Cleveland cop kills child

a reply to: Shamrock6

Or the cop is a dumb ass and can't tell the difference between a child and a person that is dangerous, I mean a kid that's been there for hours while bothering no one looks like a blood thirsty thug with a crazed look in his eyes. I hardly doubt that the child was so detached and full blown sociopath to look like he was absolutely calm before he intended to pull a pistol and crack off a shot. The cop murdered a child because the cop is a mental midget. He is going to be charged I am sure.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Clearly LEOs should be trained that they can only be killed by people of a certain age. Even if people outside that age range have what appears to be a lethal weapon, it's okay because they're not in the age range of people who kill LEOs.

Also, LEOs should be trained that because they have body armor, they should allow everybody to get the first shot in so they can be sure of that person's actual intent and ability to carry out their intent. I mean, you're a LEO, getting shot is just part of the job, and if you're not willing to get shot and have your life ended just to be sure somebody really, REALLY wants to end your life before trying to stop them, well you just shouldn't be a cop!

These are some of the most ludicrous comments I've ever read on here. Absolutely absurd.

I've asked repeatedly - has a 12-year-old (or younger) ever killed a police officer? If that has ever happened, he could be justifiably perceived as perhaps a threat.

Where do you draw the line, then?

Are kindergarteners in reach of a 'gun' a clear and present threat? Infants?

Would they be expected to obey orders from a police officer as if they were adults? Where is your line?

a reply to: Brotherman

Would be nice if we had the cops body cam footage

originally posted by: MarsKingAQuestion
a reply to: Greven

Starred and Flag!

No! The child was the victim of a case of poor management skills by his parent[s], who let him run around a park with a faulty toy gun [no orange tip!!!] possibly pointing it menacingly at anybody in the area.

I'm up there in my age now, but when I was young, me and friends used to go around playing with one shot bb guns against each other and this was before they had the orange tips on them. So are you saying we would have deserved to be killed if a Cop happened to come by while we were chasing each other?

originally posted by: Cuervo
Conjuring the scenario of a kid shooting a group of other kids? Are you kidding?

Given what else we know about the situation - that there were other people there and nobody felt a need to call the police -

No, I am not kidding. Give me a basis for this scenario.

a reply to: Greven

Where is your line?

Where is yours? Because clearly absurdities like this:

Are kindergarteners in reach of a 'gun' a clear and present threat? Infants?

Are not a line you're unwilling to cross. Tactical decisions are made extremely fast. You see someone reaching for what you reasonably believe is a gun, you literally have less than a couple of seconds to respond.

originally posted by: MarsKingAQuestion
a reply to: Greven

Yes! I am directly blaming the parent[s] for their lack of oversight and control of their child, who they are responsible for 24/7/365 for least 18yrs until the child becomes an adult and totally responsible for themselves!

Sorry, but I'm going to blame the person who pulled the trigger for his death, not his parents or the victim.

You know, some people after World War II tried to escape culpability by similar means - saying they weren't responsible for following orders, claiming that's how they were taught, positing scenarios in which they weren't responsible for their actions, that it was the victims who got what was coming to them - that sort of thing.

originally posted by: projectvxn
No it isn't like that at all.

That man was obviously murdered by police using faulty information given by a lying sack of # anti gun prick.

Mr. Crawford NEVER acted in a threatening manner toward police, nor did he ever point his weapon at them.

This kid, according to the account, reached for the weapon that was seen holstered in his pants.

This kid, according to police, never acted in a threatening manner towards them, nor did he ever point a gun at them.

Crawford was already holding a 'gun' and this child was 'reaching' for a 'gun' so... what's really the difference?

a reply to: Greven

Reaching for a clearly visible weapon in your pants is a threatening act.

I would have shot him too.

a reply to: Greven

Truth of the matter is it is horrible policing practices that continue to lead to stupid s#!t like this. There has to be a better way to approach a situation with a kid/teen other than "put your hands up!"

Agreeably the kid didn't do what he was suppose to. BUT, this is what confuses me. I can't imagine a 12-year old NOT putting his hands up if he was told to "put your hands up!" by a police officer, especially in the Cleveland area where they apparently have a police violence/excessive force issue.

