Cleaveland Officer Shoots A 12 YEAR OLD

[Trygg]

looooooooooool. I don't agree with life imprisonment, but isn't there something called using "necessary force"? Did the officer really have to shoot-to-kill?

You either shoot or you don't shoot at all, there is no "shooting to wound" as I understand it. That's why we have tasers and baton guns.

I think there is a considerable difference between aiming center mass rather than simply aiming at the leg, or even firing a warning shot.

[Planita]

Did any of you care to read my other post?

yes I did. Its what I said

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

> Kills a child
> Is justified
Yeah nahh

This brings up an interesting point, by the way. You say that killing a child is not justified. What about abortions? Secularists typically support that, after all. Where do we draw the line? A child in the womb is helpless and defenseless, but this 12 year old waving the gun around was neither helpless or defenseless, he was violent and hostile.

That being said, the 12 year old made a conscious choice to cause trouble and wave a gun around, and unfortunately paid his life as a consequence.

:Cough:

Were you there?

rops mic:

[Fartsniffage]

Full video of the shooting, for those interested.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ss ... hot_1.html

7:10 for the killing.

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

Either way, they shot to kill that boy. His death would've been avoided if they chose to shoot elsewhere.

Which raises my question again, where did the officer shoot the boy, does anyone know? Because if there was a way of shooting that boy non-lethally, then I am concerned by the fact he did not.

The harsh truth -

A dead person can't harm anyone. A person just tazed may have the energy to pull off a few rounds.

Lethal force necessary.

[Iron Fist Sovereignty]

That's not the story, though. Someone had a very realistic gun and was causing a lot of trouble. The cop is justified.

Again, for the third time, the officer should have taken the fact that the kid was obviously under 15 into consideration, and he also shouldn't have shot-to-kill. Unnecessary force was used.

It wasn't unnecessary force. You shoot to kill, period. You're not going to shoot someone in the leg, shoulder, or arm because it won't stop the threat unless the person goes "I don't want to be shot again" and surrenders, which can't be counted on to stop a threat. The only reliable way to stop an attacker is to disable the central nervous system, which means killing them.

Lastly, it's not entirely uncommon for teenagers in some of the worse-off neighborhoods of larger cities to illegally carry firearms.

[Icrum]

You either shoot or you don't shoot at all, there is no "shooting to wound" as I understand it. That's why we have tasers and baton guns.

If I pulled that pistol on you and you had a, let's say, one second window to identify it, would you think it was real or not?

I'd rather die then shoot a child.

While I agree with this, that's only if it's me and the kid. If I can't identify if it's real or not, and my best friend's life is in jeopardy, that kid will be dealt with.

[Planita]

Full video of the shooting, for those interested.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ss ... hot_1.html

7:10 for the killing.

it was a quick one...

[Sinuessa en Valle]

> Kills a child
> Is justified
Yeah nahh

This brings up an interesting point, by the way. You say that killing a child is not justified. What about abortions? Secularists typically support that, after all. Where do we draw the line? A child in the womb is helpless and defenseless, but this 12 year old waving the gun around was neither helpless or defenseless, he was violent and hostile.

That being said, the 12 year old made a conscious choice to cause trouble and wave a gun around, and unfortunately paid his life as a consequence.

What about child soldiers in Africa? Aren't they a dangerous threat simply because they have a firearm? This boy had a guy, he probably took the orange tip off himself. It was risk after risk and they caught up to the poor kid. It's sad but, making him out to be some innocent child is very ignorant.

[Planita]

Which raises my question again, where did the officer shoot the boy, does anyone know? Because if there was a way of shooting that boy non-lethally, then I am concerned by the fact he did not.

The harsh truth -

A dead person can't harm anyone. A person just tazed may have the energy to pull off a few rounds.

Lethal force necessary.

people being shot can still reflex their fingers so no

[United States Kingdom]

> Kills a child
> Is justified
Yeah nahh

This brings up an interesting point, by the way. You say that killing a child is not justified. What about abortions? Secularists typically support that, after all. Where do we draw the line? A child in the womb is helpless and defenseless, but this 12 year old waving the gun around was neither helpless or defenseless, he was violent and hostile.

That being said, the 12 year old made a conscious choice to cause trouble and wave a gun around, and unfortunately paid his life as a consequence.

I'm a Christian, I have stated that I am against abortion(in some cases, not all), but you bringing in something that is not relevant to the topic makes me feel like I shouldn't even be one. I mean seriously, what the hell does a 12 year old kid have to do with giving birth to someone?

[Dalcaria]

Either way, they shot to kill that boy. His death would've been avoided if they chose to shoot elsewhere.

Do you honestly think they are so skilled with firearms that they could shoot it out if his hand? Otherwise, shooting anywhere else doesn't eliminate a threat, there is only a chance of the threat being diminished.

