I think you're somewhat missing my point here.... When time is of the essence, the best place to aim for subduing someone is center mass. Sometimes, especially with a pistol, you'll "pull" your shots. I myself have pulled shots high in anticipation of recoil from my pistol at the range.
And, as for robbers suing homeowners, I don't believe they've ever gotten very far, at least outside of California or New York
CptJake wrote: lol. I posted links to two stories where 12 year olds murdered people using guns.
So? I never claimed it doesn't happen. I said his age made it less likely.
Which was borne out by the fact that, you know, he didn't actually have a real gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think you're somewhat missing my point here.... When time is of the essence, the best place to aim for subduing someone is center mass.D
Time wouldn't have been 'of the essense' if police hadn't goaded him into drawing his 'gun'. And even then, it wasn't actually 'of the essense' since his gun wasn't real.
If he had been approached like a 12 year old kid instead of as a crazed gunman, all of this could have been avoided.
Going by the news article, the gun was tucked into his pants when they got there. He pulled it out when they told him to raise his hands... but didn't point it at them. So was just as likely taking it out to show them that it wasn't a real gun.
Either way, it sure sounds like it was the police charging in there as if he was an armed felon that escalated this nonsense.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Were warning shots fired. was the kid told to drop the "weapon"?
Or is the shoot first ask questions later ok?
Guess you didn't read the article very closely in your hurry to demonize the cop.
Where did i demonize the cop? i was asking questions.
Why did the dispatcher not relay the information? Do shotguns in a police car have different ammo? (like a bean bag?)
I am sorry but i com from a culture where the cop is only allowed to fire when the assailant is really charging the police officer, and violence is only used as the last option.
CptJake wrote: lol. I posted links to two stories where 12 year olds murdered people using guns.
So? I never claimed it doesn't happen. I said his age made it less likely.
Which was borne out by the fact that, you know, he didn't actually have a real gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think you're somewhat missing my point here.... When time is of the essence, the best place to aim for subduing someone is center mass.D
Time wouldn't have been 'of the essense' if police hadn't goaded him into drawing his 'gun'. And even then, it wasn't actually 'of the essense' since his gun wasn't real.
If he had been approached like a 12 year old kid instead of as a crazed gunman, all of this could have been avoided.
I can't tell if you're trolling or just willfully ignorant. Either way, your misrepresentation of the situation isn't gonna convince anyone who actually looks at the info reported and has a basic understanding.
Which was borne out by the fact that, you know, he didn't actually have a real gun.
its a bit naive to look back on it with 20/20 hindsight and say things like "Look the fact is, the kid didnt have a real gun" when that fact is, that "fact" was an unknown at the time.
Its a sad situation all around, but you are taking a very one sided approach when you solely criticize decisions that were made by officers in the heat of the moment, over say the parents decision to not properly supervise their kid, or the kids decision to not comply with officers orders.
As it is, its far more likely that a parent would notice their kid has removed the orange markings from toy guns sometime while the kid was playing with it at home, then for the officer to realize that as the kid went for it. Had the parent been present they could have remedied or prevented the situation in all likelihood.
Letting your kids run around with things that look almost identical to guns unsupervised is akin to letting them play in traffic. In a perfect world drivers would still not hit the kids in traffic, because of their training to cope with high stress split second decisions like what to do when a kid runs out into the middle of the street for no reason (or what to do when a kid has a gun and is going for it for no reason) the fact is risky behaviors breed accidents unfortunately.
easysauce wrote: its a bit naive to look back on it with 20/20 hindsight and say things like "Look the fact is, the kid didnt have a real gun" when that fact is, that "fact" was an unknown at the time.
But that fact might have been known at the time if police had taken the time to talk to him before deciding to treat him like a pending lunatic.
Its a sad situation all around, but you are taking a very one sided approach when you solely criticize decisions that were made by officers in the heat of the moment, over say the parents decision to not properly supervise their kid, or the kids decision to not comply with officers orders.
Yes, I am. Because those officers shot a 12 year old boy 'armed' with a toy gun that he wasn't even pointing at them.
So yes, damn straight I'm taking a 'one sided approach' to that. Because its inexcusable.
As it is, its far more likely that a parent would notice their kid has removed the orange markings from toy guns sometime while the kid was playing with it at home, ...
I very much doubt that most parents would inspect their childrens' toys on any sort of a regular basis in order to determine whether they have been altered into something that could be confused with a real weapon.
Letting your kids run around with things that look almost identical to guns unsupervised is akin to letting them play in traffic. In a perfect world drivers would still not hit the kids in traffic, because of their training to cope with high stress split second decisions like what to do when a kid runs out into the middle of the street for no reason (or what to do when a kid has a gun and is going for it for no reason) the fact is risky behaviors breed accidents unfortunately.
Sure. Except the 'accident' in this case is that the kid was playing in the traffic, and the police have driven up and and run him over instead of suggesting to him that what he was doing wasn't a great idea.
Going by the news article, the gun was tucked into his pants when they got there. He pulled it out when they told him to raise his hands... but didn't point it at them. So was just as likely taking it out to show them that it wasn't a real gun.
Either way, it sure sounds like it was the police charging in there as if he was an armed felon that escalated this nonsense.
That bolded part there is the thing. If a weapon gets drawn, you assume with every fiber of your being its going to be shot at you. You do not give them time to aim at you and put him down before he gets a chance.
Yes, I am. Because those officers shot a 12 year old boy 'armed' with a toy gun that he wasn't even pointing at them.
So yes, damn straight I'm taking a 'one sided approach' to that. Because its inexcusable.
As it is, its far more likely that a parent would notice their kid has removed the orange markings from toy guns sometime while the kid was playing with it at home, ...
I very much doubt that most parents would inspect their childrens' toys on any sort of a regular basis in order to determine whether they have been altered into something that could be confused with a real weapon. so its too hard for parents to supervise their children and their toys, but you expect officers to instantly know the difference between a black handgun, and an almost identical fake gun that someone is drawing from their waist?
Letting your kids run around with things that look almost identical to guns unsupervised is akin to letting them play in traffic. In a perfect world drivers would still not hit the kids in traffic, because of their training to cope with high stress split second decisions like what to do when a kid runs out into the middle of the street for no reason (or what to do when a kid has a gun and is going for it for no reason) the fact is risky behaviors breed accidents unfortunately.
Sure. Except the 'accident' in this case is that the kid was playing in the traffic, and the police have driven up and and run him over instead of suggesting to him that what he was doing wasn't a great idea.
again, you keep applying facts that were not known until after, to the officers decision, and you are equating a decision made in a split second with one being made under no pressure at all.
You dont have time to tell kids to stop playing in traffic when they are *already jumping out in front of your car* the same way you dont have time to politely ask someone if the gun they are reaching for is real or not, especially if you have already told them to put up their hands.
Telling a suspect to put up their hands and surrender, is in fact, attempting a non violent method to diffuse the situation you suggest, it was tried, it failed the second that kid went for what looked like a gun.
The proper response to "put your hands up" is to put your hands up, not reach for guns, or what visually is very much a gun, in your waistband
easysauce wrote: so its too hard for parents to supervise their children and their toys, but you expect officers to instantly know the difference between a black handgun, and an almost identical fake gun that someone is drawing from their waist?
No, I expect police officers to use other methods to defuse a potentially violent situation rather than just shooting a 12 year old.
Whether or not they identified it as a toy gun on the spot is irrelevant. He didn't have the gun out when they arrived. They should have approached the situation in a way that kept it non-confrontational... in which case they might have found out that it wasn't a real gun before anyone got shot.
Instead, they shot him.
The proper response to "put your hands up" is to put your hands up, not reach for guns, or what visually is very much a gun, in your waistband
And when you're talking about an adult, it's a bit more reasonable to expect that.
It's all too likely that the thing that got this kid shot was just freaking out at having police officers pointing guns at him, and he wasn't thinking at all about what he was doing.
easysauce wrote: so its too hard for parents to supervise their children and their toys, but you expect officers to instantly know the difference between a black handgun, and an almost identical fake gun that someone is drawing from their waist?
No, I expect police officers to use other methods to defuse a potentially violent situation rather than just shooting a 12 year old.
Whether or not they identified it as a toy gun on the spot is irrelevant. He didn't have the gun out when they arrived. They should have approached the situation in a way that kept it non-confrontational... in which case they might have found out that it wasn't a real gun before anyone got shot.
Instead, they shot him.
Any report of a gun, where it cannot be confirmed that is not a real fire arm, warrants the same response. Officer safety is paramount. He had the gun in his waistband, fine. Do you know how quick someone can pull that gun and shoot you. Yes, even a child. You can try and diffuse the situation all you want, but the training all officers have is that a gun is a threat until you confirm that it is not a threat.
The proper response to "put your hands up" is to put your hands up, not reach for guns, or what visually is very much a gun, in your waistband
And when you're talking about an adult, it's a bit more reasonable to expect that.
It's all too likely that the thing that got this kid shot was just freaking out at having police officers pointing guns at him, and he wasn't thinking at all about what he was doing.
"Put your hands up" isn't a confrontational unless you intend to disobey the command. I was taught as a child to listen the police. The video will show how the child reacted, and if it was anything remotely aggressive, the officers reacted as they are trained to.
"Put your hands up" isn't a confrontational unless you intend to disobey the command.
That's quite narrow thinking. For example, as has been seen in all the events near Ferguson, there are multiple ways for police to approach a situation, all with the same goal. Initially in Ferguson they approached crowds, and look what happened. Then they took a different approach, and there was far less violence. Until the video is seen, we don't know if the police went in like the initial police did in Ferguson, or if they acted responsibly like the (from memory) state police did in Ferguson.
As odd as it sounds to say, hopefully they acted as responsibly as they could have and it was simply a tragedy for everyone involved, rather than poor training and attitude. At least if it is the former it hopefully won't happen again.
CptJake wrote: lol. I posted links to two stories where 12 year olds murdered people using guns.
So? I never claimed it doesn't happen. I said his age made it less likely.
Which was borne out by the fact that, you know, he didn't actually have a real gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think you're somewhat missing my point here.... When time is of the essence, the best place to aim for subduing someone is center mass.D
Time wouldn't have been 'of the essense' if police hadn't goaded him into drawing his 'gun'. And even then, it wasn't actually 'of the essense' since his gun wasn't real.
If he had been approached like a 12 year old kid instead of as a crazed gunman, all of this could have been avoided.
Tell me again where you get this mystical power of knowing exactly what the officer saw and exactly what he should have done since it would have been obvious to you the gun was a toy and no violence was meant.
easysauce wrote: so its too hard for parents to supervise their children and their toys, but you expect officers to instantly know the difference between a black handgun, and an almost identical fake gun that someone is drawing from their waist?
No, I expect police officers to use other methods to defuse a potentially violent situation rather than just shooting a 12 year old.
Whether or not they identified it as a toy gun on the spot is irrelevant. He didn't have the gun out when they arrived. They should have approached the situation in a way that kept it non-confrontational... in which case they might have found out that it wasn't a real gun before anyone got shot.
Instead, they shot him.
The proper response to "put your hands up" is to put your hands up, not reach for guns, or what visually is very much a gun, in your waistband
And when you're talking about an adult, it's a bit more reasonable to expect that.
It's all too likely that the thing that got this kid shot was just freaking out at having police officers pointing guns at him, and he wasn't thinking at all about what he was doing.
How do you know any of this? From the reports on Sky and the BBC:
"Police say an officer fired two shots at Tamir Rice after he failed to obey an order to raise his hands.
He did not make any verbal threats nor point the gun towards the officers. "
"He said that the boy did not make any verbal threats but grabbed the replica handgun after being told to raise his hands."
There is no suggestion that the police threatened the kid, only that they told him to put his hands up. At which point he pulled out the gun.
Police told him to put his hands up. The kid pulled out the gun.
Those are the only valid facts that the police had at the time. There have been many incidents of kids ages 12 and younger shooting people. You don't know what the situation was, what happened before, what happened at the time other than those two facts. Yet you, and many others, are rushing to accuse the police of an over reaction. We don't know if the kid was scared and confused and about th throw it on the floor, or had pulled the gun out and was turning to face the officers with the gun pointed up when he was shot. We don't know what happened before, we don't know the background. Perhaps there had been lots of gang activity in the area recently. Perhaps they had tried to diffuse the situation and the kid had ignored them.
The other fact everyone is ignoring is that the kid did have a real gun. An airsoft gun is a real gun. One that fires at sub lethal velocities, but it is still classed as a weapon in the US and other countries. BB guns are not toy guns, and as long as people continue to treat them as toys tragedies like this will happen.
However, this is not down to gun laws, US restrictions on airsoft guns are quite strict. It is an attitude problem.
I very much doubt that most parents would inspect their childrens' toys on any sort of a regular basis in order to determine whether they have been altered into something that could be confused with a real weapon.
Having been a parent, I would know not to give a gun to a dumbass in the first place.
Having been a child, at his age we didn't get BB pistols. We had BB guns and rifles. Some of us had 20 gauges. We were taught not to be idiots and point them at people.
I very much doubt that most parents would inspect their childrens' toys on any sort of a regular basis in order to determine whether they have been altered into something that could be confused with a real weapon.
Having been a parent, I would know not to give a gun to a dumbass in the first place.
Having been a child, at his age we didn't get BB pistols. We had BB guns and rifles. Some of us had 20 gauges. We were taught not to be idiots and point them at people.
...and we were taught to listen to police officers. Especially if they were carrying guns.
I had a BB gun as a kid. We used to shoot them as homemade target and bottles. We mainly did so in fields and woods. It was never an issue.
What we didn't do was go to parks and wave them around in a threatening manner. If we did we would have expected to attract police attention and rightly so.
LuciusAR wrote: I had a BB gun as a kid. We used to shoot them as homemade target and bottles. We mainly did so in fields and woods. It was never an issue.
What we didn't do was go to parks and wave them around in a threatening manner. If we did we would have expected to attract police attention and rightly so.
Exactly. I'm going to have to pool and "old guy" here: Oy ve. Kids these days. Its a bad situation all around. Having said that I couldn't envision a situation when I was a kid where police we be called or we would have interacted with them. Thats kind of weird in the first place.
I heard the 911 audio, and the guy on the phone mentioned the gun may or may not have been real, he wasn't sure.
Unfortunately if I hear that the gun might be teal I'm going to act as if it is real. Just like I always act as if my gun is loaded even when it might not be.
I very much doubt that most parents would inspect their childrens' toys on any sort of a regular basis in order to determine whether they have been altered into something that could be confused with a real weapon.
Having been a parent, I would know not to give a gun to a dumbass in the first place.
Having been a child, at his age we didn't get BB pistols. We had BB guns and rifles. Some of us had 20 gauges. We were taught not to be idiots and point them at people.
and our parents were ALWAYS withing earshot of use while using those BB guns...
had the parents done their job, on a basic level, and been supervising their child or prevented him from having a toy not rated for his age, the whole situation could have been avoided.
Expecting cops to be super men who can tell the difference between a realistic replica gun and a real one in a splite second from a distance, under a stessfull situation is absurd.
especially when it seems no one expects the parents to be, well parents, even on the most basic 101 level of "supervise your kids"
had the parents done their job, on a basic level, and been supervising their child or prevented him from having a toy not rated for his age, the whole situation could have been avoided.
Sometimes, this just isn't possible. I have a good friend who's in the army. His wife doesn't work and their son has sometimes played with one of the neighboring kids from the Apt. complex at the playground.
This particular neighbor kid's parents are both hospital nurses. One parent works the day shift, the other the night shift. So really, this 5 or 6 year old kid has very little supervision. Well, while playing, and my friend's watching their son, this kid was talking about playing the "new" Grand Theft Auto, and all the "gak " he could do in the game (they were quoting the verbage he used)
Are these parents' horrible parents? By many people here's logic, they are because they are incapable of supervising their child at almost any level. They are constantly "gone" so, how is it even possible to do their job as parents?
had the parents done their job, on a basic level, and been supervising their child or prevented him from having a toy not rated for his age, the whole situation could have been avoided.
Sometimes, this just isn't possible. I have a good friend who's in the army. His wife doesn't work and their son has sometimes played with one of the neighboring kids from the Apt. complex at the playground.
This particular neighbor kid's parents are both hospital nurses. One parent works the day shift, the other the night shift. So really, this 5 or 6 year old kid has very little supervision. Well, while playing, and my friend's watching their son, this kid was talking about playing the "new" Grand Theft Auto, and all the "gak " he could do in the game (they were quoting the verbage he used)
Are these parents' horrible parents? By many people here's logic, they are because they are incapable of supervising their child at almost any level. They are constantly "gone" so, how is it even possible to do their job as parents?
I agree, absent parents dont do their job well... its a sad story that they have to work, but it doesnt justify leaving 6 year olds on their own... between 4 people, if not one can supervise the kids, then the kids stay where they can be supervised... around here, you can drop your kids off at parks, where an adult parks and rec person will supervise them during normal day hours as well...
It doesnt make them horrible people, but their situation doesnt mean they can cut corners with their kids, there are ways to get supervision for kids outside of doing it all yourself.
