Miami Police shoot, kill man carrying toy gun

Originally posted by saneasylum
Not to sound heartless, but a mentally disabled person is like a moldy grape in the bag; it needs to be thrown away.

edit on 2-9-2011 by saneasylum because: (no reason given)

Just because you said that it gives me no right to want you dead.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by deadeyedick

 

Surely this type of thing does not actually cross your mind while on duty?

Yes it has been done before.Its called discretion.How many times are we faced with a life and death?
Situational awareness can allow for alternative measures that generate positive outcomes.

reply to post by getreadyalready

Imagine this, imagine trying to get onto a city bus carrying an AK-47 lawfully purchased, stored safely, and with the lawful intention of going to a range and target shooting. I'm sure it would be next to impossible to get onto a bus in that manner, but is that fair? Are we restricting gun ownership to those who also own cars?

Good question.

I would say that carrying the weapon unloaded and inside of a case would be no violation of the law.

Originally posted by Flyer
reply to post by StarTraveller

 

So you think police wouldnt shoot him after the 1st shot was fired?
You think the streets wouldnt have been cleared so it was just the police and him?

There was no danger to the public.

So...... if it wasn't a toy gun and the first shot fired killed someone? Then how quick you would have been to come on here and lambast the police for doing nothing until someone was dead.

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical

I still don't understand shooting him until he actually shot at them. I would imagine that in confronting this man, the police would have seeked refuge behind their squad car and used their PA system to communicate. Thus even if he pointed the what he was holding at them, they were still likely fairly safe from harm. The only reason to shoot is if they confronted him openly which would have been bad police work in my opinion.

What you REALLY dont understand is that a police officer is someone that lives, breathes and has a family just like you. It is unreasonable for you to expect them to wait to shoot someone, who is holding a weapon or something that appears to be a weapon, until they are shot at first. That first shot could mean their life or the life of someone else.

What you also do not understand is that an officer does not know the level of skill the person has with said weapon they are carrying. This is not the movies or TV, bullets go through police cars. Powerful rifles can even penetrate the engine block of a vehicle and kill whoever is on the other side. So, instead of assuming the person does not have the skill or accuracy to reach out and touch you with the first shot, even behind a vehicle, it is a better tactic to challenge them and tell them to drop the gun. If they refuse then that is their choice but officers are justified to use force to end the situation.

reply to post by deadeyedick


A good friend of mine was transporting a prisoner one day. The prisoner came to him in shackles, cuffs, and a jumpsuit, so he had no reason to do a search. He gets a couple of miles down the road, and he gets shot in the back of the head by a makeshift fire arm. It wasn't powerful, so it ricocheted off his skull, but he didn't know that at the time. In his blurry vision, just before he passed out, he saw her running away, and he fired off 3 rounds. He hit her in the leg, and the back, and nicked an ear. Then he passed out and spend a week in the hospital.

She sued, and she won, and he got awarded some administrative leave and a reprimand, and she got some of the county tax payers money.

Same deputy, different occurence, transporting a prisoner, the prisoner starts reaching for his weapon, he fights him back into the car, but the prisoner keeps reaching and gets his arms slammed in the door, and one gets broken. In court, the prisoner testified that if he had obtained the weapon, he would have used it, even if that meant shooting the deputy (my friend). My friend was still found to have used excessive force, and got a reprimand in his file.

Do you really want to wound somebody that is posing a dire threat to you and the community? Would you really want to find an "alternative resolution" such as disabling them for life with your automobile or shooting them in the leg?

I don't want to criticize your thought process, but your thinking is a liability to your force, and your taxpayers, and your own well-being. I implore you to think more decisively and definitively in exercising your duties.

reply to post by deadeyedick

lets just shoot anyone that has a gun in public kids adults toy or no toy that would be the wsafe thing to do.while were at it lets shoot mean looking people cause they scare us.

If it was a child I am sure there would be a different thought process. I am sure the officer may be more inclined to believe it was a toy if he were to encounter an 8 year old weilding such a thing.

We are talking about a 50 year old man. Different though processes for different situations.

Stop being rediculous.

reply to post by deadeyedick

This precrime mentality is gonna come back to haunt america.

Precrime? Someone has watched Minority Report one to many times.

Were not talking about predicting someone is GOING to commit a crime through claivoyance. And then taking that claivoyance and treating it as evidence that someone was going to commit that crime and find them guilty.

We are, however, talking about the police getting reports of a man walking around with a firearm, responding, finding said man holding what appeared to be a firearm, telling him to drop it and him refusing or not understanding. There is no clairvoyance involved. There is a clear chain of events that led up to the encounter.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Whenever someone comes up with the 'Just shoot him in the arm or leg' argument they lose all credibility. Shooting to wound is not an option. The chances of missing are HUGE. I believe that the NYPD has something like a 17% hit rate with firearms. That's not great. Waaaayyy too easy to miss, killing the suspect or injuring a bystander. A person could easily die from a bullet wound to the arm or leg anyway. Lawsuits aside, it's just not safe for anyone involved to shoot to wound. I want to force people who comment on this type of thing to read In The Gravest Extreme by Mossad Ayoob.

