Like being shot myself

Post Reply New Topic

In another Everett branch, the headlines would be screaming about how the police did nothing as a 12 year old fatally shot people...

Hardly.

What we support is parents being responsible for their children. Where were the parents when their precious child was waving a gun around and pointing it at cops?

Even a toy gun can be perceived as a threat when you are responsible for defending yourself, your co-workers, and everyone else around who is not acting like an armed thug.

Yes, it's a Very Sad Thing for a child to die; but again, where were his parents? Why weren't they taking better care of him?

Kids play with guns - I certainly had when I was growing up, so it's not something out of the ordinary for this kid to do. My question is, why the hell did a cop have to shoot a child? Grown man - child, grown man - child. It aint that difficult to tell the difference.

I am afraid that if the dumb pols pass some dumb law saying all toy guns must be orange or polka dot or something [among the lawmakers' proposals], that perps will start painting their pieces that way also. what a world. what if it was an adult packing concealed heat per license, how is the cop coming across this scene supposed to quickly figure out threat/non-threat? what does a cop do in that situation?

I think if a person is the size of a child - and so probably is - it's a good guess that that person holding the (toy) gun almost certainly is not a threat. Toys are toys and guns are guns; it's a matter of the police making a judgement about who is holding it.

Cops are so on edge in this country, they are ready to shot and kill literally anybody

Again, when did the lethality of a gun become dependant upon the age of its user?

I can not follow Mootoo's leap of logic, if I was to grab a random woman and try to drag her into the undergrowth then I would put into the mind of a "reasonable" woman a clear and present threat of serious violence and/or sexual assault. I would say if she beat the living whatever out of the man then I would hold the view that she did the right thing.

In the same way if the woman was a police officer (or even a law abiding armed member of the public) then if you pull out a gun and point it at her then it is reasonable for her to shoot first and then maybe ask questions later as the gun in the hand of a hostile person is a clear mortal threat. The fact that it was a male cop does not make his reaction any morally different to the hypothetical female cop.

I would be one fo the first to complain about an excessive force evil thug cop but in this case I see no evidence of the cop being an evil thug cop. It is a pitty the child died but if the child had fallen in a river and drowned while larking about would you blame the water for killing him, likewise if he climbed a electric power pole and was laid low by a 22000 volt shock would you blame the electric wire ?

I view the cop as a bit like the wire or the water, the child did something very stupid which he should have known was going to result in death or injury. Sadly the child died, maybe you should educate kids not to wave guns (or fake guns) around in public.

It seems most here haven't seen the statistics in the U.S. that show the huge number of child related deaths are gang related.

Yep, just because a person is young there is no reason to believe they are NOT gang members, especially if seen pointing weapons at people. I imagine it might make police apprehensive.

The f'ing manufactures should be forced to make these toys BRIGHT F'ING RED no questions asked! Realistic is BULLSH__! If the mfgrs. resist, put them in jail.

It doesn't matter, just seeing a gun doesn't mean a cop has open season on you. If the gun is pointed and aimed at you maybe its more understandable then but we've had on multiple occasions this year are cops shooting first asking questions later. We have this little boy and that guy that got shot walking out of Walmart.

In the case of the 12-year old boy, the orange plastic had been removed and/or the toy gun painted to make it look more realistic.

Then again, what's to stop someone from painting a real gun orange to make it look fake?

"It doesn't matter, just seeing a gun doesn't mean a cop has open season on you" BUT it does mean the police officer (or even a private citizen) has the right to defend themselves against possible death.....wouldn't you agree?

If you think you're superhuman and wouldn't have adrenaline issues etc. as you make your snap decision then why don't you advise the medical community, as they disagree?

Allowing emotion (sorry Aunt Blabby) to confuse your rational thought is what keeps the fire burning in Ferguson.

There are already some pastel weapons available, marketed as "ladies" weapons; it's created a campaign to outlaw manufacture of colored weapons, but has unable to generate enough traction. Personally, if I were a manufacturer of weapons this would be a no-brainer.

And some seriously stiff (not to be given away in plea bargains) penalties, should be enacted, for repainting a weapon the way you describe.

You've seen too many tv shows. Trying to shoot someone in the legs would be very stupid and would likely be grounds to dismiss the cop from his job.

The training is rightfully to shoot at the center of mass. It gives you the best chance of hitting them and the best chance of stopping them.

As well as a high chance of survival for the individual shot, I believe? You're not very likely to hit the heart, so as long as medical attention is prompt, they should survive...

Though I think there needs to be a lot more focus on less-lethal weapons. The aim, after all, is to knock the target down and incapacitate them, not to kill them. Perhaps arming the police with rubber bullets would be a good idea? As long as it has enough force to knock them on their back without killing them, even if it does break a few ribs...

Being hit with a rubber bullet isn't going to knock anyone much bigger than a housecat on their back. They might happen to fall backwards, but the part about being knocked backwards by a shot is nothing more than theatrical portrayals.

If being hit by a bullet was enough to knock the person on the back like we see on tv, it would likely do very serious damage to anyone firing the bullet. The bullet is not going to pick up great multiples of momentum between the firearm and the target.