Growled Member Posted October 25, 2013 Member Share Posted October 25, 2013 Yeah it's really easy to just assume cops in America are just all blood thirsty killers. I'm not sure when exactly this event took place but it's probably to early to know all the details. My thoughts too, we don't know all the details. I don't want to take either side until I know more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riahc3 Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Hello, I completely agree. If you do not comply with a official police officer's orders, you a a threat to him and those he protects. He has the obligation to eliminate the thread. Not only did he not comply, he also rose the gun above. Also what DocM mentioned: Where is the plastic red tip that shows it is a toy gun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimeMaster Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Shooting to wound a limb? Cops and civilian carriers are specifically trained NOT to do that. Why? Low percentage shot, successful only 10-15% of the time. Meanwhile, if he has a real gun he's shooting back and not aiming for your leg but to kill. The other problem is what happens to the bullet the other 85-90% of the time? It flies into the background perhaps to hit a bystander, go through a building and hit an occupant, or ricochet and go god knows where. Next theory? (And remember you're talking to someone who's licensed to carry and has been in a firefight) Firstly, even if they are not trained to do that. I don't think they would have trouble aiming it for. Secondly, the boy never shot, so the cops did have enough time to do this. Thirdly, the cops should know how to aim a gun properly, so this shouldn't be an issue. ashpowell 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Firstly, even if they are not trained to do that. I don't think they would have trouble aiming it for. Secondly, the boy never shot, so the cops did have enough time to do this. Thirdly, the cops should know how to aim a gun properly, so this shouldn't be an issue. If they act outside their training they can be disciplined, and rightly so. The rules of engagement have been come up with the hard way - by learning from past mistakes. Mistakes cause dead cops and bystanders.If you wait for the perp to fire you risk you, your partners or a civilian being hurt or killed because you gave him a freebie. Accuracy has many variables, and two are stress and adrenaline. In a real firefight accuracy is the first casualty, so you go for the most certain shot: center of mass (body trunk, head.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacer Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Ahh so they have the right to kill him, it's completely okay that they shot a 13 year old boy dead because he had a toy gun.. What a complete idiot. They could have gone about it a million and one other ways, tasing him or even one shot to somewhere that isn't lethal, nevermind both opening fire on him for not listening to them when they asked him to drop his toy. No I'm not an idiot, but thanks for reading my entire post. I was going to try an explain it again for you, but Doc's post says it as well as I would have. If the attached image is of his gun I can see why they fired - the mandatory red plastic barrel extension is missing. Without it these toys, which usually fire harmless 6mm AirSoft plastic spheres, can look real at a distance. Many are even made of real metal and wood. If he wasn't cooperating, even if by freezing up from surprise, the cops have no idea of his intentions. Ex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimeMaster Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 I guess I just think killing is wrong because I was brought up in a country were guns and killing someone through self defense is illegal. The sad thing is, it seems like some people are glad that the boy is dead just because they believe there was no better solutions to the problem. Now I'm no expert with these types or scenarios as proven above, but I'm still certain that there was a better way of dealing with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyLH Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Really, guess it depends on the area, but I still think they should have taken a different approach as he was only 13. They should know that 13 year old boys are stubborn. I'm pretty sure procedure doesn't change throughout the UK and its a standard mechanism. The situation doesn't change with age, if a 13 year hold is holding what is to be perceived as an armed live rifle which is being aimed and it isn't dropped, they could easily open fire on the people trying to disarm them. Just really unfortunate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 I guess I just think killing is wrong because I was brought up in a country were guns and killing someone through self defense is illegal. The sad thing is it seems like some people are glad that the boy is dead just because they believe there was no better solutions to the problem. No one is "glad" he's dead, it's a tragedy. As I said upthread, in rapidly evolving situations there are often no good options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashpowell Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 So the cop that went to work that morning for $13 an hour should just take a chance and assume the gun that looks totally real and has no orange tip, because it was clearly modified. so they should risk their lives because of the actions of another person. You are WRONG on so many levels it's not even funny. You don't shoot someone unless you want it to be lethal, and tasers only work at short distances and LE versions only last for 15 seconds, then you have to hit them again. LE training teaches you force on force, or else your doing it wrong. You don't take a knife to a gun fight. And the officers have no way of knowing if that gun is real or not untl they can get their hands on it in a case like this where it was modified from it's original condition. The comment quoted above is a PERFECT example of someone commenting on a topic that they really have NO education/experience with. So because the cop is on $13 an hour should make a difference or not to whether he decides if a boy lives or dies? I'm wrong in your opinion. In your opinion you don't shoot someone unless you want it to be lethal, if it was me, I'd take the shot to try and dissarm the kid. "LE Training teaches force on force, or else you're doing it wrong" Where was the force from the kid with his toy gun? "You don't take a knife to a gun fight" - It wasn't a gun fight, it was a 13 year old boy with a toy gun. Better take the toy guns off kids - Cops only get paid $13 an hour so they can't take the risk if they're real or not and will shoot to kill them. How you don't see that's wrong is beyond me. That's just how I see things. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on a matter. I can see both sides of the situation, but If I was the cop I would have made a different choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arachno 1D Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Ok lets start with trying to wound someone Where does the bullet go once it leaves that person as this is not the movies, not many bullets stay in the body especially limb shots? Under pressure it is difficult to hit a limb hence a body shot and it still leaves the person able to fire back so why increase the risk? How many other bystanders/innocent people may be hit by these flying bullets fired at the offenders limbs? Bullets travel quite far even off a ricochet and can still cause injury to others so why risk injury to others? They can and do go through thin walled houses and vehicle bodies despite movies showing otherwise,so again why risk injuring other innocents? Clear verbal warnings were given so ,would you approach an unknown person see article I indicated before in which the officer testifies he did not know it was a youth, with a lethal weapon in their hands and ask them to put it down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trag3dy Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 So because the cop is on $13 an hour should make a difference or not to whether he decides if a boy lives or dies? I'm wrong in your opinion. In your opinion you don't shoot someone unless you want it to be lethal, if it was me, I'd take the shot to try and dissarm the kid. "LE Training teaches force on force, or else you're doing it wrong" Where was the force from the kid with his toy gun? "You don't take a knife to a gun fight" - It wasn't a gun fight, it was a 13 year old boy with a toy gun. Better take the toy guns off kids - Cops only get paid $13 an hour so they can't take the risk if they're real or not and will shoot to kill them. How you don't see that's wrong is beyond me. That's just how I see things. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on a matter. I can see both sides of the situation, but If I was the cop I would have made a different choice. So they should wait until he's firing his gun (real or fake) before they decide to act? At which point, with a full automatic weapon he could have killed quite a few people? Cops have to consider collateral damage and that is something you are not taking into consideration. Keep in mind that they don't know his gun is fake. ashpowell 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashpowell Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 I'm not saying they should have waited to see if he killed people or not, but I think the fact they don't know if it's real or fake should also be the reason they don't shoot to kill right away.. Something should be done to be able to disarm people without killing them, it would avoid errors like this LimeMaster 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 You're asking them to use "something" like a phaser on stun. News flash: it doesn't exist. The nonlethal techniques available today have two major limitations: restricted range and most of the time a perp with firearm that is hit by them can still fire. TV & movies are no real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xendrome Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 In your opinion you don't shoot someone unless you want it to be lethal, if it was me, I'd take the shot to try and dissarm the kid. Clearly you should NEVER own a weapon then. That statement right there shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 ^^ precisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arachno 1D Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 And the term is an acronym too as a non-lethal weapon can still kill a person,its true term should be less lethal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lezard Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Too bad, soo sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 And the term is an acronym too as a non-lethal weapon can still kill a person,its true term should be less lethal. True, anything that can stop a person can kill a person. Stun guns can cause heart arrhythmias, pepper spray can cause lethal physiological reactions, billy clubs can cause lethal blunt force trauma etc. There is no free lunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashpowell Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Clearly you should NEVER own a weapon then. That statement right there shows you have no idea what you are talking about. I should never own a weapon because I wouldn't just shoot to kill when confronted with a 13 year old with a toy gun. Well done you. This thread goes to show the exact mentality behind America's gun problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrynalyne Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Kill first, ask questions later, even if it's a kid. Yep, sounds like america. vs. get shot first and die? If you are told to drop it, drop what you have in your hands! You are just spreading typical anti-US propaganda. There is no surprise theyarecomingforyou liked your comment. Lord Method Man 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrynalyne Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 I should never own a weapon because I wouldn't just shoot to kill when confronted with a 13 year old with a toy gun. Well done you. This thread goes to show the exact mentality behind America's gun problem Shoot to wound. That is rich. Someone has watched a few too many movies to realize how that doesn't really work. Lord Method Man 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Raze Subscriber² Posted October 25, 2013 Subscriber² Share Posted October 25, 2013 I should never own a weapon because I wouldn't just shoot to kill when confronted with a 13 year old with a toy gun. Well done you. This thread goes to show the exact mentality behind America's gun problem You keep using the term "toy gun". The officers did not know the gun was a toy and as a result have very little time to react. The decisions they make happen in a seconds. The officers repeatedly ordered the teenager to drop the his toy/real gun. I'll repost this image again, which one is a toy and which one is the real thing, you have to decide and be quick - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+primortal Subscriber² Posted October 25, 2013 Subscriber² Share Posted October 25, 2013 They shot the kid 7 times, that is a little extreme. One shot to the leg or arm would have disabled him and he would possibly be still alive. Source: http://www.katu.com/news/national/California-community-questions-shooting-of-13-year-old-229199271.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arachno 1D Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 I wouldn't just shoot to kill when confronted with a 13 year old with a toy gun. Well done you. You are basing your judgement on facts that are known after the incident 13 years old boy: as you will see in the statement I related to before the officer could not discern his age at the time Toy: the weapon cannot be classed as a toy without close inspection Just shoot: The officer did not pull up and let off a clip of ammunition he clearly gave two verbal warnings before firing at the offender who pointed the weapon in his direction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Method Man Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 "arm and leg shots" are an invention of fiction. No law enforcement agency has ever trained officers to shoot for the limbs. You use a firearm to put down a threat. When that happens you dont waste precious time trying to hit appendages. Bryan R. and adrynalyne 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts