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.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).

There's a popular saying in the US about giving up individual liberty in the name of "safety". People don't like the notion of getting their rights trodden on "for our own good".

As I've said before, do what the cops tell you and there's no problem. Your hands should be in such a position that you are unable to "absentmindedly touch your belt". Your hands should be stuck so far into the air that you could high-five St. Peter. All of these shootings covered by the media lately have been the result of non-compliance or resisting arrest.

Actually, the only right that you guys seem to have a problem about is the right to bear arms, other rights that are arguably much more important (such as the right to privacy or due process), have been wildly reduced in the name of "safety" in your country and no one gives a flying feth about it.

But this discussion is pointless and always will be.

Since 9-11-2001 especially, there have been MANY things that I find disturbing with regard to infringement upon individual liberty introduced. However, as it is law I will follow it as any good citizen should, and seek to change things through peaceable means. If a SWAT team got the wrong house and bust through my door in a warrantless search and seizure, I'm not going to resist. I will do whatever the feth they tell me to and seek recompense afterward. Just because people follow bad laws doesn't mean they agree with them.

The fact that infringements (both real and proposed) on the second amendment get a lot more limelight than other injustices does not equate to apathy on other issues.

 Alex C wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).

There's a popular saying in the US about giving up individual liberty in the name of "safety". People don't like the notion of getting their rights trodden on "for our own good".

As I've said before, do what the cops tell you and there's no problem. Your hands should be in such a position that you are unable to "absentmindedly touch your belt". Your hands should be stuck so far into the air that you could high-five St. Peter. All of these shootings covered by the media lately have been the result of non-compliance or resisting arrest.

Except they haven't... the 12 year old in cleveland just got rolled up on and shot in what looked like a gangland-style shooting. The gentleman in new york that got choked out for selling single cigarettes is yet another exception to this argument. Put this on top of things like illegal and questionably legal siezures of personal property, especially real estate and relatively large amounts of cash, and suddenly you start to see why people don't comply.

when the only difference between a potential mugger and your local LEO is a uniform, right down to being unable to establish intent, then, no, cops shouldn't be put off when they don't get the compliance they're looking for. Compliance is predicated on trust, even in cases of fear of bodily harm, that if we comply, we will be unharmed, or that it is in our best interest to comply, at the very least. Law enforcement has, thanks to not only the actions of a few bad cops, but the infrastructure that seems to never hold them accountable, as well, lost this trust, writ large. It also doesn't help that heads of police unions and departments are starting to use mob boss rhetoric to convince people to obey. People are unwilling to be under the boot of blue and black clad mob enforcers, and it's starting to show.

 Smacks wrote:
I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).

That's good for you. Great thing for you is that you live in Britain, where you don't have to worry about this "issue". The rest of us here in America will continue on living our lives, not worrying about this "issue" because there is not an issue.

Dronze wrote:
Unless that officer can verify, or at least have reasonable grounds to assume, that this individual was armed, why is he breaking leather?

You are a police officer in the US, you have reasonable grounds to assume the individual is armed.

If you are a police officer in a country where guns aren't so prevalent, you do not.

Dronze wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).

There's a popular saying in the US about giving up individual liberty in the name of "safety". People don't like the notion of getting their rights trodden on "for our own good".

As I've said before, do what the cops tell you and there's no problem. Your hands should be in such a position that you are unable to "absentmindedly touch your belt". Your hands should be stuck so far into the air that you could high-five St. Peter. All of these shootings covered by the media lately have been the result of non-compliance or resisting arrest.