As for ramming the suspect with a car... Please.

I'm glad your friend is OK an sorry to hear of his troubles.

reply to post by areyouserious2010


What you REALLY dont understand is that a citizen is someone that lives.Come on your condoning shooting everyone with a gun.
I guess anytime some young one finds a gun and picks it up then if a cop sees it he can shoot and you people will defend the cop?

reply to post by deadeyedick


No he is condoning shooting every life-threatening criminal with a gun. This guy wasn't just walking down the street, he was pointing the "real-looking" gun at dogs and cops! He had already sparked several concerned phone calls to police. He was mentally impaired. He wasn't following lawful commands. That is a big difference than shooting a 13 year old on a bike, with a gun in a ToysRUs bag.

I'm having doubts that you are an officer. No way any law enforcement officer advocates "winging" someone.

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by deadeyedick

 

This precrime mentality is gonna come back to haunt america.

Precrime? Someone has watched Minority Report one to many times.

Were not talking about predicting someone is GOING to commit a crime through claivoyance. And then taking that claivoyance and treating it as evidence that someone was going to commit that crime and find them guilty.

We are, however, talking about the police getting reports of a man walking around with a firearm, responding, finding said man holding what appeared to be a firearm, telling him to drop it and him refusing or not understanding. There is no clairvoyance involved. There is a clear chain of events that led up to the encounter.

lol in your chain of events there is no crime. WAKE UP

reply to post by deadeyedick

Yes it has been done before.Its called discretion.How many times are we faced with a life and death?
Situational awareness can allow for alternative measures that generate positive outcomes.

Under a stress reaction, which most shooting incidents are, ANYONE except trained special forces operatives in the United States Military lose a certain amount of accuracy.

It is based in science. In a stress reaction (also known as a fight or flight reaction), your brain goes from operating in the frontal lobe, where all of your cognitive and reasoning instincts are, to your midbrain, which operates under training or "muscle memory." When this happens, people lose fine motor skills, some hearing, get tunnel vision and a myriad of other effects including a small loss of accuracy.

This is not Call of Duty where I am sure you got most of your experience from.

This is why police officers are trained to aim for center mass. It is extremely difficult to hit someone in the extremety, especially when they are moving, under non-stress reaction conditions. Add a stress reaction and it becomes even more difficult. You aim for center mass so that you have the best chance of hitting what you are aiming for and not miss or hit grandma or children playing down the street.

Also, if you have to shoot someone, you want to incapacitate them as fast as possible. Hitting someone in the extremety does not mean it will render that extremety useless. Some people can operate after being hit several times by gunfire and can still be lethal. An incapacitating hit is one to the central nervous system or punching enough holes in them to cause enough blood loss. Meaning aiming for center mass. If the person is shot and does not die but the police are able to take them into custody then great, the proper effect was obtained. Police shoot to incapacitate not kill. If incapacitation means killing them then so be it.

reply to post by deadeyedick


I carry a gun almost every day and have been pulled over with it on my hip. Informed the officers and it was never even an issue. I lived in a ghetto apartment for a short time and the cops were looking for the previous tenant. Answered the door with a gun in my hand, told them I had to reholster and no problem. Pulled over in my truck with a shotgun on the backseat (impulse buy no case yet) no problem. Buddy open carries sometimes, cops have stopped him 3 times asked for ID and then no problem.

You're being an alarmist.

reply to post by deadeyedick

What you REALLY dont understand is that a citizen is someone that lives.Come on your condoning shooting everyone with a gun.

No, you missed my point completely.

Get real man. If you have a relevant argument please, make it, I am all ears.

reply to post by deadeyedick

lol in your chain of events there is no crime. WAKE UP

I never said there was a crime in the chain of events I provided. I said there was a clear chain of events that led up to the man being shot.

WAKE UP.

reply to post by getreadyalready

I'm having doubts that you are an officer. No way any law enforcement officer advocates "winging" someone.

Completely agree. I cannot imagine a cop that would advocate 'winging' someone or ramming them with a car. I also can' imagine an officer that doesn't see the difference between a guy holding a gun and a guy acting in a threatening manner. I think we need to see a uniform and timestamp.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Its beside the point.imo I was a federal officer I know all about the t zone and have been through too much training and yes after 3.5 yrs i decided that i couldn't enforce the big pile of bullchit we call federal law.That was over 10 yrs ago

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by deadeyedick

 

lol in your chain of events there is no crime. WAKE UP

I never said there was a crime in the chain of events I provided. I said there was a clear chain of events that led up to the man being shot.

WAKE UP.

Good morning!
no crime=precrime that was my thought at the time