For instance, my mother worked two jobs as a single parent, day and night, she didnt have time to supervise me either, but I still got supervised.
She communicated with, and worked with all the other single moms/parents/grandparents in the community, and together, between them they could all take turns supervising each others children.
with two parents, it should be easier, especially since one parent has daylight hours off work so a day shift parent supervises in the evening, night shift parent in the day, grandmas/firends/ect can all share the load one adult can watch a lot of kids if needed...
But kids are a full time job, thats the responsibility of every parent, like it or not, that entails certain responsibilities such as looking after that kid.
That their 6 year old is playing 18+ games at home, speaks volumes to their parenting though... a simple locked cabinet keeps those games separate from age appropriate ones.. thats not hard or time consuming to do, its just a lack of will/planning at that point unfortunately.
Sigvatr wrote: "Making up arguments" such as stating that the officer in question was fully aware of the kid having a toy gun? I see.
Nobody said that.
That is precisely what you state. You state that the officer wasn't in an immediate threat situation because of the kid having a toy gun.
That's the way it read to me, also.
Then you didn't read what I actually wrote.
No, he, and multiple people read what you wrote, you clearly were taking 20/20 hindsight knowledge and trying to apply it to the cops decision making process.
Maybe you need to own what you say, it meant what it meant, we are not idiots who cannot read.
You telling people they cannot read is no better then people telling you you dont know how to write, Id expect a bit more from a mod TBH.
they/we looked at the post, they/we read the words, you say they/we didnt read it,
its pretty obvious we read it and understood it, you telling us that we didnt read it is literally saying that our act of reading, wasnt *actually* an act of reading...
I very much doubt that most parents would inspect their childrens' toys on any sort of a regular basis in order to determine whether they have been altered into something that could be confused with a real weapon.
Having been a parent, I would know not to give a gun to a dumbass in the first place.
Having been a child, at his age we didn't get BB pistols. We had BB guns and rifles. Some of us had 20 gauges. We were taught not to be idiots and point them at people.
and our parents were ALWAYS withing earshot of use while using those BB guns...
had the parents done their job, on a basic level, and been supervising their child or prevented him from having a toy not rated for his age, the whole situation could have been avoided.
Expecting cops to be super men who can tell the difference between a realistic replica gun and a real one in a splite second from a distance, under a stessfull situation is absurd.
especially when it seems no one expects the parents to be, well parents, even on the most basic 101 level of "supervise your kids"
Actually most times we wandered off. But we were brought up not to point a gun at something we weren't ready to kill.
insaniak wrote: "You didn't read what I wrote' and 'You can't read' are not synonymous statements.
when multiple people actually did read what you wrote and you tell them they didnt read it, as if reading it again would shed light on its meaning, does in fact mean you are questioning their ability to read.
Reading something twice doesnt change what you actually wrote,
and telling people that their first reading, was not actual reading and that they need to read it, is in fact saying that first reading was wrong.
Sigvatr wrote: So...instead of insisting to point out things you didn't say, why don't tell us what you wanted to say in the first place?
Or, instead of insisting that we all go around in circles again, you could go back and read what I wrote the first time.
If anyone has anything else on topic to add to the discussion, feel free. If we're just going to spend the next two pages debating things that nobody actually said, the thread might as well be locked now.
Sigvatr wrote: So...instead of insisting to point out things you didn't say, why don't tell us what you wanted to say in the first place?
Or, instead of insisting that we all go around in circles again, you could go back and read what I wrote the first time.
If anyone has anything else on topic to add to the discussion, feel free. If we're just going to spend the next two pages debating things that nobody actually said, the thread might as well be locked now.
So to reiterate, a user kindly asks you to rephrase a previous statement because everyone but the original poster according to you misunderstood or "didn't read" the post.
Instead of rephrasing or trying to explain it in a different way so we can understand what you intended to say, you threaten to shut the thread down.
CptJake wrote: lol. I posted links to two stories where 12 year olds murdered people using guns.
So? I never claimed it doesn't happen. I said his age made it less likely.
Which was borne out by the fact that, you know, he didn't actually have a real gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think you're somewhat missing my point here.... When time is of the essence, the best place to aim for subduing someone is center mass.D
Time wouldn't have been 'of the essense' if police hadn't goaded him into drawing his 'gun'. And even then, it wasn't actually 'of the essense' since his gun wasn't real.
If he had been approached like a 12 year old kid instead of as a crazed gunman, all of this could have been avoided.
twice in one quote you say that the cops made the wrong choice, because the gun wasnt real, emphasis was yours.
feel free to clairify and change your statement to reflect what you might actually mean, but your words meant what they meant,
Threatening to shut down the thread because everyone aside from yourself isnt reading your own posts properly in your mind is a bit more off topic then anyone claiming the words you wrote mean what they actually mean.
I very much doubt that most parents would inspect their childrens' toys on any sort of a regular basis in order to determine whether they have been altered into something that could be confused with a real weapon.
So that your explanation the kid was at fault cause he was dumb and deserved to die? By the god Emperor...
Frazzled NEVER said that the kid deserved to die. Nobody in here did. It's highly offensive to allege such a thing so please don't do so.
The kid, however, is to blame for it. He was asked to stand down and instead of complying, he was about to draw the gun from his belt. Not knowing if it's real or not, the officer was forced to either shoot or risk being shot himself. He made the right decision in that situation. NOT in hindsight. But given the situation at hand, he made the perfectly correct choice.
You must never, ever understimate a situation. A few years ago, how many soldiers would have thought that this women in a burka was about to talk to them, just to blow herself up?
As far as I can see here, three mistakes have been made: 1. The gun. Some people here seem to be blaming the parents for letting their kid have such a real-looking gun, but you can't realistically expect parents to constantly check every toy their kid has. The mistake here is not so much the kid having such a gun, but the fact the kid took it out in public and started pointing it at people. Now I don't know if the kid was never taught well enough to never point (fake)guns at people or if he just lacked any common sense, but a mistake it was. 2. The kid. If some guy aiming a gun at you tells you to put your hands in the air you better damn well do as he says. And you most certainly don't go pulling out a gun of your own. That only works in stupid movies. 3. The police officer. There is also significant blame on the police officer. His position may be somewhat understandable, but he still pulled that trigger. He had a split decision to make a decision and made the wrong one. This police officer does not seem to have been qualified to deal with children. Kids are naive, reckless and unpredictable. The kid was probably scared and panicked. Even if he did pull out a gun, the police officer should have been much more cautious and patient because he was dealing with a child, even if it would have put himself at increased risk. Especially when you think logically and consider it is about a kid, there is a large chance the gun is indeed fake. The best course of action would have been to gently approach the child without weapon drawn while making sure there is a second policeman nearby in case it does go wrong. More risky, but the probability of killing innocent children would be greatly reduced. After all, if you do not want to put yourself at risk you should not have become a policeman.
1. You sure can realistically expect parents to check all there toys as they should be the source of the toys in the first place 2. srsly 3. im honestly not sure what kinda patience the officer could of had as the first thing he said was put your hands up. and the very next thing was the kid reaching. there is literately nothing that could be done at that point. going in without a weapon drawn when he was dispatched against an possibility armed suspect is a sure fire way to get shot.
Literally the only time it would be acceptable is if you went in with a hologram, a robot, or terminator armor.
I'll take 'Yet Another Thing I Didn't Actually Say' for 20, Tony...
Against my better judgement, lets try this one last time...
twice in one quote you say that the cops made the wrong choice, because the gun wasnt real, emphasis was yours.
Yes, I did. Not because they should have been prescient, but because approaching the situation from the assumption that the gun was real was insane.
Around the country on any given day, I can guarantee that there would be vastly more 12 year olds playing with toy guns than there are 12 year olds going on shooting rampages. In this case, no shots had been fired. No threats had been issued. There was no logical reason for police to assume that it was anything other than a kid playing around.
They certainly should have been prepared for the possibility that it might turn out to be something more, because that's what police do. But charging in on the assumption that this kid had a real weapon and was about to shoot someone, with no evidence that this was actually the case, was the wrong approach.
If they were going to take that approach, they should have been prepared for the fact that a 12 year old confronted by police officers in that fashion was possibly not going to react in a logical fashion.
Instead, they treated a kid playing around like a criminal about to go on a rampage, and the end result is a dead kid.
Yes, I did. Not because they should have been prescient, but because approaching the situation from the assumption that the gun was real was insane.
While in your non professional opinion that approach is insane,
There are far more numerous professional people that conclude its rational that the police force is specifically taught to never assume guns are fake, and never assume weapons are not present.
Armchair quarterback all you want after the fact with 20/20 hindsight, that officer had legitimate reason to think he was in immediate danger and reacted appropriately. Its only after the fact with 20/20 hindsight that we see it was not the situation it appeared to be.
Desubot wrote: 1. You sure can realistically expect parents to check all there toys as they should be the source of the toys in the first place
But you can't hold the parents responsible for removing the orange part from a fake gun.
Desubot wrote: 3. im honestly not sure what kinda patience the officer could of had as the first thing he said was put your hands up. and the very next thing was the kid reaching. there is literately nothing that could be done at that point. going in without a weapon drawn when he was dispatched against an possibility armed suspect is a sure fire way to get shot.
Literally the only time it would be acceptable is if you went in with a hologram, a robot, or terminator armor.
This trigger-happy 'shoot first ask questions later' attitude is what gets so many innocent people killed by the police in the US. The US is about the only countries where incidents like this are so common. When there is an armed suspect, you should try to negotiate first before shooting. At least, that is what the Dutch police does. It seems to work pretty well. Incidents with weapons here turn deadly a lot less often than in the US. I mean, American police drives around in tanks and is more heavily armed than the armed forces of some countries. That says a lot about American police culture.
easysauce wrote: While in your non professional opinion that approach is insane,
There are far more numerous professional people that conclude its rational that the police force is specifically taught to never assume guns are fake, and never assume weapons are not present.
And they're welcome to their opinion.
In this case, though, that assumption resulted in a dead 12 year old with a toy gun. Which, to my mind, proves that it was the wrong assumption to make.
again, own what you say, or be more careful about what you say. its clear what the intent of these words were.
The intent of those words was to convey the idea that if we're just going to spend page after page debating things that I didn't actually say, there is no point continuing the thread. That's not a threat to lock the thread. It's a statement that the thread is pointless if it continues down that road.
I'm more than happy to 'own what I say'. I'm less ecstatic about owning what you insist I meant even though I didn't actually say it.
again, own what you say, or be more careful about what you say. its clear what the intent of these words were.
The intent of those words was to convey the idea that if we're just going to spend page after page debating things that I didn't actually say, there is no point continuing the thread. That's not a threat to lock the thread. It's a statement that the thread is pointless if it continues down that road.
I'm more than happy to 'own what I say'. I'm less ecstatic about owning what you insist I meant even though I didn't actually say it.
You're a moderator. When you mention locking a thread, it definitely will come across as a threat to use your mod powers to lock the thread. You are either one of the worst at communicating via the written word or dishonest as all heck.
I can however realisticly expect parents to parent there kids and tell em not to feth around with an air soft gun. and realisticily they should of taught the kid to respect police officers and the gun it self as even if its a toy its not actually a toy.
Iron_Captain wrote: This trigger-happy 'shoot first ask questions later' attitude is what gets so many innocent people killed by the police in the US. The US is about the only countries where incidents like this are so common. When there is an armed suspect, you should try to negotiate first before shooting. At least, that is what the Dutch police does. It seems to work pretty well. Incidents with weapons here turn deadly a lot less often than in the US. I mean, American police drives around in tanks and is more heavily armed than the armed forces of some countries. That says a lot about American police culture.
This is wrong for this situation though
The negotiations started when he was told to put his hands up.
It would be entirely different situation if it was just say a knife. but a Gun is a ranged weapon that doesn't take but a second to point and click off.
(dont get me wrong i think those videos of people charging cops with knives is silly and those would generally be the best times for something like a taser)
As a kid I used to play with guns all the time. I had a 177 air pistol, that also fired bb's. I also had a real sten gun, from a scrapyard, it was decommisioned, and couldn't be repaired. But it made a good toy. I have never been threatened by police, or been shot at by them. I feel sad that American society has deteriorated
To the point that this is considered acceptable.
loki old fart wrote: As a kid I used to play with guns all the time. I had a 177 air pistol, that also fired bb's. I also had a real sten gun, from a scrapyard, it was decommisioned, and couldn't be repaired. But it made a good toy. I have never been threatened by police, or been shot at by them. I feel sad that American society has deteriorated
To the point that this is considered acceptable.
You realize that the police didn't just roll up and decide to shoot this kid, right? They were called because someone was threatening people with what appeared to be a gun. Be honest about things, please.
I've found myself disagreeing with Insaniak a lot recently, however, not in this thread.
I'm British and, to be honest, I don't think I've ever seen a gun outside an airport, so... A bit of context from me.
It seems to me that the 12 year old involved, looks a whole lot like a 12 year old. - If not younger.
It seems to me, from an IT background, that the police in this case took an attitude of Risk Avoidance, as opposed to Risk Management. It seems to me, that in this situation with a 12 year old boy, police officers should be willing to shoulder the additional risk of the potential of the child actually carrying a real gun, and knowing how to use it well enough to injure or kill a police officer from range, versus the risk of, well, actually shooting and killing a 12 year old child with a toy gun.
Change the variables and sure, the weight of risk changes. Have the kid be older or put the situation in some place known for, say, child soldiers. - That weight of risk might change.
But honestly, I myself am drastically naive when it comes to dealing with the police or any such like. Even being nearly 30, a bunch of people jumping out of a car, yelling, "hold your hands up" at me and pointing guns at me, I probably would do something so incredibly mindnumbingly dumb out of the sheer shock and surealty of it all, I'd have a dozen rounds in my chest before I managed to say, "wait... what?"
Sometimes, I genuinely can't help but think I wouldn't survive a month living in the USA. And that's me having spent years in Paisley and Glasgow of all places.
Compel wrote: I've found myself disagreeing with Insaniak a lot recently, however, not in this thread.
I'm British and, to be honest, I don't think I've ever seen a gun outside an airport, so... A bit of context from me.
It seems to me that the 12 year old involved, looks a whole lot like a 12 year old. - If not younger.
It seems to me, from an IT background, that the police in this case took an attitude of Risk Avoidance, as opposed to Risk Management. It seems to me, that in this situation with a 12 year old boy, police officers should be willing to shoulder the additional risk of the potential of the child actually carrying a real gun, and knowing how to use it well enough to injure or kill a police officer from range, versus the risk of, well, actually shooting and killing a 12 year old child with a toy gun.
Change the variables and sure, the weight of risk changes. Have the kid be older or put the situation in some place known for, say, child soldiers. - That weight of risk might change.
But honestly, I myself am drastically naive when it comes to dealing with the police or any such like. Even being nearly 30, a bunch of people jumping out of a car, yelling, "hold your hands up" at me and pointing guns at me, I probably would do something so incredibly mindnumbingly dumb out of the sheer shock and surealty of it all, I'd have a dozen rounds in my chest before I managed to say, "wait... what?"
Sometimes, I genuinely can't help but think I wouldn't survive a month living in the USA. And that's me having spent years in Paisley and Glasgow of all places.
At what point did the cops find out the kid's age?
Hint: after the incident. And the reporting mentions the kid is tall for his age which will make him appear older.
Have 12 year olds ever shot and killed people intentionally?
Hint: Look for links in this topic, click on them and read.
Sometimes, I genuinely can't help but think I wouldn't survive a month living in the USA. And that's me having spent years in Paisley and Glasgow of all places.
It should be fine
just dont go around with a gun in your pants or run with a butter knife and you will be fine.
Edit: to add to jake as well there is no mention of actual age in the dispatch report
only that he was a juvenile threatening people with what looks to be a gun.
I can however realisticly expect parents to parent there kids and tell em not to feth around with an air soft gun. and realisticily they should of taught the kid to respect police officers and the gun it self as even if its a toy its not actually a toy.
Iron_Captain wrote: This trigger-happy 'shoot first ask questions later' attitude is what gets so many innocent people killed by the police in the US. The US is about the only countries where incidents like this are so common. When there is an armed suspect, you should try to negotiate first before shooting. At least, that is what the Dutch police does. It seems to work pretty well. Incidents with weapons here turn deadly a lot less often than in the US. I mean, American police drives around in tanks and is more heavily armed than the armed forces of some countries. That says a lot about American police culture.
This is wrong for this situation though
The negotiations started when he was told to put his hands up.
It would be entirely different situation if it was just say a knife. but a Gun is a ranged weapon that doesn't take but a second to point and click off.
(dont get me wrong i think those videos of people charging cops with knives is silly and those would generally be the best times for something like a taser)
The police of the United States are not, in the main, deserving of respect. They are little more than jack-booted thugs.
loki old fart wrote: As a kid I used to play with guns all the time. I had a 177 air pistol, that also fired bb's. I also had a real sten gun, from a scrapyard, it was decommisioned, and couldn't be repaired. But it made a good toy. I have never been threatened by police, or been shot at by them. I feel sad that American society has deteriorated
To the point that this is considered acceptable.
