Police shoot 13 year old carrying fake rifle.

Xcathdra
The "child" had an AK-47 in his possession... The Police told him to drop the gun and he refused to comply. When he turned, the gun was coming up.

Regarding your extreme - nay bizarre comment(s) - Why did you put quote handles around the word CHILD? Why did you state that there was a real gun (an AK47 no less) involved in the incident? Are your remarks outright lies, or are you engaging in some sort of childish word-playing - as in hyperbole? If you are lying - and it looks as though you are - then its my opinion that none of your remarks in this thread have any credibility whatsoever, and my advice to the membership is to ignore your ill informed position on this matter.

Tell you what - I'll give you a chance to defend your position.
You seem to be in accord with the usual 'defenders of the police' on this matter, so I will assume you are in agreement with the following statement by an "expert": I challenge you - if you have the courage - to answer a few simple questions.

"An expert on police shootings said officers don't have time to determine whether a gun is real. As long as an armed person appears to be a threat, you don't have time to look to see if it's a toy, Alpert said. If it looks real, you've got to believe it's real. A perceived threat trumps age; it trumps mental abilities."

Tell me this then - suppose the child had been younger - say 7 years old? Would you still execute him because you didn't have enough time to perceive if the child was a threat to your life? Further - suppose the child was obviously mentally challenged, autistic or otherwise?

Suppose it had been a 6 year old girl? According to your logic you would have have had her executed as well - right?

Suppose it was your own child, and you were the cop on duty. Would you have carried through with your responsibilities as an agent of the POLICE STATE and have executed your own kid because of a perceived threat to your life and limb?

XionZap
As for your bizarre comment - Why did you put quote handles around the word CHILD? Are your remarks an outright lie, or are you engaging in some sort of childish word-playing - as in hyperbole? If you are lying - and it looks as though you are - then its my opinion that none of your remarks in this thread have any credibility whatsoever, and my advice to the membership is to ignore your ill informed position on this matter.

Because people in this thread are using the term in an effort to demonize law enforcement while ignoring the facts. I quoted it to highlight that. At the time, law enforcement did not know the persons age nor did they know the gun was an air rifle.

As for the ill informed comment... Is that because I am presenting the side of the argument you don't want to hear about? Why would you not want to know what laws govern this area? What possible damage could be done for you guys to understand it? Or is your comment towards me simply based on the fact I am in law enforcement?

XionZap
Tell you what - I'll give you a chance to defend your position.
You seem to be in accord with the usual 'defenders of the police' on this matter, so I will assume you are in agreement with the following statement by an "expert": I challenge you - if you have the courage - to answer a few simple questions.

You are jumping to a conclusion without supporting facts.

XionZap
"An expert on police shootings said officers don't have time to determine whether a gun is real. As long as an armed person appears to be a threat, you don't have time to look to see if it's a toy, Alpert said. If it looks real, you've got to believe it's real. A perceived threat trumps age; it trumps mental abilities."

Tell me this then - suppose the child had been younger - say 7 years old? Would you still execute him because you didn't have enough time to perceive if the child was a threat to your life? Further - suppose the child was obviously mentally challenged, autistic or otherwise?

First off let me correct you - We don't execute - we shoot to stop the threat.. Another legal term you are willfully ignoring.

Second an Officer is not going to know if a child, let alone a person, is mentally challenged, autistic, otherwise unless they have had previous contact.

To answer your question - I cant tell you how I would react to that hypothetical. As I have explained time and time again, its totality of circumstances at the moment force is used. What I can tell you is I would approach the situation with extreme caution and proceed from there. As to whether I would shoot or not shoot again depends on what's going on. In a worst case scenario I would act to prevent harm.. If that means shooting a 7 year old who is armed and acting in a manner that poses a deadly threat, then yes, I would shoot.

Asking the question in the manner you did is like asking a Supreme Court judge to explain his ruling on a case he has not seen yet. This is the PRIMARY factor behind their ruling on use of force.

XionZap
Suppose it had been a 6 year old girl? According to your logic you would have have had her executed as well - right?

We don't execute, we shoot to stop the threat... Simply repeating that term over and over doesn't make it valid. And again, it depends on all factors at the time.

I don't understand why you and others assume a child cannot poses a deadly threat to others.

XionZap
Suppose it was your own child, and you were the cop on duty. Would you have carried through with your responsibilities as an agent of the POLICE STATE and have executed your own kid because of a perceived threat to your life and limb?

edit on 26-10-2013 by XionZap because: (no reason given)

I don't work for a police state... I work for the citizens who entrusted me with their authority to do my job.

Again if the threat is present and deadly force poses a threat then yes I would act.. God will be the judge on my actions.

one has to ask though, in your scenarios where are the children getting the guns? their parents, and if so don't you think they should be held accountable for failing to not only educate their children on safety, but to also recklessly allow access to firearms.

You guys are sidestepping the concept of personal responsibility.

spartacus699
Does anyone know if cops get a bonus at the end of the year based on how many people they've shot? I know that might sound strange but you never know right?

Well you get administrative leave with pay. So you get a vacation for plugging someone.

reply to post by Dav1d


the f.b.i. are now getting involved with the case. yesterday, students from his school marched on our city hall.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

LurkingRelentlessly
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

the penalty is relevant in distinguishing a crime from a public offense.

you've continually lambasted users in this thread for saying the kid committed no crime, which is 100% true.

We all certainly have the right to our opinions based on the facts as we know them. We don't have the right to our own set of facts to match, and I've never said this kid didn't commit a crime. I've said precisely the opposite and, I believe 3 times now, cited the precise 'Chapter and Verse' of the Ca Penal Code he violated and was legitimately stopped for to investigate.

I'm not sure what Lambasted means. If you mean I am firm and unwavering in my stance on this or anything else, when I have facts anyone can independently confirm to verify the basis for my position? Yes..I absolutely am firm on that. (I also back down and admit I'm wrong, when proven so, and have enough times in the past to bring truth to that for anyone who knows me here).

As I've stated before, my primary point and position on this case? WE DO NOT KNOW ...and NONE OF US DO...what happened between the moment the cop threw that unit into Park and opened the door to take cover and the moment gunshots were fired to kill the kid holding what appeared to be a very real AK-47 rifle.

Anything right now is pure and unmitigated speculation...and nothing more than that, by either side. It's great to speculate too...but heck, nothing personal to take or stand on with it. Not when the core points are totally unknown.

Hope that helps clarify ...since you seem to mistake me for someone assuming innocence as much as some others assume guilt. Neither can be determined by the facts the public has to view so far.

reply to post by blackthorne


That's probably the best news I've heard for the FBI entering this. It does need investigated to death and then some. California, of all states, is explosive to an extreme for Officer misconduct and public reactions. Riots, as we've seen, have started for less than this case suggests may have happened...or may not have.

Either way, I do wonder, even at this early point, if anything the cops 'say' at this stage will be accepted by the public there. Well, call in the G-Men with the unlimited lab resources and no love loss or reason to baby a local department/Sheriff's Office and I'd say we'll end with as close to an accurate accounting as anything is likely to ever get.

I sure will be looking for results on this one.

reply to post by Xcathdra

First off let me correct you - We don't execute - we shoot to stop the threat.. Another legal term you are willfully ignoring.

Shooting a child w/toy gun is NOT the only solution to a threat (perceived or otherwise) - for the average officer on duty there are a myriad of means at their disposal to quell a 'perceived' threat, but this officer chose to execute instead.

So, a child with a toy gun is "The Threat" you are stopping? What about using common sense laced with a little human compassion in situations such as these? How in God's name was that child a threat to you and your kind (ilk)? This is called Nazi styled street justice, and if you're in agreement with the manner in which said officer handled herself in the execution of that child (any child), then you are "The Threat," and you are a menace and a danger to society.

Second an Officer is not going to know if a child, let alone a person, is mentally challenged, autistic, otherwise unless they have had previous contact.

