Quote of the Day: Word to the Wise Edition

-194c3b27a1dacc1c

“When you’re being told to do something, if you make an action that is threatening to a police officer and you have a weapon on you, the outcome is not going to be good.” – Hamilton (Ohio) Police Sgt. Ed Buns in Parents: How to keep kids with toy guns out of armed showdown with police [at wcpo.com]

comments

  1. avatar Youzernayme says:

    I believe that is read: Comply or Else…

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      When someone with a positional and legal advantage over you in the use of deadly force asks you to comply right and wrong doesn’t matter so yes it wise to comply. You will have to sort things out later.

    2. avatar James says:

      This doesn’t happen in a vacuum despite what media members or other agitators want you to believe. Point a real looking air gun at people randomly and see what happens. Of course the cops will be called or a CCer will draw because you don’t know if it’s real or not unless your close enough to see it is an air gun. The responding party has to assume it is real because assuming it isn’t has the potential to be a fatal mistake for the responding party.

      If you don’t want to comply because you are not intelligent or have some strange sense of entitlement that say you should be able to imply you can shoot someone with a real looking firearm, I’m not going to be upset if the police ventilate you. I will chalk it up to natural selection though.

      We are supposed to be a civilization. It isn’t a police state to respond to someone being recklessly stupid.

      1. avatar Pascal says:

        I would agree except, there are certain circumstances where you can verify and the question is if the police come in a shoot first and ask questions later. That seems to be tactic because the law is on your side.

        In the case of the 12yr old, did the officer have the draw on him and did he ask him to put the gun down? Did the officer have the advantage of cover, could he also do the same? Was the officer alone, or did he have a partner where they could have flanked him?

        The sight of a gun should not give anyone the assumption to shoot — however, that is where we are. See gun, shoot first because the DA and the law is 100% behind you if you make a mistake.

        I am sorry, but if that is what is happening, there is a huge problem in my eyes. Especially with this statement “if you make an action that is threatening to a police officer” Given it is the officers word versus a dead man, “any” action can be perceived as a threat — If a regular Joe CC’er does that, his life is over.

        IMHO, we have given the police WAY too much latitude.

        Since there is no video, there is no way to know exactly what happened, but from my view with this incident and many similar ones, the police tactics are wrong. If the over riding principle is, “the officer goes home safe” while anyone else goes home dead and that is Okay, then shooting first and asking questions later is the right principle to follow. IMHO, there is a problem and the solution the police are using is a once size fits all situations regardless of the scenario.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          100% spot on Pascal. And your last sentence really hit the point: everyone keeps trying to remove thought and judgment from tasks.

          Police have to use thought and judgment when responding to calls. In almost every case it will be almost immediately obvious whether an armed child is a young gang-banger or just a kid who is either playing with a toy or innocently (albeit foolishly) handling a real firearm.

        2. Great job on that Pascal. Laws and their interpretations need to change. Not trying to judge this guy or Wilson but too many being shot.

        3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          Bingo!

          It’s all stems from liability and money. If the officer is always justified, then the almighty state not liable for the the result.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          That’s a lot of pontificating, but it doesn’t appear to be based in the facts as-known in this case.

          The police responded to reports of someone menacing people with a firearm. Upon arrival, the police ordered the suspect to put his hands up. At the time, his hands were empty. Instead of complying, he lifted his shirt and reached for what was reasonably believed to be a firearm.

          Anyone here who claims that they would do anything differently than the responding police officers did at that point is simply lying. They saw someone reaching for a firearm while under orders to surrender. That action represented a real and imminent threat of use of that firearm, and the officers responded appropriately and legally.

        5. avatar J says:

          Pascal, you don’t believe the Police are using discretion? What about the thousands of similar incidents where armed suspects are taken into cus today without force? The answer to that is that those aren’t making headlines, so throwing a blanket over the incidents that make the news (the controversial ones) is irresponsible. Walk a mile in an Officer’s shoes. Everyone deserves to be able to go home safely from work and you should not judge someone’s split second decision to guard their own safety. Research the science behind perception and reaction times…

        6. I know a lot about reaction times. A great reaction time is 0.2 seconds. My best recorded reaction time was 0.16 seconds. That reaction time is just to click a button. It takes a lot longer to do a dynamic movement such as draw, aim and fire a gun. Reaction time is just the time it takes to start a movement after triggering a stimuli. And that is when you already know what action is to be taken. Reacting to a command takes additional step. The command has to be processed before the movement can be done correctly. These cops sneaking up on someone (Walmart), or rushing in with a car with gun drawn, gives absolutely no time for the suspect to properly react. It is by design and if a few innocent people die, then that is just unfortunate. As long as the shoot was “legal” and the cops went home safe that night, it is all good.

    3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      When the order issued is lawful, because you are reasonably suspected to be illegally carrying and menacing others with a firearm, then yes: you comply, or else.

  2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    “Hamilton police said Rice’s airsoft handgun looked just like their service revolver. You couldn’t tell the difference, they said.”

    This, below a photo of a 1911 lookalike.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      “Look out, he’s got a pipe-joint! Gun!”

  3. avatar Alan Longnecker says:

    Poor kid was SWATed. Probably by Moms Demand Hot Sweaty Illegal Action From Mayor of Everytown.

  4. avatar Morgan Y. says:

    Tell the officer what you’re doing before you do it. It has made my interactions with cops much less tense.

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      My understanding is the kid had autism, which means he was not fully able to understand social context.

      He may not have understood the social concept of complying with “authority” figures

      1. avatar Sian says:

        Seems ludicrously irresponsible to give such a child a toy gun and let him run around unsupervised, then.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Right, because he couldn’t hurt anything, he can only be downed on behalf of nosy (hugely more ignorant) gun-haters who need to eat sh_t and live.

          Has Moms Demand Hot Sweaty Illegal Action From Mayor of Everytown taken a single penny from overseas to overthrow our Constitution, kill our kids and overly stragubate Sian?

        2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          Most def, it’s not the kids fault, it’s the parents fault.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Right, because he couldn’t hurt anything, he can only be downed on behalf of nosy (hugely more ignorant) gun-haters who need to eat sh_t and live.

          …because people with Autism can’t hurt anyone, and should be left unsupervised, to their own devices.

          Adam Lanza was Autistic. Perhaps Autism shouldn’t be an excuse for inappropriate behavior, and should instead be a reason for more parental control and supervision?

          If her 12 year old Autistic child wasn’t mentally capable of functioning alone in society, perhaps Mama shouldn’t have left him alone in public?

