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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

Can't tell if you're being argumentative or just having some fun.

Im not trying to have fun with this. The kid committed no crime carrying a toy gun, and running from the police is not an admission if guilt, and the only reason for officers to open fire is if they believe the suspect to be actively dangerous and seeking to harm others. Just "we think he has a gun" is mighty thin ice.

Did you even read the quoted article above? I gotta believe that if you did, you're just pulling my leg here.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Even then, it's not a reason to shoot someone. Baltimore has open carry.

It's legal for a 13 year old to open carry on the streets?

If they have a permit, sure. Did the police ask to see his permit?

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

Can't tell if you're being argumentative or just having some fun.

Im not trying to have fun with this. The kid committed no crime carrying a toy gun, and running from the police is not an admission if guilt, and the only reason for officers to open fire is if they believe the suspect to be actively dangerous and seeking to harm others. Just "we think he has a gun" is mighty thin ice.

Did you even read the quoted article above? I gotta believe that if you did, you're just pulling my leg here.

plainclothes officers see kid with what they think might be a gun, they approach kid, kid takes off, they end up legging him. Kid wasn't apparently engaged in any hostile behavior, no calls were made, the only thing he did was run. Kids are...well...kids, and the police arent exactly seen as positive influences in that community, so what would most 13 year olds do?

 Laughing Man wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Even then, it's not a reason to shoot someone. Baltimore has open carry.

It's legal for a 13 year old to open carry on the streets?

If they have a permit, sure. Did the police ask to see his permit?

You are incorrect based on this website:
http://www.usacarry.com/maryland_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

Minimum age is 18.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:


Did you even read the quoted article above? I gotta believe that if you did, you're just pulling my leg here.

plainclothes officers see kid with what they think might be a gun, they approach kid, kid takes off, they end up legging him. Kid wasn't apparently engaged in any hostile behavior, no calls were made, the only thing he did was run. Kids are...well...kids, and the police arent exactly seen as positive influences in that community, so what would most 13 year olds do?

Yes, the discussion is happening. If you can't process that by the time we're on the second page maybe you shouldn't take part. Post more than "why are we talking about this" as the main point or you won't be talking about it in the OT much longer

LMAO

I'm glad no one was killed as a result of an airsoft pistol, but aren't police generally trained to aim for the body? Winging a fleeing person is relatively rare isn't it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Could they have intentionally winged him to avoid another riot situation?

Just because you're trained to shoot in a general area doesn't mean you always hit in that general area. Seemed like a split second decision with no time to properly aim.

There has been quite a few OIS's in Bmore since Freddy Gray, so I doubt they are concerned with a riot. This one is only news because of the age of the kid.

I made the comment I did about the title because I have lived in Baltimore, and later just outside, for a long time. It's called "Charm City" for a reason... it really does grow on you. One of the first posts in this thread was someone saying the solution was to just get out of Baltimore - and that's not it.

The discussion gets polarized quickly without a lot of facts. Whether the police had reason to shoot absolutely depends on what he was doing with the gun. Sure, if he tucked it away and was just running... no, I can't imagine there would be any defense for them shooting.

But if he had it out, and was waving it, and there were other people nearby... yes, at that point he is endangering others and they absolutely could have reason to fire. It all depends on the exact circumstances, like usual in these situations - and like usual, will probably be the hardest things to figure out! There is huge support for police body cameras here, and that will go a really long way to making situations like this much clearer, and result in less uncertainty for everyone involved.

I'm just really glad the boy's life isn't in danger, and honestly I think that fact more than anything else will help avoid this becoming such a powder keg, and for everyone involved to heal and forgive more quickly.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Kid was a total idiot for running away. I would actually argue most people who run away from the cops in these situations are idiots. They're fething law enforcement, just cooperate. Especially if you're packing an insanely convincing replica firearm.

he's a 13 year old kid...of course he's an idiot, what 13 year old isnt? Whats more, he's a 13 year old in a community with extremely poor relations with law enforcement. Pretty standard reaction given the circumstances.

