Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, I get it, if someone with a replica firearm threatens the police they have no good choices and they need to and should defend themselves and the public, including shooting that person.
HOWEVER; so far as we know, the individual simply failed to respond. Failing to respond is not the same as threatening. The police ordered the individual to put down the gun (a replica but that doesn't matter, the police obviously did not know) and after a time, because the individual failed to respond, they shot him.
So far, there is no mention of the individual raising the firearm to threaten anyone and since the police where already there with weapons drawn (prudent and in line with protocol) the chances the individual could have pointed the firearm at them or someone else without being shot first is slim to none.
As it turns out it was a kid holding a replica gun. That means little since the police have no way of knowing if a gun is real or not, especially from any distance. Hopefully, the police will clarify and we'll find that the individual pointed the gun in their direction or in the direction of others. Otherwise; this will be yet another example of shoot first and ask questions later.
For the nuts: at least read the entire post before jumping in with both feet about how the police were justified by shooting first and asking questions later, you'll be made to look foolish.
Police have become way to paramilitary. This isn't a combat zone! This type of Police training forgets that common sense should very much part of the job!
If a person walks around with a gun - fake or real - and the police show up - expect to be shot.
Don't blame the police. Blame the moron with the gun.
No, Not necessary but in this day-and-age, unfortunately almost inevitable. Anymore, most "fake" guns have bright orange muzzles to differentiate them from real guns but not all former fake guns have disappeared and/or some modify them to get rid of the tell-tale orange.
While failure to respond can obviously be hazardous to your health and isn't recommended, it's not automatically of itself justification to shoot. However, if several demands are uttered and totally ignored, all bets are usually off. The police are not going to approach or rush someone who appears to have an assault weapon regardless of age (which they don't usually waste time to ask under the circumstances), especially as their vests won't stop most rifle rounds, nor are they simply going to let the individual go on their merry way while being armed and ignoring them.
As with all such cases, the police/authority-haters have leapt to conclusions and more will likely come out of the woodwork to add their bile. But the real truth is, this is simply one account of what occurred and none of us were there so we don't know. That's why I addressed this in general terms.
For all anyone knows the child could be deaf or mentally ill. Perhaps he spoke no English. Were any of those true? We don't know? Did he ever turn toward or make eye contact with the deputies. We don't know. Did the deputies speak to him in Spanish? We don't know. Did he see the deputies pointing pistols at him and ignore them? We don't know.
In other words, so much is unknown on the basis of this one, short article than none but the most unsophisticated or rabidly biased would leap to conclusions.
No, Not necessary but in this day-and-age, unfortunately almost inevitable. Anymore, most "fake" guns have bright orange muzzles to differentiate them from real guns but not all former fake guns have disappeared and/or some modify them to get rid of the tell-tale orange.
While failure to respond can obviously be hazardous to your health and isn't recommended, it's not automatically of itself justification to shoot. However, if several demands are uttered and totally ignored, all bets are usually off. The police are not going to approach or rush someone who appears to have an assault weapon regardless of age (which they don't usually waste time to ask under the circumstances), especially as their vests won't stop most rifle rounds, nor are they simply going to let the individual go on their merry way while being armed and ignoring them.
As with all such cases, the police/authority-haters have leapt to conclusions and more will likely come out of the woodwork to add their bile. But the real truth is, this is simply one account of what occurred and none of us were there so we don't know. That's why I addressed this in general terms.
For all anyone knows the child could be deaf or mentally ill. Perhaps he spoke no English. Were any of those true? We don't know? Did he ever turn toward or make eye contact with the deputies. We don't know. Did the deputies speak to him in Spanish? We don't know. Did he see the deputies pointing pistols at him and ignore them? We don't know.
In other words, so much is unknown on the basis of this one, short article than none but the most unsophisticated or rabidly biased would leap to conclusions.
It seems such shootings are far to common these days. Like the man who called the police, than went outside to give them directions and was shot and killed by the police he summoned. Yes, the man was unarmed.
We are cultivating a different type of police force these days where the shoot first and ask questions later is the norm.
