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.

nomotog wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

You say a good police officer would let himself get shot. What if he did, and the child killed others? You are viewing this scenario with a, frankly, brazen disregard for the safety of the public. If someone pulls out a gun, you don't say, "Oh. He might not shoot people with that." And I say that having grown up in Hackney, where children start carrying knives at the age of eleven. But I guess you'll say that if they pull out a knife, you should wait until they stab someone.

In this case, the boy couldn't have shot others because they didn't have a real gun. It's not always clear if someone is a threat. Some times they aren't a actual threat.

But you dont KNOW, that is the point.

That is actually one of the more depressing parts of this case. People did know it was fake. (or at least strongly suspected it was fake.) Then that information wasn't passed on to the officers.

No. The 911 caller said "It might be fake", which doesn't mean anything. You ALWAYS treat a gun as real until proven fake. A 911 caller who himself doesn't know one way or the other is about as far from proof you can get.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Another fun fact, if he had his finger on a trigger, tazing could make it worse, muscles lock up when voltage goes threw the boy again, the gun could go off in bad directions.

He didn't have his finger on the trigger in this case, though, did he?

The gun was in his pants until police officers charged in pointing their guns at him.

 insaniak wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Another fun fact, if he had his finger on a trigger, tazing could make it worse, muscles lock up when voltage goes threw the boy again, the gun could go off in bad directions.

He didn't have his finger on the trigger in this case, though, did he?

The gun was in his pants until police officers charged in pointing their guns at him.

So is it now your position they should have immediately tazed the kid before he grabbed the gun?

That would have gotten them fired and the city involved in a lawsuit.

Once he grabbed the gun, unless you have some evidence I have not seen, we don't know if his finger was on the trigger or not, do we?

 CptJake wrote:
So is it now your position they should have immediately tazed the kid before he grabbed the gun?

No. That was just a response to the suggestion that a tazer would have been a bad idea against someone with a gun in their hand.

My position is the same as it's been from the start - That police bungled this by running in with guns drawn, when a more cautious approach might have been able to defuse the situation without anyone getting shot.

 insaniak wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
So is it now your position they should have immediately tazed the kid before he grabbed the gun?

No. That was just a response to the suggestion that a tazer would have been a bad idea against someone with a gun in their hand.

My position is the same as it's been from the start - That police bungled this by running in with guns drawn, when a more cautious approach might have been able to defuse the situation without anyone getting shot.

But at least you are willing to admit that when you stated the following you were being less than honest:

He didn't have his finger on the trigger in this case, though, did he?

You actually have no clue if he did have his finger on the trigger when he grabbed the gun, right?

And frankly, it doesn't make much of a difference, the act of grabbing the gun at all was got him shot.

 CptJake wrote:
But at least you are willing to admit that when you stated the following you were being less than honest:

He didn't have his finger on the trigger in this case, though, did he?

.

That's a question, not a statement.

 insaniak wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Another fun fact, if he had his finger on a trigger, tazing could make it worse, muscles lock up when voltage goes threw the boy again, the gun could go off in bad directions.

He didn't have his finger on the trigger in this case, though, did he?

The gun was in his pants until police officers charged in pointing their guns at him.

Here's how reality works. Police are allowed to point guns. You aren't.

 Frazzled wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Another fun fact, if he had his finger on a trigger, tazing could make it worse, muscles lock up when voltage goes threw the boy again, the gun could go off in bad directions.

He didn't have his finger on the trigger in this case, though, did he?

The gun was in his pants until police officers charged in pointing their guns at him.

Here's how reality works. Police are allowed to point guns. You aren't.

Repression and despotism!

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Another fun fact, if he had his finger on a trigger, tazing could make it worse, muscles lock up when voltage goes threw the boy again, the gun could go off in bad directions.

He didn't have his finger on the trigger in this case, though, did he?

The gun was in his pants until police officers charged in pointing their guns at him.

Here's how reality works. Police are allowed to point guns. You aren't.

Repression and despotism!

Witness the violence present in the system! Help help! I'm being repressed!

 insaniak wrote:


My position is the same as it's been from the start - That police bungled this by running in with guns drawn, when a more cautious approach might have been able to defuse the situation without anyone getting shot.

The kid following instructions from the police officer would have also certainly defused the situation without anyone getting shot.

