12-year-old playing with fake gun shot dead by Ohio police.

[hornet]

Given the open carry law, it's conceivable that this situation could have transpired where the shooter of the fatal shot was an armed private citizen rather than a policeman. I'm genuinely curious as to how the story would have unfolded in that situation?

Kid seen in street pointing what's not an obviously fake gun at passers by
Legally armed private citizen challenges kid to drop the gun
Kid ignores warning(s)
Kid draws gun

Would a private citizen, potentially every bit as trained in the use of a firearm as a policeman be under the same obligation with regard calls for warning shots, leg shots and the like? Would they be coming under the same scrutiny regarding their motives? If the situation was identical bar the final shooter wearing a police uniform, how would the narrative differ?

[andymadmak]

2013BRM said:

andymadmak said:

2013BRM said:

like this you mean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y54aONB3dns

I think the time is right for the shoot to kill policy to be reviewed after this one

Yes, because the criminal is always going to be sitting in the open, motionless, for long enough to allow a Police sniper to pick his shot.

Oh dear Andy I had you down as a bit more mature than that, you don't need to be so literal.
Of course that is a pretty unusual scenario but the shoot to kill policy is just that and originates from the Israeli Special Forces methods of dealing with suicide bombers, quite a distance away from an eleven year old waving a handgun around. All I'm saying is that, because of the likelyhood of an armed nutter or child being just that in the US rather than a suicide bomber, might merit a less extreme response, yes, no?

Well, several posters have already pointed out the practical issues surrounding "shoot to wound" or "let the other fella shoot first so we can be sure he's a bad 'un before we pull the trigger" etc. The fact is a 12 year old can kill you just as easily as a suicide bomber.
The problem is that too many people think that Hollywood gun fights when the baddies always telegraph that they are about to shoot , so that the cops can get their shot off first is in some way real or achievable in real life. Look, I simply cannot believe that any US citizen is not fully cogniscent of the fact that if you screw around with the Police out there you're gonna get hurt. Fail to respond to clear instructions and be carrying a gun (the replica element is irrelevant in this context) and you stand a high % chance of going to the morgue. Everyone knows that. The fault here is with people who think that the Police are clairvoyant and can magically tell the good guys from the not so good guys from the bad guys from the REALLY bad guys. Word up! They can't. So if you want to live, don't pretend to be a badass, waving a gun, failing to respond to Police instructions in a public place.
It's really not that hard. I've spent years in the states and hardly ever been shot at all.. But maybe thats cos I am white?

[andymadmak]

hornet said:

Given the open carry law, it's conceivable that this situation could have transpired where the shooter of the fatal shot was an armed private citizen rather than a policeman. I'm genuinely curious as to how the story would have unfolded in that situation?

Kid seen in street pointing what's not an obviously fake gun at passers by
Legally armed private citizen challenges kid to drop the gun
Kid ignores warning(s)
Kid draws gun

Would a private citizen, potentially every bit as trained in the use of a firearm as a policeman be under the same obligation with regard calls for warning shots, leg shots and the like? Would they be coming under the same scrutiny regarding their motives? If the situation was identical bar the final shooter wearing a police uniform, how would the narrative differ?

Trayvon Martin.

Riots

[2013BRM]

andymadmak said:

2013BRM said:

andymadmak said:

2013BRM said:

like this you mean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y54aONB3dns

I think the time is right for the shoot to kill policy to be reviewed after this one

Yes, because the criminal is always going to be sitting in the open, motionless, for long enough to allow a Police sniper to pick his shot.

Oh dear Andy I had you down as a bit more mature than that, you don't need to be so literal.
Of course that is a pretty unusual scenario but the shoot to kill policy is just that and originates from the Israeli Special Forces methods of dealing with suicide bombers, quite a distance away from an eleven year old waving a handgun around. All I'm saying is that, because of the likelyhood of an armed nutter or child being just that in the US rather than a suicide bomber, might merit a less extreme response, yes, no?

Well, several posters have already pointed out the practical issues surrounding "shoot to wound" or "let the other fella shoot first so we can be sure he's a bad 'un before we pull the trigger" etc. The fact is a 12 year old can kill you just as easily as a suicide bomber.
The problem is that too many people think that Hollywood gun fights when the baddies always telegraph that they are about to shoot , so that the cops can get their shot off first is in some way real or achievable in real life. Look, I simply cannot believe that any US citizen is not fully cogniscent of the fact that if you screw around with the Police out there you're gonna get hurt. Fail to respond to clear instructions and be carrying a gun (the replica element is irrelevant in this context) and you stand a high % chance of going to the morgue. Everyone knows that. The fault here is with people who think that the Police are clairvoyant and can magically tell the good guys from the not so good guys from the bad guys from the REALLY bad guys. Word up! They can't. So if you want to live, don't pretend to be a badass, waving a gun, failing to respond to Police instructions in a public place.
It's really not that hard. I've spent years in the states and hardly ever been shot at all.. But maybe thats cos I am white?

From what I've heard about it, you might not be that far wrong.
By the way I'm not and never have used Hollywood as a frame of reference for anything but rather from serving in the Forces, the answer lies, as usual, somewhere between shoot to kill and shoot to immobilise and is probably not going to happen more because of litigation than anything else.

[Jasandjules]

2013BRM said:

Of course that is a pretty unusual scenario but the shoot to kill policy is just that and originates from the Israeli Special Forces methods of dealing with suicide bombers, quite a distance away from an eleven year old waving a handgun around. All I'm saying is that, because of the likelyhood of an armed nutter or child being just that in the US rather than a suicide bomber, might merit a less extreme response, yes, no?

No.

If someone is waving a gun around, they might shoot you, your fellow cops or even some poor f**er strolling nearby.

If you think you are good enough to:

1. Wait for someone to fire at you before you open fire
2. Shooting the gun from their hand
3. Casually stroll over perhaps quipping "that was a handy shot eh kid?"

Then can I invite you to join the SAS/armed police, because you are clearly the kind of man they need.

Most people in this situation are scared of being shot themselves, and they aim for the biggest target, the centre of mass.

[g3org3y]

irocfan said:

WRT Ferguson...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bODH1dG3avY

chap has it nailed

[Greg_D]

andymadmak said:

2013BRM said:

andymadmak said:

2013BRM said:

like this you mean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y54aONB3dns

I think the time is right for the shoot to kill policy to be reviewed after this one

Yes, because the criminal is always going to be sitting in the open, motionless, for long enough to allow a Police sniper to pick his shot.

Oh dear Andy I had you down as a bit more mature than that, you don't need to be so literal.
Of course that is a pretty unusual scenario but the shoot to kill policy is just that and originates from the Israeli Special Forces methods of dealing with suicide bombers, quite a distance away from an eleven year old waving a handgun around. All I'm saying is that, because of the likelyhood of an armed nutter or child being just that in the US rather than a suicide bomber, might merit a less extreme response, yes, no?

Well, several posters have already pointed out the practical issues surrounding "shoot to wound" or "let the other fella shoot first so we can be sure he's a bad 'un before we pull the trigger" etc. The fact is a 12 year old can kill you just as easily as a suicide bomber.
The problem is that too many people think that Hollywood gun fights when the baddies always telegraph that they are about to shoot , so that the cops can get their shot off first is in some way real or achievable in real life. Look, I simply cannot believe that any US citizen is not fully cogniscent of the fact that if you screw around with the Police out there you're gonna get hurt. Fail to respond to clear instructions and be carrying a gun (the replica element is irrelevant in this context) and you stand a high % chance of going to the morgue. Everyone knows that. The fault here is with people who think that the Police are clairvoyant and can magically tell the good guys from the not so good guys from the bad guys from the REALLY bad guys. Word up! They can't. So if you want to live, don't pretend to be a badass, waving a gun, failing to respond to Police instructions in a public place.
It's really not that hard. I've spent years in the states and hardly ever been shot at all.. But maybe thats cos I am white?

I'll just leave this here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

Chris rock, so tongue in cheek, but pertinent to a couple of recent cases of blue on black

[2013BRM]

Jasandjules said:

2013BRM said:

Of course that is a pretty unusual scenario but the shoot to kill policy is just that and originates from the Israeli Special Forces methods of dealing with suicide bombers, quite a distance away from an eleven year old waving a handgun around. All I'm saying is that, because of the likelyhood of an armed nutter or child being just that in the US rather than a suicide bomber, might merit a less extreme response, yes, no?

No.

If someone is waving a gun around, they might shoot you, your fellow cops or even some poor f**er strolling nearby.

If you think you are good enough to:

1. Wait for someone to fire at you before you open fire
2. Shooting the gun from their hand
3. Casually stroll over perhaps quipping "that was a handy shot eh kid?"

Then can I invite you to join the SAS/armed police, because you are clearly the kind of man they need.

Most people in this situation are scared of being shot themselves, and they aim for the biggest target, the centre of mass.

ok

[98elise]

2013BRM said:

andymadmak said:

2013BRM said:

andymadmak said:

2013BRM said:

like this you mean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y54aONB3dns

I think the time is right for the shoot to kill policy to be reviewed after this one

Yes, because the criminal is always going to be sitting in the open, motionless, for long enough to allow a Police sniper to pick his shot.

Oh dear Andy I had you down as a bit more mature than that, you don't need to be so literal.
Of course that is a pretty unusual scenario but the shoot to kill policy is just that and originates from the Israeli Special Forces methods of dealing with suicide bombers, quite a distance away from an eleven year old waving a handgun around. All I'm saying is that, because of the likelyhood of an armed nutter or child being just that in the US rather than a suicide bomber, might merit a less extreme response, yes, no?

Well, several posters have already pointed out the practical issues surrounding "shoot to wound" or "let the other fella shoot first so we can be sure he's a bad 'un before we pull the trigger" etc. The fact is a 12 year old can kill you just as easily as a suicide bomber.
The problem is that too many people think that Hollywood gun fights when the baddies always telegraph that they are about to shoot , so that the cops can get their shot off first is in some way real or achievable in real life. Look, I simply cannot believe that any US citizen is not fully cogniscent of the fact that if you screw around with the Police out there you're gonna get hurt. Fail to respond to clear instructions and be carrying a gun (the replica element is irrelevant in this context) and you stand a high % chance of going to the morgue. Everyone knows that. The fault here is with people who think that the Police are clairvoyant and can magically tell the good guys from the not so good guys from the bad guys from the REALLY bad guys. Word up! They can't. So if you want to live, don't pretend to be a badass, waving a gun, failing to respond to Police instructions in a public place.
It's really not that hard. I've spent years in the states and hardly ever been shot at all.. But maybe thats cos I am white?

From what I've heard about it, you might not be that far wrong.
By the way I'm not and never have used Hollywood as a frame of reference for anything but rather from serving in the Forces, the answer lies, as usual, somewhere between shoot to kill and shoot to immobilise and is probably not going to happen more because of litigation than anything else.

You served in the Forces and they taught you how to shoot to wound or immobilise?

I also served in the forces and from the first time we picked up a gun we were told that was movie bks. You go for the torso and its to kill. There isn't a middle ground.

[menousername]

La Liga said:

he lack of rationality you're accusing the officers of is actually absent from your post. Any rational thinking would not make a definitive judgement until they knew the full facts and circumstances which led to this shooting.

ignoring your obvious, and poor, deflection attempt and largely empty response.... I am not entrusted with patrolling the streets fully armed... therefore my rationality does not need to be above scrutiny

[2013BRM]

98elise said:

You served in the Forces and they taught you how to shoot to wound or immobilise?

no, obviously not, and that's not what I wrote

[98elise]

2013BRM said:

98elise said:

You served in the Forces and they taught you how to shoot to wound or immobilise?

no, obviously not, and that's not what I wrote

It sounded like you were entertaining the notion of using a gun to immobilise but not kill. Thats just not an easy thing to do in unless your have total control over the situation, in which case a gun isn't needed.

[anonymous-user]

2013BRM said:

like this you mean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y54aONB3dns

I think the time is right for the shoot to kill policy to be reviewed after this one

That's a completely controlled and contained scenario. How would you even consider them to be like-for-like?

The use of force, practically, has been found to be lawful by a jury.

menousername said:

ignoring your obvious, and poor, deflection attempt and largely empty response.... I am not entrusted with patrolling the streets fully armed...

But not debating the actual response? You don't have access to the information and evidence in which to make a judgement of the person's actions or rationality. Unless you do then I'll happily apologise.

You do recognise the importance of having the information in which you actually base a conclusion upon, don't you? The difference between speculation and fact?

menousername said:

therefore my rationality does not need to be above scrutiny

Well if you're happy to justify being irrational then that makes being so ok

[Chris Type R]

Incident video on the beeb: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30220700

[so called]

So apparently the kid was shot within 2 seconds of the Police car stopping.
That doesn't give much time to analyse, negotiate, take control of a situation.
But then if your idea/instructions in taking control is to simply shoot to kill, then you don't need to waste time on the first two details.

The US certainly does portray an attitude that life is cheep.

[anonymous-user]

so called said:

So apparently the kid was shot within 2 seconds of the Police car stopping. That doesn't give much time to analyse, negotiate, take control of a situation.

How much time does it take for a gun pointed at you to be discharged? Time is often not a luxury in spontaneous incidents and quick decisions need to be made.

so called said:

But then if your idea/instructions in taking control is to simply shoot to kill, then you don't need to waste time on the first two details.

The US certainly does portray an attitude that life is cheep.

Perhaps so, but we can transcend our views and prejudice by introducing some data.