          But, yeah: let’s blame the police officers – who didn’t know that he was Autistic, didn’t know that the firearm he had was an AirSoft rather than a real 1911, and didn’t know that he might have been merely trying to produce the weapon for them.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          @RockOnHellChild:

          Most def, it’s not the kids fault, it’s the parents fault.

          +1. Bingo.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        RockOnHellChild and Sian both mentioned very important points.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Ya, that cops can fix (the ‘easy way’) problems invented by ignorant nosy people with telephones. Not only do Bloommoms want to remove all guns they want to tell you how to raise your kids, to include what toys you allow them to play with, what patch of grass in the front of the house is “allowed”.

          uncommon nonsense.

  5. avatar Greg says:

    Nice, memorialize your dead kid on a piece of cardboard. This whole thing stinks like a set up for the police. Who gave a autistic kid an airsoft look alike gun? Who told him to point it at people and the police? why wasn’t anyone watching him?

    1. Are you saying that your parents had you in their sight 100% of the time? That must have been brutal. Stuff like this happens and that’s why the cops are just going to have to be more careful. It is about the public not about them.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        If I may quote a very smart gentleman: Personal Responsidamnbility.

        If he was mentally incapable of understanding societal norms and responsibilities, then yes: his parents should have had him under supervision 100% of the time.

        When someone lawfully being detained by police officers refuses orders to surrender, and instead lifts his shirt and reaches for a handgun in his waistband, how long should those police officers have to wait to assess the potential threat, before responding?

        1. Chip! There are countries that do not have this problem AT ALL! Cops here just are not willing to accept the risk that goes with the job. The Constitution was intended to protect the public from the govt (police) not the other way around… the cops seem to think that their safety is paramount and it’s disgusting. Sometimes I just can’t understand you.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Cops here just are not willing to accept the risk that goes with the job.

          The cops in this instance accepted that inherent risk when they responded to multiple calls of a person menacing people with a gun. That inherent risk does not extend to waiting for that person to point that gun at them and pull the trigger before reasonably assessing a threat, and defending themselves.

          The Constitution was intended to protect the public from the govt (police) not the other way around…

          Irrelevant, based on the facts as-known. The Constitution is not intended to protect lawbreakers from their intended or potential victims.

          the cops seem to think that their safety is paramount and it’s disgusting. Sometimes I just can’t understand you.

          All people, badge-wearing or otherwise, have a moral and statutory right to defend themselves, and to use deadly force when they reasonably believe there is a threat to their lives. I’ll lay it out again. Police officers respond to multiple calls of a person with a gun, waving and pointing it at people. When the police arrive, they find the suspect, who no longer has a gun in his hands, and order him to put his hands up. Instead of complying with this lawful order, the suspect lifts his shirt and reaches for the handgun tucked into his waistband.

          You’re the officer. How do you respond?

        3. What I would suggest is a change in the law. Maybe the standard for cops would be a certainty of harm instead of a threat. They still would not have a very dangerous job. They do too much whining.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          What I would suggest is a change in the law. Maybe the standard for cops would be a certainty of harm instead of a threat.

          Why should police officers not be afforded equal protection under the law? Why should they be held to a higher self-defense standard?

          Do you endorse such a higher self-defense standard be applied to non-LEO who choose to avail themselves of the right to keep and bear arms? If not: why not?

        5. It is obvious that the police shoot too many people, a point you keep trying to avoid. It is also obvious that the people need to be protected from the govt. Of course the govt has to be held to a higher standard b/c there is too much potential for abuse. That too is obvious. Day in court, burden of proof and all that. You know, obvious stuff.

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          It is obvious that the police shoot too many people, a point you keep trying to avoid.

          I am talking about this specific incident, and the facts around this specific incident. Somehow, my assessment of the facts of this specific incident, and conclusion that the facts as-known exonerate the police officers, keeps getting extrapolated into some larger point.

          But I disagree that it is obvious that police shoot too many people. There are specific incidents of police officers shooting people unlawfully/without justification. In those specific incidents, those police officers should be held criminally and civilly liable.

          400 people per year killed by police officers, the vast majority – I would wager, near (but not equal to) 100% – of which are completely justified. For the handful that are not justified, the correct response is to hold the responsible officers liable, not to raise the bar of self-defense for all the rest of the police officers not killing people unlawfully.

          To endorse changing the laws to hold police officers to a higher standard of threat before using deadly force in self-defense is a form of prior restraint that is immoral and unconstitutional.

        7. Well Chip if a country of 80 million can go a full year without the police killing anyone then it is OBVIOUS (see what I did there 🙂 ) then we can do a hell of a lot better! Maybe body cams are all that is needed but we prolly need a change in the law of some sort IMO. SO THERE! (Rasberries)

        8. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Well Chip if a country of 80 million can go a full year without the police killing anyone then it is OBVIOUS (see what I did there 🙂 ) then we can do a hell of a lot better!

          What country is that? Does it have the same circumstances as our country? The same violent crime? The same gang issues? Let’s look at our nation of 50 sovereign States. Are they all the same? And again: let’s assume (for the sake of argument) that all 400 of those police shootings were justified in self-defense. How is that a problem that needs to be dealt with from the perspective of further controls on the *police*?

          Here’s a guess: stop the catch-and-release with violent felons, and not only would murder and violent crime rates go down, but so would justified police killings.

          Maybe body cams are all that is needed but we prolly need a change in the law of some sort IMO.

          I also endorse body cams (or dash cams, or some other means that meets the same objective).

          SO THERE! (Rasberries)

          Hey, it’s almost Thanksgiving. You should be getting cranberries, not raspberries.

        9. Yum! Happy Thanksgiving!

        10. BTW Britain 2013 zero killed by police. Granted we could never get to zero

        11. avatar Hasdrubal says:

          You want us to get close to the UK statistics of citizens killed by police? The first step is to outlaw civilian ownership of firearms. Second step is to confiscate those guns not willingly turned in. Enjoy the resulting lack of situations where police think a gun is being pointed at them.

          Personally, I’d rather keep as much of my freedom as I can.

        12. avatar Grindstone says:

          Don’t bother with Chip. He’s got shoepolish all over his lips.

        13. I like Chip. He plays it cool and usually doesn’t let emotion sway his logic. But sometimes it gets frustrating when he takes the other point of view. Reminds me of Michel Medved. Sometimes he pisses me off with his moderate views but overall, he is as Conservative as anyone.

        14. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          That might be the first time in my life I’ve ever been called “moderate”.