Except they haven't... the 12 year old in cleveland just got rolled up on and shot in what looked like a gangland-style shooting. The gentleman in new york that got choked out for selling single cigarettes is yet another exception to this argument. Put this on top of things like illegal and questionably legal siezures of personal property, especially real estate and relatively large amounts of cash, and suddenly you start to see why people don't comply.

when the only difference between a potential mugger and your local LEO is a uniform, right down to being unable to establish intent, then, no, cops shouldn't be put off when they don't get the compliance they're looking for. Compliance is predicated on trust, even in cases of fear of bodily harm, that if we comply, we will be unharmed, or that it is in our best interest to comply, at the very least. Law enforcement has, thanks to not only the actions of a few bad cops, but the infrastructure that seems to never hold them accountable, as well, lost this trust, writ large. It also doesn't help that heads of police unions and departments are starting to use mob boss rhetoric to convince people to obey. People are unwilling to be under the boot of blue and black clad mob enforcers, and it's starting to show.

I'm not commenting on the majority of your post, primarily because I'd rather not argue about the way people feel, but in the two specific cases you mentioned, the actions of police were justifiable. Note, when I say justifiable, I do not mean they resulted in good or happy outcomes, merely that the actions were permissible given the situations.

The shooting of the 12 year old (I assume you mean Tamir Rice?) was unfortunate, but understandable, given the information that officers had; they (the officers) rolled up on the child, the child pointed the replication firearm (BB gun, I think) at them and they fired, thinking that the firearm was real. For all they knew that firearm was indeed real and, like any other person in the United States, they were within their rights to defend themselves from the 'threat'. Its incredibly sad, but understandable. The fellow in New York died from a heart attack, not the choke hold, and even so most certainly resisted arrest. In the video you can see that he repeatedly slaps away the arms of the officers and attempts to manhandle them. It's also important to note that the man had been arrested multiple times and suffered from a large number of health issues.

Dronze wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).

There's a popular saying in the US about giving up individual liberty in the name of "safety". People don't like the notion of getting their rights trodden on "for our own good".

As I've said before, do what the cops tell you and there's no problem. Your hands should be in such a position that you are unable to "absentmindedly touch your belt". Your hands should be stuck so far into the air that you could high-five St. Peter. All of these shootings covered by the media lately have been the result of non-compliance or resisting arrest.

Except they haven't... the 12 year old in cleveland just got rolled up on and shot in what looked like a gangland-style shooting. The gentleman in new york that got choked out for selling single cigarettes is yet another exception to this argument. Put this on top of things like illegal and questionably legal siezures of personal property, especially real estate and relatively large amounts of cash, and suddenly you start to see why people don't comply.

The kid with the BB Gun? He didn't do what the police said and proceeded to point the gun at them.

The guy who was "choked" failed to comply and resisted arrest.

Stonebeard wrote:

Dronze wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).

There's a popular saying in the US about giving up individual liberty in the name of "safety". People don't like the notion of getting their rights trodden on "for our own good".

As I've said before, do what the cops tell you and there's no problem. Your hands should be in such a position that you are unable to "absentmindedly touch your belt". Your hands should be stuck so far into the air that you could high-five St. Peter. All of these shootings covered by the media lately have been the result of non-compliance or resisting arrest.

Except they haven't... the 12 year old in cleveland just got rolled up on and shot in what looked like a gangland-style shooting. The gentleman in new york that got choked out for selling single cigarettes is yet another exception to this argument. Put this on top of things like illegal and questionably legal siezures of personal property, especially real estate and relatively large amounts of cash, and suddenly you start to see why people don't comply.

when the only difference between a potential mugger and your local LEO is a uniform, right down to being unable to establish intent, then, no, cops shouldn't be put off when they don't get the compliance they're looking for. Compliance is predicated on trust, even in cases of fear of bodily harm, that if we comply, we will be unharmed, or that it is in our best interest to comply, at the very least. Law enforcement has, thanks to not only the actions of a few bad cops, but the infrastructure that seems to never hold them accountable, as well, lost this trust, writ large. It also doesn't help that heads of police unions and departments are starting to use mob boss rhetoric to convince people to obey. People are unwilling to be under the boot of blue and black clad mob enforcers, and it's starting to show.

I'm not commenting on the majority of your post, primarily because I'd rather not argue about the way people feel, but in the two specific cases you mentioned, the actions of police were justifiable. Note, when I say justifiable, I do not mean they resulted in good or happy outcomes, merely that the actions were permissible given the situations.

The shooting of the 12 year old (I assume you mean Tamir Rice?) was unfortunate, but understandable, given the information that officers had; they (the officers) rolled up on the child, the child pointed the replication firearm (BB gun, I think) at them and they fired, thinking that the firearm was real. For all they knew that firearm was indeed real and, like any other person in the United States, they were within their rights to defend themselves from the 'threat'. Its incredibly sad, but understandable. The fellow in New York died from a heart attack, not the choke hold, and even so most certainly resisted arrest. In the video you can see that he repeatedly slaps away the arms of the officers and attempts to manhandle them. It's also important to note that the man had been arrested multiple times and suffered from a large number of health issues.

Ummm, do you know something about these cases that I do not know? Because last I knew the 12 year old did not even draw his weapon and the man in New York was still killed by an illegal hold.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Stonebeard wrote:

Dronze wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).

There's a popular saying in the US about giving up individual liberty in the name of "safety". People don't like the notion of getting their rights trodden on "for our own good".

As I've said before, do what the cops tell you and there's no problem. Your hands should be in such a position that you are unable to "absentmindedly touch your belt". Your hands should be stuck so far into the air that you could high-five St. Peter. All of these shootings covered by the media lately have been the result of non-compliance or resisting arrest.

Except they haven't... the 12 year old in cleveland just got rolled up on and shot in what looked like a gangland-style shooting. The gentleman in new york that got choked out for selling single cigarettes is yet another exception to this argument. Put this on top of things like illegal and questionably legal siezures of personal property, especially real estate and relatively large amounts of cash, and suddenly you start to see why people don't comply.

when the only difference between a potential mugger and your local LEO is a uniform, right down to being unable to establish intent, then, no, cops shouldn't be put off when they don't get the compliance they're looking for. Compliance is predicated on trust, even in cases of fear of bodily harm, that if we comply, we will be unharmed, or that it is in our best interest to comply, at the very least. Law enforcement has, thanks to not only the actions of a few bad cops, but the infrastructure that seems to never hold them accountable, as well, lost this trust, writ large. It also doesn't help that heads of police unions and departments are starting to use mob boss rhetoric to convince people to obey. People are unwilling to be under the boot of blue and black clad mob enforcers, and it's starting to show.

I'm not commenting on the majority of your post, primarily because I'd rather not argue about the way people feel, but in the two specific cases you mentioned, the actions of police were justifiable. Note, when I say justifiable, I do not mean they resulted in good or happy outcomes, merely that the actions were permissible given the situations.

The shooting of the 12 year old (I assume you mean Tamir Rice?) was unfortunate, but understandable, given the information that officers had; they (the officers) rolled up on the child, the child pointed the replication firearm (BB gun, I think) at them and they fired, thinking that the firearm was real. For all they knew that firearm was indeed real and, like any other person in the United States, they were within their rights to defend themselves from the 'threat'. Its incredibly sad, but understandable. The fellow in New York died from a heart attack, not the choke hold, and even so most certainly resisted arrest. In the video you can see that he repeatedly slaps away the arms of the officers and attempts to manhandle them. It's also important to note that the man had been arrested multiple times and suffered from a large number of health issues.

Ummm, do you know something about these cases that I do not know? Because last I knew the 12 year old did not even draw his weapon and the man in New York was still killed by an illegal hold.

Some television media sources were (and continue to be) somewhat iffy on the details, so without some reading you just might have missed them. The 12 year was told to raise his hands above his head by the two officers and, as he did that, he pulled to BB gun out of his waistband. They saw the gun being drawn, and one of the officers fired, hitting the kid twice. So the kid did draw the gun, but I was mistaken when I said he pointed it at the police because he apparently didn't point it at them. Still understandably that the police acted as they did. As for the New York man, he didn't die on the scene (wasn't choked to death), but died of a heart attack later on, on his way to the hospital.

