Hi, can you provide similar stats for criminal gun violence, tia
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Cleveland police officer shoots 12-year-old boy carrying BB gun
- Thread starter malfcn
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
No?
A person has what appears to be a gun out and is playing with it in a playground. Regardless of age, that can be somewhat alarming.
EDIT: Nevermind, I just saw the 911 call. Sorry, I over reacted, the caller did the right thing.
Pickles Spill
Member
The problem with that statement is that the kid became a threat when he didn't follow orders and went for his gun. If you're relying on the statement that said he made no physical threat, and I'm relying on the one that said he went for his gun, we're not going to get anywhere since the two directly oppose each other.If he didn't make any verbal or physical threats why was the officer scared for his life enough to shoot the kid dead?
That's the question. That's why so many here are upset. You continually make every excuse as to why this shooting was perfectly fair.
We are saying it's not OK. It's not OK or fair that a 12 year old who made no physical or verbal threats and actually wasn't a physical threat is now dead.
My issue is that people often afford blacks less mercy than other races. So while it's justified other races would have been given the benefit of the doubt even at the officers (objective) risk/danger.
Blacks are the only race where people routinely support robotic and unmerciful actions taken against them.
If he didn't make any verbal or physical threats why was the officer scared for his life enough to shoot the kid dead?
That's the question. That's why so many here are upset. You continually make every excuse as to why this shooting was perfectly fair.
We are saying it's not OK. It's not OK or fair that a 12 year old who made no physical or verbal threats and actually wasn't a physical threat is now dead.
My issue is that people often afford blacks less mercy than other races. So while it's justified other races would have been given the benefit of the doubt even at the officers (objective) risk.
Blacks are the only race where people routinely support robotic and unmerciful actions taken against them.
The report that the officer was given was that a person had a gun, was brandishing it and scaring people in the area. When they arrive, they speak to him and he takes it out of his waistband. If all of what was described is true, there really isn't a debate regarding the justification.
The deputy chief said he didn't threaten them verbally or physically. This is very clearly not placing a judgment on the officer's determination that reaching for the gun in the waistband put his life, his partner's life and/or the lives of those in the area at enough risk to warrant deadly force. Unless you think he was stating the officer broke the law, your reading of his comments is not reasonable.
Oh, this one? http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/24/us/ohio-walmart-death/
Just read about it... dunno, with the whole gun carrying thing, at this point, it just seems like gun culture hurts black people far more than anyone else.
I honestly think it's justified if the police shoot you when you have what appears to be a weapon and have it out in an open place (and you disobey any instructions they give you), but that's how I feel about any person holding a gun and behaving like that, regardless of color.
It absolutely does which is why the NRA kept their mouths shut on that one. Basically, if you're black and see white people doing some weird shit like carrying guns in stores, you should just avoid that completely.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
The report that the officer was given was that a person had a gun, was brandishing it and scaring people in the area. When they arrive, they speak to him and he takes it out of his waistband. If all of what was described is true, there really isn't a debate regarding the justification.
The deputy chief said he didn't threaten them verbally or physically. This is very clearly not placing a judgment on the officer's determination that reaching for the gun in the waistband put his life, his partner's life and/or the lives of those in the area at enough risk to warrant deadly force. Unless you think he was stating the officer broke the law, your reading of his comments is not reasonable.
It is reasonable. Im just relaying what the deputy said. If the kid didn't threaten them verbally or physically and actually wasn't a physical threat then what do you want me to garner from this situation?
What is sounds like the deputy is saying is that the officer mistakenly felt threatened even though the kid did nothing to warrant that threat.
It is reasonable. Im just relaying what the deputy said. If the kid didn't threaten them verbally or physically and actually wasn't a physical threat then what do you want me to garner from this situation?
What is sounds like the deputy is saying is that the officer mistakenly felt threatened even though the kid did nothing to warrant that threat.
So you honestly believe the chief deputy is telling the press his officer broke the law? You cannot actually think that.
Marty Chinn
Member
It is reasonable. Im just relaying what the deputy said. If the kid didn't threaten them verbally or physically and actually wasn't a physical threat then what do you want me to garner from this situation?