          In this case, it seems the working definition of moderate is, “chooses to assess the facts of each sitiation on their own merits, rather than declaring all cops as either always right or always wrong.”

          Yeah, I can live with that. But the degree of logical fallacy used by far too many TTAG commenters saddens me.

        15. Actually I was calling Medved moderate. You, I was just calling wrong sometimes.

        16. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Well, I certainly won’t deny being wrong sometimes. (Just ask my wife.)

        17. Tell her “I’m right about the most important things. That is how I ended up with you.”
          That line right there should earn you some perks.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      “Airsoft” [may have been a brand but now it is like “Xerox” in that the name has come to generally define a ‘thing’], is very very prevalent in the state I live. Kids and adults both love it as much as paint-ball or air-gunning, and we [knock on wood] don’t have these problems. In states where people have guns (of all kinds) the populace, and most importantly THE COPS, don’t freak when they see one (unless someone has a cool weapon or drop leg holster in line for Communion at Church, then it’s ok to geek a little). The cops didn’t interact with this child as though he should/may have a gun, they interacted with him as though he should-not. That is where we all suffer because, where guns are needed (a/k/a anywhere you are standing, sitting, laying, hanging, hanging upside-down) the Cops are there in minutes when seconds count and therefore can only be counted on to be there for clean up and paperwork. Further, if cops are ever meant to / allowed to feel as though they should be the only ones in a civilian populace to have one, they (then) can never again be counted on to believe themselves to only be equal to the populace that they (by their own demand) serve.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        If he had been walking around with the AirSoft pistol tucked into his waistband, nobody would have known he had it, and thus nobody would have called 911.

        But that’s not what happened. He had it out, waving it around and pointing it at people. That action constitutes menacing, and is a form of aggravated assault. Thus, the police were not merely responding to “suspect with gun”, but rather were responding to “suspect committing aggravated assault”.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Right, the environment was so safe that anyone with a gun must be a “problem”.

          Problem [not] solved.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Right, the environment was so safe that anyone with a gun must be a “problem”.

          Yes, anyone walking around with a handgun in-hand, waving it around and pointing it at people, is a problem. Generally, anyone walking around with a handgun in hand, period, is a problem. It’s sort of like walking around with a rifle in low-ready, and the finger near the trigger guard.

          If you have a handgun, it should be holstered. Or does common sense fly out the window at any opportunity to paint the police in a bad light?

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          Right, I get it, just what I said: ‘see-gun, bad ‘.

          When you are overrun by the necessity to have a gun (as opposed to just living day-to-day with it), maybe you can prevent your kids from encountering the same fate by secretly telling them to practice making the shape of gun by biting a pop-tart [in private].

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Right, I get it, just what I said: ‘see-gun, bad ‘.

          So, you think it is appropriate and responsible to walk around with a handgun in hand? Seriously? I’ve not heard a single person ever advocate such a position.

          When you are overrun by the necessity to have a gun (as opposed to just living day-to-day with it), maybe you can prevent your kids from encountering the same fate by secretly telling them to practice making the shape of gun by bighting a pop-tart [in private].

          Straw man. The object in question was not a partially eaten PopTart, but rather a 1911-replica AirSoft pistol, that was in every way indistinguishable from a real 1911 pistol.

        5. avatar Sian says:

          30 years ago, kids running around with realistic toy guns was a non issue. Nobody thought a thing about it.

          30 years ago is not today.

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          30 years ago, toy guns looked like toy guns, and were not realistic-looking replicas, indistinguishable from real firearms. 30 years ago, those kids running around with toy guns were generally taught not to point them at real people.

          And it bears noting: an AirSoft gun is not a “toy” gun. It fires *real* projectiles. It’s not a firearm (Canada and certain Progressive-run parts of the US excepted), but it is a real gun.

        7. avatar Joe R says:

          Ok, gun [real or unreal] is a threat dealt with by cops on demand at all costs. The people “threatened” were thankfully (this time) able to farm-out the response.

          Once all straw men with pop-tart guns are eradicated, neighbors and cops will have to satisfy their incredulity with responding to you just taking your hands our of your pockets too quickly or pointing at stuff…, pulling a pencil from behind your ear…

          Meanwhile, in the world where guns cannot be eradicated, seeing one should not be so immediately inflammatory.

        8. avatar Young male from ferguson says:

          Actually airsoft is used to shoot people, not to harm them of course but as a force on force. Me and my friends have had airsoft wars in the backyard, but the police said that he wasn’t threatening them or even pointing it at them.

        9. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          …but the police said that he wasn’t threatening them or even pointing it at them.

          Right. Because it was tucked into his waistband. Which he yanked up his sweatsirt and reached for.

          Should they have waited for him to pull it out of his waistband and then see if he intended to point it at them before assessing his actions as threatening?

          Would you have?

        10. avatar Grindstone says:

          Was he waving it around and pointing it at people like that guy in the Beavercreek mall who got swatted?

    3. avatar Grindstone says:

      “Who told him to point it at people and the police? ”

      Among other things, violence with firearms is extremely prolific in daytime TV and popular movies.
      Not saying that’s a terrible thing.

      But it is funny to consider that an uncovered butt cheek raises more eyebrows than someone’s bloody flesh torn from their ribs and hunt from a ceiling.

  6. avatar Ratbikerx says:

    That is the best way one can say it. Obviously others felt threatened as they called the police. The police officer had no other choice. As far as he is concerned, it was shoot the kid or have him kill the officer and potentially others around him. Does anyone think the officer was happy to find out this was a young kid and the gun was a pellet gun? I am sure he was devastated.

    If this was another kid that was in a gun battle with the first kid, this wouldn’t be happening and the community would have forgotten about simply another murder in this city between kids within 24 hours.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      The police officer had no other choice.

      Haha.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        I know, right’?

        Soggy-wet half-a-tick-turd people for peace demand action because only we are the problem.

        ISIS is hoping they achieve this goal

        If it is ever determined that China (or a foreign entity) is footing the bill to disarm us, these will be the people that (will be allowed to) suffer the longest.

    2. avatar Sian says:

      The officer did have a choice, when you’re talking about a little kid (not the 16-17 year old ‘babies’ that kill each other in gangs all the time) you don’t need to shoot as soon as his hand goes to his waistband.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        A 12-year-old is closer, in every way, to a 16-17 year old than to a 6-year-old.

      2. avatar Anonymous says:

        I agree. He had a choice and didn’t have the necessary courage or reasons to accept the risk.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          You should put a cape on and show that you have such courage.

