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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second.
If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.

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

 Hordini wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second.
If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.

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

It is even harder when you are the one shooting those you are supposed to protect.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Judging people using hindsight is ultra fair.

Yes, with hindsight things are always easy. The police officer did not have this benefit of course, and that makes his decision more understandable. It does not make it any less wrong however.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second.
If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.

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

It is even harder when you are the one shooting those you are supposed to protect

It's also difficult when you look the other way when vigilante groups(often including members of the police force) beat the ever living crap out of the "people you're supposed to be protecting"; but I don't see you whining about the Russian police.

So very kindly?

Stop posting. You have NO CLUE whatsoever of what you're talking about, and quite frankly the ignorance you display in posting in topics regarding the United States and policies here is downright pathetic and makes me pity you.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second.
If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.

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

It is even harder when you are the one shooting those you are supposed to protect

When someone tries to draw a gun on a police officer, the priority of who the police are supposed to be protecting shifts extremely rapidly.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second.
If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.

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

It is even harder when you are the one shooting those you are supposed to protect

It's also difficult when you look the other way when vigilante groups(often including members of the police force) beat the ever living crap out of the "people you're supposed to be protecting"; but I don't see you whining about the Russian police.

So very kindly?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
The police of the United States are not, in the main, deserving of respect. They are little more than jack-booted thugs.

Obviously you have never encountered the Russian police. American police only murder innocent people. Russian police will frame, rob, imprison, torture and only then murder innocent people. Then they will get started on robbing their family. And if you are a f̶a̶s̶c̶i̶s̶t̶ ̶s̶p̶y̶ foreigner, things will be even worse. Cossacks are much friendlier. They will only burn down your house after they have whipped you into coma.

Clearly you did not look good enough. Russian police is even worse than American police.
Nonetheless, "but Russian police is even worse" is no excuse for the violence employed by American police. I think we should all learn from Dutch police.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Stop posting. You have NO CLUE whatsoever of what you're talking about, and quite frankly the ignorance you display in posting in topics regarding the United States and policies here is downright pathetic and makes me pity you.

So now you know how it feels when ignorant foreigners come in and start posting about things involving your country they have absolutely no clue about. Happy I could return the favour.

 Hordini wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second.
If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.

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

It is even harder when you are the one shooting those you are supposed to protect

When someone tries to draw a gun on a police officer, the priority of who the police are supposed to be protecting shifts extremely rapidly.

But why did he draw the gun?

You only post things critical of Russia whenever someone else calls you on it prior. And even then, you only do it whenever someone is already saying something critical of the United States.

You have a pattern of doing such things. It completely invalidates ANY kind of "high ground" that you have here.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
When someone tries to draw a gun on a police officer, the priority of who the police are supposed to be protecting shifts extremely rapidly.

But why did he draw the gun?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
They should have waited to see what the kid was going to do with the gun he pulled out.

I thought this was the most ridiculous thing I'd read on dakka in a while until I read this:

A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second.
If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.

That really takes the cake.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
They should have waited to see what the kid was going to do with the gun he pulled out.

Sorry, but that's just pants on head stupid right there. It seriously doesn't matter what the intentions of the kid were. We have allegations that the police told him repeatedly to put his hands up, instead he went for a gun, instead of complying with orders.

I agree with the second paragraph of your post though... It's a gakky situation foe everyone. The kid, by no means deserved to die, and there are so many "what ifs" that could have prevented this, but the one thing that remains blatantly true: do not pull any sort of weapon, toy or not when police are telling you to do something, or are already in an agitated state.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
They should have waited to see what the kid was going to do with the gun he pulled out.

I thought this was the most ridiculous thing I'd read on dakka in a while until I read this:

A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second.
If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.

That really takes the cake.

Mark the day, Me and Cincy agree.
I mean.......How do you knnow the gun is fake? Take the criminals word for it? A cop has a split second to decide not only for his life, but those around him. Imagine this scenarios

Cop rolls up, tells the kid to put his hands up,Kid pulls out a gun. The cop sees its a kid and thinks it is fake. Until the kid fires, and misses because he sucks at aiming. The shot goes into a nearby newborns skull. The only defense the cop has is "I thought it might have been a fake"

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Being shot and killed is one of the risks you are supposed to accept when becoming a police officer. A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second.
If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.