What is sounds like the deputy is saying is that the officer mistakenly felt threatened even though the kid did nothing to warrant that threat.
I read that as he didn't yell at the officers like saying "fuck you!" and he didn't charge, try to kick, try to punch, or try to throw something at them; that would be any type of physical attack of the sort before drawing the weapon. Drawing the weapon was what triggered the shooting. It's a separate act from the non physical threat that was being mentioned is how I interpret it.
Bb guns have been around for decades, why werent kids being shot for having them in the past? Are people more afraid nowadays?
They did get shot. It's the reason toy guns were no longer allowed to be black and had to be painted in bright colors as well as the orange tip added. They didn't add them for no reason. People used to get shot. Heck I remember plenty of cases growing up in the 80s were kids got shot. I even remember a kid getting shot over a lazer tag gun. It happened. We just hear more about it now than before thanks to the Internet.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Even in places where open carry is legal, brandishing can still be an offense. Not to mention underage carry of any kind is typically illegal.
Yeah, after being primed by that black man with a bb gun being killed in Oklahoma, an open carry state, I was primed to think this was another situation like that, with the "male carrying a gun" being in the OP article. Seeing the 911 call, I see I was wrong to overreact. Calling in on a kid playing with a gun that maybe real isn't that bad.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
I read that as he didn't yell at the officers like saying "fuck you!" and he didn't charge, try to kick, try to punch, or try to throw something at them; that would be any type of physical attack of the sort before drawing the weapon. Drawing the weapon was what triggered the shooting. It's a separate act from the non physical threat that was being mentioned is how I interpret it.
Drawing a weapon on an officer is a physical threat. That's in every police rule book in the country. Do not try to act like it isn't. No where in the article does it even say he pointed the gun at the officer.
It says he took out the weapon from his waistband. It sounds like the kid was going to show him it was fake. If he pointed it at the officer you better believe they would have made mention of that.
Lets go over the events:
911 called
Kid is sitting in pavillion. BB Gun is on table
Cops roll up,
Kid puts gun into waistband.
Cops sees this.
Cop gets out car tells the kid to put his hand up.
Kid reaches for and takes out BB gun.
Cop shoots kid twice.
Kid dies in hospital.
Again the kid made no threats to the officer and it sounds like he was going to show them it was fake. Otherwise why try to hide it in your pants when you see cops if you just want to point it at them anyway?
Edit: Did anyone read the story? I mean honestly.
Drawing a weapon on an officer is a physical threat. That's in every police rule book in the country. Do not try to act like it isn't. No where in the article does it even say he pointed the gun at the officer.
It says he took out the weapon from his waistband. It sounds like the kid was going to show him it was fake. If he pointed it at the officer you better believe they would have made mention of that.
Lets go over the events:
911 called
Kid is sitting in pavillion. BB Gun is on table
Cops roll up,
Kid puts gun into waistband.
Cops sees this.
Cop gets out car tells the kid to put his hand up.
Kid reaches for and takes out BB gun.
Cop shoots kid twice.
Kid dies in hospital.
Again the kid made no threats to the officer and it sounds like he was going to show them it was fake. Otherwise why try to hide it in your pants when you see cops if you just want to point it at them anyway?
Edit: Did anyone read the story? I mean honestly.
You need to take a step back and really think about this. Do you really, really believe the police official stood in front of reporters and said "yup, the officer had no legal justification to shoot the kid. Next question please." Why is it no one is making a huge deal of this? Why does the story not place the importance in this quote that you do?
C'mon.
Drawing a weapon on an officer is a physical threat. That's in every police rule book in the country. Do not try to act like it isn't. No where in the article does it even say he pointed the gun at the officer.
It says he took out the weapon from his waistband. It sounds like the kid was going to show him it was fake. If he pointed it at the officer you better believe they would have made mention of that.
Lets go over the events:
911 called
Kid is sitting in pavillion. BB Gun is on table
Cops roll up,
Kid puts gun into waistband.
Cops sees this.
Cop gets out car tells the kid to put his hand up.
Kid reaches for and takes out BB gun.
Cop shoots kid twice.
Kid dies in hospital.
