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.

When you were kids, did you also pull your toy guns on cops?

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.

 CptJake wrote:


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..

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Chongara wrote:


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.

 Chongara wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


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..

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Chongara wrote:


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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 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.

 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.

 Chongara wrote:

 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.

Im not sure where i said a gun has NO risk of the above.

what im saying is current non lethal Has too much of the above risk.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 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...

 Steve steveson wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

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.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 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.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Chongara wrote:


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?

What an awful reply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 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.

How would he have known he was not actually at risk?

With a toy gun with the Orange indicator tip removed?

The child was hella guilty of presenting him self as a lethal threat and he paid the price for it.

Officer did his job plain and simple.

 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.

 gorgon wrote:


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.

The basic standards i would like to see would be

1) useable at range
2) Instant knock out
3) Repeatable
4) Nonlethal and non permanent damage
5) does not cause involuntary muscle contraction

this is the order of which i would love to see.

Bonus points for non projectiles that can be used at range. (LASERS!)

I have issues with barbed range tasers as those can be accidentally pulled out or not properly attach for whatever reasons.

They also can have issues with certain medical conditions but that's less of a concern for me.

And i know guns can obviously have issues as well such as completely missing or hitting an unintended target but thats an issue with the operator.

you are free to disagree.

 gorgon wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

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?

 gorgon wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

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.

It had the orange indicator removed.


After the fact doesn't help anything.

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

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..

Where is Captain Hindsight when we need him?

 whembly wrote:

 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:

 whembly wrote:

 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?

Folks actually shot by these young'uns.

 Sigvatr wrote:

So you're okay with police officers to get shot.

Wow. Police hate much?

'Hating' police has nothing to do with it.

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'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

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. :

The person that comment was directed at is in the UK. Where for a heck of a long time standard beat cops didn't carry guns.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Perhaps the police should have left him alone.

"911, there's a boy holding a gun."
"So what?"

To address Desubot's point, why should the police assume the boy was armed?

The fact that the caller said that he was armed and that the boy had a real-looking gun might have been a subtle hint. Subtle.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 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 don't like guns in private hands,

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

a real tradgedy for everyone involved