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.

Where are the damn parents, their child would be fine if they were acking like parents.

Noir wrote:
Where are the damn parents, their child would be fine if they were acking like parents.

That's a hard one to answer because some of the most out of control kids come from the best parenting. The kid is twelve, maybe he was just being stupid for a moment. There is really no way of knowing with the level of information available at the moment.

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.

 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?

Yep. Classic case of dammed if they do, damned if they don't.

Cop shoots and the usual suspects scream 'murderer'! Cop doesn’t shoot and they scream 'incompetent'! That way they always get to keep the moral high ground.

Why do people insist on removing the orange tip? That is just stupidity to the nth degree.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Why do people insist on removing the orange tip? That is just stupidity to the nth degree.

As a kid who grew up well before the time of brightly colored toy guns being the norm, I can tell you I would have done so because I wanted it to look real. Heck I had a toy tommy gun that was all one color and my brothers and I painted the stock a nice wood color so when you were being SGT Rock or SGT Saunders you would more look the part. We would have laughed you off of the playground if you showed up with some neon colored thing. I had a neat little carbine that was actual wood with metal parts, and when you worked the bolt action you could see a realistic looking wooden bullet int he chamber. It was cool as all heck.

Of course, we didn't point them at cops...

Of course, now you can buy real guns that look like this color may not be the best indicator of Real or Toy:



(my daughter wants one, it is a bolt action .22, she wants it in blue though)

Noir wrote:
Where are the damn parents, their child would be fine if they were acking like parents.

Given the obviously tragic nature of what happened, and our severely limited information why is your first reaction so devoid of empathy? With nothing even resembling evidence, on what basis do you hear of child shot to death and lay the blame on those suffering the loss? This post is beyond crass.

I'm pretty leery of police over stepping their bounds, but I think in this case it would have been pretty difficult to make the right call, if there even was one without the benefit of hindsight. A gun, even a realistic replica, changes the situation a lot. It's terribly sad that the kid didn't do as he was told and the officer decided to shoot him and it turned out this way. It could also have turned out a different way though. Hopefully, this gets it across to people that realistic replica guns aren't really suitable toys for kids.

If the boy really did reach for the gun rather than complying with a police officer then there isnt much to be done left is it?

Job is done but that officer will be living with it for the rest of his life :/ as will the family

This was pretty startling news... I used to play baseball at the rec center the kid was at.

We've got a lot of dumb crime that happens in Cleveland, but most of it happens on the East side or the near West Side.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. So much still left to learn.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Could they not have tasered him instead? Or is that too risky for a teenager's heart?

Less risky than shooting him.

 CptJake wrote:
The info the cop had made deadly force an option.

Except for the part where the person involved was 12 years old.

 Steve steveson wrote:
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.

...but was 12 years old.


Does anyone else remember a time when police weren't supposed to use deadly force unless it was first directed at them?

Yes, that kind of sucks when you're a police officer... But that's the job. If police officers don't shoot until the 'bad guy' does, then 12 year olds don't get shot for being 12 year olds.

And how is 12 years old an exception for deadly force?

A police officer doesn't shoot until the bad guy does.

a police does so when there is imminent danger to them selves and those around them.

The second the child went for the replica gun instead of his head was the imminent danger.

it really doesn't matter if you are 9 or 90 years old.

 insaniak wrote:

then 12 year olds don't get shot for being 12 year olds.

That's not what happened there.

 insaniak wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Could they not have tasered him instead? Or is that too risky for a teenager's heart?

Less risky than shooting him.

 CptJake wrote:
The info the cop had made deadly force an option.

Except for the part where the person involved was 12 years old.

 Steve steveson wrote:
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.

...but was 12 years old.


Does anyone else remember a time when police weren't supposed to use deadly force unless it was first directed at them?

Yes, that kind of sucks when you're a police officer... But that's the job. If police officers don't shoot until the 'bad guy' does, then 12 year olds don't get shot for being 12 year olds.

