Justified or gun happy?

OldCoals said:
This is a picture of the weapon.



I defy anyone to be able to judge whether that is real or a replica.
Click to expand...

Bullet Tooth Tony could do it.
 
The kid was probably terrified when guns were pointing at him. When he got told to put his hands up he probably just panicked and wanted to show them a fake gun. It's sad really. Both sides are understandable. 12yr old is no age to die :-(
 
Gaygle said:
OK, honestly, think for just one second. When approaching a person with a firearm who has not only ignored your instructions, but has gone into his waistband and pulled out the firearm, do you really really expect an officer to have to wait until the gun is pointed at him before he can take action? You want an officer, a person with a family and maybe kids of their own, to wait until a suspect is only one finger twitch away from killing him instantly?
Click to expand...

Yes, given that it was a child I'd wait until the last possible second before opening fire.
For all we know the child was scared witless and was in the process of putting it on the floor. That's the thing with assumtion, most on here are assuming he pulling it out and was going to be aggressive. I'dve thought that it was worth the risk, wait to see if either the gun was being raised at me or being put on the floor.
 
The young lad scrapped off the orange paint/sticker that shows it's a fake gun. Why would you do that if you didn't want people to think it was a real gun. He brought it upon himself by waving it around...in a playground too.

With the shootings in the american schools, the cops had no choice when the young lad refused to obey their commands and went for a gun, that was being flashed as a real gun, the young lad paid the price for his stupidity. Cops couldn't run the risk it was a real gun and innocent kid(s) were killed.
 
cheesyboy said:
I would rather police were certain that a boy with a gun is an active threat before slaying him. If that means waiting until a moment of aggression, so be it (surely kids with toy guns are miles more common than actual murderous children?!). Killing kids with toy guns is not preferable to waiting a few moments to gain absolute certainty. They shot him because he didn't put his hands up - he didn't point the gun at anyone. And he was 12 - a child. If it was sex we were talking about, it would be statutory rape - children that young need added protection from the law, even if it means giving them some benefit of the doubt when apparently carrying a firearm.
Click to expand...

Wait for aggression? So wait until he shoots someone? Or Aims the gun at someone? It wasn’t even a toy gun the kid was holding, it was a gun capable of firing pellets (so I have read). He didn’t put his hands up, you are right, he reached for the gun.

cheesyboy said:
Better to kill an innocent then risk an innocent being killed?

How is it better?
Click to expand...

You are using hindsight here. Rather wrongly. At that precise moment in time he is an armed person, who has reached for his gun after strict instructions to put his arms in the air.

cheesyboy said:
Someone was killed, mate. A child.
Click to expand...

And it is unfortunate whenever anyone dies in these circumstances, whether that be a child or an adult. It’s not exactly news out there, it’s a regular occurrence, you would think these people would be educated enough to not go round waving a gun (real or fake). OK, he was 12, a child, but where does a child get these kind of guns? You are old enough to realise that you shouldn’t wave a gun around in public (12 would be year 7/8, secondary school, in the UK).

I normally like your posts / arguments as they are well constructed. But here I feel you are using hindsight wrongly. It’s tragic, you’re right. These things shouldn’t happen. But given the circumstances it was justified. At 12 you know who the police are, you know what a gun is, and you know what ‘put your hands in the air’ means.

Police had a tough decision to make. IMO they chose the right, and only option that had. As it turns out, the gun wasn’t the real deal. But it was still capable of causing damage…

Where were the parents?
 
cheesyboy said:
Why? Because he's black?

In any case, (I'm not exactly clued up on rap, but...) isn't it 20 years since Tupac and Biggie? Are guns even mentioned in modern popular hip-hop any more?
Click to expand...

From the BBC article:
Gun was in his waistband,
Repeatedly pulled it out to threaten other kids
Pulled it out on the police(supposedly)

On there own they mean nothing but together it just reminded me of the whole "rap culture" thing and the idea of intimidating other people and rebelling against the law. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out he was holding the gun side ways.

Also when i first read the article they didn't have a picture of the kid
 
Last edited:
wordy said:
Yes, given that it was a child I'd wait until the last possible second before opening fire.
For all we know the child was scared witless and was in the process of putting it on the floor. That's the thing with assumtion, most on here are assuming he pulling it out and was going to be aggressive. I'dve thought that it was worth the risk, wait to see if either the gun was being raised at me or being put on the floor.
Click to expand...

I think in that situation, that's up to the police officer to decide. He's the one that has to live with his actions. His life on the line.
 
wordy said:
That's the thing with assumtion, most on here are assuming he pulling it out and was going to be aggressive. I'dve thought that it was worth the risk, wait to see if either the gun was being raised at me or being put on the floor.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that is how the police are trained too. Seeing as we are talking about firearms...

You can't give people who have guns the benefit of the doubt. 'He's reaching for his gun, but don't shoot, he might just wave it around a bit, point it at people, but not shoot, eventually he might lay it on the ground, let's see how this plays out first'.

