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.

So broad, muscular men are okay to shoot. Got it.

Sorry did I say that?

No. I didn't. You assumed thats what I meant do not attribute it to me please!

Thank you.

It is not fine to shoot anyone, no matter what you look like, unless you are covered in blood and wielding a knife and you are not a chief or work with blood on a regular basis.

 Asherian Command wrote:

So broad, muscular men are okay to shoot. Got it.

Sorry did I say that?

No. I didn't. You assumed thats what I meant do not attribute it to me please!

Thank you.

It is not fine to shoot anyone, no matter what you look like, unless you are covered in blood and wielding a knife and you are not a chief or work with blood on a regular basis.

What if said blood covered knife wielder drops his weapon when prompted?

I mean, that's the ACTUAL issue here.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

So broad, muscular men are okay to shoot. Got it.

Sorry did I say that?

No. I didn't. You assumed thats what I meant do not attribute it to me please!

Thank you.

It is not fine to shoot anyone, no matter what you look like, unless you are covered in blood and wielding a knife and you are not a chief or work with blood on a regular basis.

What if said blood covered knife wielder drops his weapon when prompted?

I mean, that's the ACTUAL issue here.

Thats fine. How many times has someone mid slaughter stopped? If someone like a serial killer is being chased and they know it they are most likely not going to get caught, but get shot and killed by an officer.

Which is undoubtedly sad.

Everyone should have their fair chance to go to court, not get shot by an officer.

 cincydooley wrote:
Again, kid listens to cops, no one gets shot.

If cops don't shoot anyone, no one gets shot by cops. You talk about them like they're some elemental force of nature or some kind of robot that responds strictly to input along rigid guidelines. A cop should always be prepared to risk their life making sure that someone is actually dangerous before force is authorised.

 cincydooley wrote:
What if said blood covered knife wielder drops his weapon when prompted?

I mean, that's the ACTUAL issue here.

Yes, it is.

Except in this case, he wasn't given a chance to drop his weapon.

 insaniak wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
What if said blood covered knife wielder drops his weapon when prompted?

I mean, that's the ACTUAL issue here.

Yes, it is.

Except in this case, he wasn't given a chance to drop his weapon.

Wait....the "weapon" was in the kid hand you say? I thought he was reaching for it..the weapon

 Jihadin wrote:

Wait....the "weapon" was in the kid hand you say? I thought he was reaching for it..the weapon

Yes, that's the point.

The 'weapon' was supposedly tucked into his pants. Cops charged in with guns out, shouting at him to raise his hands, he seemed to be reaching for the gun, and so they shot him.

We'll never know if he was intending to grab it to point it at the cops (although that seems unlikely) or to throw it away (which seems more likely)... The cops didn't wait to find out.

 insaniak wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Wait....the "weapon" was in the kid hand you say? I thought he was reaching for it..the weapon

Yes, that's the point.

The 'weapon' was supposedly tucked into his pants. Cops charged in with guns out, shouting at him to raise his hands, he seemed to be reaching for the gun, and so they shot him.

We'll never know if he was intending to grab it to point it at the cops (although that seems unlikely) or to throw it away (which seems more likely)... The cops didn't wait to find out.

Why do you think its "most likely" he was reaching to throw it away?

If he was in a compliant mood, he would have obeyed police orders to raise his hands. If he was in a belligerent mood, he would reach for the gun.

You don't disobey people you are trying to cooperate with.

 insaniak wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

Wait....the "weapon" was in the kid hand you say? I thought he was reaching for it..the weapon

Yes, that's the point.

The 'weapon' was supposedly tucked into his pants. Cops charged in with guns out, shouting at him to raise his hands, he seemed to be reaching for the gun, and so they shot him.

We'll never know if he was intending to grab it to point it at the cops (although that seems unlikely) or to throw it away (which seems more likely)... The cops didn't wait to find out.

Ninja by Grey

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why do you think its "most likely" he was reaching to throw it away?

Since it wasn't a real gun, reaching for it to shoot, would not seem a likely course of action.

