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.

 Frazzled wrote:
Kid shouldn't run. However, as noted, 13 year olds are stupid and do stupid things. I would not have been shot running around at that age with a toy gun. Heck we ran around with real guns.

But not all of us were kids at the same time as Billy, Fraz

Hey thats not my fault you aren't older than dirt like me.

 Formosa wrote:
Enough dead kids, parents, innocents, etc. for yanks to finally admit gun control doesn't work, and its the guns that need to go?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
guns go, police don't need to always carry guns, seems pretty obvious to me

So what gun control measure would have stopped the deceased from getting a toy?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Enough dead kids, parents, innocents, etc. for yanks to finally admit gun control doesn't work, and its the guns that need to go?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
guns go, police don't need to always carry guns, seems pretty obvious to me

So what gun control measure would have stopped the deceased from getting a toy?

I think his reasoning if that if the police lived in a society where most citizens are unarmed they would be a lot less jumpy about shooting people since they'd feel less threatened overall. I think it's a load of crap myself because it ignores the social-economic realities of United States. And common sense.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Could they have intentionally winged him to avoid another riot situation?

I wish the myth that this is a feasible option would die, but I dunno how to kill it.

Seaward wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Could they have intentionally winged him to avoid another riot situation?

I wish the myth that this is a feasible option would die, but I dunno how to kill it.

4 shots. Center mass.

Seaward wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Could they have intentionally winged him to avoid another riot situation?

I wish the myth that this is a feasible option would die, but I dunno how to kill it.

I believe before that sentence I mentioned I was under the impression police officers were trained to shoot for the center mass. I thought it unlikely they would try to wing him, but thought I would ask anyway.

Thats why I said they just shot really really badly.

We can see Baltimore PD is trained different from NYCPD

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I believe before that sentence I mentioned I was under the impression police officers were trained to shoot for the center mass. I thought it unlikely they would try to wing him, but thought I would ask anyway.

No, I know, and I wasn't necessarily trying to make a dig at you, but there are way too many people who believe that "shooting his leg so he'll stop running" or "shooting his arm so he'll drop the knife" or whatever are preferable to "shooting to kill." It's not really their fault, because the entertainment industry has done a fantastic job telling us that it's what the heroic cop does, but the reality is that the overwhelming majority of police/military/whatever would not be capable of doing that. I dunno who the best uniformed pistol marksmen in the country are, but any list of the top five would have to include the FBI's hostage rescue team and Army's Delta/CAG/ACE/whatever they're called now, and they don't even train for it. These are guys who individually shoot more rounds in a year than any police department, and they recognize that it's a feat that's just too damn hard to do with a pistol.

All of which wouldn't matter if people didn't believe that cops have that option and are just not choosing to exercise it in favor of trying to kill people.

Seaward wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I believe before that sentence I mentioned I was under the impression police officers were trained to shoot for the center mass. I thought it unlikely they would try to wing him, but thought I would ask anyway.

No, I know, and I wasn't necessarily trying to make a dig at you, but there are way too many people who believe that "shooting his leg so he'll stop running" or "shooting his arm so he'll drop the knife" or whatever are preferable to "shooting to kill." It's not really their fault, because the entertainment industry has done a fantastic job telling us that it's what the heroic cop does, but the reality is that the overwhelming majority of police/military/whatever would not be capable of doing that. I dunno who the best uniformed pistol marksmen in the country are, but any list of the top five would have to include the FBI's hostage rescue team and Army's Delta/CAG/ACE/whatever they're called now, and they don't even train for it. These are guys who individually shoot more rounds in a year than any police department, and they recognize that it's a feat that's just too damn hard to do with a pistol.

All of which wouldn't matter if people didn't believe that cops have that option and are just not choosing to exercise it in favor of trying to kill people.

No harm done.

I knew it was pretty out there to suggest that, but with the tension running high with police I thought there might have been a small chance they could have tried it.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I think my favorite part of this thread is people blaming the child for not acting like an adult. "He should have done this! I know I would have!" Of course you would have, you are an adult. This is a child who is still learning how the world works. There is also the chance that he does not have the same support you had while growing up or the same education you had growing up.

So lets drift away from that argument, because I doubt anybody here can relate to how the child was thinking in the situation. Because I doubt anybody here is a 13 year old kid.

The kid's family and the kid himself must have been living under a rock during the last year. THAT kid should have known better because of prior events in his city. Some country bumpkin in the hills of West Virginia with no TV might be able to use that excuse.

Youre assuming a lot for a *kid*. Thats why they're called that and not adults.

Seaward wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Could they have intentionally winged him to avoid another riot situation?

I wish the myth that this is a feasible option would die, but I dunno how to kill it.

It tends to be perpetuated by people that haven't had training or shot a gun themselves.

 Lord Scythican wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I think my favorite part of this thread is people blaming the child for not acting like an adult. "He should have done this! I know I would have!" Of course you would have, you are an adult. This is a child who is still learning how the world works. There is also the chance that he does not have the same support you had while growing up or the same education you had growing up.

So lets drift away from that argument, because I doubt anybody here can relate to how the child was thinking in the situation. Because I doubt anybody here is a 13 year old kid.

The kid's family and the kid himself must have been living under a rock during the last year. THAT kid should have known better because of prior events in his city. Some country bumpkin in the hills of West Virginia with no TV might be able to use that excuse.

Yeah, I know when I was that young I knew all the struggles going on around me. Watched the news daily. Wait, wait a second. No, I was just trying to hang out with my friends and find an outlet for my frustration with my home life.

I think there are tow arguments going on here at the same time and some people are talking across each other:

Was what they did legally right?

&

Was what they did morally right?

whirlwindstruggle wrote:
I think there are tow arguments going on here at the same time and some people are talking across each other:

Was what they did legally right?

&

Was what they did morally right?

You're the PoPo:
Reports of someone with a gun
You see teenager with a Beretta
Suspect runs with the Beretta.

What do you do?

Its a sad event but its certainly morally justified. Unless evidence appears that they knew it was a toy and blasted him for jollies, then its their PoPo duty to stop that the guy with the gun.