Simply running from the police isn't a free pass for the police to open fire or an admission of guilt.

Lots of 13 year olds kill people for admission into gangs. For all the cops knew this could have been one of those instances.

I avoid Baltimore for a serious reason. Ravens. Enough said

 Vaktathi wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Kid was a total idiot for running away. I would actually argue most people who run away from the cops in these situations are idiots. They're fething law enforcement, just cooperate. Especially if you're packing an insanely convincing replica firearm.

he's a 13 year old kid...of course he's an idiot, what 13 year old isnt? Whats more, he's a 13 year old in a community with extremely poor relations with law enforcement. Pretty standard reaction given the circumstances.

Simply running from the police isn't a free pass for the police to open fire or an admission of guilt.

If I was 13 in that situation I absolutely, positively would not have run. Is that an unfair metric? I don't think so. Teaching kids to listen to law enforcement is not an unrealistic expectation. In fact, living in a community with poor relations with law enforcement is all the more reason not to turn tail and run in that situation. I also very much take issue with your final assertion - the job of police is to serve and protect, of course they're going to use extreme force if they find someone walking around with a gun that doesn't cooperate. Lives are on the line in that situation.

Relapse wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Kid was a total idiot for running away. I would actually argue most people who run away from the cops in these situations are idiots. They're fething law enforcement, just cooperate. Especially if you're packing an insanely convincing replica firearm.

he's a 13 year old kid...of course he's an idiot, what 13 year old isnt? Whats more, he's a 13 year old in a community with extremely poor relations with law enforcement. Pretty standard reaction given the circumstances.

Simply running from the police isn't a free pass for the police to open fire or an admission of guilt.

Lots of 13 year olds kill people for admission into gangs. For all the cops knew this could have been one of those instances.

Some have, sure, I don't know about "lots" (I can't find any data either way), but 13 year olds also play with airsoft guns all the time. We also have no mention of any suspected gang related activity. This was two plainclothes officers seeing a kid walking around the neighborhood, not a uniformed patrol or response to an incident.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Kid was a total idiot for running away. I would actually argue most people who run away from the cops in these situations are idiots. They're fething law enforcement, just cooperate. Especially if you're packing an insanely convincing replica firearm.

he's a 13 year old kid...of course he's an idiot, what 13 year old isnt? Whats more, he's a 13 year old in a community with extremely poor relations with law enforcement. Pretty standard reaction given the circumstances.

Simply running from the police isn't a free pass for the police to open fire or an admission of guilt.

If I was 13 in that situation I absolutely, positively would not have run. Is that an unfair metric? I don't think so. Teaching kids to listen to law enforcement is not an unrealistic expectation. In fact, living in a community with poor relations with law enforcement is all the more reason not to turn tail and run in that situation.

In some ways yes, but in others no. When a community has poor relations with law enforcement, there's usually a reason for it. Yes, it's obviously a two-way street, but problems with law enforcement don't get to certain levels without there also being a problem with law enforcement.

If the line of thinking is "well, just do whatever they want so you don't get hurt", that's the definition of an abusive relationship.

I also very much take issue with your final assertion - the job of police is to serve and protect,

It absolutely is not, and the multiple court cases, including those before the Supreme Court have affirmed that the Police and other public services do not have such a duty (Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Warren v. District of Columbia, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, etc). A police officer is under no obligation to protect you, nor serve/help you with anything. Their job is to maintain order as defined by their superiors (which is not necessarily the same thing as serving and protecting) and to investigate breaches of law and look for evidence with which to charge people for said breaches of law (which, again, is not necessarily serving and protecting). They also are fully allowed to lie and deceive people, in fact, it's a vital part of how most police investigators are able to get confessions or force plea bargains. Kids are roped into terrible injustices all the time because they'll just accept responsibility for something when an authority figure says they know they did it, even if that's a lie. Or you'll get the common occurrence where an officer will pull a kid over or stop a kid on the street, ask to look through the car or their backpack because they heard someone was smuggling weapons or hard drugs or something and that they're not looking for marijuana or alchohol (when they really are), and then when they find the latter they arrest the kid.