          Including the courage to risk other people’s lives by your inaction…

        2. avatar Ratbikerx says:

          Hey Anonymous – did you listen to the 911 calls that were released today? Did you listen to the radio transmission from the Police Officer? Callers referenced the person with a gun ‘possibly 20 years old’. The officer also stated the person with the gun was a black male about 20 years old. Look at the picture – guess his age. By looking at him can you tell he won’t shoot people?

          The audio released today has the officer asking the person to put his hands up 3 TIMES. Then the person reaches into his waistband and grabs the same gun that’s been reported in 911 by the other citizens.

          What would you have done had you been the officer? Ask him his age while he shoots and kills you? I am listening and awaiting your awesome response.

        3. In the video it appears that he never had the time to raise his shirt, hands or do anything. The car rolls up and the rookie jumps out shooting. If he gave three commands to put hands up then they were given while the car was approaching. Engine noise? Confusion? I am not even sure that what they are telling us is the boy reaching for the gun isn’t just his reaction to being gut shot. With the absence of sound, how can you tell?

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I’ve asked that same question about a half-dozen times. It remains as-yet unanswered.

        5. avatar Anonymous says:

          What would you have done had you been the officer? Ask him his age while he shoots and kills you? I am listening and awaiting your awesome response.

          Cops need to use their brains more often and their guns less often. Assess the situation more and assume less. Flying in your squad car in like you saw in some action movie and almost hitting the “suspect” followed by engaging them in a shoot out less than 5/6 feet away while shouting orders.

          I’m going to reference these statements (which answers your question) made by both myself and Uncommon.
          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/11/daniel-zimmerman/quote-day-56/#comment-2009767

  7. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Usually the “boy child” thing unjustifiably used for what I concider to be young men, but this time that isn’t the case, 12 yrs old is truely a child.

    But hey, the officer got home safe and was able to put a notch on his tacti-cool SWAT belt, so all is right in the world.

  8. avatar Shire-man says:

    Cops are omniscient enough to know whether or not you are armed yet not omniscient enough to know whether or not your actions are actually threatening? Since complying and getting your ID as per officer instructions has resulted in being shot by officers and dogs in cages are shot by officers how can anyone be expected to know what any officer is going to interpret as threatening?

    The presence of a cop is threatening to me. And I can plainly see that threat is armed. So I can blast a cop if he doesn’t comply with my order to GTFO?

    If this quote is how the cops want to play it then the only rational non-slave response is to reciprocate in kind.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      So if I see that you have a gun and appear to be threat to me you would be ok if I shot you?

    2. avatar Roll says:

      Um..What? You need to re-think a few things. Many, people (including myself) have interacted with the police and not been shot(hasseled, denied rights, or what ever else you want to come up with). Being shot by the cops is not the standard, it is the exception and that why these exceptions make the news.

      If you want to shoot at cops doing their job, expect gunfire in return.

      1. avatar Shire-man says:

        Not the standard? Now we’re getting somewhere. What else isnt standard? Hmmm…. shooting at cops for one. IED’s on the street. Anthrax in the mail. Riots on the street. Guns disguised as phones/pages/wallets.

        Yet when a cop approaches his mind is filled with all these fantasies. The most unlikely scenarios we’re all guilty of before the cop ever steps out of his car all in the name of “officer safety.” What about my safety? They always respond “comply for your safety.” My safety wasn’t in question and I had no lord ordering my compliance until officer friendly showed up.

        Like the military they manufacture scenarios in which to be unsafe and aggressive then blame their victims for forcing them to cause harm. “Why did you make me hurt you?”

        1. avatar Roll says:

          Jesus Tapdancing Christ…Shire-man: youre either a very good troll or very misguided and in need of help; I can’t tell which.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          I think the words to describe Shire-man and our other law hating gang loving anarchists would be self-centered and narcissistic.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          There is a very strong contingent of libertarian anarchists at TTAG, who believe that all cops are evil, and there is no such thing as a lawful order from a police officer with which they are required to comply. And if you call them on their ridiculous, extremist position, they call you a statist boot-licker. Apparently, the concept of evaluating individual circumstances based on the facts of those circumstances, and determining if the LEO action was lawful and justified or not, based on those facts, is completely foreign to them.

          They usually crawl out of the woodwork on posts such as this one.

        4. I can agree with you on that one Chip

        5. avatar Shire-man says:

          I think the words to describe Shire-man and our other law hating gang loving anarchists would be self-centered and narcissistic.

          Since a gang is a state by another name care to explain “gang-loving anarchist?”
          Unless, of course, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

        6. avatar Anonymous says:

          I always enjoy Shireman’s politically incorrect, outside of the box, entertaining statements.

          Here is my contribution, or more accurately – someone else’s contribution:

          “The creation of the world — said Plato — is the victory of persuasion over force… Civilization is the maintenance of social order, by its own inherent persuasiveness as embodying the nobler alternative. The recourse to force, however unavoidable, is a disclosure of the failure of civilization, either in the general society or in a remnant of individuals…

          “Now the intercourse between individuals and between social groups takes one of these two forms: force or persuasion. Commerce is the great example of intercourse by way of persuasion. War, slavery, and governmental compulsion exemplify the reign of force.”

          -Adventures of Ideas, Alfred North Whitehead

      2. avatar tdiinva says:

        @shire:

        It is you who are clueless. You faux Libertarians don’t understand that like marriage, proprty rights don’t exist without a government to secure them. Without a legal system you own nothing and you don’t have any rights. Anybody who wants what you have and has the power to take them will do so. The real anarchists understand this. People collectively come together to form a government to secure rights and property. I think the Founding Fathers came with pretfy good solution to the tradeoff between individual rights and collective responsibilities. A system which you admitted that you reject. The fact that collectively we have trashed the system doesn’t make any less valid. Your rejection of republican government places you in the same category as the mob that burned Ferguson. If you don’t like it here move to a place that lives in a state of anarchy either at home in ghetto or abroad in a place like Somalia. I give no more than 90 days until you found face down in a ditch.

  9. avatar Anonymous says:

    “When you’re being told to do something, if you make an action that is threatening to a police officer and you have a weapon on you, the outcome is not going to be good.” – Hamilton (Ohio) Police Sgt. Ed Buns

    Even if that “toy” is construed as a “weapon.”

    Because:
    A) A Cop’s life is worth more than your children
    B) Forget all that talk about “public servant”
    C) Toy Gun. Real gun. Doesn’t matter. No amount of risk is acceptable to a cop. All cops must go home safely.
    D) Regardless of age, understanding, or mental capacity, anyone given an order and does something that could be construed as threatening will be executed on spot.

