Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 insaniak wrote:
Oookay... So if we're up to the 'Making arguments against things that weren't actually said' part of the discussion, I think I'm done.

"Making up arguments" such as stating that the officer in question was fully aware of the kid having a toy gun? I see.

 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.

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

when i was twelve i learnt how to open cans. with my teeth.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

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"

 easysauce wrote:

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?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

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.

Relapse wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

 insaniak wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

 insaniak wrote:

Then you didn't read what I actually wrote.

Since everyone in here read it differently from what you claim it to be, please shed some insight and elaborate on your post.

 easysauce wrote:
You telling people they cannot read....

I never said that, either.

 insaniak wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
You telling people they cannot read....

I never said that, either.

 insaniak wrote:

Then you didn't read what I actually wrote.

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...

such logic!

 easysauce wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

"You didn't read what I wrote' and 'You can't read' are not synonymous statements.

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?

 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.

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

Ehm?

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

Oh wait... never mind

Yeah, because it is "probably" a fake gun also means that it is "probably" a real one as well, you know that, right?

 zombiekila707 wrote:


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?

Whew
I'm glad twelve year old's are so predictable