You realize that the police didn't just roll up and decide to shoot this kid, right? They were called because someone was threatening people with what appeared to be a gun. Be honest about things, please.
Yes let's be honest. A 12 yr old kid was playing cops and robbers in a kids play ground. The police stood 10 ft away and shot him.
Well done.
loki old fart wrote: As a kid I used to play with guns all the time. I had a 177 air pistol, that also fired bb's. I also had a real sten gun, from a scrapyard, it was decommisioned, and couldn't be repaired. But it made a good toy. I have never been threatened by police, or been shot at by them. I feel sad that American society has deteriorated
To the point that this is considered acceptable.
You realize that the police didn't just roll up and decide to shoot this kid, right? They were called because someone was threatening people with what appeared to be a gun. Be honest about things, please.
Yes let's be honest. A 12 yr old kid was playing cops and robbers in a kids play ground. The police stood 10 ft away and shot him.
Well done.
You realize that there is no context to prove your claim he was just playing.
loki old fart wrote: As a kid I used to play with guns all the time. I had a 177 air pistol, that also fired bb's. I also had a real sten gun, from a scrapyard, it was decommisioned, and couldn't be repaired. But it made a good toy. I have never been threatened by police, or been shot at by them. I feel sad that American society has deteriorated
To the point that this is considered acceptable.
You realize that the police didn't just roll up and decide to shoot this kid, right? They were called because someone was threatening people with what appeared to be a gun. Be honest about things, please.
Yes let's be honest. A 12 yr old kid was playing cops and robbers in a kids play ground. The police stood 10 ft away and shot him.
Well done.
Really? Where does it say he was playing? And playing so well that people were calling 911?
loki old fart wrote: As a kid I used to play with guns all the time. I had a 177 air pistol, that also fired bb's. I also had a real sten gun, from a scrapyard, it was decommisioned, and couldn't be repaired. But it made a good toy. I have never been threatened by police, or been shot at by them. I feel sad that American society has deteriorated
To the point that this is considered acceptable.
You realize that the police didn't just roll up and decide to shoot this kid, right? They were called because someone was threatening people with what appeared to be a gun. Be honest about things, please.
Yes let's be honest. A 12 yr old kid was playing cops and robbers in a kids play ground. The police stood 10 ft away and shot him.
Well done.
You realize that there is no context to prove your claim he was just playing.
Your right, he could have been ransoming the other kids for their sweets. definitely deserves the death penalty.
loki old fart wrote: As a kid I used to play with guns all the time. I had a 177 air pistol, that also fired bb's. I also had a real sten gun, from a scrapyard, it was decommisioned, and couldn't be repaired. But it made a good toy. I have never been threatened by police, or been shot at by them. I feel sad that American society has deteriorated
To the point that this is considered acceptable.
You realize that the police didn't just roll up and decide to shoot this kid, right? They were called because someone was threatening people with what appeared to be a gun. Be honest about things, please.
Yes let's be honest. A 12 yr old kid was playing cops and robbers in a kids play ground. The police stood 10 ft away and shot him.
Well done.
You realize that there is no context to prove your claim he was just playing.
Your right, he could have been ransoming the other kids for their sweets. definitely deserves the death penalty.
Also absoluetly no context to prove it.
But you know what information we do know? some one called 911 to tell em that there was a juvenile in the park THREATENING people with what looks like a gun.
How can you instant go from threatening to playing?
Hint: Look for links in this topic, click on them and read.
In any case,
That certainly looks like a young lad to me.
How recent is that picture? How tall is he? We saw pictures of young innocent looking Mike Brown too. That picture in no way fits into the context of what the cops knew or saw.
The police of the United States are not, in the main, deserving of respect. They are little more than jack-booted thugs.
Disagree wholeheartedly
Disagree all you like, but realize the police are not there for your benefit. They are, more and more, being trained and geared towards the defense of infrastructure. That is, they're there to save buildings, not people.
Are there good cops? Sure. Some.
But every department that has a Wilson and, worse still, knows it, and is covering for someone like that... that's a problem. It's a problem when a community that is 60%+ of one ethnic group does not have similar representation of that ethnic group in its police force. It's a problem when public oversight of the police is not permitted, or when such citizens' rights groups are ignored when they point out egregious issues with the way the police force of their area handles things.
there is no national database to track how many police shootings happen in any given span of time. This data simply does not exist in any reliable, worthwhile format. The FBI collects some data from some police departments from some regions on a self-reporting system that follows no national guidelines or requirements for what needs to be in that data.
... but it certainly follows how many police officers are injured or killed in the line of duty (under 50 a year, according to the latest data, by the way), while independent groups tracking police-instigated shootings are finding upwards of 2,000 shootings a year.
And it's not just events that culminate in someone's death. There's plenty of evidence to indicate that police departments across the country are basically havens for bigots, and these are just the ones we got to learn about! Not all of the below are violent cops, but simply a range of the police basically doing whatever-the-feth they want, regardless of the legality of their actions:
... and that took me a few minutes on Google to find. The events reported above are not particularly uncommon. The days of Mayberry cops are long, long gone.
Desubot wrote: 1. You sure can realistically expect parents to check all there toys as they should be the source of the toys in the first place
But you can't hold the parents responsible for removing the orange part from a fake gun.
You sure as heck can... It's along the same principles as bicycle helmet laws (that are rarely enforced)... It is up to the parent to force their children to comply with the local law. Just about the only thing a parent is not directly responsible for is if their child actually commits a crime (such as murder or arson), unless of course, it's proven that the child committed a crime at the direct of the parent.
This trigger-happy 'shoot first ask questions later' attitude is what gets so many innocent people killed by the police in the US. The US is about the only countries where incidents like this are so common. When there is an armed suspect, you should try to negotiate first before shooting. At least, that is what the Dutch police does. It seems to work pretty well. Incidents with weapons here turn deadly a lot less often than in the US. I mean, American police drives around in tanks and is more heavily armed than the armed forces of some countries. That says a lot about American police culture.
Look up the band "Pussyriot" and their treatment by the government of your beloved Putin
And actually, if you look at the stated reasons for Police Departments "need" for being armed with "tanks" and the like, yeah... it's our own damn fault, but it's a problem we could fairly easily fix. We need to end the "War on Drugs". Much of that armament is in response to cartels and other drug organizations being better armed as well.
Sigvatr wrote: "Making up arguments" such as stating that the officer in question was fully aware of the kid having a toy gun? I see.
Nobody said that.
That is precisely what you state. You state that the officer wasn't in an immediate threat situation because of the kid having a toy gun.
That's the way it read to me, also.
Then you didn't read what I actually wrote.
You said in essense, that the cop shouldn't have shot the kid because he was only 12 and obviously had a toy gun. Of course, you also said you were done with this thread.
But every department that has a Wilson and, worse still, knows it, and is covering for someone like that... that's a problem.
Really... It's a problem that an officer like Wilson defends himself? Was he really supposed to just let a man who outweighs him by some 20 or so pounds just have his way...
Yes, there are places with bad officers, and I agree with your sentiment about them, however I completely disagree that Wilson is in that category. If anyone is in that category, it's that dude from California that went down in a blaze of glory (I forget his name though)
But every department that has a Wilson and, worse still, knows it, and is covering for someone like that... that's a problem.
You have utterly no proof of this.
It's a problem when a community that is 60%+ of one ethnic group does not have similar representation of that ethnic group in its police force.
And that's a problem of minorities not wanting to become police officers. Precincts all over the US have been practically begging for more minorities and females on the force. They can't MAKE people apply.
And it's not just events that culminate in someone's death. There's plenty of evidence to indicate that police departments across the country are basically havens for bigots, and these are just the ones we got to learn about! Not all of the below are violent cops, but simply a range of the police basically doing whatever-the-feth they want, regardless of the legality of their actions:
... and that took me a few minutes on Google to find. The events reported above are not particularly uncommon. The days of Mayberry cops are long, long gone.
Pretty easy to leave every one of those without context, eh?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Wonder how this thread go if the kid actually had a real weapon and shot the cop who thought the kid was armed with a toy gun
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. But at the very least even the infamously brutal Russian police has never thrown grenades into baby's cradles or shot innocent 92 year old women after brutally raiding their house and fabricating evidence. Nor do they drive around in tanks or use special forces to execute extremely violent military-style raids on people barbering without license.
But at the very least even the infamously brutal Russian police has never thrown grenades into baby's cradles or shot innocent 92 year old women after brutally raiding their house and fabricating evidence. Nor do they drive around in tanks or use special forces to execute extremely violent military-style raids on people barbering without license.
That baby was concealing chemical weapons in it's diaper. Had it coming.
again, own what you say, or be more careful about what you say. its clear what the intent of these words were.
