Miami Police shoot, kill man carrying toy gun

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
That honestly looks like a barrel of one of thoes toy rubberband guns. Looks to be made out of wood.

Did the police even attempt to get him to put the "weapon" down?




posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by StarTraveller
 


Youre seriously telling me its quicker to aim and fire than it is to duck their heads down a foot?

Now if they shoot 1st, any legitimate nutter will shoot back unless hes killed right away, how is that safer?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Flyer
 


Was always under the impression that the Police Serve and Protect - Not Serve and Hide but its apparent we going around in circles so I see no point in my continuing to argue with you.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by StarTraveller
 


Well its clear they didnt do a very good job of protecting a mentally disabled man, isnt it?

Especially if they shot him when he put his hands up.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I would like to see a picture of the gun....if it was one of those high quality Air Soft replicas then a policeman could not tell the difference from a distance....but if it was a cheap plastic toy with an orange barrel, then shame on him!!



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 

The oicture just shows what appears to be a barrel...no orange but it could be detached from the stock.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
edit on 1-9-2011 by alien because: ...remark removed...



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Flyer
 


Oh dear lord above, Okay we will leave it there shall we



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarTraveller
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


No need to re explain buddy, educated to degree etc

You clearly failed to get my point and the main reason I entered into this discussion.

Fact as Of Now:
Mentally Disabled Man carrying toy Gun shot by Police...

Facts When Incident Happened:
Suspicious Looking Man Carrying Fire Arm seen in vicinity...

The Police, I am sure acted on the information they had at the time the decision was made when the shot/s were fired.

I am sure (despite what some believe) had they had the correct information of 'Toy Fire Arm' and 'Mentally Disabled Man' they wouldn't have fired a shot to kill or even fire any shots at all.

I have no desires at all to 'fall out' with anyone here but what I don't like to read is a Breaking News thread where the OP has made up his mind straight off the bat without giving consideration to ALL those involved and also giving consideration to facts that were at hand at the time of the shot being fired. I little thought would have gone a long way.

The fact is, a person has died who's death could have been avoided had the Police had the information and also had the person been not carrying what can only be described as a fire arm at the precise moment in time, regardless of it being a toy or not.

Thoughts are with the family of the deceased but also with the officer/s that fired the shot after the realisation that it was in fact a toy and not the serious threat of a real fire arm.

Sad but completely avoidable



you typed "Suspicious Looking Man Carrying Fire Arm seen in vicinity..." completely inaccurate, the actual info they had was 'potentially a suspicious man possibly carrying what looks to be a firearm,

your statement asserts that they are certain it is a real firearm before even arriving on the scene, and as someone who has heard this police radio call dozens of times,(possibly suspicious man possibly carrying a firearm) i know the police never do that, they always include possibly potentially and room for error, so no, the police did not know if he had a gun or not they only suspected he might, and they quickly shot first,

i do think this is wrong, clearly we now have an innocent death because of this policy,
your only defense could be what if's what if it was a real gun etc etc, hence the flaw of preventative tactics



Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 




your post said (paraphrasing) that the police where justified to kill a man who appeared to have a gun because he might possibly have a real gun and might possibly do something bad with it, therefor its ok that they killed a disabled man with a toy rifle,

Ok I was trying to ignore you but you are just too rediculous to ignore.

Yes, if someone is walking around in public with a gun (or what appears to be a gun) it warrants immediate police action. If that person is confronted by the police, ordered to drop the weapon and they refuse or point it at the police, the police are justified to use deadly force.


i was telling you that is considered preventative violence, violence used to prevent potential violence,

which is the same logic hitler used to convince his countrymen that it was justified to round up and murder jews,

Your leap of logic is completely rediculous, illogical and irrational. Jews were not roaming the streets with guns threatening people. Hitler lobbied for the persecution of the Jews because of their religious and political views. He made them the scapegoat of the situation Germany was in at the time, namely their economic depression.

Please, stop it.


it is not a leap in logic at all,

quite simply

the cops fired the first shot, the disabled man didnt fire a one,

this is preventative action, the logic for which is the same as the example i posted,

yes i am saying they should not have shot him if he himself had not shot someone,

edit on 9/1/11 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


I was typing hypothetically buddy, trying to illustrate that when this incident took please what happened happened because of the lack of factual information. Regardless of if a real weapon was involved or not. That's all I was trying to do.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Just my $.02 here. I play airsoft, which I describe to people as being like paintball, but instead of bright colors and weird looking paintball markers (guns), we wear full tactical gear, and run around with what we call replicas. They shoot 6mm plastic balls (BBs) at about 400 feet per second. The key is that they have the look like a real gun. I have an M4 replica, that looking at even up close, an untrained person that isn’t familiar with firearms would absolutely think it is real. They are shipped into the US with an orange tip on the end of the barrel, but the first thing done is to remove it as it. We mostly play in the woods on land that we are allowed to play within, and it is a segregated area for us. There certainly in city facilities too, which are typically indoor, and played in a close quarters combat style.

Now, I will say that the organization that I play within is extremely strict on letting people know the serious nature of having your replica in public. We flat out don’t do it, ever. If there are younger kids that want to play, we always instruct them (and their parents) about safety and legal issues, and most importantly, to never have your replica out in public. We take it as serious as you can, because the consequences are dire here, as we have seen in this story. I would pretty much guarantee that the rifle he had was an airsoft rifle, based on how they mentioned it looked so real. To me, a toy is bright colored, and absolutely easy to distinguish from a real weapon. That is why we refer to these as replicas.