Again the kid made no threats to the officer and it sounds like he was going to show them it was fake. Otherwise why try to hide it in your pants when you see cops if you just want to point it at them?
Are you trying to argue that pulling a gun from a waistband isn't considered threatening until it's actually pointed at the officer (or someone else)?
Drawing a weapon on an officer is a physical threat. That's in every police rule book in the country. Do not try to act like it isn't. No where in the article does it even say he pointed the gun at the officer.
It says he took out the weapon from his waistband. It sounds like the kid was going to show him it was fake. If he pointed it at the officer you better believe they would have made mention of that.
Lets go over the events:
911 called
Kid is sitting in pavillion. BB Gun is on table
Cops roll up,
Kid puts gun into waistband.
Cops sees this.
Cop gets out car tells the kid to put his hand up.
Kid reaches for and takes out BB gun.
Cop shoots kid twice.
Kid dies in hospital.
Again the kid made no threats to the officer and it sounds like he was going to show them it was fake. Otherwise why try to hide it in your pants when you see cops if you just want to point it at them anyway?
Edit: Did anyone read the story? I mean honestly.
Wait so the cops showed up and the gun was on the table, so rather than just leaving it there he put it into his waist in view of the police and then took it out after? And you think that isn't more suspicious to the police than having just left it on the table?
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
Are you trying to argue that pulling a gun from a waistband isn't considered threatening until it's actually pointed at the officer (or someone else)?
Due to the situation and it being a 12 year old yes. If you were to ask me the same thing pertaining to another situation my answer might be different but I'd argue that in another situation the deputy chief might not be so forthcoming with his analysis on the actions of the dead.
Anyway why else would I outline the events that transpired.
@ kharv legally an officer just needs to (reasonably -- which is pretty loose as past cases have shown us) feel threatened. So no he wouldn't be telling the press that his officer broke the law. He'd be saying that even though there was no threat (which again THERE WASN'T or maybe this is going over your head) the officer was justified because he thought there was.
@ kharv legally an officer just needs to feel threatened. So no he wouldn't be telling the press that his officer broke the law. He'd be saying that even though there was no threat (which again THERE WASN'T or maybe this is going over your head) the officer was justified because he thought there was.
He is 100% not saying that. I really don't know why you're hanging onto this, it's not there. If you can take a step back and still believe he is saying the officer perceived a threat but there was none I don't really know where to go from there. It's not a reasonable conclusion in any way whatsoever.
Meh ._.
So many things are broken with our system. Wish the American people would collectively get over gun ownership and force cops to wear cameras all the time. It wouldn't prevent entirely racism from affecting interactions, but some sort of accountability would help, and there'd be some proof as to what actually happens.
I would love to see more cities force cops to wear cameras or anything to make sure there's some accountability for their actions, good or bad. It would help virtually everyone besides those that benefit from not their actions not being seen. I was hoping Obama would have made a comment about the police force months ago, but now idk. It'll probably just keep going ignored.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
Wait so the cops showed up and the gun was on the table, so rather than just leaving it there he put it into his waist in view of the police and then took it out after? And you think that isn't more suspicious to the police than having just left it on the table?
I dont have the time because I don't think you're sincere. I've read your posts in the past.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
He is 100% not saying that. I really don't know why you're hanging onto this, it's not there. If you can take a step back and still believe he is saying the officer perceived a threat but there was none I don't really know where to go from there. It's not a reasonable conclusion in any way whatsoever.
It is a reasonable conclusion. You disagree and that's fine but its totally reasonable and instead of providing ample points against my posts you just keep gasping in disbelief while closing your eyes and shaking your head no.
edit: I hate that I have to do this. Especially with you Kharv of all people I thought you'd be a little more familiar with law enforcement:
A Torrance police officer who opened fire on a pickup truck during the manhunt for former Los Angeles police Officer Christopher Dorner was justified in his actions and will not face any criminal charges, the District Attorney’s Office announced today.
Prosecutors concluded that Officer Brian McGee “did not commit any criminal misconduct” on Feb. 7 of last year when he rammed David Perdue’s truck with a patrol car, then fired three shots through the driver’s side window.