Something doesn't add up.

a reply to: Greven

www.dailymail.co.uk... tout.html not sure a bout a cop still looking for sources(hard cuz of recent case) but here is a 12 year old contract killer so yeah dont let age fool you or else no one would be using child solders in africa at the level they do

www.therichest.com... murderes in general not police mind you

www.foxnews.com... article not quite clear but he was either 15 or 16 when he shot the cops

Thompson is accused of killing the three men in June 2003 after being brought to the Fayette police station on suspicion of driving a stolen car. Thompson allegedly grabbed one of the officer's guns, shot him and the other two, then fled in a patrol car.

www.policeone.com...

Pomona, Calif. (AP) -- A 16-year-old youth who authorities said was out to kill any police officer he could find was arrested Thursday for investigation of fatally shooting a California Highway Patrol officer in front of a courthouse. "It's clear the motive was to kill a police officer but not this specific police officer," Pomona Police Chief James Lewis said. "It's like losing a member of the family."

articles.sun-sentinel.com... 15 here

articles.chicagotribune.com... 14 year old shot by a 13 year old underestimating any one with what looks like a firearm can and will get you killed police soldier or otherwise

www.policeone.com... few here as well

a reply to: LDragonFire

He was shot reaching for said weapon, if it had a orange cover on the muzzle how would the cops ever see it if it was still in the kids pants?

They obviously wouldn't be able to see it.

But that is not the issue as the cop commanded the kid to "put up your hands" and instead the kid reached for 'said weapon' and since the kid did not follow protocol, he was shot and killed for his stupid mistake.

So sorry! So Sad!

But that was protocol that we as society endorse and pay for, and the rookie followed it and the kid didn't!

The kid was at fault.

Now we can blame more than just the parents and the kid as there is the toy gun company responsibility in this, but they are absolved as they sold it with an orange tip that was deliberately scratched off after it was sold.

And we can try blame the officer dispatch unit for failing to provide the full information they had which was that the apparent gun was quite possibly a toy, and yes in this case I believe that the officer dispatch unit is to blame for failing to provide the rookie policeman the full information that they had at hand.

And we can blame the rookie policeman for choosing such a job and lifestyle for themselves, however they were working for us as society and following our 'protocol' rules and we can't blame them for that OR we would have to directly blame ourselves and take action on that, and do you want to spend the rest of your life in jail for conspiracy to murder a child

originally posted by: projectvxn
Where is yours? Because clearly absurdities like this:

Are not a line you're unwilling to cross. Tactical decisions are made extremely fast. You see someone reaching for what you reasonably believe is a gun, you literally have less than a couple of seconds to respond.

Where is my line for what - asking at what age someone may not deserve to instantly be shot?

You think it absurd - but you are a wee bit behind the times.
Sheriff: 10-year-old shot by deputy during capture of suspect
Sleeping 7-year-old girl shot in head during no-knock police raid on wrong home
Police Shooting of Mother and Infant Exposes a City’s Racial Tension

And what about people who don't obey orders? 'Cause some of them just didn't hear the orders. Others may be too young to really be expected to.
Deaf Man Killed By Deputy: Hearing Impaired Man Shot 6 Times As Son Watches

a reply to: Greven

I am well aware of those stories.

You seem to be assuming I love cops and that I see every shooting as justifiable. I don't on either count.

But I do understand tactical situations. I understand armed conflict. I understand firefights and the lead up to firefights very well.

This shooting, while tragic, was a reasonable assumption on the part of the officer. I'm certain that cop didn't set out to kill a kid that day. All he knew was that there was someone with a gun. When the kid was ordered to put his hands up, he instead reached for the weapon holstered in his pants. In that situation it's either assume you're about to get into a firefight, or gamble with your life.

This isn't hollywood. Gun fights are chaotic, stressful, and you have milliseconds to respond before a projectile travelling at 900-1300 feet per second reaches you.

a reply to: Greven

Reaching for a weapon is a threatening act. And I'll point out that, so far, we have no idea of the size of the child. The caller went so far as to say he was "probably" a juvenile. So the person making the call didn't even say positively that it's a child. I have a neighbor who's 4 year old son is bigger than either of my two kids, who are both older than he is by several years. A 12 year old isn't automatically a pipsqueak.