    Cops will not aim to disarm or wound. Shots are aimed center of mass to put down the target. Because tactics are more important than morals when it comes to children who may or may not have a gun, and self preservation is more important than future progeny.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      There are multiple tragedies here one of which is that there are subcultures where 12 year old children commit violent crimes. So if you see a 12 year with a realistic looking gun in an environment where 12 year olds have been known to have real guns what would you do?

      1. avatar Anonymous says:

        So lets take the number of 12 year olds there are who have a toy gun or have played with a toy gun or have access to a toy gun and compare that number to actual 12 year old shooters with real guns. I think you would find the probability less than being struck by lightening. Now – lets put the event in context. Is the kid on a street corner in gangland? No. Was he kicking down a homeowners door? No. Was he robbing a convenience store for some smokes? No. Was he on a playground? Check.

        But hey – it’s ok. Threat was “neutralized.” and all cops made it home safely.

        1. Agree. Cops can’t put their safety above the public’s and need to accept the risk that goes with the job. Risk that is not all that high in my view.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          My point has nothing to do with what my actual opinion is.. It is directed at your hubris is thinking that you would certainly make the right call. I don’t know what I would do in that context and neither do you. So temper your criticism with a little humilty.

        3. avatar Anonymous says:

          My point has nothing to do with what my actual opinion is.. It is directed at your hubris is thinking that you would certainly make the right call. I don’t know what I would do in that context and neither do you. So temper your criticism with a little humility.

          I can agree with this. I’m strongly opinionated regarding some subjects and as a result my opinions come out strongly and take on the appearance of some keyboard commando windbaggery with tone that a person must swim through just to get to the context. So I apologize for that.

          Regarding the above, I am fairly certain that I know what I would have done, given my depiction of the events which have transpired. However, I was not there and there could be more to it than my depiction. So i’ll concede that.

        4. avatar Grindstone says:

          “Agree. Cops can’t put their safety above the public’s and need to accept the risk that goes with the job. Risk that is not all that high in my view.”

          Our military does this on a daily basis. If cops want to play soldier…

    2. avatar Timmy! says:

      Someone please give this troll directions so he can crawl back under his bridge.

      [edit] That was not directed at you TDIINVA!

  10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    This is a really tough situation: many (perhaps all) children do not process voice commands right away, especially when strangers are yelling at them. For that matter many adults have trouble processing voice commands right away as well. This is why, when training children to use firearms, you keep your hands on them at all times when they are holding a loaded firearm.

    I don’t see any easy solution to this problem other than training police officers to maintain a calm demeanor and voice when confronting children with firearms and most importantly to refrain from shooting unless the children shoot first. In other words we need to train police officers to take the moral high ground.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      To really emphasize my point, “This is why, when training children to use firearms, you keep your hands on them at all times when they are holding a loaded firearm.”:

      If we know that children will fail to promptly comply with voice commands in a calm situation with a known person teaching the child, why on Earth would we expect children to promptly comply with voice commands in a stressful or sudden situation where a stranger is yelling at a child? For this reason alone, we have to change the deadly force standards when police officers are responding to calls of a child with a firearm.

    2. avatar Anonymous says:

      …refrain from shooting unless the children shoot first.

      This entails risk to the police officer and all police officers must go home safely. The probability that it was real was extremely slim, the probability that the 12 year old could accurately fire it at a police officer wearing body armor and kill him is likely also slim. Despite this small risk, The police officer decided not to approach the boy in a friendly manner, but to start shouting at him with demands and fire on him when the police officer felt threatened. The police officer weighed the risk to himself vs the importance of his own self preservation vs the importance of the boy’s preservation and determined the risk was not acceptable.

    3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      In other words we need to train police officers to take the moral high ground.

      Bovine excrement. Police don’t have to wait to be shot at before defending themselves.

      If a 12 year old is unable to handle a firearm properly, and is unable to process voice commands properly, he shouldn’t be handling a firearm, and shouldn’t be left alone unsupervised in public.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Guns are not unhealthy “toys”. Allowing children to play at violence says to our enemies “we can’t wait until the next conflict, we are ate-up with it, but at least my kids will be around to see it” (Never let your enemy define your weakness(es) from your obvious lack of strength or will). [loosely paraphrased (pick one) Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Ceasar, Alaturk, Churchill, Napoleon, Alexander, Patton]

        Anything else is [and it can only be safe to be assumed to be] both a flanking-move on an attempted eradication of the bona-fide item (“guns”) and a ringing of the dinner-bell to our enemies. (loosely paraphrased, TERMS, J.M. Thomas, R., 2012).

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Chip,

        I dare say almost all children playing with toys or handling real firearms have no malicious intent whatsoever. Now throw in the fact that many/most children cannot process voice commands immediately. What is the natural ethical policy for police and use of deadly force when encountering armed children? Unless it is blatantly obvious for the entire world to see that an armed child is trying to hurt someone, police should not shoot them, period.

        I can share two examples that actually happened to me that should make this crystal clear:
        (1) A 12 year old family member was learning to shoot a revolver. After shooting the target a few times, that young person began to turn to ask us what to do next. Unfortunately, the revolver was in his hand, his finger was on the trigger, and he was in the process of sweeping the barrel at family members as he turned. In spite of our commands to stop, he kept turning anyway. I was armed. According to your standard, I would have been completely justified to shoot that young family member to stop the threat. Instead, three of us stepped over and put our hands on the boy and the revolver and explained his basic gun safety mistake. And we never let him handle any loaded firearms again without our hands on him. (We already taught the four safety rules to him but they had not “stuck” yet.)
        (2) A group of neighborhood teenage boys came to our door on Halloween … after unofficial trick-or-treating hours and even though our porch lights were off. I answered the door and told them nicely that we had no more candy. One of the boys, wearing an FBI costume, began asking if we had other treats. Foolishly, he raised a toy gun, pointed it at me, and asked if we had any money. According to your standard, I would have been justified to shoot him. Instead, I recognized that the boys were trying to have fun and did something foolish. Thus I immediately shined a spotlight in his face before closing the door … and proceeded to enjoy how all of his friends laughed at him and teased him for being stupid.

        In both cases the children simply exercised poor judgment — something that children often do. Their actions did not rise to the level of justifying deadly force. Context, body language, demeanor, and actions are way, WAY, WAY more important in the determination to use deadly force than having a firearm within reach or even in hand.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          In both cases the children simply exercised poor judgment — something that children often do.