According to a charge evaluation worksheet prepared by Deputy District Attorney Geoffrey Rendon, McGee acted reasonably in light of the ongoing search for Dorner, who had killed two people at that point and went on to kill two others — a Riverside police officer and San Bernardino County sheriff’s deputy.
“McGee’s actions are analyzed based on the totality of circumstances, which include McGee’s knowledge of Dorner’s previous threats and actions in the days and hours preceding these events, which gave rise to an atmosphere of fear and extreme anticipation,” Rendon wrote. “Those circumstances created a situation in which a reasonable mistake of fact, namely that Dorner was driving the truck, nearly resulted in a horrific tragedy.
“Nonetheless, given the circumstances, as detailed above, we conclude that Officer McGee was justified in using force to stop the vehicle and in discharging his firearm. Therefore, prosecution in this matter is declined and this office will take no further action.”
I've seen your posts and your argument isn't very compelling. The kid is definitely at fault here and while I think the cop also made a grave mistake, his actions are certainly justifiable.I dont have the time because I don't think you're sincere. I've read your posts in the past.
It is a reasonable conclusion. You disagree and that's fine but its totally reasonable and instead of providing ample points against my posts you just keep gasping in disbelief while closing your eyes and shaking your head no.
He is clearly not saying what you're trying to argue he is saying. I'm sorry, but your interpretation is bizarre.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
He is clearly not saying what you're trying to argue he is saying. I'm sorry, but your interpretation is bizarre.
Read my edit above. This isn't unusual for a department to say:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/11/06/2902591/police-shooting-unarmed-man/Chicago Police Officer Gildardo Sierra will not face any criminal charges for the killing of an unarmed man, Cook County prosecutors announced Tuesday, despite video footage that showed Sierra standing over the victim, Flint Farmer, and shooting him multiple times. Prosecutors concluded that Sierra may have reasonably mistaken Farmer’s cell phone for a gun, and therefore was justified in firing off all 16 rounds in his gun at the unarmed man.
Farmer was Sierra’s third shooting in six months, yet the officer remained on the job. The video showed Farmer lying on the ground bleeding as Sierra shot three bullets into his back. An autopsy later determined those three shots in his back were the fatal wounds.
Sierra eventually admitted that he drank “multiple” beers before he went to work that night. However, the city waited more than five hours after the shooting to give him a breath test, so there was no way to tell if he was impaired during the shooting.
The CPD also ruled Farmer’s shooting justified, though Superintendent Garry McCarthy later told the Chicago Tribune that Sierra should not have been allowed back on the street after the two previous shootings. McCarthy said the department had no way of tracking officers’ shooting records.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/11/cops-shoot-man-in-bed-shooting-ruled-jus
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/la...amming-shooting-innocent-man-hunt-chris-dorn/
Theres more if you want them
Textured Monk
Member
I've seen your posts and your argument isn't very compelling. The kid is definitely at fault here and while I think the cop also made a grave mistake, his actions are certainly justifiable.
I don't really like the suggestion that the kid is 'at fault', because he may have done something foolish but also he's twelve. If the account in the OP is accurate then the officer was also justified, but this doesn't have to be a situation where we blame one side. Can't it just be a tragedy on its own?
Not to single you out though, just a sentiment I think should be avoided.
Read my edit above. This isn't unusual for a department to say:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/11/06/2902591/police-shooting-unarmed-man/
http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/11/cops-shoot-man-in-bed-shooting-ruled-jus
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/la...amming-shooting-innocent-man-hunt-chris-dorn/
Theres more if you want them
This and your edit are the results of investigations, not deputy chiefs addressing the media the day of the incident.
It isn't there.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
This and your edit are the results of investigations, not deputy chiefs addressing the media the day of the incident.
It isn't there.
Sure
I don't really like the suggestion that the kid is 'at fault', because he may have done something foolish but also he's twelve. If the account in the OP is accurate then the officer was also justified, but this doesn't have to be a situation where we blame one side. Can't it just be a tragedy on its own?
Not to single you out though, just a sentiment I think should be avoided.
Thank you sir. You are doing the lords work.
Sir Blaming
Member
Seriously, you think they would stop doing this, but they just keeps on doing it.
Even the transformers movies is less silly than this, good job merica
Even the transformers movies is less silly than this, good job merica
Chie Satonaka
Member
Seriously, you think they would stop doing this, but they just keeps on doing it.
Even the transformers movies is less silly than this, good job merica
They'll never stop.
You have a ton of people in this very thread who feel the shooting is justified. If the majority of the American populace doesn't give a fuck about another black life being stolen, why the hell would police?
The kid is at fault, though. If you're old enough to be carrying around a suspicious, made to look real pistol, you should be trained to handle it. Really tragic that this happened but that's the level of danger that comes with guns.I don't really like the suggestion that the kid is 'at fault', because he may have done something foolish but also he's twelve. If the account in the OP is accurate then the officer was also justified, but this doesn't have to be a situation where we blame one side. Can't it just be a tragedy on its own?
Not to single you out though, just a sentiment I think should be avoided.
I also placed fault on the officer as well, blame isn't mutally exclusive.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
The kid is at fault, though. If you're old enough to be carrying around a suspicious, made to look real pistol, you should be trained to handle it. Really tragic that this happened but that's the level of danger that comes with guns.
I also placed fault on the officer as well, blame isn't mutally exclusive.
Yeah that's the ticket! Man that kid! What an idiot!
One must be at least 18 years old to buy and use airsoft firearms. Minors (under the age of 18) can practice targetshooting under supervision by the legal guardian of the minor.
See. He should have known the rules. Totally his bad.
Why didn't he train himself to handle it like every other 12 year old!
SpectreFire
Member
If this was any other first world country, I'd agree with you, but this happened in the US, where unfortunately, realistically speaking, it's not at all unusual or out of the norm for a 12 year old to get hold of a gun. I meant honestly, how many stories have we've read over the years about kids shooting other kids by accidentally or on purpose because of their ridiculously easy access to their parent's guns?Due to the situation and it being a 12 year old yes. If you were to ask me the same thing pertaining to another situation my answer might be different but I'd argue that in another situation the deputy chief might not be so forthcoming with his analysis on the actions of the dead.
The problem isn't that the police in the US are too trigger happy. Hell, anyone would be trigger happy if they have to police a country where most people have guns and the majority of them are probably entirely unqualified to own one.
Do you know why cops in Canada, Europe, Australia, any other Western country don't have near as much shooting incidents as there are in the US? Because every time a cop rolls up on someone, there is next to no realistic fear that the person they're stopping has a gun and might shoot them for whatever reason.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
If this was any other first world country, I'd agree with you, but this happened in the US, where unfortunately, realistically speaking, it's not at all unusual or out of the norm for a 12 year old to get hold of a gun. I meant honestly, how many stories have we've read over the years about kids shooting other kids by accidentally or on purpose because of their ridiculously easy access to their parent's guns?
And how many stories have you read about kids shooting cops or even killing cops. Its a lot more common the other way around buddy.
He should have knew the rules though. There's a reason for these types of laws. I don't see what the tin foil hat is for.Yeah that's the ticket! Man that kid! What an idiot!
See. He should have known the rules. Totally his bad.
Why didn't he train himself to handle it like every other 12 year old!
Boom Boom Pow
Banned
And how many stories have you read about kids shooting cops or even killing cops. Its a lot more common the other way around buddy.
there is that story about kids shooting up a school somewhere...
Whoop kid with a gun, better shoot him dead. In another country they would talk to him first.
In another country there would be almost no chance it was real.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
He should have knew the rules though. There's a reason for these types of laws. I don't see what the tin foil hat is for.
I wonder how you would react at 12 to a grown man in uniform shouting at you and pointing a gun at you. Easy to sit there as an adult typing away on your computer removed from stress or danger and say what a 12 year old should or shouldn't have known and then blame him and not the people you say should have properly trained him in gun safety.
there is that story about kids shooting up a school somewhere...
And that's relevant how and why? School shootings are rare. Rarer than cops killing unarmed citizens.