I thought bout this a little after about the third or so shooting and I did come up with about the same conclusion. If given the choice, I would rather a police officer be hot then a innocent person be shot. No option is a good option mind you, but when you become a officer, you understand there is a risk and you accept that risk. You don't accept the same risk when you walk down the street, or you at the least shouldn't have to accept that risk.

nomotog wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Being shot and killed is one of the risks you are supposed to accept when becoming a police officer. A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second.
If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.

I thought bout this a little after about the third or so shooting and I did come up with about the same conclusion. If given the choice, I would rather a police officer be hot then a innocent person be shot. No option is a good option mind you, but when you become a officer, you understand there is a risk and you accept that risk. You don't accept the same risk when you walk down the street, or you at the least shouldn't have to accept that risk.

Again, the officer puts more lives in danger by not acting, look at my scenario above. Or if the coo is alone, shot because he hesitated the shooter may now at large to kill more

You could argue back in forth about what the officer should have done but at least to me it seems to that at the time for the officer it was the no win situation for him. He could have waited risking his own life by not shooting which you could say is the thing he should have done as an officer of the law but you've got to remember he is a human like everyone else he has self preservation like everyone else and he probably has people he loves as will that he wants to be with. Or he could shoot which is what he did because he did not no if the gun was real or not and he had to make a decision. Again to me it seems like the no win situation.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Being shot and killed is one of the risks you are supposed to accept when becoming a police officer. A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second.
If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.

I thought bout this a little after about the third or so shooting and I did come up with about the same conclusion. If given the choice, I would rather a police officer be hot then a innocent person be shot. No option is a good option mind you, but when you become a officer, you understand there is a risk and you accept that risk. You don't accept the same risk when you walk down the street, or you at the least shouldn't have to accept that risk.

Again, the officer puts more lives in danger by not acting, look at my scenario above. Or if the (officer) is alone, shot because he hesitated the shooter may now at large to kill more

First I just have to point out that the word cop is kind of a slander.

I did see your examples and they don't really conflict with my own. Your examples add extra bits on top of my own pondering. Your not going to get a perfect innocent Vs officer type scenario in real life.

If I were the police, I'd do the following:

1. Drive up, see kid waving around a gun that might be real. He has not shot someone yet so he is probably not on a killing spree. As long as he does not seem like he intends to shoot someone but rather just waving around the gun, do not shoot him just yet. If the danger actually looks critical and he looks like he is about to fire on someone, tase him (US police has tasers, right?) Otherwise, shout to him to put down the gun throughout.

2. Take cover (such as behind the police car.) Continue telling him to put down the gun. If he refuses, fire a warning shot (and be careful not to hit someone).

3. If even that fails, then tase him anyway.

 Ashiraya wrote:

2. Take cover (such as behind the police car.) Continue telling him to put down the gun. If he refuses, fire a warning shot (and be careful not to hit someone).
.

Shoot to kill, Warning shots are a fabrication. you have no idea where that shot may go who it will hit.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

2. Take cover (such as behind the police car.) Continue telling him to put down the gun. If he refuses, fire a warning shot (and be careful not to hit someone).
.

Shoot to kill, Warning shots are a fabrication. you have no idea where that shot may go who it will hit.

Hm, true. A shame, it would otherwise be a pretty good way to tell him it's serious.

So, uh, just tase him I guess?

 Ashiraya wrote:

So, uh, just tase him I guess?

Tazers have limited range and not all LEOs are even equipped with them.

Not only that, but tazing a subject with a firearm in hand is incredibly dangerous. Tazers can cause the muscles in the hand to contract and inadvertently fire of a round or three.

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.

But surely risking that is better than to just kill him?

I don't know about the range, though, as I don't know what the range was in the actual case - but they had a car so surely that should not be a big deal unless it was less than 10m.

At this point I am just arguing what ifs though, which is unlikely to lead anywhere useful.

 Ashiraya wrote:
But surely risking that is better than to just kill him?

I don't know about the range, though, as I don't know what the range was in the actual case - but they had a car so surely that should not be a big deal unless it was less than 10m.

At this point I am just arguing what ifs though, which is unlikely to lead anywhere useful.

The Risk in other actually innocent bystanders is worth the death of a suspect when said suspect (ignore the hind site is not fair to use) is armed dangerous and not complaint.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
From page one, the gun looks very real, no obvious markings to show its a fake, no orange tip, no bright colours, separate magazine.