Suddenly a cop is dead, and the person with the gun is killed anyways...
 
cheesyboy said:
I'm not ok with it, and regret that they didn't offer the benefit of the doubt. That way, no-one would have died.
Click to expand...

Yeah, let's go around offering people armed with potentially deadly weapons the benefit of the doubt. What a good idea that is.
And then when an innocent bystander is shot and killed by them we can tell their families it's ok, we gave them the benefit of the doubt - your innocent loved one died because we thought the person that did it might be a nice chap after all and decided not to try and defend the public from potential endangerment.

What a moronic idea.
 
While I appreciate why it happened, and the justifications behind it, nevertheless such a young person winning a Darwin Award and taking themselves out of the gene pool is a shame. Easy to lay blame in both directions, but it doesn't really change the fact that it happened.

Gun laws in the US though... Not a fan.
 
inogen said:
I think in that situation, that's up to the police officer to decide. He's the one that has to live with his actions. His life on the line.
Click to expand...

balky12 said:
I'm guessing that is how the police are trained too. Seeing as we are talking about firearms...

You can't give people who have guns the benefit of the doubt. 'He's reaching for his gun, but don't shoot, he might just wave it around a bit, point it at people, but not shoot, eventually he might lay it on the ground, let's see how this plays out first'.

Suddenly a cop is dead, and the person with the gun is killed anyways...
Click to expand...

It doesn't for from reaching to dead with nothing inbetween he's got to raise, aim then shoot. If the firearm was being rasied and pointed at the officers then fair enough, but it wasn't, he gave no indication he was going to use it or raise it.

He was a 12 year old, who most likely thought he was being a tough guy waiving it at the kids in the playground, but then all of a sudden he had police officers screaming at him and pointing guns at him, that' when he realised he was just a 12 year old boy who was scared out of his wits.
 
ad- said:
There aren't many posting in this thread who have 12 year old children. They do stupid things, daily.

It is a sad indictment of the times when people think a child being killed is "justified".
Click to expand...

And those who do have children likely have a well grounded 12 year old who has had a happy middle-class childhood and understands right and wrong. There are children younger than 12 capable of killing, unfortunately age is not a reliable indicator of the child's intent. You can't wait until the gun is pointing at someone before you pull the trigger.
 
Dis86 said:
Yeah, let's go around offering people armed with potentially deadly weapons the benefit of the doubt. What a good idea that is.
And then when an innocent bystander is shot and killed by them we can tell their families it's ok, we gave them the benefit of the doubt - your innocent loved one died because we thought the person that did it might be a nice chap after all and decided not to try and defend the public from potential endangerment.

What a moronic idea.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, it's blatantly obvious he's talking about this specific case.
 
ad- said:
There aren't many posting in this thread who have 12 year old children. They do stupid things, daily.

It is a sad indictment of the times when people think a child being killed is "justified".
Click to expand...

People are banding around the age 12 like they are some baby who cannot comprehend anything.

12 year olds are almost half way through secondary school. Almost taking their options. About to sit their second wave of SAT's exams. They understand right from wrong.

I owned various BB guns and an air rifle from a young age. I never took them out of the house / back garden in the UK, let alone in the US. It helped that my parents looked after them and if I wanted to play with them shooting targets in the garden my dad would give them to me, supervise me, then take them off me when I had finished.

Where were the kids parents?
 
Last edited:
wordy said:
Oh come on, it's blatantly obvious he's talking about this specific case.
Click to expand...

? So is Dis86, the kid had a potentially deadly weapon in a public place and got shot dead because of it. It's tragic but the police are not to blame if the situation is being reported correctly.

A lot of people seem to think the kid should have been allowed to fire the gun before making the decision whether to shoot him.
 
cheesyboy said:
Like I said, you wait for aggression.




My point was in terms of the treatment of minors. They need the law to make a stronger protective effort, and presumption of innocence. He was 12, ffs. Imagine how a 12-year old reacts in that situation - they don't know the system when you have a police office pointing a gun at you and screaming. He'd just been playing guns with his buddies (or whatever)
Click to expand...

All you people saying justified, I hope to god your kid never ends up dead for playing with a toy gun. Im imagining myself from that poor guys view, I used to play 'Army' as a kid as I bet most of you did too, imagine armed police shouting at you out of nowhere to put your hands up, I'd probably of panicked and reached for the toy gun too, for all we know he was reaching for it to throw it on the floor as he was scared or summat. What the hell is wrong with these reactive cops....I'd of got there, stayed behind my police car, told the kid to put his hands up and if he didnt and reached for the gun my first thought wouldnt be pull the trigger ffs!! I'd of stayed behind cover and analyzed the situation from there. I highly doubt a 12 year old kid would be able to fire a pistol (if it WAS real) accurately from say 25m away. If he was apparently in a playground also surrounded by other kids.....WHY THE HELL IS A COP FIRING LIVE REAL AMMO TOWARDS THEM, IMBECILE.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom