It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Miami Police shoot, kill man carrying toy gun

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by HomerinNC
 


Hey Homer.

It's not illegal to carry guns around. Open carry, look it up.




posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Flyer
 


I don't know if the article has been changed or updated since this thread went up, but the very first line in the article now says this....


man whose family said he was autistic was killed by police in North Miami Beach after pointing a real-looking toy gun at an officer, police said Thursday.


A "real-looking" gun, and he pointed the gun at an officer.

I'll tell you what, it is easy to criticize the police, but if some strange man points a real-looking gun at me, I am going to shoot him first. If we later find out it was a toy, so be it, but I'm not taking any chances.

Sorry folks, once again, the headline is sensationalist, and once again, it appears the police made the best of a bad situation and are now being unfairly criticized for it.

ETA:
They also had scared neighbors calling into the police, the guy pointing it at a dog, and refusing orders to drop it, and eventually pointing it at an officer. Plus, he was mentally challenged, in my opinion that makes him even more dangerous and unpredictable.


One emergency caller reported the man had pointed the rifle at a dog, NBC Miami reported.

Officers gave commands for the man to drop the weapon, but he refused and pointed it at an officer, Carney said.


Ok, the family is upset, I get it, but the guy wasn't "murdered" by police.

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



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Venomilk
 




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?

There are several reasons why using a tazer in this situation is not the right course of action.

First, the aim of the tazer is not as accurate at distance then a handgun. There is a maximum effective range on a tazer that would require an officer to get closer to an armed, or possibly armed, individual. Getting closer to an armed individual only serves to provide them with a better chance of hitting the officer.

Second, the tazer is only completely effective if both probes hit two large muscle groups causing involuntary and temporary locking of those large muscle groups. A completely effective hit is the one where you see the person lock up and falls to the ground. An ineffective hit where it does not cause muscle locking only causes pain. A person who is determined enough, on drugs or MENTALLY HANDICAPPED can fight through this pain and still effectively resist arrest or FIRE A HANDGUN.

Third, the tazer only causes this muscle locking and temporary immobility for 5-10 seconds at a time. After the tazer stops cycling, the person is fully able to move allowing them to FIRE AT THE OFFICERS if they still have a handgun.

Based on these reasons, a tazer is a terrible tool to use in this situation.

If the officers had not yet seen the possible firearm and the man was not following orders or MAYBE if he had a knife a tazer could be used.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Venomilk
 




maybe then you actually see him point it, but untill then there has to be a better way of dealing with it.

No, if someone is seen with a weapon, and they are safe to do so, the police will challenge the person and yell "POLICE DROP THE WEAPON!" The only logical thing for the person to do at this point is drop the weapon. If they refuse, it is safe to say that person has ill intent and the officer would be justified in shooting that person. It is up to the officer in the situation at the time, and not someone sitting comfortably in front of a computer, to make the decision to shoot or wait for some other movement like pointing the weapon.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 


A friend of my family was killed at a traffic stop when he tried to use his Taser instead of his gun. Here is my thread from earlier this year. I believe Tasers should be recalled from all LEOs. They are either used unnecessarily and cause extra injury, or they are used when a gun would be more appropriate, and they cause danger to the LEO. I do not see Tasers sticking around for a long time. They always cause extra injury to one party or the other.

There was also another story last fall where 2 officers were killed by a man after they tased him, and he was still able to draw and fire and kill them both, and then he went on a highspeed chase, injured more officers, and was eventually killed.

Nope, no tasers. Either the situation calls for force or it does not, there is no in-between, and tasers only serve to cloud the situation and get people hurt.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by Venomilk
 




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?


a tazer is a terrible tool to use in this situation.



Yes a gun is a much less terrible " tool ", I am sure ?

I think we have all got the message by now, the police are mad crazy power hungry bullies, the time for defending their actions is OVER. We have all lost any respect or trust for them, they have become the enemy by their very own actions, it is now only fellow officers who stick up for them and try to excuse their actions, the news is, there are NO EXCUSES !



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Flyer
 




If the police werent behind cover then they were even more stupid than I thought they were.

You were the one that brought the assumption into the conversation that the police were not behind cover. An ASSUMPTION. Fact is, we do not know what the tactics of the police were during this incident. I can assure you that you have absolutely no basis to make an appraisal of the officer's tactics during this incident.


Fact is, they killed a disabled man who was putting his hands up to surrender according to a witness.
There was no threat.

What witness, who was actually there, said that the man was putting his hands up?
CBS Article


"They could tell him to drop the gun. They say they told him to drop it and he raised his hand," Harding told WFOR. "He probably raised his hand to hand them the gun because he is afraid of police."

We have the testimony of his older sister, who was not there. His older sister is taking what the police told her out of context and repeating it to the news. Even his sister does not assume that he was putting his hands up in surrender. She clearly states that he put his HAND up.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 




what about his right to carry a gun? are we forgetting about that? the police have no right what so ever to tell you to put down your gun if it's legal to carry one

First of all, Florida is not an open carry state. In open carry states, it is legal to open carry a HANDGUN. Second of all, it is probably legal to carry a concealed HANDGUN with some type of permit in Florida. Third, it is, under no circumstances, legal to carry a rifle, which the toy gun appeared to be, down a public street and through a community.

So, what right to carry a gun are you talking about?

The police had every right to tell the man to put the weapon down since he was walking down a public street.


police sign on knowing what they are getting theirselves into, i doubt very seriously if that cop feels bad about that.....i've never seen a cop remorseful about anything they've done......

First, there are some police officers who feel guilty about having to shoot people who actually have real weapons.

Second, there is nothing that can prepare someone, mentally, to cope with having to end someone else's life.

Third, it is rediculous of you, that just because you have never seen an officer's remorse, to claim that they do not have any. Do you know any officers, who have shot someone, personally? The answer is no.

Maybe the officer does, maybe not. I cannot say for sure how the officer feels right now. If it were me, even though I was justified to shoot the man, I would feel remorse because it was a toy gun and not a real one.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 



Third, it is, under no circumstances, legal to carry a rifle, which the toy gun appeared to be, down a public street and through a community.


I'm with you all the way, but that part is inaccurate. Of course you can carry a rifle down a street. It has to be unloaded, and you can't point it at dogs or officers, but there is no law that you can't walk with your rifle, down to the gun range, go shooting, and walk home. If a cop stops you, you better cooperate immediately though! You don't want to take any chance on any mishaps.

I used to get a lot of odd looks when I would carry my AK, and my Shotgun down the Apartment parking lot, because I had to park so far away. I even had a cop come to my door one day, because someone had called in when they saw me carrying it back in. Everything was cool though, because I was cooperative and I hadn't broken any laws.

In Florida, you can carry a concealed weapon with a permit, and you can carry any legal weapon, however you want, as long as it is unloaded. Florida does have a very stiff "brandishing" law, so if you accidentally expose your concealed weapon, even without any threat, it can still be considered brandishing. We are trying to get that law changed.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Double
edit on 2-9-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I am sorry for the loss of your friend.

And I am not going to disagree with you. But I am also not going to agree with you.

There should be a study that takes the totality of tazers into account. There are many proponents and their arguments and there are many opponents and their arguments. I am not prepared to make an argument either way at this time.

The situation should be looked at empirically and based in fact. When a conclusion is made though, it should be accepted and trusted.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Qwenn
 




Yes a gun is a much less terrible " tool ", I am sure ?

Terrible, tactically speaking. I was not commenting on the moral aspects of using firearms.


I think we have all got the message by now, the police are mad crazy power hungry bullies, the time for defending their actions is OVER. We have all lost any respect or trust for them, they have become the enemy by their very own actions, it is now only fellow officers who stick up for them and try to excuse their actions, the news is, there are NO EXCUSES !

I would have to wholeheartedly disagree with you.

You cannot claim that all of the members who agreed with the police officer shooting the man in the article are police officers.

Furthermore, your rant about police would be better suited for another police-bashing post and not this one.

It seems it has fallen on deaf ears here. Most other people posting in this thread disagree with you.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Carrying any kind of gun in public unless it is 100% obvious it is a toy is a death wish. The cops obviously did overreact, the man was mentally disabled and unfortunately a life was lost. But "toys" these days can be very realistic, I have an airsoft gun that is pretty much the real thing, it is metal like the real thing, it takes apart like the real thing, and it feels like the real thing, you probably couldn't tell the difference from a distance if it weren't for the orange tip. Now in no way am I defending these cops, i'm just saying anyone could have been in their shoes and made a wrong decision. It's a little different when it comes to beating someone senseless or arresting people for dancing.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by tbonethedstroyer
 


Where did I EVER say it was ILLEGAL to carry a weapon???
What IS illegal, is to point one at someone
For that, you risk the chance of getting shot



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 




I'm with you all the way, but that part is inaccurate. Of course you can carry a rifle down a street. It has to be unloaded, and you can't point it at dogs or officers, but there is no law that you can't walk with your rifle, down to the gun range, go shooting, and walk home. If a cop stops you, you better cooperate immediately though! You don't want to take any chance on any mishaps.

I would say carrying a rifle to the car is different then walking through a neighborhood or down the street. And I would say that the weapon has to be unloaded and in it's case for it not to be considered "brandished."

We are on the same page though. I have no issue with what you are conveying.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 


We bring up an interesting discrepancy. I agree that walking out to your car is not the same as walking down a neighborhood street, but it isn't lawful to discriminate based on one's economic status. What about those people that don't have cars?

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?



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Flyer
 


Would you take the chance of getting shot? No, I didn't think so. The police have to assume the gun is real and act accordingly. They did not murder a mentally challenged man. If anything, the man's care taker or guardian is responsible for his death.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
As corrupt and evil as the police can be they deal with crazy and dangerous men and women everyday. i imagine that builds incredible amounts of stress and this officer made a bad decision. Police arnt perfect anyone here think they are?



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
The facts just aren't available to properly judge the officer's behavior. We don't what the "gun" looked like or even if it was a gun. 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.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
okay, heres my question:
IF....the weapon WAS real, the LEO's decided to take a passive response, and he shot and killed someone, would all you people be whining that they failed to do their job?
The answer would be a resounding YES, you all arent happy at what they do or dont do, you just need something to gripe about.
Quit griping at cops doing their job!
Put that in your pipe and smoke THAT



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join