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.

 insaniak wrote:

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?

With no guarantee's you'll hit due to the massive amounts of adrenaline that are pumping through your body.

With no guarantee your firearm will even fire.

 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. If it's a real gun there's plenty of likelyhood that one of the cops gets shot.

That is being quite generous really....


http://www.fastdraw.org/fd_draw.html

Now, that link is probably not the best example, as it is using someone who is trained, and practiced at the fast draw.

So really, I would probably give anyone, even a gun in a terrible spot, like a waistband, at MOST 1.5 seconds on a draw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

Except that, IN THAT SITUATION, the officers, under no circumstances can treat the "firearm" as a toy. They MUST treat it as though it were a real, 9mm Glock, or whatever the hell the toy was modelled after. The 911 call even told them "there's a kid waving what looks to be a gun around, in the park" the ", but it might be a toy." can NEVER be taken as gospel truth by the people responding to the call, because there is a chance, however small or large, that it isn't a toy gun, and is actually a real one.

It feels really fast when drawing on shooter from the ready to the fire

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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. If it's a real gun there's plenty of likelyhood that one of the cops gets shot.

That is being quite generous really....


http://www.fastdraw.org/fd_draw.html

Now, that link is probably not the best example, as it is using someone who is trained, and practiced at the fast draw.

So really, I would probably give anyone, even a gun in a terrible spot, like a waistband, at MOST 1.5 seconds on a draw.

Indeed. And its probably going to be closer to a 1/2 to 1 second. 1.5 to 3 would be worlds slowest draw.

We are talking small fractions of a second no matter which way you slice it.

Killing a 12 year old, who (in hindsight) wasn't a danger to anyone, is not an ideal outcome. I think that is something that everyone can agree on. The ideal outcome would have involved the kid surviving and tragedy averted.

The argument really hinges on whether the police could have done anything differently. It is important to ask that question, because the answer might be instructive in averting a future tragedy. A lot of people seem to think that the police did what they were supposed to do, and yet the outcome was still sub-optimal. This would imply it was a no win situation.

I would agree that by the time police are yelling "freeze" and the kid is reaching for the gun, the situation was already lost. But I think insaniak has a point regarding how it all developed. There was some suggestion prior to the incident that the gun might be fake. So riding up guns drawn like this kid was public enemy #1 may not have been what the situation required.

So Run by me exactly what you think would of been better?

and of those how many people would of been in possible danger? (No hindsight or mind reading allowed)

 Smacks wrote:
There was some suggestion prior to the incident that the gun might be fake.

And the fact that he didn't actually have the gun out and waving about when the police arrived. And was a kid.

So this:

So riding up guns drawn like this kid was public enemy #1 may not have been what the situation required.

 insaniak wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
There was some suggestion prior to the incident that the gun might be fake.

And the fact that he didn't actually have the gun out and waving about when the police arrived. And was a kid.

So this:

So riding up guns drawn like this kid was public enemy #1 may not have been what the situation required.

A person who is reported to be brandishing a gun should ALWAYS be treated like they might start shooting. Its the only proper response to ensure as few people get hurt as possible.

Frankly, any assertions to the contrary are brain dead slowed. They show no regard for public safety or the safety of the officers.

 Desubot wrote:
So Run by me exactly what you think would of been better?

and of those how many people would of been in possible danger? (No hindsight or mind reading allowed)

I don't know what could have been better, but I'm not going to criticize someone for asking the question. It doesn't look like anyone was in any immediate danger. The kid seems to be in a fairly deserted park messing about. Then the police roll right up within about three feet of him and drop him before the car has even stopped moving.

VIDEO:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/nov/26/cleveland-video-tamir-rice-shooting-police

 insaniak wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
There was some suggestion prior to the incident that the gun might be fake.

And the fact that he didn't actually have the gun out and waving about when the police arrived. And was a kid.

So this:

So riding up guns drawn like this kid was public enemy #1 may not have been what the situation required.

With no way to confirm what so ever.

You cant treat a potential gun as anything but a gun.