I mean, there's a reason every lawyer (and most police officers I've known) will tell you not to talk to the police beyond the barest of legal requirements and to keep interaction, even friendly interaction, to a minimum. They are not there to help or protect you, and they absolutely will lie to you and deceive you if it furthers their interests, which do not necessarily coincide with yours even if you have done nothing wrong. Police serve a function in society, but there's every reason for the average citizen to both fear and avoid them as they operate today.

This is not to say that many, if not most, officers won't come to your aid or try to protect you or lend a helping hand, but it's not actually their job.

of course they're going to use extreme force if they find someone walking around with a gun that doesn't cooperate. Lives are on the line in that situation.

Except when they're not and actions are made under the assumption that they are end up causing harm where they didn't need to.

I understand that nothing is perfect and that poor calls can be made, but primarily my issue is with the reversion back to the "well...they ran so they must be guilty" mentality.

 Vaktathi wrote:
plainclothes officers see kid with what they think might be a gun, they approach kid, kid takes off, they end up legging him. Kid wasn't apparently engaged in any hostile behavior, no calls were made, the only thing he did was run. Kids are...well...kids, and the police arent exactly seen as positive influences in that community, so what would most 13 year olds do?

Assuming he even believed they were cops. 2 plain clothes guys approach him from nowhere, probably with guns out. Why the feth isn't he going to run?

Plus, there's no guarantee that staying where he was and putting the gun down *wouldn't* get him shot either. At least if he runs away they might just clip him.

I'm not saying he should have had the replica, but surely unless he's presenting some kind of danger to someone (like pointing the gun at the cops), there's absolutely no reason to shoot, running or not? Can plain clothes officers not keep up with a 13 year old boy for more than 150 yards without having to shoot at him?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
If I was 13 in that situation I absolutely, positively would not have run. Is that an unfair metric?

Are you white?

I wouldn't run either, but I'm not a black kid in an area where lots of black kids get shot by the police for no reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It seems he told the cops it wasn't real, loudly enough to be heard by a guy in a car:

A witness, who identified himself as Bryan, said he saw the shooting as he was in his truck on Baltimore Street. The first thing he claims he saw was the boy running, drop a basketball he was carrying and then he saw to people chasing him.

“(The teen) turned towards them but he wasn’t turning the gun towards them and I’m positive I heard him say, ‘It’s not real,’” Bryan said.

Bryan said police yelled at the teen to drop the gun as they approached him before he motioned the gun upward, not toward the officers.

“He said, ‘It’s not real. It’s not real,’ and that quick, the male officer shot him twice in the leg,” Bryan said.

http://gawker.com/witness-teen-said-its-not-real-about-bb-gun-before-b-1773650551

And a cop is supposed to believe someone, with a gun, that turned to face them and raised the gun? Also why did he drop the basket ball and not the gun!?!

It's just another piece of evidence pointing them towards not shooting the kid. Kid, with basketball, not causing any disturbance of fleeing a crime, has a gun he claims is not real.

Have you ever tried running away from someone holding a basketball?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yeah. Now if we had gun laws like the UK, then there would be no need for cops to have them, but with our mass proliferation of guns, it's just not feasible.

Please cite one country in the Americas where police aren't armed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I'm glad no one was killed as a result of an airsoft pistol, but aren't police generally trained to aim for the body? Winging a fleeing person is relatively rare isn't it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Could they have intentionally winged him to avoid another riot situation?

Lets be real: they missed.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yeah. Now if we had gun laws like the UK, then there would be no need for cops to have them, but with our mass proliferation of guns, it's just not feasible.

Please cite one country in the Americas where police aren't armed.

Umm, why?