Stonebeard wrote:
Some television media sources were (and continue to be) somewhat iffy on the details, so without some reading you just might have missed them. The 12 year was told to raise his hands above his head by the two officers and, as he did that, he pulled to BB gun out of his waistband. They saw the gun being drawn, and one of the officers fired, hitting the kid twice. So the kid did draw the gun, but I was mistaken when I said he pointed it at the police because he apparently didn't point it at them. Still understandably that the police acted as they did. As for the New York man, he didn't die on the scene (wasn't choked to death), but died of a heart attack later on, on his way to the hospital.

As for the 12 year old, I have seen the video. Multiple times. Those Officers were in danger because of their own mishandling of the situation, for the most part it was how they approached the situation. This death could have been avoided if the Officers had been given all of the information available and if they hadn't rolled up like they were in an action movie.

As far as the New York man, he died of a heart attack caused by stress from the choke hold. So really, this could have been avoided if the officer had not broken the law.

I disagree with you. Both of these incidents were handled improperly and it led to the death of civilians. Neither of these were justifiable deaths and the parties involved should be held accountable, just as a civilian would be in this circumstance.

Basically what I have learned from the people in this thread is that if I do not do whatever the police tell me to do, they are justified in killing me.

The officers were given all the information available.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The officers were given all the information available.

They were told that the witness on the ground believed the weapon to be a BB gun? Because, that is not what the recordings I have heard have said.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The officers were given all the information available.

They were told that the witness on the ground believed the weapon to be a BB gun? Because, that is not what the recordings I have heard have said.

Thats not "information", that's baseless speculation. Speculation that would get people killed if it was wrong.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The officers were given all the information available.

They were told that the witness on the ground believed the weapon to be a BB gun? Because, that is not what the recordings I have heard have said.

Thats not "information", that's baseless speculation. Speculation that would get people killed if it was wrong.

So, you are telling me that a witness on the ground who observed the kid with the weapon for a few minutes is baseless speculation? The man eventually just left, because there was no threat. Well, there was no threat until the police rolled up. Then people got killed.

You know what, you are right. That information was ridiculous and would have led to deaths. I am so happy we avoided a casualty here.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The officers were given all the information available.

They were told that the witness on the ground believed the weapon to be a BB gun? Because, that is not what the recordings I have heard have said.

Thats not "information", that's baseless speculation. Speculation that would get people killed if it was wrong.

odd, because the speculation that a child, at 12 years old, had a live firearm -did- get someone killed. The video i saw shows no attempt to get the kid to surrender the object in question, either.

If the caller really believed that the gun wasn't real, he wouldn't have made the 911 call to report it.

Ultimately, you always treat a gun as real until its proven to not be real. You don't draw if officers are telling you to keep your hands up.

The kid did a stupid thing and got himself killed. End of story. No if's, and's, or but's.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If the caller really believed that the gun wasn't real, he wouldn't have made the 911 call to report it.

Ultimately, you always treat a gun as real until its proven to not be real. You don't draw if officers are telling you to keep your hands up.

The kid did a stupid thing and got himself killed. End of story. No if's, and's, or but's.

Or he could have called because he was worried the child would get hurt for waving around the fake weapon. I can use baseless speculation like you can!

As far as treating it like a real gun, does that mean you pull your car as close as physically possible to the suspect, giving him no time to react to your orders before you shoot him?

The cops did a stupid thing and killed an innocent child. End of story. No if's, and's, or but's.

I am making no baseless speculation. Nor did the cops. A call of a guy waving a gun at people was reported. Past experience and logical reasoning says that the probability of the gun being real is very high. And even if it was low you still must treat it as real, because the consequences of assuming its not real are far worse than assuming it is.

The cops did absolutely nothing wrong. The idea they did do something wrong is moronic.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If the caller really believed that the gun wasn't real, he wouldn't have made the 911 call to report it.

But, you did right here! The caller says that he believed that the weapon was a BB gun and was not acting hysterical at all. Nor was he seeking cover. Probably because he thought it was a BB gun.