The kid was 12, not 6. At 12 the kid should undoubtedly know that the "man in uniform" is a cop. He should undoubtedly know that he has a suspicious looking gun. He should undoubtedly know that making a move for the gun not once but twice is among the worst things he could do.I wonder how you would react at 12 to a grown man in uniform shouting at you and pointing a gun at you. Easy to sit there as an adult typing away on your computer removed from stress or danger and say what a 12 year old should or shouldn't have known and then blame him and not the people you say should have properly trained him in gun safety.
And that's relevant how and why? School shootings are rare. Rarer than cops killing unarmed citizens.
The "easy for you" angle is bs imo. If I'm toting a gun, the absolute last I do is show it to, well anybody. Let alone brandish it as a cop apprehended me. I'm not sure that your sugarcoating this situation is of any help to anybody.
In another country there would be almost no chance it was real.
its a dog eat dog world (in America).
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
The kid was 12, not 6. At 12 the kid should undoubtedly know that the "man in uniform" is a cop. He should undoubtedly know that he has a suspicious looking gun. He should undoubtedly know that making a move for the gun not once but twice is among the worst things he could do.
The "easy for you" angle is bs imo. If I'm toting a gun, the absolute last I do is show it to, well anybody. Let alone brandish it as a cop apprehended me. I'm not sure that your sugarcoating this situation is of any help to anybody.
Yes. Internet man. Lets judge a kids decision making skills in a highly stressful life or death situation.
Why wasn't he calm like a cucumber! Cucumbers are never shot by policemen.
radioactivez0r
Member
Oh hey that kid looks like he has a gun, I should see if I can determine if it's real or not, while simultaneously remembering the data I have on how rare it is for kids to actually shoot police and oh no I'm dead.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
Oh hey that kid looks like he has a gun, I should see if I can determine if it's real or not, while simultaneously remembering the data I have on how rare it is for kids to actually shoot police and oh no I'm dead.
Hmmm maybe I misread? Kid in the OP had a real gun?
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
Some white guys should be shot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8-ycSkoYfc
Pickles Spill
Member
Hmmm maybe I misread? Kid in the OP had a real gun?
Sure looked like one. The officer wound't know the difference in that short period of time.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
Sure looked like one. The officer wound't know the difference in that short period of time.
.I once pointed a real looking Uzi pellet-gun at an officer when I was younger. Can't give the exact age but anywhere between 8-11.
It didn't have an orange tip.
The officer came over to my mum and told me that it looked threatening and to not use it in public.
That was that.
No excuse to shoot a 12 year old kid even if he has a gun that looks real. Just stop and taking a second to think why a 12 year old kid would have a gun.
So obviously the smartest thing to do was shoot the kid. This is a kid we're talking about. You were once one.
You conveniently ignore my post. That's ok.
You keep quoting that, but you seem to think it means more than it does. The kid didn't threaten them verbally, or get into a fighting stance. He did however grab what looks like a real gun when asked to put his hands up. You don't have to be threatening someone to shoot them.
I assume he didn't have time to do whatever he was going to do with the gun (probably say it wasn't real) And I doubt he was going to take an aggressive stance anyways, but considering how real that gun looks, and the fact that he grabbed for it after the cops told him to put his hands up (after they recieved a report that he was pointing a gun at people, mind you) I can see how the officer honestly felt afraid for his life.
In that manner the shooting is justified.
It's a terrible tragedy, and I'm not going to say stupid kid, because I doubt he thought any farther than holy crap, they think this a real gun, I gotta show them it's not real.
Once again, a tragedy that occured because of a series of poor choices, but not a crime.
Yes. Internet man. Lets judge a kids decision making skills in a highly stressful life or death situation.
Why wasn't he calm like a cucumber! Cucumbers are never shot by policemen.
I think you need to take a break, man.
It's a tragedy that a child is dead. The cop is a rookie and was probably jumpy. Should he lose his job? Probably. Maybe he isn't suited to be a police officer. Perhaps he should just be limited for giving out (parking)tickets, or working at a courthouse.
Having said that, let's not kid ourselves here -- while he was a child, what he did was exceedingly stupid. I can understand that the typical reaction of a kid that had something he wasn't supposed to is to hide it. He probably wanted to show the cop that hey, it's a BB gun! it's not real!
But think about this for a minute.