You may have misunderstood, I'm not pushing for nor police weapons, I'm saying that as long as guns are able to be owned and used, that disarming police, like how the UK does it, just can't work. Which is just basic reality, if the criminals have guns, you better hope the police do as well.

not causing any disturbance

He was carrying a gun!

fleeing a crime

He ran from the police!

has a gun he claims is not real

As you said he "claims" is not real. In your mind when would this be justified? it's not when he drops the basketball and runs with the gun. It's not when he turns to confront the police. it's not when he raises the gun. How about when he brings it across his body and blows their brains out? You have the luxury of knowing after the fact the gun was fake, the cops did not. The did not use force until he stopped, confronted, them, and started to raise the gun. Even then the cop decided to shoot him in the leg. Would you seriously believe someone, that a gun was fake, after they ran, refused to drop it, and turned to confront you while raising it!?!

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yeah. Now if we had gun laws like the UK, then there would be no need for cops to have them, but with our mass proliferation of guns, it's just not feasible.

Please cite one country in the Americas where police aren't armed.

Umm, why?

You may have misunderstood, I'm not pushing for nor police weapons, I'm saying that as long as guns are able to be owned and used, that disarming police, like how the UK does it, just can't work. Which is just basic reality, if the criminals have guns, you better hope the police do as well.

OK, sorry my bad. I badly misinterpreted your statement.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I'm glad no one was killed as a result of an airsoft pistol, but aren't police generally trained to aim for the body? Winging a fleeing person is relatively rare isn't it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Could they have intentionally winged him to avoid another riot situation?

Firing your pistol at somebody constitutes lethal force, the only justification to do it is that lethal force is required by the situation. If you're shooting somebody then you're shooting to kill because it's literally a life or death situation. If that isn't the case then you shouldn't be shooting at all. If you think you need to only fire rounds off to scare somebody or wound somebody then the situation isn't dire enough to justify you shooting at all.

That's the way it's explained in NC concealed carry classes and most states have laws that support that line of reasoning.

Simply seeing a teenager that might have a firearm in his possession isn't grounds to shoot him. The cops didn't witness any dangerous or criminal actions just the possible crime of illegal possession of a handgun. That's justification for questioning and searching the teenager but it doesn't create a situation where lethal force is justified.

Police don't have the right to shoot first because they might be entering a dangerous situation. They have to accept the possible danger and try to fully identify the particulars of the situation first. It can be a dangerous job but that's the job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ChainswordHeretic wrote:

not causing any disturbance

He was carrying a gun!

fleeing a crime

He ran from the police!

has a gun he claims is not real

As you said he "claims" is not real. In your mind when would this be justified? it's not when he drops the basketball and runs with the gun. It's not when he turns to confront the police. it's not when he raises the gun. How about when he brings it across his body and blows their brains out? You have the luxury of knowing after the fact the gun was fake, the cops did not. The did not use force until he stopped, confronted, them, and started to raise the gun. Even then the cop decided to shoot him in the leg. Would you seriously believe someone, that a gun was fake, after they ran, refused to drop it, and turned to confront you while raising it!?!

A teenage male is hanging out doing nothing wrong. He has a basketball and a toy gun. The cops think the gun might be real, they approach him for questioning. The teenage lives in a community and city where people he knows and trusts freely proclaim that the police deliberately kill people of his ethnicity and the media loudly echoes this depiction of local law enforcement. The teenage gets scared and runs. The police officers decide to chase him. The boy eventually stops, turn to the officers and shows them the gun so they can see it's just a toy. The offcers decide to shoot him in the leg because they're afraid the gun might be real. Now an unarmed teenager was shot by police even though he never committed a crime. No gun was recovered at the scene, no charges filed against the teenager. This is an example of an overreaction by the cops that negatively impacts everyone.

 ChainswordHeretic wrote:

not causing any disturbance

He was carrying a gun!

fleeing a crime

And open-carry is allowed (though this guy probably looked too young for a license). That's not a disturbance, no one was being threatened. Its certainly possible to stop him and inspect the gun without shooting him.

