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

[TankRizzo]

And in other news, a toddler has shot dead his mum whilst she was changing his baby sister's nappy, after he found the family's gun under a sofa

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/toddler-s...

Edited by TankRizzo on Tuesday 25th November 22:19

[Oakey]

"lost my wife in an accident yesterday"

No, you lost your wife due to stupidity. A gun under the sofa, really?

[irocfan]

WRT Ferguson...

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

chap has it nailed

[anonymous-user]

- Tasers aren't a suitable response for a gun.
- Shooting limbs doesn't work (except for highly specific, controlled circumstances).
- A 12 year old can still easily present a lethal threat.

Elroy Blue said:

How I'd love to hear a UK Police chief speak to the press like this, but the message is very clear and very true

http://clashdaily.com/2014/11/boom-milwaukee-polic...

Can we get him over here? You'd follow him into battle. Passion and leadership through and through.

menousername said:

do the police not receive any training at all? surely competent highly trained police officers trusted with firearms are rational, calm and experienced enough to analyse the situation and make an appropriate response... if not then they should not be employed in that role.

The 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.

[98elise]

BoRED S2upid said:

otolith said:

How does shooting someone in the leg stop him shooting you in the face?

It doesn't and as soon as he points a gun at you the second shot takes his head off. The first shot focuses their mind.

You don't start shooting until you think your life is in danger, so when you shoot its to stop (essentially kill).

Imagine two people facing each other ready for a gun fight.

You tell one of them he must wait for the other the make a move first before he can draw and shoot. You also tell him he must fire a warning shot first, or aim for the legs only. you also make him bound by a bunch of rules before he can shoot.

You tell the other one that he doesn't need to follow any rules and can do what he likes.

Also add into the mix that the one bound by the rules is probably a law abiding decent citizen, and the one bound by no rules is a criminal.

Which one is your money on?

[BoRED S2upid]

98elise said:

You don't start shooting until you think your life is in danger, so when you shoot its to stop (essentially kill).

Imagine two people facing each other ready for a gun fight.

You tell one of them he must wait for the other the make a move first before he can draw and shoot. You also tell him he must fire a warning shot first, or aim for the legs only. you also make him bound by a bunch of rules before he can shoot.

You tell the other one that he doesn't need to follow any rules and can do what he likes.

Also add into the mix that the one bound by the rules is probably a law abiding decent citizen, and the one bound by no rules is a criminal.

Which one is your money on?

Is one hiding behind a car door and wearing a bullet proof vest? And have two mates with him? Or is it one on one quickest to the draw type scenario ?

Playing devils advocate of course. We can only imagine what went under such pressure.

[blindswelledrat]

BoRED S2upid said:

Is one hiding behind a car door and wearing a bullet proof vest? And have two mates with him? Or is it one on one quickest to the draw type scenario ?

Playing devils advocate of course. We can only imagine what went under such pressure.

The main point he was making, though, is that police are trained to only shoot when lives are in danger so when they do shoot it is to kill/stop. SO whatever the circumstances and even if it is subsequently shown the policeman made a serious error of judgement, the fact remains that at that particular moment he believed there was a threat to life hence you are shooting to stop them. Shooting someone is never used as a warning,and rightly so

[BJG1]

Amirhussain said:

Why the need to bring up the fact they're black?

Because in America at least, it likely makes a difference to whether he would have got shot or not

[irocfan]

BJG1 said:

Amirhussain said:

Why the need to bring up the fact they're black?

Because in America at least, it likely makes a difference to whether he would have got shot or not

hmmmm

http://downtrend.com/71superb/unarmed-white-man-sh...

no rioting, no civil right aholes banging on 'bout the pO-lis

[BJG1]

irocfan said:

hmmmm

http://downtrend.com/71superb/unarmed-white-man-sh...

no rioting, no civil right aholes banging on 'bout the pO-lis

I don't think also shooting unarmed white men makes it any less obvious that the USA has a huge problem with institutionalised racism. You only have to look at the war on drugs to see that's true All racial groups use drugs at approximately the same rate but Blacks are 8x as whites to be arrested for drugs offences. The penalty for crack cocaine offences are 10 times as strong as for cocaine, despite the difference being some baking soda and heat. White people do cocaine, black people do crack - that's why the penalties are so harsh. It's not just about being black, it's about persecuting 'undesirables' that was Chinese people when they made Opium illegal, black people with their laws on crack and white trailer-trash with Meth.

[L1OFF]

andymc said:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=airsoft+guns&amp...


Images

That was interesting, I didn't realise that only the tip of the barrel was orange. In the UK (shop near me) the whole thing is completly orange.

[Vaud]

Oakey said:

"lost my wife in an accident yesterday"

No, you lost your wife due to stupidity. A gun under the sofa, really?

Potentially her stupidity..

"On Facebook, Engles is pictured wearing Army fatigues and refers to herself as “Spc” Engles. The Tulsa World confirmed she was an enrolled military member."

[IanMorewood]

TankRizzo said:

And in other news, a toddler has shot dead his mum whilst she was changing his baby sister's nappy, after he found the family's gun under a sofa

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/toddler-s...

Edited by TankRizzo on Tuesday 25th November 22:19

Loaded one up the spout semi automatic hand gun stuffed under the sofa, was she planning to entertain Oscar Pistorius in her lounge?

[Baryonyx]

Wacky Racer said:

Why did the police not just shoot him in the leg, assuming he could have done?

This is real life, not a Hollywood movie. What will you suggest next, a sniper shooting the gun out of his hand?

[2013BRM]

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

[andymadmak]

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.

[McWigglebum4th]

I think the only way to keep the locals happy is the following rules

If a police officer encounters a black person carry a gun he must immediately run away and ignore it

[blindswelledrat]

2013BRM said:

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

How can it be?
I don't know about the US but here you can only shoot if you believe the person poses an immediate danger of killing someone. In that scenario you cant do anything but shoot to kill.
THe problem isn't the rules it is the fact that it is humans enforcing them and sadly errors of judgement are unavoidable. Although nothing yet suggests that this was an error of judgement other than he was 12 which on it's own is nothing.

[2013BRM]

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?

[irocfan]

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?

and what would have happened had the kid just fired off a few rounds while waving the "gun" around (bear in mind the cops did not know it was a fake)? Yes it's a tragedy that a kid died - however one person is responsible for that situation and it isn't the cop.