- Someone removed the orange tip. Was it him? Was it a parent? This should be the most pressing issue.
- If someone bought it for him, why was he not educated on its use?
- Where were the parents during this? How could they not keep an eye out for the BB gun having been modified?
- And finally, being that the child is black, and the parents are probably well aware of the prejudice, shouldn't they have warned the kid about having that out in a public like that?
Also, a BB gun is not a completely harmless thing. They can cause some damage, so it's already a potentially dangerous situation.
Again. Switch the people around and dont think for a second it wouldnt be considered a crime.You keep quoting that, but you seem to think it means more than it does. The kid didn't threaten them verbally, or get into a fighting stance. He did however grab what looks like a real gun when asked to put his hands up. You don't have to be threatening someone to shoot them.
I assume he didn't have time to do whatever he was going to do with the gun (probably say it wasn't real) And I doubt he was going to take an aggressive stance anyways, but considering how real that gun looks, and the fact that he grabbed for it after the cops told him to put his hands up (after they recieved a report that he was pointing a gun at people, mind you) I can see how the officer honestly felt afraid for his life.
In that manner the shooting is justified.
It's a terrible tragedy, and I'm not going to say stupid kid, because I doubt he thought any farther than holy crap, they think this a real gun, I gotta show them it's not real.
Once again, a tragedy that occured because of a series of poor choices, but not a crime.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
I think you need to take a break, man.
It's a tragedy that a child is dead. The cop is a rookie and was probably jumpy. Should he lose his job? Probably. Maybe he isn't suited to be a police officer. Perhaps he should just be limited for giving out tickets, or working at a courthouse.
Having said that, let's not kid ourselves here -- while he was a child, what he did was exceedingly stupid. I can understand that the typical reaction of a kid that had something he wasn't supposed to is to hide it. He probably wanted to show the cop that hey, it's a BB gun! it's not real!
But think about this for a minute.
- Someone removed the orange tip. Was it him? Was it a parent? This should be the most pressing issue.
- If someone bought it for him, why was he not educated on its use?
- Where were the parents during this? How could they not keep an eye out for the BB gun having been modified?
- And finally, being that the child is black, and the parents are probably well aware of the prejudice, shouldn't they have warned the kid about having that out in a public like that?
Also, a BB gun is not a completely harmless thing. They can cause some damage, so it's already a potentially dangerous situation.
Your assumption is that a BB gun is required to have an orange tip and thats patently not true. Its only true for a certain number of states and im fairly sure that Ohio isn't one of them.
Secondly nothing you said really goes against my views per se except that last part. My issue is poster in here saying the kid was at fault. What you've laid out shows that his parents failed him (and the airsoft industry failed him -- and other kids)
Trying to say the kid was at fault or he should have known the perfect movements as to avoid getting shot is offensive. Especially when you have stories like this:
http://libertyviral.com/trooper-req...-when-he-reaches-for-it-cop-arrested-graphic/Groubert had requested Levar Jones identification over a seatbelt infraction which occurred earlier this month. When Jones reached for his license in his car, Groubert fired on him, wounding him in the hip. What did I do, sir? Jones asked.
Trooper Groubert claims that he shot Jones because he dove headfirst into his vehicle. I just grabbed my license, the wounded man says.
There is no perfect way to avoid getting shot. And to expect that a kid should know exactly how to remain calm under such a stressful situation and not make any mistakes is asinine bordering on complete and utter idiocy.
Studies show that super stressful situations like this cloud judgement.
Secondly like I said, why don't you think the cop would or wouldn't have shot a white girl in the same scenario?
And how many stories have you read about kids shooting cops or even killing cops. Its a lot more common the other way around buddy.
Children are capable of using fire arms. I don't think your macro-analysis of this issue can be applied directly to this case. The police officer shouldn't have to answer for "well, I haven't heard anything on the news lately about children shooting and killing a police officer, so this threat isn't real."
Based on the present evidence, I don't understand how you could think the officer acted wrongly based on the information he had. There are clear-cut rules that police follow in instances of stand-offs.
I can't blame this one cop or place him/her on a stage to be some larger representation of negative police interactions with minority citizens. I think it's a large leap to make.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.