I do want to continue to play my hobby of airsoft, but stories like this just end up ruining it, and giving the overall sport a bad name. Our sport is based on honor, as we don’t have paint markers to tell when someone is hit, and the crowd that it attracts are typically good people, with a variety of backgrounds. I am sorry this man got shot, but I don’t blame the officer that shot him, as he had one hell of a decision to make in a split second. A man pointed what he thought was a real gun at him, and he reacted. I understand the man was disabled, and comments were made to effect of the officer should have seen that and known he was disabled, and in turn they shouldn’t have shot him. To me, I don’t see how that changes things. Now, I don’t know the nature of the disability here, but regardless, if a man points a gun at you, after telling him to put it down and he refused, disabled or not, he will probably be shot.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I am a big Airsofter and yes, Airsoft guns look like the REAL THING, thats the allure to us that use them LEGALLY, ie, not flash em around, only use them on permitted fields. You can place an airsoft gun next to a real gun and not tell the difference. I know because I did it, so if thats what happened here, I dont blame the LEOs, they did their job



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 




this is preventative action, the logic for which is the same as the example i posted,

Hitler persectued the Jews and gave a littany of reasons why. None of which were to prevent potential violence from them. It was to rid the country of them because he blamed just about every problem Germany at large had on the Jews and many other groups deliniated by political view, religion, race and creed.

Your analogy is terrible. Your analogy only serves to try to make some sort of connection between Hitler, Nazis and police officers. It did not work.


yes i am saying they should not have shot him if he himself had not shot someone,

And I am saying that this assertion is absolutely rediculous. Why should the police have to wait for someone to be shot before confronting the threat? You are wrong. Period.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Flyer
 


I would appreciate a response to my last reply to you.

Do you have one?

Ignoring what I have said does not make your argument valid.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Can I ask a question to the American gun owners on here. Call me thick or stupid but hear me out.

If this guy had pointed that gun at you, would you have retaliated by shooting him?
edit on 1/9/11 by EnigmaAgent because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
wait, wait, wait..... they taze everything that moves, but in this situation, thats the wrong way to go about it?????
for real? hey this guy might have a gun (gets out of squadcar)
(drop the weapon!)
doesnt drop the weapon.
gets 50,000 volts through the body.
rather it was a toy gun or real, this wouldve saved a life

again, real or fake, u cant aim and fire while all that juice is pumping through you....
this was shoot first, fill out the paperwork later. this was just a setback, they will get it right next time...
/sigh



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnigmaAgent
Can I ask a question to the American gun owners on here. Call me thick or stupid but hear me out.

If this guy had pointed that gun at you, would you have retaliated by shooting him?
edit on 1/9/11 by EnigmaAgent because: (no reason given)

I would have to know more details about the situation, but from a general standpoint of my life or his, I'm shooting. Is there cover available and close? Do I even have time to react to get to cover? What lead to him the man drawing the gun on the officer? The article did mention that they told him to drop the weapon and he refused, so there at least was a warning. But let's be careful with the details here, because there really isn't much out yet.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
An unfortunate and tragic event yes. I'm sorry but if I were in those officers shoes and I had someone pointing a rifle at me I would not just wait around to hear it go bang just to make sure that it was a toy. However I would not shoot to kill eaither more shoot to wound. That way the threat is stopped and the offender is still alive. The thing that bugs me is now all of a sudden the sister wants to come out and try to attack the police for defending themselves saying that her brother had a mental illness. To her I say if you knew your brother was mentaly ill. Where were you? as much as you are complaining you make it sound like you were his care taker. if this is the case then you should have known where he was and not have been letting him walk the streets with a toy gun. Now you want to come out and play the victim whos brothers life was takin in cold blood when in all truth you didnt care enought to keep an eye on him. harsh as it may sound I feal someones just looking for an avenue for a lawsuit.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarTraveller
reply to post by Flyer
 


Was always under the impression that the Police Serve and Protect - Not Serve and Hide but its apparent we going around in circles so I see no point in my continuing to argue with you.



TAZERS!!!! there is a reason they are labelled to be used as a "PREVENTATIVE MEASURE"
guns arent the only things that are preventative...cmon people... how many ppl would still be alive if they just tazed someone that looked like they had a gun? then they find out it was just a cell phone, or something similar and save a big emberassment like this. why is shooting the only way of incapacitating someone you think is armed?

they might shoot you?
so light the mother up, even if he is armed, he aint shooting anyone



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dreamwatcher
reply to post by Old77
 




Perhaps it has to do with the 9,146 (Corrected by edit , Thank You thisguyrighthere) homicides by firearm committed in the US in 2009 (stats from earlier are even worse)



edit on 1-9-2011 by Dreamwatcher because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-9-2011 by Dreamwatcher because: Corrected Stat


but how many of those are in areas where guns are restricted to criminals?
how many of those people actually had a gun legally registered to them?
theres always two sides, but a criminal will be a criminal.
and a criminal will get a gun. just so happens they tend to AVOID places where the majority of people legally have firearms. i wonder why that is





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join