Since when are all bets off because one doesn't respond to police orders? Now that is the only justification needed to take a life? The police have at their disposal the power to take life. Surely taking a life requires more than someone not obeying their orders. Surely there must be an imminent threat to the life or safety of a human being (theirs or anyone elses).
The reason this topic comes up is not because it is a single incident but because it is not and is becoming common.
What we do know is that the individual was faced away from the police and ignored their orders to put the weapon down. Then he turned around and was immediately shot. Here is also something known from most incidents like this, had the individual pointed the rifle in the direction of the police, that would have made the news immediately. If the details of the individual not obeying orders to drop the rifle and that he turned around to face the police were made public, somehow whether or not the individual pointed the rifle at the police was not make public? That is very hard to believe. That information wasn't released for one reason, it would cause some additional controversy.
No PD would release the information they did thus far and then not also state if the individual pointed the rifle at the police, unless perhaps it didn't happen. Everyone knew right then and there what happened, it was not a chase, then altercation, then multiple suspects and shots fired type of call. It was the individual and two police officers and the sequence of events were not complex.
Like I said, were this not starting to be so common, it wouldn't even come up. Yes, the cop haters always come out but I am anything but that and about as far removed from that as you can get. Yet even I am seeing a pattern of behavior that is highly questionable. We are headed to a point where it is the police that are to be feared, more so than whomever else is walking the streets.
If you think the police are fearful and are behaving out of that fear, imagine the person in such a city that gets stopped for a burnt out tail light and what they are thinking.
Seeing a police officer on the street shouldn't be cause for alarm but more and more it is starting to be.
Add that recently of national news was the beating of a person in NYC by the police no less. The more this goes on the less people are willing to listen to what the police say. Trust is earned, not awarded because one wears a police uniform.
Has anyone seen the new radar units? They are hand held and in order to use them the police officer stands as if holding a sidearm and points it in your direction. Of course we all like to think that is exactly what their doing, checking speed but if you stood along side the road and did the same thing with nothing in your hands? Sure, they wear a uniform but then as shootings by the police wherein the circumstances are questionable become common, expect people to start reacting differently. It is a two way street.
Police officers are not above the law and must obey all laws, the same as everyone else. They enjoy no special privilege to violate laws of any kind unless the circumstances are dire and in so doing they are protecting themselves or others.
Once a population begins to change in its attitudes toward the police, it is very difficult to turn that tide. When suspicion and fear of the police take hold beyond radicals and such ilk, and the common person no longer trusts the police, attitudes turn into action and those actions are not in anyone's best interests.
Okay, I get it, if someone with a replica firearm threatens the police they have no good choices and they need to and should defend themselves and the public, including shooting that person.
HOWEVER; so far as we know, the individual simply failed to respond. Failing to respond is not the same as threatening. The police ordered the individual to put down the gun (a replica but that doesn't matter, the police obviously did not know) and after a time, because the individual failed to respond, they shot him.
So far, there is no mention of the individual raising the firearm to threaten anyone and since the police where already there with weapons drawn (prudent and in line with protocol) the chances the individual could have pointed the firearm at them or someone else without being shot first is slim to none.
As it turns out it was a kid holding a replica gun. That means little since the police have no way of knowing if a gun is real or not, especially from any distance. Hopefully, the police will clarify and we'll find that the individual pointed the gun in their direction or in the direction of others. Otherwise; this will be yet another example of shoot first and ask questions later.
For the nuts: at least read the entire post before jumping in with both feet about how the police were justified by shooting first and asking questions later, you'll be made to look foolish.
From the article you posted the link to, it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell whether or not the cops were justified; however, your tone suggests that the cops were in the wrong. Maybe you should wait for more details before "jumping in".
From the article you posted the link to, it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell whether or not the cops were justified; however, your tone suggests that the cops were in the wrong. Maybe you should wait for more details before "jumping in".
Someone mentioned in this day and age... yep, in this day and age, the jumping in with very little details is the way to go. The media leads the way. What they report is so often not even close to what happened, but, they got it on the air FIRST! That's what's important... being first.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Was this really necessary?