If I heard of a 12-year-old boy running around and causing trouble with a gun, I'd assume he wasn't mentally healthy. Therefore, chances cannot be taken.


Also, the officer didn't exactly have time to debate morals.

As I said and clearly some people missed it, where was he shot? Because a gut shot might have been non-fatal, and I don't think a 12 year old would have the strength to try and take a shot at anyone with an injury like that. So please, anyone got some answers on this?

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

Full video of the shooting, for those interested.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ss ... hot_1.html

7:10 for the killing.

How about no?

[The balkens]

Archie has a habit of threadjacking everything.

SECULARISM! SECULARISM IN THE CABINETS!! SECULARISM IN THE KITCHEN WITH DINAH!

[Planita]

This brings up an interesting point, by the way. You say that killing a child is not justified. What about abortions? Secularists typically support that, after all. Where do we draw the line? A child in the womb is helpless and defenseless, but this 12 year old waving the gun around was neither helpless or defenseless, he was violent and hostile.

That being said, the 12 year old made a conscious choice to cause trouble and wave a gun around, and unfortunately paid his life as a consequence.

I'm a Christian, I have stated that I am against abortion(in some cases, not all), but you bringing in something that is not relevant to the topic makes me feel like I shouldn't even be one. I mean seriously, what the hell does a 12 year old kid have to do with giving birth to someone?

its Archie, you are gonna have to get used to it.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Again, for the third time, the officer should have taken the fact that the kid was obviously under 15 into consideration, and he also shouldn't have shot-to-kill. Unnecessary force was used.

It wasn't unnecessary force. You shoot to kill, period. You're not going to shoot someone in the leg, shoulder, or arm because it won't stop the threat unless the person goes "I don't want to be shot again" and surrenders, which can't be counted on to stop a threat. The only reliable way to stop an attacker is to disable the central nervous system, which means killing them.

Lastly, it's not entirely uncommon for teenagers in some of the worse-off neighborhoods of larger cities to illegally carry firearms.

The city is open carry last I checked...

And yeah, you can shoot to not kill, sometime sit doesn't work but it can and thats what we call risk and some people take that risk.

This entire situation is unfortunate but until there are more details, lets not all pick a side...

Oh what am I saying, you're all gonna scratch at each other and at your own ideologies screaming till high noon.

[Fartsniffage]

Full video of the shooting, for those interested.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ss ... hot_1.html

7:10 for the killing.

How about no?

How about no what?

[Armstdern]

Full video of the shooting, for those interested.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ss ... hot_1.html

7:10 for the killing.

Yep. The killing wasn't justified, just watch that video. You know what I see? That kid literally was just walking over to the police car, because they probably called him over and BAM. They gunned him down.

[Trygg]

That being said, the 12 year old made a conscious choice to cause trouble and wave a gun around, and unfortunately paid his life as a consequence.

You expect this to be taken seriously?
Lets include that the gun was fake, we wouldn't want to leave critical information out or misinform anyone.

[United States Kingdom]

This brings up an interesting point, by the way. You say that killing a child is not justified. What about abortions? Secularists typically support that, after all. Where do we draw the line? A child in the womb is helpless and defenseless, but this 12 year old waving the gun around was neither helpless or defenseless, he was violent and hostile.

That being said, the 12 year old made a conscious choice to cause trouble and wave a gun around, and unfortunately paid his life as a consequence.

What about child soldiers in Africa? Aren't they a dangerous threat simply because they have a firearm? This boy had a guy, he probably took the orange tip off himself. It was risk after risk and they caught up to the poor kid. It's sad but, making him out to be some innocent child is very ignorant.

You do realize those child soldiers are often force to carry firearms right?

[Nickel Empire]

This is why the US needs to have better gun laws.

[Planita]

Full video of the shooting, for those interested.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ss ... hot_1.html

7:10 for the killing.

How about no?

its graphic but no blood or anything. security cameras don't really have the best video quality

[Dalcaria]

Which raises my question again, where did the officer shoot the boy, does anyone know? Because if there was a way of shooting that boy non-lethally, then I am concerned by the fact he did not.

The harsh truth -

A dead person can't harm anyone. A person just tazed may have the energy to pull off a few rounds.

Lethal force necessary.

And you know this from being shot in the gut? Gut shots are non-lethal and to my knowledge, I highly doubt a 12 year old is going to have the strength to "pull off a few rounds" when they're crumpling to the ground in pain. In the time it takes that boy to even think about recovering, the police could have been on him, cuffing him and removing the weapon. That's why cops are trained to shoot in non-lethal regions when and where possible.

[Mavorpen]

Full video of the shooting, for those interested.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ss ... hot_1.html

7:10 for the killing.

Oh, it was released already? Huh, didn't know that.

[Armstdern]

This is why the US needs to have better gun laws.

Nope, leave gun grabber.