NationStates

Oil exporting People wrote:

The Cobalt Sky wrote:He didn't. The police's argument to why they shot is that he reached for it. He never pointed it at the police.

So? He was reaching for it, and that's all the justification the officer needed. To suggest that officers wait for a firearm to actually be pointed at them instead of taking preventive action as the subjects are reaching for firearms or presumed firearms is an utterly ridiculous strategy.

If you saw the context of the post, you'd realize that I was telling them it was clear he never pointed the gun. You also seem to be under the assumption that the cops followed procedure, and said something to him in the short time they arrived. We have no idea they did this since there is no audio. And if you really think action was needed, then a taser would have been sufficient because he wasn't yet holding the gun (which they of course thought was real).

Oil exporting People wrote:

The Cobalt Sky wrote:He didn't. The police's argument to why they shot is that he reached for it. He never pointed it at the police.

So? He was reaching for it, and that's all the justification the officer needed. To suggest that officers wait for a firearm to actually be pointed at them instead of taking preventive action as the subjects are reaching for firearms or presumed firearms is an utterly ridiculous strategy.

Officers are not private citizens; they have an obligation towards everyone ahead of themselves, even if they must risk their own life to preserve one of a known criminal.

Krazakistan wrote:

Skinia wrote:I'm sure they have committed murder as often as grownups have that it's reasonable enough to arrest or shoot every kid with a toy gun out there.

Children commit murder more often than you think, actually. Plus, the "toy gun" in question did not even resemble a toy. It was an airsoft pistol, which was specifically made to be realistic, with the orange tip removed. Now, unless you are literally looking down the barrel and see the copper 6mm inner barrel that the BBs go through, then you will have an incredibly difficult time at seeing if it is an airsoft pistol or a real firearm. I refer to the images used in my first post:

No. That it should be very difficult to confuse them with actual firearms. An orange tip that can be removed is a token gesture to appease law makers.

And still he erred, for which he should be held to account. Counterfeit banknotes may resemble real ones, but similarity is not identity or legitimacy.

He may be excused for his actions, but they remain unjustified.

The Cobalt Sky wrote:If you saw the context of the post, you'd realize that I was telling them it was clear he never pointed the gun.

I did read the post, and specifically responded to what you say about the gun not being pointed.

You also seem to be under the assumption that the cops followed procedure, and said something to him in the short time they arrived. We have no idea they did this since there is no audio.

You seem to be under the assumption that officer clearly has to be in the wrong, and thus not following your own advice. Even without audio, we can clearly see the kid reached for something as the officer approached. At 12 years old, unless he was mentally impaired, he is old enough to know to never do that.

And if you really think action was needed, then a taser would have been sufficient because he wasn't yet holding the gun (which they of course thought was real).

No offense, but that's an extremely dumb suggestion and quite frankly suggests you are very naive about this subject matter. If you think someone is pulling what you believe to be a gun on yourself, you don't use a taser. That's going to get you killed. Even if the airsoft pistol hadn't been pointed at the officer, the mere fact he reached for it suggested to the officer he had lethal intentions. If this had been a situation where the kid actually had a firearm, a second's hesitation is all it would've taken for the local news media to be reporting on a dead officer on page five.

Condunum wrote:You can't tell if he's reaching for the weapon when he cops arrive. All you can see is that he moves slightly, falls, and then the cops rush in.

The responding officer had the suspects description, and then approached him. Upon being approached, the said suspect reached for an unknown object in a situation where the officer believed it could be a firearm after reportedly being told to show his hands. That's all the justification the officer needed.

I honestly do believe that the police should not respond with guns drawn

Except they didn't in this case, to the best of my memory.

because a) the likelihood of an officer being shot immediately entering an engagement are minimal

Please cite a source to back up this claim.

b) because immediately moving within 20 yards of someone who was reported as armed

They do have to try to use non-lethal force first, but the kid forced their hand when he reached for an unknown object (Probably the pistol). I find it ironic you just did a complete 180 with this line from the opening one in your post.

is absofuckinglutely against police protocol.

Again, please cite a source.

The kid had a gun that looked like the real thing. A police officer is not going to risk there life calmly walking up to a person that he thinks had a gun and is pointing at him. No they are going to shoot him before he shoots you. He did not know the gun was fake, the child was dumb to walk around with a gun that looks like the real thing. Then again, it is tragic for the family. But I think that if this kid was white no one would hear a peep.

Oil exporting People wrote:

Condunum wrote:Having a gun in your hand is not threatening lethal force, it's a gun in your hand. The officers jumped the gun on this one. Have you seen the video?

If you seriously think reaching for a gun as someone approaches you is not a threatening action, then I fear for your safety.

Oil exporting People wrote:

The Cobalt Sky wrote:If you saw the context of the post, you'd realize that I was telling them it was clear he never pointed the gun.

I did read the post, and specifically responded to what you say about the gun not being pointed.

You also seem to be under the assumption that the cops followed procedure, and said something to him in the short time they arrived. We have no idea they did this since there is no audio.

You seem to be under the assumption that officer clearly has to be in the wrong, and thus not following your own advice. Even without audio, we can clearly see the kid reached for something as the officer approached. At 12 years old, unless he was mentally impaired, he is old enough to know to never do that.

And if you really think action was needed, then a taser would have been sufficient because he wasn't yet holding the gun (which they of course thought was real).

No offense, but that's an extremely dumb suggestion and quite frankly suggests you are very naive about this subject matter. If you think someone is pulling what you believe to be a gun on yourself, you don't use a taser. That's going to get you killed. Even if the airsoft pistol hadn't been pointed at the officer, the mere fact he reached for it suggested to the officer he had lethal intentions. If this had been a situation where the kid actually had a firearm, a second's hesitation is all it would've taken for the local news media to be reporting on a dead officer on page five.

Condunum wrote:You can't tell if he's reaching for the weapon when he cops arrive. All you can see is that he moves slightly, falls, and then the cops rush in.

The responding officer had the suspects description, and then approached him. Upon being approached, the said suspect reached for an unknown object in a situation where the officer believed it could be a firearm after reportedly being told to show his hands. That's all the justification the officer needed.

I honestly do believe that the police should not respond with guns drawn

Except they didn't in this case, to the best of my memory.

because a) the likelihood of an officer being shot immediately entering an engagement are minimal

Please cite a source to back up this claim.

b) because immediately moving within 20 yards of someone who was reported as armed

They do have to try to use non-lethal force first, but the kid forced their hand when he reached for an unknown object (Probably the pistol). I find it ironic you just did a complete 180 with this line from the opening one in your post.

is absofuckinglutely against police protocol.

Again, please cite a source.

I belive, if the person change the subject in an argument, then the argument is not logical. That is called a "Red Herring Fallacy". So everything "Sky Cobalt" is saying is invalid.

The Cobalt Sky wrote:

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
By the time someone is pointing a gun at you it's too late. Cops should first yell out something like "drop the gun" before shooting so people can't just say they moved it because their skin itched or something. Then if the person moves the gun in any way that isn't basically dropping the gun then they get capped.

Assuming it's a short range encounter obviously, and that they have time to yell that out.

My point was that it's clear he never pointed it at the police when they arrived.

By the time someone is pointing a gun at you it's too late.

as in, once you're literally facing the business end of the gun it's too late

Condunum wrote:

Oil exporting People wrote:
If you seriously think reaching for a gun as someone approaches you is not a threatening action, then I fear for your safety.

You can't tell if he's reaching for the weapon when he cops arrive. All you can see is that he moves slightly, falls, and then the cops rush in.

I honestly do believe that the police should not respond with guns drawn, because a) the likelihood of an officer being shot immediately entering an engagement are minimal and b) because immediately moving within 20 yards of someone who was reported as armed is absofuckinglutely against police protocol.