Otherwise lives really are in danger.

and again Still not a "Kid" untill after all was said and done. riding up against a armed suspect with guns drawn would of been the only good option that involved minimal danger to others.

So what would of been better? getting shot?

Edit at smacks: while true we dont know what it looks like behind the police ether. If it was residential or not as well as a street which people driving could of been on.

 Grey Templar wrote:
A person who is reported to be brandishing a gun should ALWAYS be treated like they might start shooting..

So there's no responsibility on the attending officers to actually assess the situation when they arrive? Someone said 'Here's someone waving a gun around!' so they should just charge up and shoot them?

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
A person who is reported to be brandishing a gun should ALWAYS be treated like they might start shooting..

So there's no responsibility on the attending officers to actually assess the situation when they arrive? Someone said 'Here's someone waving a gun around!' so they should just charge up and shoot them?

Well the problem is in training mostly at that point.

 Smacks wrote:


I don't know what could have been better, but I'm not going to criticize someone for asking the question. It doesn't look like anyone was in any immediate danger. The kid seems to be in a fairly deserted park messing about. Then the police roll right up within about three feet of him and drop him before the car has even stopped moving.

VIDEO:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/nov/26/cleveland-video-tamir-rice-shooting-police

This. This. This.

And everything Insaniak has written.

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
A person who is reported to be brandishing a gun should ALWAYS be treated like they might start shooting..

So there's no responsibility on the attending officers to actually assess the situation when they arrive? Someone said 'Here's someone waving a gun around!' so they should just charge up and shoot them?

The assessment is quite obviously "Guy was waving a gun around"

The response is to do exactly what they did. Tell him to put his hands up, then approach and disarm the subject. If he goes for the gun, use lethal force.

If the subject is not currently touching the weapon, you do not allow them to touch it again. You would never say "pull the gun out and throw it away". You would have an officer approach behind them while keeping him covered, cuff the subject, and then remove the weapon.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The assessment is quite obviously "Guy was waving a gun around"

When the police got there, the 'gun' was in his pants.

 Jihadin wrote:
So we're all mind readers?

Betcha didn't know there were so many omnipotent mystics on these forums.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 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.

If nobody pulls what looks like a real gun on the cops then nobody gets shot by cops, either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

Is that a gun in your pants or are you happy to see me?

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
A person who is reported to be brandishing a gun should ALWAYS be treated like they might start shooting..

So there's no responsibility on the attending officers to actually assess the situation when they arrive? Someone said 'Here's someone waving a gun around!' so they should just charge up and shoot them?

I take it you have never undergone active shooter training?

This thread is going around in circles now with the mind readers and people able to time travel and read tomorrow's news stories or those saying a cop should be happy to get shot, clearly ensconced.
This in spite of people who have been in similar life or death situations saying the cops should not be accused of being trigger happy.

 CptJake wrote:
I take it you have never undergone active shooter training?

Does it have anything to do with treating someone as if they are brandishing a weapon when they are not, based on nothing more than hearsay? Because if not, I'm not seeing the relevance of the question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
This thread is going around in circles now with the mind readers and people able to time travel and read tomorrow's news stories or those saying a cop should be happy to get shot, clearly ensconced.

Seriously, can we please dispense with the 'mind reading' nonsense?

Nobody is asking for anyone to read minds. It doesn't take a mind reader to ascertain that somebody who isn't currently waving a gun around is not, in fact, currently waving a gun around.

 insaniak wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I take it you have never undergone active shooter training?

Does it have anything to do with treating someone as if they are brandishing a weapon when they are not, based on nothing more than hearsay? Because if not, I'm not seeing the relevance of the question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
This thread is going around in circles now with the mind readers and people able to time travel and read tomorrow's news stories or those saying a cop should be happy to get shot, clearly ensconced.

Seriously, can we please dispense with the 'mind reading' nonsense?

Nobody is asking for anyone to read minds. It doesn't take a mind reader to ascertain that somebody who isn't currently waving a gun around is not, in fact, currently waving a gun around.