As far as the cops doing absolutely nothing wrong, do cops usually pull up as close as possible to a gunman, pinning the passenger between a possible deadly weapon and a car he has to either crawl through or run around to reach safety? (Note: After shooting the kid, the Officer had to run around the car the seek safety.)

These cops did everything wrong. Thanks for throwing the insult at me though, I think I am going to take the high road here and just say you are wrong without insulting you.

I believe the caller's exact words were, "It might be an airsoft gun". A BB or Pellet gun is actually a real firearm.

And "might be fake" is the exact same as "might be real". You always assume the gun is real, end of story.

It's an uncomfortable situation, and I have a hard time deciding how I feel about it. I had unsupervised access to bb guns when I was that age, and it's insane to think that having one could get you killed. Of course, I never took mine out of the backyard, and I sure as hell never pointed it at people.

The NY guy, well, I can say I'm pretty sure I think that the police acted very poorly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And "might be fake" is the exact same as "might be real". You always assume the gun is real, end of story.

It might have even been an AR-15 assault bb gun. No one should have to take those risks.

I hate to side with grey Templar here, but if there is a possibility of a gun being real, you treat it as such, lets play what if

what if it had been real, what if the police didn't treat it as such, what if the police didn't react to the stupid kid pulling a "real" gun, what if the kid shot the policeman dead.

this conversation would not even be taking place as no one cares about a policeman getting shot in the news, they just want to stir the racial pot and try to claim it was somehow a race related issue.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I believe the caller's exact words were, "It might be an airsoft gun". A BB or Pellet gun is actually a real firearm.

And "might be fake" is the exact same as "might be real". You always assume the gun is real, end of story.

Then you believe wrong, because that was never said in the conversation. Maybe you should listen to it again.

So, you are saying they should have been cautious based on what they were told? Why did they pull up like they did. Will you stop avoiding that part of my argument?

 Formosa wrote:
I hate to side with grey Templar here, but if there is a possibility of a gun being real, you treat it as such, lets play what if

what if it had been real, what if the police didn't treat it as such, what if the police didn't react to the stupid kid pulling a "real" gun, what if the kid shot the policeman dead.

this conversation would not even be taking place as no one cares about a policeman getting shot in the news, they just want to stir the racial pot and try to claim it was somehow a race related issue.

Actually, I believe the family attempted to avoid the race issue as much as possible. Even saying they did not believe it was racially related.

 Formosa wrote:

this conversation would not even be taking place as no one cares about a policeman getting shot in the news, they just want to stir the racial pot and try to claim it was somehow a race related issue.

I disagree with that. Your cynicism doesn't take into account the chance to turn it into an anti-gun gak fest when a 12 year old shot a cop with an unsupervised weapon. It'd be a win win either way for the 24/7 news types.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I believe the caller's exact words were, "It might be an airsoft gun". A BB or Pellet gun is actually a real firearm.

And "might be fake" is the exact same as "might be real". You always assume the gun is real, end of story.

you're missing the point, Templar. There was no attempt to peacefully defuse the situation. There is rarely an attempt to peacefully defuse such situations anymore. The present culture of law enforcement seems to be one of just getting your gun off when you can feasibly get away with it . a gun is meant to be a final resort, not a go-to response, especially in cases such as dealing with a child. Physical altercation, as well, generally meant to be resorted to when other avenues have failed, not as a primary means of gaining compliance from a suspect or bystander.

above and beyond this, the justice system needs a better means of calling these people into account when they screw up, and better training to keep them from doing so as frequently as they do now.

That was a seat belt hold take down. they taught that in NYPD academy. As they were on the ground the officer that applied the hold moved his right arm back behind Garner right shoulder blade. They tried to pin the death on the officer who went for the seat belt take down.

What bothers me is Garner saying he can't breathe. I can see why LEO would not move him upright and I can also see why they wouldn't move him upright.