I'm pretty tired of people blaming the cops in situations like these. How about we start blaming parents that don't teach their children to have respect for authority figures?

 cincydooley wrote:

 insaniak wrote:


My position is the same as it's been from the start - That police bungled this by running in with guns drawn, when a more cautious approach might have been able to defuse the situation without anyone getting shot.

The kid following instructions from the police officer would have also certainly defused the situation without anyone getting shot.

I'm pretty tired of people blaming the cops in situations like these. How about we start blaming parents that don't teach their children to have respect for authority figures?

Parents are not agents of the state.
Parents are not bought and paid for with our taxes.
Parents are not obligated to be acting in the public's best interest.
Parents are not bound to any procedures & practices developed with the intention of being for our benefit.

Cops are. When something tragic happens and police are involved it is only right and reasonable for the scrutiny to first be placed on the police. That's what scares me here. Not that the prospect that shooting kid might have been the right call, but that so many assume out of the gate that it must have been.

With little more than overview from an article so many are eager to passionately defend the position that the police are 100% in the right, the parents and kid are 100% to blame and there exists no space for the possibility even the smallest error may have been made on the part of the officers. No investigations, no reports, no expert analysis, no questioning. The state killed a citizen, a child, and only the most preliminary description of the circumstances is sufficient to wholly preclude even the smallest fraction of blame on their part.

This kind of doubtless faith is rarely even afford to gods.

I have seen a lot of people writing words to the effect of;

"Based on the information available, it would seem...."

Too many questions about 'what if's'.

This was a split second decision facing a person actively waving a real looking gun around, after the police told him not to, with guns pointed.

I see no reason why the police officer should put the targets life above his own. Too many ways he could have been shot.

Every stupid option from warning shots to wounding shots, to 'giving the kid a break', to approaching him, to simply waiting and seeing what happens next could have resulted in him/her taking a hit, or several.

And no different if the gun wielder is a child. Children can be killers too. If the child is desensitised to gun crime they are more likely to pull the trigger not less, as children and teens are not mature enough to consider consequences the same way and degree as adults..

One thing I have been wondering about... Would this have happened 100 years ago?

If we put racial issues to one side, and imagine it was a white kid, 12 years old, out playing with a 'toy' gun in 1914. Would the police have even batted an eyelid? Would they have perhaps known the kids name and where he lived and who his family was? Given him a 'clip round the ear'. I known it's just speculation, but I find it interesting. Even though I can't fault the logic of how the police responded, it does seem like a rather automated and impersonal response, which ultimately turned out to be wrong. It seems more distressing because the human element that might have caught the mistake was missing. Is this something that we have lost over time? Along with things like community?

 Smacks wrote:
One thing I have been wondering about... Would this have happened 100 years ago?

If we put racial issues to one side, and imagine it was a white kid, 12 years old, out playing with a 'toy' gun in 1914. Would the police have even batted an eyelid? Would they have perhaps known the kids name and where he lived and who his family was? Given him a 'clip round the ear'. I known it's just speculation, but I find it interesting. Even though I can't fault the logic of how the police responded, it does seem like a rather automated and impersonal response, which ultimately turned out to be wrong. It seems more distressing because the human element that might have caught the mistake was missing. Is this something that we have lost over time? Along with things like community?

1914 was even more despot then now. It's likely the Pinkerton agents would have killed him and not bat an eyelash

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
One thing I have been wondering about... Would this have happened 100 years ago?

If we put racial issues to one side, and imagine it was a white kid, 12 years old, out playing with a 'toy' gun in 1914. Would the police have even batted an eyelid? Would they have perhaps known the kids name and where he lived and who his family was? Given him a 'clip round the ear'. I known it's just speculation, but I find it interesting. Even though I can't fault the logic of how the police responded, it does seem like a rather automated and impersonal response, which ultimately turned out to be wrong. It seems more distressing because the human element that might have caught the mistake was missing. Is this something that we have lost over time? Along with things like community?

1914 was even more despot then now. It's likely the Pinkerton agents would have killed him and not bat an eyelash

I really doubt that. I doubt that this would even play out the same in different part of the country. Around where I live, we have a lot of people with guns. They even point them and wave them around without getting shot.

nomotog wrote:


I really doubt that. I doubt that this would even play out the same in different part of the country. Around where I live, we have a lot of people with guns. They even point them and wave them around without getting shot.

