Boy Shot Dead by Police for Holding Toy Gun

[Johnnypenso]

The PC Police...errrrr FBI are now involved and they'll do their best tol find someone to blame...errrrr...find out what happened...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/2...oting-california-13-year-old-with-pellet-gun/

 

[Lock2Lock]

The PC Police...errrrr FBI are now involved and they'll do their best tol find someone to blame...errrrr...find out what happened...

Isn't it simple? And I hate to sound harsh.

The kid had a illegal modified pellet gun, he was told by the police to drop it and didn't, so the ending result was deadly force.


@ the people saying "they could have tazed him or shot him in the leg".

If you ever take a police procedure class (which you can do when you get your CPL), you will understand why the police did what they did. You as a officer will use non-lethal force when you are met with non-lethal force. When you are met with lethal force, the choice is lethal force.

Sure this is a tragedy for the family of the kid, but there is honestly no one to blame except for the kid that couldn't do something simple as what his parents have been probably telling him to do throughout his whole life (hint hint to listen).


Honestly, I and many others probably would agree... The same people that complain about the deadly force that was used, are probably the same people who would get upset if they shot him in the leg/tazed him, then the kid (while in pain/constricted muscles) pulls the trigger and shoots someone else.


I am sorry to sound harsh again, but this is the price you pay for not listening.

Hopefully the parents can get through their loss.

 

[Keef]

And a police officer was supposed to know the difference in the split second that all that happened?

No. But he's supposed to investigate and figure it out before he goes shooting people. Going on a rampage because you don't know what is in a person's hand is the worst thing you could do.

I think the cop should be fired and never allowed to be a government employee again, if not jailed for something along the lines of manslaughter.

 

[Lock2Lock]

No. But he's supposed to investigate and figure it out before he goes shooting people. Going on a rampage because you don't know what is in a person's hand is the worst thing you could do.

I think the cop should be fired and never allowed to be a government employee again, if not jailed for something along the lines of manslaughter.

How could that be when the kid was holding a illegally modified pellet gun?

He did exactly what he should have done. Read my post above.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Isn't it simple? And I hate to sound harsh.

The kid had a illegal modified pellet gun, he was told by the police to drop it and didn't, so the ending result was deadly force.

@ the people saying "they could have tazed him or shot him in the leg".

If you ever take a police procedure class (which you can do when you get your CPL), you will understand why the police did what they did. You as a officer will use non-lethal force when you are met with non-lethal force. When you are met with lethal force, the choice is lethal force.

Sure this is a tragedy for the family of the kid, but there is honestly no one to blame except for the kid that couldn't do something simple as what his parents have been probably telling him to do throughout his whole life (hint hint to listen).

Honestly, I and many others probably would agree... The same people that complain about the deadly force that was used, are probably the same people who would get upset if they shot him in the leg/tazed him, then the kid (while in pain/constricted muscles) pulls the trigger and shoots someone else.

I am sorry to sound harsh again, but this is the price you pay for not listening.

Hopefully the parents can get through their loss.

I agree so long as the fact support the outcome. And although I was mocking in my above post, of course these things need to be investigated thoroughly and that is standard procedure. If the kid was carrying the weapon, was warned and then turned with the gun pointing in the general direction of the officers, then yeah, justified shooting. Sometimes though, we find out that's not exactly how it went down.

Remember also, some segments of the population are just not happy unless a scapegoat is brought forward to be "wrong" about this, because they believe there is no possible scenario where a cop could justifiably shoot a kid with a realistic looking but fake weapon in his hand.

 

[Lock2Lock]

I agree so long as the fact support the outcome. And although I was mocking in my above post, of course these things need to be investigated thoroughly and that is standard procedure. If the kid was carrying the weapon, was warned and then turned with the gun pointing in the general direction of the officers, then yeah, justified shooting. Sometimes though, we find out that's not exactly how it went down.

Remember also, some segments of the population are just not happy unless a scapegoat is brought forward to be "wrong" about this, because they believe there is no possible scenario where a cop could justifiably shoot a kid with a realistic looking but fake weapon in his hand.

I know you were mocking, I was just commenting on the subject of someone having to take the blame, when sometimes it is the obvious.

Yeah it has to be investigated regardless, but hopefully it doesn't end up in a scapegoat opportunity.

 

[Imari]

No. But he's supposed to investigate and figure it out before he goes shooting people. Going on a rampage because you don't know what is in a person's hand is the worst thing you could do.

I think the cop should be fired and never allowed to be a government employee again, if not jailed for something along the lines of manslaughter.

The problem is how does one investigate in that situation? The kid refuses to put down his "weapon". The only way you're going to find out if it's real or not is when he pulls the trigger.

Are you only allowed to fire upon someone with what appears to be an assault weapon once they've fired first? Someone with a real AK intent on using it isn't going to let you walk up and examine it closely. You're going to get shot.

I think there's a reasonable level of investigation. The kid holds what appears to be a weapon. He's instructed to put it down, and refuses. Worst case scenario is that it's real and he's refusing to put it down because he intends to use it, which is not out of the question with the levels of school shootings America has.

Anything less than lethal force potentially gets the police officer and a bunch of other people shot. Even if the policeman ends up in jail, I'd say he still made the right call.

Gun not real + non-lethal force = kid gets arrested.
Gun real + non-lethal force = police officer + unknown number of intended targets die.

Gun not real + lethal force = kid dies.
Gun real + lethal force = kid dies.

Do you stake your life and that of others that a kid wouldn't be stupid enough to carry an assault weapon? There's ample evidence that there are kids stupid enough, and while they're rare they're not really that rare. I sure as hell wouldn't stake my life on it, the onus is on the kid to not make himself a potential threat to someone who is armed.

It's sad that the kid died, but in my opinion he may as well have shot himself. He made all the decisions, the police officer merely happened to be holding the gun that fired the shot.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The problem is how does one investigate in that situation? The kid refuses to put down his "weapon". The only way you're going to find out if it's real or not is when he pulls the trigger.

Are you only allowed to fire upon someone with what appears to be an assault weapon once they've fired first? Someone with a real AK intent on using it isn't going to let you walk up and examine it closely. You're going to get shot.

I think there's a reasonable level of investigation. The kid holds what appears to be a weapon. He's instructed to put it down, and refuses. Worst case scenario is that it's real and he's refusing to put it down because he intends to use it, which is not out of the question with the levels of school shootings America has.

Anything less than lethal force potentially gets the police officer and a bunch of other people shot. Even if the policeman ends up in jail, I'd say he still made the right call.

Gun not real + non-lethal force = kid gets arrested.
Gun real + non-lethal force = police officer + unknown number of intended targets die.

Gun not real + lethal force = kid dies.
Gun real + lethal force = kid dies.

Do you stake your life and that of others that a kid wouldn't be stupid enough to carry an assault weapon? There's ample evidence that there are kids stupid enough, and while they're rare they're not really that rare. I sure as hell wouldn't stake my life on it, the onus is on the kid to not make himself a potential threat to someone who is armed.

It's sad that the kid died, but in my opinion he may as well have shot himself. He made all the decisions, the police officer merely happened to be holding the gun that fired the shot.

What if the kid was shot in the back? What if the splatter pattern indicates he was running away? What if his weapon was found 20 feet away? What if he was holding it by the barrel instead of the proper way around? What if it turns out the kid got shot multiple times but there is no blood splatter on the gun?

I have no idea what might come out in an investigation and neither does anyone else. Assuming it went down exactly the way it's been reported in the media is a massive assumption.

 

[Rage Racer]

Aren't real-looking toy guns banned in the States?
I think they should be.

 

[BobK]

The kid had a illegal modified pellet gun, he was told by the police to drop it and didn't, so the ending result was deadly force.

What makes you think it was illegally modified? True, in some localities they have to be sold with an orange band on them or some such, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal to remove it or paint it over.

Also, the timeline of events leads me to think something along these lines may have happened:

"Dropitdropit"bangbangbangbangbangbangbangbang "Dispatcher? Shots have been fired."

Did the kid refuse to drop it, or was he simply not given sufficient time to do so? Did he raise the gun towards the cops, or was he just turning to see who was shouting at him?

No. But he's supposed to investigate and figure it out before he goes shooting people. Going on a rampage because you don't know what is in a person's hand is the worst thing you could do.