He ran from the police!

Running away from the police is not a crime.

has a gun he claims is not real

As you said he "claims" is not real. In your mind when would this be justified? it's not when he drops the basketball and runs with the gun. It's not when he turns to confront the police. it's not when he raises the gun. How about when he brings it across his body and blows their brains out? You have the luxury of knowing after the fact the gun was fake, the cops did not. The did not use force until he stopped, confronted, them, and started to raise the gun. Even then the cop decided to shoot him in the leg. Would you seriously believe someone, that a gun was fake, after they ran, refused to drop it, and turned to confront you while raising it!?!

Do we have any evidence that this kid confronted them? Surely if he'd pulled the gun on the cops they'd have shot him a lot more than twice.

Shouting it's not real should mean that unless he does something threatening with it, it's treated as not real. Of course, that's the same as if it is real, but should at least cause the thought "maybe this is a mix-up involving a kid with a BB gun, again" to drift across the cops mind *before* he decides how to react.

 ChainswordHeretic wrote:

not causing any disturbance

He was carrying a gun!

A *toy*

He ran from the police!

Which is neither an admission of guilt nor a justification in and of itself for shooting. Again, if "well just do what they waant so you don't get hurt" is the line of thinking here, that's the definition of an abusive relationship.

And open-carry is allowed (though this guy probably looked too young for a license). That's not a disturbance, no one was being threatened. Its certainly possible to stop him and inspect the gun without shooting him.

Per Maryland law the gun has to be in an enclosed holster. If he was walking around openly carrying a gun in his hand, he was breaking the law. They had no way of knowing it was fake when they stopped him.

I think my favorite part of this thread is people blaming the child for not acting like an adult. "He should have done this! I know I would have!" Of course you would have, you are an adult. This is a child who is still learning how the world works. There is also the chance that he does not have the same support you had while growing up or the same education you had growing up.

So lets drift away from that argument, because I doubt anybody here can relate to how the child was thinking in the situation. Because I doubt anybody here is a 13 year old kid.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I think my favorite part of this thread is people blaming the child for not acting like an adult. "He should have done this! I know I would have!" Of course you would have, you are an adult. This is a child who is still learning how the world works. There is also the chance that he does not have the same support you had while growing up or the same education you had growing up.

So lets drift away from that argument, because I doubt anybody here can relate to how the child was thinking in the situation. Because I doubt anybody here is a 13 year old kid.

Im pretty sure most of us here where at least at one point a 13 year old kid.

and not discussing an entire half of the problem in the first place doesn't really help.

 Desubot wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I think my favorite part of this thread is people blaming the child for not acting like an adult. "He should have done this! I know I would have!" Of course you would have, you are an adult. This is a child who is still learning how the world works. There is also the chance that he does not have the same support you had while growing up or the same education you had growing up.

So lets drift away from that argument, because I doubt anybody here can relate to how the child was thinking in the situation. Because I doubt anybody here is a 13 year old kid.

Im pretty sure most of us here where at least at one point a 13 year old kid.

and not discussing an entire half of the problem in the first place doesn't really help.

I am pretty sure that most us here were at one point, but since we have aged past that our knowledge of being 13 years old has changed and been perverted due to our knowledge of life past that age.

I know I was mind bogglingly stupid at 13

Kid shouldn't run. However, as noted, 13 year olds are stupid and do stupid things. I would not have been shot running around at that age with a toy gun. Heck we ran around with real guns.

On the flip side I didn't run around in a neighborhood with shootings. There weren't police for...miles.

Inversely in rougher neighborhoods kids have been used to commit murder, because they will go to JV if caught. That toy looks hyper real.

Sad all around.

 Frazzled wrote:
That toy looks hyper real.

Sad all around.

I agree with this, and had similar life experiences with the Frazz (using guns in isolated woods at 13 or so, not in a neighborhood).