So we're all mind readers?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why do you think its "most likely" he was reaching to throw it away?

Because it wasn't a real gun. So the chances that he was preparing to shoot at police with it are slim.

Note: to avoid a repeat of the silliness from earlier in the thread, no, I'm not saying that the cops should have read his mind and known that it wasn't a real gun. What I'm saying is that throwing it away is most likely what he was trying to do.

If the cops had waited to determine what he was trying to do, given that they already had guns trained on him, they still could have shot him when it became apparent he was trying to point it at them... but if it had turned out that he was just trying to ditch it, he'd still be alive.

If he was in a compliant mood, he would have obeyed police orders to raise his hands. If he was in a belligerent mood, he would reach for the gun.

And if he was a 12 year old in a panic because there are suddenly police officers pointing guns at him and shouting at him, he may well have just tried to get rid of the 'gun' on instinct.

You don't disobey people you are trying to cooperate with.

Once you enter 'flight or fight' mode (because, say, you have cops pointing guns at you, and you're, say, 12) pretty much anything goes. I very much doubt he was thinking straight at the time, and it's entirely possible that he didn't actually comprehend what was being shouted at him.

 Jihadin wrote:
So we're all mind readers?

We don't need to be mind readers, we have the advantage of hindsight and knowing that the gun wasn't real. Regardless of why he was reaching for the gun, we can say with 100% certainty that he wasn't going to use it to kill a cop, because that was never a possibility.

Damn Cop needs to be executed then for not being a mind reader

 Jihadin wrote:
Damn Cop needs to be executed then for not being a mind reader

SIgh.

Nobody is saying that he should have been a mind reader.

Just that he shouldn't have shot a kid just because he has something that might be a gun in his pants.

He wasn't shot for having the gun in his pants, he was shot for reaching for it.

Pretty significant difference you seem willing to ignore.

Then we need to de-trained and re-train every LEO/Military personnel then to take a chance of getting shot first thereby authorizing Deadly Force

 Jihadin wrote:
Then we need to de-trained and re-train every LEO/Military personnel then to take a chance of getting shot first thereby authorizing Deadly Force

Or anyone else near by

which everyone seems to still ignore.

There many reasons not to wait. MANY that include other actually innocent civs.

While we are at it can we train all civilians to actually listen to and follow orders from the authority so we dont get into these messes? seems no one wants to suggest such a ting.

 CptJake wrote:
He wasn't shot for having the gun in his pants, he was shot for reaching for it.

Pretty significant difference you seem willing to ignore.

Aside from the bit where I specifically addressed it?

Yes, he was reaching for it. There's a world of difference between reaching for something and pointing the thing at someone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

While we are at it can we train all civilians to actually listen to and follow orders from the authority so we dont get into these messes? seems no one wants to suggest such a ting.

If you can come up with a way to train kids to behave rationally when they're scared, make sure you patent that gak.

 insaniak wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
He wasn't shot for having the gun in his pants, he was shot for reaching for it.

Pretty significant difference you seem willing to ignore.

Aside from the bit where I specifically addressed it?

Yes, he was reaching for it. There's a world of difference between reaching for something and pointing the thing at someone.

Ok fine. You are face to face with a sketchy guy who has a gun in his pants. You tell him to put his hands up. He reaches for the gun.

The ONLY ONLY ONLY logical conclusion is that he is reaching for it to shoot you.


So you have 2 choices.

1) Let hit get it and possibly shoot you, or an innocent bystander.

2) Shoot him before he gets the chance.


The correct answer is number 2. Always. Under no circumstances should you ever choose 1.

 Jihadin wrote:
Then we need to de-trained and re-train every LEO/Military personnel then to take a chance of getting shot first thereby authorizing Deadly Force

Pretty much, yes.

Because, frankly, if police officers aren't trained to be able to make these sorts of split second decisions correctly, but are allowed to carry guns anyway, then that's pretty damn frightening.

 insaniak wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Then we need to de-trained and re-train every LEO/Military personnel then to take a chance of getting shot first thereby authorizing Deadly Force

Pretty much, yes.