I think the cop should be fired and never allowed to be a government employee again, if not jailed for something along the lines of manslaughter.

I think we should wait until we have some more facts instead of jumping to conclusions like this.

How could that be when the kid was holding a illegally modified pellet gun?

Again: illegally modified?

What if the kid was shot in the back? What if the splatter pattern indicates he was running away? What if his weapon was found 20 feet away? What if he was holding it by the barrel instead of the proper way around? What if it turns out the kid got shot multiple times but there is no blood splatter on the gun?

These are excellent questions that need to be answered before we can come to any conclusion.

I have no idea what might come out in an investigation and neither does anyone else. Assuming it went down exactly the way it's been reported in the media is a massive assumption.

Quite so. We don't know what happened yet, and shouldn't be making assumptions. I'm hoping we get an honest investigation, but I have fears we'll get a witchhunt, or a whitewash, or both (from separate investigating bodies).

 

[Imari]

I have no idea what might come out in an investigation and neither does anyone else. Assuming it went down exactly the way it's been reported in the media is a massive assumption.

Of course it is. Like anyone else, we work with the information we have.

When new information comes to light I reserve the right, like anyone, to revise my opinion. But with the information as presented to me, see previous post.

This is a discussion forum, not a court of law. We discuss based on the facts at hand. If we were to wait for all the investigation to finish before we discussed anything, it'd be mighty boring.

 

[Lock2Lock]

@BobK

I am not sure if it is illegal or not to paint those orange tips, I was trying to make the point that the kid obviously wanted it to look like a real gun. Which seemed to had done just that by fooling the police.

 

[Dotini]

Whether it's adults and cops shooting children, or children shooting and knifing adults, the point is that children are increasingly involved in violence. Or maybe it's always been this way, and what we are really seeing is merely better reporting. But if it's only one or two dead, the media will swiftly move on to bigger and better events.

 

[nk4e]

Aren't real-looking toy guns banned in the States?
I think they should be.

They tend to have orange tips in order to tell the difference.

 

[Keef]

How could that be when the kid was holding a illegally modified pellet gun?

He did exactly what he should have done. Read my post above.

The problem is how does one investigate in that situation? The kid refuses to put down his "weapon". The only way you're going to find out if it's real or not is when he pulls the trigger.

Grown man, real gun, and yet nobody lost their lives.

Cops in the US rely on deadly force far too often these days. Never before have their been so many cases of police killing innocent or nonthreatening people as in the last couple years, and I don't think it's simply because the internet exists...it has existed for a long time. I think it's becoming a very serious problem.

 

[Imari]

Grown man, real gun, and yet nobody lost their lives.

Cops in the US rely on deadly force far too often these days. Never before have their been so many cases of police killing innocent or nonthreatening people as in the last couple years, and I don't think it's simply because the internet exists...it has existed for a long time. I think it's becoming a very serious problem.

Yep. Because there's no difference between someone sitting in a garden chair pointing a pistol at themselves, and someone with an assault rifle pointing it at the police.

 

[Scaff]

Yep. Because there's no difference between someone sitting in a garden chair pointing a pistol at themselves, and someone with an assault rifle pointing it at the police.

Or between using a sniper rifle from a static position and using a handgun while on foot.

 

[Lock2Lock]

Grown man, real gun, and yet nobody lost their lives.

Cops in the US rely on deadly force far too often these days. Never before have their been so many cases of police killing innocent or nonthreatening people as in the last couple years, and I don't think it's simply because the internet exists...it has existed for a long time. I think it's becoming a very serious problem.

Ok thats understandable to that certain situation.

Probably in the case with the sniper, it was in a very controlled situation. They probably had a negotiator to
stall that particular situation with compliance with the individual involved.

However, that can't always happen. Like in this case with this kid.

I highly disagree with your statement about the police being so quick to use deadly force. That is a very bias statement to make.

Like others and probably every officer will tell you...

Use of deadly force is used when met with deadly force.
Non-lethal force is used when not met with deadly force.

It is common sense. Just like the old saying "Dont bring a knife to a gun fight".

I honestly think if a different scenario such as...

The officers were to shoot him in the leg or taze him, as a result he fired the gun and shot someone that the police would get questioned and blamed for that happening too.

