It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


update; deputy who shot 13 year with pellet rifle will not be charged.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 11:55 AM
a reply to: Xcathdra

I t doesn't change the fact that it was still a toy...
Guess it is my bleeding heart side of me that can't find the right in a 13 year old dead for a toy.
I get cop safety but being a cop is not a safe job and if we just allow them to shot and kill everyone that they think is a danger to them then it is going to get out of control, I think it already is.
Also my issue is that if joe citizen did this I doubt we would be seeing the same outcome with 0 criminal charges.

posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 12:00 PM

originally posted by: Expat888
With how realistic they make airguns look these days and that in some areas there are 13 year old or younger kids that carry/use real firearms the officer made a judgement call and will live with that haunting him ..

The courts made the right call ..

Guess those who hate the police here would have been happier if it was an ak47 and the kid had killed the officer ..

When I was a kid back in the '60's, my friends & I had an assortment of pellet guns, including rifles & pistols. Their major selling point was that they were designed to "look like the real thing". I found an ad featuring the .38 Combat model I had:

The rifles were no less wicked-looking. Having gotten curious about what's available today, I took a look at the Crosman company's current stuff. Unbelievably, in these crazy times, they're still selling stuff that would scare the crap out of anyone who thought it might get pointed in their direction. I'm not looking to argue with anyone in this thread, but I firmly believe this part of the situation (the appearance of some of these "lesser" weapons) needs to be made a bit clearer.

Here's the Crosman "AK":

And their AR-15 replica:

One other note about these weapons (from experience, they ain't really toys, folks): I used to be able to stand about 20' away from a glass bottle & shatter it to pieces with one shot (.22 caliber flat-nosed pellet); my friend had a pump model (pumped for pressure as opposed to CO2-powered) replica of a .22 caliber rifle, that fired .177 caliber pellets, also flat-nosed.
In those days, household trash cans were made of aluminum or steel. He said, "Watch this", pumped the rifle only 6 times, stood about 8' from a metal trash can, & put a pellet through both sides of the can, with enough force left over for it to travel several more feet to knock a notch out of the bark of a nearby tree.

Having had an adventurous enough youth that I got shot with a .22 caliber pellet pistol once, & knowing what I know about the power & destructive capability of these things (especially the rifles), I wouldn't want someone turning toward me with one if I wasn't sure of their intentions. I would imagine that a rifle something like the one in the pic above would have more of any cop's attention than the age that the person carrying it appeared to be.

Again, I'm not looking to argue details of this case, other than to illustrate a bit more clearly the weapon part of this incident. I don't have a problem with parents teaching their children to use something like these things safely, say on a shooting range or in a backyard, but I have a problem with the idea of any parent being so irresponsible as to allow a 13 year old child to have one of them, then not supervise its use closely enough to prevent that child from walking around outside with it.
edit on 7/9/2014 by BuzzCory because: Punctuation

posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:28 PM
a reply to: Sremmos80

As far as I know California, with the exception of inside your residence, is a duty to retreat state. That would mean Law Enforcement would be justified in making contact where as a citizen has no reason to make contact. Some exceptions exist though.

Don't get me wrong I get what you are saying about a child being killed over a toy. My point, and criteria used in this incident, is it was not discovered until after the fact that it was a toy. I don't realistically expect everyone not in law enforcement to understand this key point. Hindsight is what everyone wants to use to judge the situation and its just not possible to do it that way.

For every incident where police use deadly force there are hundreds if not thousands of encounters where things were resolved peacefully. Since those don't make for good news, they are never reported.

new topics
<< 1   >>

log in