Police shoot 13 year old carrying fake rifle.

OneManArmy
Firstly the "kid" is a minor. He isnt fully responsible for his actions until hes an adult,

You would be wrong and its irrelevent if the kid is a minor a senior citizen.

OneManArmy
for the very reason that this case highlights, his actions can be erroneous and misguided, thats why he cant join the army, thats why he cannot buy alcohol and thats why he cannot have sexual relations. He isnt mature enough to make a sensible decision.

Like putting the weapon down? Putting something on the ground does not require a person to be a prodigy. The kid is old enough to know better.

OneManArmy
The police are fully responsible for THEIR OWN ACTIONS, the police shot the boy, the boy didnt shoot the police with a toy, and being as the kid knew his toy gun WAS A TOY, I find it highly unlikely he used it with threatening behaviour, I know the schools are bad these days, but kids aint that stupid.

Again your making a leap of logic while missing the point. Its not relavent if the gun was real or a toy. What does matter is how the officers perceived the situation and applied law from there.

Why didnt the kid tell them it was a toy? That question is also invalid because of the situation. Pointing a toy gun that looks realistic at a police officer is in fact a threat.

You cannot use a news article to base an argument on. Reason being is the news article is created after the incident. The deputies did not have that benefeit at the time.

OneManArmy
And when it comes to accountability the ADULT in the situation is accountable, let alone the high moral standing a police officer is duly required to exercise in his role as defender of justice and the rule of law.

And the ADULT on scene did their due dilligence by verbally ordering the kid to drop the gun.

As for your last comments they are irrelevent to the situation.



Now I see a major breach in the rule of law, do you expect the police officer that shot the boy will be held to account for this breach in the rule of law? I personally expect not. But hey stranger things have happened.

Case in point -

California sheriff's deputies shoot, kill 13-year-old

The replica gun resembled an AK-47 with a black magazine cartridge and brown butt, according to a photograph released by the sheriff's office. Deputies would only learn after the shooting that it wasn't an actual firearm, according to O'Leary.

A photo of the gun was released to media according to news reports however I am not able to find it yet.

Santa Rosa PD

opethPA
How do you know the officers didn't feel threatened by someone with what they thought was a real gun. How do you know they shot him because he disobeyed their orders?

edit on 23-10-2013 by opethPA because: (no reason given)

The officers so obviously felt "threatened" because the boy was shot, the police officer was so terrified by the fact a boy had a toy gun he saw it fit to shoot the lad when he disobeyed the orders being given to him.
If the police officer had taken just a few seconds to establish the facts by getting information from the child then the whole situation would have become the apparent safe situation that it was. Instead a police officer that holds the life of a 13 yr old child in such low esteem that he sees it fit to shoot and possibly kill the child before even attempting any sort of establishment of facts.

JayinAR
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

OK. So the cop perceived a kid walking down aroad with two toys as an immediate and present danger and gunned the punk down.
And you are justifying it.

I think it is more the cop saw a kid walking down the street with what looked like a real gun to him , upon giving him verbal directions to drop the weapon the kid did not comply so the situation escalated.

At no point am i saying this is a good scenario, that the cops are hero's, that life is great. What I am saying is this is a no win one situation, that multiple families have been impacted in a horrible way with obviously the child and his family suffering the worst. I just don't agree with people sitting behind a keyboard saying ,"I would have done it this way without question, the cops are horrible!"

OneManArmy

opethPA
How do you know the officers didn't feel threatened by someone with what they thought was a real gun. How do you know they shot him because he disobeyed their orders?

edit on 23-10-2013 by opethPA because: (no reason given)

the police officer was so terrified by the fact a boy had a toy gun he saw it fit to shoot the lad when he disobeyed the orders being given to him.

How do you know the officers knew it was a toy gun, were you there, did you go through the scenario?

Too bad the police could not stand behind their patrol car and help the kid understand how serious holding a toy gun is.

I will withhold any further judgment until more is known about this case.

*wanders off to listen to some Rage Against the Machine*

JayinAR
OK. So the cop perceived a kid walking down aroad with two toys as an immediate and present danger and gunned the punk down.

Again you are wrong. The cops perceived a threat when they saw the kid with the rifle. That threated continued at point of contact. It culminated with the kid refusing to drop the gun. The kid had ample warning and ignored it.

JayinAR
And you are justifying it.

Based on information released thus far yes, the shooting was justified. I dont expect you or anyone else who is not in law enforcement to actually understand these situations. Insted of educating you guys do the 100 meter rush to judgment. Not only do you do that people then generalize all law enforcement and lump them all as the same when they are not.

JayinAR
I feel like I am talking to a potential murderer here.

wow lol... I am presenting the side of the story that you and others refuse to look at. My position is based on ym experience and training coupled with knowing how the law works / governs law enforcement actions.

Just because you dont like something does not invalidate it nor does it make the deputies guilty of a crime.

As for your ignorant comment about speaking to a potential murderer how about you keep the debate civil and not drop to personal attacks? Just because I am trying to educate people does not come anywhere close to me being a murder.

JayinAR
And no, I didn't offer a double standard. I said I would have shot IF HE POINTED HIS PISTOL AT ME, as that is an immediate danger that would have required lethal force.

It is a double standard you are making. Its ok for you to lip off about what you would have done to the cops while at the same time demonizing law enforcement for doing the very thing you are claiming.

Example - A person who is armed with a knife and within 26 feet of a police officer can travel the distance before an officer could draw their duty weapon.

A person with a knife in their hand who are 26 feet away from law enforcement are considered a threat by scotus.

JayinAR
A KID failing to comply with orders does not escalate the situation to bullets in my opinion.

A kid failing to comply with orders while holding a rifle does in fact escalate the situation.

JayinAR
I think we need more former military as cops.
You guys aren't trained worth a damn.
Clearly

edit on 23-10-2013 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)

Good lord no.. Only the arrogance of the military would assume they can do a better job than law enforcement.

As for the rest people arnt worth a damn either when they chose ignorance over educating themsleves on the laws and how they apply.

opethPA

OneManArmy

opethPA
How do you know the officers didn't feel threatened by someone with what they thought was a real gun. How do you know they shot him because he disobeyed their orders?

edit on 23-10-2013 by opethPA because: (no reason given)

the police officer was so terrified by the fact a boy had a toy gun he saw it fit to shoot the lad when he disobeyed the orders being given to him.

How do you know the officers knew it was a toy gun, were you there, did you go through the scenario?

I dont know what the police officers did know, I know what they didnt know. They didnt know if the gun was real or not, they obviously assumed it was real, they didnt know it was a 13 yr old boy, because they obviously didnt waste a single second trying to find the facts of the situation before unleashing 7 shots seconds after arriving on the scene. You dont have to be there to deduce from the outcome of this event, how it generally went down.

The facts speak for themselves. A 13 yr old boy is dead as a result of being shot up to 7 times, he had a pair of toy guns. His crime.... not doing what was commanded by a police officer that was ready to kill him before establishing the facts of the situation first.

Its plain as day. I didnt have to be there.

roadgravel
Too bad the police could not stand behind their patrol car and help the kid understand how serious holding a toy gun is.

Had the AK been real, taking cover behind a patrol vehicle is not going to help. Those rounds will go through it.

OneManArmy
The facts speak for themselves.

Since this investigation is still ongoing can you please link us to your source wher you were able to get all of the facts for this incident...

No.. its not plain as day.

You cannot use 20/20 hindsight to analyze this incident.

Xcathdra

OneManArmy
The facts speak for themselves.

Since this investigation is still ongoing can you please link us to your source wher you were able to get all of the facts for this incident...

No.. its not plain as day.

You cannot use 20/20 hindsight to analyze this incident.

My facts of this case come from the source you yourself posted.
Did you say you were an officer? No disrespect but great work sherlock.


Lol, in that case we should end all crime investigations because they all ultimately use 20/20 hindsight to paint a picture of a crime scene.
A crime has to be committed before it is investigated.

If the police officers had used any sort of foresight then this terrible murder wouldnt have taken place.
This is a case of murder, manslaughter at the very least.

OneManArmy

I dont know what the police officers did know, I know what they didnt know. They didnt know if the gun was real or not, they obviously assumed it was real,

They didn't know if the gun was real or fake..exactly..and in not knowing that if the gun was pointed at them, if any threatening move was made would they have been justified? All they know is the person over there has a gun if they shoot it something bad could very well happen. It is easy to sit here , removed from the situation, and be all high and mighty about the scenario. About how you would have done it differently, my hope is that you , me and anyone else never has to deal with something like this because for all the talk of how the calm, cool and collected people on this site would done exactly the right thing, no one knows for sure.

It's a horrible situation. No one wins .

reply to post by Bedlam


Don't forget the weight of a dead child's ghost. If anyone has an AK and no orange tip and I were to face that I would be forced to do the same.

Never underestimate a child with a gun.We vets were taught that one from Vietnam.
Hard but true.

opethPA


It's a horrible situation. No one wins .

If time was taken to just establish facts at the time, then everybody would have gone home and everybody would have "won".
Yes its a horrible situation, its a situation that police officers knowingly sign up for. Its a common scenario, children often play with toy guns, its only a very recent turn of events that have seen the police brutality becoming a regular thing(the ghettos excluded, they have faced it for decades), and innocent people are the victims. It sickens me that people can defend these atrocities.

reply to post by OneManArmy


No sherlock I am refering to your use of "facts" that are not in the articles. The ones people keep invoking simply because it paints law enforcement in a bad light.

For example trying to argue a 13 year old is not a threat when armed.

Since my source also states they are not sure what type of movement the kid made to result in being shot.

So how about we calm down, stop the name calling and wait for ALL information to come out.

cavtrooper7
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Don't forget the weight of a dead child's ghost. If anyone has an AK and no orange tip and I were to face that I would be forced to do the same.

Never underestimate a child with a gun.We vets were taught that one from Vietnam.
Hard but true.

And that is the very reason for posse comitatus. The army are trained to kill, thats why they are not meant to police the population. Comparing the children in a warzone with the children in america is pretty crazy if you ask me.

OneManArmy
Lol, in that case we should end all crime investigations because they all ultimately use 20/20 hindsight to paint a picture of a crime scene.

Investigations do not use 20/20 hindsight- They use evidence collected. There is a difference.

OneManArmy
A crime has to be committed before it is investigated.

Like walking down a street in California holding what looks to be a real AK-47, which is inviolation of California law?

OneManArmy
If the police officers had used any sort of foresight then this terrible murder wouldnt have taken place.

Please support that with facts... Maybe the kid should not have had an AK-47 that looks like the real thing... Maybe he should have dropped the gun when told to do so.

This occurred because of the kid, not the police.

OneManArmy
This is a case of murder, manslaughter at the very least.

Everytime a person is killed, whether by civilians or law enforcement or the Prison system, the cause of death is homicide. Now whether that homicide is valid based law is another question entirely.

Again in this situation the deputies did not have access to the information that you have. They dont get to read the paper to see how their calls are going to pan out before they arrive.

You are basing your position on a flawed foundation.

They did not know the age of the person until after contact.
They did not know if the gun was real or not until after contact.

Xcathdra
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

No sherlock I am refering to your use of "facts" that are not in the articles. The ones people keep invoking simply because it paints law enforcement in a bad light.

For example trying to argue a 13 year old is not a threat when armed.

Since my source also states they are not sure what type of movement the kid made to result in being shot.

So how about we calm down, stop the name calling and wait for ALL information to come out.

My intention wasnt to name call, just highlight that you are the professional investigator.
Please dispute these facts...
1. A thirteen yr old boy is dead.
2. An eyewitness(yes a valid eyewitness, who was near to the scene) accounted police sirens and 7 shots fired seconds later.
3. The threat turned out to be a toy.
4. The police officers didnt take the time to establish the fact that the "AK" was a toy. Because do I have to point out the obvious fact that if they did then the boy wouldnt be dead?

Are any of these facts in dispute?, if so please enlighten me as to how?

And carrying a bb gun is not a crime. The boy is guilty of NOT A SINGLE CRIME.

Xcathdra

They didnt... Lets review:
Deputies, in a marked patrol unit, observe a person with a weapon.
They stopped and while wearing their uniform made contact.

The person was ordered several times to drop the weapon and failed to comply - several times.

So no the deputies did not just start shooting. They progressed through their use of force continuum.

...and the kid is the one who refused to complay with commands.

My problem with any one-sided no witness LEO/firearm situation is...how do we know? I no longer have any faith that they're not testilying. SOMETHING happened, I don't expect they pulled up said "Hey, a (derogatory term for Hispanic), let's blow his ass to kingdom come", but I have been in situations where I was not expecting to encounter LEOs, had several of them jump out, point their sidearms in my general direction and start screaming conflictory commands. My first response was...to turn and look behind me to see who they were screaming at.

And it's not like that would have been my first rodeo in terms of firefights. I just was in full civilian mode and off woolgathering about an engineering problem and they jumped out and started screaming very different and mutually impossible to obey commands. And I didn't at first connect their actions and ME. I wasn't doing anything. A few years earlier and I might have dived for cover thinking something was coming up behind me and they were warning me.

I could easily see two adrenalin hopped up deputies leap out on the kid, the kid freeze, and the two LEOs start screaming 'down down down' and 'drop the pistol' - the kid has to pull it out of his pants to drop it, right? And I could see him getting confused, and one deputy shoot him for not doing HIS particular order.

It does happen. Not that many years back two feds jumped someone in a car, one on both sides of the car, and one said 'put your hands on the wheel' while the other screamed 'turn off the car', he eventually reached for the key and the first one blew his brains out. Cops DO tend to issue conflicting commands when they're wired up. And it's a 13 year old, probably peeing his pants.

That's why they all should have cameras they can't turn off and can't modify, that dump to a site they can't get to, preferably more than one. It would protect the LEO's interests in situations like this.