          In both cases, the Reasonable Man standard would indicate that, based on your knowledge of the situation, no imminent threat was present, and thus, no use of deadly force in self-defense would be justified.

          The Reasonable Man standard does not exist in a vacuum. It is applied to the specific circumstances, placing the analyst in the figurative shoes of the person about whom the reasonableness of action is being evaluated.

        2. avatar Hasdrubal says:

          “I dare say almost all children playing with toys or handling real firearms have no malicious intent whatsoever.”

          This is entirely true. I would add that children who fall into this category are likely to be those who don’t generate 911 calls about someone brandishing a firearm and pointing it at people. I loved my BB gun when I was twelve. Never thought about walking around town with it or pointing it at people.

  11. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

    True story when I was a (stupid) teenager me and my friend dave went to the park to shoot our bb guns so here we are standing on the bridge that crosses the pond shooting bb’s into the water when on my left to both our surprise we see 2 officers with there guns drawn on us at the foot of the bridge he commanded we drop the weapons which we both did right off the bridge into the water below the cops started to laugh out loud and then asked us not to do that again…i went home changed my underwear and never did that again…moral of story when a police officer says drop it…you drop it

  12. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Always chuckle at the images of Mike Brown…..all of them what his mother/media wants to remember him as, not for what he became.

  13. avatar Don Davis says:

    A few questions to ponder:
    1. Do most 12 year old kids have grasp of reality?
    2. “Airsoft” weapons can look VERY real if the orange muzzle cap is off “Why was it off?” you might ask. “So it will look like a real gun when I carry it around!”
    3. Would YOU allow your autistic child to roam freely?
    4. Would YOU let someone draw on you with a weapon if you were also armed?
    5. Could YOU patrol the streets of Cleveland?

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      Does anyone have a source indicating he was actually autistic?

  14. avatar Mediocrates says:

    I’m sorry, but its nonsensical to expect a child to make a rational decision.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Med. It depends on your definition of a “child”. In my time on the farm I drove tractors, handled live stock and a gun without immediate adult supervision all at or before this kids age.

      150 years ago a 12 yo boy could build a fire, ride a horse, handle a team, handle a firearm and do a full days work on the homestead.

      I think it’s the nanny statists that insist on making our young babies til their able to vote.

      I was in boot camp at 17. At what age would I have known to comply with a police officers orders?

      1. avatar karlb says:

        This is not an either/or situation. Yes, you did all these things, and you were more impetuous than an adult. The human brain is not fully mature and wired until the early to mid-20s, but that does not mean a person cannot act in mature and responsible ways.

  15. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    Context is everything, which makes me wonder if I’m alone in thinking that instead of calling 911 a reasonable adult would have approached the kid and asked politely if that was a real gun? Maybe ask if they could examine it?

    Is society becoming so passive aggressive and conditioned to fear anything that “might” harm us that an adult is afraid to talk to a kid? Even if the kid has some facsimile of a gun?

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Context is everything, which makes me wonder if I’m alone in thinking that instead of calling 911 a reasonable adult would have approached the kid and asked politely if that was a real gun? Maybe ask if they could examine it?

      Yeah, right.

      For one: is it *ever* advisable to approach someone who is waving a firearm around and pointing it at people?

      For another: if you do that, and it turns out to be real, and you have to defend yourself, you get the George Zimmerman treatment. No thanks.

      1. avatar Anonymous says:

        For one: is it *ever* advisable to approach someone who is waving a firearm around and pointing it at people?

        This is outside of context. The boy was at a playground… playing. The boy was a boy – not an adult. It is completely reasonable for an adult to walk over to a boy and ask to examine an object that looks like a gun.

        If I was at a playground and spotted my little boy carrying something that looked like a gun, I would definitely and immediately walk over there and investigate what the object was. I would not call 911 or adjust my concealed carry piece and reason over the logic of tactics. I would simply go over there and check it out. Likewise, if it was someone else’s kid, I could perform the same as if it was my kid. I would hope that others would treat my kid the same as if it was their kid. Alas no, they called 911, a debacle of wrong choices was made by everyone involved, and the boy was mopped up at the end of the day.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          This is outside of context. The boy was at a playground… playing. The boy was a boy – not an adult. It is completely reasonable for an adult to walk over to a boy and ask to examine an object that looks like a gun.

          As I read it, he was at a park, not a playground. And he was a 12-year-old – a tween, not a kindergartner. Further, he wasn’t “playing”, he was menacing, by waving and pointing a pistol at people around him.

          You paint a picture of a six-year-old sitting in a sandbox. Thus, given such a false premise, you reach equally false conclusions.

        2. avatar Anonymous says:

          Park – Playground. Doesn’t matter.

          Here is where I read playground:
          http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/24/cleveland-shot-boy/19471925/

          I never said he was six. I said he was a boy. I didn’t paint anything. Whatever you envisioned is what you painted. Some people may have seen his toy gun, thought it was real and felt he was menacing.

          Here… fixed it for you:

          If I was at a playground and spotted my (12 Year old boy) carrying something that looked like a gun, I would definitely and immediately walk over there and investigate what the object was. I would not call 911 or adjust my concealed carry piece and reason over the logic of tactics. I would simply go over there and check it out. Likewise, if it was someone else’s kid, I could perform the same as if it was my kid. I would hope that others would treat my kid the same as if it was their kid. Alas no, they called 911, a debacle of wrong choices was made by everyone involved, and the boy was mopped up at the end of the day.

  16. avatar former water walker says:

    Hmmm…just saw a story on this on TV. It sure as h##l looks real to me. Especially in lowlight. Parents at fault especially if the kid was autistic.And very young gangbangers kill and shoot in Chicago very often. I have a grown-up son who has had learning disabilities. I did NOT trust him at 12 to be able navigate publicly. In his 20’s yes. And I wasn’t there. Just likei Missouri…

  17. Video about to be released. I will hold off commenting until I see it.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Video about to be released. I will hold off commenting until I see it.

      And if the video materially changes the facts as-known, I’ll likewise reconsider my analysis.

      (I do, though, promise not to burn this bitch down if the video shows the police to be in the wrong.)

    2. avatar Anonymous says:

      To my understanding the video is at 2 frames per second and of horrible quality I hear.

  18. avatar Ralph says:

    if you make an action that is threatening to a police officer and you have a weapon on you, the outcome is not going to be good

    If you parse that sentence fragment, what is says is “if you make an action that is threatening to a police officer, even if it isn’t actually threatening (as in this case), and you have a weapon on you, or even if you don’t (as in this case), you die (as in this case).

    And cops wonder why people, white and black, are turning on them. How tone deaf can they be?