There's nothing wrong with responding with guns drawn. Guns don't shoot themselves. All that keeping a gun holstered does is increase response time when it's needed.

Teaching better discipline, yes.

Themiclesia wrote:

Oil exporting People wrote:
So? He was reaching for it, and that's all the justification the officer needed. To suggest that officers wait for a firearm to actually be pointed at them instead of taking preventive action as the subjects are reaching for firearms or presumed firearms is an utterly ridiculous strategy.

Officers are not private citizens; they have an obligation towards everyone ahead of themselves, even if they must risk their own life to preserve one of a known criminal.

Law says otherwise. The police do not have the duty to protect citizens in general let alone that of "known criminals".

Also, you're starting from a wrong premise. The safety of the suspect should always be second to civilian and officer safety.

And still he erred, for which he should be held to account. Counterfeit banknotes may resemble real ones, but similarity is not identity or legitimacy.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:depends on what he did with the gun before being shot. which is unclear.

and no, contrary to what popular wisdom or armchair forensics and gun experts may tell you, there is no standard, reliable way for cops (or anyone for that matter, even with good knowledge/experience of/with firearms) of differentiating toy guns from real ones, especially not in extreme situations, and especially not with some more expensive/higher quality toys or airsoft "guns" that are available.

The only exception where there really are no ifs and buts about it is a clear gun where the internals are clearly visible.

Otherwise, bright colors or a orange barrel tip may indicate a toy gun. But then the problem that arises with always considering those to be toys is that any crook with half a brain can readily paint their barrel tips orange, just as someone can paint over or remove (assuming it's a decal) an orange tip of a toy gun.

For the record, the tip was removed or painted over in this case.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:Otherwise, bright colors or a orange barrel tip may indicate a toy gun. But then the problem that arises with always considering those to be toys is that any crook with half a brain can readily paint their barrel tips orange, just as someone can paint over or remove (assuming it's a decal) an orange tip of a toy gun.

I wonder if anyone's actually tried this?

Twilight Imperium wrote:

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:Otherwise, bright colors or a orange barrel tip may indicate a toy gun. But then the problem that arises with always considering those to be toys is that any crook with half a brain can readily paint their barrel tips orange, just as someone can paint over or remove (assuming it's a decal) an orange tip of a toy gun.

I wonder if anyone's actually tried this?

If they have they haven't made it to news, as far as I'm aware of.

Wasn't trying to imply that it is a common occurrence just that it's possible. Unlike what many keyboard-firearms-experts and armchair-forensics-specialists have claimed, whether outright or implicitly, in this and myriad other cases, there is NO reliable, let alone "surefire" way of determining whether a gun is fake or not, regardless of whether or not you're cop or firearms expert. A common line of thought is "you're a cop, you should've known and/or your training/knowledge is lacking because you don't know" (and also the obligatory "so now that you didn't know you're a murderer" but I digress) it just doesn't work that way.

There is nothing "obvious" about it, not in the least. Transparent toys are the ONLY that are obvious and for all practical means impossible to be real guns.

Going down in "obviousness" you then have brightly colored toys. Then low quality realistically colored toys. Then orange-tipped toys. Unlike above, this is not an absolutely reliable, surefire way. Plus, in extreme situations where seconds matter, cops will simply not want to take the risk or even fail to recognize a characteristic altogether (e.g. low-quality realistically colored toys) , and for good reason.

The final category, high quality and very high quality/replica/airsoft toys can be and often are virtually impossible to discern from real guns in normal situations, let alone extreme circumstances.

Twilight Imperium wrote:

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:Otherwise, bright colors or a orange barrel tip may indicate a toy gun. But then the problem that arises with always considering those to be toys is that any crook with half a brain can readily paint their barrel tips orange, just as someone can paint over or remove (assuming it's a decal) an orange tip of a toy gun.