Thars a risk that they cannot take. Sure no one including them are in any way happy to take a kid's or anyone's life for that matter. It was the best cause of action to limit the amount of casualties. If you can't understand that or couldn't do it if it came down to a situation like this, I hope you never become a police officer.

Not trying to say this to make you mad in any way, second guessing like that or not acting can get you or someone else killed.


You have to look at it from their perspective. Thinking the gun is fake or real, and when and if the trigger is pulled and it does happen to be real, by then it is too late. Take a look at the big picture, look at all of the possible outcomes, then decide if it is worth a life to not act in the way they did.

 

[Jay.]

You have to look at it from their perspective. Thinking the gun is fake or real, and when and if the trigger is pulled and it does happen to be real, by then it is too late. Take a look at the big picture, look at all of the possible outcomes, then decide if it is worth a life to not act in the way they did.

+1

If the cops had not fired, they would still be blamed for not acting responsibly by letting an innocent bystander get shot by a thirteen year old boy. They were doing their job the way they were trained to.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Grown man, real gun, and yet nobody lost their lives.

Cops in the US rely on deadly force far too often these days. Never before have their been so many cases of police killing innocent or nonthreatening people as in the last couple years, and I don't think it's simply because the internet exists...it has existed for a long time. I think it's becoming a very serious problem.

Guaranteed if he wasn't pointing it at his own head, but at the cops, they told him to drop it and he didn't, he'd be dead. Or if someone wandered by and he pointed it at that person, same thing, he'd be pushing up daisies.

 

[Keef]

I will never be a police officer for the same reason I'll never join the military or work for any government position. Because the bosses encourage their employees to do things that are unnecessary and even defy the purpose of the office. Not often do I see government employees who are passionate about serving the public. Most of them are in it for the pay and benefits.

 

[BobK]

Most of them are in it for the pay and benefits.

That's true of just about any career field, actually, not just government "service".

 

[Keef]

But the principles which govern the operation of a private business and a government are drastically different. Walmart has no authority over you - conversely, a government has as much authority over you as they want because the only tool they have to justify their own existence is force.

 

[BobK]

Maybe so, but what does that have to do with motivation for choosing that career field?

 

[disinfected]

I will never be a police officer for the same reason I'll never join the military or work for any government position. Because the bosses encourage their employees to do things that are unnecessary and even defy the purpose of the office. Not often do I see government employees who are passionate about serving the public. Most of them are in it for the pay and benefits.

Normally, I agree with a lot of what you say, but as someone who served in the military myself, this is the biggest load of crap that I've ever read--for lack of better words.

I can't even start to explain how far from the truth that really is.

By the way, anyone read about what has been unfolding today?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/0...l-at-los-angeles-international-airport-after/

 

[Pupik]

I will never be a police officer for the same reason I'll never join the military or work for any government position.

No, it's because you have a lack of respect for authority. And at times, so do I.

We all wind up in jobs that ask stupid, boring, meaningless, poorly-planned, and/or dumb tasks out of us, sometimes beyond the job description. It's called responsibility; the difference is that most up us have to just work a few extra hours or deal with some sort of inconvenience. But there's others that have to deal with matters of life and death, or ne concerned with their own self-preservation and the safety of the public.

I don't think this has much to do with the situation at Los Angeles International Airport, though. That was someone who had a real weapon and arrived for the sole purpose of killing TSA agents; he wasn't playing around.

(Geez, I've been through LAX's Terminal 3 and had lunch at that same Burger King. )

 

[QuattroDelta]

This wouldn't happened if in the U.S. buying a gun would not like buying a loaf of bread.

 

[Famine]

Turns out that it isn't, but it still happened. Not that any purchased real guns were involved...

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

This wouldn't happened if in the U.S. buying a gun would not like buying a loaf of bread.

Might wanna read the tread before you place trite that you think is "poetic" sense. The reason is because you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Keef]

This wouldn't happened if in the U.S. buying a gun would not like buying a loaf of bread.

Despite this story not being about real guns anyway, most guns involved in crimes in the US were not simply purchased at a store by the criminal. They've either been stolen or modified and sold on the black market and are untraceable. Criminals don't buy guns because they don't follow rules - that's why they're criminals.