Because, frankly, if police officers aren't trained to be able to make these sorts of split second decisions correctly, but are allowed to carry guns anyway, then that's pretty damn frightening.

The only thing that was "incorrect" about their decision making was that it wasn't a real firearm.

Rather, it was as close an approximation as one can get.

Presumably had this kid been practicing #HandsUpDontShoot he'd be alive.

 Grey Templar wrote:
.

The ONLY ONLY ONLY logical conclusion is that he is reaching for it to shoot you.
.

Well, that's clearly not true. Unless you're saying that this kid was intending to shoot at police with his toy gun?

 insaniak wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Then we need to de-trained and re-train every LEO/Military personnel then to take a chance of getting shot first thereby authorizing Deadly Force

Pretty much, yes.

Because, frankly, if police officers aren't trained to be able to make these sorts of split second decisions correctly, but are allowed to carry guns anyway, then that's pretty damn frightening.

Im pretty sure the split second decision was the right decision considering the fact that all he could of possibly know at the time was

A) Suspect is armed and dangerous
B) Suspect is a Juvenile (which can range up to 18ish area)
C) He when told to put his hands up went for the fethin gun

Waiting to get shot is fethin rediculus in pretty much any situation when bystander can possibility be involved.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
.

The ONLY ONLY ONLY logical conclusion is that he is reaching for it to shoot you.
.

Well, that's clearly not true. Unless you're saying that this kid was intending to shoot at police with his toy gun?

Again we dont have mind reader police. wishing we did

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
.

The ONLY ONLY ONLY logical conclusion is that he is reaching for it to shoot you.
.

Well, that's clearly not true. Unless you're saying that this kid was intending to shoot at police with his toy gun?

Again, you are applying hindsight logic. You can't do that. You can only use what the police knew at the time they pulled up.

 Desubot wrote:

Waiting to get shot is fethin rediculus in pretty much any situation when bystander can possibility be involved.

I didn't say they should have waited to get shot. I said they should have waited to see what he was actually doing.

Again, reaching for a gun is not the same as pointing a gun at someone.

 insaniak wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Waiting to get shot is fethin rediculus in pretty much any situation when bystander can possibility be involved.

I didn't say they should have waited to get shot. I said they should have waited to see what he was actually doing.

Again, reaching for a gun is not the same as pointing a gun at someone.

It actually is when it was previously framed with PUT YOUR HANDS UP by an authority figure.

 insaniak wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Waiting to get shot is fethin rediculus in pretty much any situation when bystander can possibility be involved.

I didn't say they should have waited to get shot. I said they should have waited to see what he was actually doing.

Again, reaching for a gun is not the same as pointing a gun at someone.

The problem is that it literally takes about 3 seconds to pull the gun and bring it to bear from your waist, and that's being generous. If it's a real gun there's plenty of likelyhood that one of the cops gets shot.

It's precisely why LEOs and the Military are trained to shoot if you appear to be going for a weapon.

 cincydooley wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Waiting to get shot is fethin rediculus in pretty much any situation when bystander can possibility be involved.

I didn't say they should have waited to get shot. I said they should have waited to see what he was actually doing.

Again, reaching for a gun is not the same as pointing a gun at someone.

The problem is that it literally takes about 3 seconds to pull the gun and bring it to bear from your waist, and that's being generous. If it's a real gun there's plenty of likelyhood that one of the cops gets shot.

It's precisely why LEOs and the Military are trained to shoot if you appear to be going for a weapon.

Dont forget its not even just the cops.

Its possible anyone within the vicinity could of been shot by mistake.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Again, you are applying hindsight logic.

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that if there is more than one thing that someone could have been doing, then claiming that there is only one thing that he could possibly have been doing is demonstrably false.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:


The problem is that it literally takes about 3 seconds to pull the gun and bring it to bear from your waist, and that's being generous.

So... More or less time than it takes to pull the trigger of the gun you already have pointed at the guy bringing his weapon to bear?