I wonder if anyone's actually tried this?

Yes. I painted my musket orange.

But then I took an arrow to the knee.

Twilight Imperium wrote:

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:Otherwise, bright colors or a orange barrel tip may indicate a toy gun. But then the problem that arises with always considering those to be toys is that any crook with half a brain can readily paint their barrel tips orange, just as someone can paint over or remove (assuming it's a decal) an orange tip of a toy gun.

I wonder if anyone's actually tried this?

In Britain, RIFs ("Real Imitation Firearms") are airsoft weapons without any distinctive markings that look and feel realistic. In Britain, the UKARA (national licensing body to be allowed to own an RIF) states that if ever approached by the police while carrying your (covered) RIF that you should quietly explain that it is an RIF and to offer them to inspect it in a secluded place of their choosing.
It goes on to say that most officers will think it's pretty cool and mostly just want to look at it because of that than of perceived threat to public safety.

Though in the UK we do this so such weapons are not mistaken for live firearms.

UKARA specify "secluded place" for inspecting, for a good reason. I was told of a funny story from a local indoor airsoft arena a few years ago where a person came out of the Tesco store pretty much next to the arena and saw a dozen men in combat gear carrying ammunition and assault rifles. A police firearm unit responded and raided the arena.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:

Themiclesia wrote:Officers are not private citizens; they have an obligation towards everyone ahead of themselves, even if they must risk their own life to preserve one of a known criminal.

Law says otherwise. The police do not have the duty to protect citizens in general let alone that of "known criminals".

Also, you're starting from a wrong premise. The safety of the suspect should always be second to civilian and officer safety.

And still he erred, for which he should be held to account. Counterfeit banknotes may resemble real ones, but similarity is not identity or legitimacy.

[...]

For the record, the tip was removed or painted over in this case.

Which law? As far as I am concerned, the constitution of that country laid down that a person is not to have his life or limb deprived unless by due process of law; if he is to enforce any law, this is the first to be enforced.

What I say is exactly what policemen have signed up for; if they don't want to risk their own lives, they have only to resign, for they live in a free country. The fire brigade isn't free to refuse to enter a building because it's dangerous and potentially fatally so; doctors aren't permitted to turn out a patient because of the infectiousness of his disease; civil servants aren't allowed to turn down an application due to a resultant damage to personal profit.

Nor should a policeman be permitted to evade the moral standards of which the public expects of him. There are certain professions that must and indeed are held to higher standards in moral character than others. Employees of private enterprise have no loyalty to the public; public servants, being so named, do.

--

As for the point about the removed tip: it doesn't make it a real weapon. If there must be a person first to be injured in the scenario that it was a real weapon, that unfortunate soul must be the policeman; that is his moral duty. But in any event it was not a real weapon; the policeman isn't entitled to react as though it were a real weapon until there is proof that the weapon is real. The USA is already infamous for not finding any nuclear weapons in Iraq after having said that there were. There is clearly an issue regarding the validity of his judgment; his gross incompetence is revolting.

Themiclesia wrote:

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
Law says otherwise. The police do not have the duty to protect citizens in general let alone that of "known criminals".

Also, you're starting from a wrong premise. The safety of the suspect should always be second to civilian and officer safety.



[...]

For the record, the tip was removed or painted over in this case.

Which law? As far as I am concerned, the constitution of that country laid down that a person is not to have his life or limb deprived unless by due process of law; if he is to enforce any law, this is the first to be enforced.

What I say is exactly what policemen have signed up for; if they don't want to risk their own lives, they have only to resign, for they live in a free country. The fire brigade isn't free to refuse to enter a building because it's dangerous and potentially fatally so; doctors aren't permitted to turn out a patient because of the infectiousness of his disease; civil servants aren't allowed to turn down an application due to a resultant damage to personal profit.

