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.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where is Captain Hindsight when we need him?

Presumably, hiding in a box with Captain Don't Kill People Unless There is No Other Way Of Resolving The Situation.

 insaniak wrote:

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.

Who may I add, shoot them a handful of times a year, all very clearly, comprehensively and publicly documented.

 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?

Because they were told he was armed and he had a visible gun?

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
. Kids are far more likely to do something stupid and shoot as they have even less understanding or respect for consequences of their actions

Which is all the more reason to resolve the situation without shooting the poor sod.

This isn't a case of someone willfully trying to kill police. It's a kid, being a kid. Who is now dead, because he acted like a kid.

 insaniak wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
. Kids are far more likely to do something stupid and shoot as they have even less understanding or respect for consequences of their actions

Which is all the more reason to resolve the situation without shooting the poor sod.

This isn't a case of someone willfully trying to kill police. It's a kid, being a kid. Who is now dead, because he acted like a kid.

And that is at the heart of this tragedy. That doesn't mean the officer did anything wrong.

 insaniak wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
. Kids are far more likely to do something stupid and shoot as they have even less understanding or respect for consequences of their actions

Which is all the more reason to resolve the situation without shooting the poor sod.

This isn't a case of someone willfully trying to kill police. It's a kid, being a kid. Who is now dead, because he acted like a kid.

Dude.

Flip a fething coin on whether or not the kid had a real weapon.

You're advocating the Police to play Russian Roulette.

 insaniak wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where is Captain Hindsight when we need him?

Presumably, hiding in a box with Captain Don't Kill People Unless There is No Other Way Of Resolving The Situation.

"Officer Killkrazy, there's a kid with a gun presumably threatening civilians. Please check."
>> Arrives at place
"Stand down, kid! Hands in the air! Everything is ok. Don't grab for the weapon. Please, don't. Okay, I see you are going for it. Did you unders-"

BAM BAM BAM YOU'RE DEAD.

Now, explain to me how this situation is any better. Please.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where is Captain Hindsight when we need him?

Presumably, hiding in a box with Captain Don't Kill People Unless There is No Other Way Of Resolving The Situation.

"Officer Killkrazy, there's a kid with a gun presumably threatening civilians. Please check."
>> Arrives at place
"Stand down, kid! Hands in the air! Everything is ok. Don't grab for the weapon. Please, don't. Okay, I see you are going for it. Did you unders-"

BAM BAM BAM YOU'RE DEAD.

Now, explain to me how this situation is any better. Please.

Officer Killkrazy... ducks back into his car?

 whembly wrote:
Dude.

Flip a fething coin on whether or not the kid had a real weapon.

You're advocating the Police to play Russian Roulette.

No, I'm advocating that police do their fething job, and establish whether or not a kid is actually dangerous before shooting him.

 insaniak wrote:

No, I'm advocating that police do their fething job, and establish whether or not a kid is actually dangerous before shooting him.

You claim to having joined the army. I learned that people reported to be armed and about to reach for a gun could be considered potentially dangerous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

No, I'm advocating that police do their fething job.

That is exactly what he did. 100% did his job. 100% correct decisions.

If only the kid has had a real gun, he could have defended himself!

 CptJake wrote:
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)

Solution: only sell sci-fi toy guns!
Do your daughter knows she should not point hers toward police officers?

 Sigvatr wrote:

That is exactly what he did. 100% did his job. 100% correct decisions.

Aside from the part where a 12 year old with a pellet gun in his pants wound up shot dead.

He may have 100% followed his training ... but the end result of that scenario should simply not be acceptable by anyone's standard, and the fact that so many people seem so prepared to just shrug and accept it saddens, angers and appalls me.

 insaniak wrote:

He may have 100% followed his training ... but the end result of that scenario should simply not be acceptable by anyone's standard, and the fact that so many people seem so prepared to just shrug and accept it saddens, angers and appalls me.

No one is shrugging this off insaniak.

It is a sad situation, but your ire is misplaced imo.

This is the reality of the situation. The officers CANNOT know whether or not it's a real gun, and thus for their safety and everyone else in their immediate surrounding, these officers MUST treat it as an armed weapon.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where is Captain Hindsight when we need him?

Presumably, hiding in a box with Captain Don't Kill People Unless There is No Other Way Of Resolving The Situation.

"Officer Killkrazy, there's a kid with a gun presumably threatening civilians. Please check."
>> Arrives at place
"Stand down, kid! Hands in the air! Everything is ok. Don't grab for the weapon. Please, don't. Okay, I see you are going for it. Did you unders-"

BAM BAM BAM YOU'RE DEAD.

Now, explain to me how this situation is any better. Please.

False dichotomy.

 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.

The above points are wrong. The kid clearly DID have a gun. It may have been a toy gun, but it was a toy gun that looked a lot like a real gun. Once that fact (and it IS a fact) is accepted, your point falls apart completely. You can then start to add in other facts that have been reported, such as the kid had the cops called on him for pointing that gun at others (thereby kind of making him a potential assailant in the eyes of the cops responding, in that he had been brandishing what appeared to be a weapon). To claim he did not have a gun is just silly. He very clearly did.

 CptJake wrote:
The kid clearly DID have a gun. It may have been a toy gun, but it was a toy gun that looked a lot like a real gun. .

...and so was not a gun.

 insaniak wrote:
but the end result of that scenario should simply not be acceptable by anyone's standard, and the fact that so many people seem so prepared to just shrug and accept it saddens, angers and appalls me.

People in here are not discussing the result. Everyone in here fully agrees with the result being a tragic event for all parties involved. That's not up to debate.

What we...most of us are discussing here is the situation at hand. The clear, cold facts are:

- 911 was called. Caller said there was a person with a gun. Not sure if real or not.
- Police arrives at the scene, see kid
- Kid is visibly armed
- Kid is asked to stand down
- Kid refuses
- Kid is about to grab the gun from his belt
- Kid is shot

That's it. Correct if wrong.

If we only look at those facts, then the only solution is that the officer at hand reacted in the only correct way. The result is tragic. Yes.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


False dichotomy.

Conceding your point. Being able to step back from your emotional response (that's always faster than your ratio) is a very worthwhile ability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The kid clearly DID have a gun. It may have been a toy gun, but it was a toy gun that looked a lot like a real gun. .

...and so was not a gun.

How is a toy gun not a gun.

 insaniak wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The kid clearly DID have a gun. It may have been a toy gun, but it was a toy gun that looked a lot like a real gun. .

...and so was not a gun.

But how would we have known untill after?

Again Orange cap was removed. Dont get me wrong this is a 100% different story had the gun looked like nerf dart gun, but this was apparently a airsoft replica that basically looks exactly the same as the real deal.

and anything short of it being clear plastic or having it physically in your hand to tell its plastic there is NO way to tell the difference.

 Desubot wrote:
But how would we have known untill after?

Not pushing the situation into shots being fired would have been a good start.

From the original article, when police arrived, he had the gun tucked into his pants. Police escalated the situation by drawing on him, rather than trying to talk to him to establish what was actually going on.

It seems entirely possible that the situation could have been resolved without any shots being fired if police hadn't raced in expecting a shootout with a child.

 insaniak wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
But how would we have known untill after?

Not pushing the situation into shots being fired would have been a good start.

From the original article, when police arrived, he had the gun tucked into his pants. Police escalated the situation by drawing on him, rather than trying to talk to him to establish what was actually going on.

It seems entirely possible that the situation could have been resolved without any shots being fired if police hadn't raced in expecting a shootout with a child.

Pushing or escalating what he sees a weapon tucked in his pants.
Step one to get ready. If it was a real gun then you need to have advantage (check)
Step two call him to stand down: that would be the put your hands on your head (check)
Step three would normally be to subdue and detain (cuffs) then pat down for weapons followed by questioning

Instead we get the child going for the weapon (which we for all intents and purposes DO NOT KNOW IS FAKE) there for he is now 100% a full danger to him self and everyone around him.

Officer now has 100% authority to use lethal force. its done and over with.


Obviously non of us where there and no videos from what i can tell. so take this with some salt

 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.

No. He totally was an assailant with a firearm. You ALWAYS assume the gun is real until its proven otherwise.

The kid went to draw a weapon and was treated accordingly. The only wrongdoing was his. The cops did everything right.

 insaniak wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The kid clearly DID have a gun. It may have been a toy gun, but it was a toy gun that looked a lot like a real gun. .

...and so was not a gun.