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      I’ll definitely think twice before calling 911 for anything. Have to weigh the risk vs benefit of their arrival and presence.

    2. Yessiree. 170 cities had protests last night.
      No way will this be resolved until there is a change in the law. Or maybe a change in the economy, shit flows downhill and there are too many frustrated young black men with nothing to do. If we can’t find a way to make crappy jobs pay better than welfare sooner or later we’ll wish we had.

  19. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Video is indeed very grainy, but it clearly shows that he yanks his sweatshirt up to expose the gun.

    It is also pretty clear that he doesn’t look “young”, and that he was definitely menacing people with the gun.

    The police very well may have rolled up on him too fast in their cruiser, and startled him. But he went for the gun instead of raising his hand. Based on the video, I can’t find any fault with the officers in using deadly force.

  20. Can’t get the stream on my machine at work but a media commenter had this to say:

    “Tamir Rice is shot a split second after officers drive onto park grass. Officer leaves car before it comes to complete stop.”

    Sounds just like the new standard procedure of speed and force and 100% relying on 911 to assess the situation exactly like the John Crawford murder. I have to see the video once it becomes more available but I am thinking just like the Walmart shooting, he was not given clear commands and no time to comply.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      It does look very quick, but bear in mind that the video is time-compressed. According to the chief giving the presser right now, the responding officer had sufficient time to give three verbal commands to Tamir to put up his hands.

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Also per the presser: 2 seconds elapsed from car stop to gunshot.

      1. 1.5 to 2 seconds. About 3/4 of a second longer than Crawford was afforded. Still not enough time to react properly. At this point I am convinced that the verbal command is a CYOA formality only when the police is already determined to shoot.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          It very well could be. And from a procedural perspective, they could have driven up not so close to him.

          But he *very clearly* yanked up his sweatshirt. I couldn’t tell if he reached for the gun after doing so.

          My assessment at this point is that the police could have handled it better, but a reasonable-man standard still justifies using deadly force when they did.

  21. avatar Don says:

    2 seconds, with a car rolling in hot and two cops screaming at you? Kid was probably trying to throw the plastic gun down which is what anybody would think the police wanted you to do? Sounds like just another stop and pop to me, sadly, sadly….

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Kid was probably trying to throw the plastic gun down which is what anybody would think the police wanted you to do?

      “Put your hands up! Put your hands up! Put your hands up!”

      Gee, I think he wants me to reach for the gun in my waistband and throw it down. He certainly must not mean that he wants me to put my hands up…

      1. avatar karlb says:

        To paraphrase Paul Simon, a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest. I am very sorry Chip, but I do not clearly see what you see. For all I know the kid pulls at his shirt when he has been shot. I am sorry, but I do not think the police officers had a chance to give three commands to the kid, unless the first two were given in the moving squad car. How fast does a person have to react to keep a police officer from pulling the trigger. As I said, I have my biases, but this looks horrible for the two officers.

  22. avatar James Andonelli says:

    I ma sickened by the amount of folks who are ok with the police murdering this kids. I say murder because if it were you or I (unprotected by the badge and a rigged in the badges favor justice system) would be charged with.Because it, apparently only matters if police “go home safe”

    I am reading the comments that this kids “deserved” what he got. What happened to protect and serve? These “highly trained” officers can’t tell a threat from 10 feet away? The officer’s own statements indicate he was not verbally or physically threatening anyone. By their own admission the police shot him because “he didn’t obey their commands”

    So that is the state we live in, “obey” us or face the consequences? The problem is the same as the “broken windows” crime theory or what Giuliani did to NY in the 90’s cut down on the petty crime and bigger stuff falls off also. Instead we have the opposite. Cops commit more and more brazen acts of violence and civil rights abuse against the citizenry but corrupt police unions and 1-sided justice system for cops (DA and judges are on their team) allow them to get away with more and more until we get this; 12 year old kids gunned down for not listening. I am tired of the cops seeing us citizens as nothing but potential threats. Disgusting…..

  23. avatar Accur81 says:

    So I followed the linked article, and took a look at the airsoft 1911. It was pretty realistic. If it was pointed at me in a threatening manner, and I couldn’t tell that it was a fake, I’m going to shoot. Non-negotiable. On duty or off. Even if it is a 12 year old.

    Anyone who would do otherwise needs to seriously take a look at their tactics.

    There are certainly instances where police screw up, raid the wrong house, shoot the wrong target, etc. Those are separate and unrelated events. Each shooting needs to be judged independently based upon the reasonable perspective of the shooter. Anyone who can’t do that shouldn’t judge shootings. Leave the emotional stuff to MDA.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      I never advocated that it was safe to scare cops [or fair to attempt to shorten their life with unreasonable split-second decision making and permanent heartache and second guessing (I’m a pay-your-taxes and take your chances type)]. I was saying that the locals, believing an armed boy/man/person who was “threatening with a pistol” would then sit and wait for the cops, but either way, they called in a hit on the kid.

      Further, I don’t think its ground work for gun control, or that the cops wouldn’t have shot the kid for a ‘pink’ gun.

      When toy guns without orange muzzles are outlawed, only the outlaws will have real guns with an orange muzzle.

      When all guns are outlawed, only the a-holes outlawing guns will have guns.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        oh. . ., not ‘just’ those a-holes, also the rest of the world, especially the Chinese who (when asked to disarm) will take time out of their busy day [of shooting lasers at our satellites, dominating near earth orbit, vastly expanding their navy, and building a huge runway complex on their man-made island in the south China Sea] to say f-u stupid” and then everyone here (who gave up their guns) will say “why didn’t we think of that”, and the rest of us (who didn’t succumb to that ignorance) will say “f-u stupid”.

    2. avatar Anonymous says:

      Sure. If tactics are all you are looking at.

      I prefer uncommon_sense’s response here:
      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/11/daniel-zimmerman/quote-day-56/#comment-2009664

      Here was one of my responses:
      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/11/daniel-zimmerman/quote-day-56/#comment-2009599

      The question isn’t “is it the best tactical approach?” but rather… “Is it the best moral decision?”

  24. avatar James Andonelli says:

    Here’s the problem Acurr81, it wasn’t pointed in a threatening manner at the police. Even the 911 caller knew it was “probably fake”

    From the cop’s mouth:

    However, Deputy Chief of Field Operations Ed Tomba described the incident as ‘very, very tragic’, saying that the child did not threaten the officer verbally or physically.

    ‘When an officer gives a command, we expect it to be followed,’ Mr Tomba said.

    There you have, he wasn’t shot because he was a threat, he was shot because he didn’t obey the Police Officer’s command.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      No threat of lethal force = bad shoot. I might have missed that in the article. If so, mea culpa.

      1. I just don’t like the double standard. I judge most of these shootings on whether I would be prosecuted for doing the same thing a cop does. I understand we grant more powers to the police but when it comes to lethal force, my right to self defense should not be less than the cops right to use lethal force in questionable situations.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          If you, as a non-LEO, acting lawfully in a place you had a right to be, came up on someone and that person lifted his shirt and reached for a handgun in his waistband, and you perceived that action as a threat, you would be justified in using deadly force in self-defense if you dhot him.

          I see no double standard.

        2. Actually, in that case, since he drew first, if he can shoot straight, I would be dead. Now on the other hand, to put this in context with actual events, if I observe someone playing with a gun in a park and I do a flanking maneuver to get close enough to draw my weapon and charge him, then rush him yelling “hands up hands up hands up!” and shoot instantly, I’m doing long time and when I get out, I will no longer have any gun rights.
          There is a muffakin double standard and if you don’t see it then you are living in denial.

        3. avatar robert andoneli says:

          You or would have been charged with attempted murder while the anti-gun media would deride us as a bunch of trigger happy cowboys who couldn’t tell the difference between a toy gun nd a real one.

          Please, Troll, er “Chip Bennett” don’t tell me there is no double standard. If a CCW holder shot that kid he would be crucified.

        4. avatar Anonymous says:

          If a CCW holder shot that kid he would be crucified.

          This is absolutely true. No denying this.

  25. avatar tdiinva says:

    For those who get bent out of shape when refer to certain people as faux Libertarians here an article by Jacob Sullum over at Reason.

    http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/26/darren-wilson-got-a-private-trial

    By all means lets indict and try an innocent man to appease the mob.

    Well Jake, in the US one is presumed innocent until proven guilty and by the way knowingly indicting an innocent man is called prosecutorial misconduct. I understand that a guy named Mike Nifong got into hot water trying to do that.

    Just remember the faux Libertarians at Reason and those who post here are on the side of the gangs.

  26. avatar GuntotinDem says:

    This wasn’t a bad shoot. This was bad tactics. Theres no one in the freaking park. Could they have taken a moment from down the block to assess the situation? They zoomed in Kid did something stupid and paid for it. I think the officer was justified.But the time line they could have created would have been so much better

    on the other hand

    1. Well it definitely shows you the importance of seniority on the police force. Not only do they get first dibs on overtime, but they can drive the car and put your rookie partner in a position of human shield. Lucky for the rook, Tamir was just a kid with a pellet gun.
      Why didn’t the cops just do a drive by? If the veteran knows how to drift, they could have circled the gazebo keeping the kid stationary while the trigger happy rookie could continue firing out of the window.

  27. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    The 911 caller was responsible for the kids death at Beavercreek as he was just pointing the gun at a bag of dog food and the video showed the cop did not give any warning before shooting him. The 911 caller in Cleveland stated that he thought the gun fake, but he was scaring people and pointing a gun at them. I did not see any of the people that he was pointing the gun at. The cops pull up in the car and appear to shoot him from the car with no warning. Both incidents were pure BS on account of the cops.

  28. avatar ropingdown says:

    Who to reply to? I can’t choose, so here:

    When I was a law student a man a year ahead of me was walking across Capitol Hill in the late morning to get to class (Georgetown U.L.C, NJ Avenue.). Two children, ages 11 and 12, approached him and demanded his wallet. The 12-year-old had a small revolver in his hand. The student handed the kid his wallet. The kids went one way, the law student the other. But the kids decided to turn and shoot the guy in the back. He died three or four hours later in hospital, because the 22LR had destroyed his liver. So 12-year-old kids do occasionally become callous murderers. This was in 1979 or so.

    But there is another side to the police story. Self-defense and the need for an urgent response are prompted by surprise. Self-defense law does not countenance an intentional approach to a lethal threat, barring the need to defend another innocent. Police use of lethal force when intentionally closing with a known danger is a matter of police law and regulation, not self-defense. It is, in that sense, special:

    Because we the citizens empower police to both close with a lethal threat and to use lethal force against that threat, we expect them to use intelligent tactics. While SCOTUS has held that the requirements of police use of lethal force are essentially the same as those of a non-sworn person invoking self-defense, an exception is made regarding HOW the officer came to be within range of the lethal threat:

    It is not overly-burdensome to require that police, in their attempt to apprehend a suspected dangerous person, use intelligent tactics and modern equipment to minimize the likelihood that a lethal outcome will result. Many of the people they must apprehend are intoxicated, of poor mental health, or have low intelligence. The “rapid apprehension with violence of action” model is military. It is unsuitable for policing in a civil environment. Where there is no perception that a suspect is an immediate threat to actual people in proximity to the suspect, techniques such as stand-off warnings via loudspeaker (our patrol vehicles have them…), reliance on a distance weapon to provide safety (long gun), use of less-lethal shotgun rounds (if backup is present), and other techniques… are not only relevant, but should be demanded by the employing public.

    How many times in a day is a 911 call of an active gun threat made in the town involved? What changes to tactics are trained to adjust reactions when the officer perceives no innocents are under immediate threat? And why, I ask myself again and again, do police feel it is appropriate to fire their weapon before a person of interest has actually begun to raise a weapon in their direction, or make a clear charge at them? It isn’t about “denying an LEO the inherent right of self-defense.” He’s not exercising that right, because he is in pursuit. It is about LEO’s being well-trained enough in sensible policies to know that they do not need to close with a suspect in every single case. How the proximity develops is of the greatest relevance in assessing police shootings.

  29. avatar jug says:

    Ten bucks to a dog turd, that the call in party knew exactly what everything was, from kid’s appox age, his mental condition and that it was a “toy”, but that it didn’t matter, and called in in anyway, and likely just to see what they could stir up.

    Well, I hope to hell that whoever it was is happy now!

    That person should be found and at least interviewed/investigated!

  30. avatar Chase F. says:

    Does anyone else find it ironic that the people who do everything “for the children” get kids killed just because they are scared of the toy the kid is carrying, and report him to trigger-happy cops?

  31. avatar Chase F. says:

    Does anyone else find it ironic that the people who do everything “for the children” get kids killed just because they are scared of the toy the kid is carrying, and report him to trigger-happy cops? Seriously, fear of guns probably kills more innocent people (Either through not having a gun or reporting an innocent person with one) than guns do!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email