Nor should a policeman be permitted to evade the moral standards of which the public expects of him. There are certain professions that must and indeed are held to higher standards in moral character than others. Employees of private enterprise have no loyalty to the public; public servants, being so named, do.

--

As for the point about the removed tip: it doesn't make it a real weapon. If there must be a person first to be injured in the scenario that it was a real weapon, that unfortunate soul must be the policeman; that is his moral duty. But in any event it was not a real weapon; the policeman isn't entitled to react as though it were a real weapon until there is proof that the weapon is real. The USA is already infamous for not finding any nuclear weapons in Iraq after having said that there were. There is clearly an issue regarding the validity of his judgment; his gross incompetence is revolting.

The police have the same right to self defense as anyone else. To demand that police do nothing to defend themselves until AFTER a potential gunman starts shooting will guarantee that nobody will sign up to be a police officer.

BTW, firefighters can and have evacuated/been pulled out of buildings because the building's structural damage makes it unsafe for them, and doctors are allowed to do what is necessary to protect themselves from disease and infection.

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Themiclesia wrote:
Which law? As far as I am concerned, the constitution of that country laid down that a person is not to have his life or limb deprived unless by due process of law; if he is to enforce any law, this is the first to be enforced.

What I say is exactly what policemen have signed up for; if they don't want to risk their own lives, they have only to resign, for they live in a free country. The fire brigade isn't free to refuse to enter a building because it's dangerous and potentially fatally so; doctors aren't permitted to turn out a patient because of the infectiousness of his disease; civil servants aren't allowed to turn down an application due to a resultant damage to personal profit.

Nor should a policeman be permitted to evade the moral standards of which the public expects of him. There are certain professions that must and indeed are held to higher standards in moral character than others. Employees of private enterprise have no loyalty to the public; public servants, being so named, do.

--

As for the point about the removed tip: it doesn't make it a real weapon. If there must be a person first to be injured in the scenario that it was a real weapon, that unfortunate soul must be the policeman; that is his moral duty. But in any event it was not a real weapon; the policeman isn't entitled to react as though it were a real weapon until there is proof that the weapon is real. The USA is already infamous for not finding any nuclear weapons in Iraq after having said that there were. There is clearly an issue regarding the validity of his judgment; his gross incompetence is revolting.

The police have the same right to self defense as anyone else. To demand that police do nothing to defend themselves until AFTER a potential gunman starts shooting will guarantee that nobody will sign up to be a police officer.

BTW, firefighters can and have evacuated/been pulled out of buildings because the building's structural damage makes it unsafe for them, and doctors are allowed to do what is necessary to protect themselves from disease and infection.

Not in a moral sense.

The policemen do indeed have a right to defend themselves as everyone else do; however, that right is secondary to his duty. If this logic extends to all people; soldiers can also refuse to engage because of the inherent danger of war. In this case, there was nothing from which he is defending himself; the gun was a replica without potential to cause injury.

Themiclesia wrote:

Gun Manufacturers wrote:
The police have the same right to self defense as anyone else. To demand that police do nothing to defend themselves until AFTER a potential gunman starts shooting will guarantee that nobody will sign up to be a police officer.

BTW, firefighters can and have evacuated/been pulled out of buildings because the building's structural damage makes it unsafe for them, and doctors are allowed to do what is necessary to protect themselves from disease and infection.

Not in a moral sense.

The policemen do indeed have a right to defend themselves as everyone else do; however, that right is secondary to his duty. If this logic extends to all people; soldiers can also refuse to engage because of the inherent danger of war. In this case, there was nothing from which he is defending himself; the gun was a replica without potential to cause injury.

If a police officer's right to self defense is secondary to anything else, then they don't have the same right to self defense as everyone else.

Yea the cops did nothing wrong here with the information they went in with.

Oil exporting People wrote:

The Cobalt Sky wrote:If you saw the context of the post, you'd realize that I was telling them it was clear he never pointed the gun.

I did read the post, and specifically responded to what you say about the gun not being pointed.