Between 2003 and 2009, there were 98 million arrests in the US. 2931 of those resulted in the person being killed through 'homicide' by the police. About 500 officers have been shot dead over the period.

I don't think that supports your conclusions.

[blindswelledrat]

andymadmak said:

Well, several posters have already pointed out the practical issues surrounding "shoot to wound" or "let the other fella shoot first so we can be sure he's a bad 'un before we pull the trigger" etc. The fact is a 12 year old can kill you just as easily as a suicide bomber.
The problem is that too many people think that Hollywood gun fights when the baddies always telegraph that they are about to shoot , so that the cops can get their shot off first is in some way real or achievable in real life. Look, I simply cannot believe that any US citizen is not fully cogniscent of the fact that if you screw around with the Police out there you're gonna get hurt. Fail to respond to clear instructions and be carrying a gun (the replica element is irrelevant in this context) and you stand a high % chance of going to the morgue. Everyone knows that. The fault here is with people who think that the Police are clairvoyant and can magically tell the good guys from the not so good guys from the bad guys from the REALLY bad guys. Word up! They can't. So if you want to live, don't pretend to be a badass, waving a gun, failing to respond to Police instructions in a public place.
It's really not that hard. I've spent years in the states and hardly ever been shot at all.. But maybe thats cos I am white?

I read this and thought it articulately and perfectly summed up the whole situation and there wasn't much more to say.
And then you ruined it by saying "Word up!"
THis has ruined me because I agree with you completely and yet I feel totally compelled to try and disagree with someone who says "word up" without irony.

[philv]

I'm not sure how they could have summed up the situation so quickly before shooting him.
It couldn't have been much quicker if they'd just run him over.

In a park waving a gun around.
There is always the possibility it is a drunk or a kid with a toy gun.

Couldn't they have just waited a little.
Were there lots of innocent bystanders around in imminent danger?

I don't mean they should stand in front of him and let him possibly shoot them.
But they could have tried to measure up the situation.
Could they have stayed in the car and ordered hom to drop the gun.

Did he have the gun in his hand when rhey came up to him in tne car?
If not and its on his trousers or pocket and they order him to drop the gun, he would have to go for it to drop it.

Edited by philv on Thursday 27th November 10:22

Edited by philv on Thursday 27th November 10:26

[Kaj91]

philv said:

Did he have the gun in his hand when rhey came up to him in tne car?
If not and its on his trousers or pocket and they order him to drop the gun, he would have to go for it to drop it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L97aihRvZtQ

A 12-YEAR-OLD BOY carrying a pellet gun that looked like a real firearm was ordered three times to show his hands before he was fatally shot by an officer, Cleveland police said today —- as they released surveillance video of the shooting and identified the officers involved.
The boy was shot within two seconds of the cruiser pulling up next to him, according to the surveillance video, which is silent and shows the shooting in stuttering images.
Police said it was being released as requested by the family of the boy, Tamir Rice.
They also released audio of a 911 call reporting a gun and a dispatcher directing officers to the scene.
“This is not an effort to exonerate. It’s not an effort to show the public that anybody did anything wrong,” Deputy Chief Edward Tomba said.
This is an obvious tragic event where a young member of our community lost their life. We’ve got two officers that were out there protecting the public that just had to, you know, do something that nobody wants to do.
Tomba refused to comment on what the officers said in their statements, including whether Tamir made any comments to them.

Tamir Rice.
Police identified the responding officers as 26-year-old Timothy Loehmann, who was appointed to the force this year and was identified as the officer who fired on Tamir, and 46-year-old Frank Garmback, who’s been with the department since 2008.
Police say Tamir was told to raise his hands three times, then reached into his waistband for what appeared to be a firearm. Police later determined it was an airsoft gun, which shoots small plastic pellets. Airsoft guns are sold with orange safety indicators at the end of the barrel, but police said Tamir didn’t have one.
The boy was shot on Saturday as officers responded to a call about someone with a gun at a Cleveland playground.
Police said Tamir was given first aid less than 4 minutes after the shooting, and emergency medical personnel arrived three minutes after that.
He died at a hospital the next day.
The shooting has led to an investigation of the officer’s use of force and protests referencing this and other police-involved shootings.
The officers involved have been interviewed, and police have obtained statements from several other people, Tomba said.
He said police are monitoring social media for any indications of other potential witnesses and are pleading for people to come forward if they have information related to the case, even if it is just a tidbit.

[philv]

Did tney order him to drop tne gun 3 times whilst driving towards him?

Or 3 times by 2 cops in 2 seconds.

He was 12.
I'd probably crap myself in that situation and make a wrong movement.