Justified or gun happy?

[balky12]

I'd wager the cops approached this boy with their weapons drawn and aimed.

Standard practice, gun drawn on target on arrival. Ask for their surrender.

Any signs of aggression light them up.

Gives the armed person minimal to no chance of causing harm to others (e.g. police can respond immediately to a threat and kill before armed person does.)

 

[Haggisman]

I'd wager the cops approached this boy with their weapons drawn and aimed.

And quite rightly so, my point was in response to:

why not just approach him and ask him to hand it over, not point guns at him and start screaming. Also when he's drawn the weapon wait to see what he does then before firing.

Edit: you edited after I responded, but:

A better question to ask (if you want to argue a point worth investigating) would be how long would it take you to draw and aim a gun compared to how long it takes to pull the trigger of a weapon that is already aimed at you?

At what point in that ~1 second window are we going to make the decision as to the gunman's intent?

 

[Terminal_Boy]

i used to play with a bb gun that looked like a desert eagle. Got stopped by the police for running around the street with it. Thinking back i'm lucky to be alive if it were America id probably have been shot too.

You wouldn't have been shot if you'd complied with the orders shouted at you by the policeman.

Contrary to popular belief, police officers don't like having to shoot children.

 

[wordy]

Well, since you seem to be incapable of (or more likely unwilling to since it destroys your argument) answer that, I'll answer for you.

Less than a second.

In the time for the police officer to pull out his gun, aim and fire, the kid could have fired off 2-3 shots. He wouldn't have had a chance to aim, but he still could have easily fired in the general direction of either the officers or some bystanders, possibly hitting and killing one or more of them. Is that a justifiable risk?

Right, and you have absolutely no proof that he drew the weapon that quickly, that's why I was not answering, it isn't addressed in the article.

I don't need any more weight. But if it adds more then I'll take it I guess...

I can spin this a million ways, and have done. You never answered my broken down version.

You are a cop. You attend this scenario where someone has a gun.
There is a 50/50 chance (these were your odds) this person will shoot at you/ a colleague / a bystander.

Do you

a) shoot the person and eliminate the threat.
b) don't shoot (but its a flip of a coin that he shoots someone)

c) none of the above.

I attend an incident in this scenario where someone has a gun that has been put away. I'd approach the child in question and talk to him. not pull up, draw weapons and try the intimidation approach that U.S police use.

BUT if I'd gone in with weapons drawn and the child had drawn I'd wait until he started to raise it at someone. As I'd already got my weapon pointed at him my reactions would've been quicker than him, as I'm already aimed and he's got to pick a target, raise and point the gun.

 

[balky12]

Lets look at it step by step.

kid was 12, not 6. At 12 you have a decent understanding of right and wrong.
He took a imitation firearm out in public. (Bet at 12 you kew this wasn't the done thing)
It was capable of firing pellets, NOT a toy gun that some people keep saying on here.
He then took it to a school.
He then waved it around in public as someone saw it and reported it to police.
Police arrived on scene (a school).
Told the kid to put his arms in the air.
He ignored this and reached for the gun.

Many failings on his part lead to his death. In bold.

Police followed protocol, same thing they do at every incident like this.

Again its unfrotunate, but it was his stupidity.

 

[ubersonic]

Justified, if you tell somebody to put their hands up and they draw a gun on you then you shoot, it's that simple.

 

[Haggisman]

Right, and you have absolutely no proof that he drew the weapon that quickly, that's why I was not answering, it isn't addressed in the article.

You're basing your argument on hindsight. The officers at the time had no way of knowing whether he was going to draw quickly or not

The article states he was shot AFTER he had pulled the gun from his waistband. Not just when he reached for it, so clearly they must have given him some "benefit of the doubt".

 

[FTM]

what I find interesting is that a trained officer with his gun drawn and aimed fired twice and one of his shots missed.

 

[Haggisman]

what I find interesting is that a trained officer with his gun drawn and aimed fired twice and one of his shots missed.

Source?

 

[fez]

BUT if I'd gone in with weapons drawn and the child had drawn I'd wait until he started to raise it at someone. As I'd already got my weapon pointed at him my reactions would've been quicker than him, as I'm already aimed and he's got to pick a target, raise and point the gun.