You have a duty and a responsibility as a human person - let alone a lowly police officer to apply reasonable judgment and common sense to any and all situations where and when there's a potential for the loss of a human life. From all that I have determined about this situation your fellow officer was/is a coward as are so many others charged with similar responsibilities.

I don't understand why you and others assume a child cannot poses a deadly threat to others.

Because you are of a closed and extremely narrow-minded mind-set that has been 'trained' into roboted-ness (read conditioned) to shoot first - ask questions later' as in "shoot on sight," therefore you haven't the ability to assess a given situation and to reason things through like a normal human being should. Mind you - the mere existence of a child w/toy gun in their own neighborhood is NOT posing a threat to anyone except weak, cowardly, Nazi styled American police officers - and they are rampant throughout the nation and it gets worse as each minute goes by.

... ... ...one has to ask though, in your scenarios where are the children getting the guns? their parents, and if so don't you think they should be held accountable for failing to not only educate their children on safety, but to also recklessly allow access to firearms.

We are talking about children with toy guns. We are NOT discussing parents allowing their kids to run the streets 'armed and dangerous.' You're responses indicate that you've lost sight of the argument, or that perhaps you never had a handle on it to begin with. That's because of your intractable mind-set that causes you to be unable to distinguish between fact and fiction - right from wrong - common sense from no sense at all, and the list goes on.

Xcathdra

...Or is your comment towards me simply based on the fact I am in law enforcement?

If you are indeed in Law Enforcement, you are exactly the kind of thug I don't want in Law Enforcement!

Xcathdra

...You are jumping to a conclusion without supporting facts.

Exactly what these officers did! Exactly what you support.... When done by Law Enforcement, of course you object when we apply these rules to Law Enforcement. Can we say Hypocrisy?

Xcathdra
To answer your question - I cant tell you how I would react to that hypothetical. As I have explained time and time again, its totality of circumstances at the moment force is used. What I can tell you is I would approach the situation with extreme caution and proceed from there. As to whether I would shoot or not shoot again depends on what's going on. In a worst case scenario I would act to prevent harm.. If that means shooting a 7 year old who is armed and acting in a manner that poses a deadly threat, then yes, I would shoot.

One does NOT act to PREVENT HARM by choosing to EXECUTE a CHILD! Your choice, your support of an officer that chose to execute a child, an unarmed child, makes you unfit to be an officer of Law Enforcement. Your willingness to bend the truth, distort known facts to support your position makes your word questionable. This child was unarmed and was not a felon.

Xcathdra
I don't understand why you and others assume a child cannot poses a deadly threat to others.

Any child can be a deadly threat, when you have the ability to use deadly force, and you are empowered to do so, you need to rise above the claim that the child could have "poses a deadly threat to others" you NEED more than assumptions! By your logic, all citizens are subject to execution at the will of Law Enforcement because anyone "could" pose a deadly threat to others.... And the simple fact that they could is justification for their execution!

Xcathdra
I don't work for a police state... I work for the citizens who entrusted me with their authority to do my job.

Yet your words here certainly suggest that you believe you work for a third world police state! You and anyone that shares the beliefs you have expressed here, is certainly someone I would NOT entrust with my authority!

Xcathdra
Again if the threat is present and deadly force poses a threat then yes I would act.. God will be the judge on my actions.

Your words here convince me that you poses a deadly threat, and that you are more than willing to use deadly force. That's exactly the kind of thug mentality I don't want in Law enforcement!

Xcathdra
...one has to ask though, in your scenarios where are the children getting the guns? their parents, and if so don't you think they should be held accountable for failing to not only educate their children on safety, but to also recklessly allow access to firearms.

This community, Sonoma County (where this officer chose to execute a child) has long had an issue with Law Enforcement choosing to execute unarmed citizens, one must wonder at the failure of Police Chiefs and of Sherif's to educate their men, and to allow them to access firearms!

Xcathdra
You guys are sidestepping the concept of personal responsibility.

Right this officer chose to execute an unarmed child, when another experienced officer under the exact same circumstance, chose not to fire on an unarmed child! Personal responsibility would suggested this officer who murder an unarmed child screwed up, and that he should at the minimum take responsibility and resign. Instead he attempts to transfer blame and fault to the child, that can't defend himself. Can't tell his version of the truth.

The facts remain that within ten short seconds the officers dismounted, got behind their doors, and one officer shot the unarmed child eight times! That the other officer didn't see a need to fire on an unarmed child. That another experienced officer didn't feel threaten under the same conditions. And they then got back on the radio, and told dispatch that shots had been fired.

reply to post by Realtruth


I really don't care what you think is likely. I'm retired.

reply to post by Xcathdra


If you ever addressed the arguments instead of diverting away, maybe you wont find the arguments going around in circles.

It pleases me greatly that there are people here that show you for what you are.
I fear you are in the police public relations department, and you are not very good at your job.(of course this is just an opinion)

Anyone that can choose to work in the role of apologist for oppression for money or for free is a danger to freedom the world over.

You keep claiming that the boy refusing to drop the weapon is an established fact, with just the officers as a source. You make the claim that the boy turned to face the officers(as I expect anyone would do when challenged) as a reason for his being shot with only the officers testimony as proof.

You seem to find it very very easy to accept the officers version of events while happily disregarding any other eyewitness testimony, or open and shut easily acknowledgeable outcomes from this case(the boy is dead, he had a toy gun). And that my friend is why I called YOU out on double standards. But for some reason you applied it to the actions of the police officers, classic deflection.

Because people in this thread are using the term in an effort to demonize law enforcement while ignoring the facts. I quoted it to highlight that. At the time, law enforcement did not know the persons age nor did they know the gun was an air rifle.

Oh dear

I'm going to have to jump into a thread I've avoided now.

I wouldn't expect you know as I'm not arrogant enough to assume you've read my posts.

I was damn near court marshalled from the IDF for refusing a direct order.

It was a pretty messed up situation

The order ? Fire live rounds

The response ? Like hell there's kids in the way

The kids are armed as well

I'm only looking through my sights but they look like toys to me.........Order denied


I took a lot of (Damn I wish I could swear on this site sometimes) shall I say flack for that decision.

It was well worth it

Intelligence and common sense don't have to leave you in times of high pressure.

Just my 2 cents

Cody

Does this sound familiar to anyone?

The officers arrived outside her southeast Dallas home at about noon to find Mr Bennett sitting on a chair in the street holding a knife. At this point, accounts of the incident differ.

Officer Spencer wrote in a police report that Mr Bennett refused to drop the knife and moved towards him and another officer 'in a threatening manner'.
He said that was when he fired at Mr Bennett four times from about 20ft away, wounding him.
The police had no idea that they were being filmed by a neighbors surveillance camera and the footage tells a different story. Although the police report says Mr Bennett 'lunged' at the officers with a knife, in the video he stands up from the chair but then doesn't appear to move at all until the gun is fired and he falls to the ground.


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

In this case it took all of twenty seconds...

When time after time we see a pattern of police behavior, of fabricating facts to support their actions, when they have no duty to tell the truth when speaking to the public, when they feel they are above the law. We as citizens have a right to suspect their actions!

reply to post by cody599


Thank you Sir!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


you have said that this kid committed a crime. this is simply not true.

the penal code you keep plastering everywhere is an infraction. an infraction is not a crime.

therefore, your criticism of other users is UN-warranted.

i dont think i can put it any more plainly for you.

first it was the orange tip, then it was the public display. neither are a criminal offense be it state or federal.

reply to post by LadyLurker


Are you suggesting that section 20170 of the Penal Code does not, on 3rd offense, stipulate jail time from a misdameanor conviction?

Are we suggesting, even for a moment, that it is lawful in the state of California to walk down a public street with a handgun stuffed in your waistband, and AK-47 Rifle in your hands and absolutely no clue as to your intentions? Really, intentions aren't even relevant here from the cop's perspective.

They did, without question, under State Law have EVERY right as Deputies to stop, search and detain this individual (They couldn't know age) and upon confirming he was carrying toys? He'd have lost them and been issued a citation ..or perhaps taken to Juvenile Hall for Mommy and Daddy to come pick up.

However.... NO ONE.. Not I, nor anyone else I have seen, anywhere on this thread, suggests the CRIMINAL CODE he WAS in violation of is WHY he was shot. That's so patently absurd, I can't believe the implication is made by intelligent people with a straight face.

The criminal code he violated only gave justification to MAKE the stop. What happened next ...(WHAT WE ...DO...NOT...KNOW...) is what either made this a justified, yet tragic defense shooting OR ...made it manslaughter at best for Cops with bad judgement.

We'll learn that as the investigation concludes. Just as we did with the BART Platform shooting. Just as we have for the Occupy head-shot to Scott Olsen. We DO learn what happened in these cases...it just takes more than 48 hours to accomplish ..and the cops don't report to US, directly, to submit their findings for OUR approval.

XionZap
Shooting a child w/toy gun is NOT the only solution to a threat (perceived or otherwise) - for the average officer on duty there are a myriad of means at their disposal to quell a 'perceived' threat, but this officer chose to execute instead.

And constantly ignoring the fact the age and status of the weapon was not known till after the fact.. While I get you have serious issues with the way use of force is reviewed, it doesnt mean you get to ignore it and apply your own moral standards to a situation you werent present for.

Also, shot to stop the threat, not execute

XionZap
So, a child with a toy gun is "The Threat" you are stopping? What about using common sense laced with a little human compassion in situations such as these? How in God's name was that child a threat to you and your kind (ilk)? This is called Nazi styled street justice, and if you're in agreement with the manner in which said officer handled herself in the execution of that child (any child), then you are "The Threat," and you are a menace and a danger to society.

Ah yes.. when the debate goes in a direction you dont like, invoke the Nazi comparison.. A person with a gun, not a child with a toy... shot to stop the threat... not execute.

XionZap
You have a duty and a responsibility as a human person - let alone a lowly police officer to apply reasonable judgment and common sense to any and all situations where and when there's a potential for the loss of a human life. From all that I have determined about this situation your fellow officer was/is a coward as are so many others charged with similar responsibilities.

being you have absolutely no idea what the role of law enforcment is your opinion here means nothing. The Primary responsability of law enforcement is to protect society as a whole, not the individual.

Secondly you conmtinue to ignore the standards while substituting them with your own perception, which is based on nothing but assumption after assumption.

As for the coward comment.. Must be easy to make those claims behind your computer screen.. If you are such a morally rightous individual then why did you not go into law enforcement to clean it up? Why did you not go into law enforcement to stop your perception of executions?

I don't understand why you and others assume a child cannot poses a deadly threat to others.

XionZap
Because you are of a closed and extremely narrow-minded mind-set that has been 'trained' into roboted-ness (read conditioned) to shoot first - ask questions later' as in "shoot on sight," therefore you haven't the ability to assess a given situation and to reason things through like a normal human being should. Mind you - the mere existence of a child w/toy gun in their own neighborhood is NOT posing a threat to anyone except weak, cowardly, Nazi styled American police officers - and they are rampant throughout the nation and it gets worse as each minute goes by.

Again you are absolutely wrong in this area.. The possession of the gun didnt make him the threat.. The posession of the gun coupled with his refusal to drop it coupled with turning towards the cops coupled with the gun coming up made him the threat.

A point that you seem to ignore.

As for narow / close minded - You should really think about that comment and re-read your posts... Anytime new info come out that you dont agree with you close it out and ignore it. You refuse to even consider the possibility law enforcement acted within the confines of the law for that give scenario..

XionZap
We are talking about children with toy guns.

No we are not.. we are talking about a person armed with a rifle walking down the street, refusing commands to drop the weapon, and then turning towards the officers with the gun coming up..

As has been stated, and constantly ignored, 20/20 hindsight is not used and cannot be used.

XionZapWe are NOT discussing parents allowing their kids to run the streets 'armed and dangerous.'

We are actually... If parents would actually raise their children instead of letting them do whatever they want half of these incidents would not have occurred.

The parents failed their child in your scenarions.

XionZap
You're responses indicate that you've lost sight of the argument, or that perhaps you never had a handle on it to begin with.

Again an assumption with no basis.. The argument is were the officers justified in using deadly force to stop an armed individual who refused commands to drop the weapon, who then turned towards the cops with the gun coming up.

That is the incident we are talking about.. Well, some of us anyways.. Others seem intent on doing anything but discussing it, which is hard to do when narrow / closed minded individuals latch onto something they dont understand then run with it.

XionZap
That's because of your intractable mind-set that causes you to be unable to distinguish between fact and fiction - right from wrong - common sense from no sense at all, and the list goes on.

Again you are wrong.... My mindset comes from my training and knowledge of the topic, which includes those pesky laws you and others ignore.

There is a reason crimes are resolved in a court of law and not public opinion..

The kid should jave dropped the gun.. Plain and simple.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I wonder what people here would think if, (as the cops had NO way of knowing either way), this had turned out to be a real AK-47 rifle and he fired? Now I think we can agree, the odds of a cop being hit in the opening exchange is not high. In fact, statistically, it's unlikely the cops would have been hit at all ....but what of the whole city BEHIND them?

I have no question in my mind that the cops were, on some level and by routine second nature, well aware of what was behind them as well as behind the suspect they were watching with the rifle.

So back to the first question? What if this had been real and he fired..missed the cops..and killed a young kid in a neighboring home or yard? I can just hear the screaming now for...

"WHY DIDN'T THE COPS SHOOT?! THE CHILD COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED IF THE BAD GUY HADN'T BEEN GIVEN THE CHANCE TO FIRE!!"

Can't you hear about that kinda of outrage, had the cops just assumed no threat and not acted?

Dav1d
If you are indeed in Law Enforcement, you are exactly the kind of thug I don't want in Law Enforcement! -

Why? Because you ahte all law enforcement? Because you hate the laws I am pointing out? I love how you guys demand one thing from law enforcement then refuse to apply that same standard to yourself.

Im assuming you had issues with law enforcemnt growing up?

Dav1d
Exactly what these officers did! Exactly what you support.... When done by Law Enforcement, of course you object when we apply these rules to Law Enforcement. Can we say Hypocrisy?

The only hypocrites here are the ones demanding police follow the law while at the same time you ignore those very laws. Then you go after law enforcement with an argument based on opinion..

Learn something then come back..

Dav1d
One does NOT act to PREVENT HARM by choosing to EXECUTE a CHILD! Your choice, your support of an officer that chose to execute a child, an unarmed child, makes you unfit to be an officer of Law Enforcement. Your willingness to bend the truth, distort known facts to support your position makes your word questionable. This child was unarmed and was not a felon.

Shot to stop the threat.. Not executed.. Person armed with an AK 47.. Not a child with an air rifle...

Keep ignoring the facts though...

As for unfit comment.. If you actually took the time to understand ALL apsects, then your opinion might carry weight.. Since you dont, and you seem hell bent on attacking all law enforcement, you are not fit to make the charge you just did.

Dav1d
Any child can be a deadly threat, when you have the ability to use deadly force, and you are empowered to do so, you need to rise above the claim that the child could have "poses a deadly threat to others" you NEED more than assumptions! By your logic, all citizens are subject to execution at the will of Law Enforcement because anyone "could" pose a deadly threat to others.... And the simple fact that they could is justification for their execution!

Shot to stop the threat - not executed.

The use of deadly force is viewed as what the officer perceived at the moment the force was used.

Again, ignoring that aspect undermines your entire argument. 20/20 hindsight is not allowed, and will not be allowed. This means, baring anything major, you are not going to like the result of this incident.

Dav1d
Yet your words here certainly suggest that you believe you work for a third world police state! You and anyone that shares the beliefs you have expressed here, is certainly someone I would NOT entrust with my authority!

Again you are making an assumption based on lack of knowledge. My words have been specific.. Which is to say ive pointed out the laws involved, the court cases involved, the investigation process on all 3 levels.

All I have gotten from you is the same broken argument and accusations without anything to support your position.

Maybe if you took the time to learn about the cops / laws that you hate, you might be able to make a more informed opinion of events and create the ability for you to actually try to make changes to the areas you dont like.

Bitching and using the words execution and police state over and voer dont fix the problem. You need to go beyond just bitching, and actually do something productive to get what you think should be in place.

Dav1d
Your words here convince me that you poses a deadly threat, and that you are more than willing to use deadly force. That's exactly the kind of thug mentality I don't want in Law enforcement!

Because I live in the real world and not one of make believe and fantasy based on lack of knowledge.

I find it funny that you once again accuse me of something ive never done. Ive been extremely lucky in my career. I have not had to discharge my firearm.

The ultimate goal is to resolve the situation using the least amount of force neccissary. Some incidents wont allow for that, and deadly force is the last result.

Again if you research and learn you would know this about law enforcement.. You would know the US Suprme Court has ruled on use of force continuums and established the guidelines.

Dav1d
This community, Sonoma County (where this officer chose to execute a child) has long had an issue with Law Enforcement choosing to execute unarmed citizens, one must wonder at the failure of Police Chiefs and of Sherif's to educate their men, and to allow them to access firearms!

Shoot to stop the threat - not execute.

And if you are any indiciation of the people of that county, I weep for its future. Maybe if you guys would take the time to learn and educate yourself on the very topic you are screaming about, you wouldnt have so many issues in that count.

As far as law enforcement education - They are educated. The issues lies not with the cops but your refusal to educate yourself about law enforcement.

If you dont understand something, then how can you claim its broken and how can you fix it?

Dav1d
Right this officer chose to execute an unarmed child, when another experienced officer under the exact same circumstance, chose not to fire on an unarmed child! Personal responsibility would suggested this officer who murder an unarmed child screwed up, and that he should at the minimum take responsibility and resign. Instead he attempts to transfer blame and fault to the child, that can't defend himself. Can't tell his version of the truth.

Shoot to stop the threat - not execute.

The officer who fired is a career deputy, having served for 24 years. The other deputy is new to the force and new to law enforcement.

Hence the comments ive made about experience and training. Just because the other officer did not fire doesnt mean no threat was present.

Dav1d
The facts remain that within ten short seconds the officers dismounted, got behind their doors, and one officer shot the unarmed child eight times! That the other officer didn't see a need to fire on an unarmed child. That another experienced officer didn't feel threaten under the same conditions. And they then got back on the radio, and told dispatch that shots had been fired.

edit on 26-10-2013 by Dav1d because: (no reason given)

The styly of argument you are using is called "Leap of Logic"

You are only seeing what you want to see, and that perception is based on your limited knowledge in this area. Just because an officer did not fire does not mean no threat was perceived.

Let me ask you, since you apparently were present.. Where was the officer who did not shoot standing? Was there anythiung in his line of fire? Trees? Bystanders? His partner?

Again, educate yourself please.

You seem to have a desire to effect change, which I applaud.. However the manner in which you are trying to do it is going to fail simply because you are ignoring / refusing to learn.

Investigators have yet to say whether or not the two deputies who drove up behind Lopez near Moorland and West Robles avenues identified themselves as law enforcement before ordering him to drop the gun.

The boy initially had his back to the deputies when the orders were issued, police have indicated.

They also have yet to confirm whether the deputies had turned on their cruiser's siren before issuing the orders. A witness told police he thought he heard the chirp of the vehicle's siren, but the deputy at the controls “indicated that he wasn't sure if he'd turned the siren on or not,” Santa Rosa Lt. Paul Henry said Friday.

Henry said he did not believe Lopez had any earphones or buds on at the time, but added Friday that he had not asked that specific question of investigators.

Police refused Friday to identify the type or model of service handgun used by the deputy or say how many rounds it held.

They also have declined to release dispatch tapes of the incident.

Since 2000, 26 people have died in Sonoma County in officer-involved shootings, including five cases where officers' use of a Taser was linked to the deaths.

Of those deaths, only one other case involved a teenager, 16-year-old Jeremiah Chass, an Analy High School student suffering a mental health crisis who was armed with a knife and engaged in a struggle with two sheriff's deputies, who shot him seven times.

The teen's family later settled their lawsuit against the county for $1.75 million.

Source: www.pressdemocrat.com...

So just a few more of the facts in this case....

OneManArmy
If you ever addressed the arguments instead of diverting away, maybe you wont find the arguments going around in circles.

I have actually.. The problem exists with those who refuse to understand the law, instead deciding to use what they think should have occurred while ignoring anything they dont like... Like the laws and court decisions.

instead of people addressing those facts, they choose to ignore them and repeat their opinion as fact, resulting in a circula argument on their part.

OneManArmy
It pleases me greatly that there are people here that show you for what you are.

Educated and trained on the law and how to perform my job within the confines of those laws? Presenting information to those who choose to be lazy and not take the time to understand the side of the arugment they hate?

You cans can call me names all you want.. It does not change the fact you dont understand how this process works and would rather call people names and make baseless accusations instead of engaging the topic.

OneManArmy
I fear you are in the police public relations department, and you are not very good at your job.(of course this is just an opinion)

And a wrong opinion at that.. I am a line supervisor and understand what my responsibilities are. I understand my oath and the authority the citizens have entrusted with me. I understand that we have had enough of paranoia on both sides, and the only way this works is for the citizens and the police to work together. Specifically to educate.. both sides, on the job and its requirements and how the laws work.

I take my oath seriously and my loyalty is to those I serve, The citizens, and the 2 consitutions that govern us.

OneManArmy
Anyone that can choose to work in the role of apologist for oppression for money or for free is a danger to freedom the world over.

Just as anyone can choose to remain ignorant on a topic simply because they find it more conforting in attacking something they know nothing about rather than take the time to educate themselves to effect real change.

OneManArmy
You keep claiming that the boy refusing to drop the weapon is an established fact, with just the officers as a source. You make the claim that the boy turned to face the officers(as I expect anyone would do when challenged) as a reason for his being shot with only the officers testimony as proof.

Just as you and others have taken as fact that the suspect is a child an was armed with an airrifle gun.

So yeah.. your point? Or am I not supposed to use the very article you and others constantly quote to support your argument?

If there was no age or weapon type identified, how would you argue your point?

OneManArmy
You seem to find it very very easy to accept the officers version of events while happily disregarding any other eyewitness testimony, or open and shut easily acknowledgeable outcomes from this case(the boy is dead, he had a toy gun). And that my friend is why I called YOU out on double standards. But for some reason you applied it to the actions of the police officers, classic deflection.

Whats sad is your blind hatred towards police has prevented you from understanding my position.

I have pointed out the laws.. You have ignored them.
I have pointed out procedures.. you have ignored them.
I have pointed out investigative processes... You have ignored them.

If you were driving down the highway and you get into an accident, and your air bag does not deploy, resulting in death, who would you blame?

if a person commented on that situation by explaining how air bags work, the standards used, the physics involved, are you going to attack that person simply because he knows what he is talking about?

Are you going to accuse him of siding with the airbag industry and trying to protect profits over safety?

Or would you actually understand that they are simply pointing out information that people need to understand who are either to lazy or just choosing willful ignorance?



Shot to stop the threat...
Age / Weapon came after the fact...

20/20 hindisght cannot be used to review an officers use of force. Why? because at the time age and the fact the weapon was a pellet gun was not known.

If you are so sure of yourself, how come you did not respond to the area before the police to let the kid know walking down a city street with an AK 47 is going to be problematic.

Wait.. you could not hvae done that ebcause you didnt have your information until AFTER the incident.