How does the fact (at the time unknown to the cop by the way) that the kid was 12 have any relevance to the situation? Are you suggesting no 12 year old has ever or would ever shoot someone, and that cops should inherently know this?

http://www.news4jax.com/news/police-12yearold-shot-killed-homeless-man/27243908

http://www.npr.org/2013/10/24/240428486/teacher-killed-by-12-year-old-student-remembered

 CptJake wrote:
How does the fact (at the time unknown to the cop by the way) that the kid was 12 have any relevance to the situation? Are you suggesting no 12 year old has ever or would ever shoot someone, and that cops should inherently know this?

No, I'm suggesting that the fact that he's 12 increases the likelihood that he's just a kid being stupid rather than someone who is seriously intending to shoot anyone.


If we start shooting 12 year olds just because they do something stupid and dangerous, there will be precious few 13 year olds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
How does the fact (at the time unknown to the cop by the way) that the kid was 12 ...

Did the cop have his eyes closed at the time?

Question. If the situation was completely identical, except the person with the toy gun was 30, would it be different? If so, why?

 curran12 wrote:
Question. If the situation was completely identical, except the person with the toy gun was 30, would it be different? If so, why?

Frankly, no, that shouldn't be any different. Police shouldn't be shooting people just for acting in a threatening manner.

But the fact that he was 12 in this case makes it even more tragic that non-lethal control options weren't utilised instead of just shooting him.

 insaniak wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
How does the fact (at the time unknown to the cop by the way) that the kid was 12 have any relevance to the situation? Are you suggesting no 12 year old has ever or would ever shoot someone, and that cops should inherently know this?

No, I'm suggesting that the fact that he's 12 increases the likelihood that he's just a kid being stupid rather than someone who is seriously intending to shoot anyone.


If we start shooting 12 year olds just because they do something stupid and dangerous, there will be precious few 13 year olds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
How does the fact (at the time unknown to the cop by the way) that the kid was 12 ...

Did the cop have his eyes closed at the time?

So, cop gets called out for a juvenile pointing a gun at people. Finds said juvenile and says 'put your hands up'. Said juvenile attempts to draw the gun he had been pointing at people. What part of that sequence do you not grasp, and how does the 12 year old age of the kid make any difference?

Your comment asking if the cop's eyes were closed is asinine at best. Unfortunately for the kid and the cop, his eyes were open and he saw the kid pulling a gun.

 insaniak wrote:


If we start shooting 12 year olds just because they do something stupid and dangerous, there will be precious few 13 year olds.

And that's a bad thing because??????



All joking aside, seriously, where a firearm is involved, whether it's real or not, loaded or not, capable of being fired or not.... People absolutely MUST act as though it is loaded and real. In this situation, it doesn't matter that the person shot was 12, or 80. When an officer (apparently) tells you to put down a gun, step away from a gun, etc. you comply with the order, not continue to wave it around, or point it at anyone.

 curran12 wrote:
Question. If the situation was completely identical, except the person with the toy gun was 30, would it be different? If so, why?

I don't like the police using deadly force at all. Certainly if we must be empowering individuals to be taking the lives of civilians on behalf of the state only on the basis of their personal judgement, that judgement must be held to the highest scrutiny and strictest standards. Deadly force should be a means of last resort only in the most dire and extraordinary circumstances. That somebody 12 or 30, is kind of waving around something that may or may not be a real weapon really has a hard time qualifying in my mind.

I agree strongly with insaniak's sentiment that police should not be the ones shooting first.

 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.

 Chongara wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Question. If the situation was completely identical, except the person with the toy gun was 30, would it be different? If so, why?

I don't like the police using deadly force at all. Certainly if we must be empowering individuals to be taking the lives of civilians on behalf of the state only on the basis of their personal judgement, that judgement must be held to the highest scrutiny and strictest standards. Deadly force should be a means of last resort only in the most dire and extraordinary circumstances. That somebody 12 or 30, is kind of waving around something that may or may not be weapon really has a hard time qualifying in my mind.

I agree strongly with insaniak's sentiment that police should not be the ones shooting first.

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..

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
All joking aside, seriously, where a firearm is involved, whether it's real or not, loaded or not, capable of being fired or not.... People absolutely MUST act as though it is loaded and real

I think this is probably the saddest part of the whole thing. Once upon a time, if you saw a 12-year-old waving a 'gun' around, it would have been fairly safe to assume that it wasn't real.

The fact that it now has to be assumed that the kid could be lethal is a sad, sad reflection on today's society.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:
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.

It wasn't that many years ago that your police officers didn't even carry guns...

 insaniak wrote:

The fact that it now has to be assumed that the kid could be lethal is a sad, sad reflection on today's society.

Honestly, I wouldn't chalk that up to society, I'd chalk it up to "basic" firearm safety.


Muzzle awareness, checking to ensure the weapon is unloaded, and trigger discipline were the FIRST things drilled into me, when I was being taught firearm safety.

Seriously, the ONLY "guns" I was allowed to point at another human being/animal were Nerf guns and Water guns. Orange tip or not, I treat all firearms as though they are real, especially if they shoot any kind of actual projectile (so, things like cap guns that make a snapping/pop noise but nothing but smoke ejects from the gun are more "lenient" than airsoft, pellet, etc)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


All joking aside, seriously, where a firearm is involved, whether it's real or not, loaded or not, capable of being fired or not.... People absolutely MUST act as though it is loaded and real..

Which goes for the police and anyone else. Basic gun safty everyone should be taught. Treat all guns as real and loaded at all times.

It is rediculous to expect the police to do anything else. They are employed to enforce the law, not to commit suicid. The kid was waving a gun and went for it when he was told to put his hands up because they thought he had a gun. Kids in Cleveland, and other places, even as young as 12, do have access to guns, are involved in gangs, and will shoot police officers given the chance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
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.

It wasn't that many years ago that your police officers didn't even carry guns...

Eh? Not sure when that was. Fire arms officers have always existed in the UK, and most police still don't have guns. Non firearms officers would never be responding to an incident knowingly involving a gun, and would exit the area as soon as there was one and stay safe, not try and resolve it, so not sure what the relevance of our non firearms officers is. The policy would still be the same as I have said. No officer would wait until they were shot at to act.

 insaniak wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Question. If the situation was completely identical, except the person with the toy gun was 30, would it be different? If so, why?

Frankly, no, that shouldn't be any different. Police shouldn't be shooting people just for acting in a threatening manner..

Er that actually goes against most self defense statutes in the US outside of NY...

Its not a threatening manner, its a reasonable threat of death or grievous bodily harm. Someone poining a gun at you instantly meets that criteria.

 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?

 Chongara wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Question. If the situation was completely identical, except the person with the toy gun was 30, would it be different? If so, why?

I don't like the police using deadly force at all. Certainly if we must be empowering individuals to be taking the lives of civilians on behalf of the state only on the basis of their personal judgement, that judgement must be held to the highest scrutiny and strictest standards. Deadly force should be a means of last resort only in the most dire and extraordinary circumstances. That somebody 12 or 30, is kind of waving around something that may or may not be a real weapon really has a hard time qualifying in my mind.

I agree strongly with insaniak's sentiment that police should not be the ones shooting first.

Wait so police should only shoot if they are shot first? What world do you live on?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Question. If the situation was completely identical, except the person with the toy gun was 30, would it be different? If so, why?

I don't like the police using deadly force at all. Certainly if we must be empowering individuals to be taking the lives of civilians on behalf of the state only on the basis of their personal judgement, that judgement must be held to the highest scrutiny and strictest standards. Deadly force should be a means of last resort only in the most dire and extraordinary circumstances. That somebody 12 or 30, is kind of waving around something that may or may not be a real weapon really has a hard time qualifying in my mind.

I agree strongly with insaniak's sentiment that police should not be the ones shooting first.

Wait so police should only shoot if they are shot first? What world do you live on?

I would agree with him if only the police comes out in bullet proof terminator armor that is impervious to small arms fire. that or robocops.

 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.