It would, however take a mind reader to know the real looking toy gun is in fact, not real, or that there is no danger as the gun is being reached for. The expressed view of a fair number of posters here state the officer should have known it was a toy and that he was in no danger of being shot. This is why myself and a few others here think there must be mind readers on this thread.

Nobody in this thread has suggested that the officer should have known it was a toy.

It was suggested that the likelihood of it being a toy, given the fact that it was a kid involved, should have been factored into their approach, however.

 insaniak wrote:
Nobody in this thread has suggested that the officer should have known it was a toy.

No, but you are suggesting that they should have waited and seen, which is to assume that it is harmless.

When you assume the gun is real, you treat it as if its real and a guy drawing a gun is about to shoot you.

cop sees a kid with a gun, tells the kid to put his hands up, and the kid reaches for the gun.
what does cop do?
shoot. that is the only correct answer. it is ridiculous to say "but the cop should have known" or "he should have checked" or "if he'd waited".
to the cop, if he'd waited he would have died. you know who would suffer if he died? him? no. his family. so it was shoot this kid, or die and have his family suffer. that is what the situation was to the cop. end of discussion. this is a tragic accident, one that could so easily have been avoided if the child had an ilk of common-sense, or if he hadn't had the gun, and been brandishing it or whatever. in the end, there is only one person to blame. the kid.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, but you are suggesting that they should have waited and seen, which is to assume that it is harmless.

Which isn't a crazy assumption to make. Unless we're going to accept police treating every child they see with a toy gun as a potential mass murderer.

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, but you are suggesting that they should have waited and seen, which is to assume that it is harmless.

Which isn't a crazy assumption to make. Unless we're going to accept police treating every child they see with a toy gun as a potential mass murderer.

1) You keep using the word "child" like it should be a factor. Its 100% irrelevant.

2) Assumptions like the one you propose will get way more people killed.

 the shrouded lord wrote:
...if he'd waited he would have died.

That seems unlikely, given that it was a toy gun.

 insaniak wrote:
Nobody in this thread has suggested that the officer should have known it was a toy.

I came real close and I'm talking mental break down close because it did fethed me up along with a few others afterwards of us almost opting a kid out because the little SoB popped up between us and the insurgents. "Armed" with a shovel. He popped up and four of us almost gunned him down

Yes I bypass the bad word filter but in all seriousness I've a feeling the cop did not have experience of "combat" or a sense of situational awareness that's common to some of us who's been to the Box.

Edit

I'm not condemning the cop nor the victim of the unfortunate shooting
I am condemning whoever removed the identification markers or the lack "obedience to authority"

I also wonder though if the kid was "influence" by the Michael Brown incident

 insaniak wrote:

 the shrouded lord wrote:
...if he'd waited he would have died.

That seems unlikely, given that it was a toy gun.

There's that omniscient time traveling knowledge again.

 Grey Templar wrote:


1) You keep using the word "child" like it should be a factor. Its 100% irrelevant.

2) Assumptions like the one you propose will get way more people killed.

Of course its a factor.

If you see a kid in a park with a handgun, what's more likely? That it's a kid setting out to shoot people with a real firearm? Or that it's a kid playing around?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
There's that omniscient time traveling knowledge again.

And for that specific response, it was valid. Whether or not the cop knew it was a real gun, he wouldn't have died if he had waited to see what the kid was going to do.

Which was the specific claim I was responding to.

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


1) You keep using the word "child" like it should be a factor. Its 100% irrelevant.

2) Assumptions like the one you propose will get way more people killed.

Of course its a factor.

If you see a kid in a park with a handgun, what's more likely? That it's a kid setting out to shoot people with a real firearm? Or that it's a kid playing around?

A kid playing around with a gun is honestly just as dangerous as a guy deliberately trying to shoot you. The gun could go off any direction. And if he really is just a kid playing, he would do what the police officers pointing definitely real guns at him were telling him to do.

And finally, no. This was not a kid playing in a park. It was a guy brandishing a gun and scaring people with it. Look at the pictures, he's not a cute little kid. He could easily have been 16-17.