The intent of those words was to convey the idea that if we're just going to spend page after page debating things that I didn't actually say, there is no point continuing the thread. That's not a threat to lock the thread. It's a statement that the thread is pointless if it continues down that road.
I'm more than happy to 'own what I say'. I'm less ecstatic about owning what you insist I meant even though I didn't actually say it.
You're a moderator. When you mention locking a thread, it definitely will come across as a threat to use your mod powers to lock the thread. You are either one of the worst at communicating via the written word or dishonest as all heck.
Now now childrens lets below be mellow. Insaniak has a cat as an avatar. He clearly under a bad, bad spell. I have a cure. But first I need an old dog and a young dog. And bacon. Lots of bacon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
That baby was concealing chemical weapons in it's diaper.
I for one can vouch for that. Babies, Nature's WMDs...
For some of the earlier posts the term "shoot to kill" rarely if not never shows up in police training, they use the term shoot to stop. The highest chance of stopping a violent crime is to aim for center mass more often then not stopping the crime.
I have seen someone shot and not know they were shot. I have seen someone walk up a flight of stairs after being shot in the ankle and shattering a bone. Bone chuncks were sticking out the front of the foot and he was still able to function.
I have heard of people being tased and not going done until they got hit two more times. I have seen people get pepper sprayed and just get mad instead of closing their eyes and hitting the ground. Not everyone reacts the same ways to none deadly force.
Elementary school kids in my town have brought guns to school. I know kids in my high school had guns on them. Another kid had a pistol in his hooded sweatshirt pocket and shot a round in the classroom. A kid 12 years old with a gun is just as deadly as an adult with a gun.
I will not dispute that this is a sad situation, indeed it was. But I don't for one second think that the officer made a bad choice. Nor do I think, if proven in the right, that he should lose his job because he followed his training.
No gun is a toy, and at an early age all children, if around guns, should be taught that all guns real or fake should be treated as if they were loaded even if they are not or can't be. BB guns get no exception as being fake, they can hurt people and should never be pointed at something you are not willing to shoot. Deliberately removing the Orange safety tip was done in the sole purpose to make the gun look real, and as far as I know it is real at that point. The police should and will not wait to be shot before protecting themselves and others.
The security footage from the rec center was released by the Cleveland Police. The only thing of note is that there are a few points where he is pointing with his right arm extended.
Edit: saw the last video the cops pull up and get out. They have guns drawn and pointing at Tamir. The cop who shot Tamir moves in and looks like Jes.kicking something away.
The car blocks the entire incident so its near impossible to see what Tamir actually does.
But every department that has a Wilson and, worse still, knows it, and is covering for someone like that... that's a problem.
Really... It's a problem that an officer like Wilson defends himself? Was he really supposed to just let a man who outweighs him by some 20 or so pounds just have his way...
Yes, there are places with bad officers, and I agree with your sentiment about them, however I completely disagree that Wilson is in that category. If anyone is in that category, it's that dude from California that went down in a blaze of glory (I forget his name though)
Wilson wasn't defending himself, and was armed with not only his service weapon, a baton, and a taser, but also a g-d car that he hit the other guy with the door of. Wilson picked a fight with these two people and then shot one when the guy didn't simply say "Yes, massa, as you say massa".
For some of the earlier posts the term "shoot to kill" rarely if not never shows up in police training, they use the term shoot to stop. The highest chance of stopping a violent crime is to aim for center mass more often then not stopping the crime.
"Shoot to stop" that directs someone to aim centermass is another way of saying "shoot to kill". Center Mass is where the military trains you to aim as well, as it's the largest target and one very likely to cause fatality (as you take out either the heart, one or both lungs, or all three). In other words, "shoot to stop" is a euphemism for "shoot to kill".
Obviously you have never encountered the Russian police
We have things sorta like Cossacks in the US, they just aren't as effective anymore. They're also getting butt-stomped by Anonymous in a cyberwar at the moment.
But every department that has a Wilson and, worse still, knows it, and is covering for someone like that... that's a problem.
Really... It's a problem that an officer like Wilson defends himself? Was he really supposed to just let a man who outweighs him by some 20 or so pounds just have his way...
Yes, there are places with bad officers, and I agree with your sentiment about them, however I completely disagree that Wilson is in that category. If anyone is in that category, it's that dude from California that went down in a blaze of glory (I forget his name though)
Wilson wasn't defending himself, and was armed with not only his service weapon, a baton, and a taser, but also a g-d car that he hit the other guy with the door of. Wilson picked a fight with these two people and then shot one when the guy didn't simply say "Yes, massa, as you say massa".
Actually, Wilson did not have a taser, and that is just a tiny example of how inaccurate your post is.
Wilson wasn't defending himself, and was armed with not only his service weapon, a baton, and a taser, but also a g-d car that he hit the other guy with the door of. Wilson picked a fight with these two people and then shot one when the guy didn't simply say "Yes, massa, as you say massa".
But every department that has a Wilson and, worse still, knows it, and is covering for someone like that... that's a problem.
Really... It's a problem that an officer like Wilson defends himself? Was he really supposed to just let a man who outweighs him by some 20 or so pounds just have his way...
Yes, there are places with bad officers, and I agree with your sentiment about them, however I completely disagree that Wilson is in that category. If anyone is in that category, it's that dude from California that went down in a blaze of glory (I forget his name though)
Wilson wasn't defending himself, and was armed with not only his service weapon, a baton, and a taser, but also a g-d car that he hit the other guy with the door of. Wilson picked a fight with these two people and then shot one when the guy didn't simply say "Yes, massa, as you say massa".
Actually, Wilson did not have a taser, and that is just a tiny example of how inaccurate your post is.
But he did have pepperspray, which he decided not to use.
You seem to be taking Wilson's statements at his word, and not what the eyewitnesses of the event have had corroborated. While there's some discrepancy over the events of the shooting, there's none over the instigation of the contact.
Psienesis wrote: We have things sorta like Cossacks in the US, they just aren't as effective anymore. They're also getting butt-stomped by Anonymous in a cyberwar at the moment.
But every department that has a Wilson and, worse still, knows it, and is covering for someone like that... that's a problem.
Really... It's a problem that an officer like Wilson defends himself? Was he really supposed to just let a man who outweighs him by some 20 or so pounds just have his way...
Yes, there are places with bad officers, and I agree with your sentiment about them, however I completely disagree that Wilson is in that category. If anyone is in that category, it's that dude from California that went down in a blaze of glory (I forget his name though)
Wilson wasn't defending himself, and was armed with not only his service weapon, a baton, and a taser, but also a g-d car that he hit the other guy with the door of. Wilson picked a fight with these two people and then shot one when the guy didn't simply say "Yes, massa, as you say massa".
Actually, Wilson did not have a taser, and that is just a tiny example of how inaccurate your post is.
But he did have pepperspray, which he decided not to use.
You seem to be taking Wilson's statements at his word, and not what the eyewitnesses of the event have had corroborated. While there's some discrepancy over the events of the shooting, there's none over the instigation of the contact.
But every department that has a Wilson and, worse still, knows it, and is covering for someone like that... that's a problem.
Really... It's a problem that an officer like Wilson defends himself? Was he really supposed to just let a man who outweighs him by some 20 or so pounds just have his way...
Yes, there are places with bad officers, and I agree with your sentiment about them, however I completely disagree that Wilson is in that category. If anyone is in that category, it's that dude from California that went down in a blaze of glory (I forget his name though)
Wilson wasn't defending himself, and was armed with not only his service weapon, a baton, and a taser, but also a g-d car that he hit the other guy with the door of. Wilson picked a fight with these two people and then shot one when the guy didn't simply say "Yes, massa, as you say massa".
Actually, Wilson did not have a taser, and that is just a tiny example of how inaccurate your post is.
But he did have pepperspray, which he decided not to use.
You seem to be taking Wilson's statements at his word, and not what the eyewitnesses of the event have had corroborated. While there's some discrepancy over the events of the shooting, there's none over the instigation of the contact.
You mean besides the eye witnesses that support Wilson's statements?
Alfndrate wrote: The security footage from the rec center was released by the Cleveland Police. The only thing of note is that there are a few points where he is pointing with his right arm extended.
Edit: saw the last video the cops pull up and get out. They have guns drawn and pointing at Tamir. The cop who shot Tamir moves in and looks like Jes.kicking something away.
The car blocks the entire incident so its near impossible to see what Tamir actually does.
Is there any video actually showing what Tamir was doing?
Alfndrate wrote: The security footage from the rec center was released by the Cleveland Police. The only thing of note is that there are a few points where he is pointing with his right arm extended.
