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.

 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.

 CptJake wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

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.

True.Very sad.

 CptJake 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?

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.

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

 gorgon wrote:

 CptJake 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?

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.

 gorgon wrote:

 CptJake 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?

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...

Things sure are a lot easier when we have hindsight to help us make a decision.

 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.

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

Yeah, I see. Well, in any event - messed up.

This was a thing when I was a kid too - some kid got shot for pointing a laser tag gun at a cop. They changed them to be orange after that I believe.

 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.

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?

 Ahtman wrote:
Things sure are a lot easier when we have hindsight to help us make a decision.

 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.

I stand corrected then. I didn't see, or forgot, the followup.

[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.

 loki old fart wrote:


He did not make any verbal threats nor point the gun towards the officers.

Cleveland deputy police chief Ed Tomba said the boy shot twice after pulling the gun from the waistband of his trousers.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


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.

 loki old fart wrote:


"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.

 loki old fart wrote:


"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.

"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?

 Sigvatr wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:


"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

 LordofHats wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:


"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.

But, can he drill silently..?

 Soladrin wrote:
But, can he drill silently..?

Any smart person would never take that skill. The loud drill is too useful for luring unsuspecting officers into an ambush

Shocking, I know, but we might be going OT.