90% of the time you would be fine doing this. The other 10% of the time you would find that it doesn't go as planned and you potentially have innocent victims dead because you wanted to make sure that someone holding a gun was intending to use it.

Their procedure when dealing with armed people is there for a reason. To protect the police and the public. If I had a gun in my hand by my side I could have it up and pointing at you in about 0.2 seconds and if I moved at the same time I would have a good chance of avoiding your shots. They don't take risks with firearms for good reason.

Your choices when you have a gun are to put your hands up and do exactly as you are told or get shot. Those are your two options and if you choose the wrong one, you pay the price.

 

[balky12]

c) none of the above.

I attend an incident in this scenario where someone has a gun that has been put away. I'd approach the child in question and talk to him. not pull up, draw weapons and try the intimidation approach that U.S police use.

BUT if I'd gone in with weapons drawn and the child had drawn I'd wait until he started to raise it at someone. As I'd already got my weapon pointed at him my reactions would've been quicker than him, as I'm already aimed and he's got to pick a target, raise and point the gun.

Then you wouldn't get your license. This is not how protocol works. You are taking age into consideration when it will not be taken into consideration. WHen it comes to these scenarios it's black and white.

Questions asked: Is this person armed.
Answer: Yes.
Protocol regarding dealing with armed individuals is put into effect.

They DO NOT care about your age, colour, religious alignment, sex, favourite football team. It's irrelevant.

They probably didn't even know his age until after.

The only material fact that mattered is that he was armed.

 

[fez]

They probably didn't even know his age until after.

If you watch pretty much any american show you will find out that the teenagers in it are actually nearer 30 than 13 so age is not always immediately obvious.

 

[SciNeT]

Wasn't there a 12 year old in the 'States some years back that opened fire in a busy school playground? Shame for the kids family and the officer here but completely justified action, who in the right mind is going to wait to find out if air or a bullet comes out of the end of that kids barrel.

 

[MadMouse101]

Justified.

 

[grimm]

I think it was justified. The additional risk factor of being around a school is what nails it on.

 

[Will21st]

Of course it was justified... the only ones arguing against it are the ones who are clueless about Firearms and police procedure.

 

[wordy]

Then you wouldn't get your license.

How do you know?

Having seen some of the truly incapable specimens waddling around with a badge in the U.S I reckon I'd do just fine.

This is not how protocol works. You are taking age into consideration when it will not be taken into consideration. When it comes to these scenarios it's black and white.

Questions asked: Is this person armed.
Answer: Yes.
Protocol regarding dealing with armed individuals is put into effect.

They DO NOT care about your age, colour, religious alignment, sex, favourite football team. It's irrelevant.

They probably didn't even know his age until after.

The only material fact that mattered is that he was armed.

Well personally I'd rather wait that extra second and make certain than have a dead child and a greiving family on conscience.

I think it's worth noting at this point I'm not saying they are guilty of 1st Degree murder, what I am saying is that given some of the high profile cases in the U.S where the actual events are completely different to what is 1st reported then I'm not coming out and saying "Justified, end of story". Questions do need to be asked.

 

[grimm]

How do you know?

Having seen some of the truly incapable specimens waddling around with a badge in the U.S I reckon I'd do just fine.



Well personally I'd rather wait that extra second and make certain than have a dead child and a greiving family on conscience.

I think it's worth noting at this point I'm not saying they are guilty of 1st Degree murder, what I am saying is that given some of the high profile cases in the U.S where the actual events are completely different to what is 1st reported then I'm not coming out and saying "Justified, end of story". Questions do need to be asked.

You could be dead yourself or have two dead bodies on your hands if he had managed to shoot someone else before you shot him.

It is not worth the risk, and that is how these officers are trained to deal with these situations.

 

[wordy]

You could be dead yourself or have two dead bodies on your hands if he had managed to shoot someone else before you shot him.

It is not worth the risk, and that is how these officers are trained to deal with these situations.

As I've already said, there has been no mention of how fast the firearm was drawn. So saying they had no option to shoot are not argueing from a point of fact, It's supposition.

 

[OhEsEcks]

You are delusionally looking for any excuse now. There is no mention of how fast the firearm was drawn because it is not relevant. It does not matter in the slightest. The only thing that matters is that he reached for a suspected weapon. That's it. That's protocol. That saves lives. Maybe not the person shot. But the police officers and any bystanders.