Edit: saw the last video the cops pull up and get out. They have guns drawn and pointing at Tamir. The cop who shot Tamir moves in and looks like Jes.kicking something away.
The car blocks the entire incident so its near impossible to see what Tamir actually does.
Is there any video actually showing what Tamir was doing?
The video is terrible quality as one might expect, but it shows Tamir walking around this gazebo. He has something in his right hand, could be a phone, could be the airsoft gun (really tough to tell). He extends his right arm out at a few points and points it to some spot off screen (may have been at someone, idk). Then with about 30 seconds left in the video the officers pull up on to the grass and get out. Tamir looks as if he is reaching for his wasitband, the video jumps a bit and the cops are using their car as a defensive position. One of the cops moves to his left, circles around to what appears to be a trashcan and then moves to Tamir (who is on the far side of the car).
Wilson wasn't defending himself, and was armed with not only his service weapon, a baton, and a taser, but also a g-d car that he hit the other guy with the door of. Wilson picked a fight with these two people and then shot one when the guy didn't simply say "Yes, massa, as you say massa".
Way to bring racism in to it. If you have any proof of any racism on the part of the police officer in either case then please do share it, preferably with the DA too, as I'm sure t would prove useful in serving justice. Otherwise that kind of language is very unhelpful and uncalled for.
Alfndrate wrote: The security footage from the rec center was released by the Cleveland Police. The only thing of note is that there are a few points where he is pointing with his right arm extended.
Edit: saw the last video the cops pull up and get out. They have guns drawn and pointing at Tamir. The cop who shot Tamir moves in and looks like Jes.kicking something away.
The car blocks the entire incident so its near impossible to see what Tamir actually does.
Is there any video actually showing what Tamir was doing?
The video is terrible quality as one might expect, but it shows Tamir walking around this gazebo. He has something in his right hand, could be a phone, could be the airsoft gun (really tough to tell). He extends his right arm out at a few points and points it to some spot off screen (may have been at someone, idk). Then with about 30 seconds left in the video the officers pull up on to the grass and get out. Tamir looks as if he is reaching for his wasitband, the video jumps a bit and the cops are using their car as a defensive position. One of the cops moves to his left, circles around to what appears to be a trashcan and then moves to Tamir (who is on the far side of the car).
If only he had a prior criminal record, was over 6ft tall 300lbs, and minutes before the shooting was engaged in a strong arm robbery we could have had another angelic martyr like Micheal Brown.
Alfndrate wrote: The security footage from the rec center was released by the Cleveland Police. The only thing of note is that there are a few points where he is pointing with his right arm extended.
Edit: saw the last video the cops pull up and get out. They have guns drawn and pointing at Tamir. The cop who shot Tamir moves in and looks like Jes.kicking something away.
The car blocks the entire incident so its near impossible to see what Tamir actually does.
Is there any video actually showing what Tamir was doing?
The video is terrible quality as one might expect, but it shows Tamir walking around this gazebo. He has something in his right hand, could be a phone, could be the airsoft gun (really tough to tell). He extends his right arm out at a few points and points it to some spot off screen (may have been at someone, idk). Then with about 30 seconds left in the video the officers pull up on to the grass and get out. Tamir looks as if he is reaching for his wasitband, the video jumps a bit and the cops are using their car as a defensive position. One of the cops moves to his left, circles around to what appears to be a trashcan and then moves to Tamir (who is on the far side of the car).
The police car pulls up at 5:30 into the video. Before that, you can see a lot of video of the person waving the "gun" around... obviously a grainy video, but the gun looks convincing.
I'm just not sure why the police pull up so close if they think he had a gun, rather than keeping back a bit... but when they pull up, even in the grainy video you can seem him clearly reach for it.
What an unfortunate event... it was good of the family to let the video be released to just show what happened as clearly as possible. A tragedy that it ended like it did but I don't think the officers can be blamed for reacting, given what is visible in the video. However, I'm not sure about their approach entering the scene since they knew this person was supposed to be armed...
As a general note, let's keep discussion in this thread focused on this incident - there are others for discussing the Michael Brown, etc case.
This is a case where a 12 year old died. Even if the police are not at fault, it's a tragedy and I think we should try to be respectful of that if at all possible... thanks.
I'm just not sure why the police pull up so close if they think he had a gun, rather than keeping back a bit... but when they pull up, even in the grainy video you can seem him clearly reach for it.
I don't know how these cops are trained, but I could see that if you approach from too far away you could easily end up with a shoot out at long distances (greatly increasing chances of stray rounds going all over the place) and of a chase (since the cops can only come at him from one direction, he has plenty of running options).
By pulling up fast and close you gain some element of surprise/shock and the close distance may help some.
Having said all that, I freely admit to not knowing what the cops intention/reasons were.
They are in the difficult position of having to keep enough distance for safety and get close enough to establish control of the scene and situation, and do it quickly enough to provide an element of surprise that makes it safer for them and prevent a possible suspect from getting away.
So many different things that have to go through your mind.
I suspect that it would have to do with placing them at a range close enough for them to actually reach and apprehend the suspect. First most cops can't chase people very far on foot, nor would they cover large areas of open ground while potentially being shot at. Pistols are not terribly accurate at a distance either, it makes it harder to land the shots where you need and also increases the chances of stray fire and collateral damage or fatalities.
If you need to take somebody down and cuff them you usually need to be quite close in order to control the suspects actions, you can't do that at a distance.
d-usa wrote: They are in the difficult position of having to keep enough distance for safety and get close enough to establish control of the scene and situation, and do it quickly enough to provide an element of surprise that makes it safer for them and prevent a possible suspect from getting away.
So many different things that have to go through your mind.
You have no idea what your rolling into if just given bare facts so the brain goes into over drive going over a truck load of scenario's you might encounter.
I can see the LEO getting mind locked on "suspect with possible fire arm"
d-usa wrote: They are in the difficult position of having to keep enough distance for safety and get close enough to establish control of the scene and situation, and do it quickly enough to provide an element of surprise that makes it safer for them and prevent a possible suspect from getting away.
So many different things that have to go through your mind.
You have no idea what your rolling into if just given bare facts so the brain goes into over drive going over a truck load of scenario's you might encounter.
I can see the LEO getting mind locked on "suspect with possible fire arm"
It's also well known that intense situations cause the body to produce a much higher amount of adrenaline. Lots of adrenaline makes you a far less accurate shot than when you're simply on the training range, shooting at a completely non-threatening paper/whatever target.
Also, men naturally produce a lot more adrenaline than women, hence why women are actually more accurate shooters in general.
It seems that the kid was walking up and down with the gun, the person who called it in said it was a "Guy" and says "It is probably a fake" but also says he is scared.
The kid goes for the gun almost as soon as the car stops. I can see why the cops thought he was going to shoot at them. They also thought he was about 20. I'm sure some people will claim that they are trying to cover themselves, but that seems unlikely in that situation, especially as the person who called it in seems to have thought it was an adult.
I don't think the police guy should go to jail.
He should however lose his job. His actions may be understandable, he may have just followed standard procedures, but that is all no valid excuse for the fact he made an absolutely huge mistake. Police officers are not supposed to make mistakes, it should have consequences. Especially with a mistake as tragic as this one.
In my opinion, the cops were too hasty. They come driving in, burst out of the car and shoot the kid. There is only a few seconds between the cops getting out of the car and them shooting. They should have been more careful. Sure, they would have risked getting shot at, but that is a risk a policeman should be willing to take. It can mean the difference between life and death for innocent people, as you can see here.
Did he make a mistake? If he did the right thing in the situation then there is no mistake. If he did make a mistake then, yes, he should lose his job, but at the moment I can't see any evidence of a mistake. If more evidence appears to show he did make a mistake and killed someone (kid or not) due to an error on his part then yes, but at the moment all the evidence seems to show that he was presented with a situation where he told someone who had been waving a gun around to put their hands up who instead started to draw the gun. I don't see the mistake in that at all.
I'll say fist off, I haven't had the opportunity to watch the video yet.
However, I think there might just be a fundamental difference of opinion of what people expect in different countries / areas from the police.
I'm not saying that UK police get it right but, forgive me if I'm badly wrong, but, an expectation of the police in the USA is "law enforcement" as in, the enforcing of law.
However, I remembered a phrase about British policing, "policing by consent." And a handy google led me to this.
To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
So yeah, that's a pretty good summary / background about the source of my opinions on this.
It seems that the kid was walking up and down with the gun, the person who called it in said it was a "Guy" and says "It is probably a fake" but also says he is scared.