Wrong. And you're smart enough to know that. It is a shame you cannot admit that you grasp the concept being presented.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The only wrongdoing was his. The cops did everything right.

I'm glad you know this with such certainty. From the article I read I certainly didn't get a moment-to-moment rundown of everything the cops did, and saw and how that was verified by multiple outside sources. However since you know for a fact the cops did everything right, you must have access to these kinds of materials and reports. I mean certainly you wouldn't just assume a situation where a kid wound up dead is on the level. I mean we can both agree that kind of situation demands thorough investigation by multiple external parties....right?

I understand given the immediacy of the incident, you probably can't release your sources but if you give as detailed a rundown as possible that'd be great.

So many people here blessed with 20\20 hindsight. That the gun turned out to be a replica is knowledge we are blessed with possessing from the conform of behind our keyboards after the event.

Put yourself in the cops shoes. He has a reports of someone behaving in a threatening manner with a gun. He seeing the kid with the gun which appears no different to a regular functional gun. He challenges the kid who then rather than surrender reaches for the gun.

You have a split second to make a decision to defend yourself or not. What else is he supposed to do?

I've not heard a single credible alternative course of action from the police bashers. Most just seem to be suggesting the cops should allow themselves to be shot at because guns might turn out to be fake. That's a very brave suggestion to make from behind your keyboard. In reality I'm willing to bet most of you would pull the trigger as well.

 CptJake wrote:
Wrong. And you're smart enough to know that. It is a shame you cannot admit that you grasp the concept being presented.

What I 'grasp' is that a 12 year old with a toy gun tucked into his pants has been shot dead by police.

There is no excuse for that. The situation was badly handled. We can tell that the situation was badly handled, because adult, apparently professional police officers shot dead a 12 year old with a toy gun tucked into his pants.

 insaniak wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Wrong. And you're smart enough to know that. It is a shame you cannot admit that you grasp the concept being presented.

What I 'grasp' is that a 12 year old with a toy gun tucked into his pants has been shot dead by police.

There is no excuse for that. The situation was badly handled. We can tell that the situation was badly handled, because adult, apparently professional police officers shot dead a 12 year old with a toy gun tucked into his pants.

No. A kid(irrelevant fact) with a gun in his pants was told to put his hands up by police. Instead he drew the weapon, and was thus shot as an immanent threat.

The fact the gun turned out to be a fake is also irrelevant as that was not known, nor could anyone possibly have known.

Even the 911 caller only said "its probably a toy", probably isn't good enough to not treat the gun as a real one.

 insaniak wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Wrong. And you're smart enough to know that. It is a shame you cannot admit that you grasp the concept being presented.

What I 'grasp' is that a 12 year old with a toy gun tucked into his pants has been shot dead by police.

There is no excuse for that. The situation was badly handled. We can tell that the situation was badly handled, because adult, apparently professional police officers shot dead a 12 year old with a toy gun tucked into his pants.

So you continue to ignore the situation and use information you got in hindsight in order to re-evaluate the situation and draw your conclusions.

Ignorance is bliss?

How different would this situation be if you removed the "toy" from the head lines?

A professional police officer is trained to make split second decisions, and is trained to put down a target once they become a credible threat.

the child at the point of going for his "toy gun" WAS a credible threat regardless of the "toy" part of the gun.

He is completely excused.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No. A kid(irrelevant fact) ...

And that, I think, is the crux of the problem. Because I'm not going to agree that the fact that a child was involved was irrelevant.

The fact that it was a child should have affected how the situation was dealt with, because that fact that it was a child for one affected the liklihood of it being a real gun, and for two had an impact on how they were likely to react.

 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.

Dead innocent civilians that acted in a way to make the officer feel his life was threatened is not a better result, but an understandable one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No. A kid(irrelevant fact) ...

And that, I think, is the crux of the problem. Because I'm not going to agree that the fact that a child was involved was irrelevant.

The fact that it was a child should have affected how the situation was dealt with, because that fact that it was a child for one affected the liklihood of it being a real gun, and for two had an impact on how they were likely to react.

I see you have ignored the plethora of news stories, two of which were linked here about kids shooting people.

Tell you what, read back over some of the posts in this thread that talk about real guns being painted to look like toy guns and shotguns being disguised by being put inside super soakers. After that, go talk to some cops to see what happens to them on a daily basis and see if your attitude changes any.