You also seem to be under the assumption that the cops followed procedure, and said something to him in the short time they arrived. We have no idea they did this since there is no audio.

You seem to be under the assumption that officer clearly has to be in the wrong, and thus not following your own advice. Even without audio, we can clearly see the kid reached for something as the officer approached. At 12 years old, unless he was mentally impaired, he is old enough to know to never do that.

Why is he suddenly old enough to know never to do that? You have an exact age that everyone is supposed to know better, no matter what? In general, children are taught to trust police, not fear them, and they are supposed to be people that can be gone to for help. Also, what advice? Nowhere did I say never make assumptions.

And if you really think action was needed, then a taser would have been sufficient because he wasn't yet holding the gun (which they of course thought was real).

No offense, but that's an extremely dumb suggestion and quite frankly suggests you are very naive about this subject matter. If you think someone is pulling what you believe to be a gun on yourself, you don't use a taser.

They don't know for certain he had a gun, or that he was even reaching for anything. It just looked like he reached for something.

That's going to get you killed. Even if the airsoft pistol hadn't been pointed at the officer, the mere fact he reached for it suggested to the officer he had lethal intentions.

Only if they gave him time to stand down, which they did not. If you watched the video, you'd see they killed him almost instantly after getting out of the car. In case you didn't, here are more.
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ss ... who_s.html
http://www.reuters.com/video/2014/11/26 ... =347648736

If this had been a situation where the kid actually had a firearm, a second's hesitation is all it would've taken for the local news media to be reporting on a dead officer on page five.

He wasn't an adult and saying that he was old enough to know better and therefore deserved to die is just cruel. He may have been terrified.

These also might help:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/0 ... stability#
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ss ... who_s.html

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:

The Cobalt Sky wrote:My point was that it's clear he never pointed it at the police when they arrived.

By the time someone is pointing a gun at you it's too late.

as in, once you're literally facing the business end of the gun it's too late

Oh. I thought you meant the child was already pointing it in this case. Sorry.

Ukrainian Cossacks wrote:The kid had a gun that looked like the real thing. A police officer is not going to risk there life calmly walking up to a person that he thinks had a gun and is pointing at him.

He wasn't pointing it. The also need to tell the person to stand down (which isn't likely that they did, given the short time span between when they got out and when he was shot).

He did not know the gun was fake, the child was dumb to walk around with a gun that looks like the real thing.

So he deserved to die. Wonderful. Also, dispatch should've relayed that, and he didn't have the gun out when they arrived.

But I think that if this kid was white no one would hear a peep.

There's evidence that the system unfairly targets people of color.
US racial makeup:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attach ... 1363523472
US prison system racial makeup:
http://static.ijreview.com/wp-content/u ... risons.jpg
Also:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/0 ... isis-time/

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Themiclesia wrote:Not in a moral sense.

The policemen do indeed have a right to defend themselves as everyone else do; however, that right is secondary to his duty. If this logic extends to all people; soldiers can also refuse to engage because of the inherent danger of war. In this case, there was nothing from which he is defending himself; the gun was a replica without potential to cause injury.

If a police officer's right to self defense is secondary to anything else, then they don't have the same right to self defense as everyone else.

Your "anything else" isn't the same as my "anything else".

Shoot first, assess the situation later?

Guess the Law Enforcement curriculum is different in some areas of America.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:words

Right on, then. I was just curious.

Imperializt Russia wrote:In Britain, RIFs ("Real Imitation Firearms") are airsoft weapons without any distinctive markings that look and feel realistic. In Britain, the UKARA (national licensing body to be allowed to own an RIF) states that if ever approached by the police while carrying your (covered) RIF that you should quietly explain that it is an RIF and to offer them to inspect it in a secluded place of their choosing.
It goes on to say that most officers will think it's pretty cool and mostly just want to look at it because of that than of perceived threat to public safety.

And this is pretty interesting.