The kid goes for the gun almost as soon as the car stops. I can see why the cops thought he was going to shoot at them. They also thought he was about 20. I'm sure some people will claim that they are trying to cover themselves, but that seems unlikely in that situation, especially as the person who called it in seems to have thought it was an adult.
This video is absolutely deceptive - it cuts off and makes it look like the cops waited and assessed the situation, instead of immediately shooting the kid (in the original video, the kid is shot within a couple seconds of the car pulling up).
I think it makes it clear that the kid is shot almost immediately. The title of the page it "Tamir Rice shot 'within two seconds' of police arrival" It cut's off because the BBC are not going to show footage of someone being shot.
You can clearly see the car stopping and the kid pulling the gun out before the cars door is even opened fully. I don't think there is any implication that the cops waited any longer than what you can see either in the video or in the accompanying text. The film clearly freezes to keep the narrative and pacing going, to show that something happened, but without showing the shooting. Perhaps this is something we are used to in the UK, the freezing of videos and continuing a voice over to continue the story without showing the violence that does not translate well to people who are not used to it.
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.
yeah... its sad all around, but the video clearly shows him walking around, pointing the gun at people, and his first reaction to the cops is to go for the gun.
if anything is to be learnt, its to supervise your kids, prevents a huge amount of things from going wrong, not just this.
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.
yeah... its sad all around, but the video clearly shows him walking around, pointing the gun at people, and his first reaction to the cops is to go for the gun.
if anything is to be learnt, its to supervise your kids, prevents a huge amount of things from going wrong, not just this.
The lesson here is to teach your kids. You can't supervise a 12 yo all the time (and this is coming from an old man that has an 11 yo).
Kid has what is thought to be a gun, kid has clearly taken the little orange bit of it for a reason, god knows what that is.
cops get call out because kid is waving gun around (?)
They turn up and kid has said "gun"
Cops I assume asked him to drop it, he either did or didn't.
cops shoot kid dead.
so what im missing is this, why did they shoot the kid, did he go to pull it out or something? or was the copper just taking no risks (understandable).
To me this seems like another reason the yanks need to disarm, too many guns, too high a risk, how many kids need to be shot before you people decide to stop this stuff being allowed.
as I said, inform a brit that just doesn't understand?
Links to the videos have been posted plenty of times in this thread.
When the cop car pulls up, Tamir reaches for something under his sweatshirt in his waistband. At that point the cops had to make a decision, shoot the kid or wait to see what it was (could have meant a dead cop)
Ouze wrote: After seeing the video I agree with Insaniak.
I missed it in the circular who said or didn't say what part of his posts can I get the cliffnotes version?
Alfndrate wrote: Links to the videos have been posted plenty of times in this thread.
When the cop car pulls up, Tamir reaches for something under his sweatshirt in his waistband. At that point the cops had to make a decision, shoot the kid or wait to see what it was (could have meant a dead cop)
Ouze wrote: After seeing the video I agree with Insaniak.
I missed it in the circular who said or didn't say what part of his posts can I get the cliffnotes version?
Just his last post was probably a good summary.
insaniak wrote: (snip) approaching the situation from the assumption that the gun was real was insane.
Around the country on any given day, I can guarantee that there would be vastly more 12 year olds playing with toy guns than there are 12 year olds going on shooting rampages. In this case, no shots had been fired. No threats had been issued. There was no logical reason for police to assume that it was anything other than a kid playing around.
They certainly should have been prepared for the possibility that it might turn out to be something more, because that's what police do. But charging in on the assumption that this kid had a real weapon and was about to shoot someone, with no evidence that this was actually the case, was the wrong approach.
If they were going to take that approach, they should have been prepared for the fact that a 12 year old confronted by police officers in that fashion was possibly not going to react in a logical fashion.
Instead, they treated a kid playing around like a criminal about to go on a rampage, and the end result is a dead kid.
I understand that going in guns blazing was the safest thing for the police officer, but I think if your safety is the most important thing in the world, so much so that you have to shoot a child virtually the instant you get out of a car because he's holding what may or may not be a real gun, you should pick a less dangerous line of work. The police that work in our cities should not have more relaxed rules of engagement and poorer trigger discipline than the soldiers we send to foreign battlefields.
Formosa wrote: Kid has what is thought to be a gun, kid has clearly taken the little orange bit of it for a reason, god knows what that is.
To be clear, the orange bits, at least on UK airsoft guns, are not easy to remove. They are not a matter of taking it off, but a case of dissembling the gun or taking a hacksaw to it.
To me this seems like another reason the yanks need to disarm, too many guns, too high a risk, how many kids need to be shot before you people decide to stop this stuff being allowed.
as I said, inform a brit that just doesn't understand?
There is a good chance the same thing would happen in the UK, at least in an inner city area. In a rural area the police are more likely to think it is a toy first. After all, this was a BB gun, which are just as restricted, if nor more so, in many parts of the US compared to the UK.
Formosa wrote: Kid has what is thought to be a gun, kid has clearly taken the little orange bit of it for a reason, god knows what that is.
To be clear, the orange bits, at least on UK airsoft guns, are not easy to remove. They are not a matter of taking it off, but a case of dissembling the gun or taking a hacksaw to it.
To me this seems like another reason the yanks need to disarm, too many guns, too high a risk, how many kids need to be shot before you people decide to stop this stuff being allowed.
as I said, inform a brit that just doesn't understand?
There is a good chance the same thing would happen in the UK, at least in an inner city area. In a rural area the police are more likely to think it is a toy first. After all, this was a BB gun, which are just as restricted, if nor more so, in many parts of the US compared to the UK.
of course it could happen here, it did several times, people being shot by the police as they ran away or other such things.
but it doesn't happen with the alarming regularity that the americans seem to have, as guns are a lot harder to get a hold of, nevermind the legality of it
Sorry if a derailed abit then but I've seen some threads n comments on other places that made out it was more like a nerf gun or obvious toy, not a almost replica live firearm.
Kind of a inportant distinction to make.
Yes the shooting was tragic but the officer had very little choice, it was a nightmare scenario but he only had seconds to make a desicion to fire or not. Not a long time at all when the consciences of that action are so serious.
Having watched the video, I can only conclude that the officers in questions should be sacked ASAP for sheer incompetence. The lack of professionalism is absolutely shocking.
They went in all guns blazing, and the end result is a dead kid.
You can hear it clearly over the dispatch that one officer thinks they shot a 20 year old!
If that's professional law enforcement, I'd hate to see the amateur equivalent.
Formosa wrote: Kid has what is thought to be a gun, kid has clearly taken the little orange bit of it for a reason, god knows what that is.
To be clear, the orange bits, at least on UK airsoft guns, are not easy to remove. They are not a matter of taking it off, but a case of dissembling the gun or taking a hacksaw to it.
Rubbish the things fall apart first time they're chucked in the toy box, I know I bought some for my grandsons.
Thank god we live in England.
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.
So in the thread about the 12 year old you post another article making the same argument that you made in the Ferguson thread and which was already debunked in the Ferguson thread?
d-usa wrote: So in the thread about the 12 year old you post another article making the same argument that you made in the Ferguson thread and which was already debunked in the Ferguson thread?
d-usa wrote: So in the thread about the 12 year old you post another article making the same argument that you made in the Ferguson thread and which was already debunked in the Ferguson thread?
What was debunked?
Nobody other than local news covered the shooting of Michael Brown, and nobody was able to find a single national news story about the shooting. None, nada, zilch.
The national news covered the protests by the second day, but white cop shooting black guy was just as non-newsworthy as black cop shooting white guy.
d-usa wrote: So in the thread about the 12 year old you post another article making the same argument that you made in the Ferguson thread and which was already debunked in the Ferguson thread?
What was debunked?
Nobody other than local news covered the shooting of Michael Brown, and nobody was able to find a single national news story about the shooting. None, nada, zilch.
The national news covered the protests by the second day, but white cop shooting black guy was just as non-newsworthy as black cop shooting white guy.
Wrong. I said no one at the liberal news services thought twice about it. Outside of a couple of blurbs from them, there was no further mention of the incident. Definitly not on the scale afforded either Brown, a proven thief and bully who attacked a cop, or the kid who pulled a toy gun on the cops.
Risk is to high then the mission is a no go. Automated calls to all land lines and cells in the area warning of a possible hazard to property and life. Stay indoors for your safety till "Index" is given
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Having watched the video, I can only conclude that the officers in questions should be sacked ASAP for sheer incompetence. The lack of professionalism is absolutely shocking.
They went in all guns blazing, and the end result is a dead kid.
You can hear it clearly over the dispatch that one officer thinks they shot a 20 year old!
If that's professional law enforcement, I'd hate to see the amateur equivalent.
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.
) and threatening others - either for lolz or to get another kind of reaction.