Where are you so i can completely avoid where ever you are.

 Desubot wrote:

nomotog wrote:


I really doubt that. I doubt that this would even play out the same in different part of the country. Around where I live, we have a lot of people with guns. They even point them and wave them around without getting shot.

Where are you so i can completely avoid where ever you are.

Northern Michigan. I recall when people use to bring their rifles to school during hunting season.

 Smacks wrote:
One thing I have been wondering about... Would this have happened 100 years ago?

If we put racial issues to one side, and imagine it was a white kid, 12 years old, out playing with a 'toy' gun in 1914. Would the police have even batted an eyelid? Would they have perhaps known the kids name and where he lived and who his family was? Given him a 'clip round the ear'. I known it's just speculation, but I find it interesting. Even though I can't fault the logic of how the police responded, it does seem like a rather automated and impersonal response, which ultimately turned out to be wrong. It seems more distressing because the human element that might have caught the mistake was missing. Is this something that we have lost over time? Along with things like community?

His body would have just been found.
Thats not correct. He would be working about 70 hours a week at 12.

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's how reality works. Police are allowed to point guns. You aren't.

Sure, they're 'allowed' to point guns. That doesn't mean it's automatically the best solution to a given situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
I'm pretty tired of people blaming the cops in situations like these.

If the cops hadn't shot a 12 year old boy armed with a toy gun, I wouldn't be blaming them for shooting a 12 year old boy armed with a toy gun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
If we put racial issues to one side, and imagine it was a white kid, 12 years old, out playing with a 'toy' gun in 1914. Would the police have even batted an eyelid? Would they have perhaps known the kids name and where he lived and who his family was? Given him a 'clip round the ear'. I known it's just speculation, but I find it interesting. Even though I can't fault the logic of how the police responded, it does seem like a rather automated and impersonal response, which ultimately turned out to be wrong. It seems more distressing because the human element that might have caught the mistake was missing. Is this something that we have lost over time? Along with things like community?

This pretty much sums up a lot of my issue with this situation. It's ridiculous that the first response in this case was to charge in with guns drawn. It's not just the sense of community that's missing here... it's any sense of perspective.

 insaniak wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I'm pretty tired of people blaming the cops in situations like these.

If the cops hadn't shot a 12 year old boy armed with a toy gun, I wouldn't be blaming them for shooting a 12 year old boy armed with a toy gun.

If a 12 year old kid hadn't been threatening people with a gun, the police would never have been called in the first place.

 insaniak wrote:

If the cops hadn't shot a 12 year old boy armed with a toy gun, I wouldn't be blaming them for shooting a 12 year old boy armed with a toy gun.

Don't point something that looks very much like a real handgun at people in public.

Don't reach for said airsoft gun when the cops tell you to put your hands up.

Two examples of popular Handguns and their airsoft counterparts.

That and the first response was to tell him to put his hands up.

Imagine saying the word "Bomb" at the airport or on the aircraft itself

Tragic, but I can see why the officer could get scared. But still it is a kid. Not a broad muscular man.

*sigh*

There are times like these when I wish I could drink. :/

 Hordini wrote:

Protecting others becomes much more difficult if you allow yourself to be shot.

Cops should be held to a higher moral standard. Giving up their lives is something that they should be prepared to do. Otherwise they don't deserve authority.

One never know the age of the fighters till the Pakul is removed

It has nothing to do with scared.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

Protecting others becomes much more difficult if you allow yourself to be shot.

Cops should be held to a higher moral standard. Giving up their lives is something that they should be prepared to do. Otherwise they don't deserve authority.

But should they be prepared to sacrifice others lives to save the suspect?

Comes down to training

 Asherian Command wrote:
Tragic, but I can see why the officer could get scared. But still it is a kid. Not a broad muscular man.

'
So broad, muscular men are okay to shoot. Got it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:


Cops should be held to a higher moral standard. Giving up their lives is something that they should be prepared to do. Otherwise they don't deserve authority.

What makes allowing yourself to be shot at a "higher moral standard?"

Again, kid listens to cops, no one gets shot.

I mean, they seem to have figured out this hands up thing in Missouri......