The police may have made wrong choice but they had seconds to decide and that looks much like a real firearm

Actually, the debate among here is that the police made the RIGHT choice and that the 12 yo made the WRONG choice.

In another words, the police made a tragic, right choice of action.

So shooting kids with toy guns on sight is a right thing to do?
That is rubbish. If the officer had made the right choice, no one would have been killed. The right choice in this scenario would have been for the cop to react calm and patiently, rather than to charge in guns blazing.

Easy to say when you don't have to make a snap decision when someone pulls out a gun. It's not a film, guns kill. In the UK you might have more reason to suspect a replica, but guns are common place in the US and easy to acquire. It's not that unreasonable to assume they are the real thing.. I completely understand police who don't want to gamble with leaving their wife a widow when someone pulls a gun.

They should have waited to see what the kid was going to do with the gun he pulled out. He might have probably and tried to put the gun on the ground or throw it away. In my opinion, the police should never be the agressors, they should never fire unless fired upon. Agression begets agression. The police charging in like that was just begging for someone to get killed.

He was a kid and didn't deserve to die. But nor did the cops, and that's what they're thinking when someone draws a weapon. It's unfortunate, but what do you expect if you pull out a replica gun in front of armed police. I don't see the need to point fingers here. The kid was dumb and the consequences serious, sacking or prosecuting people won't change a thing or make any difference in future.

Being shot and killed is one of the risks you are supposed to accept when becoming a police officer. A good police officer would rather let himself be shot than murder a innocent child. Police officers are supposed to protect the people first, and themselves only second.
If you are not willing to die in order to protect people, you should not be in the police.

Like seriously are we going to ignore the fact that he wasn't an innocent child???

Not was he a child until after the shooting?

FFS

Armed

Dangerous

Non complaint

hardly sounds innocent to me.


oh i think i read your post wrong. but the point is still relevant me thinks.

It must be difficult for the police. Being shot in the line of duty is probably a constant worry for them, and for their families. They have to be aware of potential for danger all the time, and they are no doubt reminded of it regularly, either through their training, or through bad experiences, and hearing about colleagues getting killed or injured. Psychologically speaking, that would be enough to make anyone a bit paranoid. It's no wonder they are jumpy.

In this particular case it doesn't sound like there was much else the police could have done (or done differently). They didn't know the kid was 12, he could have been a young looking 15 or 16 easily enough, and even if they had known, he was being threatening with a gun. They responded exactly how they are trained to respond in exactly that situation.

I suppose I couldn't let this pass though without commenting on "gun culture". One of the problems of having so many guns in society is that situations are able to escalate quickly. Citizens are paranoid, the police are paranoid etc... Thing like this are inevitable.

In the UK the police don't usually carry guns, and they know that replica guns are actually far more common than real ones. I'm not saying it couldn't happen here, as there have been cases where unarmed people were shot by police -- if an armed response unit is called out, you're pretty much getting shot whether you're being threatening or not -- but it's much less common. I think the kid's chances would have been a lot better over here.

 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.

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.

And you cant judge using hindsight.

Thats just silly

how is it relevant that the child had a fake gun when making the split decision to protect them selves and EVERYONE AROUND HIM when they didnt know it was fake.

 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.

Thought does not mean for sure. When the kid reached for it, he was signaling to the cop that it was real, even if it wasnt.

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.

Fun fact: If you walk into a bank or any store with a fake gun that looks real, or even if you claim to have a weapon but don't show it, and rob the bank/store you get charged with armed robbery, wether a real gun was present or not, and even if NO gun was present but you claimed to have had one. The sentencing guidelines take into account wether you actually fire a round or not, but the presence or threat of the presence of the gun is enough to get you the charge and if convicted a decent sentence.

That is pretty important to understand. The law treats a toy gun or even the threat of a gun as if that toy or threat were a real gun because that toy or threat puts a real fear into the poor schmuck facing it who has to assume it is real and that they are in danger.

The LEO is not just allowed to, but is supposed to assume the same thing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

The 911 caller did not 'strongly suspect' it was fake, you can see him bug out pretty quickly and he was worried enough that he called 911. In other words, his suspicions on how fake the threat was were not strong enough for him to risk his ass. That should say something to you.