As for the Rice case (12 year old) that entire situation was F'ed up from the floor up. I blame everyone in that one including Rice parents

Edit

Also have to remember Rice was pointing what would be a real fire arm at people

 Jihadin wrote:
That was a seat belt hold take down. they taught that in NYPD academy. As they were on the ground the officer that applied the hold moved his right arm back behind Garner right shoulder blade. They tried to pin the death on the officer who went for the seat belt take down.

What bothers me is Garner saying he can't breathe. I can see why LEO would not move him upright and I can also see why they wouldn't move him upright.

As for the Rice case (12 year old) that entire situation was F'ed up from the floor up. I blame everyone in that one including Rice parents

Edit

Also have to remember Rice was pointing what would be a real fire arm at people

I agree, by no means was Rice in the clear. But the Officers did not act correctly.

As far as Garner, can I get a link to the hold and such? All I have read is the choke hold take down. New information would be great.

Dronze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I believe the caller's exact words were, "It might be an airsoft gun". A BB or Pellet gun is actually a real firearm.

And "might be fake" is the exact same as "might be real". You always assume the gun is real, end of story.

you're missing the point, Templar. There was no attempt to peacefully defuse the situation. There is rarely an attempt to peacefully defuse such situations anymore. The present culture of law enforcement seems to be one of just getting your gun off when you can feasibly get away with it . a gun is meant to be a final resort, not a go-to response, especially in cases such as dealing with a child. Physical altercation, as well, generally meant to be resorted to when other avenues have failed, not as a primary means of gaining compliance from a suspect or bystander.

above and beyond this, the justice system needs a better means of calling these people into account when they screw up, and better training to keep them from doing so as frequently as they do now.

Yes, there was an attempt to peacefully resolve the situation. it was the instruction to put your hands up. If they hadn't attempted, they would have just immediately shot him on sight, that is not what happened.

I clearly stated the news, not the family, the family can say what it wants and it will make less difference than what the main stream media is spinning.

Deadalus: people call it cynicism when people are realistic, its not cynical, its the truth, the media for better or worse is no longer a purely informative service (if it ever was) but is another form of entertainment, American media especially, and as such they (rather stupidly) stir up problems to promote whatever point they are trying to make at the time.

that's not cynicism, that's entertainment.

now what I think of the subject is that
A: where the bloody hell were the kids parents
B: why did the kid remove the part of the gun that indicates a replica or toy????
C: why did the kid pull the "weapon" ??

we will never know what was going through his mind, but seriously, why go to pull a "weapon" when the police are aiming real weapons at you?

Sorry, I was trying to suggest that you were being cynical for assuming that no one would care about a police officer getting shot, and then turning around and trying to be moreso by suggesting that they'd make an entertaining spectacle about it no matter which way it turned out. It was an attempt at being a little humorous. However, I don't disagree with your point.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, there was an attempt to peacefully resolve the situation. it was the instruction to put your hands up. If they hadn't attempted, they would have just immediately shot him on sight, that is not what happened.

That was a peaceful resolution? Saying put your hands up and shooting a few seconds after?

I mean, if you watch the video it looks like the LEO shot him before he even had proper footing on the ground.

 Formosa wrote:
I clearly stated the news, not the family, the family can say what it wants and it will make less difference than what the main stream media is spinning.

Deadalus: people call it cynicism when people are realistic, its not cynical, its the truth, the media for better or worse is no longer a purely informative service (if it ever was) but is another form of entertainment, American media especially, and as such they (rather stupidly) stir up problems to promote whatever point they are trying to make at the time.

that's not cynicism, that's entertainment.

now what I think of the subject is that
A: where the bloody hell were the kids parents
B: why did the kid remove the part of the gun that indicates a replica or toy????
C: why did the kid pull the "weapon" ??

we will never know what was going through his mind, but seriously, why go to pull a "weapon" when the police are aiming real weapons at you?

Well, I heard that the family did not believe this was racially motivated. Where did I hear that? I think it was on the News. Yeah, it was probably on the News. You know, where you hear most of these things.....