Where's my line? My line is I won't crucify somebody for making a split second decision based on the facts and information available to them at the time of the incident, based off facts and information that comes to light hours, days, and weeks later. Whether you like it or not, the court system won't either. Does that make it any less of a tragedy? Absolutely not.

a reply to: Greven

What happened to warning shots ? Cops have body armour, and all kinds of tools at their disposal but yet still resort to the shoot to kill method

I can and have disarmed people with guns pointed at me, no body armour or weapons on me and I'm a civilian..yet I have more training than cops ? Or maybe I use my training accurately and they don't..IDK

a reply to: threeeyesopen

What happened to warning shots indeed. Police haven't used warning shots in God know how long. Why? Because that warning shot is going to land somewhere. So where do you suggest they fire the warning shot? In the air? What goes up comes down. Into the ground? The ground doesn't automatically stop rounds, they can bounce just like everything else.

As for body armor, are you seriously implying that because they have body armor on, they should allow people to shoot first just so they can be super duper clear of what their intentions are? Body armor is body armor, not "bullet proof."

Finally, as for disarming somebody: that assumes being within arm's reach. I have yet to receive any training that says I should run up on somebody who's reported as possibly/likely armed and get within arm's reach of them. If that's how you were trained, good on you. Doubt this officer was trained to do it though.

originally posted by: projectvxn
You seem to be assuming I love cops and that I see every shooting as justifiable. I don't on either count.

But I do understand tactical situations. I understand armed conflict. I understand firefights and the lead up to firefights very well.

This shooting, while tragic, was a reasonable assumption on the part of the officer. I'm certain that cop didn't set out to kill a kid that day. All he knew was that there was someone with a gun. When the kid was ordered to put his hands up, he instead reached for the weapon holstered in his pants. In that situation it's either assume you're about to get into a firefight, or gamble with your life.

This isn't hollywood. Gun fights are chaotic, stressful, and you have milliseconds to respond before a projectile travelling at 900-1300 feet per second reaches you.

I've never said anything of the sort. You are jumping to conclusions prescribing opinions to myself that you think I have.

Perhaps you can enlighten us with your understanding of such situations as to what the rules of engagement are in the military, compared to what they are for the police? It is my understanding that civilians facing the military in more peacekeeping actions (versus active conflict areas) are much safer than they would be facing American police.

Projecting an 'either or' in that situation like this is silly. All we have to go on is the police's version of events - that the police actually told the kid to put his hands up, and only said that - before shooting him. That isn't necessarily what happened, as has been so readily demonstrated by other cases in the past few months.

Also, given your assessment of the seconds or milliseconds to respond, then the officer likely didn't give the child time to process what he said before pulling the trigger, no?

Reaction times aren't linear, but a more U-shaped curve related to age. College-age adults is where it's about the best, at ~0.16s for auditory stimulus and ~0.19s for visual stimulus. Young children have terrible reaction times that improve with age, and reaction times deteriorate after middle age. Again, things aren't always black and white.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Greven

Reaching for a weapon is a threatening act. And I'll point out that, so far, we have no idea of the size of the child. The caller went so far as to say he was "probably" a juvenile. So the person making the call didn't even say positively that it's a child. I have a neighbor who's 4 year old son is bigger than either of my two kids, who are both older than he is by several years. A 12 year old isn't automatically a pipsqueak.

Where's my line? My line is I won't crucify somebody for making a split second decision based on the facts and information available to them at the time of the incident, based off facts and information that comes to light hours, days, and weeks later. Whether you like it or not, the court system won't either. Does that make it any less of a tragedy? Absolutely not.

Holding a gun is not a threatening act but reaching for a gun is a threatening act, interesting. You're moving into the 'blame the victim' mode here when we barely know anything about the case. For example, you are assuming the officers didn't yell conflicting orders like 'drop the gun' along with the alleged 'hands up' order. I guess we'll have to wait on what witnesses say happened to figure that out. Not that it will matter much, I suppose, if police can justify shooting a deaf man for not obeying verbal orders.

You can crucify a child for his split second decision - but you don't even have to. He's already dead.