Okay G, I'll opine a little further...
The boy appeared to be armed and any prudent person would take defensive measures under those circumstances. It is a natural fight or flight response and a person is not able to outrun a bullet... so fight it is. It takes less than a second to present, aim, and fire a sidearm; so, 2.5 seconds is a long time to wait during life or death decision making. At this point with known information I cannot automatically condemn the LEOs.
As far as the child's teachings... his location and actions demonstrate his lacking awareness of propriety and deference. To whom might those failings be attributed?
Human's do not learn via osmosis. We must be taught and those teachings must be constantly and consistently stressed during childhood and sometimes beyond.
The only other thing to add... I encourage those who have never been on the wrong end of any weapon to do a little soul searching in consideration of their own responses when death appears imminent. Many would like to think they'd perform differently but could survival instinct allow that difference ? Most do not and hopefully will never face a situation to know the answer to that question.
This is a tragedy for which all involved, parents and LE partcularly, will wish for a different outcome.
G'day G
Thom Paine
A prudent person would have driven up at a safer distance and assessed the situation instead of pulling up within five feet of a person with a gun.
Two seconds of assessment would have lead one to the realization that this was just a child, and given the opportunity to defuse the situation.
It's a ****ing open carry state. Do cops really just get to shoot everyone with a gun on them?
Disease of stup[id people doing stupid things. As much as it pains you to admit it, that 12 year old was INTENTIONALLY threatening people with what specifically purchased because it looked real so he could frighten people. Ask grandma. At the end of the day...the disease is stupid people doing stupid things. And because of people like you, its going to keep happening.You mean the "disease" of children playing with BB guns? Why didn't the officers provide first aid? Whose responsible for their actions after the shooting? The only "disease" I see here is an increasingly militarized and confrontational police force, and those like you willing to lie down and submit to it.
Disease of stup[id people doing stupid things. As much as it pains you to admit it, that 12 year old was INTENTIONALLY threatening people with what specifically purchased because it looked real so he could frighten people. Ask grandma. At the end of the day...the disease is stupid people doing stupid things. And because of people like you, its going to keep happening.
:lamoyou mean like the cop that stupidly shot the 12 year old, and then stupidly did not administer first aid?
Disease of stup[id people doing stupid things. As much as it pains you to admit it, that 12 year old was INTENTIONALLY threatening people with what specifically purchased because it looked real so he could frighten people. Ask grandma. At the end of the day...the disease is stupid people doing stupid things. And because of people like you, its going to keep happening.
No one was being threatened when the police arrived. The pellet gun was tucked away. The kid was moving nonchalantly, making no aggressive gestures. All the aggression, all the urgency, all the commotion, all the confusion is caused by the way the police storm the scene. Most likely, the kids was trying to display for the officers that it wasn't a real gun. Unlikely he intended to draw down on the cops with a pellet gun, although its moot, as the gun never left his pants.
How can you defend such rash actions by civil authority figures?
Message...dont do stupid ****. IF you have kids, teach them that message. If you wont, have someone that actually gives a **** about them teach that message.
The kid did nothing illegal or all that unusual. Only one crime takes place on that video, and it's not the kid who commits it.
Most likely, the kids was trying to display for the officers that it wasn't a real gun.
No one was being threatened when the police arrived. The pellet gun was tucked away. The kid was moving nonchalantly, making no aggressive gestures. All the aggression, all the urgency, all the commotion, all the confusion is caused by the way the police storm the scene. Most likely, the kids was trying to display for the officers that it wasn't a real gun. Unlikely he intended to draw down on the cops with a pellet gun, although its moot, as the gun never left his pants.
How can you defend such rash actions by civil authority figures?
You don't find it disturbing that the cops lied about what happened? The report said he was told to drop it 3 times. When did that happen?
And what about the guy who was shot in Walmart? Did he **** up too?
That's what it appears to me happened as well...but it still ****ing sucks for all involved.Police responded to a report of a man threatening people with a gun. When they arrive (a report of an individual threatening people with a gun implies a need for a sense of urgency) the individual with the gun walks towards them, raises his short and reaches for the gun. The police responded exactly how they should have.
Police responded to a report of a man threatening people with a gun. When they arrive (a report of an individual threatening people with a gun implies a need for a sense of urgency) the individual with the gun walks towards them, raises his short and reaches for the gun. The police responded exactly how they should have.
He probably feels like a good citizen. There was a guy walking around in a park pointing a gun at people and threatening him. He did what he was supposed to do. I hope he feels good about it.That's what it appears to me happened as well...but it still ****ing sucks for all involved.
I wonder how that guy who called 911 feels?
Why thats just horse****, son. WHat...you think police are going to respond to a call about a man threatening people with a gun nonchalantly? You are being embarrassingly ridiculous.Who was being threatened when the cops arrived? Your mythologizing of the police is blinding you to reality.
Why thats just horse****, son. WHat...you think police are going to respond to a call about a man threatening people with a gun nonchalantly? You are being embarrassingly ridiculous.
Yeah but he might also think "**** if I had realized the gun was fake that kid might still be alive".He probably feels like a good citizen. There was a guy walking around in a park pointing a gun at people and threatening him. He did what he was supposed to do. I hope he feels good about it.
I am not for a second saying it isnt a tragic situation. Just sayin...it is a situation that happens all too often and could be avoided by people not doing stupid things.
There is absolutely no way anyone looking at the gun from more than a few feet away could realize that. It is by design a replica MEANT to look real. Grandma even said his reason for buying it was to scare the people that were bullying him. I'll take her at her word that she didnt know HE was using it to bully others.Yeah but he might also think "**** if I had realized the gun was fake that kid might still be alive".
People are not always rational.
You obviously didnt listen to the audio. He assumed it was 'probably' not a real gun...he didnt KNOW it was a toy. If you say you can look at that gun and distinguish it from a real gun, you are a liar.Even the caller knew the gun was a toy. Why is a pedestrian have greater situational awareness than the police?
Even the caller knew the gun was a toy. Why is a pedestrian have greater situational awareness than the police?
Actually the caller didn't know, but more importantly, that information was not passed to the officers that the caller thought it might be a toy gun.
You obviously didnt listen to the audio. He assumed it was 'probably' not a real gun...he didnt KNOW it was a toy. If you say you can look at that gun and distinguish it from a real gun, you are a liar.
It demonstrates that the caller could at least partially distinguish between the two and saw it fit to warn the police -- could it be the caller was recommending not jumping to conclusions? It also demonstrates that the threat, such as it was, was not clear and direct. It's clear the caller read the situation much more accurately than the police did. The dispatcher and officers all displayed incompetence, and the cops showed a clear bias toward confrontation and violence. How can you not hold them responsible?
The caller could -- at least enough to mention it directly during his emergency call. Why didn't the dispatcher pass that along? Why couldn't the officers read the situation as well as a pedestrian could? Why did the officers not administer first aid after the shooting? Do you have answers to any of these questions?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?